Paul's Command To Be Silent For Tongues Without Interpretation

[Enow]

Most tongue speaker will testify of the "spirit" coming over them "again" as if to impart this tongue.

I've been praying in tongues for forty years. Never felt such a thing any of those times. There's no more "feeling" or "experience" than when you start "Our Father, who art in heaven..." I don't think I have ever known anyone personally who has ever used that phrase, and I've known hundreds of people who pray in tongues. Of course I don't do it to impress people, or to edify an assembly, either. In fact, if you were next to me throughout two hours of a prayer meeting, I doubt you would even know I did it.

Yet you have testified to feeling the presence of the Spirit outside of you in the worship place, had you not?

Isaiah 8:[SUP]19 [/SUP]And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?

Do not mediums hold seyances that conjure spirits to feel their presence in the room? Do not some of them speak in babbling tongues? See why we need to not believe every spirit but test them?

 

[Enow]

You did not write the OP. And I agree with you about where the emphasis belongs. If we start listing churches that do something major wrong, most of the churches in the world will be on the list. My whole argument is don't throw out the whole thing just because some people are doing it wrong.

Then heed what God's gift of tongues really is.

Modern Tongues Speaking Explained - What is really going on? By Cooper P Abrams III

 

[Enow]

We shouldn't confuse the different aspects of tongues.

The gift of tongues is a personal issue, to be shared only among a very few if that. Think of this as a prayer language and not for public consumption. It is to be an adjunct to prayer; so that the Holy Spirit may pray thru us to speak to things and ways we otherwise wouldn't know to address.

Back to the Bible wars again.

Keep this truth in mind: as you will find it in all modern Bibles.

1 Timothy 2:[SUP]5 [/SUP]For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Now the war begins as we stick to the King James Bible for the truth in His words to discern good and evil regarding tongues without interpretation.

Romans 8:[SUP]26 [/SUP]Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. [SUP]27 [/SUP]And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

Hebrews 4:12-16 states that the Word of God is the discerner of the thoughts & intents of the heart so that "he" in verse 27 is testifying of Jesus Christ as he is also the One that knows the mind of the Spirit. Therefore, by knowing the mind of the Spirit, The Holy Spirit is the means by which "itself" is used in the KJV, meaning the Holy Spirit is not making these intercessions Himself as ALL modern Bible versions have mistranslated into so saying. That is why these intercessions are being made with groanings which cannot be uttered, hence no sound because the Son is knowing the mind of the Spirit.

That is how and why the Father knows before we ask anything in prayer:

Matthew 6:[SUP]7 [/SUP]But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. [SUP]8 [/SUP]Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

Now if you take into account how the Holy Spirit speaks what He hears:

John 16:[SUP]13 [/SUP]Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

And when we speak, it is not we who speak, but the Spirit of our Father...

Matthew 10:[SUP]19 [/SUP]But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. [SUP]20 [/SUP]For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

Then there is no necessity for the Holy Spirit to manifest tongues as a prayer langauge and Paul meant what he had said about what God was using tongues for... as it was of other men's lips to speak unto the people, not back to Himself.

1 Corinthians 14:[SUP]20 [/SUP]Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. [SUP]21 [/SUP]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.

 

[kenisyes]

Then heed what God's gift of tongues really is.

Modern Tongues Speaking Explained - What is really going on? By Cooper P Abrams III

I'm not going to pull this report apart piece by piece, because I've already answered a lot of it. Let me take one paragraph, and make a quick observation. "when all features of glossolalia were taken into consideration-- that is, the segmental structure (such as sounds, syllables, phrases) and its suprasegmental elements (namely, rhythm, accent, and especially overall intonation)-" She forgot "phrasing". There is a field called "sentics" which proves that emotional communication occurs via an inborn cross-cultural language of pressure change with time, and is reflected in musical phrasing. They did not run the one key test, whether a leader of Pentecostal congregations can tell demonic tongues from deliberate tongues from authentic tongues. My wife and I both could. I believe the difference is in the sentics. My point is, the research is biased by people doing it. They study people who confirm what they believe and evaluate it based on what they believe.

There are several errors in cause and effect philosophy as well. And I will say again that even if you find a million copycats out there, doing it for the wrong reasons, there are people on the earth today with authentic tongues. My experience is there are a lot of them, and most of them would not even be aware such research is going on, and would refuse to "demonstrate" for the reserachers if asked. There are also cases where the tongues are understood in natural languages by speakers of those languages.

 

[homwardbound]

I believe you had misread Paul in his second letter to the Corinthians.

2 Corinthians 7:[SUP]9 [/SUP]Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. [SUP]10 [/SUP]For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. [SUP]11 [/SUP]For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.

Unless you are referring to something else, I do not see Paul apologizing for the first letter to the Corinthians at all.

Read it from 2 corinthians 1 onward I have read it anyway it might have been from a newer transalation I will check it out further thanks

 

[hopesprings]

And yet Paul prayed that someone would interpret because to him, it was unfruitful when he spoke in tongues which is why he prayed that someone else would interprete so that he would understand. I do not see him giving an exception about not having a need for an interpretor.

Paul said that it was unfruitful to his mind, right? He said that his spirit prays but his mind is unfruitful...I agree that it may have been because he didn't understand what he was saying. Paul needed an interpreter, not because he needed to know what he was saying, but for the edification of the body, right? Doesn't Paul say that he spoke in tongues more then anyone else? Doesn't Paul also say that speaking in tongues builds up the person who does it, yet does not build up the body?

I have heard that expression before but I fail to see how that does not fall under the feel good experience.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear...I wasn't looking for a 'feel good' experience. I wasn't really looking for anything, just some personal, real time with God. It came from somewhere deep inside...there is no explanation for it other then to attribute it to God. I don't know that I would say it 'felt good'...but I understand why you would label it such.

Now you are using circumstances to validate the tongue which was never taught for believers to do in testing the spirits.

I am not using circumstances to validate anything...I suppose I was only trying to give you some insight on where I was coming from. You don't know what happened leading up to this event in my life, do you? I know, because I lived it...and I know the sort of things that I struggled with, and I know that some people have a really hard time with this concept because I used to be one of those people. But God is active today, He is here today, He is all powerful today, and He is with us today. We can experience God today...He isn't silent...He isn't just words on a page. Perhaps I am not fully understanding what you are saying...

Again, Paul never alluded that a person can speak in tongues and interpret the tongue at the same time. Paul did say that these manifestations were doled out severally as He wills which means one speaks in tongue while another interpret.

Let's look at the practise & why.

1 Corinthians 14:[SUP]27 [/SUP]If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret....[SUP]29 [/SUP]Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

The reason for this is to establish the tongue being spoken just as establishing the prophesy being spoken.

Matthew 18:16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

2 Corinthians 13:1This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Now if a believer speak in tongue & interpret personally, how can it be established as coming from God? It cannot.

Paul didn't say that the person who speaks in tongues will not receive the gift of interpretation as well. He says in verse 13 that those who DO speak in tongues should pray for that he may also interpret.

I agree that there does need to be an interpreter when speaking in tongues in the presence of others...but, doesn't Paul say that he spoke in tongues more then anyone else and yet he could not understand, with his mind, what he was saying with his spirit? When you speak your native language, your mind is moving at the same pace as your mouth...right? You are saying something with your lips that your mind understands. Its the same thing (at least it was for me), only what was coming out of my mouth was not in English. It was like I was fluent in German or Hebrew, except it wasn't German or Hebrew (at least, I don't think it was). So, to say that since no one else was there to interpret, you cannot truly know what is being said, is a falsehood - in respect to your own private praise/prayer time.

In context of the 1 Corinthians 14:27 & 29 in keeping with the message:

1 Corinthians 14:[SUP]27 [/SUP]If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. [SUP]28 [/SUP]But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Paul was saying here that when a man speaks in tongue but there is no interpretor, that is not the Spirit speaking, but a foreignor which is why he is said to be silent in the church because what he is saying is not God's gift of tongues because he speaks unto himself, meaning it is his native taongue and he understands it just as God understands what he is saying.

Paul isn't saying that at all. His words are quite clear...he is talking about order in the church. He says that if there is no interpreter (in the church - so, we are talking about speaking in tongues in front of others) then to keep silent and speak to himself AND to God. I don't see anywhere in there where a shift is made to suddenly be talking about native tongues...

I like how he says, Let all things be done for building up. If there is no one there to interpret what you are saying, then how can anyone agree with words they don't understand? It doesn't build anyone up...except the person doing it, remember verse 4?

There is no mention of doing so to profit the believer individually.

The individual believer is part of the body, isn't he?

1 Corinthians 14:[SUP]34 [/SUP]Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. [SUP]35 [/SUP]And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. [SUP]36 [/SUP]What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? [SUP]37 [/SUP]If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Since that was a commandment from the Lord, then manifesting tongues in women would make Him a hypocrite which He is not, or at the very least, enjoying getting women in trouble in church which He does not do.

Maybe I still don't fully understand your point. It seems like you are saying that women will not receive the gift of tongues, is that correct? If that is case, then perhaps you need to quote another scripture to prove this, since the one that you used does no such thing. I will not argue that women are to 'keep silent in church' - at least, not on this tread jk - but keeping silent in church and receiving the gift of tongues are two separate things.

nighty night...

hopesprings

 

[Enow]

She forgot "phrasing". There is a field called "sentics" which proves that emotional communication occurs via an inborn cross-cultural language of pressure change with time, and is reflected in musical phrasing. They did not run the one key test, whether a leader of Pentecostal congregations can tell demonic tongues from deliberate tongues from authentic tongues. My wife and I both could. I believe the difference is in the sentics.

And what happens when you find that same "sentics" in supernatural tongues from people that are not believers in Jesus Christ?

 

[kenisyes]

And what happens when you find that same "sentics" in supernatural tongues from people that are not believers in Jesus Christ?

Why do you think I will? I told you, I can tell them apart. I am also a trained musician. I know what I am hearing technically. Get me some recordings, and I'll figure it out.

 

[Enow]

Paul said that it was unfruitful to his mind, right? He said that his spirit prays but his mind is unfruitful...I agree that it may have been because he didn't understand what he was saying. Paul needed an interpreter, not because he needed to know what he was saying, but for the edification of the body, right? Doesn't Paul say that he spoke in tongues more then anyone else? Doesn't Paul also say that speaking in tongues builds up the person who does it, yet does not build up the body?

Actualy, no. Paul was starting from verse one to exhort believers that if they were to seek one spiritual gift, then they should seek the gift of prophesy over all spiritual gifts, and then began to show why by comparing the gift of prophesy against the gift of tongues in regards to edification of the body of Christ which is what the manifestations of the Spirit are meant to do to profit the body withal:

1 Corinthians 12:[SUP]7 [/SUP]But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

So reading beforehand what the manifestations of the Spirit was meant to do, Paul was comparing the gift of prophesy against the gift of tongues by showing why the gift of tongues was not a stand alone gift. He was not validating that tongues as able to edify the tongue speaker when he went on to explain that it was unfruitful, even to himself. Paul was showing why the gift of prophesy was better than the gift of tongues because it is not a stand alone gift, but prophesy is.

As Paul went on throughout that chapter on why the gift of prophesy was better then the gift of tongues which that same tongue he was talking about in verse 2 is the same tongue throughout that chapter that needed interpretation, he took time out and emphasized what God said in His law of what He would use tongues for, to speak unto the people because it was of other men's lips. From verse 20 below, that is Paul way of saying that is all what God meant tongues were to do.

1 Corinthians 14:[SUP]20 [/SUP]Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. [SUP]21 [/SUP]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.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear...I wasn't looking for a 'feel good' experience. I wasn't really looking for anything, just some personal, real time with God. It came from somewhere deep inside...there is no explanation for it other then to attribute it to God. I don't know that I would say it 'felt good'...but I understand why you would label it such.

Let's try this: do you believe you can receive the Holy Spirit "again" after a sign of tongues? If not, then look at how those that believe and "experience such a thing will testify to that same bubbling up effect.

The Reality of the Holy Spirit

By Todd Bentley... scroll down to the third sub section entitled "Speaking in Tongues" and you will find these two paragraphs.

See next post... the auto save function is not printing all of my post.

 

[Enow]

Paul said that it was unfruitful to his mind, right? He said that his spirit prays but his mind is unfruitful...I agree that it may have been because he didn't understand what he was saying. Paul needed an interpreter, not because he needed to know what he was saying, but for the edification of the body, right? Doesn't Paul say that he spoke in tongues more then anyone else? Doesn't Paul also say that speaking in tongues builds up the person who does it, yet does not build up the body?

Actualy, no. Paul was starting from verse one to exhort believers that if they were to seek one spiritual gift, then they should seek the gift of prophesy over all spiritual gifts, and then began to show why by comparing the gift of prophesy against the gift of tongues in regards to edification of the body of Christ which is what the manifestations of the Spirit are meant to do to profit the body withal:

1 Corinthians 12:[SUP]7 [/SUP]But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

So reading beforehand what the manifestations of the Spirit was meant to do, Paul was comparing the gift of prophesy against the gift of tongues by showing why the gift of tongues was not a stand alone gift. He was not validating that tongues as able to edify the tongue speaker when he went on to explain that it was unfruitful, even to himself. Paul was showing why the gift of prophesy was better than the gift of tongues because it is not a stand alone gift, but prophesy is.

As Paul went on throughout that chapter on why the gift of prophesy was better then the gift of tongues which that same tongue he was talking about in verse 2 is the same tongue throughout that chapter that needed interpretation, he took time out and emphasized what God said in His law of what He would use tongues for, to speak unto the people because it was of other men's lips. From verse 20 below, that is Paul way of saying that is all what God meant tongues were to do.

1 Corinthians 14:[SUP]20 [/SUP]Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. [SUP]21 [/SUP]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.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear...I wasn't looking for a 'feel good' experience. I wasn't really looking for anything, just some personal, real time with God. It came from somewhere deep inside...there is no explanation for it other then to attribute it to God. I don't know that I would say it 'felt good'...but I understand why you would label it such.

Let's try this: do you believe you can receive the Holy Spirit "again" after a sign of tongues? If not, then look at how those that believe and "experience such a thing will testify to that same bubbling up effect.

The Reality of the Holy Spirit

By Todd Bentley... scroll down to the third sub section entitled "Speaking in Tongues" and you will find these two paragraphs.

During this season I was invited to go away with the FGBM to a retreat in Kelowna near Okanagan Lake . It was shaping up to be a great weekend and the guys knew I needed the baptism of the Holy Ghost — speaking in tongues. So at this retreat some of them laid hands on me. “We'll get you started speaking in tongues. It's like starting a car or a motor cycle. We need to kick start you, so just say, “Ka ka ka ta ta ta,” they said. Well, after doing that a few times, I thought, “This is ridiculous!” Nothing was happening to me. I didn't feel any living waters springing out of my belly. But I didn't give up! I wanted the baptism of the Holy Ghost and the fire BIG time in my life, so they persevered with me. “We must get you filled with the Holy Spirit and talking in tongues,” they said. “That's the power of God — the gifts of the Spirit.” I thought, “Great!”
Finally, on the last night of the retreat, after someone prayed for me, something happened. All of a sudden I started speaking in tongues! I thought, “Oh! This is awesome, but I need to be alone.” You see, what I was experiencing was so personal that I didn't want to be with the others for a few minutes. So, stepping out of the conference center, I walked along the lakeshore. It was 12:30 in the morning. I could hear the waves lapping gently on the shore; the air was still. My prayer language continued bubbling up, but I began wondering if this new language was really the Holy Spirit. The affirmation I needed, that I was truly speaking in tongues, came in a powerful, unusual way from the hand of God.

Now read the whole thing and ask yourself what did God speak to him about that delivered him from addiction? He did not give one testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ for that moment of conversion. What he did say that he had a hunger for God and to know Him.

Then he went to school on the Spirit. He did not learn of the Son of Jesus Christ, but focussed on the Spirit & getting to know Him in a supernatural way. That explains why throughout his journey that he was always hungering for more of God even after he had testified of when he was saved, because he wasn't seeking to know the Son of God, and he has not yet.

John 6:[SUP]35 [/SUP]And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Do I believe Todd Bentley is saved? Yes. Do I believe Todd is abiding in Him? No, because he is climbing up another way in approaching God the Father other then by way of the Son for which is the reason why he is following a stranger's voice.

I was fellowshipping with Full Gospel Businessmen and Don Reed was teaching me to babbling to "help" the Holy Spirit along in giving me tongues, and I had stopped because after several weeks of that, one can start babbling out of habit and think it is God's gift of tongues when it becomes more of a reflex thing. And although I believe in God's gift of tongues of other men's lips, and that there are fake tongue speakers out there, I also believed there is a supernatural tongue that is not of other men's lips but is of the devil as found in the occult which is why we are to not believe every spirit, but test them and not wind up speaking as the world speak and hear as the world hears which is a babbling nonsense.

So please understand why "bubbling up from inside" is not a tell tale sign that it is of God. When it is of other men's lips that can be understood, yes.. or unless otherwise interpreted yes... but nothing else if believers are to prove all things and abstain from all appearances of evil.

I am not using circumstances to validate anything...I suppose I was only trying to give you some insight on where I was coming from. You don't know what happened leading up to this event in my life, do you? I know, because I lived it...and I know the sort of things that I struggled with, and I know that some people have a really hard time with this concept because I used to be one of those people. But God is active today, He is here today, He is all powerful today, and He is with us today. We can experience God today...He isn't silent...He isn't just words on a page. Perhaps I am not fully understanding what you are saying...

If you read that testimony at that link, you will see how Todd used circumstances & miraculous scene of the dove to validate tongues that he was having as being of God, thus looking for a sign that the tongue he had was of Him. Nowhere in scripture is there an instruction to test & confirm tongues by a sign or circumstances so that is out.

Paul didn't say that the person who speaks in tongues will not receive the gift of interpretation as well. He says in verse 13 that those who DO speak in tongues should pray for that he may also interpret.

What does severally means? Do note how the Spirit is dividing the manifestations.

1 Corinthians 12:[SUP]7 [/SUP]But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. [SUP]8 [/SUP]For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; [SUP]9 [/SUP]To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; [SUP]10 [/SUP]To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: [SUP]11 [/SUP]But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

I

agree that there does need to be an interpreter when speaking in tongues in the presence of others...but, doesn't Paul say that he spoke in tongues more then anyone else and yet he could not understand, with his mind, what he was saying with his spirit? When you speak your native language, your mind is moving at the same pace as your mouth...right? You are saying something with your lips that your mind understands. Its the same thing (at least it was for me), only what was coming out of my mouth was not in English. It was like I was fluent in German or Hebrew, except it wasn't German or Hebrew (at least, I don't think it was). So, to say that since no one else was there to interpret, you cannot truly know what is being said, is a falsehood - in respect to your own private praise/prayer time.

Paul is not a braggert and testifying of oneself without witnesses verifying what he has said to be true is a false witness because two or three witnesses is needed to establish that testimony and so if he did it by himself, how would anyone know that? That would be a false witness then, unless he was saying something that they would all know to be true because he did so in the presence of others. So no way was Paul endorsing tongues as a prayer language here.

Paul isn't saying that at all. His words are quite clear...he is talking about order in the church. He says that if there is no interpreter (in the church - so, we are talking about speaking in tongues in front of others) then to keep silent and speak to himself AND to God. I don't see anywhere in there where a shift is made to suddenly be talking about native tongues...

My point here is who is Paul to tell the Holy Spirit to be silent? If the manifestations of the Spirit is to profit the body withal, then how can Paul say that unless he was trying to convey that this tongue speaker is not speaking in tongues, but saying something in his native tongue and needs to be silent in the church service.

Did not Paul say we are not to quench the Spirit? Did he not end that chapter by saying forbid not to speak in tongues? If the Holy Spirit is bothering to manifest tongues while in the assembly, then it will be interpreted, see? But because there is no interpretation, that was Paul singling out that the person was a foreignor and needs to be silent during the church service which is what he meant when he said that he speaks unto himself as well as speaking unto God, meaning he understands what he is saying as God does.

I

like how he says, Let all things be done for building up. If there is no one there to interpret what you are saying, then how can anyone agree with words they don't understand? It doesn't build anyone up...except the person doing it, remember verse 4?

Again, Paul was not validating tongues in verse 4 to be used by itself, but explaining why prophesy is over tongues because tongues is not a stand alone gift as it needs interpretation.

The individual believer is part of the body, isn't he?

Yes, he is, but because he is of the body, he is not operating as a whole body that it needs no other when it comes to the manifestations of the Spirit.

Maybe I still don't fully understand your point. It seems like you are saying that women will not receive the gift of tongues, is that correct? If that is case, then perhaps you need to quote another scripture to prove this, since the one that you used does no such thing. I will not argue that women are to 'keep silent in church' - at least, not on this tread jk - but keeping silent in church and receiving the gift of tongues are two separate things.

nighty night...

hopesprings

Commanding women not to teach means God would not manifest tongues to women and for another to interpret to edify others by. The word of God has to come first to men. That was why Paul made this remark in another reference.

1 Timothy 2:[SUP]11 [/SUP]Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. [SUP]12 [/SUP]But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. [SUP]13 [/SUP]For Adam was first formed, then Eve. [SUP]14 [/SUP]And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

That is one of the telltale signs that shows why we are not to believe every spirit but test them, and to prove all things and abstain from all appearances of evil means God's gift of tongues is of other men's lips and so it will come with interpretation to speak unto the people... and not be used as a prayer language to speak back to Himself through the Spirit.

John 16:[SUP]13 [/SUP]Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

That means the Holy Spirit will not be speaking, but relaying what He hears, that the Spirit will speak. Just as when we witness, it is not we who are speaking, but the Spirit of our Father.

Matthew 10:[SUP]19 [/SUP]But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. [SUP]20 [/SUP]For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

So God the Father would not be using the Spirit to speak back to Himself and thus this tongue as a prayer language is not of Him.