Some people use 'prayer language' to mean speaking in tongues-- no matter what the language is-- being used for prayer.
Speaking in tongues
- Thread starter blessedafrican
- 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.
Some people use 'prayer language' to mean speaking in tongues-- no matter what the language is-- being used for prayer.
Look at this passage from I Corinthians 14
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
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 unknown tongue.
If Paul knew Aramaic, and praying in Aramaic were 'speaking with tongues' in verse 18, since he knew the language, he would be using his 'understanding' to pray in it. But in verse 19, he contrasts praying with his understanding with speaking in tongues. The implication is that when he prays in tongues, he is not using his understanding, his 'noi'-- his mind, understanding, reason. If he spoke in tongues, he would not be using his reason or mind. What language would Paul speak in that he did not know? If he were to use a Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek liturgy, it is highly unlikely that there was one of those languages that he did not know. How would he be able to speak in a language he did not know?
That is the question. When Paul spoke in tongues, how was it possible for him to do so without knowing it, without using his mind to do so?
Do you see how the idea that the speaker does not understand the tongue comes from direct exegesis.
I wonder why the interpretation you propose appeals to you, and also the diglossia interpretation of Acts. To me, this seems like grasping at straws to find a non-supernatural explanation to events in a book filled with the supernatural. It reminds me of liberal scholars trying to argue that there was a tidak wave or earthquake that caused the Red Sea to be knee deep for the Exodus, or the (joke) liberal theory that Elijah poured lighter fluid on the sacrifice at Mt. Carmel, and had a match behind his back
It's not Peter or Paul who are credited with the speaking the new languages other than Hebrew as sign against those who will not hear prophecy in any language .
Even before that when God spoke in Hebrew prophecy is not accredited to them
Paul being in more places where the Spirit of God was moved to prophecy the hearing in other languages a larger missionary field .He gave his desire he would rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also
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.1 Corinthians 14:18 -19
Tongues are prophecy spoken in many languages .God is no longer bringing any new prophecy in any manner to include tongues . We have the perfect. Why go above that which is written.
Tongues the fact God was mocking the Jews that mocked Him is still in effect The unbeleiveing Jew is still hoping that God is only speaking in Hebrew.
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
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 unknown tongue.
If Paul knew Aramaic, and praying in Aramaic were 'speaking with tongues' in verse 18, since he knew the language, he would be using his 'understanding' to pray in it. But in verse 19, he contrasts praying with his understanding with speaking in tongues. The implication is that when he prays in tongues, he is not using his understanding, his 'noi'-- his mind, understanding, reason. If he spoke in tongues, he would not be using his reason or mind. What language would Paul speak in that he did not know? If he were to use a Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek liturgy, it is highly unlikely that there was one of those languages that he did not know. How would he be able to speak in a language he did not know?
That is the question. When Paul spoke in tongues, how was it possible for him to do so without knowing it, without using his mind to do so?
Do you see how the idea that the speaker does not understand the tongue comes from direct exegesis.
I wonder why the interpretation you propose appeals to you, and also the diglossia interpretation of Acts. To me, this seems like grasping at straws to find a non-supernatural explanation to events in a book filled with the supernatural. It reminds me of liberal scholars trying to argue that there was a tidak wave or earthquake that caused the Red Sea to be knee deep for the Exodus, or the (joke) liberal theory that Elijah poured lighter fluid on the sacrifice at Mt. Carmel, and had a match behind his back
It's not Peter or Paul who are credited with the speaking the new languages other than Hebrew as sign against those who will not hear prophecy in any language .
Even before that when God spoke in Hebrew prophecy is not accredited to them
Paul being in more places where the Spirit of God was moved to prophecy the hearing in other languages a larger missionary field .He gave his desire he would rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also
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.1 Corinthians 14:18 -19
Tongues are prophecy spoken in many languages .God is no longer bringing any new prophecy in any manner to include tongues . We have the perfect. Why go above that which is written.
Tongues the fact God was mocking the Jews that mocked Him is still in effect The unbeleiveing Jew is still hoping that God is only speaking in Hebrew.
In all fairness we need to consider the pioneering aspect of what was happening. And I mean whether you agree with it or not.
If the Corinthian church had not been swinging from the chandeliers in their worship services to the extent that the Apostle needed to bring some order to the chaos, we would have very little in the Bible about speaking in tongues. Or any of the manifestations of the Holy Spirit, which we usually call gifts of the Spirit.
It is still difficult to provide biblical explanations for something that is frankly experiential for the most part.
I see some discussion back and forth about "groaning". (Rom.8:26)
For those who have experienced the phenomenon of praying in the Spirit, this is a good explanation of how it works. Those who are trying to understand the explanation, or are trying to refute it, get hung up on the term "wordless groans" and miss the rest of the verse.
Romans 8:26
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.
Have you ever experienced wordless groans without speaking in tongues?
Tongues-given as the Spirit gives utterance--can be uttered. Groanings which cannot be uttered cannot be uttered. The Holy Spirit praying is not limited to speaking in tongues.
Right. "The Holy Spirit praying is not limited to speaking in tongues."
It could just as well be in wordless groans, or in your native tongue.
And I think utterance should include any sound that comes from the mouth that is not categorized as something else.
Like singing or screaming. But I have heard tongues manifested that way as well.
I was praying with a man who was going through a terrible divorce.
In his anguish he began literally screaming in tongues. It was an amazing thing.
Most tongues speakers are a bit reserved about it. Many times tongues (praying in the spirit) is done very quietly.
So, as not to be addressing the whole congregation, I suppose.
But this guy let loose with an absolute tirade in tongues. As if the Holy Spirit was expressing outrage over the situation.
The wordless groans are usually accompanied by tongues. The groans come from the same place spiritually as the tongues.
There is no sense of "changing gears" to groan and then changing back to tongues. The groaning is as much a manifestation of
the Holy Spirit as the tongues. Deep spiritual anguish.
That's why those who have experienced this find that scripture a perfect description. But then those who don't
speak in tongues, or are opposed to it, take issue with it.
I speak in tongues, but Actsbis clear that tongues can be uttered. Since tongues is a 'doctrinal distinctive' and for various other reasons some Pentecostalsvand Charismatics have done some rather 'stretchy exegesis', IMO on certain passages and certain parts of the Charimatic movement keep these teachings alivebas an oral tradition. Anotther example is rhema v. logos. While there may be some validity to the concept depending on how it is taught, an examination with a concordance shows some logoi in scripture would fit in the Charismatic rhema box.
Unfortunately, the Bible speaks very little to the subject of the manifestations of the Holy Spirit.
So, from that perspective, your observation that it is an oral tradition is an interesting way to look at it.
But that puts it in a category that is rejected by the majority of Protestants who are strictly Sola Scriptura in mindset.
I think I discovered the same thing you have in reference to rhema vs logos. But, there is still something there.
I ended up in a Pentecostal church after being raised in the Evangelical church.
So, I wanted biblical evidence that this was in fact what it appeared to be. The church wasn't much help.
I had to dig these things out for myself. I found enough biblical evidence to qualify my experience.
But in most cases not enough to convert a dyed in the wool Cessationist.
Honestly, 90 percent of the info we have on this comes from I Corinthians chapters twelve and fourteen.
If the Apostle had not needed to bring orderly worship to the Corinthians, who were obviously swinging from the chandeliers,
we wouldn't even have that much. So, it is pretty tough to comply with the demands for a biblical case on this.
I still consider it a pioneering work trying to re-establish these things that have been nearly lost over the centuries.
Fortunately, we still have the Holy Spirit and Jesus is still baptizing believers in the Holy Spirit and Christians
are speaking in tongues and prophesying, etc.
This is something we are left to contend with. The half of the church on the tongues-speaking side are accused of
dishonesty in proving their position biblically and those on the non-tongues side don't see enough biblical evidence to support it.
And those who don't speak in tongues also don't see any point in it, being satisfied with where they are.
We are often asked of what benefit it is. What to do, what to do... ???
From my perspective, it all boils down to whether you get it or not. When the Bible does talk about spiritual gifts,
is that just some flowery wishful thinking, or is there something to this? And the non-tongues half of the church is also guilty
of some cognitive dissonance. Someone can testify that God spoke to them and this is an acceptable testimony.
As it should be. But what is not acknowledged is the operation of a spiritual gift in that person's life.
Somehow God speaking to a person (prophecy, discernment of spirits, word of knowledge, word of wisdom)
is a normal part of the Christian experience, but speaking in tongues is obviously the devil.
Even though it came from the same list of manifestations of the Spirit.
The Holy Spirit praying is limited to speaking in tongues which is brinig proiphecy in other languages other than Hebrew alone."
No such thing as "sign gifts" we walk by faith . The spiritual unseen gifts,.
Christ said Its an evil generation, natural unconverted man (no faith) that looks to as sign before they will believe. The sign of tongues confirms a person will not "hear prophecy". Those who seek after sign simply turn it upside down and make the sign after a righteous generation so they can boast in false pride.
Tongues is simply God brining prophecy..... when he was still adding to his word in another languages other than Hebrew alone .It is a sign that confirms they refuse to hear prophecy in any language to include Hebrew . God was simply widening the language range to include any nation he gave His interpretation to. Again when he was still bring new prophecy. We now have the perfect or complete
According to 1 Corinthians 14 the law interpretation sounds must have meaning given.
For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? 1 Corinthians 14 8
The groans are not a form of speaking but more expectation as a living hope. It applies to the whole creation as well as the Creator
Romans 8:21-26 King James Version (KJV) Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
I would agree someone can testify that God spoke to them and this is an acceptable testimony. But to say God is still adding to his book of prophecy bringing new prophecy in any manner to include a tongue is another issue . If we were try the spirits to see if they are of men or God we know they are of men .
We have the whole word of God .The perfect has come.
You're barking up the wrong tree. I'm not claiming "sign" gifts.
That's a false accusation of Cessationists. Are you one? (sorry if I already asked)
The scripture you quoted contains this:
"... the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought:
but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us..."
Please explain what that means to you.
And a groaning is most certainly uttered. It is a sound that comes from the mouth.
It seems that you misunderstand the definition of NT prophecy.
Has our need for strengthening, encouraging and comfort come to an end?
1 Corinthians 14:3
But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort.
To prophesy is to declare the living, abiding word of God . It does not mean that word is not living and actively working in people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. It does not return empty just because God is not adding to it.
So I would offer no we have the same strengthening, encouraging and comfort that comes from hearing prophecy as those who only had it in part .Now that we have the perfect there is no need for extra activity . The commandment at the end is not to add or subtract from the perfect.
If any man says. I experienced the presence of Lord, I had a vision, or dream as forms of prophecy we are to believe not. Therefore making it impossible to deceive the elect with the sign and lying wonder after the gods of this world
7
7seasrekeyed
Guest
there is no solution to this debate and those opposed will never listen
the devil fears this gift, which is also a sign, because he knows how effective it is
mocking, denying, blaspheming against what they do not know...do you have any idea how long these arguments (they are not debates because the other side does not pay any attention to what scripture states but continues like the automatron they have become of the deception )..I truly would desire all you who know that this gift is real, would quit discussing it with those who deny it
that's just me talking, but I wonder what God thinks of the mess ... people have said this gift is of the devil...saying a person has a demon if they speak in tongues
that is what is going on behind the scenes. that is the spirit operative in these 'tongues' threads
I was brought up to believe tongues are not for today. I know better now and could post many stories about how tongues were effective and how God answered my prayers that I prayed in tongues because I did just did not know what to say in English
sure this gift is abused, but what gift isn't? for some reason though, this one gets the most heat
you will never get a answer out of garee that is actually connected to what you asked
and others will twist what is said and use the same old scripture regarding 'that which is perfect' and tell you it's the Bible
just sayin'
Prove that from Scripture.
That isn't in Scripture. I challenged you previously... six times... to support it and you didn't.
False. The Holy Spirit is God; He is not limited in the manner you describe.
False; this has been refuted.
False. This has been refuted. What Philip's daughters prophesied is not recorded in Scripture.
7
7seasrekeyed
Guest
can someone answer the following question, or at least think about it (to yourself at least if nothing else)
if a person is deceived, what is going to come out of their mouth?
lies or truth?
if a person is deceived, what is going to come out of their mouth?
lies or truth?
Actually, this is a false dichotomy, for there is a third option: error.
Mind you, I use "lies" to mean only "intentional misrepresentations". I draw a sharp distinction between that and error that occurs from ignorance. The person doing the deceiving is telling lies; the person repeating them is only guilty of not fact-checking.