Confused about Speaking in Tongues

[psimmond]

Thanks Paidion,
I've heard similar stories but never had first or second hand experience with this type of thing.

I can see why you say the pastor was out of order since the Cantonese man heard the gospel and became a believer. But it seems you could also argue that he wasn't out of order according to 1Co 14:27-28. Back when I attended a charismatic church it bothered me that people around the church would all be speaking in tongues at the same time and there was seldom any interpretation. (The pastor did finally put an end to it by telling the congregation that from now on it must be done in an orderly manner--one at a time and only with an interpretation.)

BTW, wouldn't it be fascinating to talk to the guy who stood up and spoke in Cantonese. I'd like to know...what was he feeling, why did he stand up, had this ever happened before, etc.

I have a friend who says that he received the gift when our pastor prayed over him, but he firmly believes it's a foreign language (He doesn't know which language), so he won't even consider using it unless he thinks a foreigner is present. On the other hand, I have a greater number of friends who just call it a prayer language and use it every day.

[Homer]

How the tongues movement gained so much traction in the church is a greater mystery to me than "tongues" themselves. If we did not follow the KJV translaters, glossa would be translated "language", a simple term understood by all, rather than the archaic "tongue" of the KJV, which once meant language and implies something mysterious.

It has been said that in understanding the text of the scriptures we must realize that what is communicated between the parties, as in 1 Corinthians, which is a letter from Paul to a particular church, is composed more than half of what is unwritten. In other words, the Corinthians knew exactly what Paul was speaking about because Paul and that particular church shared a common body of knowlege about the subject matter that is only a matter of inference or specuation to us. A good example is Paul's mention of Junias (or Junia) in his letter to the Romans. People make confident statements about who this person was and what his/her role was, depending on the axe they wish to grind, while those to whom Paul wrote knew exactly what he was talking about because of their unwritten common body of knowledge about Junias.

And people read into the text of 1 Corinthians a "private prayer language" based on an ambiguous statement in 1 Cor 13:1, which appears to be hypothetical, and another ambiguous statement in 14:1. I recall a Wycliffe missionary who works in Indonesia who spoke to our church in an obscure language to illustate a point he was making. It could be said he "did not speak to men, but to God", without implying he had a "private prayer language". And even "The Message" has "private prayer language" in the text! Errors in translation mutate into greater errors.

Why is 1 Corinthians 12:7, which is translated "But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good" apparently not considered? The whole context of the passage supports this translation. How is a private prayer language for the good of all? How can you know it is when you do not even know what is being said? Or is that verse also one that we do not understand, but that was clear to the Corinthians? And how does this all relate to our western individualism?

Time once was when Pentecostals widely practiced speaking in tongues publicly, now it seems to have been privatized, unlike other gifts.

[steve]

How the tongues movement gained so much traction in the church is a greater mystery to me than "tongues" themselves. If we did not follow the KJV translaters, glossa would be translated "language", a simple term understood by all, rather than the archaic "tongue" of the KJV, which once meant language and implies something mysterious.

Hi Homer,

I don't think of the idea of "tongues" as anything other than a "language." My understanding would not have been different if the translators had all used the word "languages" instead of "tongues." I personally don't find it to be any more mysterious (though more supernatural) than when I am among Koreans, listening to them converse in their language. It is mysterious to me, because I can't understand what they are saying, but it doesn't give me goosebumps or anything like that.

As far as the existence of "private prayer languages," I don't know if I believe in such terminology (and hearing that The Message uses it gives me a knee-jerk reaction against it). However, I have no difficulty in believing there are languages (whether earthly or otherwise) that no person with whom I will ever have contact would understand or speak, other than supernaturally. In other words, if a language spoken by a charismatic tongues-speaker was not recognizable by any scholar as the language of any particular people group, this would not convince me that it is no language at all. Two hundred years ago, what western scholar would have recognized the clicking dialects of African bushmen as languages?

[bluejade16]

I had to register & sign in to reply to the original poster.
I was so compelled...
What you said was Swahili, an African language which is half Bantu and half Arabic in origin. You said "Peace" in my native tongue. "Salaam" means "Peace." I believe you were saying "Asalaama Alaikum" or the beginnings of it... which is a religious phrase meaning "Peace be with you". The response is "Alaikum Salaam" which means "And also [peace] with you"

Muslims, Arabs, and Islam all share this phrase too.
It is a message of peace.

God works in such wonderful ways, I hope this comes in a time in which it will be best received for you. I am so happy for you praise God