Actscelerate.com

Question

Acts-pert Poster Posts: 16646 **6/12/06 6:40 am**

1) Has the Spirit taken control of your tongue and made the motor function of the jaw and tongue move without your "knowing" it?

2) Or did the words process through your mind (by the Spirit) and you spoke them?

My experience more closely resembles the latter. Is that speaking in tongues as the "Spirit gives utterance"?
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today!

Watermelon Assassin Posts: 640 **6/12/06 7:20 am**

What seems clear from this discussion is that those who speak in tongues do not agree on whether one can do it at will or not.

I did not realize that there was such confusion on the matter.

Nightsky

God as "Front Desk"

Friendly Face Posts: 208 **6/12/06 11:17 am**

Re: God as "Front Desk"

Acts-perienced Poster Posts: 11849 **6/12/06 7:18 pm**

JPlainM wrote,

Nice Reference...

Friendly Face Posts: 208 **6/13/06 8:17 am**

to the Judas scripture. I've actually seen that used in a great video clip at Oneighty.

But, the portion of 1 Cor 14 I was referring to is where Paul specifically claims that tongues is given as a sign to unbelievers. Obviously, there was confusion in the Corinthian church, so Paul took the time to clarify what the purpose of tongues was.

I do agree that God can reveal Himself in tongues by some reminder of His previous Word, but I would limit my view on that to something of a more profound nature than the typical, "Did I not say in My Word that I would never leave you or forsake you?" message. Such words reflect more the reflection of the individual giving the interpretation and could probably be perceived as a word of encouragement, if not for the speaker's need to be recognized under the authority of tongues.

Please don't misunderstand. I do not reject the validity of tongues and even interpretation. I simply believe that their practice as "common" greatly reduces the effectiveness that God had intended for them. When a message in tongues is given each week in a church, it becomes simply another part of the liturgy (akin to offering time or Sister Gertrude's special song) instead of the Great Interruption of God's Spirit into the mix.

Let us live in the Spirit

Friendly Face Posts: 213 **6/14/06 5:23 am**

The old timers believed that one should pray until they had spoken in tongue every day. I believe that one can live in the Spirit, and that at any moment, the Spirit wills and I yield, I can speak in other tongues. I believe we should live so close to the Spirit that He is always available and all we have do is to yield and He will speak for Himself. And that is what I believe the charismatics are meaning when they say, "Pray in in your prayer language." I believe this is in line with "Pray without ceasing." and "I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding." I can pray at will. I can pray in the Spirit. So, can I not pray at will if I am full of the Spirit?

Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1101 **6/14/06 10:13 am**

Out of your belly shall flow rivers of living water. My understanding is that you can not turn a river on and off any time you want too. A river is always "on." If the river stops, it is not the rivers fault but something has been put in place to block the flow of the river. If the Holy Spirit is not assessable to you at all times, what have you allowed to block the flow of the river.

The question should be...

Friendly Face Posts: 304 **6/14/06 3:20 pm**

"If one is Spirit-filled can they speak in tongues at will?

Paul thought so...

1 Cor 14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

One cannot speak unless the Spirit gives the utterance, however, Paul seemed to believe that the utterance would be available to all Spirit-filled believers and so do I. It is available to use in order and out of order.

1 Cor 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: 19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
_________________
The way of Salvation is simple, but it is not easy.

Acts-perienced Poster Posts: 11849 **6/15/06 8:26 am**

JPlainM

What I mean is that there is nothing in the I Corinthians 14 passage to indicate that an interpretation of tongues would be spectacular. Nothing in the passage obligates God to 'wow' unbelievers with tongues and interpretations. Acts 2 was not a case of interpretation of tongues. I Corinthians 14 tells us regarding tongues 'and yet for all that, they will not hear me.' Unbelievers tend to respond to tongues with unbelief, as predicted in scripture (a sign against them.) Paul uses this as an argument for the value of all prophesying in contrast to all speaking in tongues. He does not argue that interpretations of tongues should be spectacular.

To an unbeliever who does not appreciate the word, many Old Testament prophecies must seem repetitive and not too impressive. God can say whatever He wants, and what He says is not always spectacular to us. Sometimes it can be pretty general.

I can see how someone could read the passage and come away with the idea that all tongues are prayers. Verse 2 says he speaks not unto men, but unto God. Verse 28 says let him speak to himself and to God. Paul talks about praying in the S/spirit and gives an example of tongues being used to give thanks.

I have one reservation about the idea that tongues must always be prayer, though they certainly can be. On the other hand, there is that one verse where he asks if he comes speaking in tongues, what will it profit unless he speak to them by prophecy, or by revelation, or by doctrine? Could this mean that the interpretation could be one of these three things?
_________________
Link

Acts-perienced Poster Posts: 11849 **6/15/06 8:36 am**

Paul obviously didn't think every believer who had the Holy Ghost could speak in tongues because he asks,

Are all apostles?
...
Do all speak with tongues?

Clearly the implied answer is 'no.' And based on the context it makes no sense to think Paul was saying those who did not speak in tongues were not any less, because he just got done talking about how all parts and their functions are needed.
_________________
Link

Clearly, Paul thought all believers should speak in tongues

Friendly Face Posts: 304 **6/15/06 10:16 am**

1Co 14:5 - I would that ye all spake with tongues...

In the passage cited earlier:

1Co 12:30 - Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

The context is not the use of tongues for private edification but a public message in tongues. Not all believers will operate in the gift of tongues for public edification but all should operate in the gift of tongues for private edification.

1 Cor 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
_________________
The way of Salvation is simple, but it is not easy.

Friendly Face Posts: 205 **6/15/06 11:27 am**

I operate in the gift of evangelism at will. Does that mean it is fleshly & not the work of the Holy Spirit?

I also operate in the gifts of administration & teaching at will.

Re: Clearly, Paul thought all believers should speak in tong

Acts-perienced Poster Posts: 11849 **6/15/06 7:02 pm**

Certainly, Paul thought all should Prophesy

Friendly Face Posts: 304 **6/16/06 7:30 am**

That's what he said....

"I would that ye all..." "All" means all and he even repeated it:

1 Cor 14:31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

Paul thought that all Christians should be Spirit-filled and that all should operate in the gift of tongues and that all should prophesy.

And Paul does make a distinction between the use of tongues in the congregation and tongues for personal use. He states that there are "diversities of tongues."

1Co 12:28 - And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Paul also makes it clear that while all Christians should speak in tongues, it is not in order for all to speak in tongues in the congregation.

1Co 14:23 - If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
_________________
The way of Salvation is simple, but it is not easy.

Golf Cart Mafia Associate Posts: 2160 **6/16/06 12:52 pm**

Fascinating discussion, brother's and sisters! I believe my own thinking has undergone a bit of a transformation on this subject as a result of this excellent discussion.

Instead of and either/or dichtomy on this, I now am more leaning towards a synergistic view of this, not unlike salvation from an early-church and Arminian way of looking at things. We may think we can in fact speak in tongues at will, and experience does seem to bear this out, but the fact is, if our speaking in tongues is truly "as the Spirit gives the ability/utterance" then it cannot be true at any time that it is "just us" who is doing it.

Whenever we truly speak in divinely inspired tongues, yes, it is we who choose to speak in tongues, but not apart from the Holy Spirit's leading of us to do so.

Of course, this leaves out altogether the question of simply speaking gibberish of our own making, which some Pentecostals even do as a kind of joke, as in, "You-tie-my-bowtie-who-stole-my-Honda?" I don't think anyone would try to argue that that sort of thing as truly of the Holy Spirit.
_________________
"Of course we are concerned about people voting if they are dead," George Stanton, chief information officer for the New York State Board of Elections. Poughkeepsie Journal, October 29, 2006

Acts-perienced Poster Posts: 11849 **6/16/06 10:09 pm**

Golf Cart Mafia Associate Posts: 2160 **6/17/06 2:53 pm**

Interesting point, Link! My first thought is that I really don't know if we can sharply delineate between the Holy Spirit leading a person to do something and the Holy Spirit enabling them to do that same thing. Would the Spirit of God lead someone to do something without supply the necessary power to do so? Would He enable someone to do something (in the sense of Acts 2 "as the Spirit gave them the ability" ) and not at the same time lead the person to do it?
_________________
"Of course we are concerned about people voting if they are dead," George Stanton, chief information officer for the New York State Board of Elections. Poughkeepsie Journal, October 29, 2006

Question

Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1441 **6/17/06 3:45 pm**

Is there a difference between the Holy Spirit giving the utterance, and the Holy Spirit giving the ability?
_________________
On Target!!

Re: Question

Golf Cart Mafia Associate Posts: 2160 **6/17/06 3:49 pm**