B
1Co 14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit...
Not necessarily tongues in that verse. Praying with the Spirit is praying with God's guidance. Not tongues. If he meant praying in tongues, he'd have written that. The apostle is not in the habbit of improperly expressing himself
Besides which, the Apostle speaks here of himself personally. I have no problem believing that He had the gift. Scripture says it. But I do have problems believing the modern use of them is Biblical considering that my belief is that Scripture in chapter 13 (a prophecy that was fulfilled after 14) states it shall/did cease.
It was not receiving the Spirit that caused the tongues but the purpose of God in those specific cases to cause them to identify themselves as saved by the use of tongues as divine evidence and to demonstrate the authenticity to those around them. For example, the Gentiles speaking with tongues had the purpose of confirming God's grace had been extended to them also, which many apostles found difficult to digest at the time. But because of God's authenticity they accepted it.
And this still happens today when people receive the gift of the Spirit they may speak in tongues...
No offence intended, but so claim some Buddhists and Roman Catholics. That doesn't mean they are Christians at all. It just means they believe they speak in tongues. There is no proof that it is of God in those circumstances and my knowledge of 'Christian' tongue usetoday leads me to put them in the same category. Most actually go through tongue schooling in the church before they can do it "properly".
As an aside, I have seen an example of a person claiming to speak in tongues and the interpreter saying he was praising God... only to have a visiting missionary walk out of the service shaking and shocked because he did happen to speak the language and recognised the man was cursing God. All the while the interpreter said he was praising God. There are many examples of demonic use of it just like that. Google it. If Satan can posess a girl wth a demon and use her to tell the future (as in the New Testament), then I see no reason he can't misuse tongues too.
But the tongues Paul is speaking about in the church setting in 1 Cor requires interpretation for it to be of value for the church. Yet no one was calling for an interpreter at pentecost in Acts 2.
Just because they had the gift didn't mean they couldn't abuse it. The book of Corinthians is all about rebuking and correcting those with the gift who were doing exactly that. Sinning with their gift of tongues. In the case of Acts 2 the hearers already spoke the languages the Apostles were preaching in.
If you want to use the restricted due to abuse form of tongues in your Church as evidence of salvation then that is up to you. But to my understanding the gift in Corinthians was nothing more than the authentic gift as used in Acts 2 (to people who already understood and so required no interpretation) but that was being deliberately abused by those who had been blessed with it. Christians sin too and do abuse what they have been blessed with.
So I think they are similar but two different things...
They are similar. They are in fact identical. One used properly, and the other abused to the point of requiring correction and restrictions imposed by an apostle.
Not necessarily tongues in that verse. Praying with the Spirit is praying with God's guidance. Not tongues. If he meant praying in tongues, he'd have written that. The apostle is not in the habbit of improperly expressing himself
Besides which, the Apostle speaks here of himself personally. I have no problem believing that He had the gift. Scripture says it. But I do have problems believing the modern use of them is Biblical considering that my belief is that Scripture in chapter 13 (a prophecy that was fulfilled after 14) states it shall/did cease.
It was not receiving the Spirit that caused the tongues but the purpose of God in those specific cases to cause them to identify themselves as saved by the use of tongues as divine evidence and to demonstrate the authenticity to those around them. For example, the Gentiles speaking with tongues had the purpose of confirming God's grace had been extended to them also, which many apostles found difficult to digest at the time. But because of God's authenticity they accepted it.
And this still happens today when people receive the gift of the Spirit they may speak in tongues...
No offence intended, but so claim some Buddhists and Roman Catholics. That doesn't mean they are Christians at all. It just means they believe they speak in tongues. There is no proof that it is of God in those circumstances and my knowledge of 'Christian' tongue usetoday leads me to put them in the same category. Most actually go through tongue schooling in the church before they can do it "properly".
As an aside, I have seen an example of a person claiming to speak in tongues and the interpreter saying he was praising God... only to have a visiting missionary walk out of the service shaking and shocked because he did happen to speak the language and recognised the man was cursing God. All the while the interpreter said he was praising God. There are many examples of demonic use of it just like that. Google it. If Satan can posess a girl wth a demon and use her to tell the future (as in the New Testament), then I see no reason he can't misuse tongues too.
But the tongues Paul is speaking about in the church setting in 1 Cor requires interpretation for it to be of value for the church. Yet no one was calling for an interpreter at pentecost in Acts 2.
Just because they had the gift didn't mean they couldn't abuse it. The book of Corinthians is all about rebuking and correcting those with the gift who were doing exactly that. Sinning with their gift of tongues. In the case of Acts 2 the hearers already spoke the languages the Apostles were preaching in.
If you want to use the restricted due to abuse form of tongues in your Church as evidence of salvation then that is up to you. But to my understanding the gift in Corinthians was nothing more than the authentic gift as used in Acts 2 (to people who already understood and so required no interpretation) but that was being deliberately abused by those who had been blessed with it. Christians sin too and do abuse what they have been blessed with.
So I think they are similar but two different things...
They are similar. They are in fact identical. One used properly, and the other abused to the point of requiring correction and restrictions imposed by an apostle.