Gift of tongues

[prisonchaplain]

1. That the speaker is not speaking of themselves but is speaking in proxy for G-d –as though G-d was himself speaking.

At this point you seem to exclude "praying in tongues" altogether. Perhaps this is based upon your sole reliance on the Acts 2 episode, or your belief that Acts 2 is normative for all tongues experiences. I'm not sure. Yet, even in that instance, some of those speaking in tongues were PRAISING GOD. Is it your contention that they were merely vessels, voicing God's accolades towards himself?

It is in essence G-d speaking using the mouth of the speaker. Let me make this point very clear. The individual person that G-d is using is not speaking or talking to anyone – it is the Holy Spirit that gives utterance and it is the Holy Spirit that is speaking. I believe the gift of tongues is the gift to speak for G-d and that it is possible that the speaker speak in their native tongue and the hearer also hear in the same native tongue but that both are understanding through the spirit which is the “language” of G-d and angles.

You describe the gift of prophecy, not of tongues.

2. I believe that whenever G-d speaks to anyone that they will understand what he is saying to them.

And again here, you seem to equate tongues with prophesy. Your words are the very definition of prophecy. Your rejection (apparent) of tongues as the speaker's communion with God precludes from viewing tongues as anything but prophesy. Pentecostalism contends that the gift of the Holy Spirit, accompanied by tongues, is more the speaker's spirit communing with God, than God communicating with us. It is the public gift of tongues, when accompanied by the gift of interpretation, that fits the bill you prescribe.

Edited October 15, 2009 by prisonchaplain

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, the following article can do your inquiry far better justice than I can in this string. The author addresses tongues as a prayer language, criticisms of the practice, the whole tongues as "unknown" vs. "foreign" languages debate, etc. It's not terribly long, but he does devote several pages to it, and you might find it insightful--if nothing else, than to understand the theology and thinking behind us "holy rollers." :-)

http://www.pneumafoundation.com/resources/articles/rwgraves005.pdf

[Traveler]

Traveler, the following article can do your inquiry far better justice than I can in this string. The author addresses tongues as a prayer language, criticisms of the practice, the whole tongues as "unknown" vs. "foreign" languages debate, etc. It's not terribly long, but he does devote several pages to it, and you might find it insightful--if nothing else, than to understand the theology and thinking behind us "holy rollers." :-)

http://www.pneumafoundation.com/resources/articles/rwgraves005.pdf

I am grateful that you have taken time to provide the article – I am getting a better view into your understanding of the gift of tongues. This is good news and bad news. The good news is that I understand better. The bad news is that here is perhaps one of our greatest differences in meaningful worship and view of divine things.

I view the gift of tongues as the ability to learn and speak more than one language. For example, since my tongue is English then only by the gift of tongues am I able to speak German to a German and Japanese to Japanese. On special occasions as in Acts 2; the spirit can allow many to hear in their own tongue even though I am speaking in English.

Your reference to prayer tongues and 1Cor chapter 4 is off the charts and not even close to my understanding of scripture. This is what I think Paul is talking about. As the “church” was established among the Gentiles there arose many problems in some of the large metropolitan area where people would gather from many backgrounds with a vast array of languages and dialects. Many felt more comfortable speaking their native tongue or language that was foreign or unknown to the body of the church gathered to worship. Paul recognizes that speaking multiple languages was a gift of the spirit but he is admonishing the members at Corinth to speak so other can understand which is much more important that speaking more than one language. I think that in verse 27 he is saying that if a person cannot speak in a language or tongue that others understand then ether someone translates what he would say or they should not speak.

Paul also points out that no one should be concerned when a person prays for themselves if they pray in their native tongue because their prayers are between them and G-d. This is also the understanding I get from Matt 6:5. When your prayers are between just you and G-d do not pray to be heard of men. I do understand that there are times when a prayer is offered to G-d for a group. Then such a prayer is not between an individual and G-d and therefore is not for the edification of the individual but for the group and the edification of the group. This is what Paul is trying to teach in verses 16 and 17 of 1Cor chapter 14. If you are going to pray in public for the public benefit; the public should be able to hear what benefit is. They should be allowed to know what is being prayed about and if such a prayer is not given for them to understand how can they say Amen – regardless of the language or tongue? Again verse 27 – Paul says that when speaking in another tongue – if you must; do so in very small groups with a translator. In verse 28 – people speaking (or praying) before a group at church in a tongue that is not understood, they should be “quiet” or keep silent at church.

Paul tells us in verse 33 that G-d in not the author of confusion at church so if there is confusion because of someone speaking a different tongue is not according to the will of G-d.

Much of the difference is concerning the understanding of “unknown” tongue. To me it does not mean a tongue that only G-d understands. I could argue that the flaw of such a definition is that if someone knows the tongue is the tongue of G-d – it is not an unknown tongue –rather it is a tongue that is known like any other tongue of man but not a tongue that is understood unlike any tongue that is not understood. To me it simply means another language – any language that another does not understand or know. I believe you are saying that an unknown tongue cannot be another knowable language – and for that I think you read too much into the scripture and thus LDS like myself do not know how to relate.

I do hope that because I see things in a different light that you do not think me the spiritual rouge but if you define such difference as rouge then that would be sad – I believe we have come a great distance in understanding each other.

The Traveler

[Vanhin]

I recently read Rough Stone Rolling......apparently speaking in tongues was a frequent occurrence during the early days of the Restoration.

Yep, I was going to point that out. I am reading that book very slowly, I love it!

I'll see if I can type in a few quotes later.

Regards,

Vanhin