Some truth about speaking in tongues, the Holy Ghost, spiritual gifts and 1 Corinthians 14

[KelbyofGod]

Seeking, learning, Growing Submitting is a part of sanctification process.

Not the salvation process.

I assume you think you can earn your salvation also?? What do you have that you can offer God that would be so great it would prevent him from having to die for your sin?

I honestly don't care if you call it part of salvation or not. I know if Peter didn't do it, he was OUT. (In my thinking, that's kind of a salvation-ish thing, but how we catagorize it doesn't really matter)

Also, you'd be wrong in your assumption.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I'm hoping you realize that by saying this, you are also saying that the believing, baptized disciples in Acts chapter 8 CANNOT be accurately labeled as "saved" at the time of belief (verse 12) because they didn't receive the Holy Ghost until a few days later (verse 17).

At least not if you are using the traditional church definition of Saved= "you need nothing more to make it to heaven".

(I personally don't use that definition, and rarely see need to label someone as "saved" because of the traditional assumptions made if somone uses that word)

I am not talking about acts, That was the BEGINING of the going forth of the church, Thangs hppened differently because it was a new thing, and God used many signs to ensure that people understood this new movement was from God.

You can not relate the whole church based on a few examples

I hope you realise. The very passage you posted said if you DO NOT HAVE THE SPIRIT of God you are NOT his.

So unless you want to make God contradict himself. I suggest you take God at his word.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I honestly don't care if you call it part of salvation or not. I know if Peter didn't do it, he was OUT. (In my thinking, that's kind of a salvation-ish thing, but how we catagorize it doesn't really matter)

Also, you'd be wrong in your assumption.

I honestly don’t care if you think peter was out or not, God does nt make mistakes. He does not send people OY who he KNOWS is going to fail. It is sad you think our God is to weak and feeble that he does not know a persons heart. And his life.

Jesus told peter before he died he was COMPLETELY clean. Meaning his eternal destiny was assured.

And you BETTEr learn the difference between being SAVED from the penalty of sin (eternal damnation or eternal life or on biblicl terms JUSTIFICATION) vs saved from the POWER of sin or being made christlike (Sanctification)

But if nothing else My worries about some of your beliefs have been confirmed today.

 

[garee]

The word 'unknown' was indeed added. That's one reason I like the KJV; it italicizes any word that was added for the intent of clarification. Feel free to take the word "unknown" out of the text and see if it makes more sense. I'm guessing it doesn't.

I think it's somewhat appropriate in this case kind of like "manna" was an appropriate name for the bread God was giving from heaven. The people were seeing it but not understanding what it is so they called it "manna" which means "What is it?" Basically they named it "Whatsit."


It doesn't matter if we don't understand how it will benefit us prior to doing it. Just like Jesus told Peter "You won't understand what this is before you experience it, but you'll understand afterwards" when Jesus was about to wash Peter's feet. Peter's struggled intellectually with this concept and Jesus did not indulge his desire to understand it. Peter had to submit himself (by faith) to what didn't make sense to him... before he would understand its purpose/benefit.

That's also how it is with tongues. Yes, indeed it edifies the speaker, but No, you won't understand how that works until you receive it and experience it yourself.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

Thanks I would agree . But do think it sounds better if the word unknown was not added . Unknown opens a door that is not there.

for he who is speaking in an [known] tongue -- to men he doth not speak, but to God, for no one doth hearken, and in spirit he doth speak secrets 1 Corinthian 14

[known] tongue ....no room for confusion

I did like how you defined Manna "What is it?" or hidden manna as used in Revelation, a metaphor used to help define that signified language of Revelation... hid in parables.

Manna, is the mark of parables ("What is it?") prescribed as a way of interpreting those parables. 2 Corinthian 4:18

I would call it the bread that marks out our path. The bread of unfamiliarity .Not wanting us to think we could be familiar with Him whose wisdom surpasses all human understanding. It was familiarity that caused Jesus's own family to reject Him. It can be dangerous if we would start taking each other for granted in so much that familiarity can breed contempt, hatred, and death

Manna gives us the wonder food not lukewarm not to hot or cold but just right so that we can walk by faith.

 

[Waggles]

This would make it far more possible for people who are quoted quickly to edit their own posts and make it look like the quoter edited their posts. Five minutes is plenty... we just need to proofread and consider how it sounds before clicking "Post reply".

You know it is almost impossible to proofread and correct one's own writing.

 

[Dino246]

Thanks I would agree . But do think it sounds better if the word unknown was not added . Unknown opens a door that is not there.

for he who is speaking in an [known] tongue -- to men he doth not speak, but to God, for no one doth hearken, and in spirit he doth speak secrets 1 Corinthian 14

[known] tongue ....no room for confusion

Adding the word "known" in place of "unknown" actually corrupts the meaning of the passage, whereas adding "unknown" attempts to clarify it. If the language were known, there would be no need of interpretation, and much of the chapter would be silly because the guidelines that Paul presents would be irrelevant.

 

[Dino246]

Hi Dino 246 Thanks for the reply.. and the word bafflegab.

Sorry if I caused you extra work. I am working on the "read aloud" feature . I had it working once, and it does not seem to come on again. When my daughter stops over I will have her show me .

Extra work isn't a concern. My mom has terrible trouble typing now; her text messages are hilariously misspelled at times, and her career involved a lot of typing so it's quite a contrast.

Bottom line is always the "hearing of faith". (prophecy) No faith, not hearing prophecy. Hear the work of the faith of Christ that works in us, with us... believe God not seen. The gift of salvation.

The focus of all the doctrines of God to include God bringing prophecy in the manner "of tongues" as one many manners he did bring His word (prophecy) when he was still adding to the now perfect. . It has ceased .(.another witness )

Our view on whether the gifts have ceased is actually irrelevant here. Paul instructed the Corinthians to "be eager to prophesy", yet not a single word of Scripture was written by the Corinthians. Therefore I conclude that he meant something other than "be eager to write Scripture".

I would say we first look to the foundation of the "doctrine of tongues" so that we can understand the purpose of the sign .

I understand that is where you always look, but you're ignoring the plain text in 1 Corinthians 14:1-5. You can't import a doctrine from another location and force-fit it into this passage and expect it to fit smoothly; it just doesn't make sense.

There simply are no sign gifts. Spirit given gifts called "spiritual gifts", yes. We walk by faith.. Signs to seek after to confirm something outwardly , no.

Once again, you're force-fitting a different text into this passage, and arguing against claims that I have not made. It would really be helpful if you focused your response to me on what I have written instead of on what others have written.

God would never ask a person to drink literal poison . That sounds more like the fathers of lies.The idea to die as a martyr for your faith. A murder from the beginning. That would go for the rest of the metaphors used in Mark 16 all used in the same way as metaphor used in parable.

To chose a literal interpretation of those signs in the parable of Mark 16 is spiritual suicide...

I didn't mention anything about Mark 16, so I don't know why you're bringing it up.

He is not comparing prophecy God's word, to different manners as to which "manner is the greatest" .They all accomplish the same purpose, a person is given the faith of Christ by which he can believe prophecy, the word of God. . .

Actually, he is. Paul clearly says that prophecy is greater than speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues edifies the speaker, while prophecy is for exhortation, edification and comfort.

The word "greater" is used that way many times as relating to a position, not and authority. The father is not greater than the Son

However, in this case it means "better" or "of superior value". It has absolutely nothing to do with position.

Prophecy, ….. every one hears the interpretation of God as at Pentecost in their own understanding Not some private revelation from another.

No, this only happened at Pentecost in Acts 2. It didn't happen in Acts 10, it didn't happen in Acts 19, and apparently it wasn't happening in Corinth.

If tongues do not equal prophecy "God's interpretation" then what do they equal as a understanding ? Private interpretations?

"Tongues does not equal prophecy" means "tongues is not the same thing as prophecy." They don't equal something else.

 

[fredoheaven]

Why do people seem to interpret the word "AFTER" as if it means "AT EXACTLY THE SAME MOMENT AS"?!


Please pay attention to the fact that it was at Ephesus (Ephesians) that Paul meets disciples (Acts 19:1), whom he asks 'Have you received the Holy Ghost since (at, after, or because of) you believed ?" (19:2), Then he preaches some(19:3-4), then they get baptized(19:5)... (these are sequential, one after the other, non-simultaneous events).....but it seems they haven't yet received the Holy Ghost....which doesn't come until Paul lays hands on them(19:6), at which point they actually receive the Holy Ghost (also verse 6) and of course begin speaking in tongues (verse 6) and prophesying (verse 6).

In the bible, people believe at one point, and often receive the Holy Ghost AFTER...(at some later time). Therefore, the BIBLE doesn't have a problem with this fact even though many popular doctrines do.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

Umm, you are trying to make believe as it means "the same time". I have to agree these are next following, thus, a sequential manner.
This laying on of hands is already practice even during the Old Testament times to confer blessings and only after Paul had laid hands on them, then the Holy Ghost came unto them as empowerment of the Holy Spirit as in Acts 1:8. The reason behind is that these were not Christ disciples but John the Baptist disciples who have not so much heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

But we have to note that Paul by inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote wrote nothing about the speaking tongue in the particular passage I brought out. The diminishing ministry of the gift of tongue is rather seen here giving the importance of the preaching of the Gospel which is the power of God unto salvation to anyone that believes (Romans 1:16)

God bless

 

[garee]

The word "greater" is used that way many times as relating to a position, not and authority. The father is not greater than the Son
However, in this case it means "better" or "of superior value". It has absolutely nothing to do with position.

I would offer Greater as to manner by number influenced . Not greater as prophecy the foundation of the may manners.. Tongues, is God bringing prophecy in the language of other nations and not just the Hebrew alone (old testament).

God spoke in divers manner before the Son of man came to demonstrate the work of the unseen Holy Spirit. .His coming fulfilled all those shadow used as manner. (fleece of Gideon found with water one day, dry the next .The striking of the Rock anticipating the coming a suffering savior before hands. many different manners to include tongues to serve its purpose of hearing the gospel .

Hebrews 1 King James Version 1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Men receiving the interpretation of God through many manners was possible up until he sealed up the possibility of adding to the now perfect law of God, with seven seals.

 

[garee]

Umm, you are trying to make believe as it means "the same time". I have to agree these are next following, thus, a sequential manner.
This laying on of hands is already practice even during the Old Testament times to confer blessings and only after Paul had laid hands on them, then the Holy Ghost came unto them as empowerment of the Holy Spirit as in Acts 1:8. The reason behind is that these were not Christ disciples but John the Baptist disciples who have not so much heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

But we have to note that Paul by inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote wrote nothing about the speaking tongue in the particular passage I brought out. The diminishing ministry of the gift of tongue is rather seen here giving the importance of the preaching of the Gospel which is the power of God unto salvation to anyone that believes (Romans 1:16)

God bless

No sign gifts. The two words sign and gift are never used together to represent one .Its a spiritual gift. Spirits have no form to behold.

The laying on of hands like all ceremonial laws, like the Sabbaths are used as shadows. (no judging each other in regard to shadows..They have no substance to heal. God does not heal by human hands as if he needed something form the clay he is forming Christ in as a new creature.

Healing with human hands is used in respect to those who do seek after a signs and wonders before they will believe .

John 4:48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.

I think should study to see how signs are used seeing they are used in two ways .One as a blessing, and the other as a curse.

Rushing off to fulfill and sign but some work we could do is simply "will worship" spoken of in Colossian 2.

 

[garee]

"Tongues does not equal prophecy" means "tongues is not the same thing as prophecy." They don't equal something else.

If Tongues does not equal prophecy"? Then what does it equal?

What does the sign confirm if not for all the mocking that God brings by using another nations to bring prophecy (his living abiding word) ? And they still refuse to believe in God not seen in order to show they mock God in exchange for the oral traditions of men . I say its a sign of unbelief to the whole world. He is not just the God of the Jews.

They could have rest in their own land if they would obey him, if they were kind and good. He told them that, but they wouldn’t listen to him. So the Lord will spell it out for them again, repeating it over and over in simple words whenever he can; yet over this simple, straightforward message they will stumble and fall and be broken, trapped and captured.Therefore hear the word of the Lord, you scoffing rulers in Jerusalem:Isaiah 28:12-14

We are told in the ancient Scriptures (Isaiah 28:12-14)that God would send men from other lands to speak in foreign languages to his people, but even then they would not listen. So you see that being able to “speak in tongues” is not a sign to God’s children concerning his power, but is a sign to the unsaved. However, prophecy (preaching the deep truths of God) is what the Christians need, and unbelievers aren’t yet ready for it 1 Corinthian 14;21-22

 

[Dino246]

If Tongues does not equal prophecy"? Then what does it equal?

Go back and read the rest of the sentence that you quoted.

 

[garee]

Go back and read the rest of the sentence that you quoted.

Not sure what you are referring to. Did you mean? "If Tongues does not equal prophecy"? Then what does it equal?"

Would it be better if I added the word manners ?

If Tongues does not equal prophecy as one of its manners ? Then what does it equal?"

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Adding the word "known" in place of "unknown" actually corrupts the meaning of the passage, whereas adding "unknown" attempts to clarify it. If the language were known, there would be no need of interpretation, and much of the chapter would be silly because the guidelines that Paul presents would be irrelevant.

brilliant

the obvious escapes them it seems

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Adding the word "known" in place of "unknown" actually corrupts the meaning of the passage, whereas adding "unknown" attempts to clarify it. If the language were known, there would be no need of interpretation, and much of the chapter would be silly because the guidelines that Paul presents would be irrelevant.

Yes

For example. If someone would come in speaking panish, That would be an UNKNOWN language to me, and if it was in my church, and no one (including that person) spoke spanish, an interpreter would be required

 

[Dino246]

Not sure what you are referring to. Did you mean? "If Tongues does not equal prophecy"? Then what does it equal?"

Would it be better if I added the word manners ?

If Tongues does not equal prophecy as one of its manners ? Then what does it equal?"

Why would you think that I want you to read the rest of your own sentence? What I wrote, and you quoted, was

"Tongues does not equal prophecy" means "tongues is not the same thing as prophecy."

You addressed the first phrase, "Tongues does not equal prophecy" only.

I told you to go back and read the rest of the sentence, which says,

"means 'Tongues is not the same thing as prophecy.'"

Forget the word "equal" because it's only confusing you. Focus on the fact that tongues and prophecy are not the same thing.

 

[garee]

Why would you think that I want you to read the rest of your own sentence? What I wrote, and you quoted, was

"Tongues does not equal prophecy" means "tongues is not the same thing as prophecy."

You addressed the first phrase, "Tongues does not equal prophecy" only.

I told you to go back and read the rest of the sentence, which says,

"means 'Tongues is not the same thing as prophecy.'"

Forget the word "equal" because it's only confusing you. Focus on the fact that tongues and prophecy are not the same thing.

Manners do not mean different substance. Manners are part of the same thing .

Tongues is greater manner of prophecy than " let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew" another manner of prophecy used once. Dreams is another manner of prophecy,as was the drawing of straws with the apostle.

Judges 6:39 And Gideon said unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this once: let me prove, I pray thee, but this once with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew.

Or another manner of prophecy used with Gideon as a answer to prayer is when the men drank water used to division .

What does the sign of tongues confirm? Who is it in respect to? Those who believe prophecy in the manner of tongues or any other manner or those who refuse to hear the word of God after any manner to include tongues?

 

[Dino246]

Manners do not mean different substance. Manners are part of the same thing .

Tongues is greater manner of prophecy than " let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew" another manner of prophecy used once. Dreams is another manner of prophecy,as was the drawing of straws with the apostle.

Judges 6:39 And Gideon said unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this once: let me prove, I pray thee, but this once with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew.

Or another manner of prophecy used with Gideon as a answer to prayer is when the men drank water used to division .

What does the sign of tongues confirm? Who is it in respect to? Those who believe prophecy in the manner of tongues or any other manner or those who refuse to hear the word of God after any manner to include tongues?

I didn't introduce the term "manners"; you did. I didn't even address it.

So why did you provide an explanation of it instead of responding to what I wrote?

 

[garee]

I didn't introduce the term "manners"; you did. I didn't even address it.

So why did you provide an explanation of it instead of responding to what I wrote?

From my perspective manners could only get in your way of separating them from the foundation "prophecy". How do you think manners relates to prophecy as parts of the whole?

Tongues does = prophecy as one of the many manners

 

[Dino246]

From my perspective manners could only get in your way of separating them from the foundation "prophecy". How do you think manners relates to prophecy as parts of the whole?

I don't, which is why I didn't introduce the term.

What I actually wrote in the last part of post #387 is this:

"Tongues does not equal prophecy" means "tongues is not the same thing as prophecy." They don't equal something else."

You responded by asking what tongues does equal, which is an irrelevant rabbit trail. Despite my efforts to steer you back the whole of my statement, you keep attempting to take the conversation further off the topic. I'm not playing that game.