Re: why i stopped talking in tongues
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 6:50 am
Emphasis added. As I pointed out yesterday, leaving room for clarification (or a subsequent clearer statement), 26.7% of all who say they are Christian may be a minority, but it isn't tiny. I took,Philip wrote:OK, so if we follow B.W.'s reasoning that tongues are not common - practiced by only a tiny minority of vast Christian Church - and that this is merely due to How God chose to parse them out - well, that presents a dilemma for the vast majority of Christians who do not speak in tongues or are very wary of them.
to be pointing to a (Scripturally sufficient) reason, not the sole reason for uneven distribution of the gift of speaking in tongues. "May having something to do with it ... is rather tongue in cheek (BTDTGTTS), but it also leaves open the possibility of multiple causes for what you perceive as a possibly fatal anomaly for those who believe God still uses speaking in tongues. As I pointed out last evening, two other reasons are that many Christians reject - i.e. their choice - the gift of speaking in tongues, and that many others simply lack knowledge of this aspect of the Scriptures.B. W. wrote:1 Co 12:11, But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. NASB
May having something to do with it ...
Wow! where have I heard something like that before? Oh yeah! I posted back on December 15th:Philip wrote:How would one without this gift, whom has never spoken in tongues, when encountering one speaking them - how would that Christian know that the tongues are authentic and God-given? Or if there is an interpreter - same problem - how do we KNOW that the tongues or their interpretations are of the Lord?
Emphasis added.Over all, 1 Corinthians 14 – along with Ephesians 5:18-19 and Colossians 3:16 – describes a “church service” very different from what is currently done every Sunday in most Christian churches. Whether a Catholic church celebrating mass with much the same liturgy as has been used for many centuries or a simpler Evangelical-Fundamentalist church service featuring several hymns, a sermon, plus announcements, all have some things in common: the leader(s) plan and implement what happens; the congregation is partly audience, partly participant, doing what the leader(s) have planned. Sometimes I wonder if the Holy Spirit would be unable to work in many/most modern churches, for lack of room! In the kind of “church service” Paul described, any and every believer might on any day be a “worship leader”, a teacher, prophesying, praying for some need, with the Holy Spirit leading and the leaders of the congregation overseeing to ensure things didn't get out of order and teachings didn't contradict Scripture. I wonder whether a believer raised with modern leader-audience “church services” would even recognize the leadership of the Holy Spirit, orderliness, and ministry happening in the believers' assemblies Paul knew.[/b]
But returning, to some degree, to your point:
I guess you didn't see my two posts from 3 weeks before your post to which I'm responding? Ultimately, your question is the same "problem" the church at Corinth (and, obviously, every congregation in the Christian church of the time). But were uncertainty and the possibility of mistaken judgment arguments against at all accepting speak in tongues as a valid spiritual gift, Paul would not have discussed at such length proper usage of the gift. He would have said, "You can't be certain, it may be dangerous, so just don't!" Except not as laconically .At times I think that the chapter-and-verse reference system – not part of the original texts – that aids in referring to and finding specific Scriptures – can be distracting or misleading. It is visually tempting to perceive each verse in 1 Thessalonians 5:16-22 as a separate and distinct statement. While Paul was winding up his letter, giving brief instructions, they are interconnected, forming a unified context. Thus, the instruction not to quench the Spirit is linked to the instructions not to despise prophecies and to think about such prophecies and retain what is good. Taking these verses from 1 Thessalonians 5 together, four things are worth pointing out. ... Second, despising prophecy would have the effect of quenching the work of the Holy Spirit. Besides discouraging prophecies, it would also tend to hinder the expression of other Spiritual gifts and the work of the Holy Spirit in the congregation, generally. Third, utterances purporting to be prophecies were to be considered carefully and judged. These are the two errant extremes: reflexive rejection; credulous acceptance. Persons “prophesying” could be mistaken (or worse, of course); what was done in such a case, beyond rejecting the message, is not mentioned (a prophet judged to have been mistaken or wrong would not, of course, have been killed, as in the Old Testament). My guess is that the character and severity of the mistake/error and the character of the person would have been key considerations in what would be done. Fourth, a prophecy judged to be true prophecy was to be treated as very important (though not as Scripture, as I pointed out above).