I Cor 12 - 14

[WordWolf]

Raf I've never been arguing with you to change your mind. I'm simply defending my faith, which the further we go along this route is more under attack by more and more people, and those who share my beliefs are withholding themselves from the argument. There's an equal number of votes on both sides on the poll, yet I am the only one defending this position.

What people are "attacking" (debating or discussing)

is a rather specific thing-

whether or not modern SIT and Biblical SIT are the same thing,

and, in Doctrinal, whether they could be or if it is possible

currently to HAVE Biblical SIT.

Really, is your faith entirely centered around that? Lots of healthy

Christians with deep faith disagree with you.

As for numbers in the poll, they don't distinguish between twi'ers who

are still in who vote, ex-twi'ers who think vpw was the Right Hand of

God, people who refuse to consider at all, and those who are open to

changing their mind if there's a reason. The original phrasing was

likely to influence people AGAINST the idea anything changed because it

was abrasive, AND the whole subject, as you can see, is controversial to

the ex-twi communities.

With all that, the votes say 50% of people logged in and voting have

changed their minds. I suppose it's possible someone's just reacting

to hatred of vpw, but none of the POSTERS have cited that as a reason.

They THOUGHT and CONCLUDED they were wrong before.

[chockfull]

Really, is your faith entirely centered around that? Lots of healthy

Christians with deep faith disagree with you.

Dude, give it a rest. You've won. My faith is between me and God and with the extent it's been under attack by you and others recently I'm not really interested in sharing it with you at this point in time. I'm sure you all will have plenty to say about it being illogical and not in accordance with scientific knowledge. I disagree.

Carry on.

[WordWolf]

Dude, give it a rest. You've won. My faith is between me and God and with the extent it's been under attack by you and others recently I'm not really interested in sharing it with you at this point in time. I'm sure you all will have plenty to say about it being illogical and not in accordance with scientific knowledge. I disagree.

Carry on.

The thing with that, chockfull,

is that, sooner or later, you'll come across NEW things that won't fit so well.

Some verse you never read in Habakkuk or something, some new manuscript,

some new information, scientific or not.

That's when you have to decide whether to chuck the whole thing out

(which I wouldn't but some people have), to hide from the new thing

(there's some Christians out there with deep faith but shallow education)

or to INCORPORATE IT and ADJUST your theology

(that's what I do when new information comes in.)

I don't count myself to have gotten there and grabbed it all any more than

Paul did. However, I do keep trying to learn more. I find it leads to a

DEEPER faith if I have a DEEPER understanding. Then, when I eventually make

a "leap of faith", it's over a much shorter distance.

[WordWolf]

I don't find it logical that "no man understands" could mean a "normative" definition in a worship setting yet magically something different in a lab setting. That is so contrived of a definition it's laughable.

My first thought was "he couldn't be serious".

I'm not going to debate scriptures with you on this topic. I don't think you have much scriptural backing for your position at all. A translation of a single word "glossa" and a contrived definition to fit your desire to test it in a lab.

Trying to copy the STYLE of my or Raf's posts doesn't mean your posts will

carry the same meaning. They certainly won't have the same sincerity, and readers

will know that.

And once again, you've misrepresented and oversimplified what Raf said.

If that's all you got from him, no wonder you disagree.

Raf would disagree with that one, too.

And all I see happening over time with me defending my faith is those on the other side of the argument are getting whipped up more and more into a frenzy. This is crazy and stupid. It can't be mentally healthy. And it certainly is so far off the admonitions in I Cor. 12-14 about the one body it's not funny. Any insight we are gaining into other aspects of those verses are in my opinion completely overshadowed by the violation of all of our behavior when comparing it against the same section of scripture.

So you, WordWolf, waysider, geisha - all of you can now have your victory dance. I concede. You've won the argument. After all, that's what's most important to you. It certainly isn't logic, learning, or compassion towards other Christians.

I've gotten a lot from the discussion. I know Raf did too- he now has a much broader

grasp of the subject, and understands more. I didn't approach it AT ALL until the thread.

I expect others can say the same-

and we're still waiting for Mark S to come back with something cool.

(I am, at least.)

And saying you're done but taking potshots at the rest of us isn't being done.

We approached this logically and systematically, I learned, and I expect that

other Christians have been gaining a lot by lurking- which I did for most of the discussion.

We also asked nicely to tone the discussion down before moderation came in-

we're not strangers to compassion or manners.

But, hey, if you have to make us out as villains to get through the day, so be it.

I certainly can't stop you.

[Raf]

Actually, WordWolf, my belief on what glossa is is rather consistent. It is a language in a worship setting whether anyone there understands it or not (and it's certainly possible someone could understand it [Acts 2], Biblically. It just wasn't the norm). And it's a language when it's done in any other setting. It's always a language. My view is wholly consistent.

It is the alternate view that "magically" changes glossa into non-language whenever anyone unbiased is listening. I guess it's fair game now to call another person's interpretation of scripture "laughable." So I will do so here: the notion that SIT is language when no unbiased researcher is listening, but magically becomes non-language when a linguist is looking into its veracity, based on a verse that is talking about something else entirely... is laughable.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Raf

[socks]

You're mis representing what I wrote Raf - and you're supporting my decision to not participate in this discussion, which I'm about to resume.

I've already stated I didn't post what I did to convince anyone it was true - it is but that's a useless fact to anyone here other than me.

You've stated that while you will accept that I'm writing what I believe to be true - you can't reasonably accept that it is what actually happened. I may have thought that it occurred the way I describe it but it may not have been what I believe it was.

What sucks is you paint my incident in a way that isn't true to what I wrote when you state -

the notion that SIT is language when anonymous people drop in from Asia and disappear, never to be heard from again, but magically becomes non-language when a linguist is looking into its veracity, based on a verse that is talking about something else entirely

You're denigrating what I wrote, which I wrote in the spirit of meekness. That's over now. I didn't present that to support the notion you're proposing - I stated I believe that it may fit into an interpretation of New Testament records of SIT's where the records of people speaking in a current human language they didn't know, in group settings, may illustrate a miraculous nature to those instances, and one that isn't constant or consistent in all instance of SIT's.

That isn't convenient or a way to BS an interpretation that I want out of the Bible - it's one of many possible interpretations.

Do me a favor - leave me out from now on. I'm sorry I got involved, not because I don't like debating, thinking, or being challenged -

Oh no - that's not the reason -

Rather, it's a dead end debate for me and I'm not going to get much out of it. Maybe another time. I'll come prepared for the long haul when I do.

Either way, take this in the spirit with which it's being written = :)/>/>

[Raf]

In keeping with Socks' request, I have removed my reference to his story from my post.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Raf

[socks]

Thanks, I wish I had something more meaningful to contribute. If I come up with any deal breakers or makers I'll be sure to put them here but don't hold your breath anyone. There's nothing that hasn't already been pointed out here or referred to that I can think of. It's certainly been discussed vigorously. Maybe God will initiate a mass tongues and interpretation festival where everyone speaking will translate into common understandable language the current Tax Code, in whole and non stop till April 15, 2029. That would be truly miraculous. Or conversely a "Stop That" Event in the Vatican where the Pope will speak with a glowing screeching dove hovering over his helmet providing indisputable proof that doves do cry but they don't speak in tongues. Or something. God's a big Detail Guy, I'll leave them up to him, but if He needs my suggestions I'm ready.

[chockfull]

Thanks, I wish I had something more meaningful to contribute. If I come up with any deal breakers or makers I'll be sure to put them here but don't hold your breath anyone. There's nothing that hasn't already been pointed out here or referred to that I can think of. It's certainly been discussed vigorously. Maybe God will initiate a mass tongues and interpretation festival where everyone speaking will translate into common understandable language the current Tax Code, in whole and non stop till April 15, 2029. That would be truly miraculous. Or conversely a "Stop That" Event in the Vatican where the Pope will speak with a glowing screeching dove hovering over his helmet providing indisputable proof that doves do cry but they don't speak in tongues. Or something. God's a big Detail Guy, I'll leave them up to him, but if He needs my suggestions I'm ready.

Hahaha. It seems to me that man is trying to mimic God's performance at the tower of Babel with the Tax Code!!!! And for your "Stop That" event, if there is indisputable proof that doves cry, does that mean the artist formerly named Prince will be performing?

[socks]

Prince might have the cookies on tongues, he's certainly qualified to have ecstatic experience if that counts for anything.

:biglaugh:/>

[cman]

Interpretation is in the ear, not the mouth.

[spectrum49]

Is 1 Corinthians 14:4 an instruction, a passing comment, or a commendable endeavor? Or . . . . is it smack dab in the middle of correction and juxtaposed to the demeanor that Paul wanted the Corinthians to adopt, one more in line with the spirit of the gospel?

Paul, starts out in his letter, hoping to again share the true heart of the gospel with this church, but, before he can get to that he has to confront all kinds of craziness. 14 chapters worth! This immature church was off the wall. Corinth was a wealthy port city with an influx of foreigners and a very large and multifaceted Pagan population with an influential culture. They were in the church. Before Paul gets to the gospel, he has to tackle the Corinthian's worldliness, sexual immorality, lawsuits, idol worship and Pagan sacrifice, the marked difference between the rich and poor, their disgraceful behavior at the communion table. Also he had to address their absolute love of making a spectacle of themselves in the assembly by trying to outdo each other in a display of the fantastic. .

In chapter 13, Paul gives us that wonderful synopsis of what love is and what love is not. I notice that this comes on the heels of his dealing with the diversity of spiritual gifts and what unity in diversity means. Paul cuts like a knife through self-centeredness and self-seeking, and then he keeps hammering away at this theme. The phrase "One another" is used more frequently here in Corinthians than anywhere else in the NT. There is a reason for that. These believers were fond of exhibition and self aggrandizement. Many were seeking after tongues. Paul explains that not everyone has the same gift.

The ironic thing, is that this church didn't lack in spiritual gifts....it was a highly gifted church.

When Paul begins his synopsis on genuine vs counterfeit love......He starts out speaking about the tongues of men and angels. Where did that come from? No one was speaking angels tongues in Acts? I, and others believe, that the Corinthians, who were a carnal and ego based group were making "one up ya" claims and raising the bar to claim they also spoke the language of angels. Paul is taking those claims and turning them right back on them. If I speak in angels tongues or mans tongues.....it doesn't mean a thing if I don't have love. He does this with prophecy....if I understand ALL mysteries, ALL knowledge, ALL faith, so that I can move mountains....If I donate ALL my goods and give my body to be burned even...I gain nothing without the proper attitude of love.

Paul is not claiming he actually speaks in the tongues of angels anymore than he is claiming he has ALL knowledge, ALL faith, or understands ALL mysteries. Later on he writes that we see through a glass darkly. He is saying that even if they reached the pinnacle of knowledge, wisdom, tongues and so on....it amounts to nothing without love. He tells them that.....love is not boastful....it doesn't seek its own. It doesn't act improperly. He tells them that their prophecies are going to end...their tongues are going to cease, and when that which is perfect comes along......the partial will cease altogether

They had seriously lost their focus.

Paul is reading them the riot act in a loving way, and this is all correction. One would think, that would be enough to get his point across, but he keeps going. He wants them to desire gifts.....but, to what end?

Why would he want them to desire prophecy? Because everyone was claiming their turn at the microphone for exhibition.(I think this is where counterfeit comes in BTW.) Great, everyone has a tongue, but no interpreters. Tongues were only building up the people speaking them but, he addressed what they are without love...nothing!! They were self-gratifying...I mean edifying. It was an ego based edification.

Paul was encouraging them to desire benefit for everyone....he was pleading with them. He tells them, since no one understands what someone is saying when they SIT....they are speaking a mystery. It is all Greek to me. Only God understood them. It is not that they were speaking some deep mysteries to God.....what good with that do the person SIT? He doesn't understand and it isn't doing God any favors....nothing is a mystery to Him. It is not speaking of some spiritual body building. And I believe this for many reasons.....one being that all believers are commanded to be filled with the HS, but not all believers SIT. We are filled and strengthened by God's grace and mercy.

Paul juxtaposes the two attitudes....self...which he has been tackling right along....and love and desire to benefit the body. Others. One another....a body. An attitude that runs in line with the spirit of the gospel......a desire to encourage, edify, or console the church. Later on, he likens SIT without an interpreter for intelligible speech, to speaking into the air. That is a radical departure from speaking deep mysteries to God. Whistling in the wind. . . . . . It comes right back to you.

Scripture does say that that he who speaks in a tongue builds himself up, that is not a lie, but then Paul immediately compares this to the better gift and speaker which builds up the church. Which attitude is he promoting? What is he pleading with them to seek? Self edification by showing off and building their ego or the desire to use a gift to benefit others? I am thinking 14:4 wasn't a command, or a laudable act....but rather a problem. The edification came because they were using their gift, but it meant nothing as they were seeking their own....because that is not love and without love it is empty.....void.

I didn't use "IMO", or "I think" as much as I should have, but please, insert them wherever you like. This is how I read these verses....in light of the correction of gross error and the heart of the gospel Paul is really wanting to share with them. He finally gets there in 15.

Someone will mention prayer in the spirit....and oddly enough....I have a take on that too! If you read this entire post....I salute you.

Hi geisha779 ---

Nice post!

This may be a little outdated, since I just now began to read this topic and its threads. But thus far, I have something to comment upon about your post here....a poem I wrote long ago....which (of course) is still timely information. I hope you enjoy it. (I will be continuing to read this topic and I may comment again later on.)

Something Worth Giving

by Melvin W. Elliott - 1975

Is there something worth giving you can give to a friend?

Do it now while he's living; do not wait till the end.

Though one's mind holds all mysteries, knowledge and faith,

His deeds won't be history without love; there's no trace.

While bestowing one's treasures to feeding the poor,

He can give without measure, yet one thing is sure:

Even giving his life for a great, noble cause

Will profit him nothing; without God's love it's lost.

Charity is giving God's love to mankind,

And it's given with cheerfulness; it's not hard to find.

So study His Word and share to begin,

And you'll see that God's charity is right there within.

Whatever you do for God, do it with might!

And share it with charity; fight the good fight.

So give what's worth giving; God's keeping the score;

So that now and in heaven you'll receive your rewards.

Spec :)/>

Edited March 3, 2013 by spectrum49

[Freelancer]

Prince might have the cookies on tongues, he's certainly qualified to have ecstatic experience if that counts for anything.

:biglaugh:/>/>

No SITing here, but he does perform a miracle at 6:10. IMO, he is AMAZING (and I'm a 61 yr old "white girl")

[spectrum49]

Twinky:

Forgive the "late post", as I am just now beginning to read this topic, and have a comment concerning your question:

What does 1 Cor 12:11 mean? "...dividing to every man severally as He [he?] will."

And this whole passage is mixed up with that heteros/allos (alleged) difference that VPW claimed.

(And for you Wiewillites, I'm not interested in the PFAL "definition" - I'm interested in what a serious Biblical scholar or professor thinks this means.)

One of the keys in this verse is the word "severally", which is the Greek word idios. All but two usages render it as "one's own, his own, her own, it's own", etc. The other is in 2Pet 1:20…

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private [idios: "one's own"] interpretation."

This makes perfect sense here --- but look what happens in 1Co 12:11, when it is rendered properly…

"But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally [idios: "his own"] as he will."

Grammatically speaking, it is now clear that it means "as the man wills" ---…dividing to every man his own as he wills. As a matter of fact, we get our English word "idiosyncrasy" from idios. (This is in opposition to the many Bible versions which render "he" as "He", etc - referring to God, and not the man himself!)

Now --- because of TWI's influence --- I had supposed the word "will" refers to our believing, in accordance with each of the "9 evidences" (or perhaps the "one manifestation", as to how these all seem to work together as a unit.) But I believe I see even clearer now that it is not referring to our believing for such things to be manifested.

Another key in this verse is the word for "wills" --- boulomai. This does indeed refer to our intellect, including our affections and desires, and our own particular way of doing things. A good rendering would be that it's merely what one is "inclined to do", which makes him a bit different than everyone else. And this is also consistent with idios, as both of these Greek words refer to one's own particular way of doing things, or "idiosyncrasies".

Now, we must also remember that it is God (not the man!) who "worketh" [energeo: "energizes"] these "spiritual evidences". This is most apparent while observing the "triple reflexive" of "the one and self-same Spirit."

Putting it together: God is the only one who energizes these aspects (evidences) of a believer's gift of holy spirit. And he does this "as the man is inclined" to have it so. He works with us individually and personally according to how we think, and never oversteps our desires or intentions. That is how he reveals things of the spirit to us --- by that which He knows we can relate to!

For instance, he can do this by using the lyrics to a favorite song of ours, or a recent experience, or any number of things in our lives - according to the way we think --- by that which He knows we will recognize, and make some sense out of.

Now TWI would have us to suppose WE are willing those things to happen, as though WE are doing the energizing --- which WE ARE NOT! One case in point is what they teach from Act 8:6..."And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he [Philip] did."

From here, they go on about how Philip himself had determined to do the miracles --- on demand, as it were! And then by this example, they attempt to teach believers about performing "all nine all the time", when we have absolutely nothing to do with the "energizing" of those things into evidence, "as the man wills".

For instance, we don't get into a situation where we suppose a miracle is needed, and then attempt to bring one to pass, just because we think that's what God wants. I believe this is where TWI failed. However, if a miracle is needed, we can rely upon God to energize one for us, as we believe. (For now, I am just trying to be simple concerning something which is truly far more complex.)

And, just who is to tell what else may be involved while that miracle is coming to pass in the senses realm? Surely, WOW and WOK, and DOS, and Faith, and perhaps Healings are also taking place. And just who in the heck should be analyzing each "step of that process" which God himself is energizing? For that is impossible to know. Most times, we merely look back after the thing is done, and try to figure what might have happened.

But TWI seems to think we are "in control" of that entire process. To them it's sort of like this: "Well - I need a miracle. So I will speak in tongues to energize my spirit." (But remember, it is God who does the energizing!) "OK, now that is done I think I need some word of knowledge about the situation, so I will just believe, and look for some of that next, and then some word of wisdom as to how I might carry that out. And I will also be sure to be operating discerning of spirits, just in case something might be there to thwart my efforts. And I will look for that, if it is present. And then, somehow, I will just operate faith, and that should do the trick - I will make that miracle happen."

In the above scenario, most times nothing happens because God simply will not energize it for someone who thinks like that, wanting to take credit for himself - that he did it by operating the gift himself. If God energized the spirit like that for everyone, he himself would be promoting error and wrong practice in the lives of his children. And soon, God's spiritual intent would be totally out of control, having been put into the hands of men!

And, if something does happen when believers act in that manner and frame of mind, you can be almost sure that it's the adversary who has been allowed to produce that "lying sign or wonder", just to give credence to their flawed process, and thereby queering what God really wanted. And then the person doing it will openly give credit to God for what his enemy has done. Such a pity!

More easily put, yes - we do the works of Jesus Christ. But we do not determine what they are, or when, or how they will be done. Even Jesus Christ himself did not do that: Jn 5:19..."Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."

When we see God working in a situation, we continue acting on it while God himself is bringing something spiritual to pass, as we allow it. You might say we are merely allowing him to do his own work. A good friend of mine here at GreaseSpot (Tom) put it this way:

God is energizing; you are following his energizing. Even if your following is inspired you speak and act in immediate synch with God's leading, and you are still acting as Jesus said, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." (Jn 5:17, two verses previous to the above quote).

I hope this clears some things up a little bit. I will continue reading this Topic. (Perhaps I have merely repeated other things said later in the threads to follow.)

Spec

Edited March 3, 2013 by spectrum49

[spectrum49]

I hope I haven't given you the wrong impression, geisha. The Lord has confirmed for me through my Coptic brother and friend in Christ that He is perfectly capable of teaching each of His people exactly what that person needs to know in order to do the job He has for her or him, in terms that person will understand, whether that person has access to a Bible or not.

Hey Steve: As I am continuing to read this Topic (now in Oct 2012), I see my most recent post (just above) is confirmed by this quote of yours.

I believe you are on the right track, my friend!

I have no doubt in my mind, geisha, that you are exactly where God wants you to be, and you are doing the job He wants you to do, and you are receiving every bit as much direction from Him as anybody else ever has.

And you, geisha, just by being yourself, and doing the things you believe the Lord has called you to do, and saying the things you believe the Lord has called you to say, are serving God faithfully and offering irreplacable support for my effort. I can love you because I know the Lord loves me, and He loves you, and He wants me to love you, too!

And I am sure Geisha779 appreciates your words of encouragement as well! I thank you for that.

Regards,

Spec

Edited March 3, 2013 by spectrum49

[spectrum49]

Does it? Wierwille's angst over "he" referring to the Spirit is about what most charismatics have trouble with. Why would God play favorites?

But underlying, we know God is no respecter of persons and we also know that God respects freedom of will. So what if the translation is better of "he" the Spirit, and that the understanding is God helps those to pursue spiritual gifts they are interested in?

There are lots of possibilities outside of Wierwille's shoddy Greek work.

You seem very close, chockfull. But do see my (recent) previous post showing that "he" does indeed refer to the man. And yes, your conclusion seems accurate, despite your mistake in grammar.

Spec

[spectrum49]

It does say to desire gifts. Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. I think we could desire gifts for the purpose of edification of the body and if it is His will He would grant them or Paul is saying change your attitude. I can see both ways. Which one fits in more with the context?

Chockfull, when you say God respects freedom of will.....I am not sure what that means? People always say that and I don't really see that articulated as a theme in scripture. I kind of see the opposite....it is His will that matters. Not because He is a bully, but because He is righteous. Right. I never really understood the freedom of will thing. I don't see it.

Geisha779,

Maybe what I have recently written is clearing up this "freedom of will" thing for you.

I am continuing to respond to the posts in this Topic...this one was in response to your post #49...I only wish I had been involved in this Topic as it was being discussed. Please forgive me all. I'm trying to "catch up".

Spec :)/>

Edited March 3, 2013 by spectrum49

[spectrum49]

WOW!

I have just finished reading the threads in this topic. (Actually, I ended up just scanning most of it, after I saw where it was going.)

I have foregone commenting further concerning the topic (about "languages", "SIT", "tongues", etc) --- mainly because of the tone involved as it progressed into an "argument of sorts", for which even a MOD needed to become involved.

Although (at first) many interesting ideas were brought up about "SIT" etc, somewhere a horrible storm was allowed to develop! And whatever may have been edifying among the posts seems to have been lost among the storm's accompanying raging winds.

And as a result, I agree with neither side of that portion of the debate.

I suppose that somewhere or other a wonderful principle has been overlooked, which ALL KNEW, but chose to disregard:

Pr 17:10 A reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fool.

Pr 20:3 It is an honour for a man to cease from strife: but every fool will be meddling.

It is obvious that the participants in that "struggle" should each have realized that neither side was going to yield any time soon! It would have been better if either had decided to just forebear instead of letting it continue to no avail.

Pr 17:14 The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water: therefore leave off contention, before it be meddled with.

According to the above verse, such things are easily noticed --- just like when one has to "take a leak", so to speak. Now, we all know that such a thing may be stopped easily at first. But if it is not, then it must continue its course through to completion. Stopping such a thing once it has developed becomes very difficult (and maybe even painful) to do.

So --- Let's try to remember this principle in the future --- before another "pi**ing contest" ensues again. :)/>

OK?

Spec

Edited March 3, 2013 by spectrum49

[Raf]

Thanks, Spectrum.

[spectrum49]

Thanks, Spectrum.

Raf - You are most welcome!

I call 'em like I see 'em, and I try to be fair to all (even mixing in a bit of humor here and there to "make light" of the errors) with the hope that all will see just how silly we humans can act at times, even though we do know better.

According to James 4:1, all the wars that ever happened began with the tongue - by mere words - which developed into arguments and rage, etc.

Ja 4:1

From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?

Ja 3:6, 16

And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell. - For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.

Yes --- sadly we did see that among the posts in this topic of great importance.

However, the next two verses reveal a most astonishing and perfectly ordered structure! (So do consider each word and phrase deeply!)

17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

Whether or not someone believes that wisdom from above, it is nonetheless first pure. If such a thing is communicated properly, it will be as "Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you." (Titus 2:8). It just makes so much sense that nobody can honestly refute it! People will usually either believe it or just walk away, having nothing good to say.

But even for those who do accept that wisdom, it may still take a while for it to fully settle in. (After it makes even more sense to them, it eventually does become peaceable.)

And even later (when the finer details are seen) it will actually become gentle, and easy to be intreated. At this stage, it has now become so plain to see that one may wonder just what all the trouble was with it at first, while that wisdom still seemed somewhat strange!

(Then, we might just look back and laugh at ourselves for acting so silly before we really saw the truth concerning it! Remember - it was indeed pure at first.)

But now that it has come full circle (that is, the listener agrees fully with the one who first spoke the wisdom from above) it is full of mercy. Whatever may have transpired at first is not punishable - all of that has been overlooked and graciously forgiven.

And (next in line) it is also full of good fruits. Many good things will come of this, now that it is understood enough to be utilized in someone's own personal life - and in his ministry toward others.

Next, it is without partiality, and without hypocrisy. It should be freely imparted to ALL, irregardless of who they may be, because God wishes everyone to learn of and apply his wisdom from above, for he is no "respecter of persons" (Eph 6:9b). He does not play favorites.

Finally, we see how that wisdom is to be imparted: The good fruits resulted because of the manner in which their seeds were originally planted - in peace, by those who desire peace: "And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace." (James 3:18)

As long as our true motive is to make peace, our intentions are admirable in God's eyes. We just cannot force feed people. If they are unwilling to listen, then perhaps what you are trying to feed them with is not yet to their liking.

So act with kindness by either letting the little matter go and excusing yourself graciously, or perhaps enquire further of the individual that you may discover what you have that he is hungry for - and feed him that instead. Now, that's being a gracious host!

If people are to change their minds on something, there is only one way to do it:

Ro 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness [Gr: chrestotes, meaning gentleness] of God leadeth thee to repentance?

People will only repent (change) when we encourage them gently, with a heart of peace.

Spec :)/>

Edited April 17, 2013 by spectrum49

[WordWolf]

Bumped up for those interested in re-discussing this.

[TLC]

How familiar are you with Autistic Spectrum Disorder, Geisha, what the Diagnostic Standards Manual formerly called Asperger's Syndrome?

Love,

Steve

Huhn.

Second time this oddity has appeared in the last couple of days.

Could it possibly be the result of projecting?

Guess I'll have to think about it.

[TLC]

The idea of "tongues of angels" is entirely speculative, since it is not defined in the Bible and only presented as a hypothetical in I Cor. 13:1. We cannot assume that spirit beings require a system of communication that is literally like human communication. When God talks to Gabriel and Michael, does He use words? Does my brain use words when it communicates with my hands to type on this keyboard? Fact of the matter is, we have no idea how angels communicate, and this verse does not answer that question.

Okay, ya stirred me with that one. As odd as it might seem, I think you actually touched on something much closer to the truth (as I see it) than you realize. (However, it could just as easily spin out of control and fly off on a tangent.)

Just how does God (or spirit) operate or work within a man? (Perhaps it's much easier to say how He doesn't.) Not knowing how much time or thought some here may have already given this, or what the more common thinking here might be on this, it's hard for me to say much on it. However, I'll say this. It's not via some language that's known or recognized as some bona fide language by some linguistic expert.

So... considering what SIT was for the apostle Paul... how do you suppose that it got into his head and brain that it ended up coming out of his mouth as some such language?

In other words, where did the "legitimate" SIT that was in the church in the first century initially come from? If from spirit... what spirit? Moreover, how is said spirit "connected" to or able to communicate with the neural network of the brain, that caused the formulation of a language there? (Some will undoubtedly say this is hogwash, and impossible to know. But, I happen to think there may be more in the scriptures that addresses or alludes to how spirit works within the mind than some of you know or realize.)

If the connection of said spirit to the mind of man is not by or with an authentic language (as some here claim that is the only real SIT referred to in scripture), then why suppose that it is only via an authentic language that the mind of man connects to spirit?

[TLC]

There are at least 3 propositions.

A) Modern SIT seems to not resemble Biblical SIT and does not seem to be supernatural at all, unlike Biblical SIT.

B) God's Power in the lives of Christians no longer applies entirely.

C) Supernatural things happen all the time, and demonic demonstrations of power are very common.

Hmmm...

I'm actually inclined to think that the name "PFAL" might be tweaked a bit off course from the direction Paul wanted to go.

After all, what are the fundamental reasons for even demonstrating God's Power?

Israel seeks a sign, yes? Well, God gave them plenty, starting with Moses. How'd they respond to them? Not so good.

(But that's a long and hairy issue in and off itself, that I really don't have time here to delve into here.)

That said, I disagree with A, don't care a wit for the wording of B, and slightly agree with C.

(But can't figure out where you mught think that puts me in relation to much else of what you said.)

[TLC]

Bumped up for those interested in re-discussing this.

Hadn't seen this thread before WW.

Just for the record (not to prove or disprove anything), I have heard in years past (early years in the ministry) what sounded to me like some number of very beautiful languages in "believers meetings." No, sure can't begin to tell you what they were or sounded like, but it did seem that several sounded nearly recognizable (one in particular stood out as being quite French in nature.) Living in a highly multinational area still exposes me (not infrequently) to a multiplicity of languages, and I'll say this... I seriously doubt that I (nor very many others) would have any success at telling many (or most) of them apart from a lot of the modern SIT (for lack of something better to call it).