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

[presidente]

They are making it up. What people ""experience "" is actually far away from what is actually written about this.

Not that many hours ago, you posted something that indicated that you weren't that familiar with all that is written about this. Have you had time to study I Corinthians 14 yet?

They are just making it up. They fake it ; from emotion and a need to want to experience ""something holy or religious ". It has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. And can not be found in the Bible what they do, without directly ignoring whats written...
And to add insult to injury, the person trying to """"interpret their vain non sense, is just as ignorant as they are"".

I think you should reconsider your attitude about this. According to the Bible, the Spirit gives these gifts to certain individuals. Since the Bible says that, we should expect at least some of the speaking in tongues to be genuine. So your wide sweeping allegations about tongues having nothing to do with the Holy Spirit don't fit with what the Bible teaches.

I've heard interpretations that quoted scripture. Would you call that vain nonsense? That's one of the problems of categorically opposing things you know little or nothing about.

It just floors me, to see people act that way.. When we have what is Written.. They rather request confusion..

I wonder why people ignore what is written, arguing that since we have what is written, we don't need to do what is written or appreciate when 'what is written' happens.

 

[notuptome]

Have you noticed that I Corinthians 14 is pretty much the only whole chapter that tells us what to do in church, unless you count chapter 11 which talks about the Lord's supper.

There are a few verses here and there that talk about what to do in church. Hebrews 10:24-25 talks about provoking one another to love and to good works. It tells us to exhort one another. A couple of passages tell us to speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.

And then we have this whole chapter on how to have an orderly church service, in the midst of a discussion on how the Corinthians were apparently doing it wrong. Notice what is and what is in the chapter on what to do in church.

- No reference to one long sermon.
- No reference to a pastor saying anything.
- Instructions about 'every one of you' speaking or singing in church.
- Endorsement of everyone singing psalms (solos?), teaching, sharing revelations, speaking in tongues, and interpreting tongues.
- Specific instructions on how to speak in tongues and interpret in an edifying manner.
- How prophets are to speak. How 'ye' may prophesy.

Prophets speaking in church gets mentioned. Pastors speaking does not. One verse says elders are to be 'apt to teach.' No scripture says they take the dominant speaking role in church, though. Elders and anyone else with a pastoral gift is included in 'every one of you.'

There is no scripture for the idea of a pulpit-centered church service with one long sermon. But there is scripture for a church meeting where all prophesy. There is scripture for church meetings in which tongues are interpreted.

Why is it that so many Christians support as holy traditions that aren't in scripture like the importance of the Sunday sermon, but totally reject what is actually commanded, like instructions for speaking in tongues and interpreting or instructions for prophesying in church?

We exhort one another through the bible. Have you read all of 1 Corinthians? Perhaps you glossed over the part where Paul states that God has chosen the foolishness of preaching to save the lost. The foolishness of preaching the cross.

Tongues and miracles do not result in faith. Faith comes from hearing through preaching of the word of God. Christ preached to Israel from the scriptures. We have no record of Christ speaking in tongues. Tongues through out the history of Israel has been one of tongues being a sign of impending judgment. The evidence of tongues at Pentacost is one of judgment on Judiasm. The old now done away and the new established. The Gentiles speaking tongues in Acts again as a sign of the blessing intended for Israel no passing to the Gentiles.

Perhaps if there were more pulpit centered ministries there would be less ignorance of the scriptures in the church today. Fewer prophets who are confounded by the prophets and more bible Christ centered doctrine and we would see holiness and purity in the church today. What would we have if hearts were moved by bible preaching instead of rock and roll music? Be still and know that I AM the Lord.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[presidente]

We exhort one another through the bible. Have you read all of 1 Corinthians?

Yes, I was in Bible quiz and could quote it straight through at one point, in the KJV. I am still quite familiar with it and occasionally, I can quote parts of it.

Perhaps you glossed over the part where Paul states that God has chosen the foolishness of preaching to save the lost. The foolishness of preaching the cross.

No I haven't, but the way you apply this makes me suspect your interpretation of the verse comes more from tradition than what it actually says. Do you think 'preach' means to speak (maybe loudly) at Christians from behind a pulpit? There are different words translated 'preach', but usually when the word shows up in translations of the New Testament, it has to do with proclaiming the Gospel to unbelievers. It is what Paul did in the synagogues and marketplaces. The apostles taught believers, and preached to unbelievers. There are some exceptions you can find, like where the KJV translates the word from which we get 'dialogue' as 'preached' in Acts 20:7.

But look at the context-- the foolishness of preaching saved them that believe, and several verses later, Paul, talking about the past when he first met the Corinthians, did not speak to them with man's wisdom, knew nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified, though he would speak spiritual wisdom among them that are perfect.

The foolishness of preaching saving them that believes sounds like it has to do with evangelism to me. Church meetings are primarily for the edification of the church. If an uninstructed person or unbeliever comes in, he might recieve ministry. (Notice in chapter 14, IF, IF, such a person enters-- the meetings are primarily for the saints.) But even in that example, the man responds by saying that God is truly among them after 'all prophesy.'

I suspect there may be a false dichotomy behind your post, as if we should go with 'preaching' rather than doing what I Corinthians 14 says. But I suspect your idea of 'preaching' is not what Paul is talking about here. I suspect you think of teaching scripture to Christians from behind a pulpit, rather than proclaiming the Gospel to those who have not believed in it yet.

Tongues and miracles do not result in faith. Faith comes from hearing through preaching of the word of God.

Jesus said in John 4:48
"So Jesus said to him, “Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe.” "

Acts 9
34 “Aeneas,” Peter said to him, “Jesus Christ heals you. Get up and roll up your mat.” Immediately Aeneas got up. 35 All those who lived in Lydda and Sharon saw him and turned to the Lord.
(NIV)

and

40 Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, “Tabitha, get up.” She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. 41 He took her by the hand and helped her to her feet. Then he called for the believers, especially the widows, and presented her to them alive. 42 This became known all over Joppa, and many people believed in the Lord.
(NIV)

Sergius Paulus believed when he saw Elymas blinded.

Acts 13
12 When the proconsul saw what had happened, he believed, for he was amazed at the teaching about the Lord.
(NIV)


Preaching and doing miracles were very much intertwined in the ministry of Christ and the apostles in scripture. I don't know how people would get saved from seeing miracles without hearing the Gospel, but it would be inaccurate to say that miracles have nothing to do with people believing.

Christ preached to Israel from the scriptures. We have no record of Christ speaking in tongues./quote]

So what? Does that mean we disregard the Lord's commands in I Corinthians 14?

Tongues through out the history of Israel has been one of tongues being a sign of impending judgment. The evidence of tongues at Pentacost is one of judgment on Judiasm.

You make an application of Isaiah that Paul does not when he quotes him in I Corinthians 14. But be that as it may, there are still Jews.

The old now done away and the new established.

We are still waiting for the promises in Romans 11 for unbelieving Israel, the one's Paul describes as enemies for your sake's but beloved for the sake's of the fathers, to be saved.

The Gentiles speaking tongues in Acts again as a sign of the blessing intended for Israel no passing to the Gentiles.

There is one problem I can see with that idea. The Bible doesn't each that. It does talk about this mindset though, when it warns people who say the natural branches off that they might take their place that God can also remove the one who says such things. See Romans 11.

Perhaps if there were more pulpit centered ministries there would be less ignorance of the scriptures in the church today.

Perhaps if ministers were more knowledgeable of the scriptures, ministries would be more Bible centered rather than pulpit centered.

A pulpit is a piece of furniture. It's not even mentioned in the Bible. Jesus sat down when He spoke in the synagogue in Nazareth.

I'm not against having a nice solid Bible stand to put my Bible on. That's a blessing. But it is silly to make a piece of furniture that is not even mentioned in the Bible into something holy and irreplaceable. They used to meet in houses. I suppose someone might have had a lectern. James mentions not telling people to tell the poor to sit under their footstool in their 'synagogue.' I Corinthians mentions the table of the Lord. Otherwise, I can't think of anywhere the New Testament mentions anything about furniture in church.

I Corinthians has 'every one of you' speaking, and if everyone has to walk up to a pulpit that can eat up a lot of time, and may disrupt the flow of prophecies.

 

[nathan3]

we don't need to do what is written or appreciate when 'what is written' happens.

No, what happens without being written is called a lie. People are lying or deceived. Why would you take what people say Over God's words ? This attitude is what is setting people up for the babble of these end times.


In Acts chapter 2, God's Holy Spirit was given, to allow all the people there, no matter the language barrier , to be able to understand Peter and the rest; The many wonderful works of God.. Did you notice, there is NO word UNKNOWN , in Acts chapter 2 in connection to God's Gift of His Spirit in Acts 2 .

The Scriptures do not state to speak in an UNKNOWN tongue , but that they would speak in OTHER tongues (i.e., other languages). This was a gift for communicating the Gospel to peoples of other languages ..Note, there is NO need of a interpreter with God as written there.




Below is the "tongues" of the book of Acts, and as you can see there was nothing "unknown" about it!


Acts 2:4
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. (KJV)


other: Greek word #2087 heteros = other or different:

Tongues: Greek word #1100 glossa = a language (specially, one naturally unacquired)

When they spoke this tongue, everybody understood it, the Scripture lists 18 different languages that understood it AT ONCE! Not like today's so-called tongues where only another possessed person can think that he understands it.

The Pentecostal Day (Acts 2: ) tongues were heard and understood by all languages:


Acts 2:4-11
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. (KJV)

What is happening in the churches today is so far removed from the Scriptures that one could only suspect demonic influences. Stop babbling, it is not of God !


Lets talk about this word " Unknown " and 1 Corinthians 14: :

In every occurrence of "unknown tongue," in the New Testament, the word "unknown" is an added word (italicized in the KJV) by the translators to make the English readable. It is not in the Manuscripts.


In the King James Bible you see some words in italics. These are words that they had to add to properly translate the Hebrew/Greek into English. They were faithful in that they placed the words that they added in italics so that we would know that the words do not appear in the original Manuscripts as such. They did not always add the right words. We see, what this italicized word " Unknown " confused a lot of people.

Check your Strong's for the word "unknown" in: 1 Cor 14:2, 1 Cor 14:4, 1 Cor 14:13, 1 Cor 14:14, 1 Cor 14:19, 1 Cor 14:27; it is not there in the printed versions, and in the electronic versions it lists the definition for "tongues" not "unknown." below we supply the above Scriptures, in them we supply the italics from the printed King James Bible version (We also place those italicized words in bold print so you can spot them quickly):


1 Cor 14:2
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue ( naturally unacquired language ) speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. KJV

Speaking to men, with a language that they have naturally not were born with , they will not understand. They would need a interpreter for that. God understands ALL languages, so it would be vain to give a message God sent to give others, just that only God could understand it. Other wise, its just a mystery to everyone and no edifying to the hearer.

1 Cor 14:4
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. KJV


Prophecy :

G4395

prof-ate-yoo'-o

From G4396 ; to foretell {events}.. Lets take it to its prime :

G4396

prof-ay'-tace

From a compound of G4253 and G5346 ; a foreteller ( prophet ); by analogy an inspired speaker

G5346

φημί

phēmi

fay-mee'

Properly the same as the base of G5457 and G5316 ; speak or say


It is clear, as since DAY ONE, that all of the prophets of God, speak and say, , That is God's message..

but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. KJV
He that is about to communicate Gods message edifies the church. Period. Nothing fancy or hard about this


1 Cor 14:13
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. KJV


unknown tongue is again :

G1100

gloce'-sah
a language (specifically one naturally unacquired):

If the people are not naturally born with the language of the speaker, you need to interpret .


1 Cor 14:14
14 For if I pray in an glōssa -a language (specifically one naturally unacquired)
, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. KJV



1 Cor 14:19
19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an glōssa -a language (specifically one naturally unacquired)
. KJV

1 Cor 14:27
27 If any man speak in an glōssa -a language (specifically one naturally unacquired)
, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. KJV

Can you see the message here, or are we trying so hard to hold onto traditional teachings and experiences of people, that are Not what God has said.

As Paul states at the end, God is NOT the author of confusion. But of Peace.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Nathan, if you legitimately speak in tongues, you should record it and present it here. It's not much different than doing it in church.

 

[nathan3]

JimmyDiggs .no,,,, , ,you did not read my post. Please do that before responding to it.. I am Not saying babble is okay, and I dont do that. Please read the full post.

 

[jimmydiggs]

JimmyDiggs .no,,,, , ,you did not read my post. Please do that before responding to it.. I am Not saying babble is okay, and I dont do that. Please read the full post.

I'd like to see presidente do it too.

 

[nathan3]

After reading my pst can you begin to see why they would sound like a bardarian,??

 

[presidente]

No, what happens without being written is called a lie. People are lying or deceived. Why would you take what people say Over God's words ? This attitude is what is setting people up for the babble of these end times.

I choose to take God's word over what people say, including yourself. The Bible says to covet to prophesy. In I Corinthians 14, Paul is very positive about the idea of all prophesying. He writes, 'ye may all prophesy' and gives an example or an unbeliever or unlearned man who enters an assembly falling on his face saying God is truly in/among you when all prophesy.

The Bible also says despise not prophesyings. So I'll go with that rather than your opinion.

In Acts chapter 2, God's Holy Spirit was given, to allow all the people there, no matter the language barrier , to be able to understand Peter and the rest; The many wonderful works of God.. Did you notice, there is NO word UNKNOWN , in Acts chapter 2 in connection to God's Gift of His Spirit in Acts 2 .

The 'unknown' thing is a total strawman. I can't say I ever remember any who speaks in tongues making a doctrinal point out of the word 'unknown' being in the KJV. It's in italics in our KJVs, too, after all. But I have occasionally read where a cessationist like yourself, apparently, treated the word as if some point of doctrine rested on it.

Look at chapter 2. They speak in tongues. It gets people's attention. Then Peter preaches, apparently in some kind of Lingua Franca, maybe Aramaic or Hebrew, or possibly even Greek. There is no hint that he spoke in tongues when he preached in the text. God has chosen the foolishness of preaching, Paul wrote, to save them that believe. He doesn't say that about speaking in tongues.

The Scriptures do not state to speak in an UNKNOWN tongue , but that they would speak in OTHER tongues (i.e., other languages). This was a gift for communicating the Gospel to peoples of other languages ..Note, there is NO need of a interpreter with God as written there.

If we are going to discuss this intelligently, then you need to sit down and read I Corinthians 14, the passage quoted in the OP. In this context, no one understands the speaking in tongues and there needs to be an interpreter to edify the congregation. God could see to it that the tongue spoken is one present understand, but that is not what usually happens in church. There are numerous accounts of it happening, including at the Azusa Street revival, but usually no one present understands tongues. Paul wrote of the Corinthians situation, 'no man understandeth him.' Acts 2 occurred in evangelistic setting. I Corinthians 14 discusses what happens in meetings of believers. Maybe that has something to do with it.

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. (KJV)


other: Greek word #2087 heteros = other or different:

Tongues: Greek word #1100 glossa = a language (specially, one naturally unacquired)

[/quote]

okay

When they spoke this tongue, everybody understood it, the Scripture lists 18 different languages that understood it AT ONCE! Not like today's so-called tongues where only another possessed person can think that he understands it.

You seem to be assuming that all the people speaking in languages were saying the same thing. A more straightforward interpretation was that among the group were people speaking in each of these 18 languages. Whether they understood it at once, or in some kind of sequence, is not mentioned in the passage. We aren't told how long this went on.

You need to be careful with your use of 'possessed' and the implications. Jesus gave a severe warning in Matthew 12.

In I Corinthians, Paul says 'and let one interpret.' Sometimes more than one person will get the interpretation, but only one speaks it out. The way Paul words I Corinthians 14:27-28, if there is only one who can interpret, that's fine.

It seems to me that you object to situations that fit the instructions in I Corinthians 14:27-28 occurring, and insist that only Acts 2 situations, as you understand them, be allowed to occur. God is allowed to do other stuff that is in the Bible, too. You don't have any right to forbid the Holy Spirit from working.

Lets talk about this word " Unknown " and 1 Corinthians 14: :

In every occurrence of "unknown tongue," in the New Testament, the word "unknown" is an added word (italicized in the KJV) by the translators to make the English readable. It is not in the Manuscripts.

Maybe you could start a thread for beating up straw men.

1 Cor 14:2
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue ( naturally unacquired language ) speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. KJV

How do you make this verse fit in your mind with some of the things you have said about tongues in Acts 2. If you discount modern speaking in tongues for not fitting with Acts 2, how do you accept what Paul says here?

Speaking to men, with a language that they have naturally not were born with , they will not understand. They would need a interpreter for that. God understands ALL languages, so it would be vain to give a message God sent to give others, just that only God could understand it. Other wise, its just a mystery to everyone and no edifying to the hearer.

We agree that tongues is a language not naturally learned here in this verse. I wouldn't call it 'vain.' If it is not interpreted, it is not beneficial to the hearer. It is to the speaker to speak in tongues, not not to the hearer. So the message should be interpreted if it is to benefit the church.

1 Cor 14:4
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. KJV


Prophecy :

G4395

prof-ate-yoo'-o

From G4396 ; to foretell {events}.. Lets take it to its prime :

G4396

prof-ay'-tace

From a compound of G4253 and G5346 ; a foreteller ( prophet ); by analogy an inspired speaker

G5346

φημί

phēmi

fay-mee'

Properly the same as the base of G5457 and G5316 ; speak or say

It would be helpful if you removed some spaces for the sake of the reader. I don't care for your dictionary's narrow definitions, which clearly don't fit all the scriptural uses of the term.

I'm not saying Thayer's is the best their is, but it's definition seems to be a bit better.

G4396
Thayer:1) to prophesy, to be a prophet, speak forth by divine inspirations, to predict
1a) to prophesy
1b) with the idea of foretelling future events pertaining esp. to the kingdom of God
1c) to utter forth, declare, a thing which can only be known by divine revelation
1d) to break forth under sudden impulse in lofty discourse or praise of the divine counsels
1d1) under like prompting, to teach, refute, reprove, admonish, comfort others
1e) to act as a prophet, discharge the prophetic office

It is clear, as since DAY ONE, that all of the prophets of God, speak and say, , That is God's message..

You seem to be leaving a few words or phrases out, so your point isn't quite clear here. Maybe it's the punctuation.

but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. KJV
He that is about to communicate Gods message edifies the church. Period. Nothing fancy or hard about this

Not all edifying speech is referred to as prophesying. Paul lists prophesying and teaching as different gifts in Romans 12, and prophets and teachers as different roles in I Corinthians 12. See also Ephesians 4.

1 Cor 14:13
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. KJV

Interpretation of tongues is listed as a manifestation of the Spirit along with those other supernatural manifestations in I Corinthians 12. If someone knows two languages naturally, he should generally be able to interpret. I know two languages, and I am able to translate from one language to another. But Paul says to pray that he may interpret. He's praying for a gift, or for a gift to manifest.

unknown tongue is again :

G1100

gloce'-sah
a language (specifically one naturally unacquired):

If the people are not naturally born with the language of the speaker, you need to interpret .

We are generally in agreement here. I'd like to point out that interpretation is a gift of the Spirit.

1 Cor 14:14
14 For if I pray in an glōssa -a language (specifically one naturally unacquired)
, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. KJV

He doesn't understand what he is saying when he prays in tongues.

1 Cor 14:19
19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an glōssa -a language (specifically one naturally unacquired)
. KJV

True, and this is part of his argument that tongues need to be interpreted in a passage that encourages people in the church to prophesy. This is very different from going to church and hearing one man preach a sermon.

1 Cor 14:27
27 If any man speak in an glōssa -a language (specifically one naturally unacquired)
, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. KJV

Can you see the message here, or are we trying so hard to hold onto traditional teachings and experiences of people, that are Not what God has said.

I can see the message here, and I embrace it. You are the one who is against tongues in church, and if you are against tongues, how can you be in favor of interpreting them to edify the body? Of course tongues spoken out in church should be interpreted. If there is no interpreter, the one who spoke in tongues should either shut up or speak or sing in the common language in an edifying manner.

 

[jimmydiggs]

After reading my pst can you begin to see why they would sound like a bardarian,??

They shouldn't sound like a bardarian. The bible in acts two describes it as human languages only.

 

[presidente]

They shouldn't sound like a bardarian.

Do bardarians relate the history of a people-group in poetry?

A barbarian was someone who did not speak Greek. To the Greeks he sound like he was saying 'bar bar bar bar' and so they called foreigners who did not speak their language 'barbarians.' I've also heard that from secular Linguistics professors who weren't talking about scripture.

If someone speaks a foreign language you don't know, that person sounds like a barbarian to you, whether they wear horned helmets and animal skins or not.

The bible in acts two describes it as human languages only.

And I Corinthians 13 suggests tongues of angels as another possibility.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Do bardarians relate the history of a people-group in poetry?

They're cousins of the barbarians. Nathan could tell you more about it.

And I Corinthians 13 suggests tongues of angels as another possibility.

Ever heard of hyperbole? Paul is saying even if he could use that language, to do so without love is meaningless.

 

[presidente]

Ever heard of hyperbole? Paul is saying even if he could use that language, to do so without love is meaningless.

Based on what authority can you pontificate with absolute certainty that this must be hyperbole?

Whether it is meant metaphorically or literally, according to Christ it is possible to move mountains with faith. It's possible to give your body to be burned. Many have. It is possible to give all you have to the poor. Some have done that. Why would tongues of angels be impossible if the other things listed in the passage are possible?

 

[nathan3]

Unbeweeeeevable...grief presidente..

 

[presidente]

Unbeweeeeevable...grief presidente..

I don't speak Bardarian.

 

[Huckleberry]

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

People who start threads with this title don't understand tongues or prophecy.
I recommend that you run, don't walk, away from your heretical Pentecostal philosophy.

 

[presidente]

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

People who start threads with this title don't understand tongues or prophecy.
I recommend that you run, don't walk, away from your heretical Pentecostal philosophy.

I'm advocating following the scriptures in church meetings. That's what the thread is about. Do you disagree with the scriptures posted in the OP?

 

[Huckleberry]

I'm advocating following the scriptures in church meetings. That's what the thread is about. Do you disagree with the scriptures posted in the OP?

I disagree with the pentecostal/charismatic's perversion of those Scriptures.

 

[ForthAngel]

And I Corinthians 13 suggests tongues of angels as another possibility.

1 Corinthians 13
1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

We can clearly see that Paul is making a statement by using exaggerated analogies. The first verse he talks about tongues of angels and men, and if a person speaks with them, but has not love, they are as a noisy gong or clanging cymbals. Let’s follow this one verse out to its logical conclusion. The first language he talks about is the language of men. If someone is speaking to you in the language of a human being, are there ever times when you can’t understand them because they sound like a noisy gong or clanging cymbal? Just one example is all we’d need. No, this never happens. What Paul is talking about here is when you speak to someone but not with love, your words will probably annoy them, therefore they will not listen to you.

Let’s pretend that Paul is talking about a literal angelic language that men do not understand. Has anyone ever spoken an angelic language that any one person has understood in these churches? When people are speaking glossolalia, can anyone ever understand the person who is speaking it? No, unless it is a pastor and his wife usually (meaning it’s probably faked). Let’s assume that Paul is speaking here about the tongues spoken at Pentecost. If it were the tongues spoken at Pentecost, then again, one would be speaking their own native language and others would be hearing it in their own native languages. This again shares no relationship with what we see today.

Let’s keep assuming that Paul is talking about a real angelic language here. Are there any examples in the bible where an angel spoke and the person they were speaking to didn’t understand them? Just one example will do. There isn’t one. And the only defense would be that it’s because the angels were speaking their language with love, therefore they were understood. Let’s take this defense to its logical conclusion. If the angels that appeared and spoke to men and women in the bible were speaking a heavenly language out of love and were understood by it, what does this make glossolalia since it cannot be understood by anyone today. The first conclusion is that not one of the modern day tongues speakers are speaking out of love. The second conclusion is that if they really are speaking an angelic language and are not being understood because of a lack of love, it’s more likely that the language they are speaking is demonic.

Paul goes on in verses 2 and 3 to say if someone has all knowledge and understanding, faith enough to move mountains, or is delivering themselves up to be burned, but they don’t have love, then it’s all in vain. As far as I know, no one has all knowledge as God is the only omniscient being. No one is moving mountains because of their faith. No one is delivering themselves up to be burned, especially not without love, or it wouldn’t be possible. Paul is clearly using exaggerations here to push his point. These three verses are not literally talking about speaking an unknown angelic language, or claiming a person can be omniscient, or someone can move mountains with their mind. He is quite obviously making a point that what we do should always be out of love or it’s in vain.

 

[letti]

I will be honest,I am not sure how I feel about this.I will admit one thing,any gift this kind holds a lot of scrutiny.I agree some people can speak in tongues ,but I always question is it genuine for all that do?I don't want to judge but I have seen it done falsely.Falsehood of all gifts of this kind exist though.