SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : About tongues, again...

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Next Page )
PosterThread
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Dorcas'

Quote:
the miracle (and gift) was of being able to speak a language which could be understood by some - naturally.


I'm not being pedantic here but I don't think a miracle is the same as an ability. So far as we know this was a single point in time and not a continuing ability.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/7/17 11:22Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Usually, though, the interpretation of a tongue given clearly to the whole assembly, when interpreted, is prophetic - that is, a word for the church (the Body) that day.... a fresh word from God.


This may be true in many assemblies but not in ours. The interpretation is a likely to be a God-wards expression of prayer or praise as it is a man-wards word of 'prophecy'.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/7/17 11:24Profile









 Re: About tongues, again ....

Quote:
I'm not being pedantic here but I don't think a miracle is the same as an ability.

That's fair. I was using 'miracle' too loosely, in that there is also a gift of working miracles...(1 Cor 12:10).
Quote:
So far as we know this was a single point in time and not a continuing ability.

I'm very pleased to see you make this point, because the idea that the disciples received a gift which enabled them to speak multiple languages at other times, according to the language group to whom they might be speaking at the time, seems to have been mooted somewhere in the collective thinking of some who discuss 'tongues' on SI. This leads to further confusion when interpretation is mentioned / discussed.

What you make of the term 'gift of utterance'(Acts 2:4, 19:6)) as a [i]separate[/i] 'gift' from 'gift of tongues' (1 Cor 12:28), or, is there no scriptural basis for believing there's any difference?

 2006/7/18 6:27









 Re: About tongues, again ...

philologos said:

Quote:
The interpretation is a likely to be a God-wards expression of prayer or praise as it is a man-wards word of 'prophecy'.

Again, I am happy to receive correction on this point.

My misunderstanding arises from having been present when a sister gave a tongue which turned out to be a prayer, (according to the interpretation). She was subsequently told [i]not[/i] to speak out what the Lord gave her (in church), if she was only praying.... but I now see that [i]until[/i] an interpretion is given, even the tongue-speaker cannot 'know' into which category a 'word' would fall. :-? Sigh.

 2006/7/18 6:36
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
What you make of the term 'gift of utterance'(Acts 2:4, 19:6)) as a separate 'gift' from 'gift of tongues' (1 Cor 12:28), or, is there no scriptural basis for believing there's any difference?

I suspect that this terminilogy is designed to separate 'initial tongues' from 'regular tongues'. This may be the place to dig a little more deeply into what happened in Acts 2.

It is often presumed that those who spoke in tongues were preaching the gospel. The text does not indicate this. The account says "...we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.”
(Acts 2:11 KJVS) The word used for speak is simply 'laleO' which not the normal word used for preaching. laleO simply means 'to speak'. It may be that they heard the 120 simply 'praising God' in foreign languages. This would make tongues 'God-ward' again and so the pattern of 1 Corinthians would be maintained. Acts 10:46 also uses the simple word 'laleO'. In the latter, Cornelius, experience there would have been no point to 'preaching the gospel in foreign languages; they had all just heard the gospel in Greek!


The word "utterance" used in Acts 2:4 is only used there and in...Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them [u]utterance[/u].
Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and [u]said[/u] unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
Acts 26:25 But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but [u]speak forth[/u] the words of truth and soberness. it seems simply to imply 'speaking out'


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/7/18 11:50Profile
Christinyou
Member



Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3707
Ca.

 Re:

Acts 2:8-11 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, (of foreign origin; a Parthian, i.e. inhabitant of Parthia:--Parthian.) and Medes,(inhabitant of Media:--Mede.) and Elamites,(of Hebrew origin (5867); an Elamite or Persian:--Elamite.) and the dwellers in Mesopotamia,(as lying between the Euphrates and the Tigris; compare 0763), a region of Asia:--Mesopotamia.) and in Judaea,( a region of Palestine:--Judaea.) and Cappadocia, in Pontus,(a sea; Pontus, a region of Asia Minor:--Pontus. and Asia,( (usually) only its western shore:--Asia. Phrygia,( and Pamphylia, in Egypt,(Ægyptus, the land of the Nile:--Egypt.) and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene,(Cyrene, a region of Africa:--Cyrene) and strangers ((be) dwelling (which were) there, stranger.)of Rome, Jews and proselytes, (an arriver from a foreign region, i.e. (specially), an acceder (convert) to Judaism) Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

Began to speak with other tongues. In other languages than their native tongue. The languages which they spoke are specified in @Ac 2:9-11.

As the Spirit gave them utterance. As the Spirit gave them power to speak. This language implies plainly that they were now endued with a faculty of speaking languages which they had not before learned. Their native tongue was that of Galilee, a somewhat barbarous dialect of the common language used in Judea, the Syro-Chaldaic. It is possible that some of them might have been partially acquainted with the Greek and Latin, as both of them were spoken among the Jews to some extent; but there is not the slightest evidence that they were acquainted with the languages of the different nations afterwards specified. Various attempts have been made to account for this remarkable phenomenon, without supposing it to be a miracle. But the natural and obvious meaning of the passage is, that they were endowed by the miraculous power of the Holy Ghost with ability to speak foreign languages, and languages to them before unknown. It does not appear that each one had the power of speaking all the languages which are specified, (Ac 2:9-11,) but that this ability was among them, and that together they could speak these languages; probably some one, and some another.

1 Corinthians 12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: "divers kinds" 1085. genos
Search for G1085 in KJVSL
genoV genos ghen'-os

from 1096; "kin" (abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, individual or collective):--born, country(-man), diversity, generation, kind(-red), nation, offspring, stock.

1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. "diversities of tongues"
Same word. 1085. genos
Search for G1085 in KJVSL
genoV genos ghen'-os

from 1096; "kin" (abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, individual or collective):--born, country(-man), diversity, generation, kind(-red), nation, offspring, stock.

From this it appears that the power was well known in the church, and was not confined to the apostles. This also may show that, in the case in the Acts, the power was conferred on other members of the church as well as the apostles.

(4.) It was very important that they should be endowed with this power in their great work. They were going forth to preach to all nations; and though the Greek and Roman tongues were extensively spoken, yet their use was not universal; nor is it known that the apostles were skilled in those languages. To preach to all nations, it was indispensable that they should be able to understand their language. And it was necessary that they should be endowed with ability to speak them without the slow process of being compelled to learn them.

(5.) One design was to establish the gospel by means of miracles. Yet no miracle could be more striking than the power of conveying their sentiments at once into all the languages of the earth. When it is remembered what a slow and toilsome process it is to learn a foreign tongue, this would be regarded by the heathen as one of the most striking miracles which were ever wrought in the establishment of the Christian faith, 1Co 14:22,24-25.

Hence Paul's statement I speak in languages more that you all. That is "tongues". That is why he said if you speak in languages with no one understanding, he would rather speak 5 words with understanding. Misuse of this gift is a travesty in the church, as praying in an unknown tongue and should not be even spoken in any of the churches as a gift from God.

1Cr 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater [is] he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

1Cr 14:6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

1Cr 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

Don't forbid this gift, because it is spreading the Gospel to the whole world, but as it is spread the need for this gift gets smaller and smaller.

In Christ: Phillip


_________________
Phillip

 2006/7/18 17:01Profile









 Re: About tongues, again....

philologos said:

Quote:
I suspect that this terminilogy is designed to separate 'initial tongues' from 'regular tongues'.

What reasons are there to separate 'initial tongues' and 'regular tongues'?

I've heard of people who never speak in tongues after the initial occurrence, and also of people who don't speak in tongues until an outpouring of God's Spirit touches them at a time later than their conversion.

It occurs to me that in the same way as Paul encourages us to seek earnestly the best gifts, (1 Cor 12:31), the gift of tongues could be requested by any who desire it.

 2006/7/19 7:40









 Re: About tongues, again....

Quote:
This language implies plainly that they were now endued with a faculty of speaking languages which they had not before learned.

Hi Phillip,

Would you mind saying if you are quoting someone else in your last post?

philologos has pointed out that the word for 'speak' rather than 'preach' is used in Acts 2:4 and 10:46. Your point (4) is at variance with this, and appears to be guesswork, as there is no scriptural reference to tongues being used to preach, at all.

Peter [i][b]preached[/b][/i] in Greek (I believe) Acts 2:14 - 40, to those who had heard the disciples speak in their native languages in Acts 2:4. From v 41, it appears that everyone understood him perfectly as he explained the gospel in this common language, for they now asked him what they should do to respond.

One of the most striking things about the gift of tongues, is that the speaker does not know what he is 'saying' through the Spirit. That's why a gift of interpretation is needed, if the whole Body (of believers) is to be edified.

In the light of 1 Cor 14:32 'And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets' it would seem necessary that the person speaking for the edification of the whole Body, has control of what is coming out of his / her mouth. This is in keeping with Paul's exhortation not to speak out [i]tongues[/i] to the whole Body, unless someone with the gift of interpretation is present.

My understanding is that this is [i]not[/i] the same ministry as 'preaching', although the interpreted tongue should bring an edifying word to the whole Body. Preaching, on the other hand, (although we are used to being preached to [i]in[/i] our churches), is about telling the gospel to those who [i][b]haven't[/b][/i] heard it before, is it not?

 2006/7/19 8:03
Christinyou
Member



Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3707
Ca.

 Re:

It seems that Peter new what he was saying, because of what he and the other Apostles were saying, 3000 were saved. Then they were of one accord adding to the Church daily.

Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

The 3000 that were saved must have called upon the name of the Lord because of what Peter was preaching, as he said, "be this known unto you and hearken unto my words".

Acts 2:16-17 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Joel 2:30-32 And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

All these things Peter spoke to all that were there.

Acts 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

If this is not preaching, I don't know what is.
Also including all that were with him to the effect that they were not drunk, but were witness to all being said. All that were there are those that were hearing them speak in their own language.

Acts 2:31-32 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Then Peter confirming that which they were hearing in their own tongue, language, which they also "see and hear."

Acts 2:33-35 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

This is what the gift of tongues is to operate in, that is the spreading of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the whole world.

Speaking to all that were there, Peter made the altar call and 3000 were saved.

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

Acts 2:39-40 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

How many were called by the Lord our God?

Acts 2:41-42 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

The three thousand were added to them. Who are them?

Can you imagine the marvel at all these different men being in one accord, with the Gift of the Holy Spirit being given to them and "steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship and the breaking of bread and prayers. If there was any praying in tongues this most certainly was when it was done. All understanding each other in praising God and teaching all the three thousand that were added to "Them". You talk about promise keepers. Wow! This should be our order of business in the Churches, all at once understanding each other no matter what nationality, or tongue and praising God by the Power of the Holy Spirit given to the Church by the Father through the asking by Jesus Christ Himself.



In Christ: Phillip


_________________
Phillip

 2006/7/19 14:22Profile









 Re: About tongues, again ....

Hi Phillip,

There is something that you're not getting here in Acts 2, which I'll try again to explain. Please bear with me, and if you disagree with my thesis, give me some scripture to support yours. ;-) Thanks.

Quote:
This is what [b]the gift of tongues is to operate in, that is the spreading of the Gospel[/b] of Jesus Christ to the whole world....

This should be our order of business in the Churches, [b]all at once understanding each other no matter what nationality, or tongue[/b] and praising God by the Power of the Holy Spirit given to the Church by the Father through the asking by Jesus Christ Himself.

In the way that you're implying in the above statements, I don't agree, although I do recognise that tongues may help some unbelievers open up to hearing the gospel, as happened in Acts 2, and Paul acknowledges in 1 Cor 14:22 'Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers'.

But, please let me acknowledge that Peter [u]preached from v 14 - v 40[/u]. BUT, I believe [i][b]he was not speaking in tongues when he preached,[/i][/b]......

That's why I said he [u]used a common language[/u] (Greek), as philologos mentioned in his reference to Peter's preaching to Cornelius (Acts 10).

I say this for two reasons. The first is, that the Jews of other nationalities normally lived in Jerusalem, and normally spoke the common language of the city's culture. This is why they were so surprised when they heard their [i][b]native[/b][/i] languages - v 11 'we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God' - being spoken by Galileans [the disciples].

The second reason is related to 'the interpretation', which I don't think you're quite understanding here, either.

I commented earlier in the thread, that the [i][b]interpretation[/i][/b] of the various tongues were already [i]with the 'hearers'[/i]. This is important because when Paul, in 1 Cor 14, is talking about the use of 'the gift of tongues' in the assembled church gathering, he is [i][b]insistent[/i][/b] that there [u]should be an interpretation[/u], or, tongues should [u]not[/u] be spoken out to the whole Body.

Now, can you see why it is [i][b]impossible[/i][/b] that Peter preached to a multinational Jewish crowd [i][b]in tongues[/b][/i]?,.... quite simply, no interpretation was needed. Peter was the only one speaking. He was not flipping between different languages. The report of what he said has already been cut short as indicated in v 40 'And with many other words he testified and exhorted them,..' Luke's account does not mention that Peter was speaking in tongues, nor does he mention the interpretations which would have been necessary for everyone else, had the preaching been in a variety of languages.

 2006/7/20 5:06





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy