Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | what is the importance of tongues? | Acts 2:4 | prayon | 148198 | ||
Greetings Kalois, on the first point (Acts 4) you are entirely right. It should of read Acts 2:4... my bad... Jud 1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, - Praying in the Holy Ghost (or in the Spirit) is praying in tongues. John 14:16,17 - Is debatable but this is the context I am coming from: Continuing to pray and worship in tongues helps us to be ever conscious of His indwelling presence. If I can be conscious of the indwelling Holy Spirit - as praying in tongues does - it is boind to affect the way I live. Romans 8:26 - At the same time the Spirit also helps us in our weakness, because we don't know how to pray for what we need. But the Spirit intercedes along with our groans that cannot be expressed in words. P. C. Nelson said that the here literally reads,"The Holy Ghost makes intercession for us in groaning that can not be uttered in articulate speech." Articulate speech means our regular kind of speech. James 3:8 Yielding your tongue to the Holy Spirit to speak with other tongues is a giant step forward fully yielding all of yourself to God, because if you can yield this most unruly part of your body you can yield any part. I hope that makes where I am coming from a little clearer kalos, prayon |
||||||
2 | what is the importance of tongues? | Acts 2:4 | 1-2steve | 148207 | ||
First of all, I must apologize. I did not recognize the difference in the two. Even though I know that there is a difference, many that believe in speaking in tongues will declare this as evidence for their salvation (but these will also say that you can lose your salvation). So allow me to defend my position. 1. Starting in 1 Cor. 13. Verses 1-3 are hypothetical statements. There is no evidence of a "heavenly language". Everywhere in the entire bible that you see angels communicating, they are communicating in a language that the person understands.Isa. 6; Luke 1:26-38; Rev.5:11-14; etc... and anywhere that you see the angel of the Lord appear in Scripture. (And to add to verses 2 and 3, just ask yourself if Paul really could know "all" mysteries and have "all" knowledge. The answer is a resounding no. He was saying that even if he could do all these things, without love, it's vanity. And if he could, I'd sure like to see him explain the Trinity to me). 2. 13:10- first, tongues weren't just a bunch of put together syllables, it was literal languages (and "various" languages, not just a single language). In Acts 2:7-11, there are roughly 20 different dialects being spoken here. The language was an understandable language with the end result that about 3000 souls were saved because they "understood" what the disciples were saying, and because of speaking in their tongue, it gave Peter an oppritunity to present the gospel. This is what tongues are truly meant for. And secondly, there is supposed to be an interpreter. Now how many tongue speakers do you see today that have someone interpret what they say? They can't. How can you translate a bunch of jibberish? Also, if there is an interpreter present and he/she interprets what the one speaking in tongues is saying, the they should be able to translate it onto paper and interpret it into English. Right? 3.Paul declares it will be done away with when "that which is perfect comes". But what on earth does v. 11 have to do with it? He was saying that these sign gifts were for the baby Christians at that time. And when he matured they were no longer necessary. And by the time a.d. 100 came around, the N.T. was in circulation in the churches. There was no need for tongues (if you keep in context that tongues were for unbelievers as 14:22 clearly states) because the N.T. was complete and the gospel of Jesus Christ could be preached in the church(es). So what would the need for tongues be? What can one say that the bible doesn't? 4. Speaking in tongues places experience in front of the bible. The bible is clear in this matter. O.K., onto ch.14. Later on though, ya'll got me tired and my wife says I've been on the computer too long. Please don't take what I'm saying the wrong way, but as I've been tought, I was given 6 rules. And they are: 1,2,3) Context, context context. 4,5,6) Read, read read. In Christ steve |
||||||
3 | what is the importance of tongues? | Acts 2:4 | Morant61 | 148208 | ||
Greetings 1-2Steve! Forgive me for not just calling you Steve, but we have other Steves on the the forum. :-) I would fully agree with you my friend that anyone believing that tongues is necessary for salvation is completely wrong. :-) Also, allow me to say that while we may not agree on every point, I am glad that you are on the forum. Allow me to make just a few brief comments, as I am falling asleep! ;-) 1) The fact that angels communicated in known languages does not necessarily mean that there is no such thing as a 'tongue of angels'. If I were to speak only Spanish to you, it would not necessarily follow that English did not exist. :) So, the best we are left with is that it is possible that 'tongues' only refers to 'human' tongues, but that it is also possible that it can refer to the 'tongues' of angels as well. 2) There seems to be evidence in Scripture for a private and a public use of tongues. Paul explictly says that if no one can interpret, one should speak to himself and God. Just because someone hears a 'tongue' today and does not understand it, does not mean that it can't be a real tongue - it may simply be one of those instances where no interpreter is present. I would totally agree with your point about the modern practice of tongues. Scripture is quite clear that if no interpreter is present, one should keep quiet and not speak out publically. This rule is violated all the time in churches today. :-( 3) 1 Cor. 14:22 is one of those verses that if one reads 100 commentaries, one will get 100 different views. :-) But, I would disagree that 'that which is perfect' is Scripture. Do we really know now even as we are known? ;-) Personally, I take the approach that the time mentioned is when Christ sets up the new Heaven and new Earth. The timing certainly isn't clearly spelled out in Scripture. Personally, I think that if the time was soon, Paul would have made it more clear. I also don't think it is fair to assign 'tongues' to 'baby Christians'. Nothing in Scripture ever makes such a claim. 4) Lastly, experience should never over rule Scripture. However, that doesn't mean that experiences should not be a valid part of the Christian life. Do you experience peace in Christ? Do you experience joy in Christ? Do you experience love? The answer of course is 'Yes'! Does your experience in any of these instances indicate that you have place Scripture second to experience? Get some good rest my new friend! I plan on doing the same! ;) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | what is the importance of tongues? | Acts 2:4 | kalos | 148215 | ||
Tongues of angels. No biblical teaching. 1 Corinthians 13:1 '*tongues...of angels.* The apostle was writing in general hypothetical terms. There is no biblical teaching of any special angelic language that people could learn to speak' (MacArthur Study Bible, page 1750). "the tongues of men and of[a] angels," '(a) A very earnest amplifying of the matter, as if he said, "IF THERE WERE ANY TONGUES OF ANGELS, and I had them, and did not use them to the benefit of my neighbour, it would be nothing else except a vain and prattling type of babbling."' (The 1599 Geneva Study Bible. Emphasis added.) (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GenevaStudyBible/) - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'and of angels; 'not that angels have tongues in a proper sense, or speak any vocal language, in an audible voice, with articulate sounds; for they are spirits immaterial and incorporeal; though they have an intellectual speech, by which they celebrate the perfections and praises of God, and can discourse with one another, and communicate their minds to each other; see (Isaiah 6:3) (Daniel 8:13). (...) '[The apostle refers to] the speech of angels, when they have assumed human bodies, and have in them spoke with an audible voice, in articulate sounds; of which we have many instances, both in the Old Testament and the New, wherein they have conversed with divers persons, as Hagar, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Manoah and his wife, the Virgin Mary, Zechariah, and others; 'unless by the tongues of angels should be meant the most eloquent speech, and most excellent of languages; or if there can be thought to be any tongue that exceeds that of men, which, IF ANGELS SPOKE, they would make use of. Just as the face of angels is used, to express the greatest glory and beauty of the face, or countenance, (Acts 6:15) and angels' bread is used for the most excellent food, (Psalms 78:25) . . .' (John Gill's Exposition of the Bible. Emphasis added. This is not the full quote. I've condensed/edited it due to space limitations. To read more go to: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/ |
||||||
5 | what is the importance of tongues? | Acts 2:4 | Morant61 | 148220 | ||
Greetings Kalos! With all due respect to Dr. MacArthur, I differ with him on this point, and generally on this topic. He is part of a denomination that asks potential pastors if they have ever spoken in tongues. If the answer is yes, one will not be a pastor with them. So, he has a definite bias on this topic. I have read his books on this subject and he goes overboard in his attempts to make his case. For instance, he argues that the plural 'glossa' refers to the real gift, while the singular 'glossa' refers to a conterfeit gift which Paul is trying to correct. This is in spite of the fact that Scripture nowhere makes such a distinction, and that Paul himself give instructions of how to use the singular 'glossa' within a church service (1 Cor. 14:27). See post number 61619 for a more detailed examination of this issue. But, back to the issue at hand. This phrase is only used once in all of Scripture. How can anyone possibly say anything conclusive about it? ;-) Do we deny that 'tongues of men' are real because Paul is making a hypothetical statement? But, we turn around and say that 'tongues of angels' cannot be real. ;-) One of the quote implied that angels do not use any kind of language. Where does Scripture make this statement? Gill supports his view that angels do not have a language by referencing Is. 6:3: "And they were calling to one another: 'Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.'" Where does this say anything about angels having no language? Henry changes the comparison. He says that Paul is refering to speaking all of the languages of men and being able to speak like an angel. Barnes, Clarke, and JFB all allow that Paul could be speaking of an angelic language. Regardless, my point is simply this my friend, it is all speculation. No one can conclusively either way, though I would argue that the scale tips more toward there being an actual language simply because of the way the verse is constructed. Otherwise, Paul is combining a real thing with a non-existent thing - which would not make any sense. :-) Overall, one's outlook will depend upon one's position regarding tongues in general. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | what is the importance of tongues? | Acts 2:4 | kalos | 148278 | ||
Tim: You write: "Overall, one's outlook will depend upon one's position regarding tongues in general." Exactly! This is where we agree. :-) A long time ago I posted the following: The doctrine of speaking in tongues is unique in that every person in the world has some bias regarding this doctrine, one way or the other, based on experience or the lack of it. What I mean is that every person reading this either has or has not experienced speaking in tongues. I will be the first to acknowledge that we base doctrine on Scripture and not on experience. Yet it seems to me that whether one has experienced speaking in tongues would have some influence on his understanding and interpretation of the doctrine. Some have told me the same could be said of any doctrine. I would have to disagree. Most of us have not experienced death, heaven, hell, resurrection, the Rapture, etc. Therefore, the presence or absence of experience has virtually no bearing on how one interprets these doctrines. But, I don't see how anyone writing or teaching on the subject of tongues could be totally uninfluenced by whether or not he himself had spoken in tongues. This is merely an observation. I am not here arguing for or against the cessation of the gift of tongues. Kalos P.S. Although I am not arguing it, I do NOT believe in the cessation of the gift of tongues. What has been my personal experience? In the words of the apostle Paul, "I thank God that I speak in tongues..." (1 Cor. 14:18 ESV) |
||||||
7 | what is the importance of tongues? | Acts 2:4 | Morant61 | 148284 | ||
Greetings Kalos! Thanks for sharing my friend! I think that it is possible, but it takes great care and discipline. One must avoid going beyond what Scripture actually says. I have seen arguements on both sides of the issue that seem to have been made out of whole cloth! :-) So, for instance, while I personal believe the famous reference in Rom. 8 may be a reference to 'tongues', it is by no means certain. So, I would never us this verse as proof of anything concerning tongues. I might raise it as a possibility, but that would be all. One also must let go of emotion concerning the topic. This is such an emotional issue, and both sides generally feel attacked if someone disagree with them. Emotion simply confuses the issue. :-) As always, Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||