Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Dan is trying to make the point that we cannot derive doctrine from narrative accounts, such as the book of Acts. I'm asking your opinion.

Should we follow the actions of the apostles or not? Are the acts of the apostles indicative of what we should teach and preach? Does a narrative allow for that?


(the common sense remark had nothing to do with you. I was letting off some steam! )

Hi Mizpeh,

The answer is "yes", and here's why:

"3 For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.
4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. (Ro 15:3-4)

In verse 3, Paul is quoting Ps 69:9, which is neither one of the 613 commandments, a narrative, nor a direct didactic passage. And yet he goes on to say in verse 4 that those things written in the "scriptures" are for our learning (Gr. didaskalian, from didaskoo: "to teach").

From the sense of the Romans passage, we see Paul is not specifically referring to only the Psalms as containing didactic value, but the "scriptures" as a whole- all of God's Word.


Again, Paul in 2Tim 3:10-17 charges his protege Timothy to "continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them." (vs. 14).

What was it that Timothy had learned from Paul? Didactic teaching only? No, "But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me." (vs. 10-11).

IOW, Timothy learned from Paul's "life experience", which Paul himself catalogues along with "doctrine", etc., and which Luke records in the book of Acts.

Notice also that Paul commends Timothy's study from childhood of "the holy scriptures" (vs. 15- meaning all of God's Word, not simply specific OT didactic passages), which are able to make him "wise unto salvation". This is why Paul concludes in verse 16 that because "all scripture is given by inspiration of God", that all of it is profitable for:

1)- doctrine

2)- reproof

3)- correction

4)- instruction in righteousness

So then, "all scripture" (including narrative) works toward the end goal of making one "wise unto salvation" (vs. 15), and equipped to perform "all good works" (vs. 17).

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Hi Dave,

Here's another scripture that seems to say that Paul speaks in tongues (meaning the gift of tongues) apart from the church.

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

19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue

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?

[OneAccord]

What is the "gift of tongues"? 1 Cor 12 lists "Divers kinds of tongues" and the "interpretation of tongues", but no "gift of tongues". When people say "gift of tongues" are they referring to the two "tongues" listed in 1 Cor. 12? Paul explains the correct usage of "tongues" in Chapter 14. To understand this, one keeds to understand the different (divers) kinds of tongues Paul refers to.

1) Unknown tongue- Commonly referred to as "prayer language" or "praying in the Spirit". (1 Cor 14:2, 4. 14-15)

2) Prophetic tongues- The "giving out a message in tongues", so common in Pentecostal churches, is directly related to "the gift of prophecy". (14: 23:24) A person stands and delivers a message in tongues to the church that is to be interpreted. (NOTE: 1Cr 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret. The one that speaks in tongues should pray that he or she may interpret the message- however, at times, one speaks in tongues, another person interpretes because "the interpreation of tongues" is a different gift as "divers kinds of tongues)

To understand this gift of "divers kinds of tongues" we should also include what we refer to as "the initial evidence", a term, I should add that isn't found in the Bible. Most Pentecostals believe one speaks in other tongues at the inception of the Holy Ghost as shown in Acts 2:4. Cornelius' household "spoke in tongues" and by this Peter knew that had recieved the Holy Ghost (Acts 10)

So here we have 3 "kinds of tongues

1. "Other tongues " (Acts 2:4) "The intial evidence"
2. "Unknown tongues" (1 Cor 14:2- Spiritual prayer language.
3. "Prophetic tongues "- addressed to others, to be interpreted.

Now, back to "divers kinds of tongues"- Most Pentecostals believe all who recieve the HG speaks with "other tongues (1). However, Paul makes it clear that all do not speak in "unknown tongues" (ie., "prayer language" (2) [1Cr 12:30]. Then there are times when a message is given out in tongues, which Paul relates to as "prophecy". This is to be interpreted (3).

Now the question- While I find no biblical reference to the term, "gift of tongues" I do realize Mizpeh and others are referring to the more biblical term "divers (different) kinds of tongues". Therefore, wouldn't the gift of "divers kinds of tongues" be the ability to operate in two or more of the three types of "tongues" Paul speaks of? (ie, "other tongues, unknown tongues and/ or prophetic tongues)

[Michael Phelps]

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?

Very well stated, Dave.

I've done a study on tongues on more than one occasion, and from all I can gather, Paul was ALWAYS referring to "another tongue", i.e., a language that someone, somewhere, could understand - not an entirely unknown language.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5Now I wish that you might all speak in [unknown] tongues, but more especially [I want you] to prophesy (to be inspired to preach and interpret the divine will and purpose). He who prophesies [who is inspired to preach and teach] is greater (more useful and more important) than he who speaks in [unknown] tongues, unless he should interpret [what he says], so that the church may be edified and receive good [from it].
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

9Just so it is with you; if you in the [unknown] tongue speak words that are not intelligible, how will anyone understand what you are saying? For you will be talking into empty space!

10There are, I suppose, all these many [to us unknown] tongues in the world [somewhere], and none is destitute of [its own power of] expression and meaning.

11But if I do not know the force and significance of the speech (language), I shall seem to be a foreigner to the one who speaks [to me], and the speaker who addresses [me] will seem a foreigner to me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
22Thus [unknown] tongues are meant for a [supernatural] sign, not for believers but for unbelievers [on the point of believing], while prophecy (inspired preaching and teaching, interpreting the divine will and purpose) is not for unbelievers [on the point of believing] but for believers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, from these passages taken from the Amplified Bible, I am led to the following conclusions:

1.) Paul is making no distinction between the "Gift of tongues" and the "initial sign", since both are to be known languages that are edifying to the unbeliever, since they are a sign to him or her that he or she will understand.

2.) Paul places very little significance on the "prayer language" that cannot be understood by the hearer.

3.) The sole purpose for speaking in tongues appears to be as a sign for the unbeliever so that they will believe OR as edification for the church, thereby an interpretation must follow.

[OneAccord]

I know it may seem that I am 'nit-picking" in the above post- that certainly isn't my intention. However, the subject gets confusing when we use interchangable terms in referring to tongues. A careful study of Pauls writings shows a distinction between the different type of tongues. For the sake of clarity,I used the term "other tongues" in reference to what we call the "initial evidence" "Unknown tongues" was used to refer to "praying in tongues or the Spirit," and "prophetic Tongues" was used to refer to the "giving out of a prophetic message in tongues (to be interpreted).

[Hoovie]

When Paul says one should not speak in tongues in the public assembly unless it is followed by interpretation, does he really mean all tongues... or is there a caveat somewhere?

After Paul's' instruction, did they continue speaking in tongues publicly without interpretation?

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by OneAccord

I know it may seem that I am 'nit-picking" in the above post- that certainly isn't my intention. However, the subject gets confusing when we use interchangable terms in referring to tongues. A careful study of Pauls writings shows a distinction between the different type of tongues. For the sake of clarity,I used the term "other tongues" in reference to what we call the "initial evidence" "Unknown tongues" was used to refer to "praying in tongues or the Spirit," and "prophetic Tongues" was used to refer to the "giving out of a prophetic message in tongues (to be interpreted).

OA, I understand where you're coming from, and I was taught the same.

However, if you look more closely, there is no distinction.

On the day of Pentecost, when those in Jerusalem began to speak with "other" tongues, there were people there who understood them and received the message.

In Corinthians, Paul teaches that tongues are to be understood, either by interpretation, or by the fact that we are speaking in "other" languages, understood by those hearing us.

He says on more than one occasion, that if we speak with an "unknown" tongue, our spirit may be praying, but our understanding and the understanding of those around us is not fulfilled.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

When Paul says one should not speak in tongues in the public assembly unless it is followed by interpretation, does he really mean all tongues... or is there a caveat somewhere?

After Paul's' instruction, did they continue speaking in tongues publicly without interpretation?

I have been in services where the minister said, "Everyone pray in tongues right now!"

And, pretty much everyone did for about 5 minutes.

No interpretation at all.

First off, I can't find any scripture where anyone was commanded to pray in tongues at will

Second, this directly violates Paul's teaching!

And, yet, this is commonplace in our ranks for many people to be praying in tongues at one time with no interpretation.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

I have been in services where the minister said, "Everyone pray in tongues right now!"

And, pretty much everyone did for about 5 minutes.

No interpretation at all.

First off, I can't find any scripture where anyone was commanded to pray in tongues at will

Second, this directly violates Paul's teaching!

And, yet, this is commonplace in our ranks for many people to be praying in tongues at one time with no interpretation.

I agree.

[OneAccord]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

OA, I understand where you're coming from, and I was taught the same.

However, if you look more closely, there is no distinction.

On the day of Pentecost, when those in Jerusalem began to speak with "other" tongues, there were people there who understood them and received the message.

In Corinthians, Paul teaches that tongues are to be understood, either by interpretation, or by the fact that we are speaking in "other" languages, understood by those hearing us.

He says on more than one occasion, that if we speak with an "unknown" tongue, our spirit may be praying, but our understanding and the understanding of those around us is not fulfilled.

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.