Tongues as Initial Evidence

[Presbyterian Continuist]

That scripture doesn't say tongues + interpretation of tongues is prophecy, it doesn't even say it is the equivalent of prophecy. It simply says that if you prophesy you are greater than if you speak in a tongue unless you interpret it so that the church is edified. The point is to edify the church. Paul is telling us to use some sense- we are not communicating anything worthwhile in church if we speak in tongues and it is not interpreted.

I agree. Interpretation of tongues is not prophecy at all. Tongues, whether public or private are directed toward God, not to man. Therefore a true interpretation of a tongue is an expression of prayer or worship directed to God. When there is a tongues message followed by a prophecy, the tongue is more likely a prayer to God in the Spirit that He will release His Word to the congregation. In this way a person can speak out in tongues, and the correct interpretation could be: "Lord I call upon you to release your word of prophecy to this group so that we will know more of Your will for us this morning." If there are prophecies that result from it, they are the responses in the Spirit to the prayer that was prayed publicly in tongues.

I believe that the people who spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost spoke of the mighty acts of God, as the Scripture says, but the expression was in the second person, not the third person. The 120 were praising and worshiping God in tongues, and is what the pilgrims heard in the own languages.

Now here is a thought: What if the 120 were praying in tongues, not necessarily the languages of the pilgrims, but a miracle happened between the sounds leaving the mouths of the 120 became the languages of the hearers by the time they reached their ears? In other words, God changed the nature of the languages as the sound went from mouth to ears? That is a new thought about Pentecost that I have not thought of before. The only limits we put on what God can do is the limit of our believing...

 

[ARBITER01]

I agree. Interpretation of tongues is not prophecy at all. Tongues, whether public or private are directed toward God, not to man. Therefore a true interpretation of a tongue is an expression of prayer or worship directed to God. When there is a tongues message followed by a prophecy, the tongue is more likely a prayer to God in the Spirit that He will release His Word to the congregation. In this way a person can speak out in tongues, and the correct interpretation could be: "Lord I call upon you to release your word of prophecy to this group so that we will know more of Your will for us this morning." If there are prophecies that result from it, they are the responses in the Spirit to the prayer that was prayed publicly in tongues

And that is why we have the teachings from our Christian forefathers, of which Paul specifically said prophecy is not greater than tongues when an interpretation is given.

All three gifts are to be operated by utterance of The Holy Spirit in the corporate body, hence why they provide edification, exhortation, and comfort.

 

[JEBrady]

As you likely know, the word for "tongues" in actually "languages" and so we may be jumping the gun assuming that the intended meaning was the spiritual gift "diversities of tongues" rather than the spiritual gift "prophesy." Since (according to I Corin 14) "unknown tongues" are by their very nature "unknown" and "no man understands" what is being said... I would have to conclude that what happened in Acts 2 was not "unknown tongues"... if they were "unknown tongues" nobody would have understood them and an interpreter would have been required.

1Co 14:2
(2) 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.

So there are two proofs in this one verse that show that what happened in Acts 2 was not "unknown tongues":

• First, the messages were known languages that people could hear and understand(no man understands tongues...), and second,
• the message given was to men, not to God. (he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh NOT unto men, but unto God)

Also, all tongues require an interpreter... which is obvious since no man understands what is being said.

1Co 14:27-28
(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.
(28) But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

None of this happened in Acts 2. What actually occurred has no resemblance to the definitions of "unknown tongues" that we see in 1 Corin.

So what happened in Acts two was not 100% unknown tongues. It was a unique combination of different manifestations including tongues and prophecy. What seems to have happened was an instance of men prophesying in languages they did not know, but that were known to some men present.

There are other issues. We know that not all have any one gift. Yet here we see that the ALL manifested this one specific gift. So that is another strike against the assumption that this is a single spiritual gift being manifested.

So while the word "tongues" is used on the opening verses, what actually happened has little or no resemblance to the "unknown tongues" as described in 1 Corin. People have attempted to resolve the many discrepancies and smooth over the obvious contradictions only to end up with even more confusion. I have just resolved to designate it as a unique spiritual manifestation that cannot be pigeon holed into any one spiritual gift as described in 1 Corin. It has elements of tongues and prophecy. That is as close as we can get.

What do you think?

I think the bible says they were speaking in other (heteros) tongues (glossa). Tongues in this case refers to spoken language. The hearers said they were all Galileans, yet they were speaking in some vast number of non-Galilean tongues (more than 10 listed), which were not their native tongue. I safely conclude they were not speaking something they themselves understood, but were speaking as God gave them utterance.

1 Corinthians 12 tells us there are different gifts, different ministries and different ways of working spiritual things. When those in the upper room began to speak, they were speaking in tongues. That much is for sure. Were they prophesying? No, the vocal manifestation was tongues. Were the others hearing the physical speech or a manifested interpretation? I believe they were hearing the physical speech.

This was a different operation of speaking in tongues from what I may typically manifest in my prayer time with God. It's a different operation from tongues that manifest in the assembly which are interpreted. But it's still an operation of speaking in tongues, regardless of the fact that someone else understood the language that was being spoken. There is no such thing as a "prayer language". That's an artifice invented in Pentecost as a way to distinguish between devotional praying in the Spirit and speaking in tongues in the assembly (which is meant to be interpreted). It's all tongues- just a different operation.

I have no reason to believe they were not speaking to God in Acts 2- it simply says they were praising His wonderful works, just as in the Corinthian passage it says re tongues, that you "give thanks well". The others there simply overheard it, since it was in their native tongue. They were supposed to understand it so that they would know this sign was intelligible and from God, not gibberish.

Pentecost is full of stories of different operations of tongues from the usual devotional or tongues & interpretation seen in the assembly. A missionary becomes injured and is out in the bush. He is impressed to speak out in tongues. Suddenly these bush people come out, pick him up and transport him to a hospital. He had been speaking their language, telling them to come out and take him to the hospital. A working of tongues. I'm in a prayer meeting before church. I'm praying at the back of the church with my eyes closed, and feel impressed to pray in tongues. I raise my voice. No one interprets. I have peace, though. Later, after church, my pastor comes up to me and says he had come in the sanctuary behind me when I began to speak in tongues, and God gave him the interpretation. It was for him personally. There was no interpreter there, that I knew of. I was just yielding to the Spirit as He gave me utterance.

I think there's more to these manifestations than just what is contained in the Corinthian chapter. I believe every manifestation of the Holy Spirit falls into one of the nine manifestations listed in the first verses of ch. 12, but there are many different ways they are ministered and operated. Acts 2 was one of them.

 

[Tenacity]

Well if we go by what was predicted as initial evidence,...



This was said by Peter following the event with tongues, so I think there had to be folks interpreting the utterances by The Holy Spirit for the event to be considered prophecy by Peter, but ultimately, the gift of prophecy was mentioned here, not tongues.

AOG churches have their own doctrinal fences they abide by, and if you suggest anything other than tongues as evidence of the filling of The Holy Spirit to them, they go haywire arguing with you.

I was filled with The Holy Spirit the following day of my born again experience by Jesus, and I prophesied that same night. Tongues did not come for me until around 6 months or so later when I prayed and fasted for them. I also personally knew a person who could operate in the gift of interpretation but who could not speak in tongues himself, so the idea that tongues is the only evidence is baloney. How GOD distributes the gifts to people is however HE wants.

Agreed. I did not speak in tongues initially either. I did not even think that I believed in the 'gifts of the Spirit' at the time. I started out prophesying, dreams, visions, word of knowledge, tongues came later. I was not seeking the gifts. I was a young man who had a deep hunger to be with God. I sought out relationship with Jesus above all else and the 'gifts' just kinda sorta followed along behind. I did not even realize, at the time, that what I was experiencing were the gifts of the Spirit.

 

[sheetiron]

Lets look at the scriptures. The Apostles spoke in tongues when baptized in the Holy Spirit Acts 2:4 "All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them." The disciples of Ephesus spoke in tongues as recorded in Acts 19:6 "When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied." Most compelling is Acts 10:44-46 "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God." As you read, ask yourself this question. How did Peter and the believers know that the Gentiles had been baptized in the spirit? Think about the implications of the word "for" in verse 46. While it is not recorded that the believers in Acts 8:14-17 spoke in tongues, it is recorded that a well renowned sorcerer(simon) saw something happening when the believers were baptized in the spirit that made him want to buy it. Acts 8:18,19 "When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money and said, "Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit." Seeing how Speaking in Tongues seemed to be the norm when people in the book of Acts were Baptized in the Holy Spirit I think the burden of proof rests on those who claim that what Simon the sorcerer saw that made him want to buy the gift was not speaking in tongues. If it wasn't tongues, what was it? It is true that it is not recorded in the book of Acts if the Apostle Paul spoke in tongues when baptized in the spirit, however we do know that the Apostle Paul spoke in tongues 1 Corinthians 14:18 "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you."

 

[NorrinRadd]

Lets look at the scriptures. The Apostles spoke in tongues when baptized in the Holy Spirit Acts 2:4 "All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them."

True.

The disciples of Ephesus spoke in tongues as recorded in Acts 19:6 "When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied."

It is reasonable to infer that *some* spoke in tongues, while others prophesied.

Most compelling is Acts 10:44-46 "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God." As you read, ask yourself this question. How did Peter and the believers know that the Gentiles had been baptized in the spirit? Think about the implications of the word "for" in verse 46.

This case is more confusing than compelling, since the Spirit fell before Peter even finished his sermon. Standard Pentecostal dogma is not just that tongues is the "initial evidence" of Spirit-baptism, but also that Spirit-baptism is separate from and subsequent to regeneration, and that regeneration follows from believing the Gospel. So this occasion totally hoses the "standard" Pentecostal order of events.

While it is not recorded that the believers in Acts 8:14-17 spoke in tongues, it is recorded that a well renowned sorcerer(simon) saw something happening when the believers were baptized in the spirit that made him want to buy it. Acts 8:18,19 "When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money and said, "Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit." Seeing how Speaking in Tongues seemed to be the norm when people in the book of Acts were Baptized in the Holy Spirit I think the burden of proof rests on those who claim that what Simon the sorcerer saw that made him want to buy the gift was not speaking in tongues. If it wasn't tongues, what was it?

Who knows? No one, that's who. It certainly can't be regarded as the "norm" in a book that does not present enough cases or enough of a consistent pattern to establish a "norm" at all.

There are 4 occasions in Acts where people are said to "receive" the Spirit -- Acts 2, 8, 10, and 19.

In Acts 2, they spoke in tongues.

In Acts 8, nothing specific happened.

In Acts 10, they spoke in tongues, but apparently before even hearing a complete presentation of the Gospel.

In Acts 19, some spoke in tongues, while some prophesied.


So only one case out of the four presented actually followed the "normative" Pentecostal pattern.

It is true that it is not recorded in the book of Acts if the Apostle Paul spoke in tongues when baptized in the spirit, however we do know that the Apostle Paul spoke in tongues 1 Corinthians 14:18 "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you."

Acts also does not use the terminology, "receive(d) the Spirit" in regard to Paul, but rather "filled with the Spirit." That expression occurs six times in Acts -- 2, 4 (twice), 9, and 13 (twice). Only the first of those is explicitly linked with tongues-speaking.

Certainly Paul spoke in tongues, but the onset is unspecified.

 

[TasManOfGod]

It is amazing how some theologians get "and" and "or " mixed up

 

[NorrinRadd]

It is amazing how some theologians get "and" and "or " mixed up

Like it or not, the ambiguity is inherent in the way the text was phrased.

Similarly, Acts 13:1 can be taken as saying that all those present were both prophets and teachers, or that some were prophets and not teachers, some were teachers and not prophets, and perhaps some were both.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

When it's all boiled down, once a person starts speaking in tongues, for that person the issue of tongues being the initial evidence becomes a non-issue.

I believe that the issue is more relevant for people encountering people who say they are filled with the Spirit and showing no evidence of it. It is also an issue for those who are seeking the baptism in the Spirit and who are hearing anti-tongues people saying that it is all 'babble" and is not needed as part of the baptism.

I believe that in the early church, it was not an issue at all, because the gift of tongues was freely accepted as being part of the baptism in the Spirit. All the observations of the baptism as recorded in the book of Acts included tongues, and Paul in his teaching to the Corinthians accepted tongues as a normal part of a Christian's private prayer.

But in our divided, fragmented church, we have those who are anti-tongues, those who are for tongues, and those who are undecided. There is really no consistency of doctrine at all in the wider scope of the visible church, which is made up of so many separate denominations.

Also, the Pentecostal/Charismatic visible church is also very fragmented, with all sorts of different practices of the use of tongues. Some use it publicly, and others don't. How the ones who use it publicly, I don't know how they reconcile that with the teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 14, but they seem to be able to, and the Holy Spirit is still enabling souls to be saved, and Christians healed and delivered in their services.

Paul wrote two letters to the Corinthian church, but only used a small part of one letter to deal with the issue of the public speaking of tongues in Church. He did not say that public tongues was going to stop the Holy Spirit moving in the church, but said that the use of prophecy would be more effective. His view of what would have quenched and grieved the Holy Spirit would have been the sexual immorality of some of its members, and the lack of love, one to another.

So, my view is that some anti-Charismatics who are gnashing their teeth in a hateful and intolerant way against those who love worshiping God in tongues, are doing much more toward grieving the Holy Spirit and preventing Him fromf working in their own churches. So, it is no sin to worship God speaking in languages that are described as "gibberish" by those who don't believe in it; but it is a grievous sin to slander and defame those who do it by accusing them of being inspired by the devil, etc.; and by doing that, they might as well be putting a big notice over the front door of their own church which says "ICHABOD - THE GLORY OF GOD HAS DEPARTED FROM THIS CHURCH"

 

[Cassidy]

Two things...

Firstly if one is looking for initial evidence that God was true to his word, like some sort of receipt, then I think 'faith' is what you're looking for.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen.

Scripture makes it very clear what the evidence is.

Secondly if someone speaking in an 'unknown' tongue where no man undestands therefore they'd be speaking mysteries...could it be that it is unknown because there is no one in the congregation who spoke that language? Therefore, if you read on, scripture talks about talking barbarian because no one understands...later Paul then tells us that we need an interpreter so that we can edify, for if we don't we'd only be edifying ourselves, which is not what tongues was meant for.

 

[JEBrady]

Tongues actually are for self-edification, and that is one of the primary benefits of tongues, and a reason why we all get it when we receive the baptism. It is invaluable in our prayer life to be able to pray in tongues. Jude instructs us to build ourselves up on our most holy faith praying in the Holy Spirit. Paul defines praying in the spirit as praying in tongues. Paul said he thanked God he spoke in tongues more than all those tongue-talking Corinthians, but he didn’t do it in the church, he did it in private.

 

[JC_Crust]

When following the laws of interpretation, u cannot come up with that opinion. Paul did speak in tongues when he was filled. Why would his experience be different from others who were filled? He said he spoke in tongues more than all the Corinthian Christians. When do you suppose he started? If you follow the biblical pattern, it would stand to reason that he started the same as those before him; when he was filled with the Holy Spirit. It goes against sound reason to think he did not speak in tongues intially after being filled with the Spirit if the other four cases in Acts show them speaking in tongues. Unless he did what I did when I was filled.

When I was filled, I senced the utterance moving on my vocal cords but did not yield and speak. However, that night before I said my night prayer, I said, "Lord I believe I was filled with the Holy Spirit and I fully expect to speak in tongues." I then yielded and spoke in tongues that night. I was filled when the brother laid hands on me. I could have spoke in tongues then.

I said that to say, even if Paul didn't speak in tongues doesn't mean he couldn't had. It is unlikely though that he didn't not speak in tongues. How else would they known he was filled with the Holy Spirit?

why does everyone else have to see that youre filled with the holy spirit? i thought that was supposed to be between us and God?

 

[IchoozJC]

So, my view is that some anti-Charismatics who are gnashing their teeth in a hateful and intolerant way against those who love worshiping God in tongues, are doing much more toward grieving the Holy Spirit and preventing Him fromf working in their own churches. So, it is no sin to worship God speaking in languages that are described as "gibberish" by those who don't believe in it; but it is a grievous sin to slander and defame those who do it by accusing them of being inspired by the devil, etc.; and by doing that, they might as well be putting a big notice over the front door of their own church which says "ICHABOD - THE GLORY OF GOD HAS DEPARTED FROM THIS CHURCH"

I suppose I am one of the undecided that you mention. The main reason is because it's hard for me to discern truth in certain cases when you have seemingly honest, and good intentioned believers seperating themselves from other believers over a single gift, and then using that gift in a way that's umbiblical.

I mean, c'mon.... Paul warned us very clearly...

23So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand[g] or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?

Yet a lot of Pentacostals pretend that only part of 1 cor 14 applies to them, and turn a deaf ear to the warnings of speaking in tongues in public settings without an interpreter.

Just something to consider,... who is being the most divisive? The christian who doesn't like parading the gifts of the Holy Spirit in an unbiblical way and so finds himself an assembly where it isn't happening, or the believer who takes no heed to the orderly worship that Paul tried to institute... by devoting an entire chapter to it no less.

But thankfully there are churches out there that believe in the full gospel, and have enough self control to refrain from scaring off unbelievers or less mature Christians. Why can't the AOG assimilate into other bible believing churches? Is it too difficult to sit and be edified through the other gifts? I mean, you can always wait till you get home and then pray in tongues until Jesus comes if that's what you want to do.

It seems like unity was Paul's main concern when he wrote the Corinthians. But you still have those who can't seem to control themselves. They think being led by the Spirit supersedes the love your neighbor as yourself command. Like God would say "go ahead and make everyone else around you cringe because you are worshiping in a manner that my apostle politely asked you not to. If you feel me just let it out, unrestrained. Self control... what? I was just kidding."

Sorry, I'm probably not making sense to most here. I'm tired. But when I read your reply I couldn't help but let out a little. I just get really put off by super spiritual responses to this topic, like the way yours came across. Maybe that wasn't your intention, but I've heard other Pentecostals label folks who don't speak in tongues as "dead, lifeless" or any other belittling way. We are to be judged by our fruits, not our gifts, or lack of gifts for that matter.

Bottom line for me, if there was less abuse of the gifts in the Church today, you would have less complaints from other believers who are genuine but just timid to get into a church where so much emphasis is put on one "doctrine" of the christian faith. Keep tongues in the prayer closet where it belongs. If you speak in tongues in a church and do so biblically and in order, you would not be hearing the criticism from true seekers and believers that you claim to hear, or so I believe. I was in an assembly where tongues was spoken and interpreted, and even though I have my concerns with this doctrine, the moment it was interpreted I had no doubts and overwhelming peace. God wasn't kidding when he told us to control ourselves. It was for our own good. Unfortunately at the end of the service there were a bunch up front all speaking in tongues with no interpretation. It put splinters into the memory of what could have been a great blessing for me.

 

[JC_Crust]

I suppose I am one of the undecided that you mention. The main reason is because it's hard for me to discern truth in certain cases when you have seemingly honest, and good intentioned believers seperating themselves from other believers over a single gift, and then using that gift in a way that's umbiblical.

I mean, c'mon.... Paul warned us very clearly...



Yet a lot of Pentacostals pretend that only part of 1 cor 14 applies to them, and turn a deaf ear to the warnings of speaking in tongues in public settings without an interpreter.

Just something to consider,... who is being the most divisive? The christian who doesn't like parading the gifts of the Holy Spirit in an unbiblical way and so finds himself an assembly where it isn't happening, or the believer who takes no heed to the orderly worship that Paul tried to institute... by devoting an entire chapter to it no less.

But thankfully there are churches out there that believe in the full gospel, and have enough self control to refrain from scaring off unbelievers or less mature Christians. Why can't the AOG assimilate into other bible believing churches? Is it too difficult to sit and be edified through the other gifts? I mean, you can always wait till you get home and then pray in tongues until Jesus comes if that's what you want to do.

It seems like unity was Paul's main concern when he wrote the Corinthians. But you still have those who can't seem to control themselves. They think being led by the Spirit supersedes the love your neighbor as yourself command. Like God would say "go ahead and make everyone else around you cringe because you are worshiping in a manner that my apostle politely asked you not to. If you feel me just let it out, unrestrained. Self control... what? I was just kidding."

Sorry, I'm probably not making sense to most here. I'm tired. But when I read your reply I couldn't help but let out a little. I just get really put off by super spiritual responses to this topic, like the way yours came across. Maybe that wasn't your intention, but I've heard other Pentecostals label folks who don't speak in tongues as "dead, lifeless" or any other belittling way. We are to be judged by our fruits, not our gifts, or lack of gifts for that matter.

Bottom line for me, if there was less abuse of the gifts in the Church today, you would have less complaints from other believers who are genuine but just timid to get into a church where so much emphasis is put on one "doctrine" of the christian faith. Keep tongues in the prayer closet where it belongs. If you speak in tongues in a church and do so biblically and in order, you would not be hearing the criticism from true seekers and believers that you claim to hear, or so I believe. I was in an assembly where tongues was spoken and interpreted, and even though I have my concerns with this doctrine, the moment it was interpreted I had no doubts and overwhelming peace. God wasn't kidding when he told us to control ourselves. It was for our own good. Unfortunately at the end of the service there were a bunch up front all speaking in tongues with no interpretation. It put splinters into the memory of what could have been a great blessing for me.

im talking about this in a different thread as well but i gave up. they want me to look it up in the bible to make them sound right when really all i see is that theyre not accurate. i referenced verses but they of course took them out of context. its frustrating so i left that thread with a facepalm lol

 

[Sock Lobster]

I'm saved!

 

[JC_Crust]

I'm saved!

hahaha! what a clever beaver

 

[NorrinRadd]

why does everyone else have to see that youre filled with the holy spirit? i thought that was supposed to be between us and God?

Because in Luke and Acts, there was normatively some outward, noteworthy evidence when one or more people were filled with the Spirit.

 

[JC_Crust]

Because in Luke and Acts, there was normatively some outward, noteworthy evidence when one or more people were filled with the Spirit.

ok but it still seems like your business with God is your business with God, not everyone around you. they dont NEED to see it for you to be righteous.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

hahaha! what a clever beaver

It's a good thing that I have already had my evening meal. Sights like those would put me off my food. Imaging kissing those! YYYYYuuucckkk!

 

[NorrinRadd]

...

I believe that in the early church, it was not an issue at all, because the gift of tongues was freely accepted as being part of the baptism in the Spirit. All the observations of the baptism as recorded in the book of Acts included tongues, ...

I'm sorry, but that's not quite true. What *is* true is that in Luke and Acts, when the author records that one or more people "received" the Spirit, or were "filled with" the Spirit, or had the Spirit "fall" or "come upon" them, or were "baptized" with the Spirit, *something* notable almost always happened, and most frequently *some* sort of inspired utterance -- whether tongues or prophecy -- was part of it.

...
Also, the Pentecostal/Charismatic visible church is also very fragmented, with all sorts of different practices of the use of tongues. Some use it publicly, and others don't. How the ones who use it publicly, I don't know how they reconcile that with the teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 14, but they seem to be able to, and the Holy Spirit is still enabling souls to be saved, and Christians healed and delivered in their services.

...
I mean, c'mon.... Paul warned us very clearly...



Yet a lot of Pentacostals pretend that only part of 1 cor 14 applies to them, and turn a deaf ear to the warnings of speaking in tongues in public settings without an interpreter.

This is easy enough to explain. The basic reason is that Acts records three separate occasions of believers speaking in "tongues," and NONE of them conforms to the rules Paul established in 1 Cor. 14.

The nearly universal Pentecostal solution is to teach that there are two "versions" of tongues -- one for prayer and praise, one for public address. Supposedly the 1 Cor. 14 "rules" about mandatory interpretation, only one speaker at a time, only a total of three, etc., only apply to "public address" tongues, not to "prayer and praise" tongues.

My view is that Scripture portrays only *one* version of tongues, the prayer and praise version. The "rules" of 1 Cor. 14 then do apply, but not universally. They applied in the church at Corinth, and they are useful guidelines for bringing order to any church prone to confusion and strife, but they are not mandatory for every gathering.

Just something to consider,... who is being the most divisive? The christian who doesn't like parading the gifts of the Holy Spirit in an unbiblical way and so finds himself an assembly where it isn't happening, or the believer who takes no heed to the orderly worship that Paul tried to institute... by devoting an entire chapter to it no less.

Isn't it "divisive" to claim that Paul's teaching overrides Luke's?

But thankfully there are churches out there that believe in the full gospel, and have enough self control to refrain from scaring off unbelievers or less mature Christians. Why can't the AOG assimilate into other bible believing churches? Is it too difficult to sit and be edified through the other gifts? I mean, you can always wait till you get home and then pray in tongues until Jesus comes if that's what you want to do.

But the NORMATIVE application of tongues in Acts was CORPORATE. Why should any Christian group be denigrated for pursuing that pattern?

It seems like unity was Paul's main concern when he wrote the Corinthians. But you still have those who can't seem to control themselves. They think being led by the Spirit supersedes the love your neighbor as yourself command. Like God would say "go ahead and make everyone else around you cringe because you are worshiping in a manner that my apostle politely asked you not to. If you feel me just let it out, unrestrained. Self control... what? I was just kidding."

Sorry, I'm probably not making sense to most here. I'm tired. But when I read your reply I couldn't help but let out a little. I just get really put off by super spiritual responses to this topic, like the way yours came across. Maybe that wasn't your intention, but I've heard other Pentecostals label folks who don't speak in tongues as "dead, lifeless" or any other belittling way. We are to be judged by our fruits, not our gifts, or lack of gifts for that matter.

Yes, spiritual elitism can sometimes rear its misshapen head. But in my experience, it is often a reaction by those who have heard plenty of disparaging remarks about "them tongue-talkers babbling their shawn-di ron-di tie my bow tie gibberish." It's not a properly forgiving response, but it's understandable.

Bottom line for me, if there was less abuse of the gifts in the Church today, you would have less complaints from other believers who are genuine but just timid to get into a church where so much emphasis is put on one "doctrine" of the christian faith. Keep tongues in the prayer closet where it belongs. If you speak in tongues in a church and do so biblically and in order, you would not be hearing the criticism from true seekers and believers that you claim to hear, or so I believe. I was in an assembly where tongues was spoken and interpreted, and even though I have my concerns with this doctrine, the moment it was interpreted I had no doubts and overwhelming peace. God wasn't kidding when he told us to control ourselves. It was for our own good. Unfortunately at the end of the service there were a bunch up front all speaking in tongues with no interpretation. It put splinters into the memory of what could have been a great blessing for me.

Again, this presupposes the "right" practice is the one Paul created to deal with one particular problematic church, as opposed to the one Luke recorded in at least three different gatherings.