There is another question that goes unanswered as well by a lot of tongue talkers…that is the problem verse for them of 1 Cor 12:29-30

Not all speak in tongues.

In that context, can anyone shed some light on what donsands said: Paul says three persons with the gift of tongues may speak in turn. And then he says, “But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.” 1 Corinthians 14:28

In the context accepted in this topic, it seems that Paul is allowing three people to get up and speak in a language foreign to the speaker. Presumably because someone who understands that foreign language is in the audience and will benefit from hearing the message in his own language. I understand the “let someone interpret part” - since that would be necessary for the rest of the audience to understand the message spoken. But I don’t get the part about, if no one can interpret, don’t nobody speak. Doesn’t that cheat the foreigner out of hearing the message in his own language? And if said foreigner is actually not present, what is the point of allowing three to get up and speak in a foreign language that then must be interpreted? If the foreigner is not present, why would the Holy Spirit lead three people to get up and speak in an actual foreign language that nobody understands? Plus - does anyone get that the tongues-speaker must know, before he speaks, that there is someone present who knows the foreign language he is about to utter and can interpret it? And why does Paul say to pray silently to God in a language that you do not understand - if the entire point of the gift of tongues was to preach to someone whose language you did not know? If you must pray silently, why not just pray to God in your own language?

There is much in this Corinthian transaction that donsands points to that has not been addressed in this series. If you take Paul’s words seriously, and my questions seriously, you can’t help but understand there is a logic going on in Paul’s words that points to a different interpretation than what has been given in this series. Either the Holy Spirit was doing something more than what has been allowed here (maybe tongues is a heavenly prayer language), or this issue of tongues in 1 Corinthians is more about the multiple languages spoken in Corinth at that time than it is about a particular “gift” from the Holy Spirit. At any rate - while I enjoyed the scholarship of this series, nothing said in this series yet helps me make sense of 1 Corinthians 14:28.

http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086%7CCHID560462%7CCIID1415642,00.html

This fellow has some interesting things to say. He gets to the meat of his argument a bit more than half-way down the page. He lays the groundwork for his argument in the first half. If I’m not allowed to accept the concept of tongues as a prayer-language gift from the Holy Spirit, then what this fellow says makes more sense of 1 Corinthians 14:28 than most of the comments here.

I have not read all of the links provided in this series. If this link has already been provided, I apologize.

Rom 8:27 Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

“For us” huper(5228), hemon(2257) in the greek is in the text by the way.

The term “cannot be uttered” in verse 26
G215
ἀλάλητος
alalētos
al-al’-ay-tos
From G1 (as a negative particle) and a derivative of G2980; unspeakable: - unutterable, which cannot be uttered.
So Diane it means that the Spirit Himself, on his own without our help prays in an inaudible—NO NOISES

In verse 23 it says we groan within ourselves….this word for groan is:
G4727
στενάζω
stenazō
sten-ad’-zo
From G4728; to make (intransitively be) in straits, that is, (by implication) to sigh, murmur, pray inaudibly: - with grief, groan, grudge, sigh.

Diane , again this groaning is without any sound, no speech, no room for tongues if you are willing to put the word first and not the fact that you can make noises.

The creation groans inaudibly, we groan inaudibly, and then finally the Spirit Himself groans inaudibly…..BUT GOD KNOWS the mind of the Spirit and he hears His creations groans…He Himself is interceding on our behalf INAUDIBLY!!

Rom 8:34 Who5101 is he that condemneth?2632 It is Christ5547 that died,599 yea1161 rather,3123 that(2532) is risen again,1453 who3739 is2076 even2532 at1722 the right hand1188 of God,2316 who3739 also2532 maketh intercession1793 for5228 us.2257

Jesus Himself makes intertcession for us as well.

Furthermore, when I read Augustine, its pretty clear that he had some “charasmatic” type experiences. He documented them quite vividly all throughout The Confessions and City of God. Perhaps not speaking in tongues, but clearly things such as visions and healings are recorded numerous times. The vision his mother Monica had concerning the fact that he would one day stand in the faith with her could even be labeled prophetic could it not?

Finally, doesnt Chrysostom relate the absence of the gifts to the church having backslidden? I have not researched this as in depth so perhaps you could provide some clarification.

“What now can be more awful than these things? For in truth the Church was a heaven then, the Spirit governing all things, and moving each one of the rulers and making him inspired. But now we retain only the symbols of those gifts…they thus used to speak, not of their own wisdom, but moved by the Spirit. But not so now: (I speak of mine own case so far.) But the present Church is like a woman who hath fallen from her former prosperous days, and in many respects retains the symbols only of that ancient prosperity; displaying indeed the repositories and caskets of her golden ornaments, but bereft of her wealth: such an one doth the present Church resemble. And I say not this in respect of gifts: for it were nothing marvelous if it were this only: but in respect also of life and virtue.” (”Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians,” Phillp Schaff, 1889. Homily 36, NPNF 219-220).

Thanks!

About the glossa = tongue thing… I don’t know if this will help. I think Nate’s totally on the money with response. Couldn’t have said it better myself. But I’m a student of linguistics and know a few other languages. The language-tongue distinction isn’t even really made in modern European languages.

In Italian, it’s lingua. That’s how you would talk about your tongue in your mouth, as well as how you would refer to the French language.

In Spanish also, it’s the same thing. Lengua.

Same with French. Langue.

Don’t know if that’s helpful. Hopefully it is.

Thanks!