Detecting FAKE Tongues in Charismatic

  • Thread starter Thread starter beng
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Most of the information on the history of the movement begins with the church praying for a new Pentecost. But if you dig, you can find the truth… even on pro-charismatic sites. As I said earlier, it is part of history and no whitewashing or exclusion of certain facts will erase the beginnings of the Charismatic Movement. I am having trouble posting some of the links, but here are a few to get you started:

THE ORIGINS, GROWTH AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PENTECOSTAL MOVEMENTS IN THE THIRD WORLD
by Dr Allan Anderson
Director: Centre for the Study of New Religious Movements
Selly Oak Colleges, Birmingham B29 6LQ, England

artsweb.bham.ac.uk/aanderson/Publications/origins.htm

HISTORY OF CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT
by Brian Hughes

unitypublishing.com/Hist-of-Char.html

The Pentecostal Movement

religion-cults.com/spirit/pentecostal.htm

A “Catholic” Charismatic Extravaganza
by John Vennari

geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/5816/charism.html

THE AZUSA STREET REVIVAL
Essay by Unity Publishing

unitypublishing.com/NewReligiousMovements/WhatSpirt8.html
 
Hello Roberta,

You wrote:
No, I am not trying to create hostility. That is not my nature.

I am very happy to hear that Roberta.

I have also not resorted to attacking you. Where did that come from?

From Here: “I dislike being talked down to in the manner you are using.” But please accept my apologies for offending you.

Yes, the fact that the Holy Father celebrating Charismatic Mass at a Charismatic Conference does come from a Charismatic source. Does that make a difference? There was even a picture of him celebrating the Mass.

Yes it does make a difference. I do not consider charismatic sources automatically credible.

We believe when the Holy Father speaks to the Church, he is being guided by the Holy Spirit. If someone is writing something for him or assisting him in his Apostolic Ministry as a leader of Holy Mother Church, the Holy Spirit is right there in the middle of it. That would be whether the person assisting is Cardinal Ratzinger or anyone else chosen to assist him. That is what I meant about you leaving the Holy Spirit out of the Holy Father speaking about the Charismatic Renewal.

**The above may have been your intention, but you said something very different. I responded to your original statement. **
 
Roberta you wrote:

You made the following statement,
“This is a false movement and although it seemed to have taken root inside the Catholic Church, the Church will eventually expel it, as it expelled other great and false movements, some of which have persisted for several hundred years.”

You said I took your words out of context. Since that is exactly how you posted them, would you be kind enough to put them in context, then.

Please allow me to recap:
This is the comment in question:
**“This is a false movement and although it seemed to have taken root inside the Catholic Church, the Church will eventually expel it, as it expelled other great and false movements, some of which have persisted for several hundred years.”

**And this was your reaponse:
**
**You speak as if you have an inside track on this. We would love to hear your source. In fact, I would really like to know where you get your inside information about the Holy Father having a “writer”, specifically about his comments on the Charismatic Renewal.

There is nothing in the above statement about having an inside information about the Holy Father or the Holy Father having a “writer” This is what I meant when I said you have taken me out of context. Roberta, I do not have the time for this type of conversation. God bless!
 
Hi again,
tru-dvotion:
You have indicated before I need to be more charitable. Can you consider that it may be charity that compelled me to enter this dialogue?
Click to expand...
What I meant by that is that the manner in which you are speaking to me sometimes can hurt me. I do not appreciate that. Regardless of what you think about this movement, you have an obligation to God to treat me in a charitable manner. I have the same obligation to you, regardless of what I think about your point of view, or indeed the manner in which you may speak, even if I find them offensive at times. Saint Peter of Alcantara said, “the trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself”. That applies often to myself too, but I might suggest that you are not an exception to this saying either. Afterall, faith without love is vain (as I’m told, Our Lady has said).
From what I have red so far, there is plenty of dialogue left here. Besides, is it not the purpose of such dialogue to find the truth? What makes you so sure the participants of this topic have arrived at the truth? Why is it so unusual for me to have made up my mind? Cannot we say the same of those who are entrenched in the Charismatic Movement? Is it so easy to ask them to reconsider? Is the charismatic open or willing to challenge his or her conviction? Are they objective? I found the contrary.
Click to expand...
Now, may I request you to read properly what we post? My point was not to oppose dialogue, and I have never said that we have reached the truth already, as you have suggested that I did, but I have actually said the contrary to both of these points, in a sentence - “…to seek the objective answer through an objective dialogue”.

It is not unusual for us to make up our minds, but it would be unfruitful not to consider new possibilities when other arguments are being presented (in other words, being stubborn and hard-headed). Because it is impossible for us to have an absolute knowledge about all things (for that would make us God himself), we must be humble in acknowledging that we could possibly be wrong.

So, I, for one, am willing to say a big fat “yes!” to your question, “Is the charismatic open or willing to challenge his or her conviction?”. The most important thing here is not to try to satisfy my pride, but to discover the Will of God in all this. Afterall, if God is speaking through you to tell me that the movement is false, and comes from the Enemy, I would be extremely silly (to put it mildly) not to consider your perspective. The opposite is true also. If God is speaking through us to say that “Hey, this CCR thing is valid, and I have sent the Holy Spirit to strengthen you people. Listen to me.”, then, well, to put it bluntly, you’d better listen! 😃

[continued…]
 
If you think that I am not being objective, that is possibly due to my failings to acknowledge some valid points you have presented. Although I do not see how this is, since I have already said that: yes, abuses can, and do, occur in Charismatic groups, and that; yes, false charismatic movements can come from the enemy (together with reasons why these do not validate the Catholic Charismatic Renewal). However, I have problems when you present yourself as the absolute authority and the voice of God (or so it seems), when so much of what you say, I find to have either been previously answered, or misrepresent what we have said (an example at the top of my previous post), and sometimes consist of not particularly thought-through answers (which gives me the impression that you do not think much of our arguments in the first place, so you just gloss through them). Let me present an example of this last point. You said in #178:
TTM, I disagree. How could angelic tongues be the same as the tongues in the Charismatic Renewal? They have been referred by Paul as ÐangelicÓ, therefore not of this world. It would be as impossible to translate this into human speech as it would be to describe what heaven is like.
Click to expand...
You point out that Angelic tongues could not be translated into human speech. Unfortunately, St. Paul has already been successful at it, and the refutation to your argument is found in the very passage that you have quoted from: 1 Cor. 13:1 (“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.”).So, we know what it sounds like; “a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal” ;).

I do not mean to sound mean, and I’m sorry if I do, but I just wanted to be clear and honest about what I see.

I pointed out the lack of objectivity in dialogue, simply because it was clear that you had no intention of even considering our arguments, but that you intend to bulldose over what we say without much consideration and enforce your view upon us with absolute conviction that you are right and we are wrong.

I’ll be posting some meterial soon (I’m working on them now), but I’d first like to get this side of things cleared up, because no amount of debating would serve either of us any purpose, only to stress us all further and lead us to sin against God by spreading division and lack of charity.

So…

I’ll apologise now to tru_dvotion (and any others) for anything that I may have said that may have hurt you in any way. Please forgive me. I am a fallible and sinful human being, as God knows. If there is anything that has so far prevented you from to act in charity and to seek God’s Will through this dialogue due to any negativities coming from us, the advocates of the Charismatic Renewal (if you’ll excuse my presumptiousness to ask on behalf of the affirming party!), I ask you to forgive us now and begin again without any hard feelings or bias against us. Now, I make a humble request to you to extend the same act of repentence and humility to us, that we may be reconciled to each other, to pursue an objective dialogue, where the aim is not to force one’s views onto the other party, but to find the Will of God for us, his Church. Finally, I’d like to ask forgiveness from God, in having sinned in what we have done, and what we have failed to do through this dialogue. Lord, have mercy on us. Mary, our Mother, please pray for your children, that we may behave more in accordance with God’s Will, and act in love toward each other, that we may be a sign of God’s presence on this Earth. Amen.
 
Now, Tru-dvotion, if you are going to just cut’n’paste the materials from the Internet, please acknowledge the sources and do not make it appear to be your own writing. That is an act of plagiarism. I’m sure it was not intended to be that way, but it is misleading in that it represents somebody else’s opinion without allowing us to put it into context.

I say this, because the following text you have posted was more or less taken directly from unitypublishing.com/Hist-of-Char.html (I don’t know if there is any more, but I just spotted this one):
40.png
tru_dvotion:
he use of “tongues” as we understand as ecstatic or semi-ecstatic babbling,
  1. has nothing to do with the authentic, articulate language recognized by the Church as the miraculous “gift of tongues” as recorded in the first letter of St. Paul to the Church at Corinth,
  2. Or with the great miracle of Pentecost, as recorded by St. Luke in the book of Acts.
Since ancient times, this babbling has been a practice of pagan spirituality, mystery cults, and mediumistic religions, etc. and has historically been considered either as of a pathological nature or as a sign of spirit possession.

Catholics must believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ, and throughout the ages unfailingly and indefectibly has taught the truths of faith without error.
Click to expand...
Unless, of course, you are the author. In which case, I would apologise for my presumptuousness.

God bless you,
TTM
 
TTM,

I tried to acknowledge my sources. But the maximum length of a singular post is limited, plus the applications have been to various different comments, so some of my cut and paste was further cut and pasted. So referencing everything would have been a daunting task indeed. What you may notice though, I did not cut and paste anything copyrighted. Those I made sure to include in full and acknowledged the source like the Cottier interview. But I am happy you are reading some of those links TTM! 🙂 I pretty much expected somebody to come up with your observation though. It is human nature to try and find something to discredit the person who has an opposing view. But since this is a forum and I am not writing a thesis for a professor or for a publisher, if this is your only objection so far… you made my day, because maybe my cut and paste is making you think. 😉 Which is a good thing, because this is how discernment begins? I have put on an enormous amount of material in the last few days, just organizing it and applying it to individual comments was a feat in itself. I would have loved to write you a book, but I have a lot of other responsibilities besides conversing with people on this forum. But lest be assured, I have been inside this movement long enough to recognize a faithful analysis, besides not all of it is cut and paste. I wrote plenty. But if you want to find more cut and paste, or even paraphrasing, go right ahead, at least that would mean that you are researching outside of the charismatic sphere of influence. God bless you TTM and have a glorious Sunday mass.
 
You point out that Angelic tongues could not be translated into human speech. Unfortunately, St. Paul has already been successful at it, and the refutation to your argument is found in the very passage that you have quoted from: 1 Cor. 13:1 (“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.”).So, we know what it sounds like; “a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal” ;).

I do not mean to sound mean, and I’m sorry if I do, but I just wanted to be clear and honest about what I see.

TTM, this is the problem with interpreting Bible passages in isolation. First of all, the translation may vary; second, the part you are referring to contains only part of the picture and not the whole picture. What do you make then of “unutterable utterances”? Unutterable means, it cannot be uttered. ** Paul’s meaning in the above quote is taken out of context by charismatics. No offence, but you are comparing apples to oranges.**
 
TTM, for all your good intent of apologizing for comments you “may have” made does not hold up, when in the next post you make personal accusations. Too bad.
 
Hello again,

I’ll keep it brief today.
40.png
tru_dvotion:
TTM, this is the problem with interpreting Bible passages in isolation. First of all, the translation may vary; second, the part you are referring to contains only part of the picture and not the whole picture. What do you make then of “unutterable utterances”? Unutterable means, it cannot be uttered. Paul’s meaning in the above quote is taken out of context by charismatics. No offence, but you are comparing apples to oranges.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry? Where does it say it is “unutterable” with regard to the Angelic tongues? All the translations I have on this computer seemm to say the same thing:

RSV:
"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. "

ASV:
“If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal.”

BBE:
“If I make use of the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am like sounding brass, or a loud-tongued bell.”

KJV:
“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.”

And here it is in context, in RSV:

Preceding text:
“And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts.
And I will show you a still more excellent way.”

1 Cor 13:1:
“1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.”

Succeeding text:
“2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; 5 it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”

I’m sorry, but if I’m taking it out of context, or have a poor translation (or five), I am not aware of it. Nowhere do I see St. Paul speaking of Angelic tongues as being “unutterable” (and I have done a search on this).
 
40.png
tru_dvotion:
TTM, for all your good intent of apologizing for comments you “may have” made does not hold up, when in the next post you make personal accusations. Too bad.
Click to expand...
So you’ll refuse the invitation for reconciliation, and reject the attempt to be open to an objective dialogue? I really don’t know what it is that gives you such a heart of stone. You accuse us, the Charismatic advocates, of a lack of humility, while you fail to show any signs of it yourself. I don’t think God would fault us if we become annoyed at that!

As for the “personal accusations”, I was honestly angered when I found that you were simply cutting and pasting, while pretending for it to be something that you have written. I don’t know if you realise this, but it really is no way to treat people who are doing their best to seek an objective, God-seeking dialogue.

As far as I know, copyright applies to anything that has been written by anybody, until 75 years after his/her death. Unless, of course, it has been specifically placed in the public domain without copyright. If I have been wrong about this, I’m sorry.

I hope you understand my reasons for being annoyed though. It had not so much to do with the legal side of taking someone’s opinion and presenting it as your own (for it may have been just ignorance), as the attitude involved in doing so, which, to my eyes, shows your lack of objectivity (meaning, the desire to seek God’s will in the matter). Can you honestly say that you would be interested in the answers presented in reply to the accusations cut’n’pasted from your sources? I would think that it would be far more difficult to be interested, because it takes away that accountability on your part, to answer to your own claims (because you know that it isn’t your own!).

Anyway,

May God bless you. Please set aside a little time before replying, to think and pray about what is happening here. I shall do the same. Remember, love is the greatest charism of all.

TTM
 
Also, keep in mind 😉 :

Charity is no substitute for justice withheld.
  • Saint Augustine
 
TTM,

Regarding plagiarism, any copyrighted material will say so. Those who do not display the copyright are basically a free for all. Many of the sites I cut and pasted from are only too happy to have their message spread. I am not going to waste my time with personalities or people lamenting and getting upset.

Now regarding the “unutterable utterances”

It all depends which translation you use, but the meaning is pretty much the same.

Inexpressible groaning is basically same as unutterable utterances.
This is from the NAB
Romans 8:26-27**

In the same way, the Spirit too comes to the aid of our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit itself intercedes with** inexpressible groanings**. And the one who searches hearts knows what is the intention of the Spirit, because it intercedes for the holy ones according to God’s will.

This is NOT your “tongues”! This is the Holy Spirit and we cannot reproduce his groanings with human speech: He is **INEXPRESSIBLE. **
Webster’sDictionary

Definition of Inexpressible

Inexpress´i`ble

Not capable of expression or utterance in language, ineffable; unspeakable; indescribable; unutterable….

I have to go for now, next time I will deal with this “language of angels”

Some of you heard the charismatic explanations out of context for so long, it is not surprising you find it hard to think for yourselves.
 
Hi again,
40.png
tru_dvotion:
Regarding plagiarism, any copyrighted material will say so. Those who do not display the copyright are basically a free for all.
Click to expand...
Again, you’re forcing your presumed opinion on this matter here, this time with regards to the copyright law. It is not necessary to display the copyright sign, since copyright is secured as soon as it is created. I’m not particularly interested in debating this, since it is going off-topic, but I may as well demonstrate the point, that you do tend to make a lot of assumptions.

I’ll quote the U.S. Copyright office:
Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation
Click to expand...
The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following Note .) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See " Copyright Registration."
Click to expand...
Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. “Copies” are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. “Phonorecords” are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the “work”) can be fixed in sheet music (" copies") or in phonograph disks (" phonorecords"), or both.
Click to expand...
Now,
Many of the sites I cut and pasted from are only too happy to have their message spread.
Click to expand...
That’s probably true, but it is beside the point.
I am not going to waste my time with personalities or people lamenting and getting upset.
Click to expand...
Great. Whatever happened to the love of neighbour, our second greatest commandment? Whatever happened to the greatest commandment of all, the love of God?

(I John 4:20 If any one says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.)

You know, I actually dreaded coming back to this thread, because I feared it would be the same prideful, hard-hearted non-discussion? (and, I’m afraid, I was right). I got the same feeling I got when I was debating with some anti-Catholics in another forum, who also insisted their convictions onto me without considering much of the arguments presented (and yes, I talked about Mary being the Arc of the Covenant, etc.).

[continued…]
 
This is NOT your “tongues”! This is the Holy Spirit and we cannot reproduce his groanings with human speech: He is INEXPRESSIBLE.
Click to expand...
In which case, St. Paul must have been lying about speaking in tongues, since the gifts come from the Holy Spirit. 😉

Seriously though, if the Holy Spirit gives us the gift of tongues, I do not see why Angelic tongues would be inexpressible while human tongues are, especially when they are placed side by side, as in: “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal”. I might suggest that you are making hastily conclusion about this.

I have heard many Charismatics say that the gift of tongues take over once everything has been said in the native tongue, and one knows not how to express praise and thanks in a greater way. By this time, the Holy Spirit is already interceding for us with his inexpssible groanings. The tongues are a means by which the Holy Spirit allows for us to express further the groanings that can never be fully expressed, but certainly more than when we pray in our native tongue. This is why they are for our personal edification, as 1 Cor 14:4 indicates ("…He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself…). In other words, the tongues are an outer manifestation of the inexpressible inner groaning.
Some of you heard the charismatic explanations out of context for so long, it is not surprising you find it hard to think for yourselves.
Click to expand...
Actually, I have not. I’ve only been involved in the Charismatic Renewal for perhaps a year or so. But then I’ve only been a Christian and a Catholic since Easter 2003. I’m no longer surprised that you don’t think we are capable of objective thought, however. You certainly treat us that way! As for the explanations, I don’t claim to be an authority with regard to the CCR at all. I’m far more versed in Catholic apologetics (defending Mary, the Eucharist, etc.), than in defending the Charismatic Renewal. As I have said, I am open to any good arguments, as long as it is not forced down my throat with the conviction that you are the absolute authority, and God’s mouthpiece on the matter. So, again, I plead you, let us discuss with the objective of finding God’s will for us.

God bless you, as always,
TTM
 
Hi Robertaf,
40.png
robertaf:
Excellent post TTM. Beautifully said and I agree totally.
Click to expand...
Thanks 🙂

I found your testimonies to be very beautiful and encouraging also.

God bless you,
TTM
 
1 Cor.13:1-3 and Angelic Tongues

**“If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.” **

** “If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.”**

This is the explanation: If I had the ability to speak all the languages on earth and in heaven and didn’t have LOVE I’d be a noisy gong. Now where does it say to speak in angelic? I do not see it. But let us take a closer look.

**Tongues are known languages (as in Acts 2). Paul does NOT instruct the Corinthians in 1 Cor 13:1-3 to speak angelic, any more than handing over their bodies. (in some translations “to be burned”) He asks: does anyone speak in angelic language? He merely stresses the importance of using language that everyone understands. **

Angels are messengers of God and they always communicated in man’s own language both in the Old and the New Testaments. Can you show me reference to “angel talk” anywhere in the Bible? No! Besides, what purpose would it serve? Whom would it serve? It would not make any sense.

**Angels probably communicate differently than we do, but that is neither here, nor there. What does their communication has to do with us? Even if somebody could converse in the language of angels, could that be proven? It is not a known language! **

**It is conceivable that Paul may have been referring to his experiences, “caught up to Paradise, and heard unspeakable words which it was not possible for a man to utter.” 2 Corinthians 12:4. But the language he may have heard there must have been superior to human language… one that must be beyond the capacity of human beings to reproduce or to communicate with. **

So what did Paul mean by “tongues of angels"? Let me reiterate what he did NOT mean first. He did NOT mean angelic language or a private language only known to God. Paul simply made a hypothetical case for the importance of love. When, in the previous verses, he talks about giving away his possessions and his body. This is what he meant: even if he did all those things, (not that he was doing it), without love even those actions would become meaningless. Paul was NOT teaching on “speaking angel”, he was giving a teaching on love. If Paul would have been teaching on angelic tongues, it would have been a clear teaching, both in purpose and in deliverance, as all important teachings are clear and repeated in several different ways.

**This is atypical of the charismatics, take an obscure one liner, twist it out of its real meaning and build up a whole new theology around it. **
 
TTM,

I would like to remind you, that personal attacks on others never originate with the Holy Spirit.

“Tongues” is the supernatural ability to speak in a foreign language.
Prayer Language you say? Let us take a look!

**Charismatic Purpose: **

**1. edifies individual, **

**2. if interpreted, edifies church. **

This conflicts with original purpose of tongues: as a sign for unbelievers in Acts 2. and Corinthians 14:22.

Now let us look at other verses charismatics use to show tongues as a prayer language:

1 Corinthians 14:2, “For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to human beings but to God, for no one listens; he utters mysteries in spirit."

He speaks to God because no one else understands him. This is not an exhortation to speak in tongues in order to communicate to God. It is rather a rebuke for speaking publicly in a language that no one understands, for the context of 1 Corinthians 14 is public speaking. God, being multi-lingual, is the only one able to understand.

**1 Corinthians 14:4, “(For) if I pray in a tongue, my spirit is at prayer but my mind is unproductive.” **

The one who speaks is not edifying anybody else in the church. This is not an encouragement to speak tongues privately to edify oneself. This is a rebuke for speaking in a language at a service no one is able to understand. Therefore, it does not edify anybody.

**The Bible does not command us to edify ourselves. Self-edification is a negative thing (Romans 15:2-3; 1 Corinthians 10:23-24; 10:33; 13:5). Spiritual gifts are to serve others and are not for private benefits. (1 Corinthians 12:5-7). The whole 14th chapter is to rebuke to the self serving Corinthians. **
 
1 Corinthians 14:14, "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful."

1 Corinthians 14:14 is praying in a tongue. But Paul does not mean private prayer, he means public prayer, because it would contradict 1 Corinthians 14:15-17. Paul is constant with his earlier rebuke about speaking publicly in a language not readily understood by the whole congregation. Prayer in a tongue here is a negative so this cannot be taken as an encouragement. Others are not edified, because they do not understand (14:15-17).

***1 Corinthians 14:18-19, *** I give thanks to God that I speak in tongues more than any of you, but in the church I would rather speak five words with my mind, so as to instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.“

Paul here contrasts speaking “in the church” with speaking outside the church. In the next verses (4:20-25). In 14:19 Paul is teaching to use only words that will edify. Uninterpreted tongues do not edify.

***1 Corinthians 14:27-28, “If anyone speaks in a tongue, {it should be} by two or at the most three, and {each} in turn, and let one interpret; but if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.” ***

1 Corinthians 14:28 is NOT an encouragement to speak in tongues to ourselves or to God. Paul is still teaching the assembly at Corinth. If no interpreter is available, remain silent: “let him speak to himself and to God” is an order to stay silent and not speak out loud. An uninterpreted tongue is not a fruitful thing for the mind (14:14).

***Romans 8:26, “***In the same way, the Spirit too comes to the aid of our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit itself intercedes with inexpressible groanings”

**The supernatural ability to speak in a foreign language is different from “inexpressible groaning” that does not involve words. In Greek the word means an unspoken sighing. **
**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top