Speaking in Tongues (Privately, Outside of Church)

[gotime]

Speaking In Tongues Privately
------------------------------------

​

I am going to attempt to show you that tongues can be used for private use.


1 Corinthians 14:2-4 King James Version (KJV)

2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

This is not about a supernatural gift at all. Paul is speaking to a group who are ignorant concerning the gifts of the Spirit and are not doing what is right. But you could say exactly what Paul is saying in the following circumstance. If I speak English in a church that is full of Germans who only speak German then I edify only myself because I am the only one that understands and connects with my words. I speak only to God and not to man as no man there can understand but God can. The word tongue is just language and there is no context here that indicates anything else.

First, and foremost, the gift of tongues being spoken of here specifically says that the language is being spoken to God, not man. This isn't me supernaturally speaking in a foreign dialect to a foreign people. This is me speaking in tongues, no matter the language, to the Lord. It is between God and I.

In verse 4 we see that the gift of tongues edifies the tongue speaker personally, where as prophesying edifies the church. This is important. Tongues, the gift, edifies the tongue speaker. This is emphasized multiple times in 1 Corinthians 14.


1 Corinthians 14:16-19 King James Version (KJV)

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.

There is a lot being said in the above verses, but lets go over each point. Tongues in this instance is not understood by the people hearing them, "seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest." So, again, tongues here is not speaking supernaturally in a language you are ignorant unto their edification (speaking a message to them in their language). They have no clue what you are saying.

Secondly, it says that through tongues you are giving "thanks well" but the other is not edified. Once again, the tongue speaker himself is using the gift of tongues and being edified ("blessing with the spirit"), and the audience (those hearing the tongues nearby) are not edified. Why? They don't know what you are saying, and it needs interpretation for them to be edified. Yet, the tongue speaker is edified regardless of interpretation (1 Corinthians 14:14, 1 Corinthians 14:17).

Thirdly, notice the apostles Paul's words here in verse 19. "Yet in the church" he'd rather speak five understood words than ten thousand in tongues. Notice, it can be inferred, that he speaks in tongues outside of the church. Yet in the church, as opposed to what? At home? In a home fellowship? In his prayer closet? In, can we speculate, private?


Pure speculation brother, it lines up again with someone who gives thanx to God in a language others don't speak. Thus he gives thanx to God but profits no one else as they do not speak the language.
1 Corinthians 14:27-28 King James Version (KJV)

27 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.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

If the tongue speaker is speaking to himself and to God, is this not private? Please read verse 28 carefully. "Let him keep silence in the church", and we ask again, as opposed to where else? In private, which means we would "let him speak to himself and to God."An interpreter is of course someone who knows both the language of the speaker and the listeners. And is able to communicate the thoughts of one language to another. But if there is no one like that, then its better to not speak and just commune between God and yourself as it would not help anyone else.
PS: Yes, this is a recent post of mine but I felt it needed its own thread.

Part of Paul point is in the first verse which says:

1Co 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

People have made a big deal out of this chapter because the language is not modern. and they neglect the overall context of the book and especially the fist two chapters before this.

What this first verse says in modern english is simple: Make love your first priority and also its good to desire spiritual things, but only so that you can spread the word.

Paul's first point is not a comparison as some suggest but rather showing a reason for spiritual gifts, they are for edifying others that is their very purpose. They are not for self edification as it is written:

1Co 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

They are to profit everyone.

But notice this important point that many miss.

1Co 12:9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
1Co 12:10 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:

notice the gift of tongues and interpretation is separate from working of miracles. The working of miracles includes the miraculous unnatural gift of tongues in Acts. It includes healing and signs and wonders. everything else is not miraculous in nature at least to the human understanding.

They are all gifts as all good things come from God. Some are gifted with the ability to learn many languages but you will know that not all who can speak many languages are good at interpreting. Some are gifted healers they grasp the workings of the human body etc.

blessings hope this helps someone.

 

[shrume]

notice the gift of tongues and interpretation is separate from working of miracles. The working of miracles includes the miraculous unnatural gift of tongues in Acts. It includes healing and signs and wonders. everything else is not miraculous in nature at least to the human understanding.

Speaking in tongues is not a miracle. It is one of the nine manifestations of the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Tongues at Pentecost was a sign to Israel that they were receiving judgment from God.

Really?

The Lord Jesus Christ, just before His ascension, commanded His disciples that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me (Acts 1:4). He also told His disciples ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence (Acts 1:5).

So the "promise of the Father" the Lord Jesus Christ told His disciples to wait for was "judgment from God"???

They rejected their Messiah and God used the sign of tongues to make this evident.

Nope. According to Acts 2:11, the people heard the apostles speak the wonderful works of God.

And when Peter finished speaking, there were added unto them about three thousand souls (Acts 2:41).

Remember the crowd calling for the blood of Christ to be upon them and their children?

What occurred on Day of Pentecost was the shedding forth of the Holy Spirit upon the believers present in fulfillment of the promise of the Father.

 

[notuptome]

Really?

The Lord Jesus Christ, just before His ascension, commanded His disciples that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me (Acts 1:4). He also told His disciples ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence (Acts 1:5).

So the "promise of the Father" the Lord Jesus Christ told His disciples to wait for was "judgment from God"???

The filling of the Holy Spirit for power to minister the gospel has nothing directly to do with the sign of tongues. The sign was to the audience that was present not to the disciples. Do you really believe that the Pharisees would have not seen tongues as a sign of judgment? The you missed a big part of what was going on at Pentecost.

Nope. According to Acts 2:11, the people heard the apostles speak the wonderful works of God.

And when Peter finished speaking, there were added unto them about three thousand souls (Acts 2:41).

Peters sermon that led to the conversion of souls that day begins in verse 14. The miracle of tongues that day of Pentecost was in the ears of the hearers not in the tongues of the speakers. They spoke with tongues made new by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. They spoke of Christ crucified and risen as they never could before.

What occurred on Day of Pentecost was the shedding forth of the Holy Spirit upon the believers present in fulfillment of the promise of the Father.

The promise of the signs given in Joel was to the Jews. The Holy Spirit is indeed poured out on all flesh but the signs are given to the Jews.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[reneweddaybyday]

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

You understand what and how you want to understand.

as do you ...

 

[notuptome]

as do you ...

And so it goes.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[reneweddaybyday]

The filling of the Holy Spirit for power to minister the gospel has nothing directly to do with the sign of tongues. The sign was to the audience that was present not to the disciples. Do you really believe that the Pharisees would have not seen tongues as a sign of judgment? The you missed a big part of what was going on at Pentecost.

While we do not know how the Pharisees perceived the manifestation of tongues on Day of Pentecost, we do know from Acts 4:1 the reaction of the priests, the captain of the temple, and the sadducees to the preaching of Peter after the lame man was healed.

There is no mention of concern over the fact that the disciples spoke in tongues. The priests, captain of the temple, and the sadducees were focused on the preaching through Jesus the resurrection of the dead (Acts 4:2).

In Acts 4:18 they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

Apparently, the pharisees did not see "tongues as a sign of judgment" as you claim.

Peters sermon that led to the conversion of souls that day begins in verse 14. The miracle of tongues that day of Pentecost was in the ears of the hearers not in the tongues of the speakers.

So the manifestation is not kinds of tongues as revealed in 1 Cor 12:10 and in Acts 2:4 when the apostles spoke with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Rather, according to you, it is the manifestation of hearing???

They spoke with tongues made new by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. They spoke of Christ crucified and risen as they never could before.

They spoke in tongues as the Spirit gave the utterance:

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

And, yes, in agreement that after they were filled with the Holy Ghost, they were filled with a power that overcame their fear and they were no longer hidden behind closed doors for fear of the jews as described in John 20:19.

 

[UnderGrace]

Paul was responding to questions that were sent to him, we must remember he is at a distance instructing this very troubled church

The church at Corinth had many gentiles, they were recent converts from the pagan religions,and they were failing to distinguish between the ecstatic utterance of their past and the true gift of tongues given supernaturally by the Holy Spirit.


It is also important to know that it is possible that when Paul uses the singular he is speaking about the counterfeit (ecstatic speech) and when he uses plural (tongues) he is speaking about the true gift of the spirit, as in a variety of languages.

Also the situation at the church at Corinth continued to deteriorate and in time there is evidence it ceased to exist.

So in 1 Cor 14:28, when Paul told them if there is no interpretation they should speak in tongues silently to God, Paul was actually encouraging them to speak in the "counterfeit" to their pagan god?

I believe if Paul was dealing with some sort of pagan worship, he'd tell them to knock it off altogether ... Paul would not encourage them to speak silently to their pagan god.

Nor would Paul tell them to "not forbid" the counterfeit (1 Cor 14:39).

 

[notuptome]

While we do not know how the Pharisees perceived the manifestation of tongues on Day of Pentecost, we do know from Acts 4:1 the reaction of the priests, the captain of the temple, and the sadducees to the preaching of Peter after the lame man was healed.

There is no mention of concern over the fact that the disciples spoke in tongues. The priests, captain of the temple, and the sadducees were focused on the preaching through Jesus the resurrection of the dead (Acts 4:2).

In Acts 4:18 they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

Apparently, the pharisees did not see "tongues as a sign of judgment" as you claim.

The Sadducees were upset over the preaching of the resurrection.

Run down Acts 10:44 and see the purpose of Gentiles speaking in tongues.

So the manifestation is not kinds of tongues as revealed in 1 Cor 12:10 and in Acts 2:4 when the apostles spoke with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Rather, according to you, it is the manifestation of hearing???

Hearing multiple languages from a single speaker certainly points in that direction. Of course you may wish to believe that they were all speaking at the same time but that would be confusing.

They spoke in tongues as the Spirit gave the utterance:

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

And, yes, in agreement that after they were filled with the Holy Ghost, they were filled with a power that overcame their fear and they were no longer hidden behind closed doors for fear of the jews as described in John 20:19.

Acts 2:6 they were confounded because they every man heard them speak in their own language.

Is this the utterance you claim today?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[reneweddaybyday]

It is also important to know that it is possible that when Paul uses the singular he is speaking about the counterfeit (ecstatic speech) and when he uses plural (tongues) he is speaking about the true gift of the spirit, as in a variety of languages.

1 Corinthians 14:

27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, [Greek glōssē, noun, singular] let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.


In 1 Corinthians 14:27, the word glōssē is singular.

So now you're saying that Paul encouraged the use of the counterfeit in the church congregation when he told them to speak in tongues two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret?

And then Paul urged the believer to use the counterfeit to speak to his/her pagan god?

 

[reneweddaybyday]

The Sadducees were upset over the preaching of the resurrection.

In Post #344, you stated "Do you really believe that the Pharisees would have not seen tongues as a sign of judgment?" and then commented that I "missed a big part of what was going on at Pentecost."

Please show me the verse which indicates what you stated. There is no verse in Acts which states that the pharisees were concerned about the manifestation of tongues.

Run down Acts 10:44 and see the purpose of Gentiles speaking in tongues.

Acts 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

Since Acts 2:11 indicates the people present heard them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God and Acts 10:46 indicates they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God, why do you not believe that is what takes place in our day and time?

Hearing multiple languages from a single speaker certainly points in that direction. Of course you may wish to believe that they were all speaking at the same time but that would be confusing.

Where does Acts 2 indicate only one person spoke in tongues.

Acts 2:4 indicates they began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance and Acts 2:11 says we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

"they" ... "them" ... apparently more than one spoke in tongues.

Acts 2:6 they were confounded because they every man heard them speak in their own language.

According to Acts 2:7, they were amazed and marveled because all who spoke were Galilaeans.

Acts 2:7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

and yet, they all heard these Galilaeans speak in his own language.

Is this the utterance you claim today?

1 Corinthians 12:

6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

10 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:

11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.


According to 1 Cor 12:6, it is God Who works all in all.

According to 1 Cor 12:11, it is the One and the selfsame Spirit Who works within the born again one to bring about the manifestation of the Spirit.

Do you think God has somehow forgotten how to give the utterance between Day of Pentecost and now?

 

[UnderGrace]

This is not an encouraging letter, this is a letter of correction.

He is basically telling them there must be translation that is how we know it is a genuine language. No translation then keep silent.

I think you are not seeing this from an historical view point of the city of Corinth and who these converts were. Paul is trying from a distance to allow the real thing and discourage the not real thing.

The singular is definitely where he is putting the parameters and constraints

They are not speaking to a pagan god, I think I made that clear.

I think anyone who believes tongues is commonplace today should really study the church at Corinth and this present day (last hundred years or so) tongue (glossolalia) resurgence.

1 Corinthians 14:

27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, [Greek glōssē, noun, singular] let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.


In 1 Corinthians 14:27, the word glōssē is singular.

So now you're saying that Paul encouraged the use of the counterfeit in the church congregation when he told them to speak in tongues two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret?

And then Paul urged the believer to use the counterfeit to speak to his/her pagan god?

 

[reneweddaybyday]

This is not an encouraging letter, this is a letter of correction.

He is basically telling them there must be translation that is how we know it is a genuine language. No translation then keep silent.

I think you are not seeing this from an historical view point of the city of Corinth and who these converts were. Paul is trying from a distance to allow the real thing and discourage the not real thing.

The singular is definitely where he is putting the parameters and constraints

They are not speaking to a pagan god, I think I made that clear.

I think anyone who believes tongues is commonplace today should really study the church at Corinth and this present day (last hundred years or so) tongue (glossolalia) resurgence.

In Post #348, you stated (bold mine):

It is also important to know that it is possible that when Paul uses the singular he is speaking about the counterfeit (ecstatic speech) and when he uses plural (tongues) he is speaking about the true gift of the spirit, as in a variety of languages.​

And then in Post #352, you stated (bold mine):

The singular is definitely where he is putting the parameters and constraints

They are not speaking to a pagan god, I think I made that clear.​

In 1 Cor 14:27-28, Paul tells the church, if the one speaking in a tongue (Greek glōssē, noun, singular), then it is to be spoken by two or three at the most, and the manifestation of interpretation of tongues is to follow. However, if there is no interpretation, then the manifestation of glōssē (noun, singular) is to be spoken silently between the believer and God.

You have completely changed the meaning of the text to state that Paul is encouraging the counterfeit aloud if there is an interpreter, or silently if there is not an interpreter.

That is not what the verses state.

Just read the verses as if Paul is writing concerning the genuine manifestation of tongues with interpretation (vs 27) or no interpretation (vs 28).

 

[UnderGrace]

There can be no translation if it is the counterfeit that is his point.

Unintelligible sounds, ecstatic speech is just that, it does not have to be directed to a pagan god, to some it may sound like a real language, this is why the church was having so many problems and they were asking Paul for answers.

How would a member of the congregation at Corinth, culturally diverse, multi-lingual society, even be able to know which is which, they did not have our knowledge of language and linguistics.

In Post #348, you stated (bold mine):

It is also important to know that it is possible that when Paul uses the singular he is speaking about the counterfeit (ecstatic speech) and when he uses plural (tongues) he is speaking about the true gift of the spirit, as in a variety of languages.​

And then in Post #352, you stated (bold mine):

The singular is definitely where he is putting the parameters and constraints

They are not speaking to a pagan god, I think I made that clear.​

In 1 Cor 14:27-28, Paul tells the church, if the one speaking in a tongue (Greek glōssē, noun, singular), then it is to be spoken by two or three at the most, and the manifestation of interpretation of tongues is to follow. However, if there is no interpretation, then the manifestation of glōssē (noun, singular) is to be spoken silently between the believer and God.

You have completely changed the meaning of the text to state that Paul is encouraging the counterfeit aloud if there is an interpreter, or silently if there is not an interpreter.

That is not what the verses state.

Just read the verses as if Paul is writing concerning the genuine manifestation of tongues with interpretation (vs 27) or no interpretation (vs 28).

 

[DJ2]

I believed in present-day miracles long before I heard of Craig Keener. It has a lot to do with personal observation and experience. However, since you are unlikely to accept testimony from one person, perhaps a collection of testimonies from an array of sources will help. You're free to disregard them, of course, but continuing to assert that miracles don't happen today, when you won't even check out the evidence, is intellectually dishonest.

You just don't get it.

The miraculous is not something you research to discover, its not something you need to do homework to understand.

You don't use 1200 page books to prove the miraculous, the miraculous proves itself.

There is no need for testimony if we are living in an age of the miraculous. Testimony is for proving past events not the on going. The more you rely on testimony instead of actual miraculous events makes your defense even more laughable. Can you not see this?

The claims of healings, resurrections and assorted other miraculous events are just that, claims. Claims that hold no more weight then the claims of the miraculous in the Muslim and Hindu world.

The intellectual dishonesty is on you for not seeing that which is right in front of your eyes. An age of faith not from sight.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

There can be no translation if it is the counterfeit that is his point.

Unintelligible sounds, ecstatic speech is just that, it does not have to be directed to a pagan god, to some it may sound like a real language, this is why the church was having so many problems and they were asking Paul for answers.

How would a member of the congregation at Corinth, culturally diverse, multi-lingual society, even be able to know which is which, they did not have our knowledge of language and linguistics.

1 Cor 14:28 instructs that if there is no interpretation, the believer is to speak silently to God.

So you're claiming Paul is telling the church to utter the counterfeit to God?

Throughout the letter written to the church at Corinth, Paul has no problem telling the believers to knock off their foolishness. But now, all of a sudden, when it comes to (according to you) the counterfeit, "ecstatic speech", Paul tells them "go ahead ... just speak silently to God"???

I believe Paul is speaking of the genuine manifestation of the Spirit in 1 Cor 12-14, whether he uses the plural or the singular.

If there is no interpretation, and the believer is sitting in the congregation, he/she is to speak in tongues silently to God.

 

[Kavik]

Nope. It's the one and the selfsame Spirit energizing within the born again one; then the manifestation of the Spirit is observed in the physical realm.

If you’re referencing 1 Cor. 12:11 it is simply stating that all these gifts/manifestations are given by the same Spirit (i.e. each ‘gift/manifestation’ is not attributed to a specific deity (as they may have been viewed in many pre-Christian pantheistic religions)), not several, AND, that Spirit gives these abilities to whomever it wishes and to the degree that it wishes (i.e. many people may have the gift of ‘X’; some however may have more of an ability for ‘X’ than others).


The issue / problem with your understanding here is that 1 Cor 14:14 states if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

The person speaking in tongues does not understand what he/she is saying.

When you claim that "(the fact I understand it)", you contradict what is written in 1 Cor 14:14.


I’m not contradicting anything. I think many people read this passage as “if I pray in a ‘tongue’ (unknown to everyone, including me), my spirit is praying, but I don’t understand anything I’m saying (nor does anyone else).” I would argue that this is the only possible way it can be read and understood by someone who speaks in tongues, because, again, this seems to be one of two main verses that proponents will use to argue tongues as something other than simply real language(s).

However; another way to look at the passage, in light of real language and the actual issue in Corinth, is “If I pray in a foreign language (i.e. foreign to the listeners); my spirit is praying (i.e. I’m praying earnestly and from the heart), but the fact that I understand it (my understanding) does not benefit anyone else (as they don’t speak my language) – it produces no fruit (in others).

As one writer explains it in more detail:

“1 Corinthians 14:14 is probably the main text used to argue that the language speaker did not understand his language. Paul says that if he should speak in a language (without translation), "my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful [akarpos]." Lenski takes akarpos as passive: "my nous or understanding" is inactive and thus akarpos--"barren," "unfruitful," producing no distinct thoughts".

Paul could also be using akarpos in the active sense:

A decision upon its meaning centers in akarpos ("unfruitful") whether the adjective is passive in sense, meaning the speaker himself receives no benefit, or active in sense, meaning his nous (understanding) provides no benefit to others...The view that assigns akarpos a meaning of "produces nothing, contributes nothing to the process"... is not convincing, because akarpos does not mean "inactive." It is a word for results and does not apply to the process through which the results are obtained. The present discussion does not center on the activity or nonactivity of the tongues speaker's mind, but rather on potential benefit derived by listeners.

The whole context of 1 Corinthians 14 is the effect upon the hearers of untranslated languages.
Paul’s concern is the edification of the group. Therefore, 14:14 should be taken as "My spirit prays but my mind does not produce fruit [in others]."


In 1 Cor 14:27-28, Paul tells the church, if the one speaking in a tongue (Greek glōssē, noun, singular), then it is to be spoken by two or three at the most, and the manifestation of interpretation of tongues is to follow. However, if there is no interpretation, then the manifestation of glōssē (noun, singular) is to be spoken silently between the believer and God.

Paul is just instructing those who are praying in a foreign language to just do it a few at a time (rather than all at once). This would allow time for translators (if there are any) to render what the person is saying into the local vernacular (in this case Greek) so all can benefit. A task which is very difficult to do in the least if everyone is speaking at once. Paul has simply given an acceptable method by which the translation process should be done (to his way of thinking). If no translator(s) can be found, better for them not to speak aloud at all, but to just pray silently.

The issue here seems to be that for tongue speakers, certain passages can only be interpreted (sic!) one way – any other reading/understanding negates the whole tongues as spiritual/angelic/heavenly language concept.

Modern glossolalia (“tongues”) is a very powerful spiritual tool (as it is in other cultures that use it), no argument there. But they are just a tool, created by man, to establish a closer relationship with the divine.

 

[Dino246]

You just don't get it.

The miraculous is not something you research to discover, its not something you need to do homework to understand.

You don't use 1200 page books to prove the miraculous, the miraculous proves itself.

There is no need for testimony if we are living in an age of the miraculous. Testimony is for proving past events not the on going. The more you rely on testimony instead of actual miraculous events makes your defense even more laughable. Can you not see this?

The claims of healings, resurrections and assorted other miraculous events are just that, claims. Claims that hold no more weight then the claims of the miraculous in the Muslim and Hindu world.

The intellectual dishonesty is on you for not seeing that which is right in front of your eyes. An age of faith not from sight.

I have seen what is right in front of my eyes, and that is why I believe in the existence of miracles today, and why I accept the testimony of others as plausible.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Nope. It's the one and the selfsame Spirit energizing within the born again one; then the manifestation of the Spirit is observed in the physical realm.

If you’re referencing 1 Cor. 12:11 it is simply stating that all these gifts/manifestations are given by the same Spirit (i.e. each ‘gift/manifestation’ is not attributed to a specific deity (as they may have been viewed in many pre-Christian pantheistic religions)), not several, AND, that Spirit gives these abilities to whomever it wishes and to the degree that it wishes (i.e. many people may have the gift of ‘X’; some however may have more of an ability for ‘X’ than others).

Yes, 1 Cor 12:11 indicates the one and the selfsame Spirit works the manifestation within the born again believer.

The manifestation is not energized within those who are not born again (natural man).

The issue / problem with your understanding here is that 1 Cor 14:14 states if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

The person speaking in tongues does not understand what he/she is saying.

When you claim that "(the fact I understand it)", you contradict what is written in 1 Cor 14:14.

I’m not contradicting anything. I think many people read this passage as “if I pray in a ‘tongue’ (unknown to everyone, including me), my spirit is praying, but I don’t understand anything I’m saying (nor does anyone else).” I would argue that this is the only possible way it can be read and understood by someone who speaks in tongues, because, again, this seems to be one of two main verses that proponents will use to argue tongues as something other than simply real language(s).

My understanding is that the person who speaks in tongues does not understand what he/she says. However, there may be some in the congregation who understand.

However; another way to look at the passage, in light of real language and the actual issue in Corinth, is “If I pray in a foreign language (i.e. foreign to the listeners); my spirit is praying (i.e. I’m praying earnestly and from the heart), but the fact that I understand it (my understanding) does not benefit anyone else (as they don’t speak my language) – it produces no fruit (in others).

Inasmuch as you deny the manifestation of Holy Spirit within the born again one, you would, of course, understand the verse the way you describe.

As one writer explains it in more detail:

“1 Corinthians 14:14 is probably the main text used to argue that the language speaker did not understand his language. Paul says that if he should speak in a language (without translation), "my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful [akarpos]." Lenski takes akarpos as passive: "my nous or understanding" is inactive and thus akarpos--"barren," "unfruitful," producing no distinct thoughts".

Paul could also be using akarpos in the active sense:

A decision upon its meaning centers in akarpos ("unfruitful") whether the adjective is passive in sense, meaning the speaker himself receives no benefit, or active in sense, meaning his nous (understanding) provides no benefit to others...The view that assigns akarpos a meaning of "produces nothing, contributes nothing to the process"... is not convincing, because akarpos does not mean "inactive." It is a word for results and does not apply to the process through which the results are obtained. The present discussion does not center on the activity or nonactivity of the tongues speaker's mind, but rather on potential benefit derived by listeners.

The whole context of 1 Corinthians 14 is the effect upon the hearers of untranslated languages.
Paul’s concern is the edification of the group. Therefore, 14:14 should be taken as "My spirit prays but my mind does not produce fruit [in others]."

I respectfully disagree with your unnamed author.

While the concern of Paul is the edification of the church congregation, there is also reference to the personal edification of the believer who speaks in tongues. That you fail to recognize this fact does not negate that Paul does, in fact, claim there is a benefit to the individual. The benefit is spiritual as opposed to mental or physical.

In 1 Cor 14:27-28, Paul tells the church, if the one speaking in a tongue (Greek glōssē, noun, singular), then it is to be spoken by two or three at the most, and the manifestation of interpretation of tongues is to follow. However, if there is no interpretation, then the manifestation of glōssē (noun, singular) is to be spoken silently between the believer and God.

Paul is just instructing those who are praying in a foreign language to just do it a few at a time (rather than all at once). This would allow time for translators (if there are any) to render what the person is saying into the local vernacular (in this case Greek) so all can benefit. A task which is very difficult to do in the least if everyone is speaking at once. Paul has simply given an acceptable method by which the translation process should be done (to his way of thinking). If no translator(s) can be found, better for them not to speak aloud at all, but to just pray silently.

The issue here seems to be that for tongue speakers, certain passages can only be interpreted (sic!) one way – any other reading/understanding negates the whole tongues as spiritual/angelic/heavenly language concept.

So now you're saying that there are many and various Scriptural interpretations and all are okay?

Modern glossolalia (“tongues”) is a very powerful spiritual tool (as it is in other cultures that use it), no argument there. But they are just a tool, created by man, to establish a closer relationship with the divine.

Again, your opinion that the manifestation is "just a tool, created by man, to establish a closer relationship with the divine" is complete contradiction to what Scripture indicates in 1 Cor 12.

Nice try. No one can fault you in your endeavor to render that which is spiritual as merely a mundane attempt to "establish a closer relationship with the divine" is complete contradiction to what Scripture indicates in 1 Cor 12.

 

[notuptome]

Do you think God has somehow forgotten how to give the utterance between Day of Pentecost and now?

You have my sympathies.

For the cause of Christ
Roger