The Purpose of Speaking in Tongues

[Guojing]

Yes, but the way you wrote it, it seemed a bit spooky. It sounded like you are praying to Paul. I hope not.
So, Peter was sent to the Jews...does this mean that you exclude his ministry and example? You only follow Paul?

1 Cor 1:12
12Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” 13Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Good night, and God Bless! I hope you resolve everything. GOOD BYE EVERYONE, THIS HAS BEEN, WELL, UM, DIFFERENT AND STRANGE.

Perhaps you read that original post too quickly? What I stated was https://christianchat.com/threads/the-purpose-of-speaking-in-tongues.192497/post-4275751

God told me to go to the apostle he raised for me, Paul, who taught me to rightly divide the word of truth in 2 timothy 2:15

 

[KelbyofGod]

Um, Roughsoul1991, sorry to contradict, but...yes, sometimes a person who is speaking in tongues aloud will him/her self interpret. Other times it is someone else in the congregation (not necessarily a member, it can be a guest!)
But if no one interprets, it does not necessarily mean that the person speaking in tongues spoke up out of place, sometimes individuals who have the interpretation are so bewildered that they understand something in another language spoken by someone else, that they are quite frankly in awe, and then the pastor moves on with the message of the day... so they miss giving the message to the entire church.
Oh, and by the way, this form of speaking in tongues is not the personal gift that uplifts the Christian, it is actually considered prophetic, because it is directed to the whole church for uplifting. That it is presented in tongues, is just its presentation. WHAT?! Why doesn't God just have the person spit it out in English?

I've heard also of a message being given in tongues to a church; no one outwardly interpreted; but God provided the interpretation directly to the hearts of multiple individuals within that church. The person who gave the message only found this out afterwards when several of these individuals came up to him and told him that in the interpretation God was telling each of them to get out of that church. God did it right under the pastor's nose but the pastor neither knew what was said nor to whom the message was given.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[wolfwint]

That has been tried many times.
It just invokes more robotic rhetoric from you.

But not realy sucsessful, otherwise I would must not ask again and again.
The most answers I got, met not the question, but something else to avoid answer the question.
But maby I should not expect to get an answer, because you (ore others) cant answer them.

 

[wolfwint]

ACTS 2:39
The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call."

To get the Holy Spirit thats right. But nothing there is speaking from getting the gift of speaking in tongues.

 

[KelbyofGod]

And you thought Peter was speaking to all of us in that verse[Acts 2:39, post 536], when he was clearly addressing "Men of Israel" (Acts2:22)?

(And also @CS1) It makes no difference who he was speaking TO because it is very clear who he was speaking ABOUT.

• You - (who were right there, right then, and that he was speaking TO)
• Your children - that may or may not have been present at the time; some of whom he may also be speaking TO, some only ABOUT)
• All that are afar off - that were not there at that time but he was clearly speaking about
• As many as the Lord our God shall call - Which includes all men (all humans) from that point on, whether they were there or not and even if they existed yet, or not.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[Guojing]

(And also @CS1) It makes no difference who he was speaking TO because it is very clear who he was speaking ABOUT.

• You - (who were right there, right then, and that he was speaking TO)
• Your children - that may or may not have been present at the time; some of whom he may also be speaking TO, some only ABOUT)
• All that are afar off - that were not there at that time but he was clearly speaking about
• As many as the Lord our God shall call - Which includes all men (all humans) from that point on, whether they were there or not and even if they existed yet, or not.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

I guess if one is determined to get church doctrine from the book of acts, it won’t matter who peter was addressing there.

 

[KelbyofGod]

I guess if one is determined to get church doctrine from the book of acts, it won’t matter who peter was addressing there.

Who told you that you shouldn't trust the book of Acts?

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[KelbyofGod]

@Guojing Besides, you were completely willing to develop doctrine from the book of Acts when you cited Acts 2:22 as a point of doctrinal argument in post 556. <--That behavior fits the definition of hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy: "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense."​

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[Guojing]

Who told you that you shouldn't trust the book of Acts?

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

I didn’t say don’t trust it, I am saying it will be misleading to get church doctrine from There.

If you end up taking doctrine meant for Israel, it’s like taking doctrine from the law of Moses in Leviticus

 

[Guojing]

@Guojing Besides, you were completely willing to develop doctrine from the book of Acts when you cited Acts 2:22 as a point of doctrinal argument in post 556. <--That behavior fits the definition of hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy: "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense."​

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

I was clear that peter was only addressing Jews and Israel in acts 2 and 3

 

[Nehemiah6]

I guess if one is determined to get church doctrine from the book of acts, it won’t matter who peter was addressing there.

There is as much Church doctrine in the book of Acts as there is anywhere in the New Testament. So your basic premise is totally false.

 

[KelbyofGod]

@Guojing Besides, you were completely willing to develop doctrine from the book of Acts when you cited Acts 2:22 as a point of doctrinal argument in post 556. <--That behavior fits the definition of hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy: "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense."​

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

Correction: It was Post #536. (not #556)

 

[KelbyofGod]

I was clear that peter was only addressing Jews and Israel in acts 2 and 3

My point still stands. "It makes no difference who he was speaking TO because it is very clear who he was speaking ABOUT."

• You - (who were right there, right then, and that he was speaking TO)
• Your children - that may or may not have been present at the time; some of whom he may also be speaking TO, some only ABOUT)
• All that are afar off - that were not there at that time but he was clearly speaking about
• As many as the Lord our God shall call - Which includes all men (all humans) from that point on, whether they were there or not and even if they existed yet, or not.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[Guojing]

There is as much Church doctrine in the book of Acts as there is anywhere in the New Testament. So your basic premise is totally false.

Yes as I said, one who wants to get church doctrine from there will obviously disagree with what I am saying.

 

[KelbyofGod]

Yes as I said, one who wants to get church doctrine from there will obviously disagree with what I am saying.

As they should.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[Nehemiah6]

Yes as I said, one who wants to get church doctrine from there will obviously disagree with what I am saying.

And that is as it should be since you are disagreeing with God. Not a very good position to be in.

 

[Guojing]

My point still stands. "It makes no difference who he was speaking TO because it is very clear who he was speaking ABOUT."

• You - (who were right there, right then, and that he was speaking TO)
• Your children - that may or may not have been present at the time; some of whom he may also be speaking TO, some only ABOUT)
• All that are afar off - that were not there at that time but he was clearly speaking about
• As many as the Lord our God shall call - Which includes all men (all humans) from that point on, whether they were there or not and even if they existed yet, or not.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

But what if peter was referring to Jews in all those 4 bullet points that you are using?

Your point won’t stand anymore correct?

 

[Guojing]

And that is as it should be since you are disagreeing with God. Not a very good position to be in.

Is that your opinion?

 

[KelbyofGod]

But what if peter was referring to Jews in all those 4 bullet points that you are using?

Your point won’t stand anymore correct?

My point still stands. Jews are included in those 4 points.

• You - (who were right there, right then, and that he was speaking TO)
• Your children - that may or may not have been present at the time; some of whom he may also be speaking TO, some only ABOUT)
• All that are afar off - that were not there at that time but he was clearly speaking about
• As many as the Lord our God shall call - Which includes all men (all humans) from that point on, whether they were there or not and even if they existed yet, or not.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[wolfwint]

I guess if one is determined to get church doctrine from the book of acts, it won’t matter who peter was addressing there.

Its the same with Joel 2, its adressed to Israel, but many claimes it for christianity, special pentecostal believers.