MacArthur and Tongues

[nebula]

Nebula, please, I am asking you kindly, stop responding in emotion.

I'm a female . . . it happens . . . sorry.

What I was showing was tongues is the least valuable of all gifts and therefore cannot qualify as THE sign of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, I pointed out the scriptures you chose to cut out that actually prove this point. They prove that tongues, for all intents and purposes, is worthless when compared to other gifts.

Nothing of the Holy Spirit is worthless.

This is what is driving me crazy.

Paul was correcting misuses and disorder in the church - yes. Paul was elevating the gifts of interpretation and prophecy in the corporate setting - yes. But not once did he express that tongues should not be sought after - did he?

If it means anything I didn't "intentionally cut" Scripture out - I was trying to decrease the length of the post. I kept the parts that brought out the point, or at least I thought.

I never denied prophecy and interpretation having greater value to the body. Yet I have not heard you aknowledge the benefit of tongues to anyone for anything.

If the Holy Spirit were to offer you the gift of tongues, would you reject it? If you had it, would you ever use it to pray or to edify your spirit?

Honestly, it takes a lot of faith to speak in tongues.

Now do you see the value in lifting scripture above experience?

What you fail to understand is that I am reading the Scriptures from the perspective of use, while you are speaking from the reference of alienation.

Tell me, why did Paul say, "I wish you all spoke with tongues"?

Edited June 4, 2006 by nebula

[nebula]

Ive never heard anyone speak in tongues. I may just take you up on this after this week is over.

Would you?

That would be great!

[apothanein kerdos]

Nothing of the Holy Spirit is worthless.

It is when compared to other gifts. Paul essentially says so in 1 Corinthians. I am not saying the gift is worthless, what I am saying is when compared to other gifts, it is. It only edifies the person hearing with the gift UNLESS there is an interpretation with a prophecy attached. These are Paul's words, not mine.

This is what is driving me crazy.

Paul was correcting misuses and disorder in the church - yes. Paul was elevating the gifts of interpretation and prophecy in the corporate setting - yes. But not once did he express that tongues should not be sought after - did he?

He said we should seek after gifts that are more beneficial. That is the entire point. You are trying to base a doctrinal stance on Paul's silence, however, Paul specifically says that we should pursue gifts that edify the body, not the believer. This pretty much states that if you are pursuing tongues but not gifts that edify, then you are violating scripture. IF you use tongues more than other gifts that edify the body, once again, this is a violation of scripture.

I never denied prophecy and interpretation having greater value to the body. Yet I have not heard you aknowledge the benefit of tongues to anyone for anything.

Because I do not find it beneficial when compared to other gifts. Again, this is based upon the Bible. Yes, it is beneficial to the person speaking it, but honestly, so what? That does not benefit the body which makes it quite a selfish gift if we place significance upon it, especially calling it THE sign for Baptism in the Holy Spirit.

If the Holy Spirit were to offer you the gift of tongues, would you reject it? If you had it, would you ever use it to pray or to edify your spirit?

If I was offered the gift of tongues at the cost of my other gifts, absolutely I would reject it. I would much rather be a tool that can be used to edify the body than to have a tool that only edifies myself. Even if it was not at the cost of my other gifts, I would most certainly ask for more grace and more of His working in my current gifts, or another gift that edifies the body, before I would accept tongues. I have no desire to have it because it does not benefit anyone except for myself...and I'm not going to ask for that because it is selfish.

What you fail to understand is that I am reading the Scriptures from the perspective of use, while you are speaking from the reference of alienation.

Once again, and this is turning into quite the old argument, I don't need to experience tongues in order to know what scripture says on it. I have looked at the issue, I have studied it, I have been around tongues...I do not need to speak in order to give a proper interpretation. Once again, and this is a point you are ignoring, if we apply what you are saying to Mormonism, then Joseph Smith is justified in his claim to talking to an Angel. I have never spoken to one that I know of, therefore I cannot possibly say that Joseph Smith never talked to one, because I lack the experience. If, however, we use my method, we can call him a nut because of Galatians 1:8.

We need to experience our doctrine, but that experience must be doctrinally sound. The way you describe tongues and the emphasis you put on it does not match up with scripture...I know that is blunt, but I am trying to be honest here. Your experience, even if you believe it to be a wonderful thing, can also be decieving. Experience is no way to interpret scripture, in fact, it is one of the worst ways because experiences are subjective. You cannot use a subjective experience to interpret an absolute and infallible work of God.

Tell me, why did Paul say, "I wish you all spoke with tongues"?

He was making a comparrison to show that, though he thought it was good, it was not something needed. After all, Paul said the same thing about celibacy in a few pages over in chapter 7 verse 7. Thus, if you are trying to say we should all speak in tongues because Paul said he wishes we all did, then I guess we should all be celibant as well.

Paul was showing that tongues was not to be despised and had some use, however, it was not beneficial to the body and therefore had no place in a public gathering unless one or two did it TOTAL and there was proper interpretation. Contrast this to most services where there are tongues and everyone is doing it and the person giving an interpretation is generally just speaking to hear his or her own voice. I recall my Greek professor, who believes in the gift of tongues btw, going into such a gathering and speaking in koine Greek. He quoted part of 1 Corinthians 14 ironically enough. The "interpreter" got it wrong, way off, and when he tried to tell her he was told that he didn't have the gift of interpretation. Though this is not the case in all, I would venture to say it is the case in either most or a good ammount. The reason is people are so overjoyed to place emphasis on a gift that Paul considered to be the least of all gifts. Why? Because it is beneficial to the person. It is not the gift of giving, which requires sacrifice. It is not the gift of teaching, which requires long hours of learning the subject material and then how to deliver it to people. It is not the gift of prophecy which could cause you to deliever a message that no one wants to hear, including yourself. It is not a gift that requires action or sacrifice from the person recieving it, this is why we see such an emphasis upon it. I feel sorry for those that truly have the gift because the gift has been highly exploited by hedonistic believers.

Look at human nature and compare my analysis to it and tell me I'm wrong. The unfortunate fact of t his situation is that the reason there is a high emphasis upon it is because it requires absolutely nothing out of the person recieving it.

[IraBenYahweh]

To Apothian Kerdos and Nebula

I would like to ask, why is this issue so dog gone important to both of you. (Mind you I am NOT Taking sides) I see 2 very good people nearly fighting over a issue that could cuase trouble for others. I my self have studied much into tounges and have come to the conclusion that salvation is more important. Focusing on diferences can be good but some times it is not. Please becareful to not alow strife to climb its way in.

[apothanein kerdos]

To Apothian Kerdos and Nebula

I would like to ask, why is this issue so dog gone important to both of you. (Mind you I am NOT Taking sides) I see 2 very good people nearly fighting over a issue that could cuase trouble for others. I my self have studied much into tounges and have come to the conclusion that salvation is more important. Focusing on diferences can be good but some times it is not. Please becareful to not alow strife to climb its way in.

I hope I'm not comming across in a mean manner.

Salvation is important, yes, but that is not all Christianity is. If someone is practicing something or teaching something contrary to scripture, then we need to discuss it and hopefully find the correct answer. I am merely showing that tongues is not nearly as important as people try to make it out to be. Why is this important? As I showed in my last post, why is there a huge movement on gaining tongues as a gift but not on gaining evangelism or giving? I am addressing a bigger issue than tongues; the motives that we use to request things from God. That I do believe is an important issue.

[IraBenYahweh]

can I talk to you yahoo Bondservant_yeshua

[nebula]

Nothing of the Holy Spirit is worthless.

It is when compared to other gifts. Paul essentially says so in 1 Corinthians. I am not saying the gift is worthless, what I am saying is when compared to other gifts, it is.

Did Paul actually say tongues is worthless?

Please give the quote.

Did you not read "I wish you all spoke in tongues"? Now - why would Paul say that?

This pretty much states that if you are pursuing tongues but not gifts that edify, then you are violating scripture.

I'm not pursuing tongues - I already have it.

IF you use tongues more than other gifts that edify the body, once again, this is a violation of scripture.

That is a misquote of Scripture. You are inserting your bias here to twist Scripture to justify your point.

1 Cor. 14:18 - I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all;

IF what you say is true, why would Paul say this?

I never denied prophecy and interpretation having greater value to the body. Yet I have not heard you aknowledge the benefit of tongues to anyone for anything.

Because I do not find it beneficial when compared to other gifts.

No, you don't find it beneficial period to anything. If you did, you would have acknowledged this by now.

Again, this is based upon the Bible. Yes, it is beneficial to the person speaking it, but honestly, so what?

See? You completely devalue this gift that the Holy Spirit gave me.

That does not benefit the body which makes it quite a selfish gift if we place significance upon it, especially calling it THE sign for Baptism in the Holy Spirit.

1 Cor. 14:14, 15 - 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.

15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.

Paul never says, "Do not use your gift for self-edification."

If you read the passage, he only says not to speak in tongues to the corporate body without interpretation. That is the only restriction.

He does not forbid using tongues for prayer at all.

(Continued due to "quote" feature)

[nebula]

If the Holy Spirit were to offer you the gift of tongues, would you reject it? If you had it, would you ever use it to pray or to edify your spirit?

If I was offered the gift of tongues at the cost of my other gifts, absolutely I would reject it.

OK, now where did that come from?

Who ever said anything about tongues superceding another gift?

Where, o where, did you come up with the idea of some sort of trade-off?

Again, you are adding your bias to your interpretation.

You are also admitting you would say, "No," to the Holy Spirit.

I would much rather be a tool that can be used to edify the body than to have a tool that only edifies myself. Even if it was not at the cost of my other gifts, I would most certainly ask for more grace and more of His working in my current gifts, or another gift that edifies the body, before I would accept tongues. I have no desire to have it because it does not benefit anyone except for myself...and I'm not going to ask for that because it is selfish.

So, you are saying the Holy Spirit offers a selfish gift.

Are calling the gift a sin?

What you fail to understand is that I am reading the Scriptures from the perspective of use, while you are speaking from the reference of alienation.

Once again, and this is turning into quite the old argument, I don't need to experience tongues in order to know what scripture says on it.

Yeah, and the Pharisees, Saducees and teachers of the Law knew from studying the Scriptures all there was to know about the Messiah, yet they totally missed Him when He actually came.

I have looked at the issue, I have studied it, I have been around tongues...I do not need to speak in order to give a proper interpretation. Once again, and this is a point you are ignoring, if we apply what you are saying to Mormonism, then Joseph Smith is justified in his claim to talking to an Angel. I have never spoken to one that I know of, therefore I cannot possibly say that Joseph Smith never talked to one, because I lack the experience. If, however, we use my method, we can call him a nut because of Galatians 1:8.

But you are giving an incorrect interpretation.

We need to experience our doctrine, but that experience must be doctrinally sound. The way you describe tongues and the emphasis you put on it does not match up with scripture...I know that is blunt, but I am trying to be honest here. Your experience, even if you believe it to be a wonderful thing, can also be decieving. Experience is no way to interpret scripture, in fact, it is one of the worst ways because experiences are subjective. You cannot use a subjective experience to interpret an absolute and infallible work of God.

Hey, I'm not the one saying I know what is better for me than the Holy Spirit does.

I completely disagree with your claim of being doctinally sound.

Tell me, why did Paul say, "I wish you all spoke with tongues"?

He was making a comparrison to show that, though he thought it was good, it was not something needed.

So, the Holy Spirit gave a gift that was not needed?

After all, Paul said the same thing about celibacy in a few pages over in chapter 7 verse 7. Thus, if you are trying to say we should all speak in tongues because Paul said he wishes we all did, then I guess we should all be celibant as well.

Likewise, the way you are presenting your arguments, we should not desire marriage, for Paul emphasises how much better it is not to marry than to marry (1 Corinthians 7:25-35).

Do you desire a wife? Did not Paul state you are better to remain single in order to serve the Lord without distraction?

(Continued again)

[nebula]

Paul was showing that tongues was not to be despised and had some use, however, it was not beneficial to the body and therefore had no place in a public gathering unless one or two did it TOTAL and there was proper interpretation. Contrast this to most services where there are tongues and everyone is doing it and the person giving an interpretation is generally just speaking to hear his or her own voice. I recall my Greek professor, who believes in the gift of tongues btw, going into such a gathering and speaking in koine Greek. He quoted part of 1 Corinthians 14 ironically enough. The "interpreter" got it wrong, way off, and when he tried to tell her he was told that he didn't have the gift of interpretation. Though this is not the case in all, I would venture to say it is the case in either most or a good ammount.

Sounds to me like you are using your experience to provide your understanding of Scripture.

You have experienced misuse of the gift, and therefore you don't want it.

The reason is people are so overjoyed to place emphasis on a gift that Paul considered to be the least of all gifts. Why? Because it is beneficial to the person.

Here you are wrong, AK. You have missed the mark on discerning the thoughts and motives of the heart.

If I have a hard time finding the words to pray for someone, so chose instead to pray in tongues in faith that my words are going out in prayer for that person, would you rather I not pray at all?

It is not the gift of giving, which requires sacrifice. It is not the gift of teaching, which requires long hours of learning the subject material and then how to deliver it to people. It is not the gift of prophecy which could cause you to deliever a message that no one wants to hear, including yourself.

AK, have you asked for the gift of prophecy?

Have you ever prophecied?

It is not a gift that requires action or sacrifice from the person recieving it,

That's what you think!

I feel sorry for those that truly have the gift because the gift has been highly exploited by hedonistic believers.

So, you are saying the Holy Spirit made a mistake in giving this gift?

Look at human nature and compare my analysis to it and tell me I'm wrong. The unfortunate fact of t his situation is that the reason there is a high emphasis upon it is because it requires absolutely nothing out of the person recieving it.

I'm looking to Jesus and telling you that you are WRONG.

If it pleased the Lord to grant this gift to His people, who are you to say, "Quench the gift"?

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Don't be offended that I closed this.

I'm just wondering what edificational value this has for the believer. Here are two minds on the subject. Let the reader be a berean, pray and make His Judgement based upon what he knows of God.

Be Blessed Saints of God, Tongue speakers and Non alike.

Peace,

Dave