First time I've seen this in church, EVER

[EagerBeaver]

I posted on my blog about a phenomenon that occurred in church last night. Read the full story here:

http://www.chris-brewer.com/2008/01/21/ ... thing-jra/

Basically what happened was after worship, someone spoke in tongues, another interpreted...and lo and behold, one of the members of the pastoral team actually admonished everyone to pray about the word that was given and match it up with Scripture before applying it to their lives.

I think that's the first time I've ever seen such an admonishment in church. Instead of taking the "word from the Holy Spirit" and running with it, they actually test it first.

Why isn't that done in more of our churches, and more specifically, in the COGOP?

[panhandler]

Wow! Uncommon Wisdom!

[Gerald Creasy]

Seems like I've seen this happen...maybe ONCE in 45 years of church going.

I did see Imapk & moregodlessme's dad rebuke a kid with false tounges, once.

Usually I've seen Pastors or Speakers rush to the next part of the service if a "bad" interpretation happens.

[teach]

that is really great. It's good to know that someone out there is doing something wise.

wendy k

[paul]

Sounds kind of scriptural to me 1 Cor 14:5 1 Cor 14:27-30 Should be standard practice in any church.

[EagerBeaver]

So this delves into an even greater topic -- should self-interpretation be allowed or is someone else required to interpret?

I lean heavily toward a second person needing to interpret, based especially on Paul's scripture reference in the last comment.

[RamboPreacher]

So this delves into an even greater topic -- should self-interpretation be allowed or is someone else required to interpret?

I lean heavily toward a second person needing to interpret, based especially on Paul's scripture reference in the last comment.

I believe that Paul taught that primary responsibility of interpretation is to the one that brought the initial tongues message:
http://www.jude2.com/viewtopic.php?t=8351
(page 3)

[Full Quiver]

proper order is more than one participant

[EagerBeaver]

RP, I read your whitepaper and it brought up some very good points. Very well thought out and scripturally based. However IMHO I believe you are missing out on a key argument:

Why did Paul say that he who speaks should pray that he interpret (v. 13) but then go on to say that "one" must interpret (v. 27). Assuming "one" meaning anyone in the church other than the speaker, as seems to be the accepted connotation. It sounds a little contradictory to me, but I think that this means the one who speaks the tongue can interpret but he MUST be backed up by someone else.

The verbiage in verse 13 leads me to believe it is not a necessity that the very person who spoke the tongue interpret that word that was given through him. But upon further reading you clearly see the verbiage in future verses states that it is imperative someone -- anyone -- must interpret, or the initial tongue-speaker MUST be silent.

Any thoughts?

[teach]

out of curiosity and again showing ignorance, what does IMHO mean?

wendy k

[Pastor Gary]

out of curiosity and again showing ignorance, what does IMHO mean?

In My Humble Opinion

[pitts47150]

Thanks Teach for asking that. I was wondering what it meant to.

[RamboPreacher]

proper order is more than one participant

I mostly disagree, based on how I (and many others) read Paul's teaching to the Corinthians.

RP, I read your whitepaper and it brought up some very good points. Very well thought out and scripturally based. However IMHO I believe you are missing out on a key argument:

Why did Paul say that he who speaks should pray that he interpret (v. 13) but then go on to say that "one" must interpret (v. 27). Assuming "one" meaning anyone in the church other than the speaker, as seems to be the accepted connotation. It sounds a little contradictory to me, but I think that this means the one who speaks the tongue can interpret but he MUST be backed up by someone else.

The verbiage in verse 13 leads me to believe it is not a necessity that the very person who spoke the tongue interpret that word that was given through him. But upon further reading you clearly see the verbiage in future verses states that it is imperative someone -- anyone -- must interpret, or the initial tongue-speaker MUST be silent.

Any thoughts?

posted my reply in the doctrine forum - here's the quote:

your final point is where I think is the issue as far as interpretation goes. If there is no "interpreter, the tongue-talker should be silent. there MUST be an interpretation, so the onus falls initially and primarily, as I believe Paul was emphasizing - to the tongue-talker (TT). I don't think he is saying that it must be that person, but I believe that Paul was trying to get across that there should be some accountability in that area.

I guess how I see it, is that I believe Paul also had a problem with all the "tongue-talkin'" folk, that were simply trying to be spiritual. emotional-babbling, as has been referred in other scholarly circles. in that kind of paradigm, they have no concern for the interpretation and therefor the edification that is supposed to be going on. the concern is inward, or egotistical, if you will. by proclaiming a "word" in tongues, the Corinthians were, as I understand, trying to out-do each others spirituality; and were not concerned with order, nor of the edification of those around them.

so, as I see it, Paul put an accountability back on the TT. If they are "really" "in the spirit", then there will be an interpreter available, and that the TT should pray for the interpretation themselves as a primary "owner"/bringer of the message.

Further, Paul puts a limit on that activity. I believe that if someone TT, and there is no interpretation, a second TT message is out of order before an interpretation happens. Further, there should only be a few of these messages and interpretations at total in any given defined service (again, as I believe Paul was teaching in that limitation phraseology on this topic).

[Brenda]

The verbiage in verse 13 leads me to believe it is not a necessity that the very person who spoke the tongue interpret that word that was given through him. But upon further reading you clearly see the verbiage in future verses states that it is imperative someone -- anyone -- must interpret, or the initial tongue-speaker MUST be silent.

Any thoughts?

I agree with you.
I do believe that when God gives out a message it is to benefit the church. I don't think God does anything for no reason.

Also, I believe that when a message is given out that there is an interpreter for that message. Now, the problem is, is the person God gives the interpretation going to obey the spirit and give it.
I've heard people say that they were to give the interpertation but didn't. Then they felt very bad afterwards. But the reason they didn't, was, they felt they would be acting within themselves. I think this is a way the enemy tries to over ride what God wants to do.

I heard one devout Christian lady say, that sometimes the interpretation comes to her one word at a time.
I've never heard her give the message in tongues only the interpretation.

[teach]

Thanks Teach for asking that. I was wondering what it meant to.

your welcome!

and thanks PG for the info!

wendy k