One of the best videos on tongues I've seen

[The_Watchers_2017]

Point 4:

"Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away." 1 Corinthians 13:8-10

There are a couple of things to think about in this passage.

First, tongues is sandwiched between prophecy and knowledge. This seems to indicate that the intended purpose of tongues is to impart knowledge. It's not a private prayer language but a gift for imparting knowledge to those present.

Secondly, it says tongues will cease. If tongues is an actual language of angels, why should we think it would ever cease? Will angels cease? Will they get a new language at some point? But tongues, like prophecy and knowledge, will cease because it's a temporary spiritual gift.

they do Cease, when we finally see God face to face and are with Him from there on. there will be no need for knowledge, prophecies, Speaking in Tongues when we are finally with God. and thankfully, we have Church Fathers who agree. that the Perfect to Come is when we see God as He truly is, not as He was in human flesh.

Irenaeus:
As therefore, when that which is perfect is come, we shall not see another Father, but Him who we now desire to see [12]

Tertullian:
refers to the visible manifestation of Jesus

Clement of Alexander:
to' teaelov is the believer's state when he see's God

Origen:
combines Verse 12 with 10 when we see Jesus [face to face]

Eusebius:
The apostle thought it necessary that the prophetic Gifts should continue in all the Church until the final Coming of Jesus

Archelaus:
"the perfect" is Jesus

Methodius:
the return of Christ and events associated with it

Ambrose:
when we are face to face with God

Jerome:
when we see the Glory of the Lord

Leo the Great:
when we see God as He really is

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Point 5: The purpose of the gift of tongues is to edify others. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul suggests that someone speaking in tongues, with no interpreter present, may be built up to some extent by exercising the spiritual gift, but the real purpose is to have an interpreter present so that all may be built up. If there's no interpreter the person speaking in tongues should remain silent. This completely puts the kibosh on all the people out there speaking in tongues openly with no interpreter. It's a disgrace really.

"Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 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. But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification." 1 Corinthians 14:1-5

"Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God." 1 Corinthians 14:26-28

Notice it says "keep silent." It doesn't say speak softly between you and God, but to be silent! It also says "let there be two or at the most three." It doesn't say everyone who feels like it should go ahead and speak in tongues. The idea of all this is that there may be order in the congregation and that all may be built up.

It's also worth mentioning that nowhere in this chapter does it say anything about tongues being an angelic or heavenly language.

in a Group setting Tongues are for edifying others, but in a private prayer language, they edify the one praying. either way, Tongues is for edifying.

 

[Amanuensis]

Point 4:

"Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away." 1 Corinthians 13:8-10

There are a couple of things to think about in this passage.

First, tongues is sandwiched between prophecy and knowledge. This seems to indicate that the intended purpose of tongues is to impart knowledge. It's not a private prayer language but a gift for imparting knowledge to those present.

Secondly, it says tongues will cease. If tongues is an actual language of angels, why should we think it would ever cease? Will angels cease? Will they get a new language at some point? But tongues, like prophecy and knowledge, will cease because it's a temporary spiritual gift.

Speaking in tongues is not speaking the language of angels. I don't know of anyone who teaches that. It must be something unique to his circles but I don't think it is an actual problem in the charismatic/pentecostal churches world wide.

I know that the Assemblies of God does not teach that.

Maybe he does not know what he is talking about? If he thinks that this is what people who speak in tongues believe it could be an indication that he is not ready to teach on this topic and needs to learn more. Maybe he could start by reading those books stacked on his desk in the video. My guess is if he just read those he would have an great personal awakening.

 

[Amanuensis]

Point 5: The purpose of the gift of tongues is to edify others. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul suggests that someone speaking in tongues, with no interpreter present, may be built up to some extent by exercising the spiritual gift, but the real purpose is to have an interpreter present so that all may be built up. If there's no interpreter the person speaking in tongues should remain silent. This completely puts the kibosh on all the people out there speaking in tongues openly with no interpreter. It's a disgrace really.

"Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 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. But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification." 1 Corinthians 14:1-5

"Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God." 1 Corinthians 14:26-28

Notice it says "keep silent." It doesn't say speak softly between you and God, but to be silent! It also says "let there be two or at the most three." It doesn't say everyone who feels like it should go ahead and speak in tongues. The idea of all this is that there may be order in the congregation and that all may be built up.

It's also worth mentioning that nowhere in this chapter does it say anything about tongues being an angelic or heavenly language.

let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God."

This Greek word for silent does mean quiet. And that makes sense because how can one SPEAK to themselves and to GOD if they don't SPEAK.

And this is specifically saying let him speak in tongues to himself and to God as this is the subject.

Therefore speaking to oneself quietly in tongues and to God is what Paul was intending and what most people understand.

Praying in the 1st Century was always audible. Paul would not have meant "thinking" to yourself and to God because they did not pray that way in Jewish culture or in the first century.

They always prayed by using their lips and speaking, in this case SPEAKING quietly in tongues to oneself and to God, would be what Paul intended because they knew nothing about THINKING prayers. NOTHING.

And so we have people trying to force a later church history concept about "Thinking prayers" to Paul's clear statements about SPEAKING.

And all Greek Scholars agree that the word translated silent in this text is a word that meant quiet. We cannot insist on absolute absence of sounds from that Greek word as one who tries to argue for the literal meaning of silence prohibiting a quiet praying audibly.

This is clearly what Paul meant because they did not pray silently in their heads in Paul's day. Therefore it is impossible to make Paul intend this idea. IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[Amanuensis]

Another case can be made for

let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God."

This Greek word for silent does mean quiet. And that makes sense because how can one SPEAK to themselves and to GOD if they don't SPEAK.

And this is specifically saying let him speak in tongues to himself and to God as this is the subject.

Therefore speaking to oneself quietly in tongues and to God is what Paul was intending and what most people understand.

Praying in the 1st Century was always audible. Paul would not have meant "thinking" to yourself and to God because they did not pray that way in Jewish culture or in the first century.

They always prayed by using their lips and speaking, in this case SPEAKING quietly in tongues to oneself and to God, would be what Paul intended because they knew nothing about THINKING prayers. NOTHING.

And so we have people trying to force a later church history concept about "Thinking prayers" to Paul's clear statements about SPEAKING.

And all Greek Scholars agree that the word translated silent in this text is a word that meant quiet. We cannot insist on absolute absence of sounds from that Greek word as one who tries to argue for the literal meaning of silence prohibiting a quiet praying audibly.

This is clearly what Paul meant because they did not pray silently in their heads in Paul's day. Therefore it is impossible to make Paul intend this idea. IMPOSSIBLE.

Another case can be made for this when one researches corporate prayer in the 1st Century and before. They would have been praying out loud though to themselves and to God. Like what you see at the wailing wall. Everyone can be praying with sounds in a room full of people praying and that was fine in that culture as it is today among Holy Spirit filled Christians that actually know how to pray corporately.

The image of a bunch of people praying with no sounds is not a first century concept. Once someone understands this then they realize that they cannot argue for a meaning that Paul wanted them to pray without making any sounds at all. He must have meant that they were to pray (audible prayer was the only kind they knew) quietly as what was the normal tone one prayed in their own language when praying to themselves and to God.

This provable fact about how they prayed audibly between themselves and God in a corporate prayer meeting BEFORE The gift of tongues should make one concede that Paul had to have been talking about doing that same thing with tongues. Not conceding to this and making Paul out to be talking about a "Thinking" prayer that no one practiced in that day would be a good example of intellectual dishonesty if one insisted on such an interpretation.

 

[presidente]

Another case can be made for


Another case can be made for this when one researches corporate prayer in the 1st Century and before. They would have been praying out loud though to themselves and to God. Like what you see at the wailing wall. Everyone can be praying with sounds in a room full of people praying and that was fine in that culture as it is today among Holy Spirit filled Christians that actually know how to pray corporately.

Do you have any evidence they did this in that culture, as opposed to one praying and others saying 'amen', then another praying, etc.?

 

[Amanuensis]

Do you have any evidence they did this in that culture, as opposed to one praying and others saying 'amen', then another praying, etc.?

Yes, I usually come across them when reading the scriptures and referencing commentaries...Like when you are reading about the Pharisee and the publican praying at the hour of prayer at the temple. The commentaries on this will often reference background information and ancient sources about how they would stand and pray audibly with others around them all doing the same thing at the same time. I suppose it was much like the wailing wall is today.

I think you will be able to find many ancient documents with a Google search "What ancient documents describe Jews in corporate prayer" You will have to be patient but some of the good documents will reference other sources and you should be able to discover the best sources from rabbinical writings, the Talmud, Josephus, etc.

Whether it is references to rules of liturgy or what the early church corporate prayer looked and sounded like I think you will find lots of evidence that they spoke, and not that they THOUGHT prayers. Even when speaking to themselves and to God it was in hushed tones but their lips were moving. Like Hannah when Eli did not hear her voice but saw her lips moving.

I have always felt the need to pray with my words and not just my thoughts since I was a new Christian. I think it was because I did not see evidence in scripture that Thinking prayers was a biblical concept. But also I just felt more faith for speaking prayers.

Why would Jesus tell people to go into their closet and pray if He thought that Thinking prayers was sufficient. Seems like that instruction alone supports the idea that real prayer is speaking.

 

[presidente]

Yes, I usually come across them when reading the scriptures and referencing commentaries...Like when you are reading about the Pharisee and the publican praying at the hour of prayer at the temple. The commentaries on this will often reference background information and ancient sources about how they would stand and pray audibly with others around them all doing the same thing at the same time. I suppose it was much like the wailing wall is today.

That's a bit different from a corporate meeting in the synagogue. The temple compound was a huge area where they engage in individual prayer, hear teaching on the law, and offer sacrifices. Jesus also told his followers not to be like the hypocrites who loved to pray in the synagogues and on street corners. I am not sure that is an argument for everyone praying at the same time. They might have used synagogue buildings as places of private prayer, or some men in the synagogue could have taken turns making long prayers with an attention-seeking attitude to get praise from men rather than God.

{quote]
I think you will be able to find many ancient documents with a Google search "What ancient documents describe Jews in corporate prayer" You will have to be patient but some of the good documents will reference other sources and you should be able to discover the best sources from rabbinical writings, the Talmud, Josephus, etc.
[/quote]

If you have anything specific, I would be interested in that. Just reading I Corinthians 14, Paul was concerned that prayer in a corporate setting also exhort others. Prayer is not exempt from 'let all things be done unto edifying.' If you pray in tongues how will others agree with it and say 'amen' if they do not know what you are saying? If everyone prays in tongues in English or Greek or whatever, we cannot hear each other and be edified by the prayer because we are all praying at once.

I was raised in A/G churches where I didn't hear the pray-at-the-same-time thing. I don't remember that at the independent Full Gospel church I went to, either. (I moved quite a bit.) Also, the practice at the A/Gs wasn't to all pray in tongues at once. Rather, one person would speak in tongues and the rest would interpret. An exception might be when someone is empowered by the Holy Spirit to speak in tongues for the first time at the laying on of hands. But, otherwise, I don't remember en masse speaking in tongues or tongues without interpretation, and one A/G church that had a Bible College affiliated with it taught that tongues in church needed to be interpreted. Probably some time over that, the General Overseer of the denomination went in the opposite direction from that however, leading everyone in a denominational assembly in en masse speaking in tongues, I read later.

Later, I heard some of the Pentecostals churches in the Southeast, where the congregation prays all at the same time, even in English, and I've heard that with Charismatics overseas. I don't think it fits with the themes taught in I Corinthians 14 since you can't make out what people are saying and be edified. I don't care for the practice of everyone singing something different at the same time, either. If we'd take turns and listen, we might be edified.

Given the overall themes of the passage, I am inclined to take 'let him keep silent in the church and let him speak to himself and to God' to refer to speaking to himself and to God as something that can take place out of the assembly. If you are standing there mumbling in tongues, unbelievers might still say 'ye are mad.'

Whether it is references to rules of liturgy or what the early church corporate prayer looked and sounded like I think you will find lots of evidence that they spoke, and not that they THOUGHT prayers.

Be that as it may, that doesn't mean that it was the practice of the early church for individuals in church to all pray at the same time--- so they couldn't hear each other and be edified--- rather than to take turns.

I have always felt the need to pray with my words and not just my thoughts since I was a new Christian. I think it was because I did not see evidence in scripture that Thinking prayers was a biblical concept. But also I just felt more faith for speaking prayers.

I prefer to pray out loud, also, if it is just me. But listening to someone else's prayer and saying 'amen' counts as well.

Some people think this prayer might have been silent.

Nehemiah 2

4 Then the king said unto me, For what dost thou make request? So I prayed to the God of heaven.
5 And I said unto the king, If it please the king, and if thy servant have found favour in thy sight, that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may build it.

 

[Amanuensis]

That's a bit different from a corporate meeting in the synagogue. The temple compound was a huge area where they engage in individual prayer, hear teaching on the law, and offer sacrifices. Jesus also told his followers not to be like the hypocrites who loved to pray in the synagogues and on street corners. I am not sure that is an argument for everyone praying at the same time. They might have used synagogue buildings as places of private prayer, or some men in the synagogue could have taken turns making long prayers with an attention-seeking attitude to get praise from men rather than God.

.

The AG does not instruct people on how to conduct a corporate prayer meeting. That is done by the individual fellowship and there are no rules. They are lead by the Spirit and you will experience different kinds of meetings depending on the local fellowship.

My favorite kind and the one that I will lead is where everyone is free to pray in the room however they feel lead, sitting, standing, walking around, laying on the ground, and they pray to themselves and to God until they feel they are supposed to lead out in a prayer that everyone is supposed to get in agreement with and they use an open mic to do that. It works very well and the Spirit controls the whole meeting in an amazing way. Gifts of the Spirit are manifest in decency and in order just like Paul taught. We don't teach people how to do it, they just attend and learn by doing as it is pretty much common sense and very orderly. There will be quiet times but even then you will usually have some people praying softly. It has a sort of ebb and flo to it.
The AG Headquarters has never been involved in telling people how to do this. It's not an AG thing or a rule. It's just the Spirit.

But Scholars have always presented reasons why praying in tongues to oneself and to God in soft or hushed tones in a corporate prayer meeting is not a violation of the instructions for an interpreter.

During worship times when people are praying, worshipping, praising God there will be numerous people who are praying to themselves and to God in tongues in hushed tones that someone might pick up on that they are praying in tongues. This is decent and in order in our church and no one thinks it is a violation or that someone needs to be interpreting what the person is praying to himself and to God. Only if someone speaks out loudly and everyone waits for the interpretation does that apply. That is order.

If anyone tries to "bring and accusation" of being out of order because they heard a sister or brother praying to themselves and to God in tongues without an interpreter, I will patiently walk them through the text showing them that they were praying to themselves and to God and if they want to still try to make a false accusation I will let them know that they might prefer the Methodist church down the street.

 

[Amanuensis]

That's a bit different from a corporate meeting in the synagogue. The temple compound was a huge area where they engage in individual prayer, hear teaching on the law, and offer sacrifices. Jesus also told his followers not to be like the hypocrites who loved to pray in the synagogues and on street corners. I am not sure that is an argument for everyone praying at the same time. They might have used synagogue buildings as places of private prayer, or some men in the synagogue could have taken turns making long prayers with an attention-seeking attitude to get praise from men rather than God.

I do believe that the same Spirit that lead them when they prayed together is leading the Spirit Filled church today. The way the Spirit leads us to pray together without being taught or trained, or told how to do it, is very much what I believe happened with them. It's a Spirit thing and when those who are baptized in the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues get together and pray they end up doing it similar to others around the world who are Spirit Filled and probably just like it was done in the first century after Pentecost.

 

[presidente]

I do believe that the same Spirit that lead them when they prayed together is leading the Spirit Filled church today. The way the Spirit leads us to pray together without being taught or trained, or told how to do it, is very much what I believe happened with them. It's a Spirit thing and when those who are baptized in the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues get together and pray they end up doing it similar to others around the world who are Spirit Filled and probably just like it was done in the first century after Pentecost.

If it all worked out automatically without instruction in the word, then why would Paul have had to write I Corinthians 14?

What I see is a lot of congregations repeat what the Corinthians did.

What problems with speaking in tongues do you think Paul was correcting?

 

[Amanuensis]

If it all worked out automatically without instruction in the word, then why would Paul have had to write I Corinthians 14?

What I see is a lot of congregations repeat what the Corinthians did.
What problems with speaking in tongues do you think Paul was correcting?

My experience is the opposite. I have seen most churches in the AG and in other Charismatic churches I have been involved with do it all in decency and in order using the instructions that Paul wrote.

I don't watch TV or videos so I don't really care about what is out there to be laughed at and mocked. In real life my experience is that The Spirit is doing the same thing today in healthy Spirit Filled Churches that He did in the first church and I am so blessed to be involved in that.

 

[TheNarrowPath]

I don't agree with Caleb on everything, but I agree with a lot of his views. This video is one of the most well-thought-out I've ever seen on this subject. It's concise and to the point. The truth doesn't need a lot of embellishment; it speaks for itself.

My only experience of observing this speaking in tongues phenomena was many years ago when my brother invited me to his church. Most everyone was doing it and it was unintelligible to me. A group of them asked if they could pray for me, a newcomer and I agreed. They proceeded to speak in tongues again and I didnt feel anything, I kinda was expecting some kind of transformation but it didnt happen. I think a year later I asked my bro about that church and he said he left it because it was a cult. Just to be clear he didnt clarify what he meant so Im not judging those who do or dont do speak in tongues.

 

[presidente]

I do believe that the same Spirit that lead them when they prayed together is leading the Spirit Filled church today. The way the Spirit leads us to pray together without being taught or trained, or told how to do it, is very much what I believe happened with them. It's a Spirit thing and when those who are baptized in the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues get together and pray they end up doing it similar to others around the world who are Spirit Filled and probably just like it was done in the first century after Pentecost.

I was thinking about what you wrote here this morning. I would be curious to know what you think Paul was talking about in I Corinthians 14. Just what problem do you think he was addressing? Do you think they were speaking in tongues at the same time, so he wrote, 'and that by course'-- or was he just giving generic instructions? Do you think one person would address the assembly in uninterpreted tongues, followed by another, then another? Were they doing both? What problems do you think he was addressing?

I think the Corinthians were doing some things wrong, but they still had all kinds of spiritual gifts. This was because of God's grace, not because the way they were doing things was the flow of the Spirit.

Unless Paul was writing this chapter preemptively to prevent disorderly use of the gifts, they were apparently doing something wrong with tongues. Paul even addressed the issue of giving thanks in tongues in the assembly-- thou givest thanks well, but the other is not edified and later said 'let all things be done unto edifying.'

If we pray out loud in English at the same time, that is each of us edifying ourselves, and also praying whatever we pray. But what do we get out of that that we couldn't have gotten by staying home and praying? f one person prays, others listen and if they agree say 'amen', and add their own faith to what was prayed then someone else has a turn, that is mutually edifying. Paul said 'let all things be done unto edifying.' In church, we are to do mutually edifying activities. If we all pray at the same time and someone is leading, it is hard to listen to what the person leading the prayer session is saying and agree with it.

When I was young, thought Pentecostals had it all figured out. After all, we had speaking in tongues, prophesying, etc. Then I realized that shouldn't be my basis for evaluating what was proper doctrine. I should look at the Bible. What did Jesus teach? What did the apostles teach, etc. Pentecostals didn't always agree with each other, either, and some of the groups where some of the gifts were flowing more, I saw in my 20's, weren't in the traditional Pentecostal movement either.

In my own experience, I've seen gifts like prophecy and interpretation function in churches where everyone prays in English or tongues under their breath some. But I think I have seen it more in churches where this was not the practice. Would you say that these churches do not follow the flow of the Spirit? If that type of prayer is a Spirit-led thing that shows up around the world because of the Spireit....well churches that do not do that flow in the gifts also. And I've seen that type of prayer taught. I think it is much more likely that missionaries taught people to pray at the same time, and some of the Charismatics teach the crowd to pray in tongues really loud at the same time.

The most really detailed prophecies, the 'read my mail' shock and awe level of detail were in settings where people weren't all praying at the same time, btw.

God poured out gifts and grace on the Corinthians even though they were doing some things wrong. If we do things a certain way and have gifts flowing, that doesn't mean the way we do things is necessariliy right.

 

[Amanuensis]

I was thinking about what you wrote here this morning. I would be curious to know what you think Paul was talking about in I Corinthians 14. Just what problem do you think he was addressing? Do you think they were speaking in tongues at the same time, so he wrote, 'and that by course'-- or was he just giving generic instructions? Do you think one person would address the assembly in uninterpreted tongues, followed by another, then another? Were they doing both? What problems do you think he was addressing?

I think the Corinthians were doing some things wrong, but they still had all kinds of spiritual gifts. This was because of God's grace, not because the way they were doing things was the flow of the Spirit.

Unless Paul was writing this chapter preemptively to prevent disorderly use of the gifts, they were apparently doing something wrong with tongues. Paul even addressed the issue of giving thanks in tongues in the assembly-- thou givest thanks well, but the other is not edified and later said 'let all things be done unto edifying.'

If we pray out loud in English at the same time, that is each of us edifying ourselves, and also praying whatever we pray. But what do we get out of that that we couldn't have gotten by staying home and praying? f one person prays, others listen and if they agree say 'amen', and add their own faith to what was prayed then someone else has a turn, that is mutually edifying. Paul said 'let all things be done unto edifying.' In church, we are to do mutually edifying activities. If we all pray at the same time and someone is leading, it is hard to listen to what the person leading the prayer session is saying and agree with it.

When I was young, thought Pentecostals had it all figured out. After all, we had speaking in tongues, prophesying, etc. Then I realized that shouldn't be my basis for evaluating what was proper doctrine. I should look at the Bible. What did Jesus teach? What did the apostles teach, etc. Pentecostals didn't always agree with each other, either, and some of the groups where some of the gifts were flowing more, I saw in my 20's, weren't in the traditional Pentecostal movement either.

In my own experience, I've seen gifts like prophecy and interpretation function in churches where everyone prays in English or tongues under their breath some. But I think I have seen it more in churches where this was not the practice. Would you say that these churches do not follow the flow of the Spirit? If that type of prayer is a Spirit-led thing that shows up around the world because of the Spireit....well churches that do not do that flow in the gifts also. And I've seen that type of prayer taught. I think it is much more likely that missionaries taught people to pray at the same time, and some of the Charismatics teach the crowd to pray in tongues really loud at the same time.

The most really detailed prophecies, the 'read my mail' shock and awe level of detail were in settings where people weren't all praying at the same time, btw.

God poured out gifts and grace on the Corinthians even though they were doing some things wrong. If we do things a certain way and have gifts flowing, that doesn't mean the way we do things is necessariliy right.

They were probably speaking out in tongues to be heard. Showboating. And no interpretation. Paul was telling them that this is not how this works. But the whole letter suggests that the heart behind this out of order exercise of the gifts had to do with wrong motives.

If they were speaking out in tongues to be heard and get pats on the back from others who thought they were spiritual it would have been a public display of tongues but with no interpretation it made no logical sense to do that. Paul explains something we all intuitively understand.

When he says speak to yourself and to God we all intuitively understand that when someone is praying audibly to themselves and to God and you have to get real close to hear them then they were not doing it for your ears and we don't accuse them of violating the LAW of Paul and speaking in tongues without an interpreter. That does not make sense because they were not heard unless you got close.

The only one not operating in Love in that scenario is the one that got close enough to hear so that they could accuse them of violation of the LAW of Paul. They are the only ones out of order in this scenario.

 

[Amanuensis]

My only experience of observing this speaking in tongues phenomena was many years ago when my brother invited me to his church. Most everyone was doing it and it was unintelligible to me. A group of them asked if they could pray for me, a newcomer and I agreed. They proceeded to speak in tongues again and I didnt feel anything, I kinda was expecting some kind of transformation but it didnt happen. I think a year later I asked my bro about that church and he said he left it because it was a cult. Just to be clear he didnt clarify what he meant so Im not judging those who do or dont do speak in tongues.

I would not pray over someone in tongues. If I am praying for or with someone that is the time to be using language both understand. It would be out of order to pray in tongues at that time. I know that people think they are praying for the person in tongues but that should be done in private not while the person is standing there. This is just common sense and what Paul would tell them.

Why do they need to be told this? They are not thinking "what is the best thing for this person, what is love, what is edifying? Oh of course use words he can understand."

And also "this will probably freak out a visitor who is new to this, so love will not do this at this time"

But instead they let their emotional hype over rule their common sense. Or in the worst scenario they do it to be heard as "spiritual people, with "the great power of God". But I think this is a few of them and the majority are just caught up in emotional zeal without knowledge.

Now on the flip side, with all it's rough edges I would encourage all churches to operate in the gifts of the Spirit and desire spiritual gifts and get the rough edges of their lack of knowledge and lack of experience smoothed out through experience and not simply shut down all operating in the gifts because of flaky things they have seen here and there.

These instructions by Paul were to get us through the flaky things and correct them not to ban the gifts usage in our churches.

 

[JTB]

Your theory sounds reasonable, but in Revelation 22, John sees the tree of life, with leaves for the healing of the nations.

Unless you can back that up, you need to repent. Paul implies that bearing false witness of God is a bad thing in I Corinthians 15. When did God say that the singular language would be restored? I am guessing that is your loose conjecture and interpretation of Paul's comment that whether there be tongues, they shall cease. The original tongue of man was a tongue also.

On your first point there's a curious juxtaposition... Rev 21 says …3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying: “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man, and He will dwell with them. They will be His people, and God Himself will be with them as their God. 4‘ He will wipe away every tear from their eyes,’ and there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the former things have passed away.”

So I've always found it curious that the tree of life would have leaves for healing when infirmities and death are no more.


From https://lifehopeandtruth.com/prophecy/blog/the-promise-of-one-pure-language/ :

However, there is an interesting prophecy about language in the Bible. In Zephaniah 3:9, we read this amazing prophecy about language during the future millennial reign of Christ: “For then I will restore to the peoples a pure language, that they all may call on the name of the LORD, to serve Him with one accord.”

As for repenting, I think you were a little premature on that assessment. Lets leave the personal attacks out of our discussions, ok?

 

[presidente]

When he says speak to yourself and to God we all intuitively understand that when someone is praying audibly to themselves and to God and you have to get real close to hear them then they were not doing it for your ears and we don't accuse them of violating the LAW of Paul and speaking in tongues without an interpreter. That does not make sense because they were not heard unless you got close.

That's if you assume non-mutually edifying prayer being spoken in the assembly is acceptable, in audible prayer is not, and Paul is not allowing for tongues outside of the assembly in that verse.

Do you have any verse in mind that indicates that tongues were being used with the wrong motive? I suppose one could try to make that case from chapter 13. Paul seems to blame their behavior or childish understanding in 14:20.

 

[Polar]

"Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God." 1 Corinthians 14:26-28

Notice it says "keep silent." It doesn't say speak softly between you and God, but to be silent! It also says "let there be two or at the most three." It doesn't say everyone who feels like it should go ahead and speak in tongues. The idea of all this is that there may be order in the congregation and that all may be built up.

So you think we are being told we cannot pray? God only listens to interpreters?

Keep silent refers to someone who has a message in tongues being silent if there is no one present to interpret. Things have got so far off the mark in today's churches, we would not know who can interpret or not. Apparently, there were KNOWN people then who could interpret.

I would certainly hope that people are praying to God in church. This is one of the most off the mark opinions I have ever seen on this particular scripture. No one believes that is what is being said. Probably including you.

Praying in the spirit is taught in scripture but that gets in the way when people want to say tongues only refers to public meetings and all the other nonsense to avoid the truth. You can pray in your own language as well. Even English.

 

[presidente]

On your first point there's a curious juxtaposition... Rev 21 says …3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying: “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man, and He will dwell with them. They will be His people, and God Himself will be with them as their God. 4‘ He will wipe away every tear from their eyes,’ and there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the former things have passed away.”

So I've always found it curious that the tree of life would have leaves for healing when infirmities and death are no more.


From https://lifehopeandtruth.com/prophecy/blog/the-promise-of-one-pure-language/ :

However, there is an interesting prophecy about language in the Bible. In Zephaniah 3:9, we read this amazing prophecy about language during the future millennial reign of Christ: “For then I will restore to the peoples a pure language, that they all may call on the name of the LORD, to serve Him with one accord.”

As for repenting, I think you were a little premature on that assessment. Lets leave the personal attacks out of our discussions, ok?

Maybe when I thought about this in the past, I thought of the restoration of Hebrew. But it doesn't say other languages will be done away with. It is an interesting thought, though.

Having studied linguistics, the idea that Hebrew descended from a protolanguage seems consistent with the data. That doesn't necessarily have to be the case if God gave some nations similar sounding languages when He confused the tongues. But sound changes and such have been documented later in historical languages.