Speaking in Tongues (Privately, Outside of Church)

[BenFTW]

So what is tongues/glossolalia for you?

What is it that happens, do you loose control and sounds just pour out of your mouth?

Can you do that this at any moment.

Are saying here that you interpret/translate your own glossolalia

In my own experience, it isn't about losing control. I can speak in tongues fast, or slow, sing high or low. In fact, a lot of tongue speakers say that the mind isn't involved, but for me, at least, it is (sometimes) and can be. I've spoken in tongues and sometimes words pop up in my mind, almost as if guiding me on what next to say (if not just the pronunciation). Yet other times its just flowing and I don't look into my mind to receive direction.

The thing is, as far as interpretation, the Lord told me I can get "a glimpse of what the Spirit is saying" as far as my interpretation "skills" go. If I am speaking in tongues and seeking the meaning, it is either by seeing what pops up in my mind or what word might come to the forefront of my mind. It doesn't always happen, probably because if I am doing it privately I don't necessarily seek the meaning of what I am saying. I am just praying, trusting the Holy Spirit to give me the utterance and to pray about the things He would have me praying about.

Tongues for me is a tool for fellowship with God.

 

[beastslayer1970]

In my own experience, it isn't about losing control. I can speak in tongues fast, or slow, sing high or low. In fact, a lot of tongue speakers say that the mind isn't involved, but for me, at least, it is (sometimes) and can be. I've spoken in tongues and sometimes words pop up in my mind, almost as if guiding me on what next to say (if not just the pronunciation). Yet other times its just flowing and I don't look into my mind to receive direction.

The thing is, as far as interpretation, the Lord told me I can get "a glimpse of what the Spirit is saying" as far as my interpretation "skills" go. If I am speaking in tongues and seeking the meaning, it is either by seeing what pops up in my mind or what word might come to the forefront of my mind. It doesn't always happen, probably because if I am doing it privately I don't necessarily seek the meaning of what I am saying. I am just praying, trusting the Holy Spirit to give me the utterance and to pray about the things He would have me praying about.

Tongues for me is a tool for fellowship with God.

1 Cor 14;13 says-

[SUP]13 [/SUP]Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret

This includes in private prayer time.

 

[BenFTW]

1 Cor 14;13 says-

[SUP]13 [/SUP]Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret

This includes in private prayer time.

This is in reference to the edification of others, but yes, if one so desires to, they can pray for an interpretation of what they have spoken in tongues privately. Something one can do is speak in tongues, and keep repeating that particular sentence and try to see if you get an interpretation. It just pops up in the mind like any other thought.

 

[UnderGrace]

So when you do not know what you have said how is it edifying?

Can you share what this knowledge that you have gained is exactly, I am assuming that each time there is some progress of the mind in knowledge?



This is the KJV definition of edification

[h=3]edification[/h] EDIFICA'TION, n. L. oedificatio. See Edify.
1. A building up, in a moral and religious sense; instruction; improvement and progress of the mind, in knowledge, in morals, or in faith and holiness.
He that prophesieth, speaketh to men to edification. 1 Cor.14.
2. Instruction; improvement of the mind in any species of useful knowledge.

In my own experience, it isn't about losing control. I can speak in tongues fast, or slow, sing high or low. In fact, a lot of tongue speakers say that the mind isn't involved, but for me, at least, it is (sometimes) and can be. I've spoken in tongues and sometimes words pop up in my mind, almost as if guiding me on what next to say (if not just the pronunciation). Yet other times its just flowing and I don't look into my mind to receive direction.

The thing is, as far as interpretation, the Lord told me I can get "a glimpse of what the Spirit is saying" as far as my interpretation "skills" go. If I am speaking in tongues and seeking the meaning, it is either by seeing what pops up in my mind or what word might come to the forefront of my mind. It doesn't always happen, probably because if I am doing it privately I don't necessarily seek the meaning of what I am saying. I am just praying, trusting the Holy Spirit to give me the utterance and to pray about the things He would have me praying about.

Tongues for me is a tool for fellowship with God.

 

[Kavik]

No. The speaker does not understand what he/she is saying. Others present may or may not understand.

1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, myspirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

The spirit of the one speaking in tongues is praying. The understanding of the one speaking in tongues is not benefitted.

Already addressed in detail further above – “if I pray in a language (which is foreign to those around me – thus the probable reason for the addition of ‘unknown’ at a later date), my spirit prays, but my understanding (of what I’m saying, i.e. the fact that I understand it) is unfruitful (i.e. unfruitful to others – it does not benefit them, only me).” The Greek ‘akarpos’, makes more sense here in the active rather than passive sense.

Paul clarifies that when spoken aloud in the church congregation, the manifestation of tongues is to be followed with the manifestation of interpretation of tongues.

And, yes, in agreement that if there is no interpretation, the believer is to speak in tongues silently to God.

I think that’s more or less what I said (if someone is going to speak aloud in a foreign language at a public worship, either get an interpreter/translator, or just pray silently), you’re just wording it differently to fit the modern understanding of “tongues” as something other than real language.

My comment was directed at your statement that the manifestation is "just a tool, created by man, to establish a closer relationship with the divine". That statement contradicts Scripture.

Yes and no – when viewed in the light of real language (‘tongues’ as referenced in the Bible) vs. modern T-speech, it does not contradict anything. When viewed in the light of modern tongues (T-speech) only, then, yes, I suppose it does.

While you may know what a "shaman somewhere in Siberia" does, you do not know me well enough to state I do as the shaman does.

The non-cognitive non-language utterances (NCNLU's) you produce is produced the exact same way – no difference; you are only drawing upon the sounds and structure of your native language to produce NCNLU's which is perceived as real language. Again, simply record yourself for about a minute or so while using T-speech, play it back several times, and really listen to the sounds and structure of what you're producing. I would also argue that you’re both using it for the same purpose – to establish a spiritual connection to the Deity.

 

[Enow]

The thing is, as far as interpretation, the Lord told me I can get "a glimpse of what the Spirit is saying" as far as my interpretation "skills" go.

I believe the Lord can speak to us personally, but as in everything, He will not go against His words in testing the spirits.

You did not test the spirits.

Scripture testify that only another will get that interpretation of the tongue that is manifesting through you by the Holy Spirit because that is how the Holy Spirit manifest the gifts, dividing severally as He wills thru out that assembly.

Scripture testify that at no time, an individual member of the body will say to the other in these manifestations of the Spirit that he has no need of any other member of the body. That means no tongue speakers can interpret their own tongues.

Read 1 Corinthians 12th chapter to see that truth.

The other point for discernment is that if the "Lord" bother to tell you plainly such a thing, He would have told you what the Holy Spirit was saying rather than that you will get a glimpse of what the Holy Spirit is saying.

And since the voice can only be the Holy Spirit speaking for the Lord to you, it is rather disconcerting that you cannot fathom the irony of what you just described as having had happened while you claim the Holy Spirit was speaking in tongues too. ( John 16:13-15 )

Those are valid lines of discernment here, proving that you did not test the spirits, let alone the tongues that it had brought. You are relying on your own reasoning in how you speak in tongues and you have no guard against other spirits messing with you when you do not test the word heard given against scripture, let alone the operation of that tongue.

Brother, you need to go before that throne of grace for help to discern the spirits, the understood word spoken, and the babbling nonsense that is manifesting when it comes with no interpretation wherein you believed it is for private use.

The Lord can speak to you and be understood which renders using tongues without interpretation for private use rather moot for self edification, but as in any voice, if it runs against scripture, then that was not Him speaking. Do know that, brother.

 

[Dino246]

I believe the Lord can speak to us personally, but as in everything, He will not go against His words in testing the spirits.

You did not test the spirits.

Brother, you need to go before that throne of grace for help to discern the spirits, the understood word spoken, and the babbling nonsense that is manifesting when it comes with no interpretation wherein you believed it is for private use.

Ben has testified to his experience in speaking in tongues. He didn't say anything about "testing the spirits". Enow just assumed that he didn't ever test the spirits, because the testimony doesn't jibe with Enow's interpretation. What Enow doesn't see is the logical fallacy in his own argument. Just because Ben didn't mention testing the spirits doesn't mean he didn't do so. Just because he didn't mention doing so in a particular instance doesn't mean he hasn't built up trust and familiarity by doing so in the past.

If you're experiencing something new, then test the spirits as 1 John describes. If you have done so, and such experience, and the fruit thereof, is consistently edifying and consistent with Scripture, you can move forward in confidence that the experience is not from an unclean spirit.

 

[beastslayer1970]

Ben has testified to his experience in speaking in tongues. He didn't say anything about "testing the spirits". Enow just assumed that he didn't ever test the spirits, because the testimony doesn't jibe with Enow's interpretation. What Enow doesn't see is the logical fallacy in his own argument. Just because Ben didn't mention testing the spirits doesn't mean he didn't do so. Just because he didn't mention doing so in a particular instance doesn't mean he hasn't built up trust and familiarity by doing so in the past.

If you're experiencing something new, then test the spirits as 1 John describes. If you have done so, and such experience, and the fruit thereof, is consistently edifying and consistent with Scripture, you can move forward in confidence that the experience is not from an unclean spirit.

I think the proper context of 1 John 4:1-4 is testing for the spirit of Antichrist, not if your tongues are demonic or asking someone if Jesus came on the flesh during altar ministry, that is manifesting a work of the flesh.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

No. The speaker does not understand what he/she is saying. Others present may or may not understand.

1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, myspirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

The spirit of the one speaking in tongues is praying. The understanding of the one speaking in tongues is not benefitted.

Already addressed in detail further above – “if I pray in a language (which is foreign to those around me – thus the probable reason for the addition of ‘unknown’ at a later date), my spirit prays, but my understanding (of what I’m saying, i.e. the fact that I understand it) is unfruitful (i.e. unfruitful to others – it does not benefit them, only me).” The Greek ‘akarpos’, makes more sense here in the active rather than passive sense.

You have completely misinterpreted the verse. Nowhere does the verse state the person speaking understands what he/she is saying.

As a matter of fact, I bolded the word "my" so you would understand it is the person speaking whose spirit is praying and it is the person speaking whose understanding is unfruitful.

The New Living Translation renders the verse as follows: For if I pray in tongues, my spirit is praying, but I don't understand what I am saying.

In the Greek the verse clearly states that it is my [Greek mou, first person singular] spirit prayeth, but my [Greek mou, first person singular] understanding is unfruitful.

First person singular, not third person plural (as you want Scripture to state).

Paul clarifies that when spoken aloud in the church congregation, the manifestation of tongues is to be followed with the manifestation of interpretation of tongues.

And, yes, in agreement that if there is no interpretation, the believer is to speak in tongues silently to God.

I think that’s more or less what I said (if someone is going to speak aloud in a foreign language at a public worship, either get an interpreter/translator, or just pray silently), you’re just wording it differently to fit the modern understanding of “tongues” as something other than real language.

I worded my statement to conform to what is stated in 1 Cor 12:10-11 ... to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit ...

It is the One and the selfsame Spirit which works within the believer to provide the utterance of kinds in tongues and it is the One and the selfsame Spirit which works within the believer to provide the utterance of interpretation of tongues.

My comment was directed at your statement that the manifestation is "just a tool, created by man, to establish a closer relationship with the divine". That statement contradicts Scripture.

Yes and no – when viewed in the light of real language (‘tongues’ as referenced in the Bible) vs. modern T-speech, it does not contradict anything. When viewed in the light of modern tongues (T-speech) only, then, yes, I suppose it does.

Your lack of faith concerning the manifestation of the Spirit does not negate the manifestation of the Spirit in our day and time.

While you may know what a "shaman somewhere in Siberia" does, you do not know me well enough to state I do as the shaman does.

The non-cognitive non-language utterances (NCNLU's) you produce is produced the exact same way – no difference;

So your shaman somewhere in Siberia is born again and the One and the selfsame Spirit works within the shaman to bring about the manifestation of kinds of tongues? Wow. Who knew???

you are only drawing upon the sounds and structure of your native language to produce NCNLU's which is perceived as real language. Again, simply record yourself for about a minute or so while using T-speech, play it back several times, and really listen to the sounds and structure of what you're producing. I would also argue that you’re both using it for the same purpose – to establish a spiritual connection to the Deity.

The manifestation of the Spirit is the manifestation of the Spirit. That you want to refer to the manifestation of kinds of tongues as "NCNLU's" does not convert the manifestation to NCNLU's.

 

[Enow]

John 7:[SUP]7 [/SUP]The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.

1 Thessalonians 5:[SUP]21 [/SUP]Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. [SUP]22 [/SUP]Abstain from all appearance of evil.

 

[BenFTW]

I believe the Lord can speak to us personally, but as in everything, He will not go against His words in testing the spirits.

You did not test the spirits.

Scripture testify that only another will get that interpretation of the tongue that is manifesting through you by the Holy Spirit because that is how the Holy Spirit manifest the gifts, dividing severally as He wills thru out that assembly.

Scripture testify that at no time, an individual member of the body will say to the other in these manifestations of the Spirit that he has no need of any other member of the body. That means no tongue speakers can interpret their own tongues.

Read 1 Corinthians 12th chapter to see that truth.

The other point for discernment is that if the "Lord" bother to tell you plainly such a thing, He would have told you what the Holy Spirit was saying rather than that you will get a glimpse of what the Holy Spirit is saying.

And since the voice can only be the Holy Spirit speaking for the Lord to you, it is rather disconcerting that you cannot fathom the irony of what you just described as having had happened while you claim the Holy Spirit was speaking in tongues too. ( John 16:13-15 )

Those are valid lines of discernment here, proving that you did not test the spirits, let alone the tongues that it had brought. You are relying on your own reasoning in how you speak in tongues and you have no guard against other spirits messing with you when you do not test the word heard given against scripture, let alone the operation of that tongue.

Brother, you need to go before that throne of grace for help to discern the spirits, the understood word spoken, and the babbling nonsense that is manifesting when it comes with no interpretation wherein you believed it is for private use.

The Lord can speak to you and be understood which renders using tongues without interpretation for private use rather moot for self edification, but as in any voice, if it runs against scripture, then that was not Him speaking. Do know that, brother.

1 Corinthians 14:13 King James Version (KJV)

13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

Who, according to this verse, is to pray that they may interpret tongues? "Let him" that speaketh in an unknown tongue "pray that he" may interpret. The tongue speaker, himself, interprets their own tongues.

As far as my experience goes, in that instance of what the Lord was saying to me, it was actually another person, who has the gift of interpretation, that relayed that message to me. However, please understand that scripture actually tells someone operating in the gift of tongues to pray for an interpretation, to receive it (revelation of what was said) for the edification of another.

It is actually both. A tongue speaker can interpret his own tongues or have another do so.

 

[KelbyofGod]

1 Corinthians 14:13 King James Version (KJV)

13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

Who, according to this verse, is to pray that they may interpret tongues? "Let him" that speaketh in an unknown tongue "pray that he" may interpret. The tongue speaker, himself, interprets their own tongues.

As far as my experience goes, in that instance of what the Lord was saying to me, it was actually another person, who has the gift of interpretation, that relayed that message to me. However, please understand that scripture actually tells someone operating in the gift of tongues to pray for an interpretation, to receive it (revelation of what was said) for the edification of another.

It is actually both. A tongue speaker can interpret his own tongues or have another do so.

Ben,
Just wanted to say I appreciate the (for lack of better wording) the 'natural' way you are explaining how it works. When people just hurl scriptures at each other it seems neither party benefits. When things are explained with what I'm calling natural (with real world examples) it seems easier for all to understand.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[Kavik]

You have completely misinterpreted the verse. Nowhere does the verse state the person speaking understands what he/she is saying.

As a matter of fact, I bolded the word "my" so you would understand it is the person speaking whose spirit is praying and it is the person speaking whose understanding is unfruitful.

The New Living Translation renders the verse as follows: For if I pray in tongues, my spirit is praying, but I don't understand what I am saying.

In the Greek the verse clearly states that it is my [Greek mou, first person singular] spirit prayeth, but my [Greek mou, first person singular] understanding is unfruitful.

First person singular, not third person plural (as you want Scripture to state).

Yes, it’s ‘pneua mou’ and ‘nous mou’, but the crux of the passage is really the word ‘akarpos’ (unfruitful) and whether it’s used passively or actively. Used passively, the meaning would be something like ‘unfruitful to me’; used actively, ‘unfruitful to others’. I agree that arguments can be made to support either view; however, given the historical and cultural context as well as Paul’s plea for clarity and understanding in public worship, the active usage seems considerably more plausible here and, of course fits considerably better with the concept of Biblical “tongue(s)” equating to real language(s). My understanding (the fact I understand it) is unfruitful (to others).

So your shaman somewhere in Siberia is born again and the One and the selfsame Spirit works within the shaman to bring about the manifestation of kinds of tongues? Wow. Who knew???

With your understanding of ‘tongues’ I would concur with your comment; however, you don’t seem to realize that what modern tongue speakers are doing is not what is being described in the Bible with reference to “tongue(s)”. All Biblical references to the word ‘tongue(s)’ describe real language(s) – there are no passages that cannot be explained with reference to real languages and with what was happening historically and culturally, whilst what modern tongue speakers are doing is easily explained in terms of modern Linguistics.

Tongues as they are used today by Christian practitioners are a relatively recent phenomenon (to Christianity that is, certainly not to other cultures and religious paths).

Speakers will argue that the origin/reference is Biblical, but it simply is not.

James K.A. Smith in “Thinking in Tongues” (April, 2008) sums it up nicely where, in reference to the origins of modern tongues, he writes “The miraculous phenomena that manifested themselves at the Azusa Street revival, for example, compelled serious and sustained reflection. The events needed explanation (since it was painfully obvious that xenoglossy was not, as Parham fervently believed, what was happening), and the Pentecostal preachers and leaders turned to the resource that was most important to them: the narrative of Scripture. The resulting implicit theology was not a synthesis of revelation and philosophy but rather a synthesis trying to make sense of the experience in light of the narrative of Scripture.”

In short, looking for a way to legitimize what they were doing by ‘proofing‘ it in the Bible, despite the obvious absence therein of anything resembling modern tongues – call it what you will, but the result was a virtual re-definition of Scripture with respect to the understanding of “tongues” for this group of Christians.

So, what you and the ‘Siberian shaman’ are doing with respect to producing glossolalia is, in fact, identical; and, you’re both using it for essentially the same purpose – to establish a spiritual connection to the Deity. In these respects, your glossolalia is no different than his; different understanding of what it is, but same ‘methodology’ and purpose.

The manifestation of the Spirit is the manifestation of the Spirit. That you want to refer to the manifestation of kinds of tongues as "NCNLU's" does not convert the manifestation to NCNLU's.

The ‘manifestation’ is just the conferring of the ability; and yes, the Spirit can certainly inspire one what to say and perhaps even how to say it, but, with respect to the vehicle used, it is real language, not modern T-speech.

 

[notuptome]

1 Corinthians 14:13 King James Version (KJV)

13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

Who, according to this verse, is to pray that they may interpret tongues? "Let him" that speaketh in an unknown tongue "pray that he" may interpret. The tongue speaker, himself, interprets their own tongues.

As far as my experience goes, in that instance of what the Lord was saying to me, it was actually another person, who has the gift of interpretation, that relayed that message to me. However, please understand that scripture actually tells someone operating in the gift of tongues to pray for an interpretation, to receive it (revelation of what was said) for the edification of another.

It is actually both. A tongue speaker can interpret his own tongues or have another do so.

No potential problems with this line of interpretation. Except that there is no way to validate the interpretation or the language. The Bereans would be greatly frustrated. The speaker and the hearer would both be at liberty to say it meant anything that suited them and no one could dispute to facts.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[carl11]

Those that hold fast to speaking in tongues, can you say without a shadow of doubt that this Is the Holy Spirit giving you these words to speak ? How would you know if it just isn’t something coming from your head or even perhaps it is Satan himself deceiving you, because remember he comes as angel of light that is to say he is the master deiciver.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

You have completely misinterpreted the verse. Nowhere does the verse state the person speaking understands what he/she is saying.

As a matter of fact, I bolded the word "my" so you would understand it is the person speaking whose spirit is praying and it is the person speaking whose understanding is unfruitful.

The New Living Translation renders the verse as follows: For if I pray in tongues, my spirit is praying, but I don't understand what I am saying.

In the Greek the verse clearly states that it is my [Greek mou, first person singular] spirit prayeth, but my [Greek mou, first person singular] understanding is unfruitful.

First person singular, not third person plural (as you want Scripture to state).

Yes, it’s ‘pneua mou’ and ‘nous mou’, but the crux of the passage is really the word ‘akarpos’ (unfruitful) and whether it’s used passively or actively. Used passively, the meaning would be something like ‘unfruitful to me’; used actively, ‘unfruitful to others’. I agree that arguments can be made to support either view; however, given the historical and cultural context as well as Paul’s plea for clarity and understanding in public worship, the active usage seems considerably more plausible here and, of course fits considerably better with the concept of Biblical “tongue(s)” equating to real language(s).

The word akarpos is an adjective, in the nominative case, gender is masculine, number is singular (not plural).

The singular masculine relates back to my understanding. The understanding of the person speaking in tongues is unfruitful.

Again, from the New Living Translation: For if I pray in tongues, my spirit is praying, but I don't understand what I am saying

If, as you keep insisting, akarpos referred to others (plural) present, the number would be plural (not singular).

My understanding (the fact I understand it) is unfruitful (to others).

The verse clearly states my understanding is unfruitful.

Yet you keep inferring "My understanding (the fact I understand it)" …

Which is in complete contradiction to what is plainly written.

And in reference to your addition of "(to others)" to the text, please see above discussion concerning the word akarpos and the use of the singular as opposed to the plural.

So your shaman somewhere in Siberia is born again and the One and the selfsame Spirit works within the shaman to bring about the manifestation of kinds of tongues? Wow. Who knew???

With your understanding of ‘tongues’ I would concur with your comment; however, you don’t seem to realize that what modern tongue speakers are doing is not what is being described in the Bible with reference to “tongue(s)”.

A blanket statement made by you with no Scriptural support for your claim.

All Biblical references to the word ‘tongue(s)’ describe real language(s) – there are no passages that cannot be explained with reference to real languages and with what was happening historically and culturally, whilst what modern tongue speakers are doing is easily explained in terms of modern Linguistics.

Modern Linguistics cannot discern the Spirit Who works within the believer to energize the manifestation.

Tongues as they are used today by Christian practitioners are a relatively recent phenomenon (to Christianity that is, certainly not to other cultures and religious paths).

Speakers will argue that the origin/reference is Biblical, but it simply is not.

Inasmuch as the manifestation of tongues was first introduced to mankind on day of Pentecost, is that what you consider "a relatively recent phenomenon"?

James K.A. Smith in “Thinking in Tongues” (April, 2008) sums it up nicely where, in reference to the origins of modern tongues, he writes “The miraculous phenomena that manifested themselves at the Azusa Street revival, for example, compelled serious and sustained reflection. The events needed explanation (since it was painfully obvious that xenoglossy was not, as Parham fervently believed, what was happening), and the Pentecostal preachers and leaders turned to the resource that was most important to them: the narrative of Scripture. The resulting implicit theology was not a synthesis of revelation and philosophy but rather a synthesis trying to make sense of the experience in light of the narrative of Scripture.”

In short, looking for a way to legitimize what they were doing by ‘proofing‘ it in the Bible, despite the obvious absence therein of anything resembling modern tongues – call it what you will, but the result was a virtual re-definition of Scripture with respect to the understanding of “tongues” for this group of Christians.

Again, I respectfully disagree with your author. The manifestation of kinds of tongues is brought about by the energizing of the Holy Spirit within the born again believer.

You can disagree all you want and you can find all your naysayers to support your belief to make yourself comfortable in your denial of Scripture. That still does not convert the manifestation from the manifestation into your so-called NCNLU's, or your author's insistence that there was any "synthesis trying to make sense of the experience in light of the narrative of Scripture".

Sometimes speaking in tongues is speaking in tongues as revealed in Scripture.

So, what you and the ‘Siberian shaman’ are doing with respect to producing glossolalia is, in fact, identical; and, you’re both using it for essentially the same purpose – to establish a spiritual connection to the Deity. In these respects, your glossolalia is no different than his; different understanding of what it is, but same ‘methodology’ and purpose.

That is your opinion. Another blanket statement made by you with absolutely no proof as to the accuracy of your claim.

 

[beastslayer1970]

Those that hold fast to speaking in tongues, can you say without a shadow of doubt that this Is the Holy Spirit giving you these words to speak ? How would you know if it just isn’t something coming from your head or even perhaps it is Satan himself deceiving you, because remember he comes as angel of light that is to say he is the master deiciver.

Romans 8:26-27
[SUP]26 [/SUP]In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; [SUP]27 [/SUP]and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

 

[Enow]

1 Corinthians 14:13 King James Version (KJV)

13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

Who, according to this verse, is to pray that they may interpret tongues? "Let him" that speaketh in an unknown tongue "pray that he" may interpret. The tongue speaker, himself, interprets their own tongues.

You are misreading Paul's words by using your own experience. Paul is actually meaning that as a tongue speaker himself, while the Holy Spirit is manifesting tongues in speaking to others IN THE ASSEMBLY, he is praying that someone else will interpret so that he will understand that tongue and that tongue becomes fruitful to himself.

The precedent is set in 1 Corinthians 12:7-11 wherein the manifestations were to profit the body withal; NOT INDIVIDUALLY.

The Holy Spirit divides the gifts severally as He wills in the assembly. Paul bothered to cite as each gift is given, he separates that giving as each gift given is given to another.

The clincher is that he addresses the body of Christ and each member in it in relations to the gifts wherein the eye cannot say to the rest of the body that it has no need of you.

So basically you are misreading and misapplying paul's words in the 14th chapter and the proof of that is how you misapplication is running against scripture in the 12th chapter.

Just as many tongue speakers today have gained that kind of tongue for private use by a second blessing which again 1 Corinthians 12:13 refutes such a testimony to be shared by any one in the use of these gifts of the Spirit when we all have been baptized into one body and had that one drink of the One Spirit at our salvation. That means there is no second infilling in order to receive tongues which is the biggest hype given over all gifts, and yet there is no testimony of receiving the other gifts of the Spirit by any other such infilling, let alone the second one; it is always tongues for private use.

So when they speak of that tongue for private use and claim they use it as God instructed in the assembly as coming with interpretation, I do not believe it for there can be no lie of the truth, and therefore you guys are not discerning the spirits.

As far as my experience goes, in that instance of what the Lord was saying to me, it was actually another person, who has the gift of interpretation, that relayed that message to me. However, please understand that scripture actually tells someone operating in the gift of tongues to pray for an interpretation, to receive it (revelation of what was said) for the edification of another.

It is actually both. A tongue speaker can interpret his own tongues or have another do so.

For that to be true, then you need to cut out 1 Corinthians 12th chapter because you rendered it moot, for then the tongue speaker has no need of any other member of the body as he can be the whole body, speak in tongues and interpret that tongue. How can any one guard against someone that knows the second language but just claim that they don't know it? You can't. God knows you can't, and yet He would make it so that we know His real gift of tongues being manifested by that same Spirit as He is able to give that interpretation to another if He is bothering to manifest tongues at all.

I do not doubt what you say that YOU BELIEVE this is real and happening, but I am saying... no way as the scripture convinces me that that is not how the Holy Spirit would manifest the gifts that conveniently, only one member can do both speaking in tongues & interpreting it and yet somehow the Holy Spirit is limited in manifesting the interpretation in other believers within the assembly. Nope.

The heathen can speak in tongues in the Roman worship of some goddess, and claim to have "interpreters" too. Joyce Meyers claims she can interpret tongue by another tongue speaker by getting a feel for it. To me, and as you described yours, that is winging it. Can any one get a sure word of prophecy by winging it? No.

It is no wonder to me there are cessationists, because your testimony is not consistent with scripture for that tongue to be His. You start this OP, but you fail to notice how the discussion in the thread leaned towards using tongues privately IN the church; NOT OUTSIDE the church.

So even in this thread, private tongues use is confusing and God is not the author of it.

I would like to believe God is using tongues for missionary work in foreign countries, but from all the testimonies of show and tell here that ALSO claim such a thing, I cannot believe it, because there can be no lie of the truth.

 

[carl11]

Romans 8:26-27
[SUP]26 [/SUP]In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; [SUP]27 [/SUP]and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

This has nothing to do with that of speaking in tongues.

 

[BenFTW]

You are misreading Paul's words by using your own experience. Paul is actually meaning that as a tongue speaker himself, while the Holy Spirit is manifesting tongues in speaking to others IN THE ASSEMBLY, he is praying that someone else will interpret so that he will understand that tongue and that tongue becomes fruitful to himself.

The precedent is set in 1 Corinthians 12:7-11 wherein the manifestations were to profit the body withal; NOT INDIVIDUALLY.

The Holy Spirit divides the gifts severally as He wills in the assembly. Paul bothered to cite as each gift is given, he separates that giving as each gift given is given to another.

The clincher is that he addresses the body of Christ and each member in it in relations to the gifts wherein the eye cannot say to the rest of the body that it has no need of you.

So basically you are misreading and misapplying paul's words in the 14th chapter and the proof of that is how you misapplication is running against scripture in the 12th chapter.

Just as many tongue speakers today have gained that kind of tongue for private use by a second blessing which again 1 Corinthians 12:13 refutes such a testimony to be shared by any one in the use of these gifts of the Spirit when we all have been baptized into one body and had that one drink of the One Spirit at our salvation. That means there is no second infilling in order to receive tongues which is the biggest hype given over all gifts, and yet there is no testimony of receiving the other gifts of the Spirit by any other such infilling, let alone the second one; it is always tongues for private use.

So when they speak of that tongue for private use and claim they use it as God instructed in the assembly as coming with interpretation, I do not believe it for there can be no lie of the truth, and therefore you guys are not discerning the spirits.



For that to be true, then you need to cut out 1 Corinthians 12th chapter because you rendered it moot, for then the tongue speaker has no need of any other member of the body as he can be the whole body, speak in tongues and interpret that tongue. How can any one guard against someone that knows the second language but just claim that they don't know it? You can't. God knows you can't, and yet He would make it so that we know His real gift of tongues being manifested by that same Spirit as He is able to give that interpretation to another if He is bothering to manifest tongues at all.

I do not doubt what you say that YOU BELIEVE this is real and happening, but I am saying... no way as the scripture convinces me that that is not how the Holy Spirit would manifest the gifts that conveniently, only one member can do both speaking in tongues & interpreting it and yet somehow the Holy Spirit is limited in manifesting the interpretation in other believers within the assembly. Nope.

The heathen can speak in tongues in the Roman worship of some goddess, and claim to have "interpreters" too. Joyce Meyers claims she can interpret tongue by another tongue speaker by getting a feel for it. To me, and as you described yours, that is winging it. Can any one get a sure word of prophecy by winging it? No.

It is no wonder to me there are cessationists, because your testimony is not consistent with scripture for that tongue to be His. You start this OP, but you fail to notice how the discussion in the thread leaned towards using tongues privately IN the church; NOT OUTSIDE the church.

So even in this thread, private tongues use is confusing and God is not the author of it.

I would like to believe God is using tongues for missionary work in foreign countries, but from all the testimonies of show and tell here that ALSO claim such a thing, I cannot believe it, because there can be no lie of the truth.

Two words: Edifieth himself.