Tongues

[Sondog]

dude, i love to pray and sing in the Spirit. the Presence of God sometimes comes in delightful ways when i do. i have also found that praying in tongues is a powerful spiritual weapon as well - especially in intercession.

 

[Hermeneutico]

Tongues is a gift & not all have the gift of Tongues.
I have read that Many think you Have to Speak in tongues or they say you are not saved. This is a lie! You Do not have to speak in tongues to Be Saved.

1. Tongues is a gift. This is true. Just as faith is a gift.
2. However, tongues is also a manifestation of receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit. Faith is also a manifestation of a vital relationship with Christ.
3. So, both tongues and faith are used in more than one way.
4. I do not teach that salvation is evidenced by speaking in tongues. That is clearly unbalanced.

Respectfully

 

[Hermeneutico]

The point that I raised was that the question is not so much between Pentecostal and Charismatics as both have in most part agreed over the years. The question should be more with how both of these groups differ with post-charismatics (“Third” Wave movement).

When questions such as these arise, there is often a lot of confusion with the terms Pentecostal, neo-Pentecostals, Charismatic and neo-charismatic and “Third Wavers”. The WoF movement is essentially a subset of the Pentecostal movement though its distinctives should never be associated with classic-Pentecostal beliefs.

Pentecostal:
A denomination that has always held to a Full Gospel Theology (AoG).

Charismatic (during the 60/70's they were also called neo-Pentecostals)
Congregations that have adopted (or partially adopted) the Full Gospel while still maintaining their links with their denomination; ie, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian etc.

Neo-charismatics / “Third” wave movement:
This was popularised by John Wimber and the beliefs of this group differ from historical Charismatic teaching. Many congregations have been established along these lines and who have no connections with any historical denominations.

From my historical understanding, this is very accurate. I would just add that some would understand themselves in the second category, yet, do not believe that tongues is the exclusive manifestation of being baptized with the Holy Spirit (i.e. Calvary Chapel...)

 

[Biblicist]

From my historical understanding, this is very accurate. I would just add that some would understand themselves in the second category, yet, do not believe that tongues is the exclusive manifestation of being baptized with the Holy Spirit (i.e. Calvary Chapel...)

Admittedly many people today will probaby not even realise that the two terms Pentecostal and Charismatic have different meanings where they will simply use the words interchangably as they see fit. Many even seem to incorrectly presume that a neo-charismatic and a neo-Pentecostal are one and the same.

Of course I need to say that I am happy to be referred to as a pentecostal but not so much a Pentecostal and I can also be called a Charismatic but never a charismatic; I could also be called a neo-Pentecostal but never a neo-Charismatic but of course I am obviously repeating myself. - there...plain as mud!

 

[Rev Randy]

1. Tongues is a gift. This is true. Just as faith is a gift.
2. However, tongues is also a manifestation of receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit. Faith is also a manifestation of a vital relationship with Christ.
3. So, both tongues and faith are used in more than one way.
4. I do not teach that salvation is evidenced by speaking in tongues. That is clearly unbalanced.

Respectfully

Evidence yes but what brings you to the point of thinking it's the only evidence? Didn't Paul go on a bit further? Didn't he speak of an more excellent way? Spiritual gifts are given to those baptized in the Holy Spirit. Prophecy is superior following love. I speak,pray and sing in tongues but would never suppose someone isn't baptized in the Holy Spirit because they don't possess this gift. Speaking in tongues is indeed evidence but we must remember that even the devil speaks in the tongue of angels.

Paul wrote his first epistle to the Church in Corinth as he found this Church having grave problems and one of those problems was the misuse and over use of tongues. It's not that the gift was bad but the intoxication of it led some to put the gift above the love Christ instills in a Christian at salvation. Paul gave guidelines to keep the misuse in check and I rarely see this employed in our assemblies today. Seems we fear hurting someones feelings rather than to worship as a body of believers. If someone has a word from God, and there is not a gifted interpreter in the congregation the word is not delivered and therefore useless except to the speaker.
Speaking in tongues on Sunday then speaking like an angry drunken sailor on Monday doesn't seem like good evidence of anything. Tongues without love is simply noise. I agree with the writer I quoted that this gift is not evidence of salvation as that clearly goes directly against the Word of God. But I find those not gifted with tongues often find them selves as second class members in many a Pentecostal Church. I can clearly remember being held by two sister at the altar with one saying hold on and the other saying let go. They seemed to think I was missing something I needed desperately. Their prayers and howlings produced nothing as some years later I received the gift at home in prayer when I was at a loss about how to pray about a situation. The gift has nothing to do with some supposed holiness level. The gift has nothing to do with how close you are to God. It is a tool given of God for edification, prayer and worship and should be used with reverence, not as a "LOOK AT ME" tool.
As a pastor, I've found this gift to be the most used and most misunderstood gift of all. It's no wonder non Charismatics think we're faking and insane.Too often we draw tongues like a gun then agrue about those not gifted so.

 

[Yahu]

Since we are in the Charismatic, non-Word of Faith category, what are your thoughts about speaking in tongues?

I post this question here because it is my understanding that this is the issue that divides the charismatics from the WOF/AOG/Pentecostals.

What do you believe?

Don't worry about tongues. Desire the prophetic gift. Tongues is the least of the spiritual gifts.

 

[Hermeneutico]

Evidence yes but what brings you to the point of thinking it's the only evidence?

I never said ONLY evidence, but primary evidence.

Didn't Paul go on a bit further? Didn't he speak of an more excellent way?

Contextually, the more excellent way is dealing with the proper motives for using spiritual gifts - Love! 1 Corinthians 12:31 is introducing the "love chapter."

Spiritual gifts are given to those baptized in the Holy Spirit.

There is no Scripture that says this. In fact, all the gifts were given to the use of believers before the Day of Pentecost. Both in the Gospels and the Old Testament one may see this very clearly!

Prophecy is superior following love.

Actually, contextually, prophecy is superior to tongues ONLY when tongues are used without interpretation when spoken before believers in a congregational setting. Why? Because prophecy is designed to edify others whereas tongues without interpretation before the body only edifies the speaker.

I speak, pray and sing in tongues but would never suppose someone isn't baptized in the Holy Spirit because they don't possess this gift.

I would, and evidently so did the early church. Carefully read Acts 8, 10 and 19.

Speaking in tongues is indeed evidence but we must remember that even the devil speaks in the tongue of angels.

Everything that God does may be counterfeited, so this does not take away the truth expressed through the genuine!

Paul wrote his first epistle to the Church in Corinth as he found this Church having grave problems and one of those problems was the misuse and over use of tongues.

A careful reading of 1 Corinthians is not that they had problems with misusing tongues, except in procedure. There real problem was carnality. Paul expressly states this in the first few chapters!

It's not that the gift was bad but the intoxication of it led some to put the gift above the love Christ instills in a Christian at salvation.[/QUOTE

Speculation! No Scripture supports this!

Paul gave guidelines to keep the misuse in check and I rarely see this employed in our assemblies today. Seems we fear hurting someones feelings rather than to worship as a body of believers. If someone has a word from God, and there is not a gifted interpreter in the congregation the word is not delivered and therefore useless except to the speaker.

I would disagree with your analysis and interpretation on this matter.

Speaking in tongues on Sunday then speaking like an angry drunken sailor on Monday doesn't seem like good evidence of anything. Tongues without love is simply noise.

Hmmmm.... havn't experienced much of that... lol

I agree with the writer I quoted that this gift is not evidence of salvation as that clearly goes directly against the Word of God. But I find those not gifted with tongues often find them selves as second class members in many a Pentecostal Church.

Perhaps! However, it doesn't take away the truth that they need to receive the Gift of the Spirit with the Biblical evidence of speaking in tongues.

I can clearly remember being held by two sister at the altar with one saying hold on and the other saying let go. They seemed to think I was missing something I needed desperately. Their prayers and howlings produced nothing as some years later I received the gift at home in prayer when I was at a loss about how to pray about a situation. The gift has nothing to do with some supposed holiness level. The gift has nothing to do with how close you are to God. It is a tool given of God for edification, prayer and worship and should be used with reverence, not as a "LOOK AT ME" tool.

I agree it should never be a "look at me" thing. However, I disagree that it is not a part of growing in grace. Acts 2:38 sets up a paradigm for Christian initiation - Repentance (faith), Water Baptism, and Receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit are all distinct experiences that every believer should receive immediately before moving on to Christian maturity.

As a pastor, I've found this gift to be the most used and most misunderstood gift of all. It's no wonder non Charismatics think we're faking and insane.Too often we draw tongues like a gun then agrue about those not gifted so.

I have found that most Pastors don't understand how tongues is to be used in the Assembly, which creates the confusion.

Respectfully

 

[lismore]

What do you believe?

Speaking in tongues is good

 

[tobethebest]

When I received the baptism of the Holy Spirit there was no doubting it. In fact it opened my eyes to the spiritual, the balance being both the spirit and the word of course. You can't have a spiritual side of you and not know the word. You would be completely off balance. Years ago when all of us brothers were turning our clothes closets into prayer closets, we would take the time to go inside, close the door, sit down and light a small candle and pray in the Spirit for oftentimes more than an hour. There is truth behind being drunk in the Spirit. When I came out of my prayer closet many times in the past I was drunk; happy, free, comforted, and completely unafraid of the gospel of Christ. I witnessed often and slept well.......those days are mostly behind me since most Charismatic fellowships today only know faith doctrine and that turns the believer into believing he is doing something wrong. That God isn't listening because he is doing something to offend God; not going to a brother for forgiveness, not praying a prayer of faith, not receiving communion properly, not paying tithes, not confessing in faith what you have asked God for, the list is endless. Sometimes the only prayers we have left are spoken in the Spirit for we are reminded in the word that oftentimes we know not what to ask for. The "brother, where is your faith?" chapter died long time ago. Today I pray in tongues in the shower, my wife received the infilling just after we were married and today she is a Catholic who speaks in tongues. She sure can pray well and with authority and I like that about her. The church isn't what it once was and through my eyes it hasn't moved ahead. I pray that eventually we are not so separated by doctrine and that we don't always have to give an answer for the hope that lies within us, as a competitive thing. I'm not competitive anymore. I'm allowing God to be in control. Peace.

 

[jamadan]

"Since we are in the Charismatic, non-Word of Faith category, what are your thoughts about speaking in tongues?"

Personally, I was Saved in 1962 in a Baptist environment, initially indoctrinated by them, and jumped about a year later into the Assemblys of God, where I've been for most of the last 49 years except for an decade running with the Charismatics in the '70s, and a period of AWOL in the '80s.

I was "Baptised in the Holy Spirit" (to use AoG vernacular) in '73. did "speak in tongues", and still do 39 years later. I HAVE manifested both Prophetic utterance, and Interpretation of tongues at least. I have NEVER been burdened to manifest a "message in tongues" in a public meeting.

Obviously, then, I'm not OPPOSED to "tongues", but don't particularly care for the DOCTRINE of "Initial evidence" which tends to be vigorously defended by Historic Pentecostals, but not so much by Charismatics - most of whom still see it as a "Normative component" of the "Baptism in the Holy Spirit".

"I post this question here because it is my understanding that this is the issue that divides the charismatics from the WOF/AOG/Pentecostals."

I would totally disagree here, and state that the INITIAL disagreement (Late '60s through the mid '70s) between the "Historic Pentecostals" (including the AoG) and the early Charismatics was more one of "Clothesline Holiness".

Since the "Charismatics" tended to be out of the more "Liberal" churches", they tended NOT to be "Holy" (Movies, Alcoholic beverages, Dress codes, Hair length, Makeup, etc.) in the way the "Historic Pentecostals" were. The Charismatics didn't care for our "Rules and Regulations", so we (the Pentecostals) rejected 'em.

And the Charismatics - who were in many cases REALLY experiencing God up front and personal for the first time, visited OUR churches, found them "dead" and "formal" (which they WERE by comparison), and went ahead with their OWN meetings.

When the Charismatic OUTPOURING (1966-1978 or so) ended MANY Charismatics flowed into the Pentecostal denominations, including the AoG, and had a liberalizing effect on us, so that now there's not much actual difference between the genres.

About the only thing we had in common in the early years was "Tongues".

WoF is an originally "Pentecostal" concept publically introduced by Kenneth Hagan in the '40s-'50s, and REALLY popularized (and blown out of proportion) by folks like Kenneth Copeland. Most WoF are out of the "Pentecostal/Charismatic? genres, and as a result, most ALSO Speak in tongues.

"What do you believe?"

That's MY story and I'm a-stick'in to it, y'all!!!

Very well done explanation. I would also add that I think another major divider between charismatic and pentecostals were they fact that most charismatics remained in denominations that the pentecostals rejected as being apostate - Episcopals, Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox. They wanted them to "come out from them"

I was in a wonderful AoG church that had about 2500 people, 80% of whom came from the Catholic Charismatic movement when they started reigning it in the early 80's. It really was a beautiful marriage.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

One interesting aspect of the "Charismatic Movement" is that it HAS NOT "Denominationalized" in the way that the Pentecostal Movement did. There are a FEW (very few) "Charismatic denominational groups". And Charismatic churches tend to stay "independent", rather than forming political associations.

I think the NATURE of the CHarismatic outpouring was a CAUSE of that. I'm a MEMBER, and a leader in my Assembly of God church, but I'm personally non-denominational, as a "Free range Charismatic".

 

[Rev Randy]

I'm a MEMBER, and a leader in my Assembly of God church, but I'm personally non-denominational, as a "Free range Charismatic".

I understand and in a reverse manner.Being a Charismaic Orthodox seems to put one a bit on the free range side of Orthodoxy. Or as one above me in the Church said, "Your a bit of an unorthodox Orthodox".
I was baptized in the Spirit years ago when I was a Baptist and during a Sunday morning service. How do you suppose that went over? I was the associate pastor and fortunity for me not preaching that day. The Senior pastor was of the "The last Apostle took the gifts back to heaven with him" school. A visitor in the back row came to his feet and gave interpretation. That old Church changed that day and is still a Charismatic Church. That old pastor received the gift two months later. I've always attributed it to his constant prayer for revival in that Church. The SBC wasn't pleased but God was.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Evidence yes but what brings you to the point of thinking it's the only evidence? Didn't Paul go on a bit further? Didn't he speak of an more excellent way? Spiritual gifts are given to those baptized in the Holy Spirit. Prophecy is superior following love. I speak,pray and sing in tongues but would never suppose someone isn't baptized in the Holy Spirit because they don't possess this gift. Speaking in tongues is indeed evidence but we must remember that even the devil speaks in the tongue of angels.

There is no evidence in Scripture that the devil speaks in the tongue of angels. The only reference to the tongues of angels is in 1 Corinthians 13 where Paul says "Although I speak with ... etc ... and have not love, I am a useless noise". There is no mention of the devil here.

But, the speaking of tongues exists in pagan cultures and in the occult, but it is quite different in nature to that spoken in Christian churches. Pagan or occult tongues is not prayer, it is the chanting of incantations to the god or demon involved. It is believed that these magic words can summon up the power behind the pagan deity and bring his presence among the worshipers.

I have been involved with the things of the Spirit for the last 45 years and I have never heard anything like pagan or demonic tongues ever spoken in a Christian church that I have been associated with.

Usually, counterfeit tongues is forced and tense, and does not flow out fluently from the speaker. It makes people feel weird and they know that they are in the presence of evil when counterfeit tongues are spoken.

Paul did not teach that prophecy is superior to tongues. The word "superior" is missing from the Scripture. Paul says that prophecy is preferred in the church meeting because people need to understand what is being spoken so they can be built up in their faith.

It's like saying that a socket set is preferred when doing a specific job on a motor vehicle than a pipe wrench, but when working on a plumbing project, the pipe wrench is the preferred option. This means that tongues is preferred in a believer's private prayer time than prophecy, and prophecy is preferred in the church meeting over tongues.

Paul wrote his first epistle to the Church in Corinth as he found this Church having grave problems and one of those problems was the misuse and over use of tongues.

Agreed

It's not that the gift was bad but the intoxication of it led some to put the gift above the love Christ instills in a Christian at salvation.

Speculation. Paul did not say that in 1 Corinthians 14. If it 'aint in the Bible, it 'aint true. Paul never used the word "intoxication". This is a mistaken idea thought up by some commentator who knew nothing about tongues. He thought tongues needed some sort of ecstatic emotion before one could practice it. The way Paul deals with it is the appropriate use of tongues in terms of whether speaking in tongues in a church service without an interpreter was very useful for the building up of believers' faith seeing that they could not understand what was being spoken.

Paul gave guidelines to keep the misuse in check and I rarely see this employed in our assemblies today. Seems we fear hurting someones feelings rather than to worship as a body of believers. If someone has a word from God, and there is not a gifted interpreter in the congregation the word is not delivered and therefore useless except to the speaker.

Paul teaches that if a person speaks out a tongues message in a church service, he should be the one to pray that he may interpret the tongue. But in all the Christian gatherings I have attended over the years, I have not noticed that anyone sees the use of tongues has been much of a problem. It seems that well-taught people know the difference between praising God in tongues and giving a tongues message.

Speaking in tongues on Sunday then speaking like an angry drunken sailor on Monday doesn't seem like good evidence of anything.

This would not be a problem emanating from using the gift of tongues, but rather a lack of general sanctification in the believer's life. Tongues does not sanctify a person. It is a tool to be used in prayer. There are many more non-tongues speakers showing inconsistency on Monday mornings at work. It is a problem that exists right across the Christian spectrum. We have the treasure in earthen vessels. We have a sinful nature that takes work and effort to keep under subjection. The flesh will always war against the Spirit.

Tongues without love is simply noise. I agree with the writer I quoted that this gift is not evidence of salvation as that clearly goes directly against the Word of God. But I find those not gifted with tongues often find them selves as second class members in many a Pentecostal Church.

I have not experienced anyone being treated like a second class Christian because they do not speak with tongues. I think that it is more that people feel like they are second class Christians because they cannot speak in tongues like the people around them.

I can clearly remember being held by two sister at the altar with one saying hold on and the other saying let go. They seemed to think I was missing something I needed desperately. Their prayers and howlings produced nothing as some years later I received the gift at home in prayer when I was at a loss about how to pray about a situation.

There are people like this in every church. The fact that you went up to the altar when the invitation was given demonstrated that you had a need and you were prayed for according to the level of knowledge that these sisters had. You are not authorised to judge the hearts and intents of these sisters in praying for you. You can only say that their prayers did not achieve the desired objective.

The gift has nothing to do with some supposed holiness level. The gift has nothing to do with how close you are to God. It is a tool given of God for edification, prayer and worship and should be used with reverence, not as a "LOOK AT ME" tool.

Absolutely. This is in line with Paul's teaching. Tongues is primarily for the private prayer time where God is the only person who sees you praying in tongues. If it is used to demonstrate some kind of spirituality in front of people, then it is being misused, and Jesus said that people who made a display of their spirituality in front of others and were praised for it, that is the only reward they will receive.

As a pastor, I've found this gift to be the most used and most misunderstood gift of all. It's no wonder non Charismatics think we're faking and insane.Too often we draw tongues like a gun then argue about those not gifted so.

The answer to that, for you as a pastor, is to have training sessions so that your people are schooled up in the Scriptural use of the gift of tongues. This way, your people will be using it correctly and your services will be conducted decently and in order. They will know that they need to spend most of their tongues speaking time in private before God, because if they do that, the results in their lives and ministries will be plainly obvious. Jesus said that if we pray in private and secret, He will reward us openly.

You are in a good position to make a difference - to show that at least one Charismatic congregation are using the gift of tongues in the right way, and very effectively for advancing the kingdom of God in your area.

 

[Rev Randy]

Some good points Oscar. I'd disagree with one key thing you said "If it ain't in the Bible it ain't true". Perhaps it is harder to prove as true but there is much that is not written in the Bible. I'd refer to the last verse in the Gospel of John.
I didn't get the intoxication from a commentator. When it comes to taters I stick to irish and sweet That thought came to me from the intoxication I've experienced as well as through The Spirit after prayer before study. Does that make my words Gospel? Only to me.
I'm interested in your thoughts of Pauls saying he spoke in the tongues of men and angels. Is it really such a stretch to say that a fallen angel can speak both as well? I do know some who believe praying in tongues confounds the understanding of the devil but that also isn't Bible. I do agree that the manifestation of tongues in cults is different in tone. I also agree that forced tongues are also different but the language does differ even in those who don't force it. Still I'd take care on deciding what is counterfiet as it could simply be someone trying to let go and it's still very new to them. For some it's easier to allow the spirit to work than it is to others. We've all resisted at least a time or two.
I recieve the rebuke of the word superior well as it was a poor choice of words. Better for what was happening in the Church at Corinth at the time would have been a more thought out choice of words. Or as you said the right tool for the job at hand.
It's not hard to grasp Pauls meaning for those who have recieved this gift. Or maybe I'd better say it's easier to grasp when gifted. But then isn't interpretation always easier in the Spirit?
There is a verse concerning the use of gifts in public worship that I think we all should heed. 1Cor 14:40

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Thanks for your response. It's good to clarify points. It's not my place to correct you. We are all walking different paths and have different levels of faith, and also different roles in the Church. You are a pastor and I am an elder.

Some good points Oscar. I'd disagree with one key thing you said "If it ain't in the Bible it ain't true". Perhaps it is harder to prove as true but there is much that is not written in the Bible. I'd refer to the last verse in the Gospel of John.

The last verse of John refers to the things that Jesus said and did. The Gospel writers included what they believed were the most important things. It is assumed that the miracles and teaching mentioned were duplicated time and time again over the three years of Jesus' ministry.

When I say that if it is not included in the teaching of the Bible, I am speaking about doctrine that is not supported by Scripture. There are many doctrines and inventions of man which have been added to Scriptural teaching. The Bible warns us in at least three places about adding to the Scripture, so we have to be careful about whether the theories that we hear are supported by clear teaching from Scripture.

I didn't get the intoxication from a commentator. When it comes to taters I stick to irish and sweet That thought came to me from the intoxication I've experienced as well as through The Spirit after prayer before study. Does that make my words Gospel? Only to me.

I wasn't implying that our faith should be emotionless. But what I am saying that the act of speaking in tongues is an act of faith and we do it because the language that we speak is tongues and is understood by the Lord. This means that I can pray in tongues as I walk to the bus that I get to work on a frosty Monday morning when my ears and feet are freezing and I feel anything other than religious emotion. But there is a kind of joy and sense of flow and fulfilment when we do speak in tongues because the Spirit is flowing through us to the Lord and we sense that we are in fellowship with Him. The peace of mind knowing that He is listening to us certainly does cause emotion, but our emotion follows our faith, which is founded on God's Word. People who wait for an emotion before exercising faith are demonstrating faith in emotion and not in God's Word.

I'm interested in your thoughts of Pauls saying he spoke in the tongues of men and angels. Is it really such a stretch to say that a fallen angel can speak both as well?

I haven't found anything in the Bible that would indicate that. I guess that a fallen angel can speak in any language he likes to try and influence a person away from God. But that is a theory that does not have the support of Scripture, so it remains a speculation. Take notice that Paul said, "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels", etc. This does not establish that he actually did. He is making a comparison between tongues and love, where he considers that without love, even though the tongues may sound absolutely angelic and beautiful, it is a useless noise without love.

I do know some who believe praying in tongues confounds the understanding of the devil but that also isn't Bible.

Agreed. We are not told whether the devil understands what we speak when we are speaking in tongues. If the tongue is one of the languages spoken in the world, then I would think he would understand it seeing that he would understand all the languages available. That would make logical sense to me. If the devil is unable to understand us when we speak in tongues, then it might be implied that he is unable to understand some world or angelic languages, and that we are speaking in a language that only God Himself understands. But then that is conjecture on my part. Perhaps Paul was speaking about the quality of the speech rather than the actual language spoken, because I would wonder why angels need multiple languages. Remember that our multiple languages were instituted at the tower of Babel so that mankind would not be united in making a great monument to show that they could reach up to God in their own strength and ability. Before that, mankind spoke only one common language. So, in the light of that, I could quite happily believe that the angels have just one common language.

I do agree that the manifestation of tongues in cults is different in tone. I also agree that forced tongues are also different but the language does differ even in those who don't force it. Still I'd take care on deciding what is counterfiet as it could simply be someone trying to let go and it's still very new to them.

Because the Holy Spirit does not cooperate with disobedience to God's Word, then if people speak out in tongues to impress others, or to speak publicly in violation of Paul's teaching, then I could believe that they might at that time be speaking in the flesh and not in the Spirit. There are, however exceptions to the rule. I was praying in church to support the ministry at the altar call, and a woman sitting nearby told me that God spoke through me to her in the Maori language to encourage her in the faith. A friend of mine was praying in tongues in a prayer meeting, and a brother from Ghana stopped the meeting and told my friend what he was saying in his own village dialect. So God is not limited in how He decides to use the gift of tongues in certain situations. But a lot of the haphazard speaking in tongues does not conform to decency and order, especially where there are uninitiated people present.

For some it's easier to allow the spirit to work than it is to others. We've all resisted at least a time or two.

Remember that we all have sinful natures and the flesh wars against the Spirit. This shows that we have the sentence of death in ourselves that we should not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead. When we are in the midst of the conflict of wanting to do the will of God and finding something within us that resists it, we are brought to the realisation that we need to depend completely on Christ for everything.

I recieve the rebuke of the word superior well as it was a poor choice of words.

I did not mean it as a rebuke. Take it as "clarification". I have no right to rebuke a Christian pastor.

Better for what was happening in the Church at Corinth at the time would have been a more thought out choice of words. Or as you said the right tool for the job at hand.

Agreed.

It's not hard to grasp Pauls meaning for those who have recieved this gift. Or maybe I'd better say it's easier to grasp when gifted. But then isn't interpretation always easier in the Spirit?

Agreed. It is the Holy Spirit who gives us insight into God's Word. After all, He wrote it, so He has the ability to interpret it to us. Theologians call that Heumanetics.

There is a verse concerning the use of gifts in public worship that I think we all should heed. 1Cor 14:40

You are quite correct. There are specific gifts for specific purposes and when a gift is being used appropriately, then order is preserved. There is a place for praying in tongues, and that is in the private time with God, or in a prayer meeting where everyone is praying in tongues. But in a public meeting, prophecy is preferred because it is building up and teaching people what the Holy Spirit wants to say. The appropriate use of tongues there is to speak and have it interpreted. Most of the time when the interpretation comes forth as a prophecy, then we can assume that the tongues is an intercession for the Word of God to come forth. Otherwise the interpretation would be in the form of a prayer to God.

The point of a public meeting is to show people that Jesus is alive and that the Gospel is true. This is where language that is understood by all is vitally important. The ministry here is directed toward people, therefore the gifts that would aid in the building up of faith are the appropriate ones to use. There are some gifts that are for evangelism, and are most effective when used in that environment. Other gifts are for counselling, others for prayer. When the gifts are used in their proper contexts, then things are done decently and in order.

Hope that is helpful.

 

[Rev Randy]

I have decided that I really like my brother Oscarr. Please know that while you may not have meant anything as a rebuke I took it as such and I don't find rebuke as something bad or impolite. Rebuke when offered as you offered it is love. Don't take that wrong as my flesh does try to rebell at rebuke but my spirit smiles when I'm directed back on path.
I'm glad you brought up different earth languages. I once heard a woman with absolutely no training in Herbrew stand up and give utterance in perfect Hebrew which I actually understood from my schooling. I stood there dumbfounded and almost forgot to give interpretation.

 

[Giver]

I shared the following in another part of this forum, but it seem it might add to what this thread is asking.

I was given the gift of tongue as a sign that it was truly Jesus calling me into his ministry. At first I only was given a few words. I was a Catholic, and had never been introduced to any Charismatic meetings. I had heard my wife pray in tongues though, and it was so beautiful that I also wanted the gift.

Jesus told me not to read about him, that he would teach me about him. One of the ways Jesus communicated with me was when I would have a question for him, Jesus would give me a tongue, and my wife would interpret the tongue, and it would be the answer to the question I had asked Jesus. Jesus used this along with other forms of Communication to teach me for about the first year of my ministry.

I mostly just pray/praise in tongue, but often get a tongue in which I receive an interpretation.

My wife used to sing in tongues, and I have never heard such lovely sounds in my life. Her singing in tongues was so beautiful it could make me cry. She received her gift of tongues when she was thirteen, and never told anyone until me.

I pray in tongue all the time, as it becomes so hard for me to know what to pray for anymore.

Last few weeks I was having all sorts of physical problems, and asked Jesus if I needed to see a doctor. Jesus told me no it was just an attack from Satan, and he would take care of my physical problems. Yet the problems continued. Now this has happened to me a number of times, but I was the only one involved, and did not need to explain to others why I was not going to see a doctor.

This time the family knew and not all understood that I would only go to the doctor if Jesus said yes. Well I am telling you all this, because when I asked Jesus when he would heal me. Jesus told me he could not right then, and I asked him what to do, and he said pray. I prayed for hours, and most of the time was in tongues. Now over a week later all my physical problems are gone.

 

[Giver]

Some good points Oscar. I'd disagree with one key thing you said "If it ain't in the Bible it ain't true". Perhaps it is harder to prove as true but there is much that is not written in the Bible. I'd refer to the last verse in the Gospel of John.
I didn't get the intoxication from a commentator. When it comes to taters I stick to irish and sweet That thought came to me from the intoxication I've experienced as well as through The Spirit after prayer before study. Does that make my words Gospel? Only to me.
I'm interested in your thoughts of Pauls saying he spoke in the tongues of men and angels. Is it really such a stretch to say that a fallen angel can speak both as well? I do know some who believe praying in tongues confounds the understanding of the devil but that also isn't Bible. I do agree that the manifestation of tongues in cults is different in tone. I also agree that forced tongues are also different but the language does differ even in those who don't force it. Still I'd take care on deciding what is counterfiet as it could simply be someone trying to let go and it's still very new to them. For some it's easier to allow the spirit to work than it is to others. We've all resisted at least a time or two.
I recieve the rebuke of the word superior well as it was a poor choice of words. Better for what was happening in the Church at Corinth at the time would have been a more thought out choice of words. Or as you said the right tool for the job at hand.
It's not hard to grasp Pauls meaning for those who have recieved this gift. Or maybe I'd better say it's easier to grasp when gifted. But then isn't interpretation always easier in the Spirit?
There is a verse concerning the use of gifts in public worship that I think we all should heed. 1Cor 14:40

Randy, if anything contradicts the written Word of God then it is not true.

 

[Yahu]

Randy, if anything contradicts the written Word of God then it is not true.

Yet there is valid dispute on the interpretation of that written word. Some times the problem is with the translation from the original or by people's misunderstanding of the context or using the wrong definition of those words.

 

[Giver]

Yet there is valid dispute on the interpretation of that written word. Some times the problem is with the translation from the original or by people's misunderstanding of the context or using the wrong definition of those words.

That is true, and that is why we ask Jesus to tell us the truth. Remember we are responsible for our own souls. We need a personal relationship with Jesus and only follow him. Never accept what someone else says about God unless Jesus says it is right.