Well, that the message would not be discernible by the speaker or the average listener is to be expected, scripturally, so that really isn't saying anything.
I agree that it's not a language, but if we are to expand the definition of language to include as much as has been included on this thread, then I contend that the clear terms of scripture are being abandoned in favor of extra-Biblical claims of what glossa means. I am perfectly content to recognize Mark's (and Chockfull's) right to disagree with me in this regard. I just don't think I would get away with expanding the definition of glossa while offering theological support but no scriptural support for such an expansion. I mean, when you consider the demand for scriptural support that glossa means human language in the first place, which brought me back to this thread, you have to wonder why scriptural support for the vast expansion of its meaning has not been demanded as well.
Well, perhaps you guys don't speak in tongues anymore as part of your private prayer life. You are therefore disagreeing with the apostle Paul. That just proves what the apostle Paul wrote when he said he spoke in tongues more than anyone else or more than a number of people combined.
Except.....It has no identifiable structure to qualify it as a language (any language).
No one can make that claim unless they have heard every one that has ever spoken in a tongue speak out loud. When I speak in tongues silently to myself certain words are repeated over and over again and their is a harmony and repetition of words and phrases. The bible even said that sometimes people that speak in tongues can be understood. We read that in Acts chapter 2.
Except.....There is no discernible message being communicated.
Stated in a more truthful and scriptural way:
1 Cor 14:2
2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.
NIV
I don't want to be mean or argumentative, but it sounds like you guys don't use this anymore in your private prayer life. Is this correct? If this is the case you are not applying 1 Corinthians chapter 14 anymore.
1 Cor 14:18-19
18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
NKJV
Just one of the verses that you may no longer be applying. It is clearly written that Paul spoke in tongues much in his private prayer life, but he did not want to speak in tongues outloud in a church service, because his words would not be understood. I have written an entire commentary on 1 Corinthians chapter 14 covering and explaining every verse. When I post it on the internet I will let you know so you can read it if you want to.
Mark, there is a thread in About the Way that this thread is an offshoot of. I will disregard the assertion that those who don't speak in tongues disagree with Paul. We disagree with a practice that claims to be Biblical but does not, in our opinion, yield Biblical results. This thread, appropriately in doctrinal, is currently exploring what those Biblical results should be. You are obviously free to disagree with me, as I am to disagree with you. But we are disagreeing with each other. I am only disagreeing with Paul if you are correct about modern SIT being the same as Biblical SIT. Honest Christians disagree about this issue today, and while you're perfectly entitled to SAY I am disagreeing with Paul, I am equally at liberty to dismiss that assertion. It is very much in question.
If today's SIT is not the same as the SIT in Acts 2 and further described in I Cor., why would anyone want to continue to do it? Wouldn't it make more sense to want to do the same thing that was being done in Acts/Cor.?
Raf if you don't believe that speaking in tongues is prayer and praise to God, you are going to have to overlook a lot of scriptures. I am working on a 1031 tax exchange now as a licensed real estate broker. When I finish this, I will post my commentary on my web site for you and others to look at. If you want to? I will have a detailed commentary covering every verse in 1 Corinthians chapters 12, 13 and 14. I could even post all of chapter 14 on this thread, but it looks like it might be a little to much for some people here to swallow. However, I made the commentary very readable.
Here is about 17% of my commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:
1 Corinthians 14:2
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue (gloossa) speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
King James Version
The biblical usage of speaking in tongues over the years has been very controversial among Christians and especially in various churches. Plenty of Christians do not understand what speaking in tongues is nor do they believe in it. Others believe in it, but sometimes do not speak in tongues at churches without a great deal of confusion. With this in mind we are going to do a short study of speaking in tongues purely from New Testament scriptures. First of all biblically the Greek word for “tongues” here in 14:2 is the Greek word “gloossa.” From the Thayer’s Greek to English lexicon it means literally the tongue as a member of our physical body, which is the organ of speech. Tongues (gloossa) can also represent a language used by a particular people in distinction from that of other nations. To see this let’s look at scriptures, which use this Greek word.
Mark 7:32-35
32 Then they brought to Him (Jesus) one who was deaf and had an impediment in his speech, and they begged Him to put His hand on him. 33 And He (Jesus) took him aside from the multitude, and put His fingers in his ears, and He (Jesus) spat and touched his tongue (gloossa). 34 Then, looking up to heaven, He sighed, and said to him, "Ephphatha," that is, "Be opened." 35 Immediately his ears were opened, and the impediment of his tongue (gloossa) was loosed, and he spoke plainly.
Scriptures taken from the New Kings James Version. Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Above we see clearly the usage of the word tongue (gloossa) as a body part used for speech. Next we will look at usages of tongues (gloossa) used for speech as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2:3-4
3 And there appeared unto them cloven (diamerizoo) tongues (gloossa) like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues (gloossa), as the Spirit gave them utterance.
King James Version
Holy Ghost above from the King James Version is the same as Hoy Spirit in other versions. In Acts 2 we have for the first time the Holy Spirit, which Jesus promised to give to his followers. Here we see the Holy Spirit coming to Jesus’s twelve disciples looking like divided tongues of fire and sitting on each of them. The Greek word used for “cloven” is “diamerizoo.” “Diamerizoo” is normally translated divided and means to divide or cut in pieces. With this they were each filled with the Holy Spirit and the first thing they then did was speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance or as the Spirit enabled them. This was prophesied during Jesus’ earthly ministry for example, Matthew 3:11 quotes John the baptist, “He (Jesus) will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”
It is interesting that at this time we had a festival known as Pentecost or the feast of harvest. According to Acts 2:5, we had Jews in Jerusalem at this festival from every nation with multiple languages spoken and understood. What was noticed by these people from other nations was that there were 12 Galileans speaking, which was to them foreign languages, many of which they could not have known. People from Galilee were not known for their linguistic ability or knowledge. Some of these listed nations with languages are as follows:
Acts 2:8-11
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues (gloossa) the wonderful works of God.”
King James Version
Next, we see that tongues is also words that “magnify God.”
Acts 10:45-46
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues (gloossa), and magnify God…
King James Version
Here we see for the first time Gentiles also receiving the gift of Holy Spirit. And like the twelve original disciples, who were also Jesus’ apostles, the first thing the Gentiles did after receiving the Holy Spirit was speak in tongues and with this magnify God. Magnifying God is esteeming highly or declaring that God is great
To summarize from the scriptures we have covered including 1 Corinthians 13:1, from a previous chapter and now 1 Corinthians 14:2 we see that speaking in tongues is the following:
A. From Mark 7:33-35, the physical human tongue as used for speech.
B. From Acts 2:4, speaking inspired words from the Holy Spirit.
C. From Acts 2:11, speaking the wonderful works of God.
D. From Acts 10:46, speaking words that magnify God or declare that God is great.
E. From 1 Corinthians 13:1, which also uses the word “gloossa,” speaking a language either of men or angels,
F. From 1 Corinthians 14:2, speaking mysteries or divine secrets directly to God and not man.
As we saw in Acts 2, sometimes people can understand what is being spoken in tongues, but this is rare and could be considered miraculous. Speaking in tongues is speaking to God a hidden or secret thing as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
We'd also like to find real examples of what Paul spoke about-
if any currently exist.
We're not arguing with Paul, we're agreeing with him-
and claiming the modern practice has been LABELLED the same
thing but is not.
I myself was hoping for some evidence to the contrary, but none
has appeared that can actually sway me logically.
(Would be nice, though.)
But if you disagree, hey, cool. Jesus will settle all differences
at the appointed time.
Raf if you don't believe that speaking in tongues is prayer and praise to God, you are going to have to overlook a lot of scriptures.
Unless the Scriptures actually show that what Paul did is NOTHING like the modern practice
we were all indoctrinated into in twi.
Then those who still do it are sincerely mistaken and MEAN to pray and praise to God,
but are doing something other than Biblical SIT at the time.
I am working on a 1031 tax exchange now as a licensed real estate broker. When I finish this, I will post my commentary on my web site for you and others to look at. If you want to? I will have a detailed commentary covering every verse in 1 Corinthians chapters 12, 13 and 14. I could even post all of chapter 14 on this thread, but it looks like it might be a little to much for some people here to swallow. However, I made the commentary very readable.
Feel free to do a slow, good job and not feel rushed. We all have things to do.
Oh my two friends WordWolf and Raf can be intelligent and also funny. One of the things Paul did was teach and teach a lot. Here is more of my commentary on what Paul taught. And yes, he does also mention some other things that he did in his chapter on 1 Corinthians 14. We should all have open minds or at least consider what is written.
1 Corinthians 14:3-5
3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.
Scriptures taken from the New Kings James Version. Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Here we see plainly the difference between speaking words of prophecy and speaking in tongues. Both are a manifestation or evidence of the Spirit of God given to followers of Jesus Christ (see 1 Corinthians 12:7-11). Words of prophecy are preferred in a church gathering because they are words spoken in the language of those people present. In contrast, speaking in tongues is not a preferred manifestation when spoken aloud in a church gathering unless the person that speaks in tongues interprets in the language of the people present the words that he has just spoken in tongues. This is referred to in 1 Corinthians 12:10 as the interpretation of tongues. Both are the work of the one and same Spirit of God, which has been given to individual followers of Jesus Christ. Remember Acts 2 and the vision of cloven tongues like as of fire, which came as a mass and then separated right before resting on individual disciples of Jesus Christ. This was a vision of the one Spirit, Ephesians 4:4. Just as we have one body with all followers of Jesus Christ a member, we have one Spirit, with all followers of Jesus Christ getting a portion, also called the gift of “Holy Spirit.”
Both prophecy and tongues are for edification. Speaking in tongues is for individual edification, which should be primarily spoken quietly to oneself and not spoken aloud unless the speaker offers words of interpretation. Later we will see that speaking in tongues is a form of prayer and is specifically called in 1 Corinthians 14:14-15, praying in the spirit. Paul wants everyone to speak in tongues in this manor according to verse 5. In contrast, in a church gathering, prophecy is of greater importance and should be done because it brings edification, exhortation and comfort to the people present. These are three related words as stated in verse 3. Stated in a similar way prophecy brings to the church a building up along with encouragement and comfort.
1 Corinthians 14:6-11
6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues (gloossa), what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching? 7 Even things without life, whether flute or harp, when they make a sound, unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played? 8 For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare himself for battle? 9 So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue (gloossa) words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. 11 Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me.
Scriptures taken from the New Kings James Version. Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Speaking in tongues is an important manifestation for followers of Jesus Christ. Personally, I have used it as spiritual prayer for a number of years now. I have also instructed others in this spiritual prayer and then led them also into speaking in tongues. See an example of this in Acts 19:6. However, as the previous section of scripture clearly states, if we speak in tongues out loud, words that no one understands, how will it benefit the listener? The answer is obvious. Unless we speak words that are understood, one can or would merely sound like a foreigner. If we speak in tongues out loud without the addition of words in our common language, for example revelation, prophesying or teaching, how shall it assist or be useful or advantageous to the listener? The answer is, it will not. It will only edify the speaker. How is that being of service to our fellow brothers and sister in Christ? Isn’t that why we as followers of Jesus Christ meet and get together, to serve and help one another?
1 Corinthians 14:12-14
12 Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts (The word gifts was added. A better translation would be spiritual matters or things.), let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel. 13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.
Scriptures taken from the New Kings James Version. Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Stated again, if we are zealous for spiritual matters or things, let’s focus that zeal on serving our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. And when it comes to speaking words in a church service let’s speak words to edify or build up the church. Therefore, anyone who speaks in a tongue in a regular church service should first pray that he may interpret. Then and only then should we speak in tongues and then we should follow this with the interpretation, in the language of the people present. We are able to speak in tongues and then immediately follow this with the interpretation of the tongue that we just spoke, through faith in God and prayer. Yes, prayer needs to be mixed with faith in God. So again, before we speak in tongues out loud in front of everyone at a church gathering. Let’s first pray and have faith that we will interpret the divine secrets and wonderful works of God. Speaking in tongues is spiritual prayer and I do it and I like it, but in a church gathering let’s primarily speak fruitful words with our understanding.
1 Corinthians 14:15-16
15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.
New International Version
Here the scriptures ask a fundamental question based on all the previous truthful and practical knowledge. “What shall I do?” The answer is to both pray in the spirit, which is speaking in tongues, and pray with our understanding. And when we speak in tongues, if we want, we can also do it to the tune of our favorite musician, musical group or melody. And of course, in a church service we can all sing one of our favorite hymnals together. Three of my all time favorites are “I’ve Found a Friend in Jesus, He’s Everything To Me”, “What a Friend We Have in Jesus” and “How great thou art.”
1 Corinthians 14:16-17
16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how can any one in the position of an outsider say the "Amen" to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you may give thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified.
Revised Standard Version
Another obvious question with a simple answer. We may be giving thanks spiritually through speaking in tongues, but if no one listening to us knows what we are saying, then no one, but the speaker is edified. If that is the case we may as well just stay home and pray in our closet with the door shut (see Matthew 6:6). Therefore as this section of scripture has said and implied a number of times. If we speak in tongues we should primarily do it silently to God in prayer and praise.
1 Corinthians 14:18-19
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
King James Version
A great summary written by Paul. Paul thanks God that he speaks in tongues, at this time, perhaps more than all the people of the church in Corinth. Nevertheless, in church Paul would rather speak out loud five words that will teach and edify others than ten thousand words in a tongue (gloossa) that is not known by the people that are present and listening to him.
I pray in the Spirit, but I don't speak in tongues. My experience differs, as do many Christians who know what it is to pray in the Spirit and worship God in Spirit and in truth.....they even write songs about it. :)
There is a huge difference between that time I thought I was SIT and now praying in the Spirit.....it is not even comparable. One is in God's familiar and holy presence where words are impossible, worship is not though....it is compelled.
In my experience they are not the same thing....worship and praise come from the heart. Since experience seems to be relevant to what people believe....I just thought to add mine.
I'm going to say two quick things and leave it at that for doctrinal.
First, I am not joking, and it strikes me as a little patronizing to suggest that I am.
Second, I also find it patronizing, sorry, to be barraged with a ton of scriptural references with practically no difference in exposition from what we were taught in TWI, presented as though somehow, this is the first time I'm seeing this stuff.
I don't think you're coming off this way on purpose. I respect that you're genuinely surprised to hear this kind of thing coming from me. I'm just sharing my feelings on how it comes off to me. Reasonable minds may differ.
It's not the Bible or Paul I am questioning. It is a practice, a modern practice that fails to yield what i believe are Biblically predicted results. The Bible is the sole arbiter of what Biblically predicted results are. I laid out my case using nothing but scripture. With respect, I believe the response to my case about Biblically predicted results uses nothing but conjecture. A fervent defense of Biblical SIT does nothing to bolster claims of modern SIT, for it is the very equation of the modern practice as the Biblical that is in question.
I am as free to disagree with you as you are with me. You are perfectly entitled here to question and challenge my beliefs, as I am yours: respectfully. So question and challenge away. But don't patronize me.
It is possible we are simply reading the Apostles words and intent incorrectly. . . . I once read that I could possibly be speaking the language of angels....until I read it in context and considered Paul's use of hyperbole and the wider context concerning the language of angels.
I agree. The King James is a little confusing because it uses "Though" in the first word of that sentence. Other translations make the conditional nature of what Paul is saying much more clear, just by translating "though" as "if."
When I read that sentence, my takeaway is: "I don't care what language you speak when you speak in tongues -- if you don't have love, it doesn't really matter."
The idea of "tongues of angels" is entirely speculative, since it is not defined in the Bible and only presented as a hypothetical in I Cor. 13:1. We cannot assume that spirit beings require a system of communication that is literally like human communication. When God talks to Gabriel and Michael, does He use words? Does my brain use words when it communicates with my hands to type on this keyboard? Fact of the matter is, we have no idea how angels communicate, and this verse does not answer that question.
Jesus says a little bit of faith can cause you to tell a mountain to jump into the sea and have the mountain obey. No one, including Jesus, ever tested that, and we know why: it is not a literal truth. It's a hyperbole. The reality behind what's said here is that faith (in God) is powerful. I believe tongues of angels falls into that category. It doesn't seem to me to be presented as a literal possibility, but as a highly exaggerated expression of what SIT does produce. There is PLENTY of Biblical evidence (all documented in my prior post) to support that "tongues of men" is literal in that same verse.
Genuine languages (be they human or animal) have mathematical structures that can be charted and verified. There is no mathematical structure to what we were exposed to in The Way and have been calling "speaking in tongues". When speaking in tongues was witnessed on The Day of Pentecost, people understood, messages were conveyed. If we are to believe the record, they must have had a definitive structure or no one would have understood. Therefore, it would appear to me that what we, today, call speaking in tongues is not the same thing referenced in Acts 2.
Suffice it to say that the extent that languages have mathematical structures that can be charted and verified is debatable and questionable. The most we have seen on any published research to date is the practice of consonant mapping (taking the consonant letters of a language and trying to map sounds of an unknown segment of speech against it), and Hockett's 16 rules of language (what consists of a language).
Language is like a code. If you understand the code and can speak it, it makes sense. If you do not, it does not make sense. One example of this is the movie "Wind Talkers". That movie is very interesting with respect to the topic on this thread and other similar ones.
In that movie, WWII enemy code crackers were breaking the codes normally used in communications in the Army, and obtaining an advantage. So a code was constructed out of Navajo soldier's native language, and a figurative representation of certain words being code within the native language for troop configurations and movement. The code was not broken throughout the duration of the war. The men involved were honored as heros, and a movie was made out of it.
To me this represents how easy it is to encode a message within a language and have it be undetected.
Your understanding expressed in this paragraph to me just shows how effective one side of the argument has been here in convincing others to blindly accept the opinion of researchers without questioning their methods.
It is possible we are simply reading the Apostles words and intent incorrectly. . . . I once read that I could possibly be speaking the language of angels....until I read it in context and considered Paul's use of hyperbole and the wider context concerning the language of angels.
Even further along these lines, the phrase "speaking in tongues" to me IMMEDIATELY signifies a figure of speech? Why? The phrase itself is a departure from normal usage. It is redundant. Simply using the word "speaking" (in either Greek or English, or Aramaiac - same in any language) IMMEDIATELY connotates the use of a language.
The English common translation of that phrase uses the organ as what is defined. It COULD have been translated "speaking in languages". Do you see how redundant that sounds in English?
I say from what I've noticed there is a FOS called metonymy in that phrase (metonymy is the Greek word for "change"). This figure is a changing or swapping out of words. In this case I can notice a metonymy. In other words, the word "tongues" is expressed for what it produces - "language".
This calls attention to even deeper meaning possibilities. Like for example, you use your tongue literally, then God changes it to produce the language on the back end. To me the figure makes it clearer what is going on.
The idea of "tongues of angels" is entirely speculative, since it is not defined in the Bible and only presented as a hypothetical in I Cor. 13:1. We cannot assume that spirit beings require a system of communication that is literally like human communication. When God talks to Gabriel and Michael, does He use words? Does my brain use words when it communicates with my hands to type on this keyboard? Fact of the matter is, we have no idea how angels communicate, and this verse does not answer that question.
This is an aspect of language we haven't dealt with yet. I'm thinking in English typing this. Yet not using any vocal sounds whatsoever to communicate.
Since we're talking about spoken language, the notion of written language is separate. "Glossographia" would be much easier to analyze than glossolalia, for reasons that should be obvious.
I think the Bible is clear about what speaking in tongues is, and what it produces, from its first usage on, and the modifier "in tongues" is added to differentiate between that and the normal speech of the speaker. In my long post, I think I sometimes used the word "metaphorically" when a better word would have been "firguratively," which is what I meant. I apologize if that caused any confusion, but I think you caught on: "metaphorically" and "by metonymy" cannot mean the same thing. "Figuratively" and "by metonymy" can, and the latter is what I intended to convey. I'm not concerned particularly with WHAT the figure of speech is; just that a figure of speech is being employed. Your posts suggest you understood that, but I feel obliged to clarify anyway.
Anyone that does not apply something will have a limitation on their knowledge. That is what looks like has occured here amoung some of the posters. In contrast, I have applied the manifestation of the spirit a number of times. I have even prayed for people with some healings resulting. One time I even prayed for a person, that did not believe in Jesus Christ, that had a knee injury as I recall and then the next day he told everyone that he got healed. He was one of my teammates on my college soccer team at Chico State University. Also recently I was at a meeting with a number of Christians and I followed what is written in 1 Corinthians 14 and then spoke in tongues with interpretation, which to me can now be prayer and praise to God. Before in the Way ministry it could not be prayer and praise to God. It had to be only a forthtelling and similar in message as prophecy, which I do not agree with now.
To imply or say that my commentary is based solely on a class that I took 40 years ago is only used to ignore what I have written and is nothing more than biased speculation. Relating me to a class (PFAL) that now has a bad reputation is false. In reality I was one of the main people that saw the errors in Way ministry doctrine and even was able to pinpoint the primary doctrinal error which was the use of the Way Tree political hierarchy. I did this through my article called "the Lordship of Jesus Christ, Contrasting the Lordship of Imperfect Man", which I wrote in the mid 1980s.
My commentary on 1 Corinthians 14, which will go on the Internet is based on detailed study in the last few years using my biblical software, PC Study Bible. Here is a link to the software that I use BibleSoft
Anyone with sense and logic realizes that if someone does not want to apply something or at least does not want to try to apply something, their knowledge will be limited. That is what I see here. I also clearly see a bias against the many hours of study that I have done on this subject. Fine then. If you want to be bias against one teacher, then try to learn from another teacher or other teachers. Here is a study from the Nelson Bible Dictionary on this subject. The Nelson Bible Dictionary, which is part of the PC Study Bible package is an EXCELLENT source of biblical knowledge covering a large amount of biblical subjects. If I was editing this, the only edit I would make is to refer to tongues as a manifestation. However, tongues could also be referred to as a gift because gift is merely a descriptive word just like every other word. And certainly ones ability to speak in tongues is a gift from God.
Here is biblical and factual knowledge from the Nelson Bible Dictionary.
TONGUES, GIFT OF
The Spirit-given ability to speak in languages not known to the speaker or in an ecstatic language that could not normally be understood by the speaker or the hearers.
Apparently the only possibly direct reference in the Old Testament to speaking in another tongue or language is found in Isa 28:11 "For with stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to this people." This seems to be a reference to an invasion of the Assyrians. They apparently would speak in another language, one probably unknown to the people of Israel. The apostle Paul later applied this verse to speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:21). The apostle Peter considered the phenomenon of speaking in tongues that occurred on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (Joel 2:28-32).
In an appearance to His disciples after His resurrection, Jesus declared, "And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues" (Mark 16:17).
On the Day of Pentecost, the followers of Christ "were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4). The people assembled in Jerusalem for this feast came from various Roman provinces representing a variety of languages. They were astonished to hear the disciples speaking of God's works in their own languages. Some have suggested that the miracle was in the hearing rather than in the speaking. This explanation, however, would transfer the miraculous from the believing disciples to the multitude who may not have been believers.
Tongues as a gift of the Spirit is especially prominent in 1 Cor 12 and 14. In 1 Cor 12 the phenomenon of tongues is listed with other gifts of the Spirit under the term gifts. As one of the several gifts given to believers as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, tongues is intended, with the other gifts, to be exercised for the building up of the church and the mutual profit of its members. In 1 Cor 13 the apostle Paul puts the gift of tongues in perspective by affirming that though we "speak with the tongues of men and of angels" (v. 1), if we do not have love, the gift of tongues has no value.
In 1 Cor 14 Paul deals more specifically with the gift of tongues and its exercise in the church. In this chapter the tongue is not an intelligible language, for it cannot be understood by the listeners. Therefore, a parallel to the gift of tongues is the gift of interpretation. The gift of tongues was used as a means of worship, thanksgiving, and prayer. While exercising this gift, the individual addresses God not man; and the result is to edify himself and not the church (1 Cor 14:2,4). This gift is never intended for self-exaltation but for the praise and glorification of God. Paul does not prohibit speaking in tongues in a public service (14:39). But he seems to assign it to a lesser place than the gift of prophecy. Paul claims for himself the gift of tongues-speaking, but apparently he exercised this gift in private and not in public (14:18-19).
The gift of tongues is to be exercised with restraint and in an orderly way. The regulations for its public use are simple and straightforward. The person who speaks in an unknown tongue is to pray that he may interpret (1 Cor 14:13). Or, someone else is to interpret what he says. Only two or three persons are to speak, with each having an interpretation of what he says. Each is also to speak in turn. If these criteria are not met, they are to remain silent (1 Cor 14:27-28). The gifts of speaking in tongues and their interpretation are to be Spirit inspired. Paul also points out that tongues are a sign to unbelievers. If these guidelines are not observed, unbelievers who are present will conclude that the people of the church are out of their minds.
The phenomenon of speaking in tongues described in the New Testament is not some psychological arousal of human emotions that results in strange sounds. This is a genuine work of the Holy Spirit.
"Suffice it to say that the extent that languages have mathematical structures that can be charted and verified is debatable and questionable."
Seriously? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? The only one "debating and questioning" that is you. Languages have structure. Period. That has nothing to do with the Bible. It's just a matter of fact.
Again, I wrote my commentary. I spent hours writing it. The Nelson Bible Dictionary people wrote their commentary. They are excellent teachers and have spent hours I am sure researching the bible.
Why don't you read this, which I originally wrote in the mid 1980s,
I think the Bible is clear about what speaking in tongues is, and what it produces, from its first usage on, and the modifier "in tongues" is added to differentiate between that and the normal speech of the speaker. In my long post, I think I sometimes used the word "metaphorically" when a better word would have been "firguratively," which is what I meant. I apologize if that caused any confusion, but I think you caught on: "metaphorically" and "by metonymy" cannot mean the same thing. "Figuratively" and "by metonymy" can, and the latter is what I intended to convey. I'm not concerned particularly with WHAT the figure of speech is; just that a figure of speech is being employed. Your posts suggest you understood that, but I feel obliged to clarify anyway.
I think the literary world uses "metaphorically" in a broader sense than Bullinger does, basically meaning what you say - a synonym for "figuratively". I took your use of the word "metaphorically" to be in the literary sense. There could be more than one figure of speech applicable to that phrase.
We've been having a discussion about this. It's been contentious.
I'd like to think your side is correct, but all the evidence supports the other side-
that what we're seeing now is NOT what they saw THEN.
We've also started from what we all already knew.
And this is one of the primary reasons it's been contentious. There are a number of studies we've read, and most of the authors are of the opinion that people are making up tongues. However, they don't really provide evidence. The most accomplished linguist of the lot presented some studies where he mapped consonants in a language to a glossa sample (we never saw detail on where those were obtained or who they involved for the most part). The evidence pointed to an inconclusive result. However, even that author drew a conclusion that there were no languages involved.
So you have the negative side making absolute statements like this that something has been proven, or all the evidence supports another side. And that's absolutely a falsehood. That's the root of the contention.
An accurate statement from the evidence seen to date would be that all the evidence is inconclusive trying to prove that SIT produces a language.
So, I'm sure you can see that if you come at this SOUNDING like twi teachings,
covering the same ground as twi teachings,
then nothing new is brought to the table.
This also is a problem handling this subject honestly. So many people have had negative and traumatic experiences in TWI that ANYTHING that could be perceived as TWI doctrine is very negative to them.
You've done your own studies-there's no need to rehash what we all heard in twi
and have already DISMISSED.
The only results are frustration that we're recovering the same ground again
or that someone SOUNDS like twi, which is annoying on its own.
Well, I would say that if the negative side of this argument can't come up with some patience to cover doctrine and studies that could run parallel or have similar points to a TWI teaching, then they should just zip it and suffer in silence. After all, the positive side of this argument has had to endure about 70+ pages of opinion stated as fact, just like the first paragraph of your post here.
Also, if you're trying to convince us Paul SIT'd, you're wasting your time.
None of us ever questioned that.
We're saying that what Paul did-and they did and experienced- is not what we
did and experienced.
And people who want to be Christians in a modern world want to pattern their lives after scripture. So for naysayers to present that something changed magically to make that not available any longer, yet have no logical explanation of what that might be (other than one poster made a one-line comment saying check into cessationist theory) - that is just disingenuous. If you've heard the common description "dog in a manger", that is basically what they are doing with no logical basis to back them up.
So, posting about that frustrates people who already agreed with that but
feel like you're not listening to what they had to say.
We'd LIKE a dialogue here. So far, we're not really getting a dialogue
with the affirmative posters.
No, they are not getting the dialogue they want with the affirmative posters. Meaning having all their opinion received as fact unchallenged.
That's why I say, take your time, and bring your "A-Game" to the table.
Let's see what you have that shows-from Scripture- that SIT there is the same
thing as SIT in a modern twi-style meeting in a living room.
I say post up your research and studies regardless of where they are positioned w/r to TWI. If knuckleheads want to hate on it, let them.
If it REALLY can make a stronger case that it is, I'm open to changing my mind
again. Being surprised won't change that. [/b]
I seriously doubt that. Anyone that could write the first paragraph of that post has their mind made up by the incessant rhetoric of opinion and will not let any fact get in their way.
So you have the negative side making absolute statements like this that something has been proven...
Ok, I'm sorry, but as many times as this has been asserted by you and corrected, you are still making the same refuted allegation. So let me remind everyone that I never said "this has been proven." I said this has been demonstrated. I said that the evidence all leans in one direction. I stated my opinion as fact (it's called making an assertion, and everyone, including you, has done that in this conversation and others). I have never said this was proven. So I would appreciate it, deeply, if you would stop saying that I have. I have not. You listed a whole bunch of places where you claim I made that statement, but not one of the citations you listed has me saying this was proven. So please, I urge you, stop repeating the refuted and false statement that I have. I have not. Stop it. Please.
Second, I also find it patronizing, sorry, to be barraged with a ton of scriptural references with practically no difference in exposition from what we were taught in TWI, presented as though somehow, this is the first time I'm seeing this stuff.
This is Doctrinal, where "a ton of scriptural references" actually BELONGS.
Someone presenting an exegesis of I Cor. 14 that they have previously worked up certainly applies, and for you to discourage it by calling it "patronizing" and "barraging" is against the purpose of this subforum and the general guidelines of this site.
I don't want to see this kind of post on this thread again. I would prefer to see that post removed, and anywhere I've quoted it I will remove the entire post and rebuttal also.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
127
53
47
49
Popular Days
Feb 12
24
Feb 8
22
Feb 20
22
Feb 19
21
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 127 posts
Steve Lortz 53 posts
waysider 47 posts
TLC 49 posts
Popular Days
Feb 12 2016
24 posts
Feb 8 2016
22 posts
Feb 20 2016
22 posts
Feb 19 2016
21 posts
Popular Posts
Steve Lortz
A Word About A Word Tolerance is necessary for articulation. A hinge is an articulated device. One plate attaches to the door, the other plate attaches to the doorjamb, the two plates are joined tog
geisha779
Is 1 Corinthians 14:4 an instruction, a passing comment, or a commendable endeavor? Or . . . . is it smack dab in the middle of correction and juxtaposed to the demeanor that Paul wanted the Corinthi
waysider
Ummmmm.......You know he wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?
Posted Images
Raf
Well, that the message would not be discernible by the speaker or the average listener is to be expected, scripturally, so that really isn't saying anything.
I agree that it's not a language, but if we are to expand the definition of language to include as much as has been included on this thread, then I contend that the clear terms of scripture are being abandoned in favor of extra-Biblical claims of what glossa means. I am perfectly content to recognize Mark's (and Chockfull's) right to disagree with me in this regard. I just don't think I would get away with expanding the definition of glossa while offering theological support but no scriptural support for such an expansion. I mean, when you consider the demand for scriptural support that glossa means human language in the first place, which brought me back to this thread, you have to wonder why scriptural support for the vast expansion of its meaning has not been demanded as well.
No disrespect intended, Mark.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Well, perhaps you guys don't speak in tongues anymore as part of your private prayer life. You are therefore disagreeing with the apostle Paul. That just proves what the apostle Paul wrote when he said he spoke in tongues more than anyone else or more than a number of people combined.
No one can make that claim unless they have heard every one that has ever spoken in a tongue speak out loud. When I speak in tongues silently to myself certain words are repeated over and over again and their is a harmony and repetition of words and phrases. The bible even said that sometimes people that speak in tongues can be understood. We read that in Acts chapter 2.
Stated in a more truthful and scriptural way:
1 Cor 14:2
2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.
NIV
I don't want to be mean or argumentative, but it sounds like you guys don't use this anymore in your private prayer life. Is this correct? If this is the case you are not applying 1 Corinthians chapter 14 anymore.
1 Cor 14:18-19
18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
NKJV
Just one of the verses that you may no longer be applying. It is clearly written that Paul spoke in tongues much in his private prayer life, but he did not want to speak in tongues outloud in a church service, because his words would not be understood. I have written an entire commentary on 1 Corinthians chapter 14 covering and explaining every verse. When I post it on the internet I will let you know so you can read it if you want to.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mark, there is a thread in About the Way that this thread is an offshoot of. I will disregard the assertion that those who don't speak in tongues disagree with Paul. We disagree with a practice that claims to be Biblical but does not, in our opinion, yield Biblical results. This thread, appropriately in doctrinal, is currently exploring what those Biblical results should be. You are obviously free to disagree with me, as I am to disagree with you. But we are disagreeing with each other. I am only disagreeing with Paul if you are correct about modern SIT being the same as Biblical SIT. Honest Christians disagree about this issue today, and while you're perfectly entitled to SAY I am disagreeing with Paul, I am equally at liberty to dismiss that assertion. It is very much in question.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
If today's SIT is not the same as the SIT in Acts 2 and further described in I Cor., why would anyone want to continue to do it? Wouldn't it make more sense to want to do the same thing that was being done in Acts/Cor.?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Raf if you don't believe that speaking in tongues is prayer and praise to God, you are going to have to overlook a lot of scriptures. I am working on a 1031 tax exchange now as a licensed real estate broker. When I finish this, I will post my commentary on my web site for you and others to look at. If you want to? I will have a detailed commentary covering every verse in 1 Corinthians chapters 12, 13 and 14. I could even post all of chapter 14 on this thread, but it looks like it might be a little to much for some people here to swallow. However, I made the commentary very readable.
Here is about 17% of my commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:
1 Corinthians 14:2
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue (gloossa) speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
King James Version
The biblical usage of speaking in tongues over the years has been very controversial among Christians and especially in various churches. Plenty of Christians do not understand what speaking in tongues is nor do they believe in it. Others believe in it, but sometimes do not speak in tongues at churches without a great deal of confusion. With this in mind we are going to do a short study of speaking in tongues purely from New Testament scriptures. First of all biblically the Greek word for “tongues” here in 14:2 is the Greek word “gloossa.” From the Thayer’s Greek to English lexicon it means literally the tongue as a member of our physical body, which is the organ of speech. Tongues (gloossa) can also represent a language used by a particular people in distinction from that of other nations. To see this let’s look at scriptures, which use this Greek word.
Mark 7:32-35
32 Then they brought to Him (Jesus) one who was deaf and had an impediment in his speech, and they begged Him to put His hand on him. 33 And He (Jesus) took him aside from the multitude, and put His fingers in his ears, and He (Jesus) spat and touched his tongue (gloossa). 34 Then, looking up to heaven, He sighed, and said to him, "Ephphatha," that is, "Be opened." 35 Immediately his ears were opened, and the impediment of his tongue (gloossa) was loosed, and he spoke plainly.
Scriptures taken from the New Kings James Version. Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Above we see clearly the usage of the word tongue (gloossa) as a body part used for speech. Next we will look at usages of tongues (gloossa) used for speech as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2:3-4
3 And there appeared unto them cloven (diamerizoo) tongues (gloossa) like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues (gloossa), as the Spirit gave them utterance.
King James Version
Holy Ghost above from the King James Version is the same as Hoy Spirit in other versions. In Acts 2 we have for the first time the Holy Spirit, which Jesus promised to give to his followers. Here we see the Holy Spirit coming to Jesus’s twelve disciples looking like divided tongues of fire and sitting on each of them. The Greek word used for “cloven” is “diamerizoo.” “Diamerizoo” is normally translated divided and means to divide or cut in pieces. With this they were each filled with the Holy Spirit and the first thing they then did was speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance or as the Spirit enabled them. This was prophesied during Jesus’ earthly ministry for example, Matthew 3:11 quotes John the baptist, “He (Jesus) will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”
It is interesting that at this time we had a festival known as Pentecost or the feast of harvest. According to Acts 2:5, we had Jews in Jerusalem at this festival from every nation with multiple languages spoken and understood. What was noticed by these people from other nations was that there were 12 Galileans speaking, which was to them foreign languages, many of which they could not have known. People from Galilee were not known for their linguistic ability or knowledge. Some of these listed nations with languages are as follows:
Acts 2:8-11
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues (gloossa) the wonderful works of God.”
King James Version
Next, we see that tongues is also words that “magnify God.”
Acts 10:45-46
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues (gloossa), and magnify God…
King James Version
Here we see for the first time Gentiles also receiving the gift of Holy Spirit. And like the twelve original disciples, who were also Jesus’ apostles, the first thing the Gentiles did after receiving the Holy Spirit was speak in tongues and with this magnify God. Magnifying God is esteeming highly or declaring that God is great
To summarize from the scriptures we have covered including 1 Corinthians 13:1, from a previous chapter and now 1 Corinthians 14:2 we see that speaking in tongues is the following:
A. From Mark 7:33-35, the physical human tongue as used for speech.
B. From Acts 2:4, speaking inspired words from the Holy Spirit.
C. From Acts 2:11, speaking the wonderful works of God.
D. From Acts 10:46, speaking words that magnify God or declare that God is great.
E. From 1 Corinthians 13:1, which also uses the word “gloossa,” speaking a language either of men or angels,
F. From 1 Corinthians 14:2, speaking mysteries or divine secrets directly to God and not man.
As we saw in Acts 2, sometimes people can understand what is being spoken in tongues, but this is rare and could be considered miraculous. Speaking in tongues is speaking to God a hidden or secret thing as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
We're agreeing with Paul.
We'd also like to find real examples of what Paul spoke about-
if any currently exist.
We're not arguing with Paul, we're agreeing with him-
and claiming the modern practice has been LABELLED the same
thing but is not.
I myself was hoping for some evidence to the contrary, but none
has appeared that can actually sway me logically.
(Would be nice, though.)
But if you disagree, hey, cool. Jesus will settle all differences
at the appointed time.
Unless the Scriptures actually show that what Paul did is NOTHING like the modern practice
we were all indoctrinated into in twi.
Then those who still do it are sincerely mistaken and MEAN to pray and praise to God,
but are doing something other than Biblical SIT at the time.
Feel free to do a slow, good job and not feel rushed. We all have things to do.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mark, I'm grateful for the right to disagree on this. I'm just going to leave it at that and bid you goodnight. Peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Oh my two friends WordWolf and Raf can be intelligent and also funny. One of the things Paul did was teach and teach a lot. Here is more of my commentary on what Paul taught. And yes, he does also mention some other things that he did in his chapter on 1 Corinthians 14. We should all have open minds or at least consider what is written.
1 Corinthians 14:3-5
3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.
Scriptures taken from the New Kings James Version. Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Here we see plainly the difference between speaking words of prophecy and speaking in tongues. Both are a manifestation or evidence of the Spirit of God given to followers of Jesus Christ (see 1 Corinthians 12:7-11). Words of prophecy are preferred in a church gathering because they are words spoken in the language of those people present. In contrast, speaking in tongues is not a preferred manifestation when spoken aloud in a church gathering unless the person that speaks in tongues interprets in the language of the people present the words that he has just spoken in tongues. This is referred to in 1 Corinthians 12:10 as the interpretation of tongues. Both are the work of the one and same Spirit of God, which has been given to individual followers of Jesus Christ. Remember Acts 2 and the vision of cloven tongues like as of fire, which came as a mass and then separated right before resting on individual disciples of Jesus Christ. This was a vision of the one Spirit, Ephesians 4:4. Just as we have one body with all followers of Jesus Christ a member, we have one Spirit, with all followers of Jesus Christ getting a portion, also called the gift of “Holy Spirit.”
Both prophecy and tongues are for edification. Speaking in tongues is for individual edification, which should be primarily spoken quietly to oneself and not spoken aloud unless the speaker offers words of interpretation. Later we will see that speaking in tongues is a form of prayer and is specifically called in 1 Corinthians 14:14-15, praying in the spirit. Paul wants everyone to speak in tongues in this manor according to verse 5. In contrast, in a church gathering, prophecy is of greater importance and should be done because it brings edification, exhortation and comfort to the people present. These are three related words as stated in verse 3. Stated in a similar way prophecy brings to the church a building up along with encouragement and comfort.
1 Corinthians 14:6-11
6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues (gloossa), what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching? 7 Even things without life, whether flute or harp, when they make a sound, unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played? 8 For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare himself for battle? 9 So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue (gloossa) words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. 11 Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me.
Scriptures taken from the New Kings James Version. Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Speaking in tongues is an important manifestation for followers of Jesus Christ. Personally, I have used it as spiritual prayer for a number of years now. I have also instructed others in this spiritual prayer and then led them also into speaking in tongues. See an example of this in Acts 19:6. However, as the previous section of scripture clearly states, if we speak in tongues out loud, words that no one understands, how will it benefit the listener? The answer is obvious. Unless we speak words that are understood, one can or would merely sound like a foreigner. If we speak in tongues out loud without the addition of words in our common language, for example revelation, prophesying or teaching, how shall it assist or be useful or advantageous to the listener? The answer is, it will not. It will only edify the speaker. How is that being of service to our fellow brothers and sister in Christ? Isn’t that why we as followers of Jesus Christ meet and get together, to serve and help one another?
1 Corinthians 14:12-14
12 Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts (The word gifts was added. A better translation would be spiritual matters or things.), let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel. 13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.
Scriptures taken from the New Kings James Version. Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Stated again, if we are zealous for spiritual matters or things, let’s focus that zeal on serving our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. And when it comes to speaking words in a church service let’s speak words to edify or build up the church. Therefore, anyone who speaks in a tongue in a regular church service should first pray that he may interpret. Then and only then should we speak in tongues and then we should follow this with the interpretation, in the language of the people present. We are able to speak in tongues and then immediately follow this with the interpretation of the tongue that we just spoke, through faith in God and prayer. Yes, prayer needs to be mixed with faith in God. So again, before we speak in tongues out loud in front of everyone at a church gathering. Let’s first pray and have faith that we will interpret the divine secrets and wonderful works of God. Speaking in tongues is spiritual prayer and I do it and I like it, but in a church gathering let’s primarily speak fruitful words with our understanding.
1 Corinthians 14:15-16
15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.
New International Version
Here the scriptures ask a fundamental question based on all the previous truthful and practical knowledge. “What shall I do?” The answer is to both pray in the spirit, which is speaking in tongues, and pray with our understanding. And when we speak in tongues, if we want, we can also do it to the tune of our favorite musician, musical group or melody. And of course, in a church service we can all sing one of our favorite hymnals together. Three of my all time favorites are “I’ve Found a Friend in Jesus, He’s Everything To Me”, “What a Friend We Have in Jesus” and “How great thou art.”
1 Corinthians 14:16-17
16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how can any one in the position of an outsider say the "Amen" to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you may give thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified.
Revised Standard Version
Another obvious question with a simple answer. We may be giving thanks spiritually through speaking in tongues, but if no one listening to us knows what we are saying, then no one, but the speaker is edified. If that is the case we may as well just stay home and pray in our closet with the door shut (see Matthew 6:6). Therefore as this section of scripture has said and implied a number of times. If we speak in tongues we should primarily do it silently to God in prayer and praise.
1 Corinthians 14:18-19
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
King James Version
A great summary written by Paul. Paul thanks God that he speaks in tongues, at this time, perhaps more than all the people of the church in Corinth. Nevertheless, in church Paul would rather speak out loud five words that will teach and edify others than ten thousand words in a tongue (gloossa) that is not known by the people that are present and listening to him.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I pray in the Spirit, but I don't speak in tongues. My experience differs, as do many Christians who know what it is to pray in the Spirit and worship God in Spirit and in truth.....they even write songs about it. :)
There is a huge difference between that time I thought I was SIT and now praying in the Spirit.....it is not even comparable. One is in God's familiar and holy presence where words are impossible, worship is not though....it is compelled.
In my experience they are not the same thing....worship and praise come from the heart. Since experience seems to be relevant to what people believe....I just thought to add mine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm going to say two quick things and leave it at that for doctrinal.
First, I am not joking, and it strikes me as a little patronizing to suggest that I am.
Second, I also find it patronizing, sorry, to be barraged with a ton of scriptural references with practically no difference in exposition from what we were taught in TWI, presented as though somehow, this is the first time I'm seeing this stuff.
I don't think you're coming off this way on purpose. I respect that you're genuinely surprised to hear this kind of thing coming from me. I'm just sharing my feelings on how it comes off to me. Reasonable minds may differ.
It's not the Bible or Paul I am questioning. It is a practice, a modern practice that fails to yield what i believe are Biblically predicted results. The Bible is the sole arbiter of what Biblically predicted results are. I laid out my case using nothing but scripture. With respect, I believe the response to my case about Biblically predicted results uses nothing but conjecture. A fervent defense of Biblical SIT does nothing to bolster claims of modern SIT, for it is the very equation of the modern practice as the Biblical that is in question.
I am as free to disagree with you as you are with me. You are perfectly entitled here to question and challenge my beliefs, as I am yours: respectfully. So question and challenge away. But don't patronize me.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
It is possible we are simply reading the Apostles words and intent incorrectly. . . . I once read that I could possibly be speaking the language of angels....until I read it in context and considered Paul's use of hyperbole and the wider context concerning the language of angels.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I agree. The King James is a little confusing because it uses "Though" in the first word of that sentence. Other translations make the conditional nature of what Paul is saying much more clear, just by translating "though" as "if."
When I read that sentence, my takeaway is: "I don't care what language you speak when you speak in tongues -- if you don't have love, it doesn't really matter."
The idea of "tongues of angels" is entirely speculative, since it is not defined in the Bible and only presented as a hypothetical in I Cor. 13:1. We cannot assume that spirit beings require a system of communication that is literally like human communication. When God talks to Gabriel and Michael, does He use words? Does my brain use words when it communicates with my hands to type on this keyboard? Fact of the matter is, we have no idea how angels communicate, and this verse does not answer that question.
Jesus says a little bit of faith can cause you to tell a mountain to jump into the sea and have the mountain obey. No one, including Jesus, ever tested that, and we know why: it is not a literal truth. It's a hyperbole. The reality behind what's said here is that faith (in God) is powerful. I believe tongues of angels falls into that category. It doesn't seem to me to be presented as a literal possibility, but as a highly exaggerated expression of what SIT does produce. There is PLENTY of Biblical evidence (all documented in my prior post) to support that "tongues of men" is literal in that same verse.
Just my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Suffice it to say that the extent that languages have mathematical structures that can be charted and verified is debatable and questionable. The most we have seen on any published research to date is the practice of consonant mapping (taking the consonant letters of a language and trying to map sounds of an unknown segment of speech against it), and Hockett's 16 rules of language (what consists of a language).
Language is like a code. If you understand the code and can speak it, it makes sense. If you do not, it does not make sense. One example of this is the movie "Wind Talkers". That movie is very interesting with respect to the topic on this thread and other similar ones.
In that movie, WWII enemy code crackers were breaking the codes normally used in communications in the Army, and obtaining an advantage. So a code was constructed out of Navajo soldier's native language, and a figurative representation of certain words being code within the native language for troop configurations and movement. The code was not broken throughout the duration of the war. The men involved were honored as heros, and a movie was made out of it.
To me this represents how easy it is to encode a message within a language and have it be undetected.
Your understanding expressed in this paragraph to me just shows how effective one side of the argument has been here in convincing others to blindly accept the opinion of researchers without questioning their methods.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Even further along these lines, the phrase "speaking in tongues" to me IMMEDIATELY signifies a figure of speech? Why? The phrase itself is a departure from normal usage. It is redundant. Simply using the word "speaking" (in either Greek or English, or Aramaiac - same in any language) IMMEDIATELY connotates the use of a language.
The English common translation of that phrase uses the organ as what is defined. It COULD have been translated "speaking in languages". Do you see how redundant that sounds in English?
I say from what I've noticed there is a FOS called metonymy in that phrase (metonymy is the Greek word for "change"). This figure is a changing or swapping out of words. In this case I can notice a metonymy. In other words, the word "tongues" is expressed for what it produces - "language".
This calls attention to even deeper meaning possibilities. Like for example, you use your tongue literally, then God changes it to produce the language on the back end. To me the figure makes it clearer what is going on.
This is an aspect of language we haven't dealt with yet. I'm thinking in English typing this. Yet not using any vocal sounds whatsoever to communicate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Since we're talking about spoken language, the notion of written language is separate. "Glossographia" would be much easier to analyze than glossolalia, for reasons that should be obvious.
I think the Bible is clear about what speaking in tongues is, and what it produces, from its first usage on, and the modifier "in tongues" is added to differentiate between that and the normal speech of the speaker. In my long post, I think I sometimes used the word "metaphorically" when a better word would have been "firguratively," which is what I meant. I apologize if that caused any confusion, but I think you caught on: "metaphorically" and "by metonymy" cannot mean the same thing. "Figuratively" and "by metonymy" can, and the latter is what I intended to convey. I'm not concerned particularly with WHAT the figure of speech is; just that a figure of speech is being employed. Your posts suggest you understood that, but I feel obliged to clarify anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Anyone that does not apply something will have a limitation on their knowledge. That is what looks like has occured here amoung some of the posters. In contrast, I have applied the manifestation of the spirit a number of times. I have even prayed for people with some healings resulting. One time I even prayed for a person, that did not believe in Jesus Christ, that had a knee injury as I recall and then the next day he told everyone that he got healed. He was one of my teammates on my college soccer team at Chico State University. Also recently I was at a meeting with a number of Christians and I followed what is written in 1 Corinthians 14 and then spoke in tongues with interpretation, which to me can now be prayer and praise to God. Before in the Way ministry it could not be prayer and praise to God. It had to be only a forthtelling and similar in message as prophecy, which I do not agree with now.
To imply or say that my commentary is based solely on a class that I took 40 years ago is only used to ignore what I have written and is nothing more than biased speculation. Relating me to a class (PFAL) that now has a bad reputation is false. In reality I was one of the main people that saw the errors in Way ministry doctrine and even was able to pinpoint the primary doctrinal error which was the use of the Way Tree political hierarchy. I did this through my article called "the Lordship of Jesus Christ, Contrasting the Lordship of Imperfect Man", which I wrote in the mid 1980s.
My commentary on 1 Corinthians 14, which will go on the Internet is based on detailed study in the last few years using my biblical software, PC Study Bible. Here is a link to the software that I use BibleSoft
Anyone with sense and logic realizes that if someone does not want to apply something or at least does not want to try to apply something, their knowledge will be limited. That is what I see here. I also clearly see a bias against the many hours of study that I have done on this subject. Fine then. If you want to be bias against one teacher, then try to learn from another teacher or other teachers. Here is a study from the Nelson Bible Dictionary on this subject. The Nelson Bible Dictionary, which is part of the PC Study Bible package is an EXCELLENT source of biblical knowledge covering a large amount of biblical subjects. If I was editing this, the only edit I would make is to refer to tongues as a manifestation. However, tongues could also be referred to as a gift because gift is merely a descriptive word just like every other word. And certainly ones ability to speak in tongues is a gift from God.
Here is biblical and factual knowledge from the Nelson Bible Dictionary.
TONGUES, GIFT OF
The Spirit-given ability to speak in languages not known to the speaker or in an ecstatic language that could not normally be understood by the speaker or the hearers.
Apparently the only possibly direct reference in the Old Testament to speaking in another tongue or language is found in Isa 28:11 "For with stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to this people." This seems to be a reference to an invasion of the Assyrians. They apparently would speak in another language, one probably unknown to the people of Israel. The apostle Paul later applied this verse to speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:21). The apostle Peter considered the phenomenon of speaking in tongues that occurred on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (Joel 2:28-32).
In an appearance to His disciples after His resurrection, Jesus declared, "And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues" (Mark 16:17).
On the Day of Pentecost, the followers of Christ "were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4). The people assembled in Jerusalem for this feast came from various Roman provinces representing a variety of languages. They were astonished to hear the disciples speaking of God's works in their own languages. Some have suggested that the miracle was in the hearing rather than in the speaking. This explanation, however, would transfer the miraculous from the believing disciples to the multitude who may not have been believers.
Tongues as a gift of the Spirit is especially prominent in 1 Cor 12 and 14. In 1 Cor 12 the phenomenon of tongues is listed with other gifts of the Spirit under the term gifts. As one of the several gifts given to believers as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, tongues is intended, with the other gifts, to be exercised for the building up of the church and the mutual profit of its members. In 1 Cor 13 the apostle Paul puts the gift of tongues in perspective by affirming that though we "speak with the tongues of men and of angels" (v. 1), if we do not have love, the gift of tongues has no value.
In 1 Cor 14 Paul deals more specifically with the gift of tongues and its exercise in the church. In this chapter the tongue is not an intelligible language, for it cannot be understood by the listeners. Therefore, a parallel to the gift of tongues is the gift of interpretation. The gift of tongues was used as a means of worship, thanksgiving, and prayer. While exercising this gift, the individual addresses God not man; and the result is to edify himself and not the church (1 Cor 14:2,4). This gift is never intended for self-exaltation but for the praise and glorification of God. Paul does not prohibit speaking in tongues in a public service (14:39). But he seems to assign it to a lesser place than the gift of prophecy. Paul claims for himself the gift of tongues-speaking, but apparently he exercised this gift in private and not in public (14:18-19).
The gift of tongues is to be exercised with restraint and in an orderly way. The regulations for its public use are simple and straightforward. The person who speaks in an unknown tongue is to pray that he may interpret (1 Cor 14:13). Or, someone else is to interpret what he says. Only two or three persons are to speak, with each having an interpretation of what he says. Each is also to speak in turn. If these criteria are not met, they are to remain silent (1 Cor 14:27-28). The gifts of speaking in tongues and their interpretation are to be Spirit inspired. Paul also points out that tongues are a sign to unbelievers. If these guidelines are not observed, unbelievers who are present will conclude that the people of the church are out of their minds.
The phenomenon of speaking in tongues described in the New Testament is not some psychological arousal of human emotions that results in strange sounds. This is a genuine work of the Holy Spirit.
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright ©1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Suffice it to say that the extent that languages have mathematical structures that can be charted and verified is debatable and questionable."
Seriously? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? The only one "debating and questioning" that is you. Languages have structure. Period. That has nothing to do with the Bible. It's just a matter of fact.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
~removed~
Edited by Modgellandisparaging characterization
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Again, I wrote my commentary. I spent hours writing it. The Nelson Bible Dictionary people wrote their commentary. They are excellent teachers and have spent hours I am sure researching the bible.
Why don't you read this, which I originally wrote in the mid 1980s,
http://www.christian...ist-page-1.html
Edited by Modgellandisparaging characterization
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I think the literary world uses "metaphorically" in a broader sense than Bullinger does, basically meaning what you say - a synonym for "figuratively". I took your use of the word "metaphorically" to be in the literary sense. There could be more than one figure of speech applicable to that phrase.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
In other news....
Mark, I like you and I respect you.
So, please take this at face value.
We've been having a discussion about this. It's been contentious.
I'd like to think your side is correct, but all the evidence supports the other side-
that what we're seeing now is NOT what they saw THEN.
We've also started from what we all already knew.
So, I'm sure you can see that if you come at this SOUNDING like twi teachings,
covering the same ground as twi teachings,
then nothing new is brought to the table.
You've done your own studies-there's no need to rehash what we all heard in twi
and have already DISMISSED.
The only results are frustration that we're recovering the same ground again
or that someone SOUNDS like twi, which is annoying on its own.
Also, if you're trying to convince us Paul SIT'd, you're wasting your time.
None of us ever questioned that.
We're saying that what Paul did-and they did and experienced- is not what we
did and experienced.
So, posting about that frustrates people who already agreed with that but
feel like you're not listening to what they had to say.
We'd LIKE a dialogue here. So far, we're not really getting a dialogue
with the affirmative posters.
A few other things should be obvious, but I'll spell them out.
1) We're serious and suggesting otherwise won't add something good to the discussion.
2) Flat claims by ANYONE that "they're the same" won't move us- not the Pope, not
BG Leonard, not George Mueller, not vpw, and not any poster.
So, saying "Organization X and Book Y are quite certain they're the same"
won't sway any opinions.
That's why I say, take your time, and bring your "A-Game" to the table.
Let's see what you have that shows-from Scripture- that SIT there is the same
thing as SIT in a modern twi-style meeting in a living room.
If it REALLY can make a stronger case that it is, I'm open to changing my mind
again. Being surprised won't change that.
Edited by Modgellanresponse to disparaging comment
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
And this is one of the primary reasons it's been contentious. There are a number of studies we've read, and most of the authors are of the opinion that people are making up tongues. However, they don't really provide evidence. The most accomplished linguist of the lot presented some studies where he mapped consonants in a language to a glossa sample (we never saw detail on where those were obtained or who they involved for the most part). The evidence pointed to an inconclusive result. However, even that author drew a conclusion that there were no languages involved.
So you have the negative side making absolute statements like this that something has been proven, or all the evidence supports another side. And that's absolutely a falsehood. That's the root of the contention.
An accurate statement from the evidence seen to date would be that all the evidence is inconclusive trying to prove that SIT produces a language.
This also is a problem handling this subject honestly. So many people have had negative and traumatic experiences in TWI that ANYTHING that could be perceived as TWI doctrine is very negative to them.
Well, I would say that if the negative side of this argument can't come up with some patience to cover doctrine and studies that could run parallel or have similar points to a TWI teaching, then they should just zip it and suffer in silence. After all, the positive side of this argument has had to endure about 70+ pages of opinion stated as fact, just like the first paragraph of your post here.
And people who want to be Christians in a modern world want to pattern their lives after scripture. So for naysayers to present that something changed magically to make that not available any longer, yet have no logical explanation of what that might be (other than one poster made a one-line comment saying check into cessationist theory) - that is just disingenuous. If you've heard the common description "dog in a manger", that is basically what they are doing with no logical basis to back them up.
No, they are not getting the dialogue they want with the affirmative posters. Meaning having all their opinion received as fact unchallenged.
I say post up your research and studies regardless of where they are positioned w/r to TWI. If knuckleheads want to hate on it, let them.
I seriously doubt that. Anyone that could write the first paragraph of that post has their mind made up by the incessant rhetoric of opinion and will not let any fact get in their way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ok, I'm sorry, but as many times as this has been asserted by you and corrected, you are still making the same refuted allegation. So let me remind everyone that I never said "this has been proven." I said this has been demonstrated. I said that the evidence all leans in one direction. I stated my opinion as fact (it's called making an assertion, and everyone, including you, has done that in this conversation and others). I have never said this was proven. So I would appreciate it, deeply, if you would stop saying that I have. I have not. You listed a whole bunch of places where you claim I made that statement, but not one of the citations you listed has me saying this was proven. So please, I urge you, stop repeating the refuted and false statement that I have. I have not. Stop it. Please.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
This is Doctrinal, where "a ton of scriptural references" actually BELONGS.
Someone presenting an exegesis of I Cor. 14 that they have previously worked up certainly applies, and for you to discourage it by calling it "patronizing" and "barraging" is against the purpose of this subforum and the general guidelines of this site.
I don't want to see this kind of post on this thread again. I would prefer to see that post removed, and anywhere I've quoted it I will remove the entire post and rebuttal also.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.