Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
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 | 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 |
||||||
2 | 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) |
||||||
3 | 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 |
||||||