Acts 2:11 ...We Hear them Declaring The Wonders of God, in our own tongues..... MAGNIFYING GOD! Acts 10:46. ...Praising God. AMEN! Speaking in Tongues, Is Worshipping God, In Spirit & Truth. Amen!
1 Cor 14:14-15 - For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 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. This one could easily take a few pages to explain properly, but I'll try and sum it up as briefly as possible..... You have to go to the Greek. This passage hinges on the Greek word “akarpos” - which can be used in two different ways: in an active sense and in a passive sense. Many people subscribe to a passive usage, i.e. my understanding is unfruitful ( *to me* ), or my understanding produces no fruit *in/for me* . In short, what I'm saying doesn't benefit me as I have no idea what I'm saying even though I am praying “in the spirit” (as defined in my previous posts). Given that Paul, in his letter, calls for _clarity and understanding_ at a public worship such that _everyone there can benefit_ , an *active* understanding of ‘akarpos’ makes considerable more sense in light of what Paul is trying to convey: that is, my understanding is unfruitful *for others* , or my understanding produces no fruit *for/in others* . In other words, the fact *I* understand what I’m saying does not benefit anyone else as they don’t speak my language. This is not just my view, but also the view of a number of Biblical commentators (Clarke, Barnes, Coffman, Gill, Vincent, Wesley, Abbott, Calvin, Coke, Meyer, Edwards, Schaff, et al.) Now, before you think using this passage with an active meaning is something far-fetched, or a new concept, or a recent ‘theory’, consider Luther’s Bible of 1534 - written almost 500 years ago, and some 30 years before King James (VI and I) was even born. This same passage is rendered (in English) “...my understanding *brings no one fruit* ”. Even almost 500 years ago, the idea of this passage having an active usage was nothing new. Indeed, an active understanding/reading fits better with Paul’s intent of clarity so _all_ may benefit. Further, it's clear here the speaker is praying in a particular (known) language; his native language. It seems it is really only those Christian denominations that adhere to the modern understanding of tongues, as redefined by the Pentecostal church in the early 1900’s, that subscribe to the passive usage of the phrase. Again, it's the only possible way for the passage to work to fit the modern concept of "tongues". There’s just no evidence whatsoever of modern tongues-speech here. The speaker understands perfectly well what he’s saying; again, it’s the _audience_ who doesn’t understand, and thus does not benefit. Verse 15 - In this verse, the speaker will 'pray/sing in the Spirit' (as defined in my original post), and will pray with his mind/understanding. The context requires that praying/singing with 'his mind' is understood to mean with his mind bearing fruit or being fruitful to others. Again, the active sense as already defined in verse 14. It's all about real, rational language. One the speaker knows, one the audience does not.
I say this respectfully. Give attention to verse 13. 1 Corinthians 14:13-14 KJV Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. [14] For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. If you have to pray to interpret, that means you don't understand what you just said. Which means the language you're speaking is not known to you.
@@williamrivera8686 Paul is speaking about real, rational language here..... 1 Cor 14:14-15 - For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 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. This one could easily take a few pages to explain properly, but I'll try and sum it up as briefly as possible..... Again, you have to go to the Greek. This passage hinges on the Greek word “akarpos” - which can be used in two different ways: in an active sense and in a passive sense. Many people subscribe to a passive usage, i.e. my understanding is unfruitful ( *to me* ), or my understanding produces no fruit *in/for me* . In short, what I'm saying doesn't benefit me as I have no idea what I'm saying even though I am praying “in the spirit” (as defined in my previous posts). Given that Paul, in his letter, calls for _clarity and understanding_ at a public worship such that _everyone there can benefit_ , an *active* understanding of ‘akarpos’ makes considerable more sense in light of what Paul is trying to convey: that is, my understanding is unfruitful *for others* , or my understanding produces no fruit *for/in others* . In other words, the fact *I* understand what I’m saying does not benefit anyone else as they don’t speak my language. This is not just my view, but also the view of a number of Biblical commentators (Clarke, Barnes, Coffman, Gill, Vincent, Wesley, Abbott, Calvin, Coke, Meyer, Edwards, Schaff, et al.) Now, before you think using this passage with an active meaning is something far-fetched, or a new concept, or a recent ‘theory’, consider Luther’s Bible of 1534 - written almost 500 years ago, and some 30 years before King James was even born. This same passage is rendered (in English) “...my understanding *brings no one fruit* ”. Even almost 500 years ago, the idea of this passage having an active usage was nothing new. Indeed, an active understanding/reading fits better with Paul’s intent of clarity so _all_ may benefit. Further, it's clear here the speaker is praying in a particular (known) language; his native language. It seems it is mainly those Christian denominations that adhere to the modern understanding of tongues, as redefined by the Pentecostal church in the early 1900’s, that subscribe to the passive usage of the phrase. Again, it's the only possible way for the passage to work to fit the modern concept of "tongues". There’s just no evidence whatsoever of modern tongues-speech here. The speaker understands perfectly well what he’s saying; again, it’s the _audience_ who doesn’t understand, and thus does not benefit. Just as in 1 Cor. 14:2 Verse 15 - In this verse, the speaker will 'pray/sing in the Spirit' (as defined in my original post), and will pray with his mind/understanding. The context requires that praying/singing with 'his mind' is understood to mean with his mind bearing fruit or being fruitful to others. Again, the active sense as already defined in verse 14. It's all about real, rational language. One the speaker knows, one the audience does not.
@@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474 I hope you hear this in a gentle voice. You are mistaken. The interpretation that you're giving doesn't match the context of these scriptures. It also seems to me that you're trying to rationalize away a spiritual gift that God gives so that you don't have to partake in it. Also, right now you're messaging with a person that has spoken in tongues for about 8 years now, likewise Pastor Rick has also been speaking in tongues for many years now, as has most of the people in this ministry. We know how it works because we've been doing it and seeing the fruit of it, it matches scripture. This is just a suggestion but I think that you should pray and ask God to reveal it to you and convince you of it. Many things come by revelation. Have a blessed day.
@@williamrivera8686 I respectfully have to disagree. Paul's reference is to real, rational language(s). Modern tongues-speech is what it is - non-cognitive non-language utterance. There just isn't anything you're producing that cannot be explained in relatively simple linguistic terms. Every phonological rule that applies to English also applies to your tongues-speech. There's nothing there that remotely suggests anything divine. I'm not doubting or questioning the 'tongues experience'; glossolalia as the spiritual tool that it is, can be very powerful and, for many people, the experience is profound. As one commenter put it, “Speaking in tongues distracts the ego/analytical/conscious mind while leaving the subconscious (the heart) wide open to import the divine." Both the spiritual and physical benefits of using this tool are also well documented. Again though, it is important to note that this same statement can be made for virtually _any_ other culture that practices glossolalia. Religious and cultural differences aside, the glossolalia an Evenki Shaman in Siberia, a vodoun priestess in Togo and a Christian tongues-speaker in Alabama are producing are in no way different from each other. They’re all producing their glossolalia in the exact same way; they just have different explanations and beliefs as to why they’re doing it, and where it comes from. “Tongues” is to some Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful experience but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best; non-cognitive non language utterance - the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is perceived and interpreted as actual, meaningful speech. Known by many different names, “tongues”, “glossolalia”, or more accurately “non-cognitive non-language utterance” (NC-NLU), is practiced by many cultures and religious beliefs from literally all over the world; it is relatively new to Christianity and certainly not unique to it. As a point of note, I’m a Linguist, and let me also add here that I am neither a so-called ‘cessationist’ nor a ‘continuationist’ - I do not identify with either term; in fact, I had never heard the two terms until just late in 2016. As far as I’m concerned, quite frankly, since the Biblical reference of “tongues” is to real, rational languages, obviously “tongues” haven’t “ceased”; as far as I’ve been able to ascertain, people still speak.
@@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474 Consider this example. Acts 2:4-12 KJVS And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. [5] And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. [6] Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. [7] And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? [8] And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? [9] Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, [10] Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, [11] Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. [12] And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? You said that the speaker understood the language but the audience did not. But here in this example the audience did distinctly understand the language. Did the speakers understand what they were saying(that is they already spoke the languages that they were using), then what need was there for the Holy Spirit to empower their speech, seeing they already knew how to praise God and could have done it out of their understanding(if as you suggest they already spoke the language). Consider another scripture. 1 Corinthians 14:2 KJVS 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. Here it says no man understands him. But what about the previous example. The answer is that it's both. When God wants to he can use speaking in tongues as a sign to those that believe not. 1 Corinthians 14:22 AMPC Thus [unknown] tongues are meant for a [supernatural] sign, not for believers but for unbelievers [on the point of believing], while prophecy (inspired preaching and teaching, interpreting the divine will and purpose) is not for unbelievers [on the point of believing] but for believers. And he can use it to build you up in a language that you don't know to bypass the limits of your mind. He can also use languages that are not human languages. 1 Corinthians 13:1 KJV Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. Here it says angels have languages, and they wouldn't be languages that are necessarily known to us. Which means we don't know how their language is constructed what the rules of it are. And seeing how the only person that needs to understand the language since you're edifying yourself is God the language would be with significance. I hope this helps you somewhat. If you're an honest believer you're seeking the things of God and tongues are part of the things of God, but it doesn't seem like you're seeking either what you say is tongues or what we say is tongues.
Love Charis Bible College teachings- Holy Spirit led teaching ❤
Watching at midnight.thank you Holy Spirit 🙏
Yes AMEN 💯🙌
Awesome teaching!
Awesome teaching, many, many thanks! I shall aim to recharge my batteries forthwith and regularly, by God's grace.
Thank you for teaching on tongues 🙏
I'm watching you from Pakistan in May 2024.
Listening from Louisiana. Thanks!!! This a great message 🔥🔥🔥
Thank you for this teaching. Rick reminds me of Bob Yandian, and that brought me very blessed memories.
You are welcome, Vanessa! God bless you. - AWMI Team
Great teaching Ps Rick. Thank you.
Acts 2:11 ...We Hear them Declaring The Wonders of God, in our own tongues..... MAGNIFYING GOD! Acts 10:46. ...Praising God. AMEN! Speaking in Tongues, Is Worshipping God, In Spirit & Truth. Amen!
Do you speak in tongues?
@@sl4983 Not everyone has the gift of tounges, it doesn't mean anything bad if you don't speak in tongues it's just not your gift.
Awesome Blessed Information on speaking in our Prayer language!!! Thank You 💕
Great revelations
❤🔥
Listening from Florida!
Prise God .am in uganda 🇺🇬
Croatia❤
Honolulu, Hawaii 🙏
TN
Australia
This helps much. . . Jimbo, OK
Karma, Austrialia.
S Glad Praise the lord
Need financial help from India South
1 Cor 14:14-15 -
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
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.
This one could easily take a few pages to explain properly, but I'll try and sum it up as briefly as possible.....
You have to go to the Greek. This passage hinges on the Greek word “akarpos” - which can be used in two different ways: in an active sense and in a passive sense.
Many people subscribe to a passive usage, i.e. my understanding is unfruitful ( *to me* ), or my understanding produces no fruit *in/for me* . In short, what I'm saying doesn't benefit me as I have no idea what I'm saying even though I am praying “in the spirit” (as defined in my previous posts).
Given that Paul, in his letter, calls for _clarity and understanding_ at a public worship such that _everyone there can benefit_ , an *active* understanding of ‘akarpos’ makes considerable more sense in light of what Paul is trying to convey: that is, my understanding is unfruitful *for others* , or my understanding produces no fruit *for/in others* .
In other words, the fact *I* understand what I’m saying does not benefit anyone else as they don’t speak my language.
This is not just my view, but also the view of a number of Biblical commentators (Clarke, Barnes, Coffman, Gill, Vincent, Wesley, Abbott, Calvin, Coke, Meyer, Edwards, Schaff, et al.)
Now, before you think using this passage with an active meaning is something far-fetched, or a new concept, or a recent ‘theory’, consider Luther’s Bible of 1534 - written almost 500 years ago, and some 30 years before King James (VI and I) was even born.
This same passage is rendered (in English) “...my understanding *brings no one fruit* ”.
Even almost 500 years ago, the idea of this passage having an active usage was nothing new. Indeed, an active understanding/reading fits better with Paul’s intent of clarity so _all_ may benefit. Further, it's clear here the speaker is praying in a particular (known) language; his native language.
It seems it is really only those Christian denominations that adhere to the modern understanding of tongues, as redefined by the Pentecostal church in the early 1900’s, that subscribe to the passive usage of the phrase. Again, it's the only possible way for the passage to work to fit the modern concept of "tongues".
There’s just no evidence whatsoever of modern tongues-speech here. The speaker understands perfectly well what he’s saying; again, it’s the _audience_ who doesn’t understand, and thus does not benefit.
Verse 15 - In this verse, the speaker will 'pray/sing in the Spirit' (as defined in my original post), and will pray with his mind/understanding. The context requires that praying/singing with 'his mind' is understood to mean with his mind bearing fruit or being fruitful to others. Again, the active sense as already defined in verse 14. It's all about real, rational language. One the speaker knows, one the audience does not.
I say this respectfully. Give attention to verse 13.
1 Corinthians 14:13-14 KJV
Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. [14] For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
If you have to pray to interpret, that means you don't understand what you just said. Which means the language you're speaking is not known to you.
@@williamrivera8686
Paul is speaking about real, rational language here.....
1 Cor 14:14-15 -
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
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.
This one could easily take a few pages to explain properly, but I'll try and sum it up as briefly as possible.....
Again, you have to go to the Greek. This passage hinges on the Greek word “akarpos” - which can be used in two different ways: in an active sense and in a passive sense.
Many people subscribe to a passive usage, i.e. my understanding is unfruitful ( *to me* ), or my understanding produces no fruit *in/for me* . In short, what I'm saying doesn't benefit me as I have no idea what I'm saying even though I am praying “in the spirit” (as defined in my previous posts).
Given that Paul, in his letter, calls for _clarity and understanding_ at a public worship such that _everyone there can benefit_ , an *active* understanding of ‘akarpos’ makes considerable more sense in light of what Paul is trying to convey: that is, my understanding is unfruitful *for others* , or my understanding produces no fruit *for/in others* .
In other words, the fact *I* understand what I’m saying does not benefit anyone else as they don’t speak my language.
This is not just my view, but also the view of a number of Biblical commentators (Clarke, Barnes, Coffman, Gill, Vincent, Wesley, Abbott, Calvin, Coke, Meyer, Edwards, Schaff, et al.)
Now, before you think using this passage with an active meaning is something far-fetched, or a new concept, or a recent ‘theory’, consider Luther’s Bible of 1534 - written almost 500 years ago, and some 30 years before King James was even born.
This same passage is rendered (in English) “...my understanding *brings no one fruit* ”.
Even almost 500 years ago, the idea of this passage having an active usage was nothing new. Indeed, an active understanding/reading fits better with Paul’s intent of clarity so _all_ may benefit. Further, it's clear here the speaker is praying in a particular (known) language; his native language.
It seems it is mainly those Christian denominations that adhere to the modern understanding of tongues, as redefined by the Pentecostal church in the early 1900’s, that subscribe to the passive usage of the phrase. Again, it's the only possible way for the passage to work to fit the modern concept of "tongues".
There’s just no evidence whatsoever of modern tongues-speech here. The speaker understands perfectly well what he’s saying; again, it’s the _audience_ who doesn’t understand, and thus does not benefit. Just as in 1 Cor. 14:2
Verse 15 - In this verse, the speaker will 'pray/sing in the Spirit' (as defined in my original post), and will pray with his mind/understanding. The context requires that praying/singing with 'his mind' is understood to mean with his mind bearing fruit or being fruitful to others. Again, the active sense as already defined in verse 14. It's all about real, rational language. One the speaker knows, one the audience does not.
@@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474 I hope you hear this in a gentle voice. You are mistaken. The interpretation that you're giving doesn't match the context of these scriptures. It also seems to me that you're trying to rationalize away a spiritual gift that God gives so that you don't have to partake in it. Also, right now you're messaging with a person that has spoken in tongues for about 8 years now, likewise Pastor Rick has also been speaking in tongues for many years now, as has most of the people in this ministry. We know how it works because we've been doing it and seeing the fruit of it, it matches scripture. This is just a suggestion but I think that you should pray and ask God to reveal it to you and convince you of it. Many things come by revelation. Have a blessed day.
@@williamrivera8686
I respectfully have to disagree. Paul's reference is to real, rational language(s).
Modern tongues-speech is what it is - non-cognitive non-language utterance. There just isn't anything you're producing that cannot be explained in relatively simple linguistic terms. Every phonological rule that applies to English also applies to your tongues-speech. There's nothing there that remotely suggests anything divine.
I'm not doubting or questioning the 'tongues experience'; glossolalia as the spiritual tool that it is, can be very powerful and, for many people, the experience is profound. As one commenter put it, “Speaking in tongues distracts the ego/analytical/conscious mind while leaving the subconscious (the heart) wide open to import the divine." Both the spiritual and physical benefits of using this tool are also well documented. Again though, it is important to note that this same statement can be made for virtually _any_ other culture that practices glossolalia. Religious and cultural differences aside, the glossolalia an Evenki Shaman in Siberia, a vodoun priestess in Togo and a Christian tongues-speaker in Alabama are producing are in no way different from each other. They’re all producing their glossolalia in the exact same way; they just have different explanations and beliefs as to why they’re doing it, and where it comes from.
“Tongues” is to some Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful experience but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best; non-cognitive non language utterance - the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is perceived and interpreted as actual, meaningful speech.
Known by many different names, “tongues”, “glossolalia”, or more accurately “non-cognitive non-language utterance” (NC-NLU), is practiced by many cultures and religious beliefs from literally all over the world; it is relatively new to Christianity and certainly not unique to it.
As a point of note, I’m a Linguist, and let me also add here that I am neither a so-called ‘cessationist’ nor a ‘continuationist’ - I do not identify with either term; in fact, I had never heard the two terms until just late in 2016. As far as I’m concerned, quite frankly, since the Biblical reference of “tongues” is to real, rational languages, obviously “tongues” haven’t “ceased”; as far as I’ve been able to ascertain, people still speak.
@@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474 Consider this example.
Acts 2:4-12 KJVS
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. [5] And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. [6] Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. [7] And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? [8] And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? [9] Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, [10] Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, [11] Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. [12] And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
You said that the speaker understood the language but the audience did not. But here in this example the audience did distinctly understand the language. Did the speakers understand what they were saying(that is they already spoke the languages that they were using), then what need was there for the Holy Spirit to empower their speech, seeing they already knew how to praise God and could have done it out of their understanding(if as you suggest they already spoke the language).
Consider another scripture.
1 Corinthians 14:2 KJVS
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.
Here it says no man understands him. But what about the previous example. The answer is that it's both. When God wants to he can use speaking in tongues as a sign to those that believe not.
1 Corinthians 14:22 AMPC
Thus [unknown] tongues are meant for a [supernatural] sign, not for believers but for unbelievers [on the point of believing], while prophecy (inspired preaching and teaching, interpreting the divine will and purpose) is not for unbelievers [on the point of believing] but for believers.
And he can use it to build you up in a language that you don't know to bypass the limits of your mind. He can also use languages that are not human languages.
1 Corinthians 13:1 KJV
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
Here it says angels have languages, and they wouldn't be languages that are necessarily known to us. Which means we don't know how their language is constructed what the rules of it are. And seeing how the only person that needs to understand the language since you're edifying yourself is God the language would be with significance. I hope this helps you somewhat. If you're an honest believer you're seeking the things of God and tongues are part of the things of God, but it doesn't seem like you're seeking either what you say is tongues or what we say is tongues.