Speaking in Tongues (Privately, Outside of Church)
- Thread starter BenFTW
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The speaker does not need an interpreter. The audience needs an interpreter. God does not need an interpreter.
Verse 14 says that the mans spirit prays, that is not the Holy Spirit praying. Mans spirit is mans will. Again of the man does not know the tongue then he prays by his will but his mind is unfruitful.
Without understanding you will remain confused. God is not the author of confusion.
1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Verse 14 says that the mans spirit prays, that is not the Holy Spirit praying. Mans spirit is mans will. Again of the man does not know the tongue then he prays by his will but his mind is unfruitful.
Without understanding you will remain confused. God is not the author of confusion.
1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
I did not omit verse 5 for any nefarious reason. I simply limited the response so that it could be more concise.
Paul is not saying that men should limit the speakers of tongues but that for there to be benefit to the assembly there needs to be interpretation so all can understand what is being said. Please understand that Corinth was a crossroads trading city and many languages were represented in the congregation.
It was all about preaching Christ that souls would be made wise unto salvation. Language barriers had to be overcome to accomplish that purpose.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Paul is not saying that men should limit the speakers of tongues but that for there to be benefit to the assembly there needs to be interpretation so all can understand what is being said. Please understand that Corinth was a crossroads trading city and many languages were represented in the congregation.
It was all about preaching Christ that souls would be made wise unto salvation. Language barriers had to be overcome to accomplish that purpose.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
CS1 -
I only offer what the text says and why would anyone assume that the speaker did know what he was speaking when the Bible says unknown tongue? I would see that as adding false narrative into the passage to support an assumed conclusion, founded in human reasoning and not in what 1cor chapter 12, 13 and 14 say.
The Bible does not say ‘unknown’ tongue though; as I’m sure you know, the ‘unknown’ was added much later on. The passage just simply says ‘language’.
There are two ways of looking at that passage – either the speaker understands what he’s saying, or he doesn’t. It’s demonstrated numerous times further above in this thread that the speaker understands exactly what he’s saying; it’s his native language. It’s the other people at the gathering/public worship who do not understand him as they do not speak/understand his language, even though he is praying ‘in the Spirit’ (i.e. earnestly and from the heart, inspired by his belief/faith). In this respect, he speaks only to God; to others he is speaking ‘mysteries’ (they have no clue what he’s saying).
Given the cultural and linguistic diversity in a dual port city like Corinth, this explanation is not difficult to understand; not only is it simple and logical, but it describes an all too common issue in multi-lingual communities, not to mention, also makes the most sense from a historical perspective given what is known about ancient Corinth. It is simply describing a typical real-life language issue in a multi-lingual community.
For tongue speakers however, the above explanation doesn’t seem to be acceptable or viable as it negates ‘tongues’ (in the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic understanding of what they are). For these, the passage can only be interpreted as the speaker not understanding what he’s saying either,
What caused the 3.000 to be saved is hearing the message being spoken in their native languages of Aramaic and Greek (the ‘mother tongue’ of all Jews (and converts) present at Pentecost) – both of which were spoken by the apostles. The crowd expected Hebrew, they got their native languages (Greek and Aramaic) instead.
Tongues is (read ‘(foreign) languages are’) a sign for those who don’t believe – yes, because people are now able to be taught about Christ’s message in their native languages rather than, as most religions did it in those days (and some still do today) a prescribed/culturally required (liturgical) language.
Dino 246-
18 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all.
19 however in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue. (NASB, emphasis added)
These words "with my mind" as contrasted with "in a tongue" in both vs. 14 and 19 make it clear to me that the "tongue" is not simply a language that Paul had learned. This strongly suggests that tongues are a gift of the Spirit, not a naturally-learned language.
If he spoke in any language he had learned, he would be speaking with his mind. Even if the language were unknown to his hearers, he would simply be speaking a foreign language, not a Holy Spirit-empowered language.
The emphasis in that passage (as well as most of 1 Cor.) is understanding and clarity – here, Paul is thankful he speaks several languages (more than most people) and is “not afraid to use them” so-to-speak to spread his message; however, he’d rather speak just a few words in a language he understands completely (i.e. his native language – with his mind/understanding) in order to instruct people correctly, than myriad words in a (foreign) language he may speak, but not as comfortably and certain as his native language.
As anyone who has learned a foreign language can tell you, when you want to say something of import in that language, it’s not always as easy as it sounds. Many times, you’re just kind of winging it hoping you have all the nuances correct. Many words for example can have several meanings you may not be aware of, etc., etc. It’s easy to say something you think means one thing and have it completely loose something in your translation. Just because a person speaks a foreign language, doesn’t mean they have native speaker proficiency.
Not to bore you with a story, but I have translated a very simple meals grace into several First Nations languages spoken here in New England – a few simple lines, really maddeningly simple in fact, yet a phenomenally difficult and very frustrating, time-involved task in order to try and get the nuances of the original properly conveyed in the translation – still not 100% convinced I have it right (even though they are maddeningly simple in my native language which I speak ‘with my understanding’) .
The point is, I could easily say, I’d rather speak the grace “with my mind” (in my native language), than in many words in a tongue (read ‘language’) I may speak, but am not 100% confident in my translation.
I would argue that again, the passage is discussing very common issues and problems with real languages, nothing more than that.
I only offer what the text says and why would anyone assume that the speaker did know what he was speaking when the Bible says unknown tongue? I would see that as adding false narrative into the passage to support an assumed conclusion, founded in human reasoning and not in what 1cor chapter 12, 13 and 14 say.
The Bible does not say ‘unknown’ tongue though; as I’m sure you know, the ‘unknown’ was added much later on. The passage just simply says ‘language’.
There are two ways of looking at that passage – either the speaker understands what he’s saying, or he doesn’t. It’s demonstrated numerous times further above in this thread that the speaker understands exactly what he’s saying; it’s his native language. It’s the other people at the gathering/public worship who do not understand him as they do not speak/understand his language, even though he is praying ‘in the Spirit’ (i.e. earnestly and from the heart, inspired by his belief/faith). In this respect, he speaks only to God; to others he is speaking ‘mysteries’ (they have no clue what he’s saying).
Given the cultural and linguistic diversity in a dual port city like Corinth, this explanation is not difficult to understand; not only is it simple and logical, but it describes an all too common issue in multi-lingual communities, not to mention, also makes the most sense from a historical perspective given what is known about ancient Corinth. It is simply describing a typical real-life language issue in a multi-lingual community.
For tongue speakers however, the above explanation doesn’t seem to be acceptable or viable as it negates ‘tongues’ (in the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic understanding of what they are). For these, the passage can only be interpreted as the speaker not understanding what he’s saying either,
What caused the 3.000 to be saved is hearing the message being spoken in their native languages of Aramaic and Greek (the ‘mother tongue’ of all Jews (and converts) present at Pentecost) – both of which were spoken by the apostles. The crowd expected Hebrew, they got their native languages (Greek and Aramaic) instead.
Tongues is (read ‘(foreign) languages are’) a sign for those who don’t believe – yes, because people are now able to be taught about Christ’s message in their native languages rather than, as most religions did it in those days (and some still do today) a prescribed/culturally required (liturgical) language.
Dino 246-
18 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all.
19 however in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue. (NASB, emphasis added)
These words "with my mind" as contrasted with "in a tongue" in both vs. 14 and 19 make it clear to me that the "tongue" is not simply a language that Paul had learned. This strongly suggests that tongues are a gift of the Spirit, not a naturally-learned language.
If he spoke in any language he had learned, he would be speaking with his mind. Even if the language were unknown to his hearers, he would simply be speaking a foreign language, not a Holy Spirit-empowered language.
The emphasis in that passage (as well as most of 1 Cor.) is understanding and clarity – here, Paul is thankful he speaks several languages (more than most people) and is “not afraid to use them” so-to-speak to spread his message; however, he’d rather speak just a few words in a language he understands completely (i.e. his native language – with his mind/understanding) in order to instruct people correctly, than myriad words in a (foreign) language he may speak, but not as comfortably and certain as his native language.
As anyone who has learned a foreign language can tell you, when you want to say something of import in that language, it’s not always as easy as it sounds. Many times, you’re just kind of winging it hoping you have all the nuances correct. Many words for example can have several meanings you may not be aware of, etc., etc. It’s easy to say something you think means one thing and have it completely loose something in your translation. Just because a person speaks a foreign language, doesn’t mean they have native speaker proficiency.
Not to bore you with a story, but I have translated a very simple meals grace into several First Nations languages spoken here in New England – a few simple lines, really maddeningly simple in fact, yet a phenomenally difficult and very frustrating, time-involved task in order to try and get the nuances of the original properly conveyed in the translation – still not 100% convinced I have it right (even though they are maddeningly simple in my native language which I speak ‘with my understanding’) .
The point is, I could easily say, I’d rather speak the grace “with my mind” (in my native language), than in many words in a tongue (read ‘language’) I may speak, but am not 100% confident in my translation.
I would argue that again, the passage is discussing very common issues and problems with real languages, nothing more than that.
I find it funny how one talks about adding too and then overlooking all what the word of God says in context the gifts of the Holy Spirit. what did Jesus mean when HE said in Mark 16:17 NEW Tongues ? in the Greek it means new kind, unheard of, recently made. the NASB says NEW the ESV says NEW. Peter explained in ACTS WHAT THIS POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS AND REF JOEL 2 . this empowerment was seen to happen and recorded throughout the book of Acts was all that added too? so you dismiss all of 1cor 12, 13, and 14 because of one verse you say was added yet you proved no context to what it now means when it is taken out. LOL I will not add nor take away you can do that next you will tell us the KJV Bible is not to be trusted. lol
the term private tongues was seen in the instruction Paul gave concerning those who prayed in tongues and had no interpretation 1cor 14:28. This was to ensure the proper operation of the gifts as stated in 1cor chapter 14 the whole chapter no where does it say not to speak it says do all in order and decently.
well for one the foolishness , immaturity, and ignorance those for and against the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. those who error and elites one verse here or there to prove for or against. Also If and when the proper operation of these Gifts of the Holy Spirit are used they bring what 1cor chapter 12, 13, and 14 say they do.
Yes, I understand that part, but I don't understand the part of the "tongues" being private, yet there is an audience.
Also, in my experience, tongues-talkers love an audience, so, of course, that will effect my thoughts about it.
Another thing that bothers me about using the Corinthians for proof of what is godly, right, etc., is that the Corinthians ecclesia was the most problematic of them all. Should the Corinthians be used as examples of what to do, or should they be considered as what not to do and G-D's mercy upon the called in spite of their sins?
Admittedly, this thread has sent me back to reread the letters, in order to try to gain a better understanding.
Oh -- one more thing. I have not attempted to read this book using Greek, but of what use is tongues when the speaker does not understand what s/he is saying? If G-D knows all things, and does not need to be informed of anything through our prayers, this does not make sense to me. Adonai promises that He will pray for us when we don't know what to pray, but the Scriptures do not say that we will need words or sounds at that time. (Certainly, I understand when prayer is a mere heart-broken groan or cry, but that is not tongues.)
Just looking for understanding!
Also, in my experience, tongues-talkers love an audience, so, of course, that will effect my thoughts about it.
Another thing that bothers me about using the Corinthians for proof of what is godly, right, etc., is that the Corinthians ecclesia was the most problematic of them all. Should the Corinthians be used as examples of what to do, or should they be considered as what not to do and G-D's mercy upon the called in spite of their sins?
Admittedly, this thread has sent me back to reread the letters, in order to try to gain a better understanding.
______________________________________________
Oh -- one more thing. I have not attempted to read this book using Greek, but of what use is tongues when the speaker does not understand what s/he is saying? If G-D knows all things, and does not need to be informed of anything through our prayers, this does not make sense to me. Adonai promises that He will pray for us when we don't know what to pray, but the Scriptures do not say that we will need words or sounds at that time. (Certainly, I understand when prayer is a mere heart-broken groan or cry, but that is not tongues.)
Just looking for understanding!
Because many Pentecostal/Charismatic/Full Gospel/Holy Ghost believers believe tongues is essential to their spiritual growth or their pet doctrine.
I believe in tongues, but I do not place the emphasis on it as many others do. I do not believe a message in tongues should be given if unbelievers are in the assembly or there is no interpreter. If the one giving the message in tongues also gives the interpretation that is cool by me and is what the Bible says.
I think far too many place way to much emphasis on this one gift, there are 8 more.
I believe in tongues, but I do not place the emphasis on it as many others do. I do not believe a message in tongues should be given if unbelievers are in the assembly or there is no interpreter. If the one giving the message in tongues also gives the interpretation that is cool by me and is what the Bible says.
I think far too many place way to much emphasis on this one gift, there are 8 more.
good question . What I see in 1cor Paul under the leading of the Holy Spirit is addressing issues of immaturity, ignorance, and cultural issues in the church service setting. BUt Paul also knows Church is a place to Learn , be corrected, and instructed in the things of God . this is why he says in chapter 12 of 1cor Now concerning spiritual gifts of verse 1. Pauls says "I would not have you unlearned or ignorant .
He goes through with correction and instruction so that the Body would have edification, and build up.
He goes through with correction and instruction so that the Body would have edification, and build up.
actually that is opinionated. only with UPC and Apostolic churches denomination do. it is not essential to spiritual growth . The word of God is and relationship with The Lord Jesus Christ is the essential. 1cor places emphasis on the "Gifts of the Holy Spirit people have issues with only one of them lol
FYI I have an opinion just like you do . I have never banned anyone for disagreeing with me as you can see those who do are a still here. The subject is not divisive people are. The subject [h=2]Speaking in Tongues (Privately, Outside of Church)[/h]
those who do not agree with the context of for the gifts of the Holy Spirit take issue with only one of them. nor does ones opinion or disagreeing with make it a non-topic. we are all big boys and girls here and yes me too
those who do not agree with the context of for the gifts of the Holy Spirit take issue with only one of them. nor does ones opinion or disagreeing with make it a non-topic. we are all big boys and girls here and yes me too
