Glossolalia (speaking in tongues) and a theory on what really happened at Pentecost?

[ARBITER01]

Read Acts 2:22 to the end. That testifies exactly what Peter explained to the Jews.

22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth,.........

That's Peter preaching as he was filled with The Spirit and anointed as an Apostle. The tongues messages in acts did not make any mention of Jesus, so no gospel by them.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I'm not interested in taking your bait with your personal idea.

You're the one who said the Jews are under judgement. And as is declared "tongues are a sign to unbelievers".

 

[ARBITER01]

You're the one who said the Jews are under judgement. And as is declared "tongues are a sign to unbelievers".

No scripture says that,...

1Th 2:14 For ye, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judaea in Christ Jesus: for ye also suffered the same things of your own countrymen, even as they did of the Jews;
1Th 2:15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drave out us, and please not God, and are contrary to all men;
1Th 2:16 forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved; to fill up their sins alway: but the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

 

[The Righterzpen]

That's Peter preaching as he was filled with The Spirit and anointed as an Apostle. The tongues messages in acts did not make any mention of Jesus, so no gospel by them.

Acts doesn't say the tongues were NOT a declaration of the gospel. So what would be the point of public speaking in tongues anyway? What would they be declaring? It's clear in the passage that all the foreigners heard comprehensible language. (Which doesn't fit with your doctrine either.)

So what is there to declare to men other than the death, burial and resurrection of Christ?

 

[The Righterzpen]

No scripture says that,...

1Th 2:14 For ye, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judaea in Christ Jesus: for ye also suffered the same things of your own countrymen, even as they did of the Jews;
1Th 2:15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drave out us, and please not God, and are contrary to all men;
1Th 2:16 forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved; to fill up their sins alway: but the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

Yes, and all the disobedient descendants of Jacob (who were still around by the 1st century = which basically was the tribes of Judah and Benjamin with a few others scattered in). Who were all destroyed by the beginning of the 2nd century in the Roman Jewish wars. Most adherents to modern Judaism aren't even Semitic.

And this is why tongues ceased. Because those the sign was intended to all went extinct from humanity.

 

[ARBITER01]

Acts doesn't say the tongues were NOT a declaration of the gospel. So what would be the point of public speaking in tongues anyway? What would they be declaring? It's clear in the passage that all the foreigners heard comprehensible language. (Which doesn't fit with your doctrine with your doctrine either.)

So what is there to declare to men other than the death, burial and resurrection of Christ?

Wait a minute, let's see if what was documented as said to the various people over in acts had any sort of evangelization to it,....

Act 2:9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in Judaea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia,
Act 2:10 in Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes,
Act 2:11 Cretans and Arabians, we do hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God.

Tongues messages with interpretation describing "the might works of GOD" is not related to the gospel message. I know it would be nice to instantly go abroad and be evangelizing with the gift of tongues, but scripture does not describe any usage of the gift that way. It's either between you and GOD in prayer or in the corporate assembly speaking by The Holy Spirit.

 

[ARBITER01]

Acts doesn't say the tongues were NOT a declaration of the gospel. So what would be the point of public speaking in tongues anyway? What would they be declaring? It's clear in the passage that all the foreigners heard comprehensible language. (Which doesn't fit with your doctrine with your doctrine either.)

Acts 2 was where the new church, the body of Christ began.

This was the first assembly of believers after The Holy Spirit was poured out. What does the text say?.......

Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

They were not praying in tongues, they were speaking in tongues by The Holy Spirit, hence a corporate meeting, the very first one in fact. That utterance by The Holy Spirit required an interpretation by Him also, hence why the people heard human languages in different dialects, the gift of interpretation was providing those different dialects after each tongues message.

 

[ARBITER01]

I'm gonna have to go. We've spent most of the day on here, and I have to do other things yet today. Laters.

 

[The Righterzpen]

The gift of tongues has two specific operations in scripture,.... Praying and Corporate Speaking

And we've already covered public declaration. (Check.)

Wait a minute, let's see if what was documented as said to the various people over in acts had any sort of evangelization to it,....

Act 2:9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in Judaea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia,
Act 2:10 in Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes,
Act 2:11 Cretans and Arabians, we do hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God.

Tongues messages with interpretation describing "the might works of GOD" is not related to the gospel message. I know it would be nice to instantly go abroad and be evangelizing with the gift of tongues, but scripture does not describe any usage of the gift that way. It's either between you and GOD in prayer or in the corporate assembly speaking by The Holy Spirit.

How are the mighty works of God severed from the gospel? What more important thing has happened in history than the death burial and resurrection of Christ? Redemption is not predicated upon the ability to speak in tongues.

The praying portion of it is by our human spirit, as I posted before,...

1Co 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

It's a personal prayer tongue that is between GOD and the believer.

The Corporate speaking portion of it is by The Holy Spirit,..

1Co 14:4 He that speaketh in a tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

As I already said, a tongues message by The Holy Spirit with the following interpretation by The Holy Spirit is equal to prophesying.

There is no mention of using the gift of tongues, the gift of prophesying, or any of the gifts for evangelizing,.... that would be the job of "offices" such as Evangelist, or Pastor, etc.

You're conveniently ignoring the context of which 1 Corinthians 14:14 is written in.

What does verse 13 say?
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

Why is the speaker being told to pray that he may interpret?

The answer is in verse 14. For is there is no-one to receive the message; he's not edifying anyone. Their understanding is unfruitful because they can't even interpret the message they are receiving.

And what is the purpose to be able to interpret?

15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

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.

20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

Which is exactly what's happening in your AOG churches. There's absolute chaos; of exactly the opposite of what Paul has instructed. Now why has he instructed this? The answer is in these verses! They were misusing the gift. (There were no Jews present to receive the instruction of how Christ was the fulfillment of the OT.)

Thus if they spoke in language understood by all; than all are edified of prophesying.

Which.... I just had another idea!
If the tongues really were a Jewish "religious instruction language"; than obviously it would make sense that gentiles would not understand them! Which would give an additional context to the "unlearned" or "unbelievers". For the "learned" gentile would understand this phenomena was a sign to the Jews!

God that's brilliant; of which we being 2000 years removed from the historical context of what was really going on; could be duped by the "lying signs and wonders" (2 Thessalonians 2:9) that we have been warned of would come commencing from the dawn of the last days to the end end. Obviously these lying signs and wonders were even present then.

And thus why this kind of "strong delusion" has taken over the church in the past 150 years. Just as the OT came to a close and there was a lot of deception. Same with the end of what's often referred to as "the church age".

Wild!

 

[The Righterzpen]

Acts 2 was where the new church, the body of Christ began.

This was the first assembly of believers after The Holy Spirit was poured out. What does the text say?.......

Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

They were not praying in tongues, they were speaking in tongues by The Holy Spirit, hence a corporate meeting, the very first one in fact. That utterance by The Holy Spirit required an interpretation by Him also, hence why the people heard human languages in different dialects, the gift of interpretation was providing those different dialects after each tongues message.

Yes, "as the Spirit gave utterance" which is echoed in 1 Corinthians 14 that there needs to be in interpreter!

Which my hypotheses about "Jewish religious instruction language"; makes sense in this verse too:

16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

If a Jew is giving thanks in a Jewish "religious instructional language" that a gentile doesn't understand because they are "unlearned"; the Jew would than be commanded to communicate in a language everyone understands. (Or a gentile speaking a language the Jew would understand; thus the Jew would be obligated by proper discourse to lend the interpretation into the public language of the church!

Which...... were there even people than making up nonsense language to convey their "spiritual superiority" over people who did not speak in tongues? Just as is seen in the pentecostal movement today. "You're not saved if you don't speak in tongues!" (Though I know that not every Pentecostal believes that.)

Which would give additional context to Paul's statement: "I speak with tongues more than all of you." He could (and apparently did) speak to foreign adherents to Judaism who spoke languages he didn't know. He would be able to speak his "religious instructional language" he'd learned in synagogue. He'd be able to speak to gentile believers who's language he did not know. Which would not have seemed outrageous to the foreigner; particularly if they could explain to Paul in a 3rd language that they both understood. During his life, Paul would have (in the least)learned Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin and Arabic; as well as what ever "religious instruction language" he may have been raised on.

So yes, someone would only "pray in a tongue" if there was no recipient of the sign gift present to receive it.

Which raises another interesting question! Why would the Holy Spirit "give utterance" to be received by one whom the sign was intended for; if none of that definition were present? That wouldn't make sense either. Thus it's likely true that there were false tongues going on in the Corinthian church; just as there are false sign gifts today. (Lying signs and wonders.)

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I am a small student of greek. I was curious about what you say above. You might need to explain more. I looked up the passage in Matthew 2:1, Acts 2:8 and several other similar contexts. All the words went back to the same root of ginomai. I am not sure I am making any serious point here because languages do not have a word for word parallel and there is room for a domain of meanings. Both meanings you post above could be included as within the domain of the word ginomai, so I do not have any objection to your conclusions above, I merely do not understand the process by which you got there. Can you point to the specific text that does not have the root ginomai?


How would you read Acts 2:4 "and began to speak with other tongues?"


How would you read the 2nd part of Acts 2:6
"because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language."


I would definitely agree here and feel this is the major point of true biblical tongues that should be stressed. 1 Corinthians 14:22 is definitional. This specific statement defines what tongues was about.

Paul, in the preceeding verse quote a passage from Isaiah 28:11 as proof of his idea that tongues is a sign gift to unbelievers. The context of Isaiah 28:11 is the Assyrian invasion of Judah. I am open to discussion on the relationship between the two passages (1 Corinthians and ISaiah 28), but my opinion is that Paul is using Isaiah 28:11 to point to the fact that Israel, the nation, has come under the curses of Deuteronomy 28:15ff to Deuteronomy 28:46. This is a long story--and I am not going to write much on this, but notice what Moses says in Deuteronomy 28:46... "They shall be a sign and a wonder against you and your offspring forever." Isaiah takes up this theme in his discussion in Isaiah 28 in the context of the "Day of the Lord." (see Isaiah 28:5 "In that day the LORD of hosts ... also 27:1; 26:1; 25:9). In Isaiah 28, when the Israelites heard foreign languages, it was to be seen as a sign that Israel was under the curses of Deuteronomy 28.

So then, in the Apostolic Church, (1) tongues was for a sign of Israel's judgement, and it was (2) also related to the "day of the Lord." (However, he careful with the concept of the Day of the Lord because 2 Thessalonians 2:2 makes it clear that we are not yet in the "Day of the Lord." This gets into the "now and then" concept of Christian eschatology. That is another long issue I am not going to write on here and now. Therer is reason # (3) for tongues I will mention below.


Are you sure that the unbelievers could not understand the language being spoken? In Acts 2:11 the text says they heard them "in their own tongue." Then after hearing the words, they mocked.

Here is reason #3 for tongues.
The concept of signs and wonders again comes up in Acts 2:43. The signs are there limited to the apostles. Is it not fascenating that Luke mentions the concept of Apostolic signs in the narrative portion of Acts and Paul mentions signs in his explaination of tongues in 1 Corintians? Apostolic signs were necessary because the Apostles were the authoritative eyewitnesses that give to the church revelation (the NT). Just as OT prophets gave signs of their authority (all the way back to Moses), so also NT apostles and prophets gave signs. Paul says in 2 Cor 12:12 "The signs of a true apostle were performed amount you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles." So then, there is another purpose for signs, to validate a revelation. Of course, being to the reformed side, and believing in sola scriptura, I reject modern day apostles, and thus modern day revelation. So then, I also reject sign gifts related to apostleship (including tongues). I think there are reasons no books of been added to the scriptures for 1900 years. There are no more apostles, and no apostolic successors. The completed scriptures, the bible is enough. The need for signs ceased with the need for apostles and prophets. The need for apostles and prophets ended with the completion of the scriptures and the bibles completed authority.

What happened on the Day of Pentecost was an absolute miracle, to show tongues being a sign to the unbelievers present. There is no evidence that the same miracle was replicated on any other occasion.

Paul was quite clear that the tongues spoken in the Corinthian church were not to men because no one could understand them, but as direct communication with God, speaking mysteries in the Spirit. If anyone spoke in a public tongue in the church, there should be an interpreter present. The interpreter was not a translator of a known language. According to 1 Corinthians 12, interpretation of tongues is a spiritual gift operated by faith. Therefore, the speaking of tongues is inspired by the Holy Spirit for the occasion, and the interpretation of the tongue is also inspired by the Holy Spirit for that occasion.

In most cases, the language supplied by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is not usually an understandable language by anyone else but God Himself. Paul says, "Who knows the mind of the Spirit other than the Spirit Himself?" But there are times when a person is moved to speak out in tongues in a language which is understood by someone in the group. This is for a specific purpose and as a sign to that particular unbeliever that God is real and speaks to people. An example of this is when a European man spoke in tongues, and a Chinese Cantonese young women heard him say in Cantonese, "You need to go forward and receive Christ." The European man had no idea he was speaking Cantonese.

Because tongues is a spiritual gift and the person who prays in tongues is praying with the Spirit, it stays outside of human ability to explain what it actually is and how it works. Trying to use linguistics and other type of scientific research is a road to nowhere. It is the same as a scientist trying to explain how a person is actually born again of the Spirit of God, and became a totally new creation in Christ. It can't be done.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

And we've already covered public declaration. (Check.)


How are the mighty works of God severed from the gospel? What more important thing has happened in history than the death burial and resurrection of Christ? Redemption is not predicated upon the ability to speak in tongues.

You're conveniently ignoring the context of which 1 Corinthians 14:14 is written in.

What does verse 13 say?
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

Why is the speaker being told to pray that he may interpret?

The answer is in verse 14. For is there is no-one to receive the message; he's not edifying anyone. Their understanding is unfruitful because they can't even interpret the message they are receiving.

And what is the purpose to be able to interpret?

15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

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.

20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

Which is exactly what's happening in your AOG churches. There's absolute chaos; of exactly the opposite of what Paul has instructed. Now why has he instructed this? The answer is in these verses! They were misusing the gift. (There were no Jews present to receive the instruction of how Christ was the fulfillment of the OT.)

Thus if they spoke in language understood by all; than all are edified of prophesying.

Which.... I just had another idea!
If the tongues really were a Jewish "religious instruction language"; than obviously it would make sense that gentiles would not understand them! Which would give an additional context to the "unlearned" or "unbelievers". For the "learned" gentile would understand this phenomena was a sign to the Jews!

God that's brilliant; of which we being 2000 years removed from the historical context of what was really going on; could be duped by the "lying signs and wonders" (2 Thessalonians 2:9) that we have been warned of would come commencing from the dawn of the last days to the end end. Obviously these lying signs and wonders were even present then.

And thus why this kind of "strong delusion" has taken over the church in the past 150 years. Just as the OT came to a close and there was a lot of deception. Same with the end of what's often referred to as "the church age".

Wild!

I asked the Lord whether my tongues language is genuine and understood by Him. He said, "What does 1 Corinthians 14:2 say?" I quoted it back to Him. Then I read near the end of the chapter where Paul made it clear that everything he was saying in that section were not his own opinion but were commands of the Lord. Therefore I am not to forbid tongues by command of the Lord, and outside of the church I am to speak to myself and to God, but in the church speak in tongues only if there is an interpreter present. Everyone is encouraged to speak in tongues also by command of the Lord, and so, the normal prayer life according to what the Lord is saying through Paul is that we can pray with our own understanding (English) and pray with the Spirit (tongues).

What is happening in AOG churches is irrelevant to me, because I put the Scriptural commands of the Lord in 1 Corinthians 14 before how tongues are practiced in that church. In fact, I am well out of range of all the confusion and malpractice of tongues and interpretation that is happening in many Charismatic situations, brought on by false teaching and prophets. I don't care about them at all. I just believe what 1 Corinthians 14 says about how I should use the gift of tongues, and that my faith in the genuineness of my prayer language is based squarely on 1 Corinthians 14:2. Faith comes by hearing the word of God, not observing and examining how different churches conduct themselves.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I asked the Lord whether my tongues language is genuine and understood by Him. He said, "What does 1 Corinthians 14:2 say?" I quoted it back to Him. Then I read near the end of the chapter where Paul made it clear that everything he was saying in that section were not his own opinion but were commands of the Lord. Therefore I am not to forbid tongues by command of the Lord, and outside of the church I am to speak to myself and to God, but in the church speak in tongues only if there is an interpreter present. Everyone is encouraged to speak in tongues also by command of the Lord, and so, the normal prayer life according to what the Lord is saying through Paul is that we can pray with our own understanding (English) and pray with the Spirit (tongues).

What is happening in AOG churches is irrelevant to me, because I put the Scriptural commands of the Lord in 1 Corinthians 14 before how tongues are practiced in that church. In fact, I am well out of range of all the confusion and malpractice of tongues and interpretation that is happening in many Charismatic situations, brought on by false teaching and prophets. I don't care about them at all. I just believe what 1 Corinthians 14 says about how I should use the gift of tongues, and that my faith in the genuineness of my prayer language is based squarely on 1 Corinthians 14:2. Faith comes by hearing the word of God, not observing and examining how different churches conduct themselves.

Tongues fulfilled a distinct purpose related to unbelieving Jews rejection of the Messiah. Once that era ended; (by the end of the 1st century) tongues ceased. They ceased because those who "required a sign" had been destroyed.

The consequence of the fulfillment of prophecy: (prophecy is about the completion of the atonement through the death, burial and resurrection of Christ) brought to a close the canon of Scripture.

 

[The Righterzpen]

What happened on the Day of Pentecost was an absolute miracle, to show tongues being a sign to the unbelievers present. There is no evidence that the same miracle was replicated on any other occasion.

Paul was quite clear that the tongues spoken in the Corinthian church were not to men because no one could understand them, but as direct communication with God, speaking mysteries in the Spirit. If anyone spoke in a public tongue in the church, there should be an interpreter present. The interpreter was not a translator of a known language. According to 1 Corinthians 12, interpretation of tongues is a spiritual gift operated by faith. Therefore, the speaking of tongues is inspired by the Holy Spirit for the occasion, and the interpretation of the tongue is also inspired by the Holy Spirit for that occasion.

In most cases, the language supplied by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is not usually an understandable language by anyone else but God Himself. Paul says, "Who knows the mind of the Spirit other than the Spirit Himself?" But there are times when a person is moved to speak out in tongues in a language which is understood by someone in the group. This is for a specific purpose and as a sign to that particular unbeliever that God is real and speaks to people. An example of this is when a European man spoke in tongues, and a Chinese Cantonese young women heard him say in Cantonese, "You need to go forward and receive Christ." The European man had no idea he was speaking Cantonese.

Because tongues is a spiritual gift and the person who prays in tongues is praying with the Spirit, it stays outside of human ability to explain what it actually is and how it works. Trying to use linguistics and other type of scientific research is a road to nowhere. It is the same as a scientist trying to explain how a person is actually born again of the Spirit of God, and became a totally new creation in Christ. It can't be done.

Your assertion here does not line up with the entirety of Scripture. When ever God, angels or prophets spoke; it was in a decipherable language to humans. Tongues was never a private prayer language. It was a sign to unbelieving Jews of their impending judgement for the rejection of the Messiah; who came through their genetic lines.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Tongues fulfilled a distinct purpose related to unbelieving Jews rejection of the Messiah. Once that era ended; (by the end of the 1st century) tongues ceased. They ceased because those who "required a sign" had been destroyed.

The consequence of the fulfillment of prophecy: (prophecy is about the completion of the atonement through the death, burial and resurrection of Christ) brought to a close the canon of Scripture.

I don't see any New Testament Scripture that says that, and if it ain't in the New Testament then it ain't true. 1 Corinthians 14:2 is still relevant to me because the Holy Spirit made it quite clear that it is and that I can safely base my praying in tongues on it. I find no other Scripture to contradict that.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I don't see any New Testament Scripture that says that, and if it ain't in the New Testament then it ain't true. 1 Corinthians 14:2 is still relevant to me because the Holy Spirit made it quite clear that it is and that I can safely base my praying in tongues on it. I find no other Scripture to contradict that.

1 Corinthians 1:22, 1 Corinthians 14:22

Moses said to God: This people won't believe me (that You sent me to deliver them from Egypt).
God gave Moses a sign to demonstrate to the people.

Hebrews 3:18 talks about how that generation who came out of Egypt perished in the wilderness because of their unbelief.

Same thing happened at the end of the 1st century. All the unbelieving Jews who were left were destroyed by the Roman army.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Your assertion here does not line up with the entirety of Scripture. When ever God, angels or prophets spoke; it was in a decipherable language to humans. Tongues was never a private prayer language. It was a sign to unbelieving Jews of their impending judgement for the rejection of the Messiah; who came through their genetic lines.

Paul contradicts you entirely. He says that if there is no interpreter, then the person should speak to himself and to God. That is clearly private prayer. And Paul says that he speaks in tongues more than them all, yet in the church, he would rather speak to edify others. It is quite clear that Paul spoke in tongues during his private prayer times. This is in complete harmony with 1 Corinthians 14:2

You need to get away from parroting what your cessationist mentors are dishing out to you, and read what Paul is actually saying. Come on now, if Paul is speaking in tongues away from the public church meeting, where do you think he is speaking? And, what is speaking to himself and to God other than personal prayer? Common sense, thou art a jewel!

 

[The Righterzpen]

Paul contradicts you entirely. He says that if there is no interpreter, then the person should speak to himself and to God. That is clearly private prayer. And Paul says that he speaks in tongues more than them all, yet in the church, he would rather speak to edify others. It is quite clear that Paul spoke in tongues during his private prayer times. This is in complete harmony with 1 Corinthians 14:2

You need to get away from parroting what your cessationist mentors are dishing out to you, and read what Paul is actually saying. Come on now, if Paul is speaking in tongues away from the public church meeting, where do you think he is speaking? And, what is speaking to himself and to God other than personal prayer? Common sense, thou art a jewel!

Correction: by default becomes between individual and God BECAUSE there is no interpreter. That is not a "private prayer language".

Do you need a "private prayer language" because you are an unbeliever? Seeing how tongues were given as a sign to unbelievers.

Are you aware of what forum you are in and what the rules are?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

1 Corinthians 1:22, 1 Corinthians 14:22

1 Corinthians 1:22 has nothing to do with praying in tongues. I am not a Jew therefore I don't demand that tongues be a sign. Your quote of 1 Corinthians 14:22 does not negate Paul's instructions for believers to pray in tongues to themselves and to God if there is no interpreter available. Even if tongues is a sign to unbelievers, that does not mean that believers shouldn't pray in tongues and to speak out in tongues in church and have the utterance interpreted by someone who has the gift. I think that you are using these verses in a misleading way if you are using them to say that believers are prohibited from praying and speaking in tongues. It also totally contradicts Paul when he instructs by command of the Lord, "Do not forbid speaking in tongues."

If you are teaching Christians not to speak in tongues because they have ceased, then you are giving false teaching not supported by Scripture, and by doing that you are effectively forbidding believers to speak in tongues against the express command of the Lord through Paul.

 

[The Righterzpen]

1 Corinthians 1:22 has nothing to do with praying in tongues. I am not a Jew therefore I don't demand that tongues be a sign. Your quote of 1 Corinthians 14:22 does not negate Paul's instructions for believers to pray in tongues to themselves and to God if there is no interpreter available. Even if tongues is a sign to unbelievers, that does not mean that believers shouldn't pray in tongues and to speak out in tongues in church and have the utterance interpreted by someone who has the gift. I think that you are using these verses in a misleading way if you are using them to say that believers are prohibited from praying and speaking in tongues. It also totally contradicts Paul when he instructs by command of the Lord, "Do not forbid speaking in tongues."

If you are teaching Christians not to speak in tongues because they have ceased, then you are giving false teaching not supported by Scripture, and by doing that you are effectively forbidding believers to speak in tongues against the express command of the Lord through Paul.

You are not "speaking in tongues" according to Biblical definition of the action. You are speaking senseless gibberish. Glossolalia is not a language. Tongues was a decipherable language; which was given to unbelieving Jews as a sign of judgement. Thus once the unbelieving Jews disappeared; so did miraculous speaking in tongues.