Praying in tongues

[waitingforhim]

The scripture teaches that "he who speaks in a tongue, does not speak to men, but to God-indeed NO ONE understands him, he speaks mysteries to the Lord". That being said, there is absolutly no biblical way to come to the conclusion that tongues are only for the spreading of the gospel in foreign languages. I believe that all Christians who are baptised in the Holy Spirit can pray and praise in other tongues-and in fact, speaking in tongues is the first physical sign that one has received this baptism.-Acts 2:4, Acts 10:46, Acts 19:6 There is also the "gift of tongues" which is for the church gathered. This gift is not for all-but is given as the Spirit wills and must be accompianed by the gift of interpretation. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding because of false teachings -like that of John Mc.

[Guest mcm42]

he who speaks in a tongue, does not speak to men, but to God-indeed NO ONE understands him, he speaks mysteries to the Lord

Then what was it the apostles were doing when the people could hear them all in their own language? Was that toungues? Were they speaking to God or men?

I believe that all Christians who are baptised in the Holy Spirit can pray and praise in other tongues-

Why would they want to? I'm with Paul and 1 Cor. 14 if it doesn't edify, keep it to yourself!

and in fact, speaking in tongues is the first physical sign that one has received this baptism

Every believer recieves the Spirit the moment he is saved. With or without the physical sign of tongues.

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding because of false teachings -like that of John Mc.

Hehe, those heathens like John MacArthur. I'll be back with more... much much more...

[Leonard]

Jesus Christ Son of God have mercy on me, a sinner.

Well, at the bare minimum, it is clear to any unbiased reader--given the Scriptures we have given you to consider--that the manifestation of tongues is broader in scope than you imagine. Here, waitingforhim brings clear scriptural evidence for our consideration, and rather than saying, "Wow! 'No one understands him'! That clearly means THEY WERE NOT INTERPRETED on every occasion." Instead you have chosen to deflect and obfuscate.

You are the one who proclaimed tongues were always in known, understood languages, yet when clear Scripture is given, you simply ignore it. Don't bother appealing to John MacArthur; he does the same thing. If you see something you that you disagree with, don't go into the old "Lost in Space" robot mode: "It does not compute. It does not compute."

Paul also tells us that when someone comes into the church and finds them all speaking in tongues--get this now--NOT THAT HE WILL UNDERSTAND AND GET SAVED, but that HE WILL NOT UNDERSTAND, and he will think they are mad. So much for the 'always understood language' theology.....

And again, what about those 'angelic tongues' Paul talks about. You raised the issue, not us. How about some credible answers instead of the same old cant?

With a blessing,

Leonard, a sinner

[Nicks Girl]

there is a lot of controversy about Speaking in Tongues. The gift of speaking in Tongues is widely misused. Some people believe that speaking in tongues is evidence of having the holy Spirit in you, or that if you don't speak in tongues that the Holy spirit is not in you.

Also in church services or something where almost everyone is speaking in tongues, I believe is unbiblical, and very misused, and not edifying.

Here is a link about speaking in tongues. There is an article on a discussion board about it. Very doctrinally sound.

Article about Speaking in Tongues

1 Corinthians 14:9-19

9 So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air.

10 There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning.

11 If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks, a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me.

12 So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church.

13 Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.

14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

15 What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.

16 Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying?

17 For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified.

18 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all;

19 however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.

1 Corinthians 12:27-31

27 Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.

28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.

29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they?

30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?

31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way.

[Guest mcm42]

First of all step off and step back sunshine. I think your pointing your guns in the wrong direction!

You are the one who proclaimed tongues were always in known, understood languages, yet when clear Scripture is given, you simply ignore it

I made no such argument! If I did where did I say this. It is clear that at points they were known languages, they are not always talking to God, this was my point, that Toungues have been known languages, and they are not always "talking to God". (NOTE: you will rarely see me use words like Always, never, they are dangerous words)

What scripture did I ignore?

Don't bother appealing to John MacArthur; he does the same thing

I think you have no experience with MacArthur if you make that statement. He is well learned and at least worth considering... also, I'm going to listen to MacArthur long before I listen to YOU .

Paul also tells us that when someone comes into the church and finds them all speaking in tongues--get this now--NOT THAT HE WILL UNDERSTAND AND GET SAVED, but that HE WILL NOT UNDERSTAND, and he will think they are mad. So much for the 'always understood language' theology.....

Again I never once said that tongues are ALWAYS known Languages. What I said, if anything was that it's not ALWAYS Unkown, that at least in the first instance the Tongues being spoken were actual known languages.

And again, what about those 'angelic tongues' Paul talks about. You raised the issue, not us. How about some credible answers instead of the same old cant

You'll get your answers beautiful... in the meantime cool your heels, I'm not here to make this personal, I'm here to show you my side. If you want to make it personal, have at it, I could care less, your not going to say anything I haven't heard already on this board... Keep it real... read more, speak less...

[Guest mcm42]

it is clear to any unbiased reader

What is an Unbiased reader? I don't think one exists!

[godrulz]

I Cor. 12-14 deals with the use and misuse of the gifts of the Spirit, especially in corporate worship. It is not a didactic passage negating the validity of the gifts.

[Leonard]

Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Quite correct, old boy! I was conflating your posts with Professor Durnan's. And answering you both as if you spoke una voce. A thousand pardons effendi!!!

Of course, John MacArthur is not here to defend himself, but suffice it to say that after listening a number of years ago to a very lengthy series he did on the gifts of the Spirit, I found myself in the profoundest disagreement, and formed a very low view of his efficacy as a teacher to the Church.

Of course, his teachings ARE public, and may be discussed publically, but I'll try to keep comments regarding him rather general, if we need to refer to his teachings here.

Again, my bad, for conflating the two of you.

With a blessing,

Leonard, a sinner.

[Arthur Durnan]

"Tongues of angels" you ask? In every instance where angels are seen to speak in Holy writ, my friend, they spoke in UNDERSTANDABLE language, and NEVER in any "heavenly gibberish" as is the very norm in charismatic circles!

In the classic ACTS 2 passage - which charismatics seldom wish to underscore for some strange reason - the languages spoken WERE EARTHLY, NATIONAL, UNDERSTANDABLE DIALECTS belonging to the dozen or so listeners assembled there! Check Acts 2: 8-11. Why do charismatics insist on evading this concrete biblical fact? All of which would cause one to enquire of our charismatic friends, "Pray tell, what SPECIFIC EARTHLY LANGUAGE did you speak when you spoke 'in tongues'?" Was it in Chinese, Russian, Arabic, French, Spanish, English, or whatever?

The miracle in ACTS 2 was in the fact that those who spoke those national, earthly, understood-by-the-listeners languages HAD NEVER STUDIED THEM BEFORE THEY SPOKE THEM. Plain and plumb. Those who still insist on a "heavenly gibberish" of their own making have much more (personal) momentum than (biblical) rationale.

God bless America.

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[Guest mcm42]

The miracle in ACTS 2 was in the fact that those who spoke those national, earthly, understood-by-the-listeners languages HAD NEVER STUDIED THEM BEFORE THEY SPOKE THEM. Plain and plumb

Where I agree that tongues are not for today I do not agree that we can limit the gift of toungues to the Acts 2 instance. It is very clear in 1 Cor. 12-14 that something other than the Acts 2 occurance was happening. Why? Because in speaking of 1 Cor 12-14 Paul makes clear a gift that is only in 1 cor 12-14 (I'll get to this in another post, I have a conjecture of my own) that is Interpretations.

It's obvious that in Acts 2 no interpretation was needed. When they spoke no matter your language you heard... that was speaking in tongues!

In Corinthians it's clear that something different was happening. It's clear that the languages spoken (known or unknown is not the issue really) were not understood by those present. This means that there speaking in "tongues" was different that the Acts 2 occurance.

Well, I'll be back to write some more....

Hey Leonard... it's o.k. I'm sure I will not agree with you on this issue, but it's always a goal of mine to agree to disagree! I have plenty of friends (they're all women come to think of if) whom believe in tongues, I don't curse or hate them for it, in fact they are all some of my best friends.

God bless your study.