A Distinction Between Tongues
- Thread starter Wansvic
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
That reminds me of a joke I heard on the internet. 
Top Ten Ways You Know You're In a bad church.
10. The church bus has gun racks.
9. The staff consists of "Senior Pastor, Associate Pastor, and Socio-Pastor."
8. The Bible they use is the "Dr. Seuss Version."
7. There is an ATM in the lobby.
6. Church services are B.Y.O.S. -- "Bring Your Own Snake."
5. The choir wears leather robes.
4. There is no cover charge, but communion is a 2 drink minimum.
3. They have karaoke worship time.
2. The ushers ask "Smoking or Non-Smoking?" before seating you.
1. The only song the church organist knows is In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida."
Top Ten Ways You Know You're In a bad church.
10. The church bus has gun racks.
9. The staff consists of "Senior Pastor, Associate Pastor, and Socio-Pastor."
8. The Bible they use is the "Dr. Seuss Version."
7. There is an ATM in the lobby.
6. Church services are B.Y.O.S. -- "Bring Your Own Snake."
5. The choir wears leather robes.
4. There is no cover charge, but communion is a 2 drink minimum.
3. They have karaoke worship time.
2. The ushers ask "Smoking or Non-Smoking?" before seating you.
1. The only song the church organist knows is In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida."
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Well no matter what I say you will take it personally but know it's not personal.
JW's and Mormons go all over the world with their gospel. Are we to view them as noble servants of God? I have no desire to degrade anything that you have done. But nothing you have done justifies doctrine and behaviors that are not biblical.
In these end times sound doctrine is important even though many will not receive it.
God will judge us by His word. I will be judged by the same word of God as any other professing believer.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
JW's and Mormons go all over the world with their gospel. Are we to view them as noble servants of God? I have no desire to degrade anything that you have done. But nothing you have done justifies doctrine and behaviors that are not biblical.
In these end times sound doctrine is important even though many will not receive it.
God will judge us by His word. I will be judged by the same word of God as any other professing believer.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Preaching Christ has nothing to do with tongues. Preaching Christ has nothing to do with water baptism.
The Holy Spirit ministers through the word of God. The Holy Spirit ministers through believers who trust God to accomplish that which please Him through His word. The word of God is the power of God to save souls.
Gifts would be only for believers not for evangelism of the lost.
Ro 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
The Holy Spirit ministers through the word of God. The Holy Spirit ministers through believers who trust God to accomplish that which please Him through His word. The word of God is the power of God to save souls.
Gifts would be only for believers not for evangelism of the lost.
Ro 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Most of the passages below have been discussed almost ad nauseum in other threads posted here or elsewhere, so I’m going to be as brief ass possible in commenting.
1 Cor 14:2
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
Let’s paraphrase this into a more modern English and use better translations for “tongue” and “understand” – He that speaks in a language isn’t speaking to others, but only to God; no one hears with understanding; however, though he’s praying in the Spirit, he’s speaking mysteries.
To use an analogy - If I attend a worship service in ‘East Haystack’, Alabama two things are going to be evident: one; there’s only going to be so many people at that service (i.e. there will be a finite given amount of people there) and two; the chances that anyone in East Haystack speaks anything but English is pretty slim to nil.
If I start praying aloud in say Lithuanian, there’s no one at that service that’s going to understand a word I’m saying. Even though I’m speaking a real language, no one there will understand my “tongue”. That does not mean or imply that no one else understands Lithuanian; just no one at that particular service. In this sense, therefore, I am speaking only to God, since he understands all languages. To everyone at the service, even though I’m praying in the Spirit (as defined in my original post), I’m still speaking “mysteries” - just another way of saying that even though I’m praying as I ought (in the Spirit), no one understands me; I’m still speaking in ‘mysteries’ – i.e. no one still has a clue what I’m saying as no one speaks my language.
There is nothing in this passage that suggests modern tongues-speech nor is there anything that even remotely suggests that the speaker does not understand what he himself is saying; it is the listeners who do not understand, not the speaker – no matter how hard modern tongues-speakers want the speaker to also not understand, it just isn’t there.
1 Cor 14:4
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself;
Again, in a more modern English: “He who speaks in a language builds himself up.”
Yes, because he’s the only one who understands what he’s saying – no one else speaks his language; thus, he’s the only person benefiting.
1 Cor 14:14-15
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
This one takes a bit longer to explain – it could easily be done in a few pages, but to try and sum it up and be as brief as possible…
This passage hinges on the Greek word “akarpos” – it can be used both with and active sense and with a passive sense. Most people use it in this passage in the passive sense, i.e. my understanding is unfruitful (to me), or my understanding produces no fruit in/for me. Given that Paul in his latter calls for clarity and understanding at a public worship such that everyone there can benefit, I would argue the active sense of the word: my understanding is unfruitful for others, or my understanding produces no fruit for/in others. That is, the fact I understand what I’m saying does not benefit anyone else as they don’t speak my language. If you think that using ‘akarpos’ in the active sense is far-fetched or a new concept/theory, consider Luther’s Bible of 1534. For this passage he has (in English) “my understanding brings no one fruit” – clearly even back then the idea of this passage being best translated with an active sense was not something new.
1 Cor 14:18-19
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
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 unknown tongue.
Paul was considered the apostle to the non-Jews. It stands to reason that in his daily work of spreading the message of Christianity that he would use his knowledge of languages considerably more than the average person.
However, in a church setting where teaching is involved, he felt it paramount to express himself in a language he was intimately familiar with in perhaps just a few concise words conveying not only specifically what he wanted to say, but also the nuances associated with it. This, rather than using a slew of words in another language he may not have been overly familiar with not quite getting his exact point and/or nuances across to his audience.
If anyone has ever done any translation work, you’ll know precisely what he’s talking about here. To go from language X to language Y in an everyday type conversation is not a huge deal, but when something very specific needs to be said, and/or in translating things of a religious (or other) nature that can involve tiny nuances, I can tell you from personal experience, that this presents a considerably more difficult task for the translator.
I don’t see this passage as referring to anything but real, rational language, and a situation I can completely relate to, to boot.
1 Cor 14:2
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
Let’s paraphrase this into a more modern English and use better translations for “tongue” and “understand” – He that speaks in a language isn’t speaking to others, but only to God; no one hears with understanding; however, though he’s praying in the Spirit, he’s speaking mysteries.
To use an analogy - If I attend a worship service in ‘East Haystack’, Alabama two things are going to be evident: one; there’s only going to be so many people at that service (i.e. there will be a finite given amount of people there) and two; the chances that anyone in East Haystack speaks anything but English is pretty slim to nil.
If I start praying aloud in say Lithuanian, there’s no one at that service that’s going to understand a word I’m saying. Even though I’m speaking a real language, no one there will understand my “tongue”. That does not mean or imply that no one else understands Lithuanian; just no one at that particular service. In this sense, therefore, I am speaking only to God, since he understands all languages. To everyone at the service, even though I’m praying in the Spirit (as defined in my original post), I’m still speaking “mysteries” - just another way of saying that even though I’m praying as I ought (in the Spirit), no one understands me; I’m still speaking in ‘mysteries’ – i.e. no one still has a clue what I’m saying as no one speaks my language.
There is nothing in this passage that suggests modern tongues-speech nor is there anything that even remotely suggests that the speaker does not understand what he himself is saying; it is the listeners who do not understand, not the speaker – no matter how hard modern tongues-speakers want the speaker to also not understand, it just isn’t there.
1 Cor 14:4
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself;
Again, in a more modern English: “He who speaks in a language builds himself up.”
Yes, because he’s the only one who understands what he’s saying – no one else speaks his language; thus, he’s the only person benefiting.
1 Cor 14:14-15
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
This one takes a bit longer to explain – it could easily be done in a few pages, but to try and sum it up and be as brief as possible…
This passage hinges on the Greek word “akarpos” – it can be used both with and active sense and with a passive sense. Most people use it in this passage in the passive sense, i.e. my understanding is unfruitful (to me), or my understanding produces no fruit in/for me. Given that Paul in his latter calls for clarity and understanding at a public worship such that everyone there can benefit, I would argue the active sense of the word: my understanding is unfruitful for others, or my understanding produces no fruit for/in others. That is, the fact I understand what I’m saying does not benefit anyone else as they don’t speak my language. If you think that using ‘akarpos’ in the active sense is far-fetched or a new concept/theory, consider Luther’s Bible of 1534. For this passage he has (in English) “my understanding brings no one fruit” – clearly even back then the idea of this passage being best translated with an active sense was not something new.
1 Cor 14:18-19
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
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 unknown tongue.
Paul was considered the apostle to the non-Jews. It stands to reason that in his daily work of spreading the message of Christianity that he would use his knowledge of languages considerably more than the average person.
However, in a church setting where teaching is involved, he felt it paramount to express himself in a language he was intimately familiar with in perhaps just a few concise words conveying not only specifically what he wanted to say, but also the nuances associated with it. This, rather than using a slew of words in another language he may not have been overly familiar with not quite getting his exact point and/or nuances across to his audience.
If anyone has ever done any translation work, you’ll know precisely what he’s talking about here. To go from language X to language Y in an everyday type conversation is not a huge deal, but when something very specific needs to be said, and/or in translating things of a religious (or other) nature that can involve tiny nuances, I can tell you from personal experience, that this presents a considerably more difficult task for the translator.
I don’t see this passage as referring to anything but real, rational language, and a situation I can completely relate to, to boot.
But Paul was no longer healing in the Epistles = the gifts were falling off.
“Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick.” (2 Timothy 4:20) (KJV 1900)
“Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.” (1 Timothy 5:23) (KJV 1900)
“Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am; for I am as ye are: ye have not injured me at all. Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first. And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.” (Galatians 4:12–15) (KJV 1900)
(alternate translation of the above passage) “you know that previously I preached the gospel to you because of a physical illness. You did not despise or reject me though my physical condition was a trial for you. On the contrary, you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself.” (Galatians 4:13–14)(HCSB)
“What happened to this sense of being blessed you had? For I testify to you that, if possible, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me.” (Galatians 4:15)(HCSB)
“For he longed after you all, and was full of heaviness, because that ye had heard that he had been sick. For indeed he was sick nigh unto death: but God had mercy on him; and not on him only, but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow.” (Philippians 2:26–27) (KJV 1900)
Paul left Trophimus in Miletus when he was sick (II Tim 4:20), and Epaphroditus was sick to the point of death (Phil 2:27). Timothy was encouraged to use wine for his stomach ailments (1 Tim 5:23). God never removed Paul's thorn in the flesh (II Cor 12:1-10).
“Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick.” (2 Timothy 4:20) (KJV 1900)
“Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.” (1 Timothy 5:23) (KJV 1900)
“Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am; for I am as ye are: ye have not injured me at all. Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first. And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.” (Galatians 4:12–15) (KJV 1900)
(alternate translation of the above passage) “you know that previously I preached the gospel to you because of a physical illness. You did not despise or reject me though my physical condition was a trial for you. On the contrary, you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself.” (Galatians 4:13–14)(HCSB)
“What happened to this sense of being blessed you had? For I testify to you that, if possible, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me.” (Galatians 4:15)(HCSB)
“For he longed after you all, and was full of heaviness, because that ye had heard that he had been sick. For indeed he was sick nigh unto death: but God had mercy on him; and not on him only, but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow.” (Philippians 2:26–27) (KJV 1900)
Paul left Trophimus in Miletus when he was sick (II Tim 4:20), and Epaphroditus was sick to the point of death (Phil 2:27). Timothy was encouraged to use wine for his stomach ailments (1 Tim 5:23). God never removed Paul's thorn in the flesh (II Cor 12:1-10).
We should pray for them. Let God deal with them. There should be checks and balances in the word of God. We know that all scripture is given for reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. If there is someone going directly against scripture then yes they should be given scripture on it. We all need the scripture and also need correction at times. So whether they are actually saved or not. I don't really know how to judge it. I can judge their fruits and their works and see where they are standing in the word of God, but I don't know their hearts so I would be reluctant to judge someone's salvation...If that makes any sense to you???
I think it was Paul that said to withdraw yourself from some, and in Jude it talks about having compassion on some and on others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment that is stained by the flesh. So I'm not really sure how everyone should be dealt with individually, but I think we should be careful give the scripture and let God work in his ways on it. God knows the hearts.
I think it was Paul that said to withdraw yourself from some, and in Jude it talks about having compassion on some and on others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment that is stained by the flesh. So I'm not really sure how everyone should be dealt with individually, but I think we should be careful give the scripture and let God work in his ways on it. God knows the hearts.
-
2
- Show all