The Gift of Tongues

[Adelphos]

Originally Posted by jeanmarie

My comment concerning the gift of tongues was aimed for our pentecostal friends.
They teach, speaking in tongues is required to be saved. (Oneness Pentecostals) the Bible does not teach this tongues are required to be saved.
We are saved by grace!
Oneness folks do love the Lord, however they have a strong judgmental at***ude of those who have not received this gift. Judging others
is a sin also.

God bless,
jeanmarie Formally p2 and jeanM

Hello,

Well, I would definately consider myself Pentecostal. I am just not in the Oneness camp. I do not teach that speaking in tongues is required for salvation. I do think that many in the Oneness camp tend toward a critical spirit, but I do not believe that judging others is sin. That is too much of a general statement.

Respectfully,

Adelphs

[tdidymas]

Originally Posted by Adelphos

From my perspective, true believers are justified by faith throughout Scripture, apart from receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit - especially since the Gift of the Holy Spirit was not available until the day of Pentecost.



It appears that you have presented an interpretation of Ephesians that you have not exegeted for me. Please explain your position on that verse.



I believe Scripture teaches that believers are converted apart from receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit.



I understand what you are saying. From my perspective, the majority of Scripture was in a "transitional period." This, therefore, in and of itself, is not a reason to claim that there is not pure agreement, and consistency, between Acts and the Epistles. I think the burder of proof is on those who would use "transition" as a means of discontinuity between the two. My personal perspective is that "transitional period" is used as an excuse for theologians that struggle with the essential unity of Acts and the Epistles. Of course, it could be nothing more that an a priori mindset that refuses to allow for other possibilities. None the less, I think that Acts and the Epistles agree 100 percent in this regard, and when looked at as a composite whole will present a clear picture of post conversion reception of the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

I will confess, this position is rarely taught, and both Oneness Pentecostals, and those who are not, will disagree vehemently against it. From my perspective (which of course could be wrong like anyone elses), the position I hold is the most consistent, though unpopular.



I have read each verse, and believe the way they are presented here, they are out of context, but I am sure we will discuss that some more later. Just as I am sure you will struggle with what I share as well.



I believe that the Romans p***ages is one of the most mis-quoted verses on this topic out there, and I will share about that later.

I see Ephesians 5:18 as a mere metaphor suggesting continual submission the the Holy Spirit that has been given to those who have already received the Gift of the Holy Spirit.



I understand your position fully. It is probably close to the view I held for years. I hope we can dialog with love and respect on this matter.

Respectfully

Adelphos

Adelphos: we might debate concerning whether I am taking scripture out of context or not. I think the essential disagreement is on the basic question about does every believer have the Spirit or not? Concerning your two statements:

"It appears that you have presented an interpretation of Ephesians that you have not exegeted for me. Please explain your position on that verse.

I believe Scripture teaches that believers are converted apart from receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit."

this is the crux of the issue. I think if you read Rom 8:9 carefully, it is not out of context in the way I have presented it. I firmly believe the whole of the scripture teaches that all true believers have the Spirit. The ramifications of any person not having the Spirit are:
1. 1 Cor. 2:12 - anyone not receiving the Spirit cannot have the wisdom to understand and receive the gospel.
2. Rom. 8:9 - anyone not having the Spirit does not belong to Christ.
3. Rom. 8:14 - anyone not having the Spirit cannot be led by Him.
4. Rom. 8:16 - the Spirit cannot testify (***ure) the person without Him.
5. Rom. 8:26 - the Spirit cannot help the weakness of the one without Him.
6. Gal. 5:22 - without the Spirit there can be no fruit of the Spirit.
7. John 3:5 - without the Spirit there is no Spirit-birth, and such a person cannot be in the kingdom of God.
8. 2 Cor. 5:17 - without the Spirit, there cannot be a new creation, and thus no Biblical worldview in which to see the light of Christ.
9. ***us 3:5-6 - without the Spirit, there can be no regeneration (coupled with John 3:5), and subsequently no renewal.
10. Eph. 1:14 - without the Spirit there is no guarantee (earnest) of inheritance in the kingdom.
11. Eph. 2:18 - without the Spirit there is no access to the Father.
12. Eph. 2:22 - without the Spirit there is no dwelling of God.

These are only a few of the scriptures, I could spend hours showing one after another, in which the entire NT is filled with proof that all true believers have the Holy Spirit. Again, you have to take each scripture within its immediate context, as well as the whole of the NT. Anyone can nitpick apart each verse and interpretation into something different, if taken out of context.

Incidentally, Eph. 1:14 states very clearly that the believer (the people Paul is writing to) is given the Holy Spirit by God as the "earnest" of inheritance among the saints, i.e. the guarantee. The promise from God of eternal life is not guaranteed to just anyone, only to those who receive the Spirit. Therefore, no one who has not yet received the Spirit can have any ***urance of salvation. Only those who actually have the Spirit can have any ***urance at all. And conversely, those who have the Spirit have full ***urance, since God's promise is as good as done (Heb. 6:19).

"I see Ephesians 5:18 as a mere metaphor suggesting continual submission the the Holy Spirit that has been given to those who have already received the Gift of the Holy Spirit." - I agree with your concept here, except there is a comparison in this verse between the worldly way and the spiritual way - the statement is not metaphorical.
TD

[Adelphos]

Sorry for long post...

Originally Posted by tdidymas

Adelphos: we might debate concerning whether I am taking scripture out of context or not. I think the essential disagreement is on the basic question about does every believer have the Spirit or not?

Sure, I would agree. However, context is very important regarding this matter.

Concerning your two statements:

"It appears that you have presented an interpretation of Ephesians that you have not exegeted for me. Please explain your position on that verse.

I believe Scripture teaches that believers are converted apart from receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit."

this is the crux of the issue.

Yes, I agree this is the crux of the issue.

I think if you read Rom 8:9 carefully, it is not out of context in the way I have presented it.

For space sake, allow me to summarize a few thoughts concerning the context:

Romans 8:9-11:

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. Now if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is not his. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised Christ from the dead will also revive your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

1. Paul is addressing Spirit Filled believers (Romans 5:5).

2. This chapter is not primarily about "saved vs. unsaved" or "filled vs. unfilled," but rather "the spirit-led life vs. the flesh-led life" (see verse 4).

3. The word “dwelleth – oikeo” is referring to the Holy Spirit “having a home in them so as to possess the house”, inferring an everyday, ongoing walk with Him.

4. The Greek verb “oikei” is present, active, indicative, and confirms the idea that this text is referring to allowing the Holy Spirit continuous, ongoing and complete control if one is already filled with the Holy Spirit.

The Concordant Literal translation says, "if so be that God's Spirit IS MAKING (HIS) HOME in you”.

5. If a person is “None of His” (KJV) until the Holy Spirit “takes up residence” in him (which is what you are teaching), then the 120, the Samaritans, Saul, and the Ephesians were NONE OF HIS until after they had received the Holy Spirit. However, the texts clearly demonstrate that these were all true believers before they had received the Holy Spirit!

How verse 9 should be understood from a contextual interpretation:

But ye are not (walking) in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwelleth (is continuously making His home) in you. Now if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ (continually making His home in you – for you already have the Holy Spirit/Romans 5:5), he is not his.

Furthermore, if one were to take these verses out of context, it creates a ver unusual problem in verse 9:

Verse 9 says "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit"

Does this verse teach that because one is a believer, one is automatically NOT IN THE FLESH? Anyone who has been around church life for a day knows that this cannot be the case! Besides, this contradicts Paul's admonition to "walk in the Spirit" (Gal. 5:16, 25). Why would Paul tell believers to walk in the Spirit if one automatically walks in the Spirit?

Then verse 9 says, "if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you".

So, if this verse is telling us that "if" the Spirit of God dwells in a believer they no longer walk in the flesh and automatically walk in the Spirit, this would fly in the face of all Biblical teaching on Christian living - I wish it were this simple!

Conclusion: The fact is that this verse is not referring to the mere indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is referring to believers who have already been filled with the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5) being admonished to allow the Spirit of God to make His home in one who claims to be filled with the Holy Spirit. This is not only in agreement with the entirely of the Book of Acts, it also agrees with Pauls admonitions to live out one's daily life "in the Spirit"!

Using out of context verses to form theology has brought great confusion to the body of Christ!

6. Why would Paul teach a doctrine that would contradict his own experience? Scripture shows quite clearly when He received the Gift of the Holy Spirit, and it wasn't as conversion!

7. Why would Paul teach a doctrine that would contradict his very practice. After he clarified the truth to the Ephesian believers, and after those believers were rebaptized, only then, did he lay hands on them to receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit. If Paul believed that the Gift of the Spirit was given at conversion, this seems like a strange practice indeed.

I firmly believe the whole of the scripture teaches that all true believers have the Spirit. The ramifications of any person not having the Spirit are:

1. 1 Cor. 2:12 - anyone not receiving the Spirit cannot have the wisdom to understand and receive the gospel.

1 Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

This p***age does not teach one cannot have the wisdom to understand and receive the gospel. It simple says that those who have received the Spirit MIGHT know the things that are freely given to us of God. I really do not understand how you got anything more out of this p***age. In other words, one of the blessings of receiving the Spirit is coming to a deeper knowledge of those things God has given to us - but that isn't even automatic as I see it presently, for he uses the term "might."

2. Rom. 8:9 - anyone not having the Spirit does not belong to Christ.

I explained some of my thoughts about this above. I believe that this is out of context.

3. Rom. 8:14 - anyone not having the Spirit cannot be led by Him.

Out of context with Romans 8 and the rest of the Bible. This view would eliminate the entire list of Old Testament believers who never had the opportunity to receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

4. Rom. 8:16 - the Spirit cannot testify (***ure) the person without Him.

This is also out of context...

[qutoe]5. Rom. 8:26 - the Spirit cannot help the weakness of the one without Him.[quote]

Out of context...

6. Gal. 5:22 - without the Spirit there can be no fruit of the Spirit.

Scripture affirms that many Old Covenant believers had the fruit of the Spirit pre Gift days.

[quote]7. John 3:5 - without the Spirit there is no Spirit-birth, and such a person cannot be in the kingdom of God.[quote]

The fact is, I never said that the Holy Spirit isn't involved, for He obviously is involved. I merely pointed out that one is not indwelt by the Holy Spirit until (sarcasm) one is indwelt.

8. 2 Cor. 5:17 - without the Spirit, there cannot be a new creation, and thus no Biblical worldview in which to see the light of Christ.

The Spirit being involved is not the same as the indwelling of the Spirit.

9. ***us 3:5-6 - without the Spirit, there can be no regeneration (coupled with John 3:5), and subsequently no renewal.

Again, I have never claimed that the Holy Spirit was not involved with our conversion.

[qutoe]10. Eph. 1:14 - without the Spirit there is no guarantee (earnest) of inheritance in the kingdom.[/qutoe]

The Greek along with Paul's example to the Ephesians demonstrates that this is speaking directly about a post conversion truth.

[qutoe]11. Eph. 2:18 - without the Spirit there is no access to the Father./quote]

This is actually reading into the text here. It merely says that our access to the Father is through the Holy Spirit.

12. Eph. 2:22 - without the Spirit there is no dwelling of God.

This is speaking of a a corporate indwelling not a personal one.

These are only a few of the scriptures, I could spend hours showing one after another, in which the entire NT is filled with proof that all true believers have the Holy Spirit. Again, you have to take each scripture within its immediate context, as well as the whole of the NT. Anyone can nitpick apart each verse and interpretation into something different, if taken out of context.

I am willing to discuss each one together as a whole or individually.

Respectfully

Adelphos

[tdidymas]

Adelphos: we could debate about these things all day and night... Your interpretation of these p***ages are obviously skewed by your bias.

Example: in Rom 8 Paul states "if you live according to the flesh you shall die..." Do you think this is something other than eternal death? Do you think "die" refers to some difference between maturity and immaturity? Just as 1 John contains a basic theme of discernment between those who are actually born of God and those not, in the same way Paul in Rom 8 is distinguishing between those actually born of God and those who are not.

Another example: (Rom 8:9) "Does this verse teach that because one is a believer, one is automatically NOT IN THE FLESH? Anyone who has been around church life for a day knows that this cannot be the case! Besides, this contradicts Paul's admonition to "walk in the Spirit" (Gal. 5:16, 25). Why would Paul tell believers to walk in the Spirit if one automatically walks in the Spirit?" Here again, you are interpreting scripture eisegetically - i.e. taking your subjective experience, in which you interpret subjectively, and imposing a pretextual idea on the scripture, in order to make it fit your paradigm. No one said anything about walking in the Spirit was "automatic" (except you, jumping to this conclusion). Paul is expressing a spiritual truth here, and those who understand it and live by it are the ones to whom God has given this wisdom.

Rightly dividing the word does not mean to bring out all the Greek terms and nitpick at them until you get the interpretation you want. It means to take the whole of scripture and extract the original intent of it.

How many times have you read Romans? How much of it have you memorized? How many times have you outlined it? How have you extracted the major themes written in it? Or are you shortcutting your study by going directly to commentaries written by people who are favorable to your ideas?

I know that most Protestant denominations like to make getting saved a simplistic matter. To be sure, it is simple, but not simplistic. It is simple enough that a child can understand the gospel and believe (1 John 5:1), but it is not simplistic in that many denominations have made up many doctrines concerning it. Paul's 1 Cor. rebuke that they are living "as carnal" does not mean that they were "carnal Christians," and that we can apply the "carnal Christian" idea to the church today. Everyone who continues sinning must be rebuked, since this is the process to maturity and discernment that has been ordained by God (Gal 6:1-4, 2 Tim 3:16, 1 Jn 3:10). If they repent, they are to be forgiven. If they don't repent, they are to be regarded as "an outcast and a sinner." Mat. 18 - and the entire process is to be followed.

All the warnings of the scripture which are written to "believers" are to be heeded as real warnings. God is not playing a game, and those who "profess Jesus" are not the "winners of the game". God is not playing this game. There will be a real judgment, and a real separation between "sheep" and "goats," "wheat" and "tares." "If you live according to the flesh you shall die." Anyone claiming to be a Christian, but does not live accordingly, shall be judged in the day of judgment as a "goat" or "tare" and thrown into the fire. This is something the whole NT warns over and over again.

If you interpret scripture based on your personal subjective experience, then you will err accordingly. Just because you find people in your church who say they are Christian, and speak in tongues, but their behavior does not support proof that they are actually following Christ; you cannot decide that there is such a thing as people who actually have the Spirit of God who are living a fleshly life because they aren't mature enough yet (and thus interpret Rom 8:9 according to your subjective opinion). This is not to say there is not an immaturity among Christians, yes there is. But the proof is in the rebuke. If they submit as the scripture commands, then they are proving themselves worthy of being deemed a child of God. But if they are defiant and rebellious, they are proving they don't belong to God.

So then, this naturally leads to the question, "is speaking in tongues proof of having received the Holy Spirit?" The Biblical answer is an emphatic NO!! Only in Acts - in the transition period between the beginning of the New Covenant around AD 30 (i.e. the Day of Pentecost) to the end of the Old Covenant in AD 70 (the destruction of the temple) was "speaking in tongues and prophesying" held as some proof that the Holy Spirit was given. This is because the Jews needed the sign, and even the Jewish Christians needed the sign in regard to the Gentiles receiving the gift. This is why Paul states clearly - "tongues are a sign not for believers, but for unbelievers." Any time we ask the question why something is written in the scripture, we have to go to scripture for the answer (in addition to historic truth). We cannot use our subjective experience for the answer, otherwise you get all kinds of errant doctrine which is produced in all the separate denominations.

The only proof that the Bible gives that someone has received the gift of the Holy Spirit is the fruit of the Spirit. Does their life portray a subjection to the commands of Christ? "A tree is known by its fruit." Mat 7:17-19. Mat. 12:33. Gal. 5:22. 1 Jn. 2 Pet. Jude. Rom 1-3. 2 Cor. 13:5. The whole NT is filled with statements of discerning between the godly and the ungodly, and with such do we learn to discern ourselves as well as others.

Then this eventually leads to the question, what about those people who are defiant and rebellious, who refuse to repent from their gossipping, slandering, prideful, and arrogant ways, and even hating and disrespecting the brethren, but who speak in tongues? Does their tongues prove they have the Holy Spirit? Or does it prove that their tongues is a fraudulent "gift" (i.e. not authentic from the Spirit of God)? Or does it prove that some people are so desperate to participate in God's kingdom, that they are easily and readily convinced to fabricate an unknown language, much like a toddler fabricates his own language when he can't talk yet, but desperately wants to participate in the conversation?

It doesn't take a scholar to see that what is regularly practiced in many churches that is called "speaking in tongues" does not measure up to the description of this gift in the NT. At best, one single scripture (which is taken out of context) and made to fit this experience (and called a "prayer language" which is not a Biblical term), is used to support that practice. This is at best. At worst, and what we actually see in many churches, is all kinds of violations of scriptural instruction in its usage. It doesn't take a mature Christian to discern that there is something seriously wrong with this picture.

Are you willing to honestly consider what I am saying here, and to test it with the scriptures? If not, then any further suggestion I make, or testimony I give, will not be effective for you.
TD

[Adelphos]

Originally Posted by tdidymas

Adelphos: we could debate about these things all day and night... Your interpretation of these p***ages are obviously skewed by your bias.

Perhaps! Yet, yours is not?

Example: in Rom 8 Paul states "if you live according to the flesh you shall die..." Do you think this is something other than eternal death? Do you think "die" refers to some difference between maturity and immaturity? Just as 1 John contains a basic theme of discernment between those who are actually born of God and those not, in the same way Paul in Rom 8 is distinguishing between those actually born of God and those who are not.

Context, which is a core sound hermeneutical principle, doesn't suggest this anywhere in the text. Please use the context to express what you are suggesting, thank you. BTW, I do not think that die means anything other than eternal death.

Another example: (Rom 8:9) "Does this verse teach that because one is a believer, one is automatically NOT IN THE FLESH? Anyone who has been around church life for a day knows that this cannot be the case! Besides, this contradicts Paul's admonition to "walk in the Spirit" (Gal. 5:16, 25). Why would Paul tell believers to walk in the Spirit if one automatically walks in the Spirit?" Here again, you are interpreting scripture eisegetically - i.e. taking your subjective experience, in which you interpret subjectively, and imposing a pretextual idea on the scripture, in order to make it fit your paradigm. No one said anything about walking in the Spirit was "automatic" (except you, jumping to this conclusion). Paul is expressing a spiritual truth here, and those who understand it and live by it are the ones to whom God has given this wisdom.

Actually, I am merely pointing out that "literalism" will confuse the text. The literal interpretation, using sound hermeneutical principles, will clarify the text. The claim that is being made here is that I am using "eisegetics," which by your definition is taking your subjective experience, in which you interpret subjectively, and imposing a pretextual idea on the Scripture, in order to fit your paradigm." Yet, I do not see you respond with any kind of exegesis. I am rather baffled!

Furthermore, you suggest that I said that I was accusing someone of teaching walking in the Spirit was "automatic". Well, it is possible I didn't make myself clear enough, but the the point I was merely making was one of example, and interpretive consistency.

[qutoe]Rightly dividing the word does not mean to bring out all the Greek terms and nitpick at them until you get the interpretation you want. It means to take the whole of scripture and extract the original intent of it.

I agree, but so far you have not interacted with the exegesis I presented. This tends to mean that the teaching presented cannot be contended with. If, on the other hand, I am in error, demonstrate by interacting specifically with each concept I presented. If you cannot, or will not do that, I will understand. Sometime we just don't have the time!

How many times have you read Romans? How much of it have you memorized? How many times have you outlined it? How have you extracted the major themes written in it? Or are you shortcutting your study by going directly to commentaries written by people who are favorable to your ideas?

It is really hard to say how many times I have read Romans... my goodness, I have been a believer over 35 years, and I actively attempt to read Scriptures twice a day. Who knows? I have memorized quite a bit over the years, but I must confess, I forget, and need to rememorize. As far as shortcuts, well, I don't know. I did translation work when I was in Seminary, and attempt to use my Greek skills often. Oh, btw, I have read many commentaries on Romans as well. Even thought of writing my own. Good students compare what other teachers have taught in order to remain teachable, don't you think?

I know that most Protestant denominations like to make getting saved a simplistic matter. To be sure, it is simple, but not simplistic. It is simple enough that a child can understand the gospel and believe (1 John 5:1), but it is not simplistic in that many denominations have made up many doctrines concerning it. Paul's 1 Cor. rebuke that they are living "as carnal" does not mean that they were "carnal Christians," and that we can apply the "carnal Christian" idea to the church today. Everyone who continues sinning must be rebuked, since this is the process to maturity and discernment that has been ordained by God (Gal 6:1-4, 2 Tim 3:16, 1 Jn 3:10). If they repent, they are to be forgiven. If they don't repent, they are to be regarded as "an outcast and a sinner." Mat. 18 - and the entire process is to be followed.

ok, don't really know your point, however.

All the warnings of the scripture which are written to "believers" are to be heeded as real warnings. God is not playing a game, and those who "profess Jesus" are not the "winners of the game". God is not playing this game. There will be a real judgment, and a real separation between "sheep" and "goats," "wheat" and "tares." "If you live according to the flesh you shall die." Anyone claiming to be a Christian, but does not live accordingly, shall be judged in the day of judgment as a "goat" or "tare" and thrown into the fire. This is something the whole NT warns over and over again.

ok

If you interpret scripture based on your personal subjective experience, then you will err accordingly. Just because you find people in your church who say they are Christian, and speak in tongues, but their behavior does not support proof that they are actually following Christ; you cannot decide that there is such a thing as people who actually have the Spirit of God who are living a fleshly life because they aren't mature enough yet (and thus interpret Rom 8:9 according to your subjective opinion). This is not to say there is not an immaturity among Christians, yes there is. But the proof is in the rebuke. If they submit as the scripture commands, then they are proving themselves worthy of being deemed a child of God. But if they are defiant and rebellious, they are proving they don't belong to God.

So then, this naturally leads to the question, "is speaking in tongues proof of having received the Holy Spirit?" The Biblical answer is an emphatic NO!!

It is definitively the initial evidence of receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

Only in Acts - in the transition period between the beginning of the New Covenant around AD 30 (i.e. the Day of Pentecost) to the end of the Old Covenant in AD 70 (the destruction of the temple) was "speaking in tongues and prophesying" held as some proof that the Holy Spirit was given.

Unscriptural!

This is because the Jews needed the sign, and even the Jewish Christians needed the sign in regard to the Gentiles receiving the gift. This is why Paul states clearly - "tongues are a sign not for believers, but for unbelievers." Any time we ask the question why something is written in the scripture, we have to go to scripture for the answer (in addition to historic truth). We cannot use our subjective experience for the answer, otherwise you get all kinds of errant doctrine which is produced in all the separate denominations.

All I have done is presented Scripture. Perhaps the subjective experience that is being referred to is the experience that tells one that since I have not experienced speaking in tongues, therefore, it is not available? What do you think?

The only proof that the Bible gives that someone has received the gift of the Holy Spirit is the fruit of the Spirit.

That doesn't make sense. How does one explain the fruit of the Spirit in the lives of Old Testament saints then who obviously lived before the impartation of the Gift of the Holy Spirit?

Does their life portray a subjection to the commands of Christ? "A tree is known by its fruit." Mat 7:17-19. Mat. 12:33. Gal. 5:22. 1 Jn. 2 Pet. Jude. Rom 1-3. 2 Cor. 13:5. The whole NT is filled with statements of discerning between the godly and the ungodly, and with such do we learn to discern ourselves as well as others.

Scripture suggests that even after one is filled with the Holy Spirit, they may choose to walk in the flesh. Hence, the exhoration for continual infilling in Ephesians 5:18, so I am not sure what you are trying to teach! Is it possible for one filled with the Holy Spirit to backslide?

Then this eventually leads to the question, what about those people who are defiant and rebellious, who refuse to repent from their gossipping, slandering, prideful, and arrogant ways, and even hating and disrespecting the brethren, but who speak in tongues? Does their tongues prove they have the Holy Spirit?

It may prove that they were filled at one time. Afterall, it is the initial evidence of receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

Or does it prove that their tongues is a fraudulent "gift" (i.e. not authentic from the Spirit of God)? Or does it prove that some people are so desperate to participate in God's kingdom, that they are easily and readily convinced to fabricate an unknown language, much like a toddler fabricates his own language when he can't talk yet, but desperately wants to participate in the conversation?

There are counterfeit conversions, tongues, leaders, etc... but it does not take away the truth that their are real conversions, real tongues, and real leaders. Once a person has received the Gift of the Holy Spirit, he has the responsibility to be led by the same Spirit.

Respectfully

Adelphos

[Adelphos]

It doesn't take a scholar to see that what is regularly practiced in many churches that is called "speaking in tongues" does not measure up to the description of this gift in the NT.

Sounds like this criticism is based on subjective experience, not the Word.

At best, one single scripture (which is taken out of context) and made to fit this experience (and called a "prayer language" which is not a Biblical term), is used to support that practice.

Neither is Trinity a Biblical term, so this argument is moot. The fact of the matter is this - tongues are clearly prayer (1 Cor. 14).

This is at best. At worst, and what we actually see in many churches, is all kinds of violations of scriptural instruction in its usage. It doesn't take a mature Christian to discern that there is something seriously wrong with this picture.

Are you willing to honestly consider what I am saying here, and to test it with the scriptures? If not, then any further suggestion I make, or testimony I give, will not be effective for you.

I am 100 per cent for Scriptures.

Respectfully

Adelphos

[tdidymas]

Adelphos, I will try to answer your arguments one by one:

Originally Posted by Adelphos

Quote:
It doesn't take a scholar to see that what is regularly practiced in many churches that is called "speaking in tongues" does not measure up to the description of this gift in the NT.

Sounds like this criticism is based on subjective experience, not the Word.

The fact that you speak in tongues, and this skews your interpretation of the scriptures by means of your experience - this is subjective experience. The fact that I observe that what is taught and practiced today as such does not measure up to the Biblical standard - this is objective experience. The fact that we are to objectively test everything in comparison to God's word is taught by the Bible. "Test all things." "Anyone who goes beyond and does not adhere to our teaching..."

So then, let us make some comparison between what is taught today with Biblical text concerning speaking in tongues:
1. People speak in tongues in churches all the time without interpretation, in direct contradiction to what Paul commanded in 1 Cor 14:28.
2. Pentecostal/Charismatic leaders teach quite frequently that the gift of tongues is for believers (to observe as "initial evidence"), but Paul explicitly states that tongues is for unbelievers (as evidence to them), 1 Cor 14:22.
3. Pentecostal/Charismatic leaders teach quite frequently that everyone who receives the Holy Spirit speaks in tongues, but Paul's teaching is contrary to this, 1 Cor 12:30, saying that not everyone speaks it.
4. No one understands speaking in tongues today, which is contrary to what actually happened in Acts. In Acts 2 there were many people who understood the languages being spoken. Although the subsequent places in Acts do not specifically state such, we must use the same pattern of thought to interpret it. Whenever the Samaritans, Gentiles, and John's followers spoke in tongues, it had to be authenticated by one who understood the languages being spoken. Otherwise, how could they have known it was a miraculous act, and that they also prophesied? To say that the other subsequent tongues speaking did not require understanding of what was said is an eisegetic and subjective interpretation that does not fit within the contextual intent.
5. Does modern "speaking in tongues" edify the person speaking it? Edification in the context of the NT does not mean "feel good." It means built up in faith and the fruit of the Spirit. Not once have I observed (in 12 years of fellowshipping with P/Cs) that speaking in tongues edified anyone. The only edification I have actually observed in churches was based on scriptural knowledge and understanding. I have not observed any edification that was based on tongues speaking. (Other than "it makes me feel good" at***ude, which is unscriptural).
6. P/C leaders quite frequently teach people how to speak in tongues. This is contrary to Biblical principle, which teaches that the Holy Spirit "gave utterance." Not once in the scripture has any of the apostles ever implied that human instruction on "how to speak in tongues" ever accompanied the gift. If a person needs to be taught how to speak in tongues, the ramifications are:
a. The teacher does not believe the Holy Spirit is able to give utterance apart from human instruction.
b. The person "receiving the gift" cannot be given utterance from the Holy Spirit without being taught how to do it by a man.
c. The "gift" is tainted with fleshly human instruction, which is not a Biblical principle, and the result is likely not an authentic miraculous gift from the Spirit of God.
7. The only place in scripture where speaking in tongues is mentioned outside of the historical context in Acts (i.e. where the principle of it is taught), is in 1 Cor where Paul is correcting what they are doing wrong. Nowhere else is tongues mentioned, including all the other lists of gifts to edify the church (in every other place outside of 1 Cor 12). P/C leaders often teach tongues as a primary gift of the Spirit, which is contrary to the at***ude of the NT as a whole.
8. Tongues is a sign gift according to 1 Cor 14:22, but P/C leaders teach often that it is an essential gift of the Spirit (by reason of "it is the initial evidence"). Contrary to this, the Bible teaches that the sign gifts were for authenticating the revelation of the New Covenant, and implies that subsequent generations did not need it or have it - Heb. 2:3-4 "...which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard [Him], God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit..." In addition, none of the antenicene fathers wrote anything on this subject as if it was something ongoing throughout the generations. In fact, the tongues movement is a fairly recent 20th century movement, which is a red-flag indication that it is quite possibly a cult movement.

I don't feel it necessary to interject my own experience with the phenomenon, since I give Biblical and historical proof of my point here.
Continued...
TD

[tdidymas]

Adelphos, continued:

Originally Posted by Adelphos

Quote:
At best, one single scripture (which is taken out of context) and made to fit this experience (and called a "prayer language" which is not a Biblical term), is used to support that practice.

Neither is Trinity a Biblical term, so this argument is moot. The fact of the matter is this - tongues are clearly prayer (1 Cor. 14).

I will grant you that Paul refers to it as "praying." However, he never uses that fact as a reason to do it. Any time it has been objected to P/Cs that modern tongues speaking is not like the NT, they always go the to "prayer language" idea to justify or "prove" it - this is not the original Biblical intent of the idea, thus the justification of calling it a "prayer language" to authenticate their experience is not Biblical.

Originally Posted by Adelphos

Quote:
So then, this naturally leads to the question, "is speaking in tongues proof of having received the Holy Spirit?" The Biblical answer is an emphatic NO!!

It is definitively the initial evidence of receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

Your application here is Biblically wrong, because your idea of tongues being "the initial evidence" is based on the false doctrine you have been taught (which is based on subjective experience), not on the Biblical text. One could call "initial evidence" of what happened in Acts only, in which tongues was a sign gift to unbelievers, and to the church only insomuch as they needed proof that the Gentiles and other religious groups had actually received the Holy Spirit as the apostles did on the day of Pentecost. Nowhere in scripture does this indicate that tongues is a regular gift given to believers who receive the Spirit. Again, Heb. 2 along with the context of what happened and what the apostles argued over in Acts proves my point here. I am extracting the proof from the Biblical text only, and eliminating the bias of personal subjective experience. What P/Cs have done here is to take the "initial evidence" of it as a sign gift in Acts, and they have "extrapolated" it as a general application of receiving the Holy Spirit, and called it "the initial evidence" of receiving the Holy Spirit by every believer. This is why the application of it is simply wrong, because the application does not fit the original intent of scripture.

Originally Posted by Adelphos

Quote:
The only proof that the Bible gives that someone has received the gift of the Holy Spirit is the fruit of the Spirit.

That doesn't make sense. How does one explain the fruit of the Spirit in the lives of Old Testament saints then who obviously lived before the impartation of the Gift of the Holy Spirit?

Here again, it is only those with the bias of tongues as "the initial evidence" doctrine who interpret the statement "the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified" as a justification for saying that OT saints did not have the Holy Spirit. This again is an eisegetical idea inserted into the text. If we take the whole of scripture together, we have OT saints who are said to have the Holy Spirit in many ways. God said "not by might... but by My Spirit," indeed the saints of old have always been referred as living their righteousness before God by the power of the Spirit, since "the righteous one will live by faith." There are those still in the Old Covenant times in the NT gospels who are said to be righteous, and who spoke by the Holy Spirit. The sense in which they had the Holy Spirit was mysterious until the day of Pentecost. Paul alludes to the fact that the gospel was preached to everyone in a subtle way before Christ came, and both Peter and the writer of Hebrews also testify to it. He said that the gospel in OT times was a mystery, before it was revealed to him and the apostles from Christ. This shows that the gospel existed in OT times, though a mystery, and was preached as a mystery to them. Those who believed in the coming Messiah before He came, and who lived a righteous life by faith in God are shown to have the Holy Spirit. Anyone who believes in 1 Cor 2 and Gal 5:22 cannot doubt that OT saints had the Holy Spirit to make them a righteous "tree" (see my teaching earlier on this). Paul's teaching on salvation, faith, and spiritual birth is generic for all mankind, and does not follow a chronological construct. Spiritual birth through faith in Christ is retroactive for all time prior to His death and resurrection, as much as after. So then, what can we conclude about the statement "the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified"? Only that the Spirit is given in such a way as never before. This is alluded to by Peter in Act 2 wherein he quoted Joel "I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh." The "Spirit not yet" means that the Spirit was not yet poured out in an unmeasurable way to all mankind (i.e. to all the gentiles), just as prior to Jesus' death holiness was limited to the space of the "most holy place," but after the veil was rent, holiness became available to all the gentiles. And this is within the context of John, since he was also mostly apostle to gentiles as Paul was. So then, the Holy Spirit was indeed given to saints prior to Jesus' glorification, but was extremely limited to those who believed the gospel mystery. After Jesus was glorified, and then we get the day of Pentecost, now we have the Spirit poured out freely "on all flesh" because the death and resurrection of Christ makes all the gentiles (and Jews who previously did not believe) holy before God. This all fits together as the sense in which the NT teaches it.

In conclusion:
Do you accept that these are valid objections and proofs that what we observe today is fundamentally different than what was observed in the early church?

If you cannot get past this point, then I think answering any further objections from you would be a futile effort.
TD

[Adelphos]

Originally Posted by tdidymas

The fact that you speak in tongues, and this skews your interpretation of the scriptures by means of your experience - this is subjective experience. The fact that I observe that what is taught and practiced today as such does not measure up to the Biblical standard - this is objective experience. The fact that we are to objectively test everything in comparison to God's word is taught by the Bible. "Test all things." "Anyone who goes beyond and does not adhere to our teaching..."

There is no such thing as "objective experience." Your experience is just as subjective as mine - even if one calls it "objective experience." It would be more correct to say something like, interpretation is influenced by experience, whether p***ive, or active. So, yes, my experience of speaking in tongues does influence by understanding of Scripture, just as your experience of not speaking in tongues influences your understanding of Scripture. Now, if you can move away from this kind of argumentum ad hominem, then the time wasted here will have some value.

In other words, you might be able to prove that I am the Devil's brother, but that doesn't change the fact that so far you still haven't answered my arguments very well at all. Let us stick to the Scripture. Thanks

Respectfully

Adelphos

[Adelphos]

Originally Posted by tdidymas

People speak in tongues in churches all the time without interpretation, in direct contradiction to what Paul commanded in 1 Cor 14:28.

In order for me to really understand what your contention consists of, please answer me these questions:

1. Why did the Apostles allow tongues without interpretation take place in other p***ages?

2. Do Scriptures interpret Scriptures?

3. Is it possible that Paul's declaration is dealing with something very specific as opposed to congregational speaking in tongues?

Respectfully

Adelphos

[Adelphos]

Originally Posted by tdidymas

Pentecostal/Charismatic leaders teach quite frequently that the gift of tongues is for believers (to observe as "initial evidence"), but Paul explicitly states that tongues is for unbelievers (as evidence to them), 1 Cor 14:22.

Is it possible that when Paul explicitly states that tongues are for unbelievers that this doesn't limit it to that purpose?

Respectfully

Adelphos

[Adelphos]

Originally Posted by tdidymas

Pentecostal/Charismatic leaders teach quite frequently that everyone who receives the Holy Spirit speaks in tongues, but Paul's teaching is contrary to this, 1 Cor 12:30, saying that not everyone speaks it.

1. Is it possible that contextually Paul is addressing tongues as a gift?

2. Is it possible that speaking in tongues can be used as evidence of receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit AND also be a separate gift?

[Adelphos]

Originally Posted by tdidymas

No one understands speaking in tongues today, which is contrary to what actually happened in Acts. In Acts 2 there were many people who understood the languages being spoken. Although the subsequent places in Acts do not specifically state such, we must use the same pattern of thought to interpret it.

There is no hermeneutical reason that makes it necessary to teach that tongues were totally understood in all p***ages where they were spoken. That would be an argument from silence unless there was compelling supporting evidence that would suggest otherwise.

Whenever the Samaritans, Gentiles, and John's followers spoke in tongues, it had to be authenticated by one who understood the languages being spoken. Otherwise, how could they have known it was a miraculous act, and that they also prophesied? To say that the other subsequent tongues speaking did not require understanding of what was said is an eisegetic and subjective interpretation that does not fit within the contextual intent.

1. There are no p***ages that suggest that tongues were being "authenticated" by those who understood the languages. This is reading into the text - that is "Eisegesis (from Greek εἰς "into" and ending from exegesis from ἐξηγεῖσθαι "to lead out") is the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one's own ideas, reading into the text."

2. Prophecy is in the native language, so there were no need for interpreters.

3. "Contextual intent" needs to be proven, not merely stated. This, you have failed to do.

The only place in Scripture where we know for sure that tongues were understood by those who heard them was Acts 2. The only thing that can be suggested by that is that tongues are languages.

Respectfully

Adelphos

[Adelphos]

Originally Posted by tdidymas

Does modern "speaking in tongues" edify the person speaking it? Edification in the context of the NT does not mean "feel good." It means built up in faith and the fruit of the Spirit. Not once have I observed (in 12 years of fellowshipping with P/Cs) that speaking in tongues edified anyone. The only edification I have actually observed in churches was based on scriptural knowledge and understanding. I have not observed any edification that was based on tongues speaking. (Other than "it makes me feel good" at***ude, which is unscriptural).

This sounds like you are basing your arguments on experience. So, allow me to go to Scripture:

He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
1 Corinthians 14:4 KJV

And if this practice is condemned, then Paul contradicted himself when he told the Corinthians to not forbid it:

Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
1 Corinthians 14:39 KJV

Perhaps a good question at this juncture is this: Are you forbidding it?

Respectfully

Adelphos

[Adelphos]

Originally Posted by tdidymas

P/C leaders quite frequently teach people how to speak in tongues. This is contrary to Biblical principle, which teaches that the Holy Spirit "gave utterance." Not once in the scripture has any of the apostles ever implied that human instruction on "how to speak in tongues" ever accompanied the gift. If a person needs to be taught how to speak in tongues, the ramifications are:
a. The teacher does not believe the Holy Spirit is able to give utterance apart from human instruction.
b. The person "receiving the gift" cannot be given utterance from the Holy Spirit without being taught how to do it by a man.
c. The "gift" is tainted with fleshly human instruction, which is not a Biblical principle, and the result is likely not an authentic miraculous gift from the Spirit of God.

I agree with you here. I despise it as much as I despise people being led to accept Jesus into their hearts. There are no examples in Scripture of either practice!

Respectfully

Adelphos

[Adelphos]

Originally Posted by tdidymas

Tongues is a sign gift according to 1 Cor 14:22, but P/C leaders teach often that it is an essential gift of the Spirit (by reason of "it is the initial evidence").

There are plenty of Scripture examples to establish the truth that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

Contrary to this, the Bible teaches that the sign gifts were for authenticating the revelation of the New Covenant, and implies that subsequent generations did not need it or have it - Heb. 2:3-4 "...which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard [Him], God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit..."

1. Does confirmation of the Gospel still need to take place?

2. Exactly where in the Hebrews p***ages say this confirming process would ever stop?

In addition, none of the antenicene fathers wrote anything on this subject as if it was something ongoing throughout the generations. In fact, the tongues movement is a fairly recent 20th century movement, which is a red-flag indication that it is quite possibly a cult movement.

Hmmmmm....

1. The church fathers didn't write about a lot of things.

2. So, is it a red flag indicator that the teaching of "Justification by Faith" didn't get taught until the 1500s? Does that mean it is a false doctrine then?

3. So, all denominations that started 1500 years or later after the early church was around is "possibly a cult movement?" That is what you are inferring in my opinion. You may want to rethink this argument!

Respectfully

Adelphos

[tdidymas]

Originally Posted by Adelphos

There is no such thing as "objective experience." Your experience is just as subjective as mine - even if one calls it "objective experience." It would be more correct to say something like, interpretation is influenced by experience, whether p***ive, or active. So, yes, my experience of speaking in tongues does influence by understanding of Scripture, just as your experience of not speaking in tongues influences your understanding of Scripture. Now, if you can move away from this kind of argumentum ad hominem, then the time wasted here will have some value.

In other words, you might be able to prove that I am the Devil's brother, but that doesn't change the fact that so far you still haven't answered my arguments very well at all. Let us stick to the Scripture. Thanks

Respectfully

Adelphos

Perhaps "experience" was the wrong word to use, since you seem to be stuck in a semantical rut about it. My point was that my judgment concerning what I observed in real life is objective, compared to the subjectiveness of your interpretation of scripture based on your personal feelings.

Your statement "your experience of not speaking in tongues" proves that you are reading with prejudice. Nowhere did I ever imply that had I never done it. In fact, I alluded to it by mentioning "my experience with the phenomenon." Your bias is really showing here, that you are not carefully reading what I wrote.

"Let us stick to the Scripture" - this is what I have been doing all along. I purposely left out my personal experience with the phenomenon, and even clearly stated so, and stuck to exegetical interpretation of the scripture, and applied it to the real objective world we live in today. Please don't get blinded by your prejudice. I understand that your personal experience with tongues can possibly cause much upset by what I am saying in this thread. My exegetical interpretations of the scripture has no prejudice at all against the phenomenon in general or in principle. I am objecting to what is being taught in the churches about it. I do not see the phenomenon itself as a divisive element, but I see rather the teaching of P/Cs about the phenomenon as the divisive element. It is the unbiblical teaching about the phenomenon that I consider could be a cultic movement of the 20th century. And by "cultic movement," I mean a divisive element that separates brothers in the universal church. Please don't misunderstand me, I am not saying "you are in a cult" which would obviously be an evil judgment. The phenomenon would not be a divisive element at all, if the P/C churches repented and payed close attention to Biblical teaching about it.
TD

[tdidymas]

Originally Posted by Adelphos

In order for me to really understand what your contention consists of, please answer me these questions:

1. Why did the Apostles allow tongues without interpretation take place in other p***ages?

Show me where

Originally Posted by Adelphos

2. Do Scriptures interpret Scriptures?

yes

Originally Posted by Adelphos

3. Is it possible that Paul's declaration is dealing with something very specific as opposed to congregational speaking in tongues?

To be sure, it was specific, and it was congregational (both, not one or the other). This is the sense of the context of the p***age. If you think that "very specific" needs additional data than what is stated clearly in the context, then say what it is.

TD

[tdidymas]

Originally Posted by Adelphos

Is it possible that when Paul explicitly states that tongues are for unbelievers that this doesn't limit it to that purpose?

Not possible, since he clearly delineates - "not for believers."
TD

[tdidymas]

Originally Posted by Adelphos

1. Is it possible that contextually Paul is addressing tongues as a gift?

2. Is it possible that speaking in tongues can be used as evidence of receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit AND also be a separate gift?

No, because this interpretation requires an eisegetic pretext.
TD

[tdidymas]

Originally Posted by Adelphos

There is no hermeneutical reason that makes it necessary to teach that tongues were totally understood in all p***ages where they were spoken. That would be an argument from silence unless there was compelling supporting evidence that would suggest otherwise.

I agree with you, and my supporting evidence is Acts 2. If the tongues in subsequent p***ages was essentially the same as Acts 2, then there would not be any need for them to repeat the fact that other people understood (and were able to interpret the language).

Originally Posted by Adelphos

1. There are no p***ages that suggest that tongues were being "authenticated" by those who understood the languages. This is reading into the text - that is "Eisegesis (from Greek εἰς "into" and ending from exegesis from ἐξηγεῖσθαι "to lead out") is the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one's own ideas, reading into the text."

OK, I admit that here I used the term "authenticated" to prove a point. If the language spoken in Ch 10 & 19 was essentially the same as what happened in Ch 2, there would not be any need for Luke to repeat that others who heard them understood the languages. It is possible that they did not have the problem of counterfeit tongues at the time of Acts, as we do today. I am simply trying to make a point of application.

Originally Posted by Adelphos

2. Prophecy is in the native language, so there were no need for interpreters.

How do you know, were you there? This is a facetious way of saying that you are reading into the text. There are 3 possibles for "they spoke in tongues and prophesied":
1. Some spoke in tongues, others prophesied - you cannot accept this, since your doctrine demands that all spoke in tongues, but this would fit your idea that the prophecy was "in the native language."
2. They all spoke in tongues and they all prophesied, and the prophecy was in tongues, and some people who heard it testified that it was prophecy. This is equally valid. It is reading into it that "some people testified" - but we know that the apostles did testify that it was equivalent to the Day of Pentecost experience. Obviously people heard it. It would not have been necessary for Luke to say that some heard and testified.
3. They all spoke in tongues and they all prophesied, but it was done at different times. This could be a valid interpretation of the events, and could fit your language idea, but here again, it is eisegetics as much as any other scenario, even more so, since splitting the tongues and prophecies to different time stamps requires some interpretive manipulation.

Originally Posted by Adelphos

3. "Contextual intent" needs to be proven, not merely stated. This, you have failed to do.

The "contextual intent" I am talking about has to do with the Acts 2 account. In order to maintain contextual integrity, we must ***ume that the tongues phenomena in Ch 10 & 19 is essentially the same as Ch 2. To make them different is to deviate from contextual integrity.

Originally Posted by Adelphos

The only place in Scripture where we know for sure that tongues were understood by those who heard them was Acts 2. The only thing that can be suggested by that is that tongues are languages.

Exactly.
TD

[tdidymas]

Originally Posted by Adelphos

This sounds like you are basing your arguments on experience. So, allow me to go to Scripture:

And if this practice is condemned, then Paul contradicted himself when he told the Corinthians to not forbid it:

Perhaps a good question at this juncture is this: Are you forbidding it?

Again, my eyewitness observations is not subjective experience. Obviously I don't know everything, so I do acknowledge that I have bias in what I observe, just as every person has a bias in what they observe. My objection is toward the major focus on tongues as an experience that is said that everyone needs, but I see no extrinsic value in it, nor any Biblical support for it.

I have not forbidden anything thus far. I am objecting to the modern teaching about it.
TD

[Adelphos]

Originally Posted by tdidymas

I will grant you that Paul refers to it as "praying." However, he never uses that fact as a reason to do it.

He doesn't use that fact as a reason not to do it either. So, this is a moot comment in my opinion.

Any time it has been objected to P/Cs that modern tongues speaking is not like the NT, they always go the to "prayer language" idea to justify or "prove" it - this is not the original Biblical intent of the idea, thus the justification of calling it a "prayer language" to authenticate their experience is not Biblical.

Tongues being prayer is a fact. It has nothing to do with "justifying" anything. In fact, I would suggest that one of the main emphases of 1 Corinthians 14 is the proper use of tongues as prayer.

The entire context is primarily speaking about praying in tongues before the ***embly (and why that prayer needed interpreted when in front of an ***embly)

Verse 2: "For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him." The question is this: Is speaking to God prayer? Absolutely!!

Verse 3: Paul is merely contrasting the benefits of prophecy over prayer in tongues without interpretation.

Verse 4: The summary of this contrast is "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue [in prayer - context hasn't changed] edifieth himself [because prayer always edifies us], but he that prophesieth edifieth the church."

Verse 5: Context has not changed! Paul is still contrasting uninterpreted tongues with prophecy: "I would that ye all spake with tongues [in prayer - context hasn't changed], but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues [in prayer], except he interpret [i.e. interpret the prayer in tongues], that the church may receive edifying" [which will cause them to say "amen" to the prayer according to verse 16).

Verse 6: "Now, brethren, if I come unto you [to pray - context hasn't changed] speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall [also] speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?" We know from Scripture and history that people in the local synagogue would be allowed to pray or speak before the rest of the ***embly (Josephus, Vita 290–295, Agatharchides ap. Josephus, Ap. 1.209–211; Matthew 4:23; 6:5; Luke 4:16-21) . We also know from history that many church concepts actually crossed over directly from the synagogue system (i.e. elders). Now that the converted Jews and Greek proselytes at Corinth (Acts 18:4) were now filled with the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, they would take their turn before the ***embly to pray in tongues, thinking that this was more spiritual than praying in Greek, their native language. Paul is attempting to share that with the Corinthian believers that praying in tongues without interpretation before the ***embly has not value to the believers of the ***embly.

Verse 7-12: Paul continues to share how praying in tongues without interpretation fails to edify the body. He illustrates it here by the ****ogy of sounds and voices.

Verse 13: "Wherefore [context has not changed - prayer in tongues] let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret" [What will be interpreted here? The prayer of tongues! This will lead the hearers to be able to say "amen" to the prayer, thus, they will be edified]

Verse 14: "For if I pray in an unknown tongue [this proves that, indeed, the subject is still prayer, continued from verse 2], my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful."

Verse 15: "What is it then? I will pray with the spirit. and I will pray with the understanding also [through operating the gift of interpretation the person will understand the prayer they themselves are praying. It should be noted that Paul is not encouraging them to pray to interpret someone elses tongue!]: I will sing with the spirit [in other tongues in prayer, as praise to God], and I will sing with the understanding also" [by singing the interpretation to the prayer song].

Verse 16: "Else, when thou shalt bless with the spirit [eulogeo, to offer praise and thanksgiving to God in prayer in other tongues, as "bless" denotes], how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned [uninitiated in the things of God] say Amen at they giving of thanks [prayer], seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?" [Because you have given thanks in other tongues]

Verse 17: "For thou verily givest thanks well [by praying in tongues] but the other is not edified" [because no interpretation is being given].

Verse 18: "I thank God, I speak in tongues [pray in tongues] more than ye all"

Verse 23: "If therefore [in view of everything I am saying about prayer in tongues] the whole church be come together into one place, and all [those who "come unto you (them)" - like Paul's example in verse 6, before the ***embly] speak with tongues [pray] and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?" [by praying in tongues without interpretation]

Verse 27: "If any man speak in an unknown tongue [in prayer - still the same subject], let it [the prayer in tongues] be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course, and let one intepret." [Contextually, Paul was encouraging the tongue speaker to interpret his own tongues - vss. 13-16, but it certainly is not limited to that - see next verse. The Greek can be legitimately understood to be saying the same thing here as well].

Verse 28: "But if there be no interpreter [no one coming bringing an interpretation], let him keep silence [be brought to silence - Greek] in the church; and let him [continue to] speak to himself, and to God" [in prayer]

Submitted in Prayer,

Adelphos

[tdidymas]

Originally Posted by Adelphos

There are plenty of Scripture examples to establish the truth that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

Please list, since I cannot think of any.

Originally Posted by Adelphos

1. Does confirmation of the Gospel still need to take place?

Confirmation of the gospel today is only done by illumination of the Holy Spirit, which is a supernatural event, but not miraculous. A miraculous event is one in which many people witness, which has no natural cause. There are no miraculous events taking place for the authentication of the gospel, since the NT gospels were written. It is no longer "new revelation" in which God is using miraculous events to authenticate it (Heb. 2). If you differ with this, then please give both scriptural evidence, and historical evidence.

Originally Posted by Adelphos

2. Exactly where in the Hebrews p***ages say this confirming process would ever stop?

2:1-4. If you read it carefully, it indicates that Jesus and the apostles performed authenticating miracles, but not himself (the writer of Heb). All written historical evidence indicates that miracles ceased after the 1st century (I'm talking about gospel-authenticating miraculous events, not healings and Providential activities that God does for people all over the world on an ongoing basis).

Originally Posted by Adelphos

1. The church fathers didn't write about a lot of things.

They wrote about quite a lot of things, if you investigate.

Originally Posted by Adelphos

2. So, is it a red flag indicator that the teaching of "Justification by Faith" didn't get taught until the 1500s? Does that mean it is a false doctrine then?

3. So, all denominations that started 1500 years or later after the early church was around is "possibly a cult movement?" That is what you are inferring in my opinion. You may want to rethink this argument!

This is not a valid argument. One could say in response to this that the Trinity idea is cultic, unless you hold to the modalistic idea, and then that is deemed as cultic also. You mistake the reformation as the first to teach justification by faith, but this is not correct. It became a big deal in the reformation because the Roman Catholics had largely lost the essential application of it (I'm speaking of application, not official church doctrine). In fact, Augustine taught justification by faith. Since it was not a major issue at the time, it was not explained as clearly as in the reformation days. In fact, the NT scriptures should have been sufficient for proving the doctrine of justification by faith, and most likely was taught from the scriptures for hundreds of years. Therefore your idea that justification by faith was a new doctrine of the 16th century is not correct. On the other hand, the P/C doctrines on tongues are a 20th century phenomenon.

I hope I have sufficiently answered.
TD

[tdidymas]

Originally Posted by Adelphos

He doesn't use that fact as a reason not to do it either. So, this is a moot comment in my opinion.



Tongues being prayer is a fact. It has nothing to do with "justifying" anything. In fact, I would suggest that one of the main emphases of 1 Corinthians 14 is the proper use of tongues as prayer.

The entire context is primarily speaking about praying in tongues before the ***embly (and why that prayer needed interpreted when in front of an ***embly)

Verse 2: "For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him." The question is this: Is speaking to God prayer? Absolutely!!

Verse 3: Paul is merely contrasting the benefits of prophecy over prayer in tongues without interpretation.

Verse 4: The summary of this contrast is "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue [in prayer - context hasn't changed] edifieth himself [because prayer always edifies us], but he that prophesieth edifieth the church."

Verse 5: Context has not changed! Paul is still contrasting uninterpreted tongues with prophecy: "I would that ye all spake with tongues [in prayer - context hasn't changed], but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues [in prayer], except he interpret [i.e. interpret the prayer in tongues], that the church may receive edifying" [which will cause them to say "amen" to the prayer according to verse 16).

Verse 6: "Now, brethren, if I come unto you [to pray - context hasn't changed] speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall [also] speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?" We know from Scripture and history that people in the local synagogue would be allowed to pray or speak before the rest of the ***embly (Josephus, Vita 290–295, Agatharchides ap. Josephus, Ap. 1.209–211; Matthew 4:23; 6:5; Luke 4:16-21) . We also know from history that many church concepts actually crossed over directly from the synagogue system (i.e. elders). Now that the converted Jews and Greek proselytes at Corinth (Acts 18:4) were now filled with the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, they would take their turn before the ***embly to pray in tongues, thinking that this was more spiritual than praying in Greek, their native language. Paul is attempting to share that with the Corinthian believers that praying in tongues without interpretation before the ***embly has not value to the believers of the ***embly.

Verse 7-12: Paul continues to share how praying in tongues without interpretation fails to edify the body. He illustrates it here by the ****ogy of sounds and voices.

Verse 13: "Wherefore [context has not changed - prayer in tongues] let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret" [What will be interpreted here? The prayer of tongues! This will lead the hearers to be able to say "amen" to the prayer, thus, they will be edified]

Verse 14: "For if I pray in an unknown tongue [this proves that, indeed, the subject is still prayer, continued from verse 2], my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful."

Verse 15: "What is it then? I will pray with the spirit. and I will pray with the understanding also [through operating the gift of interpretation the person will understand the prayer they themselves are praying. It should be noted that Paul is not encouraging them to pray to interpret someone elses tongue!]: I will sing with the spirit [in other tongues in prayer, as praise to God], and I will sing with the understanding also" [by singing the interpretation to the prayer song].

Verse 16: "Else, when thou shalt bless with the spirit [eulogeo, to offer praise and thanksgiving to God in prayer in other tongues, as "bless" denotes], how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned [uninitiated in the things of God] say Amen at they giving of thanks [prayer], seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?" [Because you have given thanks in other tongues]

Verse 17: "For thou verily givest thanks well [by praying in tongues] but the other is not edified" [because no interpretation is being given].

Verse 18: "I thank God, I speak in tongues [pray in tongues] more than ye all"

Verse 23: "If therefore [in view of everything I am saying about prayer in tongues] the whole church be come together into one place, and all [those who "come unto you (them)" - like Paul's example in verse 6, before the ***embly] speak with tongues [pray] and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?" [by praying in tongues without interpretation]

Verse 27: "If any man speak in an unknown tongue [in prayer - still the same subject], let it [the prayer in tongues] be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course, and let one intepret." [Contextually, Paul was encouraging the tongue speaker to interpret his own tongues - vss. 13-16, but it certainly is not limited to that - see next verse. The Greek can be legitimately understood to be saying the same thing here as well].

Verse 28: "But if there be no interpreter [no one coming bringing an interpretation], let him keep silence [be brought to silence - Greek] in the church; and let him [continue to] speak to himself, and to God" [in prayer]

Submitted in Prayer,

Adelphos

I don't have a problem with your interpretation of this p***age. It appears as valid as any interpretation I have heard or read.

The problem I have is with the unbiblical purpose by which the P/Cs get their doctrines, which I ***ert is divisive in the universal church. Again, my issue is not with the speaking in tongues phenomenon itself, but with the P/C teachings about it which are the cause of counterfeit manifestations.
TD