Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by OneAccord

Thanks, Bro. And it is because of your last sentence (I've bolded) why I believe Paul does, in fact, make distinction in tongues. We use the terms "unknown', "other" interchangably and that is okay. Paul did as well, but it all becomes confusing. For the sake of clarification, we should make the distinction between the different operations of tongues. A careful study of Pauls writing shows that, in reality, he did just that.

What we see on the Day of Pentecost is, in fact, just what Paul calls "divers kinds of tongues". Not only did those who recieve the Holy Ghost speak with "other tongues" (what we call the initial evidence)- but they also spoke in "unknown togues (i.e., "prayer language") and, "Prophetic tongues". Moreso than all, "prophetic tongues". Remember- Peter said the events of the Upper Room was a direct fulfillment of Joel's prophecy. Joels said, specifically, And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: Act 2:18 Note the word "prophesy". Speaking in "other togues" and in "unknown tongues" is not prophecy. The many different nationalities present said Act 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? What they were hearing was the gift of "divers kinds of tongues" in action. They were hearing, in their own language, prophetic utterances in tongues, which fulfilled Joel's prophecy.


Great discussion, BTW.

Yes, it is a great discussion - the type that I normally stay out of, but couldn't resist this time, lol!

However, I do have to ask this question - you imply that on the Day of Pentecost, all three types of tongues were in operation, did I understand correctly?

If so, I'd like to know your basis for this premise, since the Bible doesn't make the distinction.

THanks!

[OneAccord]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Yes, it is a great discussion - the type that I normally stay out of, but couldn't resist this time, lol!

However, I do have to ask this question - you imply that on the Day of Pentecost, all three types of tongues were in operation, did I understand correctly?

If so, I'd like to know your basis for this premise, since the Bible doesn't make the distinction.

THanks!

Yeah, I try to avoid any thread that has the word "Pitfall" in the title! But this has been a good discussion. People have been marginally civil. And I appreciate that.

The premise is based on Joel's prophecy. Peter said the Day of Pentecost was a direct fulfillment of Joel 2:28.

He quotes Joel here: Act 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: Note the word "prophesy" and, in Joels prophecy, the absence of any reference to "speaking in tongues". Joel said the outpouring of the Holy Ghost would be evidenced by 'prophecy" not "speaking in tongues". Yet, we know they "spoke with other tongues" when they recieved the Holy Ghost. What amazed these Arabians and Eygptians and all the rest was that they heard the people in the Upper Room speaking in "their own language". They understood Peter, James, John, Mary and the other 120 were saying, because they were speaking "prophetic utterances" in a languauge they (the speakers) did not know themselves. This was, in fact the "divers kinds of tongues" Paul speaks of in 1 Cor 12.

Paul, in explaining the usage of the spiritual gifts refers to prophetic utterances (or giving out a message in tongues to be interpreted) as "prophecy". The difference between "prophetic utterances" and "prophecy" is that one -"Prophetic Utterance' - is given in tongues to be interpreted, while "prophecy" needs no interpretation, it is spoken in the language of those that hear.

So... now... your turn, Brother. What did Paul mean when he said "divers kinds of tongues" rather than the more common, albeit, biblically incorrect term "Gift of tongues"?

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

The literal translation of Mark 16 is "they shall speak in new languages" and it doesn't refer to an unknown tongue, it's referring to preaching the gospel in every tongue.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts, honestly? Well, to be frank, I'm a bit befuddled by some of these questions. If I didnt know better, I'd have to wonder if these questions really reflect your own thoughts/beliefs, or if you're just "throwing them out there" to see how I respond to them. But anyway...

In the interest of time, I'm going to take your post in 2 parts. I'll deal with the first part now, and try to come back later for the second part as time permits.

You say speaking in tongues refers to preaching the gospel (?). Frankly, I'm flabbergasted by that. So I'll start with a question: what scriptures do you see that indicates that "speaking in tongues" referred to preaching the gospel? Frankly, I dont believe there are any such scriputures, but I'd be interested in seeing what you provide us with on that.

But to answer your question...
Lets just go back to Jesus words in that passage in question. He said:

"17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

The key word there is sign. Obviously, the word "sign" is a referring to miracle, something supernatural. The other things listed there are clearly beyond human capability (driving out demons, healing the sick, being unharmed by poison or serpents, etc). So clearly he is referring to things that are specifically enabled by the miraculous power of God.

Now for example if I were to learn Spanish or French, and go to Mexico or France to preach the gospel, I'd be spreading the gospel in a language that I've learned, but that would not be a miraculous sign...because I'd be speaking based on an ability I already have. If a person goes and preaches the gospel in a foreign language they know, there is NOTHING supernatural about that. That wouldnt even make sense in the context of Jesus's words in Mark 16. Clearly, speaking in tongues, as Jesus referred to in those verses, would only be a sign or miracle if it were unknown to the person speaking it.

Secondly, speaking in tongues was never for preaching the gospel. There's just no scripture anywhere for that. In Acts 2:11 it says "they were speaking the wonderful words of God" (that is, praise) but the gospel was not preached to them in tongues. After they asked "what meaneth this" that Paul preached the gospel of Christ to them. There were 15 nations/languages spoken of there (v 9-11) but paul spoke to them in a common language they all understood -- probably Greek, or maybe aramaic. Thus we see clearly that tongues served as a sign, but it was not used for preaching.

Looking further in scripture, where speaking in tongues is mentioned, it is never for preaching the gospel. (In the book of Acts, for example, we see incidents of people speaking in tongues when they recieved the Holy Ghost, but the idea of people speaking in tongues as a method of sharing the gospel is just not there. )

Acts 10, Cornelius's house spoke in tongues when they received the Holy Ghost, after the gospel was preached to them in their own language by Peter.

Acts 19, The former disciples spoke in tongues after the word was preached/taught to them by Paul.

-------

1 Cor. 14... Paul speaks of tongues as being something used by a believer in private prayer (14:2,4, 14-16), or in conjunction with the gift of interpretation (14:5-6, 26-28) to edify the church body. 1 Cor 12 and 14 are the 2 chapters that give us the NT's most detailed explanation of the use and purpose of spiritual gifts, but Paul says nothing there about tongues being for preaching the gospel.


So this whole idea of tongues being for the preaching of the gospel is just not supported by scripture at all.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by OneAccord

Yeah, I try to avoid any thread that has the word "Pitfall" in the title! But this has been a good discussion. People have been marginally civil. And I appreciate that.

The premise is based on Joel's prophecy. Peter said the Day of Pentecost was a direct fulfillment of Joel 2:28.

He quotes Joel here: Act 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: Note the word "prophesy" and, in Joels prophecy, the absence of any reference to "speaking in tongues". Joel said the outpouring of the Holy Ghost would be evidenced by 'prophecy" not "speaking in tongues". Yet, we know they "spoke with other tongues" when they recieved the Holy Ghost. What amazed these Arabians and Eygptians and all the rest was that they heard the people in the Upper Room speaking in "their own language". They understood Peter, James, John, Mary and the other 120 were saying, because they were speaking "prophetic utterances" in a languauge they (the speakers) did not know themselves. This was, in fact the "divers kinds of tongues" Paul speaks of in 1 Cor 12.

Paul, in explaining the usage of the spiritual gifts refers to prophetic utterances (or giving out a message in tongues to be interpreted) as "prophecy". The difference between "prophetic utterances" and "prophecy" is that one -"Prophetic Utterance' - is given in tongues to be interpreted, while "prophecy" needs no interpretation, it is spoken in the language of those that hear.

So... now... your turn, Brother. What did Paul mean when he said "divers kinds of tongues" rather than the more common, albeit, biblically incorrect term "Gift of tongues"?

Good stuff.

Ok, my answers:

First, I totally agree with you on the prophecy at the day of Pentecost - I've said all along that those who were infilled spoke in other languages, BUT languages that were understood, hence the prophecy, the glorifying God, and obviously speaking the gospel, because the crowd immediately asked "What shall we do?"

However, I see no evidence of an "unknown" tongue at Pentecost, i.e., a language that was understood by no one. That's the one I was asking about.

Second, Paul definitely mentioned unknown tongues as being a gift, but he IMEDIATELY said that another was given the gift to INTERPRET those same divers tongues.

I see no reference to "unknown" tongues as a gift without the interpretation of those SAME tongues.

Hence, my question about the prayer language, or unknown or uninterpreted tongues.

Back to you, my friend!

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by DaveC519

Mizpeh,

I guess my original question still stands: how is Paul's "speaking in tongues more than ye all" (IOW, private prayer language) edifying the Church? As Paul stated in vs. 12, the gifts of the Spirit are for the edifying of the Church. No gift of the Spirit is for private use, nor for private benefit, as Paul states in 1Cor 12:7-

"But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal ("for the common good"- NASB).

If all the gifts are to edify the Church, then this would include the "gift of tongues".

But Paul contrasts this against the individual who speaks in an unknown tongue which edifies only himself (vs. 4). This instance of tongues- one who speaks to "himself" and not the Church- cannot be the "gift of tongues", for it does not edify the Church as a whole, only the individual believer.

Did all that make sense?

I understand what you are saying BUT if the gifts are solely to edify the church then the gift of healing cannot be used upon an unbeliever in a setting apart from other members (at least one ) of the body of Christ being present.

Also the context of 1 Cor 12-14 is about the gifts of the Spirit...gifts given to those believers who have been baptized in the Spirit. You will have to go through chap 12 and 14 and clearly show how Paul differentiates tongues in prayer (tongues that edify the individual believer) and tongues in the assembly (the gift of tongues that edifies the church) as being a different. One a gift and the other a prayer language. I believe the gift of tongues comprises both.

I don't see a distinction in the tongues (that is the tongues uttered in prayer and the tongues uttered in the assembly) Paul is speaking about in Chap 14 except that if you speak in tongues in the church assembly in which the tongues are not quietly to yourself but loud enough to command everyone's attention THEN there needs to be an interpreter and if there is not an interpreter, then speak quietly in tongues to yourself and God. Where is the distinction here? It's only due to the lack of a member of the body who has the gift of interpretation of tongues.

Are you saying that person who spoke to the church in tongues without an interpreter present didn't know that it was really the prayer tongue that the Spirit was uttering and not the gift of tongues which would have been a message to the church and would have been given only if an interpreter were present? Did Paul make that distinction?

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

My thoughts, honestly? Well, to be frank, I'm a bit befuddled by some of these questions. If I didnt know better, I'd have to wonder if these questions really reflect your own thoughts/beliefs, or if you're just "throwing them out there" to see how I respond to them. But anyway...

In the interest of time, I'm going to take your post in 2 parts. I'll deal with the first part now, and try to come back later for the second part as time permits.

You say speaking in tongues refers to preaching the gospel (?). Frankly, I'm flabbergasted by that. So I'll start with a question: what scriptures do you see that indicates that "speaking in tongues" referred to preaching the gospel? Frankly, I dont believe there are any such scriputures, but I'd be interested in seeing what you provide us with on that.

But to answer your question...
Lets just go back to Jesus words in that passage in question. He said:

"17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

The key word there is sign. Obviously, the word "sign" is a referring to miracle, something supernatural. The other things listed there are clearly beyond human capability (driving out demons, healing the sick, being unharmed by poison or serpents, etc). So clearly he is referring to things that are specifically enabled by the miraculous power of God.

Now for example if I were to learn Spanish or French, and go to Mexico or France to preach the gospel, I'd be spreading the gospel in a language that I've learned, but that would not be a miraculous sign...because I'd be speaking based on an ability I already have. If a person goes and preaches the gospel in a foreign language they know, there is NOTHING supernatural about that. That wouldnt even make sense in the context of Jesus's words in Mark 16. Clearly, speaking in tongues, as Jesus referred to in those verses, would only be a sign or miracle if it were unknown to the person speaking it.

Secondly, speaking in tongues was never for preaching the gospel. There's just no scripture anywhere for that. In Acts 2:11 it says "they were speaking the wonderful words of God" (that is, praise) but the gospel was not preached to them in tongues. After they asked "what meaneth this" that Paul preached the gospel of Christ to them. There were 15 nations/languages spoken of there (v 9-11) but paul spoke to them in a common language they all understood -- probably Greek, or maybe aramaic. Thus we see clearly that tongues served as a sign, but it was not used for preaching.

Looking further in scripture, where speaking in tongues is mentioned, it is never for preaching the gospel. (In the book of Acts, for example, we see incidents of people speaking in tongues when they recieved the Holy Ghost, but the idea of people speaking in tongues as a method of sharing the gospel is just not there. )

Acts 10, Cornelius's house spoke in tongues when they received the Holy Ghost, after the gospel was preached to them in their own language by Peter.

Acts 19, The former disciples spoke in tongues after the word was preached/taught to them by Paul.

-------

1 Cor. 14... Paul speaks of tongues as being something used by a believer in private prayer (14:2,4, 14-16), or in conjunction with the gift of interpretation (14:5-6, 26-28) to edify the church body. 1 Cor 12 and 14 are the 2 chapters that give us the NT's most detailed explanation of the use and purpose of spiritual gifts, but Paul says nothing there about tongues being for preaching the gospel.


So this whole idea of tongues being for the preaching of the gospel is just not supported by scripture at all.

I appreciate your insight, TR, and I thank you for taking the time to reply.

The original translation of Mark 16 says "In my name they will speak in new languages".........it doesn't say anything about "unknown tongues".

Now, as to whether God miraculously endowed those that "went into ALL the world" with the ability to speak in the native tongue of the land into which they were sent, I don't know, but it would certainly make sense to me.

However, that's just speculation on my part.

I do know one thing - the entire continent of Asia was evangelized with the gospel within the space of 2 and 1/2 years without the aid of television, internet, tapes, or vehicles for these folks to drive across an entire continent.

So, it would certainly not be beyond our God to enable believers to "speak with a new language that they had not learned" in order to accomplish this task.


Now, the points I've been trying to make all along are that there is little or no Biblical backing to distinguish between the initial sign of the Holy Ghost, which was every man speaking in a language he didn't understand, and the gift of tongues - which was either speaking in a known language but one the speaker didn't understand, or an unknown tongue that was followed by an interpretation.

(And, as a side bar, I'm just curious as to why many Apostolics will take the sign of tongues in Mark 16, but leave the snakes and poison alone, lol.)

[rgcraig]

Note to file:

AFF can have a thread where people discuss issues intelligently without fussing and fighting.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by DaveC519

Hello TRFrance,

Brother, I have a question: when you are referring to "praying in tongues" (prayer language), are you referring to that activity which the believer does between himself and God, which is not broadcast to the assembly, or are you referring to a message in tongues, as in "tongues and interpretation", which is broadcast to the assembly?

If the former (private prayer), then how does this qualify as a gift of the Spirit, seeing as Paul instructed that the gifts of the Spirit were for the edifying of the entire Church (1Cor 14:12)?

There is no contradiction or inconsistency at all, brother.

If you look carefully at what Paul says in that chapter, (I've quoted the relevant verses multiple times already on this thread, so I'll just speak generally here
1/ Paul makes it quite clear that he is discussing spiritual gifts (1 cor 12:1, 14:1). And he speaks of private prayer in tongues("prayer language") in that very context/setting, right alongside his explanation of the other spiritual gifts (why? clearly because private prayer in tongues is itself a manifestation of a spiritual gift), but also
2/ He specifically says that the gift tongues edify only the individual, and only edify the rest of the body if it is manifested in conjunction with the gift of interpretation.

Yes, all sipritual gifts, including the gift of tongues (whether in private prayer, or with interpretation ) are for the edifying of the body of Christ. Just because the other hearers in the church gathering are not edified, doesn't mean the body of Christ is not being edified. It is, in the sense that the individuals within the body are benefitting because their spirits are being edified; But Paul is saying that others around them are not getting the benefit of what they're hearing unless there is an interpretation, and that's why he discouraged speaking in tongues in the congregation without the speaker or someone else in the congregation having the gift of interpretation in order to give word that would bless the other hearers.

( But just because it primarily benefits the speaker instead of the hearer doesnt make praying in tongues NOT a manifestation of the spritual gift of tongues. )

[OneAccord]

Brother Phelps and company: This is one of the best convos in AFF history! By best, I mean, civil, considerate and enlightening. And some people say a Biblical conversation without fussin can't be done. However, gonna have to bow out.... got company then gotta run to Tennessee. I'll try to get back to it later- maybe tomorrow. God bless!

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

I appreciate your insight, TR, and I thank you for taking the time to reply.

The original translation of Mark 16 says "In my name they will speak in new languages".........it doesn't say anything about "unknown tongues".

Now, as to whether God miraculously endowed those that "went into ALL the world" with the ability to speak in the native tongue of the land into which they were sent, I don't know, but it would certainly make sense to me.

However, that's just speculation on my part.

I do know one thing - the entire continent of Asia was evangelized with the gospel within the space of 2 and 1/2 years without the aid of television, internet, tapes, or vehicles for these folks to drive across an entire continent.

So, it would certainly not be beyond our God to enable believers to "speak with a new language that they had not learned" in order to accomplish this task.

Now, the points I've been trying to make all along are that there is little or no Biblical backing to distinguish between the initial sign of the Holy Ghost, which was every man speaking in a language he didn't understand, and the gift of tongues - which was either speaking in a known language but one the speaker didn't understand, or an unknown tongue that was followed by an interpretation.

(And, as a side bar, I'm just curious as to why many Apostolics will take the sign of tongues in Mark 16, but leave the snakes and poison alone, lol.)

There's definitlely a lots of speculation there, Mike. Lots of it, especially in that bolded parts.
I cant base my theology on speculation though. I try to stick to what's in the text. There's enough there for me to work with, rather than gettiing into a lot of extra-biblical speculation.

Besides, tongues and languages mean the exact same thing... so I'm not sure what your point is when you choose to use the words separately and disctinctly, as if theres some distinction in meaning. New tongues/new languages/unknown tongues/unknown languages... I think we're talking about the same thing.

Also, you keep referring to "unknown tongues" (you say: "it doesn't say anything about "unknown tongues".") Ok. I dont see why that is an issue. Its unknown to the speaker; I think that's the whole point. And to use Jesus's words "they shall speak with new tongues"... they're "new" to the speaker -- that's what makes it a supernatural sign. I'm really not seeing why you seem to place such significance on the whole "unknown tongues" part of it.