sorry it´s off topic, maybe. Does the following state unequivocally that there is such thing as a private prayer language and a public unknown language that needs translating? 1 Cor 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. Q. Why does he not speak unto men? A. for no man understandeth him. Q. When Paul says `for no man understandeth him`is it clear that Paul intended to include the speaker as well? A. It is not clear. There are two classes we must discern here. The speaker, and the hearers. To reword the question, did Paul intend to include the speaker with the hearers? A. This is not clear. It can be equally and successfully argued that the speaker knew what he was saying, but that no man understands him, in the same way that I could speak another language in a setting and in common speech say that no man understands me. I would be only meaning that the HEARERS could not understand, without intending to include myself among the hearers. Next, He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. Q. Why or how does the man that speaks in an untranslated language only edifying himself? A. Because he understands what he is saying, but nobody else does. Q. Must we conclude that the speaker did not understand what he was saying? A. No, because edification of the church depends on intelligible speech. It follows that if the speaker is to derive edification from his speech, then it too must be intelligible to himself. Next, 17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. Q. How does Paul know the speaker is giving thanks? A. Because the speaker knew he himself was giving thanks. This is why Paul told him to speak with a fruitful understanding. Q. Is the speaker in an untranslated language in verse 17-23 the same individual Paul laments as only edifying himself in verse 2? A. It appears to be. It can be argued as such. Q. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. Do we have enough evidence to conclude this is talking about a `public tongue`and not at all to a private prayer language? A. No. Paul is clear that the goal of the gifts is NOT private edification, but edification for the church. There are to be no uninterpreted languages. It can be succesfully argued from the passages without taking away from the verses that almost the entire chapter was intended to correct those who were giving thanks, blessing, etc in uninterpreted languages. Q. Is it uncontroverible that these passages teach the existence of and a difference between a private and a public untranslated language which the speaker has never learned? No. Since the passages are capable of another interpretation that is equally and arguably better suited to the internal evidence of the text, then to establish a doctrine that there were commonly spoken untranslated languages as a gift is potentially divisive and is possible to be incorrect. Q. How should Christians approach the issue? With an open mind and a teachable spirit without defending a position in a spirit of fanaticism or a party spirit.
Posted on: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 02:01:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015