In the first part of your message, you write about I Corinthians 14 where it teaches that speaking in tongues does not edify the assembly unless it is interpreted. We are in agreement on that idea.
1 Corinthians 14:12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.14For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.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.
Once again, Paul reiterates the topic about seeking spiritual gifts and that those that speak in tongues, pray that another interprets what they are speaking in tongues. It is his spirit that is praying for that interpretation to come in the hopes that he will understand what is being manifested by the Holy Spirit in tongues of other men's lips. Otherwise it is unfruitful to himself unless it is interpreted. That is a zinger for those that take verse 2 out of context as if it edifies the believer only when Paul just admitted that it is unfruitful to himself unless it is interpreted.
Here, your interpretation gets weird. Paul doesn't say when he speaks in tongues, his spirit is praying about something else... the go the interpretation.
Paul has already established the fact that the one who speaks in tongues edifies himself. You are creating a contradiction.
Here we have two parts of the man that are involved: his spirit and his understanding. When a man speaks in tongues, he edifies himself. So he does receive edification. But when he speaks in tongues, his spirit prays, but his understanding is unfruitful. He is edified... since his spirit is praying. But his understading is unfruitful. His understanding is not edified.
Your interpretation contradicts Paul's teaching that he who speaks in tongues edifies himself.
What you are saying does not fit with Paul's argument either, when he says
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.
Verse 18 mentions speaking in tongues-- an activity that does not edify others. Notice the word 'yet.' Paul spoke in tongues, but in the church he'd rather edify others by using his understanding. Why would Paul speak in tongues if it were unfruitful? And why would he make this argument in verses 18 and 19 if he were talking about interpreting tongues?
Hence, leaving no room that tongues were not to be interpreted or any instructions about it being a prayer language of the Holy Spirit when it comes with no interpretation. If that were so, Paul would never say in verse 28 for that person to be silent when no interpretation is forthcoming for who was he to tell the Holy Spirit to be silent?
Your interpretation contradicts verse 28, since it does make room for uninterpreted tongues to be spoken. Paul says if there is no interpreter, let him speak to himself and to God.
Who was Paul to say this? Paul wrote that he was writing the commandments of the Lord.
Speaking in tongues is done as enabled by the Holy Spirit, but Paul said if he prayed in tongues HIS spirit prayed.
Peter says that we are to minister to one another with spiritual gifts as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. We steward spiritual gifts. Moses struck the rock to perform a miracle. Then God told Moses to speak to the rock. He disobeyed and struck the rock the second time. Water still flowed from the rock. He performed the miracle, but he did not steward it properly. He did not enter the promised land because of this incident.
After the fire came down from heaven at Mt. Carmel, the king sent some soldiers to arrest Elijah. He called down fire from heaven. He kept doing this until a soldier begged for his life and the lives of his men. The LORD told him not to be afraid and to go with them. So he stopped calling down fire from heaven to kill the soldiers.
If you don't get how individuals could to use speaking in tongues in a disorderly way if they are gifts from the Spirit, that doesn't change the fact that the scripture implies that this is indeed the case, that it is possible to use a genuine gift, but in a disorderly way.
Paul also give instructions to prophets on when to be silent and let someone else with a revelation speak.
If tongues was a prayer language, why not say that when tongues comes with no interpretation, it is prayer time for the Holy Spirit? But he did not.
Look at verse 28 again. He says 'let him speak to himself and to God.'
The reason why Paul said for that person to be silent in verse 28 is because when you have two or three people speaking in tongues of other men's lips, a foreigner is liable to stand up and speak out of turn in his own language and that is why he can be told to be silent
Your theory here doesn't have any support from the context. Paul is talking about a supernatural gift here, a gift of the Spirit. He's already explained and described a lot of things about speaking in tongues (e.g. the one who does so edifies himself; if he prays in tongues his spirit prays, but his understanding is unfruitful; he gives thanks well, but the other is not edified; tongues as a sign to them that believe not and their reaction.) Paul's writings about speaking in tongues lead up to this set of instructions about speaking in tongues in I Corinthians 14:26-27. He has led the reader through a set of arguments that prepare him for the instructions in verses 27 and 28.
You have speaking in tongues turning into something else here in verses 27 through 28, something different from what Paul was talking about throughout the chapter.
because he understands what he is saying thus speaking unto himself as God understands what he is saying as speaking unto God not that he is speaking to himself or to God, but what he is saying is understood by himself & God which is proof text that God's gift of tongues is supposed to come with interpretation as it will never be a stand alone gift manifested in the assembly.
I don't see any logical connection between the idea that the person speaking in tongues here is speaking a language naturally with the 'understanding', and your argument that this is a 'proof text' that tongues is supposed to be with interpretation and not be a stand alone gift.
The individual who speaks in tongues does not have to be the one who interprets it. This is shown in verse 28. It says 'let one interpret.' It doesn't say the speaker has to be the interpreter. (He could be, which has been established in a couple of verses earlier in the chapter.) So we have potentially two people in view here, the speaker, and the interpreter. That doesn't fit with your interpretation well. And your interpretation of this verse doesn't fit with the whole context leading up to it.
And just so no one misunderstood him as cited in verse 20, he clarified what tongues were for and that was to speak unto the people in verse 21 .
Paul uses the quote from Isaiah and his prophetic application of it to help the Corinthians better understand the gift, as part of his lead-up to the instruction in verse 27-28. Paul shows them that unbelievers tend to respond to speaking in tongues with unbelief. When Israel was carried away into captivity with their captors speaking Aramaic and possibly other languages, telling them to get back in line, keep their head down, don't drink too long, or whatever it was as they marched them naked into captivity, the people of Israel still did not 'hear' even during this. Isaiah prophesied, 'And yet for all that they will not hear Me.'
If an unbeliever somehow finds his way into a church gathering and hears all speak with tongues, he says 'ye are mad.' If he hears prophesying and hears the secrets of his heart made manifest... as some prophecies do... he falls down on his face and says that God is truly among you.
And yet Paul stated that tongues were never to serve as a sign to the believers but for the unbelievers in verse 22, and yet again, wayward believers are using tongues as a sign when they receive this other baptism with the Holy Ghost. RED FLAG !!!!
Paul's comment about tongues as a sign is in the context of his explanation of Isaiah, how unbelievers' reaction to speaking in tongues fulfills that prophecy that was given to Israel, but has some far reaching implications. In Acts 2, you might argue that Peter and those with him took the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which was accompanied by speakign in tongues and magnifying God, was a 'sign' of the Spirit's work with the Gentiles. The passage doesn't call it a 'sign' and if it is, it is a different kind of sign than Paul's use of Isaiah. The type of sign in I Corinthians 14 is the fulfillment of a prophecy.
but the scripture warns that there is a supernatural tongue in the world that is just babbling nonsense before God's gift of tongues had come at Pentecost.
Show the scripture you have in mind. The 'in the world' part of your post makes me think you may be talking about the verses about being a 'barbarian' which just describes how it is when one person speaks a foreign language another does not know. Where do you get a reference to supernatural babbling prior to Pentecost? There is a reference to wizards chirping, but it is not described in terms of being a language.
How can you be sure that God had called those sinners away from that tongue and their familiar spirits if we say that it can be babbling nonsense too? How can those called out of the occult and other religions where this supernatural tongue has manifested to be a witness to those still in that world & that tongue to repent when they do not really see any difference in the newly converted?
Now you are trying to use tongues as a sign that someone is an unbeliever? Isn't that the opposite of what Peter did?
Do you think that if someone has accepted the truths of the Gospel, has put his faith in God, confesses that Jesus is Lord and believes that God raised Him from the dead, and is buried with him and baptism, wherein he is also raised with him through faith in the operation of God.... that such an individual, walking with God, and seeking His will, is susceptible to be filled with a demon spirit? Are Christians to walk around in fear that demons may jump into them and possess them?
If you know a particular individual who lives a wicked, sinful life, I understand your concern. There are people who live hypocritical lives who claim to be of all kinds of religious persuasions.
1 John 4:1-7 and yet verse 4 of greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world seems to go over many tongue speakers' heads and ears that if you feel a spirit coming over you, filling you much later in your life as a believer, bringing tongues with no interpretation, that was not the Holy Spirit, but the spirit of the antichrist BECAUSE the Holy Spirit was already in you when you were first saved.
Were we not warned not to believe every spirit but test them?[/quote]
We should certainly test the spirits. But if we are following the 'commandments of the Lord' in I Corinthians 14, we shouldn't assume we are violating 'test the spirits.' These scriptures do not contradict.
Do a word study on 'full', 'filled', 'baptized' and words like 'fall upon' and 'fallen upon.' I'm not talking about a Greek study, though that's useful too, but where the words occur in Acts and other books.
In the Old Testament, the Spirit of God would come upon an individual and he would prophesy. The book of Luke tells us that after Zecharias said "His name is John" he was filled with the Spirit and prophesied. Now look at the book of Acts. The disciples were filled with the Spirit and spoke in tongues. The Spirit came upon those in Cornelius' house and they spoke in tongues, and upon the men who'd previously been baptized with John's baptism in Acts 19 and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
Peter was full of the Holy Ghost before he preached in Acts 4. Later, in Acts 4, the apostles who had been filled with the Holy Ghost were filled with the Holy Ghost again. Paul was full of the Holy Ghost before telling Elymas he would be blind.
The idea of the Holy Ghost coming among someone who is already a believer, who already has the seal of the Spirit is not contrary to scripture. If someone has an experience where they are filled with the Holy Ghost and then experience some spiritual gift, that is not contrary to scripture.
Consider the words of our Lord Jesus in Luke 11:13.
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
Your test of the spirits here is not Biblical. It's contrary to scripture. Paul told the Ephesian believers to be filled with the Spirit.
Why would that limit the Spirit? Don't you think Jesus and the Holy Spirit communicate with each other.
The Holy Spirit can be the Spirit of the Father when Jesus was on earth, and the Spirit of Christ when Jesus has ascended and all powers was given unto Him, but the Holy Spirit cannot be the Spirit of the Spirit; He can only speak what He hears.
Huh? I'm not following you. The Spirit takes of what is Christ's and shews it to the disciples. Jesus said He did what He saw the Father doing. There is unity in the Godhead. I don't see where you get this 'be the Spirit of the Spirit' idea? What does that have to do with anyone else's argument or interpretation?
Because the KJV is the only one that was translated rightly in Romans 8:26-27 where the Holy Spirit has His intercessions, but they are unspeakable and unutterable, meaning no sound is being made here in verse 26.
Other people may not get the point you are making when you refer to a verse if you are reading something into a verse that is unconventional, so you'll have to break it down clearly if you want people to get the meanings you think are there.
Romans 8 tells us about the Spirit interceeding with groanings that cannot be uttered. It does NOT teach that ALL intercessions that come from the Holy Spirit cannot be uttered. Jude said to pray in the Holy Ghost. He did not say that it was impossible to do so.
