If we are not justified in Baptism...Then Christ died in vain

[guanophore]

"guanophore:

You are coming into a conversation with certain assumptions and expectations, then “insisting”/demanding that your opponent “prove” to you that what you think they believe is not what they actually believe.

And that is wrong because…?

Well, I guess it is your thread, so if that is the manner you choose in which to entertain yourself, it is your perogative.

I notice that the “proof” issues had nothing to do with the thread topic.

You opened this thread on the topic of baptism,then ran off down the OSAS rabbit trail.

 I know you're aware that I started another thread in order to focus the topic, but Itwin preferred to remain here and muddy the waters.  And you joined him in his endeavor to make this thread about me rather than about the subject matter.

I think that the people participating on the thread have been trying to communicate to you that your contentious style and methodology of forcing people to prove to you that they don’t believe what you assume they believe is what has caused the drifting from the topic. How can we help ourselves get back to Baptism? Can you support the assertion you made in the first post?

  This is one of the few times that I have been in an unexpected adversarial position with a fellow Catholic.  Let me rephrase, this is the only time I can remember, in twenty years of debating, that I have had a Catholic team up with Protestants against me.

Let’s be clear, I am not opposed to any Catholic doctrine. And my adversarial position has been against your methods/style, not you. As far as I know, you could be role playing this whole converstation. It is not possible for me to be “against you” since I really have no idea who you are, or who you might be pretending to be. It is an anonymous internet forum. Maybe you don’t believe anything you have written here…

  I am in that situation most of the time, since I post on anti-Catholic forums more often than on Catholic forums.

That seems to be a very suitable venue for your contentious and adversarial style of interaction.

 When debating Protestants, one of the common responses when their doctrines have been proven unbiblical, is to draw attention to anything besides the point at hand.  They don't want to confront the fact that their theology is false on the very basis they claim to have against the Catholic Church.   The Bible.

That sounds like a very good way to get back on topic. Can you produce any biblical evidence that your assertion in the OP is true?

  Correct.  In a debate, I consider Protestants, adversaries.  I have found that Protestant ethic and stringency is far below what is expected of a Catholic.  Therefore, I examine their responses from every angle I can think of until I'm satisfied it is true.

Sounds like you believe they are lying!
"guanophore:

Basically you wanted your adversaries to “prove” to you that they believed differently than what you expected them to believe.

Correct.

You did. And you kept upholding his statements.  And you kept nagging me on points which had already been resolved.  Essentially, you kept undermining my arguments.

Well, I can’t promise that I will not take issue with your arguement of why you believe your original post is true, but I will endeavor to approach it with an open mind.

Whenever you're ready to discuss the thread topic, we can begin.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Ok. I will counter your assertion with one of my own. The fact that many believe that Baptism is only a sign bears no relevance to the efficacy of His death.

 

[guanophore]

You do it again below. You claim:

Your assertion was that Sola Scriptura = rejection of Tradition, right?

No.

Since I didn’t make that equation, your response is a nonsequitur.

Ok, maybe I misunderstood what you wrote. Please correct me.

Sola Scriptura says we must do away with Tradition.

I’m not addressing all the Protestants in the world and all the ramifications of SS. I’m only addressing one.

Have you looked at the stats for this thread? There are 16 people reading for every one posting. It think you are addressing a lot more people than you realize. SS does NOT necessarily say that “we must do away with Tradition”. All Protestants accept portions Tradition, some more than others. How much is rejected depends upon how SS is defined. There are many definitions of this doctrine, and they continually evolve.

However, in your zeal to defend Protestantism, you are doing your utmost to undermine every Catholic argument that I produce.  To what end?

Your assertion that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura means we must do away with Tradition is NOT a Catholic doctrine.

Protestants who contradict the truth of Catholic doctrine are my adversaries.  You have sided with the Protestants who have sought to undermine every argument I have produced in defense of Catholic doctrine.  Therefore, you have put yourself in the position of being my adversary, as well.

Have you asserted any Catholic doctrine on this thread? Your opening statement that thinking of baptism as a “sign” rather than a sacrament means Christ died in vain is not a Catholic Doctrine. Neither is your assertion that SS means we must reject Tradition a Catholic doctrine. It is also not a Catholic doctrine that you must assume your adversaries believe what you think they do, until they prove to you otherwise.

I am quite tolerant of objective criticism.  I am however, quite capable of defending my position from fallacious claims such as those you used and continue to use.

Good. I look forward to seeing that.

I will respond to every false accusation you make against me.

Ok. Perhaps you can start with your opening line on this thread?

I am shocked to find that you consider your behaviour in this thread, exemplary.

I would be shocked to consider that as well. Certainly a better example is available somewhere!

Are you serious? You want me to agree that the Catholic faith is not one? Here’s what I was responding to when I asked, “and you don’t?”

No. What gave you that idea? I want you to consider that your opponents have accepted parts of Sacred Tradition (Catholic faith).

Where are you on the cafeteria Catholic scale?

I agree with everything in the OP after the word “Jesus”.

However, I don’t like the forumlation “faith and works”.

Anyway, I think this discussion has run its course.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Perhaps you would like to join the Luther thread?

 

[De_Maria]

I am sorry. I was responding to your question.

My question? I asked you if you do not believe Sacred Tradition is infallible:

Quote: guanaphore
That is because you think of Sacred Tradition as one, whole, seamless garment that should not be unravelled.

And you don’t?

Quote: guanaphore
You believe that the Holy Catholic Faith is One.

And you don’t?

From my point of view, that is a yes or no question. Do you or do you not believe that the Catholic faith is one? Do you or do you not believe that Catholic Tradition is seamless?

The fact that we are justified in Baptism is part of the Sacred Tradition, so I thought it was relelvant.

In that respect it is. So what is your point?

Most Protestants don’t know that the CC is the one founded by Christ.

1. Why are we back to what “most” Protestants believe? Have you not understood that I debate with individuals? I don’t debate entire groups. I go by what the Protestant across from me believes.
2. Your statement isn’t true. Take Itwin for instance, he is typical. He recognizes that all Christian denominations came from the Catholic Church. That, right there, is an admission that they realize it is the one Church accepted by Christ. But for their own reasons, they reject that knowledge.

Most of them think it is just another denomination. It has never occurred to them to "reject " it, since it is of little value to them.

First of all, 20% of Protestants in this nation are former Catholics.

Second, it has been my experience that the large majority of Protestants are taught from their infancy to despise and reject anything Catholic. Former Protestants turned Catholic have confirmed that which I have noted in my experience.

What was it you thougth I was “teaching”?

Your opinion that my messages and my style are unproductive. And that if I were to follow your advice, I could improve my productivity.

What does productivity mean to you anyway? How do you measure it? Have you a list of people whom you’ve converted to Catholicism?

It is not necessary for you to be adversarial against things you don’t like.

I am glad we can agree on something.

Another good reason that it is not necessary to be adversarial.

Now you’re telling me what is necessary and what isn’t? I think I’m quite capable of recognizing those who oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church and when they publically oppose the Catholic Church, I will be there to rebut and counter their arguments. If you don’t consider that adversarial position, necessary, that is your opinion.

You still have a lot to learn about the Protestant Reformation.

You have a lot to learn about it.

Protestants do not treat the Sacred Tradition as a seamless garment.

When did I say they did?

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

They accept various rended portions of it. Many Protestants accept the justification of the human soul in baptism. The further the groups drift from the Reformers, the fewer of them accept this, as is the case with all the Sacraments.

Which group are you addressing? To which group did Itwin belong? When I was addressing Itwin, what did it matter that another group of Protestants exist who do accept justification in Baptism?

I’ll tell you, nothing. It just muddies the waters and makes communication more difficult.

Ok De Maria. If you say so.

Ok.

My my, you certainly are a contentious fellow, are you not? In your responses, you are bringing up questions and challenges to me that are not part of the thread topic. That is why I say you are as adept at derailing your own thread as anyone else.

1. You brought up Pentecostalism and OSAS.
2. You brought up Luther.
3. You brought up your low opinion of my understanding of apologetics, Pentecostalism, Baptism, Protestant history.

What did I say which was not in response to something you brought up?

I think that was Babs57

I don’t remember ever addressing this person. Although the quote you provide, if I remember correctly, contradicts your assertion that Luther embraced the Catholic Doctrine of justification by Baptism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by babs57
Yes, unfortunately.

Luther writes, “It is not baptism that justifies or benefits anyone, but it is faith in the word of promise to which baptism is added. This faith justifies and fulfills that which baptism signifies.” -The Babylonian Captivity of the Church

Luther truly believed that human nature was unchangebly degenerate. Nothing could cleanse us of our sins. Christ’s rightoeousness was imputed to us through His sacrafice. In other words, the righteousness is not really ours, but is His, and he covers us with it, so that we can sort of sneak into heaven beneath His clean white robes.

As you can see, although it results in the same thing, justification, it is not by baptism but by faith. And therefore it is not the Catholic doctrine.

How is this relevant to the topic? I venture to say that, given your assertion in the OP, that you would think Luther believed Christ died in vain.

No. In another message you admitted that you don’t understand what I’m saying. This is evident here.

1. I don’t know think Luther believed such a thing.
2. However, I believe that Christ died in vain in Luther’s case.

In other words, Christ died to establish Baptism for the justification of those who believe.
Luther did not believe, therefore Christ died in vain in his case.
Catholics do believe, therefore Christ did not die in vain in our case.

Note that I’m not saying that Luther was not eventually saved. All I’m saying is that he did not believe in Baptism and therefore was not saved by Baptism. And therefore Christ died in vain.

Yes. It seems that you have finally been able to accept that not all Protestants believe in OSAS.

Your arrogance is showing. And I assume that you credit yourself with teaching me this lesson. Never mind that I have a friend in the Assemblies of God with whom I discuss religion on a regular basis. For at least 7 years now. And he, as well as others, have told me that they don’t believe in OSAS. Even at CARM.

The problem with you is you seem to grasp one little detail which you want to make a straw man and you cling to it for dear life. I goess that’s how you get your kicks. Cause you seem more intent in making little smiley faces and smart alecky remarks than actually engaging in debate.

Although, I just noticed that you have finally addressed my OP and challenged its Catholicity. I will shortly be addressing that remark.

This is very true. It seems to me that the effects you did produce were not the ones you wanted.

God willing.

In that case, then, perhaps you can lead us back to the topic. What Biblical evidence do you have that the assertion you made in the OP is true?

No sense having several messages going on the same topic. I will address you on the message in which you challenged the Catholicity of my OP.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[AbideWithMe]

Correct. In a debate, I consider Protestants, adversaries. I have found that Protestant ethic and stringency is far below what is expected of a Catholic. Therefore, I examine their responses from every angle I can think of until I’m satisfied it is true.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria—

I originally clicked on this thread the other week because I had two honest questions about baptism that I’ve had for awhile. Contrary to how you remembered it, I never made any statements about baptism on this thread. I was baptized as a baby, and the Evangelical churches in which I’ve had the most years of experience view baptism from an Anglican and Lutheran-derived somewhat sacramental basis.

By the time I was able to prepare my questions, you had already veered from the thread topic and were off on a different subject–OSAS; then off you went again shortly, demanding Itwin defend yet another subject…I think it was “faith alone” next.

It is you who have derailed the thread from its original topic of baptism.

I quoted the above because earlier I had a sinking feeling that you view Protestants just how you stated above. I was hoping I was wrong, and maybe simply mistakenly sensing something without just cause. I don’t sense this from the majority of Catholics on CAF, and I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt…it’s so easy to misread people on the internet, I know.

Well, you’ve confirmed my fear. I have nothing else to say to you, other than that I’m a “she” not a “he”, and I don’t hold your bad example on this thread as an indictment against Catholicism or other Catholics.

 

[guanophore]

"guanophore:

The fact that baptism justifies is part of the Catholic Sacred Tradition

In that respect it is. So what is your point?

Protestants who have fallen into the errors of Sola Scriptura have lost this part of the Holy Faith. This is why they come up with substitutes such as “believers baptism”. As noted in the quotes from Luther above, they see it as an outward sign of an inward faith. But they still have thepart that Jesus died for their sins. Their rejection of the doctrine on the salvific nature of baptism does not mean they don’t accept that Jesus died for their sins.

 I don't debate entire groups.  I go by what the Protestant across from me  believes.

Actually, in your previous post, you admitted that you first make them prove that they don’t believe what you came in assuming they believe. Claims made on this thread that your adversary did not believe in OSAS did not make an impression. You lumped all Protestants together.

1. Your statement isn’t true. Take Itwin for instance, he is typical. He recognizes that all Christian denominations came from the Catholic Church.

Actually, I think this is atypical. I think most evangelicals have no clue where the roots of their faith lie.

That, right there, is an admission that they realize it is the one Church accepted by Christ.  But for their own reasons, they reject that knowledge.

I don’t think so. The fact that a Protestant recognizes that their own faith tradition denominated from Catholicism does not equate to them believing that the CC is the only “Church accepted by Christ”. If they really believed that, they would become Catholic! Itwin clearly earnestly desires to please God, just as you do. He is just not pursuaded that everything Catholic pleases God. Protestants reject the parts of Catholism they cannot see in their Bibles. Many of them also believe that Catholics “added” to the faith. I just listened to CA live Friday and one called in wanting to know why Catholics “added” to the Bible. In many cases, it is not a rejection of “knowledge” as you say, but a misunderstanding.

First of all, 20% of Protestants in this nation are former Catholics.

How many of those do you think understood their faith before they abandoned it?

Second, it has been my experience that the large majority of Protestants are taught from their infancy to despise and reject anything Catholic. Former Protestants turned Catholic have confirmed that which I have noted in my experience.

I have had quite a bit of anti-Catholic indoctrination so I can affirm this experience as well. It all started with Chick tracks.

But there are also many Protestants that don’t know or care about Catholic faith. They are happy where they are. There is a thread running on this as well.

if I were to follow your advice, I could improve my productivity.

Miracles do happen.

What does productivity mean to you anyway?  How do you measure it?

In the context of this thread, maybe productivity could be measured by demonstrating that regenerative baptism is biblical?

Have you a list of people whom you’ve converted to Catholicism?

No. Everyone I know who has converted has done so by the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts.

 You have a lot to learn about it.

Yes. I am continually learning about the history of our faith. There is so much to learn!

When did I say they did?

YOu keep asking “which denominations accept Tradition”, as if it were a whole, seamless garment. Every Protestant accepts parts of the rended garment. On those parts, we have commonality of faith. That is why the Church calls them our “separated brethren”. They are brothers in faith. They just are lacking some parts of the whole.

what did it matter that another group of Protestants exist who do accept justification in Baptism?

Not all Protestants reject that part of sacred Tradition.

I'll tell you, nothing.  It just muddies the waters and makes communication more difficult.

Truer words may not exist on this thread!

 1.  You brought up Pentecostalism and OSAS.

No, I did not join the thread till that was in full swing.

The first reference to OSAS is in post # 59 (yours).

Your explanation ignores the teaching of absolute security wherein, Evangelicals claim that one who is saved will not fall away.

Sincerely,

De Maria

1. You brought up Luther.
2. You brought up your low opinion of my understanding of

No, I cited that post above. It was not mine.

apologetics, Pentecostalism, Baptism, Protestant history.

These were already in the thread when I joined it.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t remember ever addressing this person.

That is why I asked you to have the courage and integrity to read back over the thread.

justification, it is not by baptism but by faith.  And therefore it is not the Catholic doctrine.

It is not appropriate to separate the faith from the water, or the saving grace from the water. But if the CC thought Protestant baptism were invalid, they would re-baptize them, which they don’t. There must be something there in accordance with Catholic doctrine!

1. I don’t know think Luther believed such a thing.[/quoti]

Luther believed that Christ died for our sins, so that we could go to heaven. This belief did not change just because he fell into error about the regenerative nature of baptism. He continued to practice and teach infant baptism anyway (oddly) as did Calvin, even though they rejected that principle.
De Maria;9950776:

1. However, I believe that Christ died in vain in Luther’s case.

This sounds like a judgement on the status of Luther’s soul. If so, then it would be contrary to Catholic faith.

In other words, Christ died to establish Baptism for the justification of those who believe.

So, since Luther was baptized as an infant, he was justified at that point.

Luther did not believe, therefore Christ died in vain in his case.

Luther believed a great many Catholic truths. Lutherans today also believe a great many Catholic truths. Whether he died in a state of grace or not is not up to us to determine.

Catholics do believe, therefore Christ did not die in vain in our case.

So other Protestants that believe in the sacramental grace of baptism are also justified?

All I'm saying is that he did not believe in Baptism and therefore was not saved by Baptism. And therefore Christ died in vain.

Luther had a valid Catholic baptism. He also administered many valid Catholic baptisms. he believed a great deal about baptism.

…he, as well as others, have told me that they don’t believe in OSAS. Even at CARM.

It matters not how you came by it. What is important is that you are able and willing to learn!

.:thumbsup:..you seem more intent in making little smiley faces and smart alecky remarks than actually engaging in debate.

Aww. You don’t like my emoticons?

Although, I just noticed that you have finally addressed my OP and challenged its Catholicity.  I will shortly be addressing that remark.

Ok. Please limit yourself to only the words prior to “Jesus”, since I have no challenge for the rest.

 

[guanophore]

De Maria—

I originally clicked on this thread the other week because I had two honest questions about baptism that I’ve had for awhile. Contrary to how you remembered it, I never made any statements about baptism on this thread. I was baptized as a baby, and the Evangelical churches in which I’ve had the most years of experience view baptism from an Anglican and Lutheran-derived somewhat sacramental basis.

By the time I was able to prepare my questions, you had already veered from the thread topic and were off on a different subject–OSAS; then off you went again shortly, demanding Itwin defend yet another subject…I think it was “faith alone” next.

I am interested in discussing the topic of baptism. Would you be willing to open another thread with your questions?

 

[De_Maria]

…You seem to have a hard time understanding that Protestants don’t accept Sacred Tradition the way Catholics do…

Really? When did I say that Protestants accept Sacred Tradition the way Catholics do? In fact, it is you who claimed that mainline Protestant denominations accept Sacred Tradition. So, answer the question.

These are the types of ridiculous accusations that prove you are simply here to harrass and harangue.

I was about to respond to your question about the OP but its pretty clear that you think you are making some sort of name for yourself amongst the Protestants by harrassing Catholics.

We’re done, on this thread anyway.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[AbideWithMe]

I am interested in discussing the topic of baptism. Would you be willing to open another thread with your questions?

Yes–thanks. I’ll have figure out where it put the thread. I’m just looking for information and clarification, not a debate, but perhaps it can go in the apologetics forum tomorrow. I’ll PM you with its whereabouts.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I was about to respond to your question about the OP but its pretty clear that you think you are making some sort of name for yourself amongst the Protestants by harrassing Catholics.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I’m not interested in anyone being harassed. I don’t think any poster was harassed here. What I am interested in is information and ideas, shared respectfully.

 

[De_Maria]

I’m not interested in anyone being harassed. I don’t think any poster was harassed here. What I am interested in is information and ideas, shared respectfully.

As am I.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[ltwin]

 

[De_Maria]

Lol! A smooth cup of java is more to my liking.

See you around.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[AbideWithMe]

Yes–thanks. I’ll have figure out where it put the thread. I’m just looking for information and clarification, not a debate, but perhaps it can go in the apologetics forum tomorrow. I’ll PM you with its whereabouts.

Guanophore and others–In trying to ask my first question, I have to re-read something in the Catholic Encyclopedia which I want to quote here in order to ask for additional clarification. It’s soon time for me to get to sleep, though, so I’ll finish up my reading tomorrow. Hope I’m making sense…

 

[guanophore]

Guanophore and others–In trying to ask my first question, I have to re-read something in the Catholic Encyclopedia which I want to quote here in order to ask for additional clarification. It’s soon time for me to get to sleep, though, so I’ll finish up my reading tomorrow. Hope I’m making sense…

Absolutely.

Here is an online version

newadvent.org/cathen/

If you want to cut and paste.

May you rest in the peace of Christ

 

[RobbyS]

Absolutely! Thanks for that example!

We and the evangelicals grow up in very different religious cultures. In this country they are the successors of the old Puritans who despised beauty in the churches and in the liturgy and thought that all prayer must be spontaneous, a product of the spirit. Now there is much truth in this approach. St. Bernard of Clairvaux sought to return the Church to the ascetic life, and the churches he built, usually in the wilds, were very simply. In contrast to the often elaborate abbey churches. Ditto with Francis, who went even further than Francis. Those in the Protestant tradition have no cult of Mary and the Saints, and ironically do not see that we “worship” them as charismatic and prophetic figures sent to us by God. Some many of them are distinguished by their originality, by their refusal to be limited to the letter of observance. Think of Santa Teresa. She made new vessels for the wine of the Gospel.

 

[De_Maria]

We and the evangelicals grow up in very different religious cultures. In this country they are the successors of the old Puritans who despised beauty in the churches and in the liturgy and thought that all prayer must be spontaneous, a product of the spirit. Now there is much truth in this approach. St. Bernard of Clairvaux sought to return the Church to the ascetic life, and the churches he built, usually in the wilds, were very simply. In contrast to the often elaborate abbey churches. Ditto with Francis, who went even further than Francis. Those in the Protestant tradition have no cult of Mary and the Saints, and ironically do not see that we “worship” them as charismatic and prophetic figures sent to us by God. Some many of them are distinguished by their originality, by their refusal to be limited to the letter of observance. Think of Santa Teresa. She made new vessels for the wine of the Gospel.

I agree. The Holy Spirit blows where it will. Not necessarily where they will. That is why they can’t tell when someone is speaking in angelic tpngues. All they really know is that someone is claiming to speak in tongues. But that claim is unproven.

Whereas amongst the Catholic Saints, the speaking in tongues can be proven by the experience of those who hear them.

Thanks again for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Where I live, we barely missed this latest nor’easter with the snow. But, yes, parts of PA, NJ, NY and CT got up to a foot of snow.

Many people close to the coast are still without power, gas is being rationed in NJ and NY, and many people lost homes, cars, or lives due to trees falling on them or due to flooding or fire.

While I just have a mess in my yard from three tall fir trees that blew over, friends who have gone to NYC to help family members say the devastation is shocking in some areas.

It’s been unseasonably cold here till yesterday and today, with little sunshine from Nov. 4 till this past Thursday. I feel terrible for all the people in the freezing cold who don’t have electricity yet.

Please keep these people in your prayers.

Our entire community is still praying for all of you.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[ltwin]

That is why they can’t tell when someone is speaking in angelic tpngues. All they really know is that someone is claiming to speak in tongues. But that claim is unproven.

Well, gosh since you keep bringing this up I guess you really do want an answer. Even though this isn’t the topic of the thread I’ll answer.

Our purpose should not be to determine whether someone is speaking in the language of angels or not. Neither should our aim be to decipher if someone is speaking Chinese or Japanese. The purpose of glossolalic speech in the church is not to determine what the language is. The purpose is to discern what is being communicated by the language. Is it godly communication?

Let us express this principle in the words of St. Paul, “The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up” (1 Cor. 14:5). How is the church built up? Paul thought that prophecy built up the church more than uninterpreted tongues, and he wrote of prophecy, “the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation” (verse 3). It follows that the church is built up by speech that is “upbuilding and encouragement and consolation.”

Paul says that one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God. He speaks mysteries in the Spirit (verse 2). Not only does Paul tell us about the gift of tongues; he also tells us in the same chapter about a gift of interpretation. It follows then that we must separate interpreted tongues from tongues left un-interpreted.

Interpreted tongues

When it comes to interpreted tongues, Paul tells the Corinthians that “in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue” (verse 19) and “one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret” (verse 13). He then gives this instruction, “If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God” (verses 27-8). So, in church, tongues should be interpreted. What kind of speech would interpreted tongues consist of?

Paul asks the Corinthians in verse 6, “Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?” We have our first indication from Paul that the content of glossolalic speech could either be prophetic or didactic. However, Paul does not seem to limit glossolalia to prophetic or instructive language. He tells the Corinthians, “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful” (verse 14). This indicates to us the second meaning of tongues. If we speak in tongues, our spirits (rather than our minds) could be praying. It follows that if such a message were interpreted, then we would hear what sounds like a prayer. In verse 15, Paul poses a rhetorical question to the Corinthians, “What am I to do?”, in reference to the conflict over prayer of the mind and prayer of the spirit. He then provides the answer, “I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also.” This provides us with the third possible meaning of tongues: songs of praise. It will be obvious when one is singing in tongues, and the meaning of the song will be disclosed if someone interprets. Finally, Paul uses the phrase “give thanks with your spirit” (verse 16) in reference to speaking in tongues. It follows that someone who is speaking in tongues could possibly be giving thanks or praise to God.

To summarize so far, the possible purpose of glossolalic speech according to Paul are:

1. Revelatory or prophetic and didactic (1 Cor. 14:6)
2. Prayer (that originates directly from the human spirit bypassing the cognitive faculties) (1 Cor. 14:14)
3. Song of praise (1 Cor. 14:15)
4. Thanksgiving (1 Cor. 14:16)

All of this content meets Paul’s criteria of language that builds up the church. It is “upbuilding and encouragement and consolation.” That is the criteria that should be applied to glossolalia that is interpreted.

(Continued in next post)