 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Narnian
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2006
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 1/25/2006 11:01 AM (GMT -6) |   | | I am currently attending a UPCI church, but I am a Trinitarian. I just so happens that every severice there are "tongues and interpetations". Here is how it goes. Someone, "speaks in tongues" then another person give an interpetation that is in the first person as God himself speaking ending normally with "thus saith the Lord".
Now, here is my question. When I read 1 Corinthians 14 the first thing that sticks out to me is this,
"For anyone who speaks in a tongue [a] does not speak to men but to God..."(Verse 2)
As I see it in these services that I am attending the tongues are just the oppiste God speaking to man.
So is this truly a contradiction or am I misunderstanding this passage?
Also, in the same chapter Paul says what tongues are,
"If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand [e] say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? 17You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified."
This seems to indicate that tongues are giving of thanks, thanksgiving.
Again am I reading this wrong?
Thanks! Post Edited (Narnian) : 1/25/2006 1:05:46 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Narnian
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2006
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 1/25/2006 11:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks might-be-don. But, I am not sure how that does it.
All I see that is that prophecy is greater unless there is an interpetation. This verse still does not say what the nature of the interpetation is, but we do see what the nature of tongues are in the passage. It is giving of thanks, thanksgiving. Doesn't this fit with what they also heard in the book of Acts as well?
In Acts 2:11 I read,
"both Jews and converts to Judaism Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!"
Even here the tongues when understood are directed toward God not toward men. It seems to be praise and worshipful.
I still do not see in the text where tongues is a type of prophecy. I only see prophecy distinguished from tongues. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Narnian
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2006
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 1/25/2006 11:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Actually this verse seems to indicate that tongues is something more...
" 6Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? "
I am not sure how the "unless" is functioning here. Maybe you can help with this.
I can even see it being contrased like Paul is saying "instead of coming and speaking in tongues bring a revelation of knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction.
Can the text say this? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Narnian
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2006
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 1/25/2006 2:12 PM (GMT -6) | | So in other words what you are saying is that. Since uninterpeted tongues are not understood by anyone God is the only one that understands him?
I see what you are saying, although I see that corresponding verse as only God is understanding the thanksgiving while others cannot join in and say "Amen" at his giving of thanks, hence vs 16-17
"If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand[e] say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? 17You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified." | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/25/2006 2:31 PM (GMT -6) | | | So in other words what you are saying is that. Since uninterpeted tongues are not understood by anyone God is the only one that understands him?
Yes, that is how I see it.
I see what you are saying, although I see that corresponding verse as only God is understanding the thanksgiving while others cannot join in and say "Amen" at his giving of thanks, hence vs 16-17
Sounds like it is saying precisely the same thing as the earlier verses--the uninitiated do not understand, unless interpreted, and if no intepreter is present, only God understands him. In such cases where an interpreter is not present, the tongues-speaker is admonished to speak to himself and to God.
I am not saying that all "intepretations of tongues" are necessarily genuinely "straight from the throne" nor that they should be viewed as equivalent to prophecy necessarily. I am only saying that I do not find the idea that ALL speaking in tongues is necessarily directed towards God convincing.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Narnian
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2006
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 1/25/2006 2:43 PM (GMT -6) | | | Yes, John. I do not see any quantifiers in the text either. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/25/2006 6:59 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Narnian: I am not sure I am following your last paragraph. What doesn't discount the interpretation? Are you saying that if a person prophesies then they have actually stopped speaking in tongues and started prophesying?
Tom: My point is this—if a person brings a ‘tongue’ (to stick to Paul’s way of describing it; 1Cor. 14.26), Paul instructs that it be interpreted. Consider then the case of somebody who brings a tongue followed by a (so-called) interpretation where the interpretation is essentially a message from God to people. If we accept the English utterance as the interpretation of the tongue, then it looks like we’ll also have to understand what little biblical evidence there is describing tongues as compatible with tongues being Spirit-inspired speech addressing people, that is, a message from God to people. But if one thinks (as I’m inclined to do) that the evidence suggests that tongues is Spirit-inspired speech addressing God (in praise, thanksgiving, prayer, etc.), then one can hardly think the English utterance an ‘interpretation of’ the tongue. What would the English utterance be if not an interpretation of the tongue? Well, the only possibilities I can see are its being either a) the person’s own creation (not necessarily Spirit-inspired speech at all), or b) simply a prophetic utterance inspired by the Spirit but not an interpretation of the tongue per se.
When uninterpreted tongues is described in Acts or Paul, it’s uniformly described as addressing God (with the possible exception of Acts 2.11 [“declaring mighty acts of God”] , though one can argue that also is best understood as speech directed to God)..
When Paul says in 1Cor. 14.16-17, “When you praise God with your spirit [i.e., in tongues], how can one who [doesn’t understand] say ‘Amen’ to your thanksgiving?...You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified,” he assumes that the person is praising/thanking God. He assumes the uninterpreted tongue is, in general terms, the praise/thanksgiving addressed to God. On what grounds would Paul assume this if tongues may be a ‘message from God’ to the Church? It makes best sense to me to understand Paul as assuming that tongues is generally the language of prayer/praise/thanksgiving addressed to God. I'm not suggesting there's some metaphysical law that makes it impossible for a person to address other via a tongue. I just wouldn't know how to categorize it 'biblically' speaking. But so what? I don't know how to categorize half of the stuff that happens in churches. Big deal.
One might also wonder how an uninterpreted tongue edifies the speaker (14.4, 16-17) if the tongue is a message from God to the person (or to other persons). On the other hand, it’s easy to account for how uninterpreted tongues edify the speaker if the speaker is praising/thanking God with his spirit.
One could go deeper, but there's no time!
Kata baka shandala!
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 1/25/2006 6:05:08 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Narnian
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2006
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 1/25/2006 7:35 PM (GMT -6) | |
One could go deeper, but there's no time!
Kata baka shandala!
Tom
Agreed. Although, wish you would go deeper. :-)
Btw... I know the translation to that "tongue" above...
Kata baka shandala (I am coming soon...) ha
This is generally the translation that is always put forth.
You know something funny is that I was just talking to my friend and I said that if he listened he would always hear the word "shanda" in some form several times. Funny that that is the word you also choose. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Narnian
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2006
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 1/25/2006 8:55 PM (GMT -6) | | | Yes, the thing is, When I am in a service, I have figured out how to worship with the people around me even when I disagree on some doctrinal point, when they start doing that it always kinda just greives my spirit and I stop worshipping. I am sure that is still me issue since to worship is a choice. The thing is I go to worship corporately but then I find myself when it gets to these times worshipping by myself. Then I normally go home because I figure I can worship alone at my house. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/26/2006 12:42 PM (GMT -6) | | |
When uninterpreted tongues is described in Acts or Paul, it’s uniformly described as addressing God (with the possible exception of Acts 2.11 [“declaring mighty acts of God”] , though one can argue that also is best understood as speech directed to God)..
This view, which I understand is the more generally accepted view of the matter among evangelical scholars, seems to me to really just be a presumption based on at best questionable assumptions as to what the phrase "he speaks not to men but to God" means. I am unfortunately unaware of any scholarship that engages the view that I find convincing; i.e., that "he speaks not to men but to God" is qualified by the next phrase, "for no one understands him." Of course it could be my interpretation is all wet, but the last time I checked, in this context "for" is meant to indicate what the previous phrase in the sentence refers to.
One might also wonder how an uninterpreted tongue edifies the speaker (14.4, 16-17) if the tongue is a message from God to the person (or to other persons).
Paul says in 14:4 that an uninterpreted tongue does indeed edify the speaker. Further, Paul seems to basically equate tongues + interpretation with prophecy in v.5, so it is not clear why we must say that all interpretations of tongues have to be addressed to God to be valid expressions of the Spirit of God in congregational worship.
Also, Paul's statement in v.16 about others saying 'Amen' when you bless God in unknown tongues does not have to mean that only God can be addressed in tongues, or else v.21 is directly contradicted:
21In the Law it is written, "BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord.
Finally, on a personal note, I have been greatly blessed by tongues and interpretations of tongues that seemed as if they were addressed specifically to me several times in my life, and I know of many others who have as well, whether I was the one through whom the Spirit was manifesting himself at the time or not.
Blessings,
John
Post Edited (JEE) : 1/26/2006 11:47:41 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/26/2006 12:44 PM (GMT -6) | |
Starkman said...There is also the issue of Paul saying, "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all." Now, how can Paul say that if it is purely by the will that one can pray in tongues to God? Starkman
"Purely by the will"?!? While I've known some charismatics (mainly Word-Faith people) who insisted they could speak in tongues "at will," such a mindset has always seemed rather odd to me, as if God were under our control and as if the Spirit himself had no say in the matter.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 1/26/2006 1:41 PM (GMT -6) | | For anyone who has heard "tongues" regularly (I haven't...), do those people usually use the same vowel sound for a whole string of "words"?
I just thought of that when reading Tom's "Kata baka shandala".
Just my 2c... but if a person uses few different vowel sounds, that may be a clue that it's not really a genuine "language". (Yes, theoretically, it could be a language I guess,... but I don't know of any language where you could go on and on using only one vowel sound and still have a meaningful paragraph.)
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]:
Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/26/2006 8:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: When uninterpreted tongues is described in Acts or Paul, it’s uniformly described as addressing God…
John: This view, which I understand is the more generally accepted view of the matter among evangelical scholars, seems to me to really just be a presumption…
Tom: From what I can tell, John, your view is the prevailing view among Pentecostal/Charismatic scholars. The view I’ve presented is a minority view.
John: …based on at best questionable assumptions as to what the phrase "he speaks not to men but to God" means.
Tom: How is it questionable to understand the words “speaks not to men but to God” as meaning “addresses God not others”? You don’t think the words can even mean this? If they can mean this, then what’s questionable about assuming the do mean this?
John: I am unfortunately unaware of any scholarship that engages the view that I find convincing…
Tom: As far as I know, most assume your view. Can’t tell you how often my view has been dismissed by Pentecostal teachers when I suggest it.
John: i.e., that "he speaks not to men but to God" is qualified by the next phrase, "for no one understands him." Of course it could be my interpretation is all wet, but the last time I checked, in this context "for" is meant to indicate what the previous phrase in the sentence refers to.
Tom: “For” can introduce a number of different sorts of explanatory phrase. But I’ll grant you that your view is possible so far as this particular verse goes. It’s just when everything else is added that I become convinced.
I wonder what Fee has to say about the function of “gar” here.
-------------------
Tom: One might also wonder how an uninterpreted tongue edifies the speaker (14.4, 16-17) if the tongue is a message from God to the person (or to other persons).
John: Paul says in 14:4 that an uninterpreted tongue does indeed edify the speaker.
Tom: I just said that as well. What’s difficult to understand is how the speaker of an uninterpreted tongue is edified IF the tongue relays some message TO HIM that he doesn’t understand.
John: Further, Paul seems to basically equate tongues + interpretation with prophecy in v.5, so it is not clear why we must say that all interpretations of tongues have to be addressed to God to be valid expressions of the Spirit of God in congregational worship.
Tom: Well, it seems to me that what Paul equates is the “value” of interpreted tongues to that of prophesy.
John: Also, Paul's statement in v.16 about others saying 'Amen' when you bless God in unknown tongues does not have to mean that only God can be addressed in tongues, or else v.21 is directly contradicted: 21In the Law it is written, "BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord.
Tom: Check out Fee (and Barrett before him), John. I don’t take the “tongues” in the Isaiah quote to me glossolalia at all. In other words, glossolalia don’t in themselves fulfill Isaiah as if Isaiah prophesied them in the passage quoted. Paul appears to using Isaiah to draw a parallel with regard to judgment.
John: Finally, on a personal note, I have been greatly blessed by tongues and interpretations of tongues that seemed as if they were addressed specifically to me several times in my life, and I know of many others who have as well, whether I was the one through whom the Spirit was manifesting himself at the time or not.
Tom: And this is exactly how Pentecostals tend to form their theology. It’s VERY informed by experience. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be in any sense. And I’m not discounting your experience. I guess it’s this sort of experiential aspect that brings the debate to an end.
Truth is, I don’t know that God much cares about nit-picking down this far into the text. I think if we act in good conscience, listen to our hearts, speak out orderly and respectfully when we feel prompted, and submit to the corporate ‘weighing’ of utterances we’ll function just the way God intended us.
Tom
PS For Violin: Kayti buka shendilo! Look Mom! Vowels!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Narnian
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2006
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 1/28/2006 10:23 PM (GMT -6) | |
Acolyte said...As for Tongues, here is an interesting linguistic approach. http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086%7CCHID560462%7CCIID1415640,00.html Narnia, I am just curious, if you are Trinitarian, why would you be going to a UPC church? Is it that you don't consider the doctrine of God or Christology to be important or central?
Long story but the short part of it is when I married my wife I was full blown UPCI Oneness Apostolic. Since then I have become a Trinitarian. I attend Church with my wife for the sake of unity and corporate worship. I am stil able to worship God in the context of my uderstansing whil eI am there and I have no problems and actually enjoy some of the people there on a practical level very much.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
timlings
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130
| Posted 1/29/2006 5:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Narnian
I go to a church where tongues are used, and tongues with interpretation sometimes. I also did some theological/leadership training with 'Ichthus Christian Fellowship' (a group of churches in London, with link-churches over the UK and the world. Greg Boyd comes and speaks at our summer conference!) last year, and we had some practical training on tongues and interpretation. So I thought I'd share my practical experiences a bit.
There were 8 of us on the course, so during our prayer and worship times, we would all be encouraged to pray out in tongues. As it says in 1 Cor 14:4, this builds up your spirit; it's kinda like doing warm-ups for your inner man. Then the leader of the session would encourage someone to speak out a tongue, as the Spirit leads. So, one of us would speak out a tongue, which wouldn't usually be very long. Then, as a group, we would share an interpretation that we got; it might be a picture, a word, a verse, an impression, or a whole prophetic word. As various people shared their 'bit', we would get the whole sense of what God was saying.
In my understanding, prayer/worship/tongues/prophecy are all part of the same thing - breathing in and out the breath of God. So tongues is a part of releasing the prophetic. As a tongue is given, it releases the Spirit, and so revelation can come.
So that's my experience.
Now looking at scripture, I don't see a contradiction. In 1 Cor 14, Paul's encouraging the Corinthians to pursue 'spirituals' [spiritual gifts], but particularly prophecy because it builds up the whole church (because we get to hear what God's got to say to the church right now). Now tongues are good, cos they edify one's own spirit, but you are just talking to God because no one else can understand you. In order that people do understand and so get something out of it (otherwise it's just speaking into the air and doesn't build up the church), when a tongue is given, it needs to be interpreted.
In response to your questions then...
Narnian said...
As I see it in these services that I am attending the tongues are just the oppiste God speaking to man.
Is it? Surely God speaks to the prophet/interpreter, and then the prophet speaks to the people. We never get a direct line from God (unless we have an audible voice, but there we go). In v.2, the person doesn't speak to men but to God. But in v.3, the prophet does speak to men for edification, consolation and exhortation. If you have a tongue, then an interpretation (which is a form of prophecy, of 'speaking forth'), you have the end result of speaking to men for edification, consolation and edification.
Does that makes sense?
Narnian said...
"If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified."
This seems to indicate that tongues are giving of thanks, thanksgiving.
The result of the thanksgiving is edification, which is what prophecy tries to do too. Prophecy can involve thanksgiving too!
The main thrust of the passage seems to be about making sure the church is built up, rather than people having a nice time speaking in tongues that nobody understands. I don't think it's about whether tongues has to be thanksgiving, or whether tongues is God actually talking to us.
A little aside...
I was on a mission last summer with Ichthus, and they had an evening of 'the school of the prophets' (teaching people how to prophecy) in which they looked at tongues and interpretation. The way this worked was that one person was invited up the front to speak out a tongue, and someone else had to listen to it and listen to what the Lord was saying. The tongue would be given and the other person would share what they felt the Lord was saying. Others in the group could then share what they got from the Lord, and we'd put it all together.
Afterwards, a friend asked me about all this (he was new to this sort of stuff). His query was why different people got different interpretations from the same tongue. I explained that they were all different aspects of what the Lord was trying to say, as no one gets the whole picture but we rather prophecy in part. As we put the parts together, we get the full picture. But I think his question revealed a view of revelation that was more like the one Muslims have - God dictates what he wants to say to us from heaven (like channelling an evil spirit!) without our participation. Rather, God's revelation is more like being carried along by the Holy Spirit... you put up the sails, weigh anchor and go where he's blowing!
Hope that makes sense.
Blessings
Tim | | Back to Top | | |
| 26 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:42 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|