Tongues part 1

[karuna]

However, I think for a lot of people, tongues is just an ego trip, and that these people don’t speak in tongues at all. They just speak jibberish and claim they are speaking in tongues.

Why are you responding to my posts with that message, though? You asked who it helped if nobody could understand. I gave a verse indicating that it edified the individual and that there's a proper time and proper place for it. In church, if no one interprets, isn't it.

Never once did I try to indicate that all attempts at speaking tongues were valid. Is somebody doing that?

I guess it would do no harm, but when a church starts looking down at people because they DON’T speak in tongues, then harm IS being done.

And I'm surely not recommending this. Who here is?

 

[VW]

[27] If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret.
[28] But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God.
1 Cor 14:27-28 RSV

In tongues.

 

[VW]

It is a reflection of the practice of people who judge and pray with their minds set on what is right, that we see judgment about tongues, whether one does or does not. God's judgment is plain, it is a gift of the Spirit, not all speak in tongues, not all prophecy, not lay hands on people that they receive the Holy Spirit. Are we to judge? Absolutely not. For if we do, we are judging the Giver.

 

[resurrection33]

Why are you responding to my posts with that message, though? You asked who it helped if nobody could understand. I gave a verse indicating that it edified the individual and that there's a proper time and proper place for it. In church, if no one interprets, isn't it.

Never once did I try to indicate that all attempts at speaking tongues were valid. Is somebody doing that?



And I'm surely not recommending this. Who here is?

Why are you responding to my posts with that message, though?

I think the message is important for people to hear.

You asked who it helped if nobody could understand. I gave a verse indicating that it edified the individual and that there's a proper time and proper place for it. In church, if no one interprets, isn't it.

People can let themselves believe they are speaking in tongues when really they aren’t, I believe. Therefore, I argued that if you don’t understand what you are saying to the Lord, then you probably aren’t really speaking in tongues.

Never once did I try to indicate that all attempts at speaking tongues were valid. Is somebody doing that?

I think there are people, and whole churches, who let themselves believe they are speaking in tongues, when they aren’t. I think they are motivated by pride.

And I'm surely not recommending this. Who here is?

I have heard a story where a person was ridiculed by their church because they did not speak in tongues. I did not hear that story on this website.

 

[karuna]

People can let themselves believe they are speaking in tongues when really they aren’t, I believe. Therefore, I argued that if you don’t understand what you are saying to the Lord, then you probably aren’t really speaking in tongues.

When will it ever happen, then, that there won't be an interpreter around, if the speaker always understands what he's saying? It seems like Paul understands that there will be situations in which nobody there is able to interpret the words.

 

[BestBeWishing]

Good post law, and I agree. I'm just gonna sit back and wait for the pentecostal lynch mob come to town

Run for you life lawoflove

Phil

LOL, This made me laugh till I cryed,thanks Phil,Good one!!!

"In His Service"

 

[resurrection33]

When will it ever happen, then, that there won't be an interpreter around, if the speaker always understands what he's saying? It seems like Paul understands that there will be situations in which nobody there is able to interpret the words.

We’ve discussed two instances of speaking in tongues:

One is when you speak in tongues so someone in the congregation, who understands that tongue, can benefit by it. My question here is: If no one in the congregation understands what you are saying, are you really speaking in tongues?

The other instance is when you speak in tongues to the Lord. My question here is: If you don’t understand what you are saying, are you really being edified, and if not, are you really speaking in tongues?

 

[karuna]

One is when you speak in tongues so someone in the congregation, who understands that tongue, can benefit by it. My question here is: If no one in the congregation understands what you are saying, are you really speaking in tongues?

Regardless of where it occurs:

He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself

Now, is it possible that an interpreter fails to exercise his gift when someone has exercised his gift of tongues? Yes, but that doesn't mean the gift of tongues was false, it means someone else in the church didn't exercise his gift. Paul later says: "someone must interpret."

If no one understands, however, it still doesn't mean your gift was false. It means you should have kept your mouth shut in church and later exercised your gift between you and God. You did something out of order - you didn't necessarily fake it. Paul could have easily said: "if there is not interpreter, then you're faking it."

The other instance is when you speak in tongues to the Lord. My question here is: If you don’t understand what you are saying, are you really being edified, and if not, are you really speaking in tongues?

Yes, you are praying in tongues and you are edified, but it is better to edify your whole person and even better to edify the church. It is not, however, necessarily the case that the person speaking in tongues will be able to interpret:

For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

The mind is unfruitful, but this doesn't mean the person isn't speaking in tongues. Not all the gifts are given in such a way that they are instantly of the highest benefit. We should pray to use them in the best way possible and pray to receive more of them.

 

[resurrection33]

Regardless of where it occurs:



Now, is it possible that an interpreter fails to exercise his gift when someone has exercised his gift of tongues? Yes, but that doesn't mean the gift of tongues was false, it means someone else in the church didn't exercise his gift. Paul later says: "someone must interpret."

If no one understands, however, it still doesn't mean your gift was false. It means you should have kept your mouth shut in church and later exercised your gift between you and God. You did something out of order - you didn't necessarily fake it. Paul could have easily said: "if there is not interpreter, then you're faking it."



Yes, you are praying in tongues and you are edified, but it is better to edify your whole person and even better to edify the church. It is not, however, necessarily the case that the person speaking in tongues will be able to interpret:



The mind is unfruitful, but this doesn't mean the person isn't speaking in tongues. Not all the gifts are given in such a way that they are instantly of the highest benefit. We should pray to use them in the best way possible and pray to receive more of them.

Didn’t Paul say speaking in tongues was one of the lower gifts? Should we, perhaps, be striving to attain the higher gifts?

 

[karuna]

Didn’t Paul say speaking in tongues was one of the lower gifts? Should we, perhaps, be striving to attain the higher gifts?

Yes, and I've said similar things throughout this entire thread:

It would be better, though, to interpret so that the whole church might be edified. In any case, it's better to prophesy.

Paul talked about the proper use of tongues. Even though they're a lesser gift, he recommends them to strengthen the church:

What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.

 

[Canterbury]

Be careful what you say in tongues. You might not want to know what you're saying!

 

[resurrection33]

Be careful what you say in tongues. You might not want to know what you're saying!

I asked someone how to say something in Spanish once. I then repeated what I had been told to someone else. Found out later I’d been lied to and that what I repeated was rather … evil. Whoops!

 

[Canterbury]

"Lass mir den steifen, dreksau! Ja Hansel, mach mir den hengst! Opfer mich!"
Translation: All this chocolate is making me fat! Yes Hansel, I need to start working out! Instruct me!

 

[karuna]

Or, after a little research, it doesn't mean precisely that, does it?

 

[resurrection33]

Or, after a little research, it doesn't mean precisely that, does it?

You speak German? (or whatever that is)

 

[karuna]

You speak German? (or whatever that is)

Just enough to be scandalized.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

If glossalia is simply a matter of speaking in the language of the hearer in order to spread the gospel, why is there a gift of interpretation? Why is there no record in the entire book of Acts of this occuring. Even on the day of Pentecost, Peter preached a sermon, probably in Aramaic, that they all understood. There was no need for such service then and no record of it afterwards.

 

[VW]

If glossalia is simply a matter of speaking in the language of the hearer in order to spread the gospel, why is there a gift of interpretation? Why is there no record in the entire book of Acts of this occuring. Even on the day of Pentecost, Peter preached a sermon, probably in Aramaic, that they all understood. There was no need for such service then and no record of it afterwards.

Are you really saying that there is no such thing as tongues, and that we don't need it?

 

[charisenexcelcis]

Are you really saying that there is no such thing as tongues, and that we don't need it?

No, not at all. I'm saying that glossalia is not just speaking in the language of the hearer for the spreading of the gospel. In I Corinthians it speaks of various types of glossalia, indicating that it has many functions.

 

[VW]

No, not at all. I'm saying that glossalia is not just speaking in the language of the hearer for the spreading of the gospel. In I Corinthians it speaks of various types of glossalia, indicating that it has many functions.

Sorry, I misunderstood. I agree. Many differing functions. Several are listed in scripture.

For me, the use I put it to most often is in prayer, worship to our God in a language which I do not understand, but I can hear that it is beautiful and full of His love.

Blessing brother,
In Christ