Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Note to file:

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

Originally Posted by 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!

Indeed!

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

The initial sign of the infilling of the Holy Ghost was that folks who were monolingual clearly spoke in different languages to preach the gospel.

It was not the "unknown" tongue that Paul speaks of in I Corinthians 14.

So, can I safely assume that, if we are following the Book of Acts pattern, when one is filled with the Holy Ghost they should speak with a known tongue as a witness for someone who is witnessing this event who understands the language in which the infilled is speaking?

I addressed this in a separate post, but I think it bears repeating, for those who may have missed it previously.

It does not say they preached the gospel when they spoke in tongues. I think that its highly speculative to assert that they did.
It said they proclaimed the wonderful works of God (v. 11), but that by itself is not necessarily preaching the gospel. When can also speak of his wonderful works by praising God, without preaching to anyone in the process.

But the gospel wasnt preached until Peter began to address them afterward.... The men asked "what meaneth this?"... and then Peter gave the first gospel message beginning in Acts 2:14, speaking in a single language they all undersood, not in tongues.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

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.

TRFrance,
In the paragraph above you seem to say that individuals will speak in tongues outside of tongues and interpretation during a church gathering edifying themselves and the church body, but not necessarily the hearers, which I take that as visitors or those not spirit filled.

You go on to say that Paul discourages this practice. Am I reading that correctly?

Originally Posted by TRFrance

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.

I agree it is all the same thing.

Originally Posted by TRFrance

It does not say they preached the gospel when they spoke in tongues. I think that its highly speculative to assert that they did.
It said they proclaimed the wonderful works of God (v. 11), but that by itself is not necessarily preaching the gospel. When can also speak of his wonderful works by praising God, without preaching to anyone in the process.

But the gospel wasnt preached until Peter began to address them afterward.... The men asked "what meaneth this?"... and then Peter gave the first gospel message beginning in Acts 2:14, speaking in a single language they all undersood, not in tongues.

I agree with this. I'd like to address what I have come to understand. Not only was God's word fulfilled but his timing was perfect as at the time of Christ's ministry the known world was largely using Greek as the universal language. Would that be correct?

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

TRFrance,
In the paragraph above you seem to say that individuals will speak in tongues outside of tongues and interpretation during a church gathering edifying themselves and the church body, but not necessarily the hearers, which I take that as visitors or those not spirit filled.

You go on to say that Paul discourages this practice. Am I reading that correctly?

Not to be too nitpicky, but if you mean... am I saying that it edifies the church body as a whole (in the sense that by the individual being edified, and him/her being a part of the church body, the body is indirectly edified), but the actual gathering of believers there is not directly edified by what they're hearing, (and of course, neither are unbelievers there edified).... then yes.

And does paul discourage the practice?... definitely.

[Dimples]

I've enjoyed this immensely.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Not to be too nitpicky, but if you mean... am I saying that it edifies the church body as a whole (in the sense that by the individual being edified, and him/her being a part of the church body, the body is indirectly edified), but the actual gathering of believers there is not directly edified by what they're hearing, (and of course, neither are unbelievers there edified).... then yes.

And does paul discourage the practice?... definitely.

Do that for me one more time. LOL!

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

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.

Hello Michael,

Thank you. After that glowing review, though, you might be disappointed to hear that I actually believe the "unknown tongues" were heavenly languages.

I realize there has been much debate down through the centuries (particularly the last one) concerning the type of tongues spoken in Acts 2:4. The only thing we know for sure is that those in the crowd "heard" the 120 in their (the crowd's) own languages (vs. 6 & 8). The miracle may not have been only in the speaking, but in the hearing, as well. IOW, the 120 could have spoken in heavenly languages, but the crowd heard diverse earthly languages.

Your thoughts?

[DaveC519]

Hi Mizpeh,

Originally Posted by mizpeh

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.

Well, as we see in the Gospel "narrative" (D'oh!), nobody got healed, even from Jesus, without faith (Mt 13:58). Simply because Paul said that tongues were a "sign" for the unbeliever, doesn't mean the Church isn't being edified at the same time. Tongues and its accompanying interpretation do edify the Church, even if unbelievers are present in the service.

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?

Instead of going through chapter and verse, let me offer you an over-arching principle instead:

"4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal." (1 Co 12:4-7)

With this, Paul sets the tone for his entire discourse of chapters 12-14.

What is the difference between "private tongues" and the "gift of tongues"? It is the difference and diversity of the administration and operation of the Spirit of God (see above).

For example: a person can be in the church service, praying in tongues privately unto God. This same person can also possess the gift of tongues, but this is not what we are referring to now. However, if the operation of the Spirit changes, and the direction of the Spirit leads for an opening in the service whereby tongues and interpretation will go forth, then this same person, who before was speaking in tongues privately, would now be directed to broadcast a message in tongues (perhaps even the exact same words!) to the entire assembly. This then would be followed by an interpretation, and usually in courses of two or three.

If we keep this in mind, chapter 14 comes in to closer focus and better understanding. "Personal tongues" is us (the individual) speaking unto God. The "gift of tongues" is God speaking unto us, the Church.

(did that actually answer your question?)

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

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. )

TRFrance,

Please see my response to Mizpeh's post here:

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=208

Thanks!

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by DaveC519

Hello Michael,

Thank you. After that glowing review, though, you might be disappointed to hear that I actually believe the "unknown tongues" were heavenly languages.

I realize there has been much debate down through the centuries (particularly the last one) concerning the type of tongues spoken in Acts 2:4. The only thing we know for sure is that those in the crowd "heard" the 120 in their (the crowd's) own languages (vs. 6 & 8). The miracle may not have been only in the speaking, but in the hearing, as well. IOW, the 120 could have spoken in heavenly languages, but the crowd heard diverse earthly languages.

Your thoughts?

Dave, your thought about the hearer being anointed to understand heavenly languages at Pentecost, could hold some merit.

However, when Paul begins to discuss tongues in Corinthians, the direction is to the speaker, not the hearer. Paul addresses his entire discourse to those who are speaking in tongues, and there's no mention of anyone in the congregation having any other interpretation, other than what another "gifted" person would bring to them.