Churches that Don't Allow Tongues and Prophecy in Meetings disobey Bible

[presidente]

26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

and
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

and

31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

and

36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

and
[SUP]39 [/SUP]Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

 

[Hizikyah]

There is a lot of the churches do that are against the Scriptures:

Like celebrate Christmas

Yeremyah 10:1-6, "Hear the word which Yahweh speaks concerning you, O house of Israyl. This is what Yahweh says: aDo not learn the way of the heathen; Gentile nations; and do not be deceived by the signs of heaven; though the heathen are deceived by them. For the religious customs of the peoples are vain; worthless! For one cuts a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the ax. They decorate it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, so that it will not move; topple over. They are upright, like a palm tree, but they cannot speak; they must be carried, because they cannot go by themselves. Do not give them reverence! They cannot do evil, nor is it in them to do
righteousness! There is none like You, O Yahweh! You are great, and Your Name is mighty in power."

Celebrate Easter

Yeremyah 7:18, "How the children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, while the women knead dough to make cakes for the Queen of Heaven, and how they pour out drink offerings to the hinder gods so they may provoke Me to
anger?"

The queen of heaven is the goddes Astarte/Ishtar better know in the west as Easter

 

[presidente]

Hizikyah,

Those are worthy topics of discussion. But how about if we keep this thread narrowly focused on allowing tongues and prophecy and church, and have another thread for the discussion of these various celebrations?

Could you remove the idol from the page? It's a real mood-killer when we are talking about the Bible.

 

[Hizikyah]

Sorry I didnt mean to jack your thread, I think it's a great topic. It's a quality thread.

 

[notuptome]

No problem if you can meet the scriptural standards.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[brmicke]

26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. and 29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
and 31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
and 36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
and [SUP]39 [/SUP]Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.[/QUOTE]

So I get it - you are adamant that tongues is biblical. I have been there and know what you are thinking.

I agree tongues is scriptural. Tongues is simply not babbling as you have learned. It is speaking in parables.

Please brother don't be afraid to study this subject. I came out of a babbling (maybe an inappropriate, but necessary description) fellowship. The bible does explain it - and it is truly liberating (I remember) to understand that you have been misled. So please don't trust me but rely on the scriptural understanding I have linked in this posting. The scriptural proof is irrefutable, as you will see if you follow the scriptural references.

http://brmicke.yolasite.com/tongues.php

Sincerely - Your friend - Brian

 

[presidente]

2
I agree tongues is scriptural. Tongues is simply not babbling as you have learned. It is speaking in parables.

I don't know any Christian who teaches that genuine tongues described in scripture is just babbling. The idea that it is just speaking in parables doesn't make any sense. The author of the article you refer to need to consider what words actually mean. Why would 'glossalalia' refer to merely speaking in parables? Why would the apostles use a word that refers to speaking in other languages to refer to speaking in parables? I don't see how you can make your definition fit with the comments and commands Paul gives regarding speaking in tongues in the passage I quote in the OP either.

No matter how you define tongues, you still haven't addressed the topic, which is that churches that do not allow speaking in tongues or prophesying in the meetings are in disobedience.

 

[Nick01]

Prophecy is cool. If you have someone who can reliably translate something spoken in tongues, go nuts. But I have yet to meet anyone who I can confidently say has the gift of translation. If you can't translate it, it is not edifying for the church, therefore it should not be spoken in a meeting and reserved for your own edification.

 

[presidente]

Prophecy is cool. If you have someone who can reliably translate something spoken in tongues, go nuts. But I have yet to meet anyone who I can confidently say has the gift of translation. If you can't translate it, it is not edifying for the church, therefore it should not be spoken in a meeting and reserved for your own edification.

But of course your approval that a translation is accurate is not required for the gift of interpretation to operate.

 

[brmicke]

The idea that it is just speaking in parables doesn't make any sense.

Yes, it does make sense, and if it is important enough to you I encourage you to look up the references as you read the previously linked article.

The author of the article you refer to need to consider what words actually mean. Why would 'glossalalia' refer to merely speaking in parables?

I am the author of that article. Believe me please (over many years) I have looked up all the definitions etc.

Why would the apostles use a word that refers to speaking in other languages to refer to speaking in parables?

Because the Proselytes (converts to Judaism) spoke in their native languages and not Hebrew, and they spoke of the works of God in their native languages as Acts 2:11 illustrates. This indicated that all nations or as the Peter put it in Acts 2:17 "all flesh" would be able to receive the Gospel. The Jews were no longer the only people who could understand and speak of the things of God.

Ac 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

I don't see how you can make your definition fit with the comments and commands Paul gives regarding speaking in tongues in the passage I quote in the OP either.

I understand that this information is something that you are not familiar with that is why I encourage you to look up the scriptural references in the linked article.

or my tongues video perhaps -Speaking In Tongues Explanation Video, 20130214112442.mpg - YouTube

To address your final point - tongues is of course to be allowed in church meetings but it is the scriptural "tongues" of the Bible and not the sounds some refer to as tongues.

This is of course up to you, but I want to make you aware of the things I have spoke of.

 

[presidente]

I am the author of that article. Believe me please (over many years) I have looked up all the definitions etc.

I figured you were. You know why? Because I suspect it is unlikely that anyone else would interpret a sentence about speaking in another language not to refer to speaking in another language. I suspect I may have encountered you on another forum many years ago posting about this. The chances of two people believing something like this and posting about it are probably low. Maybe you've persuaded one or two people of your view. Have you ever run across the writings of a Greek scholar who agrees with you? A theologian? Just a regular person who reads the Bible?

Because the Proselytes (converts to Judaism) spoke in their native languages and not Hebrew, and they spoke of the works of God in their native languages as Acts 2:11 illustrates.

Acts 2 says they spoke in other languages. Do you want me to believe that speaking in other languages does not mean speak in other languages, but means speaking in parables?

Does 'Thou shalt not commit adultery" mean 'Do not step on the grass.' All you have to do is change the meaning of the words 'commit adultery' to have nothing to do with what they literally mean, and you can make the verse say all kinds of things.

This indicated that all nations or as the Peter put it in Acts 2:17 "all flesh" would be able to receive the Gospel. The Jews were no longer the only people who could understand and speak of the things of God.

That's great. But the passage says they were speaking in tongues (languages.) You haven't dealt with what the words actually mean.

Ac 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

Notice the 'in our tongues' part.

 

[brmicke]

Ok - maybe we have spoken before. I don't remember. Good luck to you.

Brian

 

[Witness45]

Sure, maybe churches should allow tounges. But they shouldn't force it either.

 

[resurrection33]

I think we should be aware of this:

[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

 

[Nick01]

But of course your approval that a translation is accurate is not required for the gift of interpretation to operate.

No, but obviously the church needs to be aware that they have the gift of interpretation before they are trusted to correctly interpret. Someone just saying they do does not mean they do.

 

[presidente]

No, but obviously the church needs to be aware that they have the gift of interpretation before they are trusted to correctly interpret. Someone just saying they do does not mean they do.

As with all the other gifts, you let the brother speak, and then clean it up if there is a problem. That's what happened in Acts 15. It's consistent with the instructions regarding elders in the epistle to Titus.

I also don't see any warning in I Corinthians that says to watch out, that some of the interpretations may be fake. He doesn't even say that about prophecy. The ability to interpret is a supernatural one in this passage, which is why Paul says in verse 13 for the one who speaks in tongues to pray that he may interpret.

 

[Nick01]

As with all the other gifts, you let the brother speak, and then clean it up if there is a problem. That's what happened in Acts 15. It's consistent with the instructions regarding elders in the epistle to Titus.

I also don't see any warning in I Corinthians that says to watch out, that some of the interpretations may be fake. He doesn't even say that about prophecy. The ability to interpret is a supernatural one in this passage, which is why Paul says in verse 13 for the one who speaks in tongues to pray that he may interpret.

Sorry, you'll have to explain specifically how Acts 15 or Titus are relevant to this specific issue.

It's not particular about whether it's fake or not. It's simply identifying the gift, and then allowing that gift to be used in the church. Teachers teach, but you don't simply allow everyone to teach in order to find out if they are a teacher in the meeting.

Having said that, I think the issue is really a pragmatic rather than simply theological. Teaching, it is fairly easy to work out after a meeting if someone had the genuine ability to teach. Prophesy is similar. What makes tongues tricky is that it is BY DEFINITION intelligible to most people. So how do you verify if there is an actual interpretation? (the point that Paul makes is that tongues in the meetings is only worthwhile if it is interpreted for the rest of the meaning). Or do you let people indefinitely interpret without actually knowing if they are interpreting or not?

 

[presidente]

Ok - maybe we have spoken before. I don't remember. Good luck to you.

Brian

A few more comments about your webpage, which we could continue on another thread if you want to discuss. If Paul wrote about people speaking in mysteries while speaking in other languages, that does not mean that whenever people speak in mysteries, that constitutes speaking in other languages. If the apostles spoke of the wonderful works of God in other languages, that does not mean that speaking in other languages means speaking the wonderful works of God. You can also make use of your 'understanding' while speaking spiritual mysteries, just as you do when speaking simple truths.

 

[presidente]

Sorry, you'll have to explain specifically how Acts 15 or Titus are relevant to this specific issue.

In Acts 15, the brethren from Jerusalem are allowed to speak in Antioch. After they teach error, Paul and Barnabas disputed with them, and then go to Jerusalem. In the Jerusalem CHURCH, certain Pharisees in the church are allowed to speak, also permitting Gentile circumcision. They are allowed to address the assembly. They spoke error, and the apostles and elders met to consider the matter.

Titus 1
[SUP]10 [/SUP]For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. [SUP]11 [/SUP]They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain
(NIV)

Notice the mouths of troublemakers were to be stopped after they made trouble. In I Corinthians 14:26, the brother with a doctrine is allowed to speak. It is those who make trouble, who teach false doctrine, who are to be silenced. Paul could have said stop up all the mouths except those of the elders, or all except some monarchical bishop which I hereby appoint. No one can talk but Stephanus, and maybe Gaius if Stephanus has a sore throat. But he did not say that.

First you let the prophets speak two or three, and then the other judge. You shouldn't say, "prophets, say nothing. You might make a mistake."

Hebrews 10:24-25 says to consider how to provoke one another to love and to good works, not to forsake the assembling of yourselves together but to 'exhort one another.'

It's not particular about whether it's fake or not. It's simply identifying the gift, and then allowing that gift to be used in the church.

Teachers teach, but you don't simply allow everyone to teach in order to find out if they are a teacher in the meeting.

Look at verse 26 in the OP. If someone has a doctrine (teaching) to teach, you let him teach. It commands 'let all things be done unto edifying.' This passage is inconsistent with the closed pulpit idea.

Having said that, I think the issue is really a pragmatic rather than simply theological. Teaching, it is fairly easy to work out after a meeting if someone had the genuine ability to teach. Prophesy is similar.

Unless you have spiritual perception to discern it prophecy can be just as tricky.

What makes tongues tricky is that it is BY DEFINITION intelligible to most people. So how do you verify if there is an actual interpretation? (the point that Paul makes is that tongues in the meetings is only worthwhile if it is interpreted for the rest of the meaning). Or do you let people indefinitely interpret without actually knowing if they are interpreting or not?

Paul seems to give the benefit of the doubt that the gifts are real and genuine. If the interpretation is edifying, is there any reason to reject it?

 

[brmicke]

Of course brother - We can continue the discussion wherever you would like.

You are right there are mysteries and then there are spiritually speaking "simple truths".

I am not sure where to begin to explain this so I will simply try my best. Jesus demonstrated all of the spiritual gifts. it is said that Jesus spoke nothing without using a parable,

Mt 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
Mr 4:34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.
(KJV)

Paul also said He spoke in "tongues more than all of His students. As a teacher gifted by God does it make sense for Paul to encourage all His students to speak in tongues and yet never demonstrate the gift?

To my understanding the answer is "no".

Paul was a loving teacher who was devoted to His students (the followers of Jesus) wellbeing to the point of desiring to be with them instead of departing to be with Jesus, because it was more needful for His students. It simply makes sense that if He encouraged them to speak in tongues (I wish you all spoke in tongues, 1 Cor 4:5) Paul would have showed them what speaking in tongues was.

It is never recorded that either Jesus or Paul ever engaged in what modern Christendom calls "glossalia" or speaking in Tongues. Yet we are told that Jesus did not say anything publically without using a parable. We also can see that Paul spoke many parables of hard sayings.

Now speaking in tongues is a form of speech, and the only form of speech.

We can see in 1 Cor 14:2 that the person speaking in tongues speaks of mysteries.

Now this is just a beginning, but it may serve to illustrate the point that the gift of speaking in tongues was employed and demonstrated by both Paul and Jesus.

respectfully - Brian