Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Acts 2:2 | 1 Cor 14:6 | mark d seyler | 172332 | ||
Hi Doc, Let's look at what the Bible says about tongues. I understand you are pretty well set in what you believe, so mostly I write for the benefit of onlookers. 1 Cor 12:10 "...to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues." Tongues that are strictly for the evangelization of others do not need interpretation - since they will understand their own language. But don't take my word for it, Paul will explain quite clearly what the interpretation of tongues is intended to do. 1 Cor 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. This is the speaking in tongues that requires an interpreter when it is done in public. 1Co 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. This is clearly "praying in a tongue". The spirit prays, but the mind does not benefit. It is a spiritual experience of prayer. 1Co 14:15 What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; Paul advocates praying both ways, with the spirit, and with the mind - in a tongue, and in known speech. 1Co 14:16 Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say "Amen" to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? 1Co 14:17 For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up. Again, reinforcing the idea that this use of tongues is in "giving thanks", and not for the benefit of a human hearer, but to God. Whether or not you "buy into this", it is the clear teaching of Scripture. How much more orthodox can you get than the teaching of the Paul the Apostle??? 1 Cor 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." In this verse Paul indicates two kinds of tongues, so this is not just a product of Pentecostal circles. Personally, I find the teachings of these verses crystal clear. They say what they say very plainly. No disrespect intended against any commentator, but if they disagree with the plain teaching of Scripture, I will choose Scripture. Please remember, 1 Cor 14:2, in its context, is comparing the value of tongues to prophecy. It is not arguing against the notion of the gift of tongues for prayer. It it were, it would be contrary to the teaching Paul is about to embark upon. Let's look at the commentaries you quoted for us. Barnes wrote "it is as if he spoke to God only." Paul said "For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God" Barnes - "as if he speaks" Paul - "speaks" Gill, refering to Lightfoot, claims Paul meant speaking in Hebrew. But if that were so, it would hardly qualify as a gift of the Spirit, now, would it? I mean, if you could just go to school for it? Besides, one wouldn't just be speaking to God, they'd be speaking to anyone else who spoke Hebrew. Does this also mean that to "prophesy", according to Gill, is to simply speak in a known tongue? Notwithstanding, the Bible makes several references to Hebrew being spoken. Hebrew thought patterns persist throughout much of the NT. There is much evidence that Hebrew was not a dead language. JFB are technically correct, in that God is the audience of the tongues Paul is speaking of, and He understands, however, I realize that is not what they intended to mean. Nonetheless, the passage says "speaks. . . to God". Matthew Henry comments on the motives of the speakers, however, Paul does not, so Henry goes beyond what the text gives us. Darby seems to be simply restating a portion of the passage, that prophecy edifies the church, and tongues do not. GSB says of this, "that the mysteries of God might be the better known to a greater number." The actual passage says "he speaks not to men but to God." And finally, John Calvin calls this speaking in tongues "perverse". Paul just says that it doesn't do anything for the bystander, because when you pray in tongues, you are talking to God, and not to men. For John Calvin to refer to praying to God in a tongue, a gift given by God's Holy Spirit for that purpose, as 'perverse', is beyond me. Wow! You know, I think I'm just going to stick with the plain reading of Scripture. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
2 | Acts 2:2 | 1 Cor 14:6 | DocTrinsograce | 172333 | ||
Dear Brother Mark, I am only "set" in my beliefs to the extent that I am persuaded by Scripture. God has graciously given the Word of God, the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the teaching of Godly men, and the body of Christ that we might grow in the deep knowledge of the things of God. I served in Full Gospel circles for over ten years. At that time, I could not be persuaded by the written or spoken word! Boy, was I ever "set!" God has seen fit to correct me. I no longer have a vested interest in my theology. I only seek to know God as well as He has given me to know Him. Thank you, Lord! (I am also grateful to you and others in the forum for helping me in that effort.) In the mean time, I do not posit any of this as universal truisms, as is the practice of some. I merely present a single, cogent, approach that seeks to handle Scripture as rightly as possible. The church at Corinth had enormous problems, both in theology and in practice. We must understand the instruction of Paul in the light of that correction. As others have written, "The main things are the plain things." 1 Corinthians 14 is only incidentally about tongues. The clear admonition is to edify the body in the clarity of teaching. We do better to understand tongues in light of Acts -- and nothing in Paul's epistles dissuades us from that approach. Indeed, let us stick close to the plain reading of Scripture. By the way -- and also for the benefit of others not so set in their ways -- Robert Zerhusen does an excellent and detailed study of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14: http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/ 0,,PTID307086[pipe]CHID560462[pipe]CIID1415642,00.html (Replace the [pipe] with pipe or bar symbol (shift back-slash) just above the Enter key. Note that I split it into two lines to avoid display problems in my post.) We can be thankful that we can draw on the work of so many men who have given their lives to the study of Scripture. In Him, Doc PS Correcting Barnes, Gill, JFB, Henry, Darby, Calvin, and the many contributors of the Geneva Study Bible in one post is quite ambitious -- but you did, indeed, seem to accomplish it without the disavowed disrespect! :-) Glossa in cheek: They might have not erred if they had had the council of such highly learned and esteemed luminaries as Parham, Roberts, and Swaggart! :-) |
||||||
3 | Acts 2:2 | 1 Cor 14:6 | mark d seyler | 172335 | ||
Hi Doc, "I am only "set" in my beliefs to the extent that I am persuaded by Scripture." - I stand cheerfully corrected!! :-) In 1 Cor 12-14, tongues are mentioned 22 times in 20 verses, nearly one-fourth of the text. This seems to me to be more than incidental. This is tantamount to a whole chapter just about tongues, if it were all together. Paul began the section with "I do not want you to be ignorant", and he wrote more about tongues than about any other gift. Paul gives a very clear teaching - tongues are meaningful for praying to God, but should be severely limited when in assembly, because they are not as meaningful for edifying the church, only being meaningful for edifying the church if interpreted. Prophecy is more meaningful for edifying the church, and since we are primarily to serve others (that part comes from other Scriptures), we do better to prophesy, so he instructs us to want that more. Unless you come to this passage with a predisposition to see it another way, this is the the only conclusion which can be drawn from, and supported by, the text. If you disagree with that, please demonstrate from the text, exegetically, how it says something different. And yes, I am very grateful for the works of others, more knowledgible and studious than I. I highly regard the works of many of these men, esp. Gill (yes, Gill), JFB, and Barnes. Lightfoot has also added much to my study of the Scriptures. But do I understand you correctly to be saying that we should use a narrative passage, the Book of the Acts, to tell us how to interpret a didactic passage, Paul's letter the the Corinthians, and so let the narrative be the determiner of doctrine, and not the didactic? Love in Christ Mark |
||||||
4 | Acts 2:2 | 1 Cor 14:6 | DocTrinsograce | 172348 | ||
Dear Brother Mark, You wrote, "...he wrote more about tongues than about any other gift." Yes, the abuse of such things was extensive at Corinth, as were many other problems. It was correcting these problems that elicited the epistles written by Paul. You wrote, "...please demonstrate from the text, exegetically, how it says something different." I would not presume to do a superior job than my betters have already done (see my original post). Furthermore, Dr. Robert Zerhusen has explained it all very explicitly and very clearly in the paper that I cited. He is a much more learned and experienced scholar than am I! Nevertheless, I appreciate the confidence and interest you've expressed in my own abilities. You wrote, "...do I understand you correctly to be saying that we should use a narrative passage...?" No, you do not. Thank you for pointing this out. We can never conclude doctrinal issues from narrative. This error is, no doubt, due to the inadequacy of my ability to explain. (Which thing commends even more the writings of those learned men I have cited!) However, we are not studying a point of doctrine (orthodoxy). Instead we are studying a point of normative practice (orthopraxy). What I was trying to point out is that shifting the discussion to 1 Corinthians 14 was adding another variable to the equation. The scope of the post to which you posited your statement was simply an observation from Acts. I wasn't attempting to broadly address the Pentecostal practice as you've brought it up. 1 Corinthians 14 is about speaking. Note that the Greek word "laleo" appears 24 times and "glossa" appears 15 times. (There is no mention that the tongue is unknown to all humanity; only unknown to the hearers in the church meeting in Corinth. Indeed, nothing in the text suggests an "unknown tongue" -- we'd have to establish that before building our way to your understanding.) Paul is emphasizing in this passage that when we speak it builds up the body when the "revelation, knowledge, prophecy, or teaching" is comprehensible. That commendation is clearly and plainly the main point of the chapter. I've probably continued to do poorly here, Brother Mark. I'd commend you to a study of the use of the word "glossa" (Strong's Greek #1100) throughout the New Testament. There are another 29 uses of it over and above Paul's use in 1 Corinthians 12 through 14. A sound hermeneutic will always seek to find a use of the word that does not require different definitions unless explicitly called for in the text. Thank you for your time to respond to my posts. Thank you also for explaining the details of your particular tradition. Although I no longer share that tradition, I have many a dear and precious brother who do. This practice of an unknown prayer language has no bearing on the eternal disposition of ones soul. In Him, Doc |
||||||
5 | Acts 2:2 | 1 Cor 14:6 | mark d seyler | 172352 | ||
Hi Doc, Unfortunately, I do not have the time to give a complete analysis of Dr. Robert Zerhusen's article, however, I will say this, and you can let me know if you agree or not. He makes the presumption that the gift of interpretation is not a spiritual gift, but acts according to the abilities and intellect of the interpreter. From that, he "demonstrates" that the gift if tongues is not a spiritual gift because if people were actually speaking supernaturally to God, then their speech would not be able to be "naturally" interpreted. So he has knocked down a straw man, but how does that help us to learn what Paul meant? He makes the argument that it can't be from God because not everyone gets it. What?? He equates "the language of angels" to "glossolalic-language", and then goes on to say that Paul didn't even really mean ACTUALLY speaking in the tongues of angels. He quotes someone names Meyer who says Paul wrote in "an imaginary case to heighten the contrast". I wonder what else is imaginary?? Dr Zerhusen wrote "Careful examination of the text of 1 Corinthians 14 reveals that Paul never explicitly states whether or not the language-speaker knew or understood the language that he was using." Well, I suppose he's technically correct, but Paul did say, (1 Co 14:14) "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful." Is there a question what Paul had in mind? His spirit prays, but his mind does not benefit from what his spirit prays. Why? Because his mind does not know what his spirit prays. Why? Because his mind does not know the language of his spirit's prayer. As I understand his article, (and I will confess, it is quite lengthy, and I have not read all of it), he is "debunking" the entire supernatural aspect of this portion of Scripture, concerning tongues, and prophecies, and the interpretation of tongues. But it leaves me wondering - how did he miss that big first clue to what he was about to read: "Now concerning pneumatikon, I would not have you ignorant." Dr. Zerhusen has written quite a few words to show us how these things aren't "pneumatikon" after all. Doc, you can disagree with my interpretation of Scripture, and even better if you can give a textual demonstration of where I am in error, but it does nothing to advance our understanding or fellowship to denigrate my doctrinal understanding of Scripture as "my particular tradition." If you were to examine a Greek Lexicon, it will demonstrate over and over how the context of a word will affect its usage and meaning. Take for instance moraino - its used of the savor of salt, and the folly of the world. Well, time's up. Love in Christ, Mark yeah - it was definately adding a variable! :-) |
||||||
6 | Acts 2:2 | 1 Cor 14:6 | DocTrinsograce | 172360 | ||
Dear Brother Mark, As you do not have the time, nor do I have the time to reconstruct each jot and tittle of orthodoxy to your satisfaction. You can contact Dr. Zerhusen directly at the web site of the Alliance for Confessing Evangelicals. The use of the word tradition is not a denegation of your doctrine. If I had intended it as such, would I so frequently speak of historic Baptist doctrine as my own tradition? I'd commend you to the dictionary. There is peace, joy, and comfort in our beliefs as they are grounded solidly in the truth of our Lord. We will find ourselves not easily offended. Nor will our stance be easily shaken by every passing comment of others. We will come to know only Christ, and Him crucified. We will contend for the truth of the Gospel, rightly and truly proclaimed, for therein lies our hope. Brother Mark, one aspect of the fruit of the Spirit -- something much more important than other so-called manifestations -- is forbearance (Galatians 5:22-23). Perhaps its best if you don't again solicit input from me if my every turn of phrase elicits so much negative emotion in you. Sometimes that's a wiser choice when we can't take advantage of iron sharpening iron. Perhaps our brethren will kindly pray that God will grant us grace as He conforms us to the image of His son. In Him, Doc |
||||||
7 | Acts 2:2 | 1 Cor 14:6 | mark d seyler | 172380 | ||
Hi Doc, This is part and parcel of why I hate to be rushed as I write. After I was in my car on my way home, I realized that I had written harsh words towards one whom I know better than that, and I would have given much to delete the offending paragraph. As that was impossible, I ask you now to please accept my sincere apologies, as I realized that in your choice of words you did not intend it the way I received it. While I personally do not regard the "traditions of man" as anything equal to the "doctrines of the Bible", I do in fact know that you think of doctrinal systems in that way. I am sorry for the offense I gave, and I apologize. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
8 | Acts 2:2 | 1 Cor 14:6 | DocTrinsograce | 172388 | ||
Dear Brother Mark, Thank you for your kind retraction. I unreservedly forgive you. Thank you, also, for making the effort to bridge the gap. :-) One day I may well need for you to extend forgiveness to me. But there is a far better day ahead when the glossa we ultimately use, will render no misunderstanding! Lord hasten the day! In Him, Doc |
||||||