What matters is not how popular a view has been throughout history, but what the Scripture says.
Justification by Faith wasn't too popular for centuries either! Just because it was rediscovered after many centuries doesn't mean it wasn't the Apostles' doctrine all along.
Same with Pentecostal beliefs about spiritual gifts. Just because their popularity increased in the early 1900s doens't mean it wasn't the Apostles' doctrine all along.
I CORINTHIANS 14:13-19;27-28
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
[That's a spiritual gift of interpreting - not a learned natural ability. Because you can't learn to interpret in a single meeting!]
14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth but my understanding is unfruitful.
[It's legitimate to pray in tongues.]
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.
[It's legitimate to sing in tongues.]
16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
[It's possible to bless, and to give thanks, in tongues.]
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
[The issue was not with the tongues, not that it wasn't possible to give thanks in tongues - the issue was that it wasn't understood, unless it was interpreted.]
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.
[He contrasts two occasions of speaking in tongues - privately and publicly.]
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
[If tongues are spoken publicly, two or three is enough during any single gathering. And it ought to be interpreted.]
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
[The speaker could continue to pray in tongues to God privately - if there was no interpreter, or if he didn't choose to pray for the gift of interpreting.]
Gramatically and logically the text doesn't preclude the possibility of the above understanding of this passage.
Justification by Faith wasn't too popular for centuries either! Just because it was rediscovered after many centuries doesn't mean it wasn't the Apostles' doctrine all along.
Same with Pentecostal beliefs about spiritual gifts. Just because their popularity increased in the early 1900s doens't mean it wasn't the Apostles' doctrine all along.
I CORINTHIANS 14:13-19;27-28
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
[That's a spiritual gift of interpreting - not a learned natural ability. Because you can't learn to interpret in a single meeting!]
14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth but my understanding is unfruitful.
[It's legitimate to pray in tongues.]
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.
[It's legitimate to sing in tongues.]
16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
[It's possible to bless, and to give thanks, in tongues.]
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
[The issue was not with the tongues, not that it wasn't possible to give thanks in tongues - the issue was that it wasn't understood, unless it was interpreted.]
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.
[He contrasts two occasions of speaking in tongues - privately and publicly.]
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
[If tongues are spoken publicly, two or three is enough during any single gathering. And it ought to be interpreted.]
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
[The speaker could continue to pray in tongues to God privately - if there was no interpreter, or if he didn't choose to pray for the gift of interpreting.]
Gramatically and logically the text doesn't preclude the possibility of the above understanding of this passage.
No comments:
Post a Comment