Baptism and holy spirit
- Thread starter soberxp
- 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.
In context Paul said that along with covet to prophesy.
Tongues for the immature and prophesy for those who are matured in the faith.
Still can't explain the differences between tongues in Acts and tongues in Corinthians. Acts the tongues are in the ear of the hearer and in Corinthians tongues are in the mouth of the speaker. Acts did not require an interpreter yet in Corinthians an interpreter is required.
Care to hazard a guess what makes them different?
For the cause of Christ
Roger
The only thing that makes them different is that on Pentecost, the interpreters were there, all hearing and interpreting in their own language. In the gathering paul was speaking to, he said don't do it aloud if there are no interpreters. If there is someone to interpret, they weren't to forbid it. It's not strange to me. Paul makes perfect sense.
I mean, it is still strange. I don't think anyone fully understands exactly everything about tongues. There's a lot of mystery there.
That's right, Roger. So do you covet to prophesy?
Poor immature Paul.
1 Cor 14:
18) I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
Notice it's in the present tense. Paul was not saying "I used to speak in tongues before I became mature."
They are not different. In Acts, no interpreter was needed because the languages the apostles (not the 120) were speaking were the native languages of the other people present. That almost never happens, which is why in 1 Cor, Paul says that whenever tongues is spoken in public it must be interpreted.
No he did not and he did not use the context of mature and immature. it was explained, you can't explain how 1cor 13:8 is the creation of a modern translation of the bible. And you have not shown where the gifts are not for today. Yet you assert a false context to 1cor 14:1
"Tongues for the immature and prophesy for those who are matured in the faith."
1cor 14:1-5 does not support your claim . you are in error sir.
“Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.
2. “For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. Speaking to God is immature. You should be ashamed.
3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.
It is wrong to edify yourself huh?
5. I wish you all spoke with tongues(sounds like Paul is teaching how immature this gift is ), but even more that you prophesied; [a]for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.
Unless there is an interpretation which produces the same results as Prophesying tongues & Interpret = edification.
Where is the immaturity again?
There was no interpretation on the day of Pentecost. The languages the 12 were speaking were the native languages of the others present.
While that is true, I still contend that most people, including Christians, simply do not understand what speaking in tongues is.
Correct. But if they were in a gathering of believers later, and someone spoke in tongues but no one was present whose original tongue it was, and no one manifested interpretation, then what would be the point of babbling on in it? You aren't there to just feed yourself and let others go hungry.
Perhaps but perhaps not.
Tongues in Acts were a sign confirming the presence in the new believer of the Holy Spirit.
In Corinthians we have a different set of circumstances.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
they are stuck with two aera mainly
1. the gifts of the Holy Spirit 1cor 12.13. and 14
2. Acts chapter 2 outpouring of the Holy Spirit
The Empowering of the Church in Acts 2 happened many times, Just not in the same way as the first time. as we read we see No sound of rushing mighty wind , no cloven tongues of fire . Laying on of hands and speaking in tongues and, or prophesying .
As the Church became structored the Holy Spirit Led Paul to teach how to properly use the Gifts of the Holy Spirit in the church setting. to say that the gift of Tngues has to happen as it did in the book of Acts when results changed as the church grew. that is a legalistic standard that is not contextual .
The only thing different that I see is that they needed some guidance regarding speaking in them in a gathering...
SBG, you come up with so many "what if's"........
If they did meet later, whoever spoke in tongues out loud should have interpreted. See 1 Cor 14.
Oh come on! You can read the accounts in Acts just as easily as I and it would take way too much space to cut and paste them for you.
Acts 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
Paul and Barnabas give us the essence in their report to James and the others at Jerusalem.
For the cause of Christ
Roger