The gift of Tongues

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

So you are reading into the text...

Click to expand...

That would be right.

When most of us read a passage of history from within the Scriptures, or for that matter from within any book on history, it can be very easy to distance ourselves from what we're reading, to the point where the we might even end up only looking at a certain point of history through the squiggles that we see on the page - and we are undoubtedly all prone to this, particularly with those passages of history that we regularly come across.

With the Day of Pentecost we are at a disadvantage in that even though tradition points to the event occurring in the Upper Room this is only conjecture and in all probability it is wrong. The location was most likely in the Temple courts which would have easily accomodated the 120 and where there would have been many overseas visitors walking through this mighty Temple. So when the Holy Spirit fell upon the 120 with flames of fire, a sound of a rushing wind and with how the 120 were each speaking of the 'wonders of God', then we need to try and put ourselves in this situation, or at least as close as we can.

As we know that there were at least 120 Believers present and who knows how many Jews, we can make some fairly strong guesses as to what dynamics were in play.

And from your own personal experience no less...

Click to expand...

Definitely!

Or we could just take the text as what it's overtly saying: they were speaking in tongues and there were Jews from all over the diaspora hearing their native languages proclaiming the Jesus movement...

Click to expand...

Oh . . no . . no . . no, that would be far too easy an option! As our discussion started (at least I think it did) with how the crowd would have viewed the Galileans speaking in tongues, then its an important theme to develop, or at least as we can practically do so.

Shane658 said:

What was the issue with my post? Explain

Click to expand...

Okay, as you asked me to go through some of your points this is something that I did; but your followup post completely ignored my content as you did with my previous posts as well, which can at best be rather frustrating. You then preceded to provide another "list of grievences" instead of maybe taking a point or two from my posts and developing them further which I would encourage you to do.

Biblicist said:

That would be right.

Click to expand...

When I read history the most important thing for me to remember is to properly assess and critically evaluate the nature of the text and place it within the contextual historiography. In this respect, I don't think I'd be looking at Acts 2 as a historical narrative, more rather at the Lukan belief that the early Jesus movement was trans-national, which he probably received from St Paul, if he knew him.

Biblicist said:

Definitely!

Click to expand...

Well, forgive me for not having the same experiences as you then...

Biblicist said:

Oh . . no . . no . . no, that would be far too easy an option! As our discussion started (at least I think it did) with how the crowd would have viewed the Galileans speaking in tongues, then its an important theme to develop, or at least as we can practically do so.

Click to expand...

Yeah, or the text says what it says and we should take it at that...

Shane658 said:

The point is both Pentecostal/Charismatics, Mormons and Catholics claim to have the ability to speak in tongues but neither of you guys match up with whats written in the bible.

Click to expand...

This post expands on my earlier reply regarding tongues where it provides a link to a Mormon website regarding tongues. What it shows is that Mormons believe it to be used to enable their Missionaries to learn a particular language more quickly before they leave for the mission field and nothing else; it has no connection with how Christians speak in tongues:

Biblicist said:

Okay, as you asked me to go through some of your points this is something that I did; but your followup post completely ignored my content as you did with my previous posts as well, which can at best be rather frustrating. You then preceded to provide another "list of grievences" instead of maybe taking a point or two from my posts and developing them further which I would encourage you to do.

Click to expand...

Looks to me I addressed your "whats your point question" about the Mormon, Catholics, Pentecostals/Charismatics and I explained more about them being false teachers .Everything I said was related to those.

Biblicist said:

Can anyone "answer these questions", where have you been all these years? As our ability to pray in the Spirit (tongues) is a vital ability that the Holy Spirit works through us, where it is certainly applicable during times of private devotions, it has little benefit within the corporate meeting as the Spirit will always direct his words of praise to the Father. Even with interpretation there are only so many articulations-interpretations of words of praise that are necessary. As these words of praise do not really edify the congregation as would prophecy, this is why Paul said that prophecy is a greater Manifestation of the Spirit than is tongues.

Click to expand...

Where are you getting this from ?Provide the verse.

Biblicist said:

This post expands on my earlier reply regarding tongues where it provides a link to a Mormon website regarding tongues. What it shows is that Mormons believe it to be used to enable their Missionaries to learn a particular language more quickly before they leave for the mission field and nothing else; it has no connection with how Christians speak in tongues:

". . . In order for the gift of tongues to be used, there must be listeners who understand the words being spoken and who need to be able to understand the words. It is not used for entertainment or simply to prove a person is filled with the spirit. In fact, most full-time missionaries who are sent to serve in a mission requiring a new language experience the gift of tongues. While mastering a new language usually takes many, many years, missionaries master their language surprisingly quickly, even when they’ve struggled with new languages in school. When a person sets out to do God’s work, God steps in to help him to it successfully, and this can include giving him the ability to learn a new language—the gift of tongues. . ."​

Click to expand...

Okay, but its still false just like the Pentecostal/Charismatics and Catholics, but they seem to have a better idea according to what you just posted than what is taught in the these churches.Those Christians have the common pagan tongue.

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

When I read history the most important thing for me to remember is to properly assess and critically evaluate the nature of the text and place it within the contextual historiography. In this respect, I don't think I'd be looking at Acts 2 as a historical narrative, more rather at the Lukan belief that the early Jesus movement was trans-national, which he probably received from St Paul, if he knew him.

Click to expand...

I recently purchased Craig Keeners first three volumes of his monumental four volume work on Acts where I am still waiting for the fourth volume to be released, where Keener has included a section on “Acts as a Work of Ancient Historiography” (26 pages) within his 638 page introduction; he further commits another 105 pages to this position. If I take your use of contextual historiography correctly, it seems that you may view portions of Acts as not being so much factual history but where Luke is merely trying to establish a few principles that were not completely based on historical events?

When we view Acts as a piece of ancient-historiography then a whole new world opens up where we are then enabled/challenged to try and better understand the various types of people interactions that were occurring within Luke’s history or for that matter within the Scriptures as a whole.

Shane658 said:

Looks to me I addressed your "whats your point question" about the Mormon, Catholics, Pentecostals/Charismatics and I explained more about them being false teachers .Everything I said was related to those.

Click to expand...

As you stated that the Mormon's understanding and application of tongues was the same as the rest of the contemporary Pentecostal and charismatic Churches then it of course demanded an immediate rebuttle as it is nothing more than an old wive's tale. Once you say this then everything else sort of falls apart.

My comment: Can anyone "answer these questions", where have you been all these years? As our ability to pray in the Spirit (tongues) is a vital ability that the Holy Spirit works through us, where it is certainly applicable during times of private devotions, it has little benefit within the corporate meeting as the Spirit will always direct his words of praise to the Father. Even with interpretation there are only so many articulations-interpretations of words of praise that are necessary. As these words of praise do not really edify the congregation as would prophecy, this is why Paul said that prophecy is a greater Manifestation of the Spirit than is tongues.​

Click to expand...

My remarks come from within 1Cor 14.
With Paul's material regarding tongues in chapter 14, his concern is with intelligibility and edification, where he points out in 14:21 with his reference to the invading Syrian army that conquered Jerusalem, that if an unbeliever or a cessationist (as per those who "do not understand") enters into the meeting that they will say "we are mad". Paul has already stated that the words that the Holy Spirit speaks through the Believer, that they are always directed toward the Father and that they are words of 'praise and thanks' (14:16,17); but even when these words are articulated-interpreted for the benefit of the others within the congregation, there is really only a small amount of value in these words as they really cannot edify the congregation all that much.

Now, when it comes to prophecy this is an entirely different matter as the Spirit is now well able to edify the Believer/Congregation as he can provide words of instruction (not teaching), comfort and he can even provide words about the near future as they relate to the congregation; this is something that an articulation-interpretation of a tongue can never do.

Biblicist said:

I recently purchased Craig Keeners first three volumes of his monumental four volume work on Acts where I am still waiting for the fourth volume to be released, where Keener has included a section on “Acts as a Work of Ancient Historiography” (26 pages) within his 638 page introduction; he further commits another 105 pages to this position. If I take your use of contextual historiography correctly, it seems that you may view portions of Acts as not being so much factual history but where Luke is merely trying to establish a few principles that were not completely based on historical events?

When we view Acts as a piece of ancient-historiography then a whole new world opens up where we are then enabled/challenged to try and better understand the various types of people interactions that were occurring within Luke’s history or for that matter within the Scriptures as a whole.

Click to expand...

I don't usually like it when people read the bible as though it were clearly and generally concerned with history. For the most part the commentaries which I enjoy reading concern themselves more with textuality and intertextuality; canonical criticism in terms of reception history and the liturgical/sacramental context of the textual history within early Christianities. In terms of just how much of the NT is historical I would probably be more inclined to follow the Context Group in suggesting that we simply don't know, much of it can be historical when understood of within the very different cultural framework, yet much of it also contains and is structured within mythical language. I personally think most scholarship should come to grips with the fact that myth doesn't always imply non-historicity given mythical thinking may just as much frame the lived experience of first century lives.

Acts should be read as literature, it's a text first and foremost, the author makes specific points and uses specific illustrations in order to convey theological beliefs. These may be historical, who knows. The point made in the early chapters that the group of Jesus followers began speaking in different languages and that they were understood meant exactly that. It didn't mean that they weren't understood and didn't mean that they had poor inflection, it didn't mean that their grammar wasn't clear, it meant that they were comprehended by those there who came from the diaspora in order to participate in the Temple celebrations. When you start saying things like "I've been speaking in tongues for 40 years and when I view other people doing it they don't show clear signs of grammar or altogether consistent inflection" then you don't need to read what you've experienced into the text, you would only be doing so to validate your religious experiences.

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

I don't usually like it when people read the bible as though it were clearly and generally concerned with history. For the most part the commentaries which I enjoy reading concern themselves more with textuality and intertextuality; canonical criticism in terms of reception history and the liturgical/sacramental context of the textual history within early Christianities. In terms of just how much of the NT is historical I would probably be more inclined to follow the Context Group in suggesting that we simply don't know, much of it can be historical when understood of within the very different cultural framework, yet much of it also contains and is structured within mythical language. I personally think most scholarship should come to grips with the fact that myth doesn't always imply non-historicity given mythical thinking may just as much frame the lived experience of first century lives.

Acts should be read as literature, it's a text first and foremost, the author makes specific points and uses specific illustrations in order to convey theological beliefs. These may be historical, who knows. The point made in the early chapters that the group of Jesus followers began speaking in different languages and that they were understood meant exactly that. It didn't mean that they weren't understood and didn't mean that they had poor inflection, it didn't mean that their grammar wasn't clear, it meant that they were comprehended by those there who came from the diaspora in order to participate in the Temple celebrations. When you start saying things like "I've been speaking in tongues for 40 years and when I view other people doing it they don't show clear signs of grammar or altogether consistent inflection" then you don't need to read what you've experienced into the text, you would only be doing so to validate your religious experiences.

Click to expand...

With Pentecostal and Evangelical theology the die has certainly been cast for many decades where we will view the Scriptures as a work of ancient-historiography. If anything else, since the late 80’s with the work of those who are involved within the field of socio-rhetorical studies, the character of the New Testament in particular has been better realised where we have been to connect the history and teachings of the NT in light of how similar works were being written in the same period as the NT was being written.

Within my own field of interest, which has a strong connection with the city of Corinth, the field of socio-rhetorical studies has opened up a wealth of information, where the associated fields of archaeology and philology have allowed us to almost walk through the streets of Corinth where we can see how the Corinthian Christians lived, worked and played. One of the great strengths with reading through the various monographs that have been written on the life of a city such as Corinth is that it helps to bring to life what Paul was speaking about in First and Second Corinthians.

The point made in the early chapters that the group of Jesus followers began speaking in different languages and that they were understood meant exactly that. It didn't mean that they weren't understood and didn't mean that they had poor inflection, it didn't mean that their grammar wasn't clear, it meant that they were comprehended by those there who came from the diaspora in order to participate in the Temple celebrations.

Click to expand...

As the Day of Pentecost is factual history, it is impossible to divorce the events that Luke has provided for us from its theological concerns, which means that we are more than entitled to try and better understand how the 120 and the crowd interacted with one another. This type of investigation provides us with a lot of information particularly with how we can view why some in the crowd thought that the Galileans were maybe drunk, it makes for a fascinating study. This approach has also provided us with some valuable information regarding 1Cor 12:2,3 which has allowed us to clear up a particularly difficult passage which theologians for centuries had thought would never be realised.

When you start saying things like "I've been speaking in tongues for 40 years and when I view other people doing it they don't show clear signs of grammar or altogether consistent inflection" then you don't need to read what you've experienced into the text, you would only be doing so to validate your religious experiences.

Click to expand...

I should point out that when it comes to those who “do not show clear signs of grammar or altogether consistent inflection", that this would only apply to the Day of Pentecost as this is the only recorded account that we have where tongues was ever given in a human language.

I suppose that your other remarks could fall into the realm of reception-theory where a large number of people who share a common experience can redefine a given set of texts to suit their contemporary experience. There is undoubtedly some validity to this type of charge, but to summarise a complex point of discussion, as the Scriptures inform us that those who spoke in tongues (outside of the Day of Pentecost), that they were always undertaken within inarticulate utterances and that no man is ever able to understand what the Spirit is saying, then we can be assured that as a worldwide community of several hundred million that as our experience tallies up with the mechanics of Scripture and that we each have a testimony from the Spirit, then we are undoubtedly on safe ground.

Biblicist said:

With Pentecostal and Evangelical theology the die has certainly been cast for many decades where we will view the Scriptures as a work of ancient-historiography. If anything else, since the late 80’s with the work of those who are involved within the field of socio-rhetorical studies, the character of the New Testament in particular has been better realised where we have been to connect the history and teachings of the NT in light of how similar works were being written in the same period as the NT was being written.

Click to expand...

Well, socio-rhetorical criticism has been good, I rather enjoy reading Ben Witherington's work on Paul. However, it'd be nicer to see Christians accept what historians say as well as hermeneuts.

Biblicist said:

As the Day of Pentecost is factual history, it is impossible to divorce the events that Luke has provided for us from its theological concerns, which means that we are more than entitled to try and better understand how the 120 and the crowd interacted with one another. This type of investigation provides us with a lot of information particularly with how we can view why some in the crowd thought that the Galileans were maybe drunk, it makes for a fascinating study. This approach has also provided us with some valuable information regarding 1Cor 12:2,3 which has allowed us to clear up a particularly difficult passage which theologians for centuries had thought would never be realised.

Click to expand...

Factual history? Maybe, I don't know. Text? Yes. And as text it tends to say things which you're not.

Biblicist said:

I should point out that when it comes to those who “do not show clear signs of grammar or altogether consistent inflection", that this would only apply to the Day of Pentecost as this is the only recorded account that we have where tongues was ever given in a human language.

Click to expand...

I think it's safe to read "the gift of tongues" in Acts as part of a motif, whenever a group is baptised and speak in tongues then one should generalise the notion across.

Biblicist said:

I suppose that your other remarks could fall into the realm of reception-theory where a large number of people who share a common experience can redefine a given set of texts to suit their contemporary experience. There is undoubtedly some validity to this type of charge, but to summarise a complex point of discussion, as the Scriptures inform us that those who spoke in tongues (outside of the Day of Pentecost), that they were always undertaken within inarticulate utterances and that no man is ever able to understand what the Spirit is saying, then we can be assured that as a worldwide community of several hundred million that as our experience tallies up with the mechanics of Scripture and that we each have a testimony from the Spirit, then we are undoubtedly on safe ground.

Click to expand...

While I do like reception theory (Wirkungsgeschichte) I don't think of it as redefining a text as much as I think of a text as continually defining people. ;-)

I somehow posted this twice, see next post.

Biblicist said:

Well, socio-rhetorical criticism has been good, I rather enjoy reading Ben Witherington's work on Paul. However, it'd be nicer to see Christians accept what historians say as well as hermeneuts.

Click to expand...

I actually grabbed Witherington's superb book Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary for my last post to you but I decided not to refer to it as my post was getting rather long as it was. But his 1995 work certainly provided a lot of insights where now most (if not all) serious peer-reviewed commentaries will at least touch on the field of socio-rhetorical studies.

While I do like reception theory (Wirkungsgeschichte) I don't think of it as redefining a text as much as I think of a text as continually defining people. ;-)

Click to expand...

That's a very valid point as it could easily be over applied. When it comes to First Corinthians, the field of socio-rhetorical studies, or maybe more so with archeology (where maybe it's hard to seperate the two) has provided some great insights into at least one passage which was with the 'notorious' passage of 1Cor 12:2-3. These new studies (2001) have allowed us to understand that Paul was probably (where I would say definitely) allowed us to realise that he was talking about those who were producing lead curse tablets to vainly try and have various members of the Trinity to curse an opponent.

Witherington did briefly touch on this as a possibility (maybe within Conflict & Community) but in 2001 Bruce Winter (a Queenslander) released some archaeological research which revealed how even Christians were involved in this common Mediterranean practice.[

PS. I don't think that I have ever spent as much time on this forum as I have this weekend, between gardening, house cleaning, church and the like my fingers are about to fall off.

Biblicist said:

When you consider that most of the denominations that you are speaking of probably only contain a handful of congregations then your point is really moot.

Click to expand...

Except that that's not the case.

There are more than a few relatively large church bodies (non-Pentecostal ones) that do not belong.

Shane658 said:

Are you going to answer my questions or continue to dodge them?

Click to expand...

That is absolutely 'rich' Shane. He has not only answered everyone....a monumental task indeed. He has even hit many of you so hard you are posting as 'punch drunks'. IOW your head has been hit so hard, so many times, that you actually think just because you are still standing, and beating the air with your flailings....you actually still think you're winning.


GO BIBLICIST Even I am learning much here.

I'll return to #292 to keep catching up. But just had to stop and comment on 'this post'.

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. - Mark 10:25
we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. - 1 Corinthians 8:1

Can an intelligent man get the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues? I personally have never seen it. The education makes one puffed up... Too broad to enter in. So they end up developing doctrine to say its all wrong to begin with.

The lady speaking in tongues in this video is simply a very sweet lady, uncomplicated by all that knowledge.

Biblicist said:

As you stated that the Mormon's understanding and application of tongues was the same as the rest of the contemporary Pentecostal and charismatic Churches then it of course demanded an immediate rebuttle as it is nothing more than an old wive's tale. Once you say this then everything else sort of falls apart.

Click to expand...

I could say the same when you said This... "If tongues were ever meant to be in a human language then why would we need to have someone interpret the tongue and obviously there was no need for interpretations on the Day of Pentecost.

What most cessationists fail to note is that if a tongue was able to be given to the Father in a human language, that Paul would have had to address this very serious issue as it would be easy for any atheist to pretend that someone was cursing the name of Jesus - it would be an absolute nightmare!


And you never will as tongues are never spoken in a human language . . . simplezzzz!"

I provided scripture of Acts 2 after, made my point and moved on.Interpret the language so that everyone else who was not native to the language being spoken by the Tongue speaker could understand. I don't see the point you are trying to make in that last part.

My remarks come from within 1Cor 14.
With Paul's material regarding tongues in chapter 14, his concern is with intelligibility and edification, where he points out in 14:21 with his reference to the invading Syrian army that conquered Jerusalem, that if an unbeliever or a cessationist (as per those who "do not understand") enters into the meeting that they will say "we are mad". Paul has already stated that the words that the Holy Spirit speaks through the Believer, that they are always directed toward the Father and that they are words of 'praise and thanks' (14:16,17); but even when these words are articulated-interpreted for the benefit of the others within the congregation, there is really only a small amount of value in these words as they really cannot edify the congregation all that much.

Click to expand...

He is not recommending them to pray an unknown language when praying, he explaining it.EXAMPLE..Read this to yourself out loud"
Je suis en train d'expliquer son point" You are speaking an unknown language but a real human language.You don't know what you just said and according to verse 13 explains what you should do since you don't understand.'Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.So that you can understand. Lets look at the Next verse"Verse 14"For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. If I told you to pray what was posted above would you not say that you are praying in an unknown tongue?Yes you are, would you not say that your understanding is unproductive or useless? Yes because do not understand what is being said.Verse 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."Paul is telling them what they should do and how it should be in verse 15. 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?Here again he is making another point against speaking in a language no one understands.Verse 16 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.That is not a Good thing he is saying.
A poster quoted this verse earlier, which was an excellent point."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.



Wasn't a similar response given in Acts 2?
Acts 2 Verse 11 states"Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God."
They spoke in human Languages according to Acts 2 verse 7-11. and following In verse 13-15 we see that they were called "drunken".They were speaking human languages but to those that could not understand the language called them "Drunk".
Acts 2 verse 13-15"Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:"For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day."
The language being spoken was a known language to those that understood it and an unknown language to those who did not.
Its the same thing in Corinthians.If they spoke in tongue that no one understood, someone would called them "Mad"
Being called "Drunken" is as bad as being called "Mad".
The tongues spoken of in Corinthians is the same as Acts.Now in order for someone to call someone Mad the hearer most likely could not understand the language being spoken.The Corinthians Church was speaking in human languages just like those of Acts but used it incorrectly.They are a church of ERROR. They were not Edifying a church if no one understood them and where not prophesying.

Now, when it comes to prophecy this is an entirely different matter as the Spirit is now well able to edify the Believer/Congregation as he can provide words of instruction (not teaching), comfort and he can even provide words about the near future as they relate to the congregation; this is something that an articulation-interpretation of a tongue can never do.

Click to expand...

Hillsage said:

That is absolutely 'rich' Shane. He has not only answered everyone....a monumental task indeed. He has even hit many of you so hard you are posting as 'punch drunks'. IOW your head has been hit so hard, so many times, that you actually think just because you are still standing, and beating the air with your flailings....you actually still think you're winning.


GO BIBLICIST Even I am learning much here.

I'll return to #292 to keep catching up. But just had to stop and comment on 'this post'.

Click to expand...

No he has not hit any of us causing your so called "Punch drunks", Many of us have quoted scripture multiple times to your claims.Your claims do not match up with whats in the bible but rather what you want it to mean.You want us to follow what your experience is rather than what the bible says.The bible is what is to be gone by as the bases of truth and not someones personal experience.You seem to be arguing rather than debating to prove a point on Tongues.
The difference between the babbling you call a language and a real language is that a real languages meanings are consistent.If I were to record any one of these claims of speaking in Tongues and took it to be heard by two separate Interpreters in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement would I get the same Interpretation?Or would I end up getting two different Interpretation? Ill go with the last one.

rockytopva said:

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. - Mark 10:25
we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. - 1 Corinthians 8:1

Can an intelligent man get the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues? I personally have never seen it. The education makes one puffed up... Too broad to enter in. So they end up developing doctrine to say its all wrong to begin with.

The lady speaking in tongues in this video is simply a very sweet lady, uncomplicated by all that knowledge.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that those who don't speak in tongues do not have the Holy Spirit?Did I understand that correctly?

Biblicist said:

If tongues were ever meant to be in a human language then why would we need to have someone interpret the tongue and obviously there was no need for interpretations on the Day of Pentecost.

Click to expand...

No translators were needed at Pentecost because Jerusalem was jam packed with foreigners from around the world celebrating the Feast of Pentecost, whereas the Corinthian church was just a regular Greek church. When people were speaking in tongues in Corinth nobody understood the language being spoken - 1 Cor 14:2 "for no one understands them". Throughout 1 Cor 14 Paul rebukes the Corinthians for speaking in such untranslated unintelligible tongues.

Biblicist said:

And you never will as tongues are never spoken in a human language . . . simplezzzz!

Click to expand...

Quite the opposite is true. The only description of tongues in the bible is Acts 2 and it is very clearly human languages. Where in scripture is it redefined as angel language or any other kind of language?

Biblicist said:

But this was only with the Day of Pentecost where this event was never repeated in Acts and of course in First Corinthians

Click to expand...

Please provide proof that the tongues in Acts 10 & 19 and in 1 Corinthians is not the same as Acts 2.

In fact Peter explicitly says the gift of tongues in Acts 10 was the same as Acts 2. "the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning....So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ...." Acts 11:15-17

Biblicist said:

Paul absolutely rejects the notion that praying in the Spirit (tongues) is spoken in anything else but an inarticualte (angelic) utterances - that's Bible 101!

Click to expand...

Does he? We have already established that the idea of tongues being angelic is a complete misinterpretation of 1 Cor 13:1 that ignores the context of the subsequent 4 parallel statements. Tongues of angels is clearly something hypothetical, not something that Paul literally did. Despite 2 attempts you have been unable to refute that.

Biblicist said:

As my special interest is with Pnuematology and where I currently own 14 contemporary commentaries on First Corinthians, it would be a very brave (and probably a very foolish) theologian who would ever dare say that praying in the Spirit has any connection with human languages.

Click to expand...

Then the 14 commentaries you own must be very poor quality if they say praying in the Spirit is exclusively praying in tongues. How could they fail to notice Eph 6:18 "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests". How can you make requests in a language you don't understand? Also this commandment is to all beleivers, whereas not everybody has the gift of tongues (1 Cor 12:30). Hence praying in the Spirit in Eph 6:18 cannot be referring to tongues. In fact tongues is never even mentioned in the book of Ephesians.

Biblicist said:

As our ability to pray in the Spirit (tongues) is a vital ability that the Holy Spirit works through us, where it is certainly applicable during times of private devotions, it has little benefit within the corporate meeting as the Spirit will always direct his words of praise to the Father.

Click to expand...

Where in the bible does it say tongues are for private devotions?

Doesn't Paul say that prayers in tongues ought to be interpreted so that others can say "Amen"? How can it be done in private if it must be interpreted for the benefit of others?

How can tongues spoken in private be a "sign to unbelievers”?

How can tongues be for private use if the gifts of the spirit are only to be used for the benefit of others (1 Peter 4:10, 1 Cor 12:7).