A Look at Tongues in the Word of God

This thread will be for the purpose of presenting a 'booklet' that I authored some years ago. This OP will have two parts: 1) to give the purpose of the actual booklet (why it was originally written); and 2) the actual "introduction" from the booklet, along with a simple statement concerning the "copyright".

Part #1

As I stated in my testimony of my salvation experience, I spent my first couple of months as a Christian at the feet of the missionary that led me to Christ. During the next two years, while serving at MCRD San Diego, I took every opportunity I could to learn more about my new found faith while in San Diego. I found great satisfaction in learning about the Bible. In July of 1985 I felt the call of God to enter the ministry, therefore, I immediately enrolled in a Bible College near my next duty station. During my first four years of Bible college, it was mandatory for all the men who were planning on entering the ministry to participate in several "evangelistic" outreaches. It was during participation in these "outreaches" that I had my first encounters with 'charismatics'. While I was in fact taking course work which included their beliefs, (Arminianism etc.), these classes were presented at a higher level than could be presented to most lay-people. When working in theses outreaches, we were challenged (many times by a rude interruption of our presentation of the Gospel), by 'charismatics' concerning our beliefs. I found that many fundamentalists knew less about why they believed what they believed, then did the charismatics, even though the basis of the beliefs of the charismatics was entirely wrong. They still knew how to present their case in a way which, if one did not understand why the charismatics were (and are) wrong, one could easily be persuaded to doubt one's faith.

Upon reaching that point in my education when I began teaching, I decided it was lay-people who needed material written at a level just for them. I then began to write and publish (over the years), books and booklets that could for the most part be understood by lay-people. I will admit that on occasion, I get a bit 'theological', but I try to keep it straight forward, simple, and to the point.

It is my prayer that what follows will be used by the Holy Spirit to bring edification to the saints.

Jack

A look at Tongues in the Word of God

By

Dr. Jack Koons,


© COPYRIGHT 2008 BY THE AUTHOR

This work is copyrighted only to preserve the author's ownership of his work. Any part of this work may be used without the author's permission. All that he asks is that proper credit be given. (All quotations are from the King James Bible, unless stated otherwise)


In this thread, I will be posting the contents of the above copyrighted work in small sections. In addition to the contents of the above mentioned work, I will be ‘inserting’ additional information as opportunities present themselves. Additionally, if a question is asked that I believe merits additional comments (not already covered in the text), I will insert it as well. It is my purpose here to give the readers of this thread, understanding of the “tongues” issue.

A look at Tongues in the Word of God


Bible Studies

By

Dr. Jack Koons



The purpose of this brief study about the subject of ‘tongues’ is to answer the basic questions often asked, and to give a basic understanding of the use of tongues in the Bible.

In many churches today, there is the practice of what is known as “speaking with other or unknown tongues”. This brief study is divided into three parts:

Part One: Tongues in the Book of The Acts of the Apostles;
Part Two: Tongues in the book of 1 Corinthians
Part Three: Two Commonly Asked Questions

Let’s begin in the book of Acts.

Part One: Tongues in the Book of The Acts of the Apostles.

In the Book of The Acts of the Apostles we see the following things.

1) Acts 2 The day of Pentecost
The initial giving of the gift of “other tongues”.
2) Acts 10 Gentiles receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit.
3) Acts 19 Gentiles receiving the Holy Ghost.

In Chapter One we have the Apostles and some of the women in an upper room both waiting and praying as Jesus had told them to do. As they were there, Mathias was chosen to be with the eleven, to replace Judas; who had betrayed Christ.


Acts the second chapter begins with the morning of the day of Pentecost.

Acts 2: 1 ¶ And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

The first thing mentioned here is the “day of Pentecost”. In short the day of Pentecost was the fiftieth day after the seven weeks of the harvest. It is discussed in the book of Leviticus.

Leviticus 23:15 ¶ And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete: 16 Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD.

After the mention of when, we have the description that those who are present (at least the Apostles) were with “with one accord in one place”. At this point we must read very carefully. The reason we must read carefully is to be sure that we look at, what it says, not what we think it says.

Acts 2: 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

Please observe, it did not say, “there was a rushing might wind”. It says there was “a sound from heaven”. This does not say it was windy. It says, “a sound”. This is followed by, “as of a rushing mighty wind”. So what has been said? It says, there was “a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the house where they were sitting”. There was no wind, only the sound of wind. Otherwise it would read like this, “And suddenly there came from heaven a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the house where they were sitting”.

Why is this important? Because receiving the power of the Holy Spirit is not a physical thing to be felt, but rather an inner spiritual filling. God did however desire to mark the coming power of the Holy Spirit, and therefore it was marked with the miracle of the sound, without the wind. This sound filled the house where they were sitting.

Notice, I did not say they received the Holy Spirit, I said they received the “power” of the Holy Spirit. Remember the upper room, “19 ¶ Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. 21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. (John 20)

When Jesus said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost”, I believe that is exactly what happened; they received the Holy Ghost. The power was yet to come, but I am certain the disciples did not tell Jesus, “No thank you, I’ll pass on this”.

Acts 2: 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

Again, look at the wording used here. Note the words, “like as of fire”. This was symbolic of the power that the Holy Spirit would give to the believer. It was not literal fire. It “appeared unto them…as of fire”. There was the appearance of “cloven tongues like as of fire”, and it sat upon each of them.

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Now I must admit that it is at this point that things begin to get a bit more interesting and controversial. There is no debate to those present being filled with the Holy Ghost. The debate is over the definition of the word “other”, when used to describe tongues.

The first school of thought is that this is a ‘heavenly language’ used in prayer, for the purpose of communicating with God, without the devil being able to understand or know what you are praying. I must admit, this does have a certain amount of logic behind it, however, only a certain amount. Rather than spending a lot of time discussing several reasons from other scriptures why this logic is limited and in error, let’s just continue reading in Acts two for a definition.

Acts 2: 5 ¶ And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

You may ask this question, Why were Jews, and devout men, out of every nation under heaven; dwelling at Jerusalem? That is a very good question. Pentecost was a solemn feast that the Jews were celebrating.

Acts 2: 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.

Another verse that bears witness to the above verse is in Chapter 11.
Ac 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

Back to Acts 2:6,

Now imagine this. In a house somewhere in Jerusalem, several men are gathered together praying, when suddenly there is the sound of a rushing mighty wind and those that are in the house begin to speak in ‘other’ tongues (what ever they may be)! In verse six we see that news of this event was “noised abroad”. In other words, (if I may say so) the news of this event went all over Jerusalem. So much so that “the multitude came together, and were confounded”. Why did they come together? Why were they confounded? Good questions. The end of the verse gives the answer. “because that every man heard them speak in his own language”.

Let’s take a moment to look at this in more detail. The news of these men sitting in a house praying was not very newsworthy. However, throw in the fact that they are now speaking with “other” tongues is. It is not only newsworthy, and causing a crowd to gather, but it has the crowd confounded. What is so special about these “other” tongues? “because that every man heard them speak in his own language”. Well aren’t these all Jews that speak the same language? No, they are not. That is what is so amazing about these “other” tongues. Well then, what languages do these other “strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes” speak? That is what the Word of God tells us next.

Observe the following verses.

Acts 2: 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.
There are a few things that need to be pointed out about these verses. First, if you look at the end of verse seven you will see that it says, “Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?” This event has apparently moved out of the house at this point and there is a rather large crowd observing the situation. By the above question, it is known that all the speakers of “other” tongues are Galilaeans. The problem is they are not speaking in their native tongue. In other words, there’re not speaking it the language or dialect that would pertain to Galilaeans. (If they would be speaking in a language or languages that pertain to Galilaens; there would be no amazement!) Well if they are not speaking in the language that pertains to Galilaeans, what language are they speaking in? If you look at the above passage you will see sixteen (16) different regions named. The tricky part here is that there are only eleven (11) people speaking. We know this because in verse 14 says, ¶ 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: God allows people from sixteen different regions (mainly Jews celebrating Pentecost) to hear eleven men stand up and proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You may ask me how I know these men proclaimed the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Look at verse 11. “…, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God”. What greater works could or would have they have preached than how that Jesus died for their sins, according to the scriptures. And that He was buried. And that He rose again, according to the scriptures. We do know this. It is very clearly stated in verse 11 that the people listening understood what was being said. There were no interpreters. It clearly states that, “we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God”.

What then do we have here in this passage of scripture, as pertaining to “other” tongues? The word “other” simply tells us that on the day of Pentecost the Holy Ghost gave the Apostles a special gift. This gift was to speak with or in languages that they had no prior study or knowledge. The fact of the matter is that in Acts 4 we see that the people perceived that Peter and John were “unlearned and ignorant”. Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. God did not choose the Apostles because of their ability, He chose them because of their availability.

In His wisdom and foreknowledge, God chose the day of Pentecost to evangelize the entire area where the Jews dwelt. By giving the gift of tongues on this day three thousand souls were saved. Please read the following:

Acts 2: 37 ¶ Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

That was just the beginning! Remember, all these people came from other regions surrounding Jerusalem. When the feast was over, these men went home and spread the Gospel to their families.

There are two other places in the book of Acts we see the mention of tongues. The first of these is Acts chapter ten.

Acts 10: 44 ¶ While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

In chapter ten what we have, is the conversion of Cornelius. The verses that we are concerned with are those seen above. Observe verses forty-four and forty-five. 44 ¶ While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. Note verse forty-five. 45 “And they of the circumcision”. This is referring to Jews. Do you remember Chapter 2? Acts 2: 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.

You may wonder why am I associating Acts 10 with Acts 2? That is a good question. I am doing it because Peter does it in Acts 11:15. Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. What is Peter referring to by “as on us at the beginning”? He is referring to Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost! Peter is telling the Jews at Jerusalem that what happened to those present on the day of Pentecost as relating to the outpouring of the gift of the Holy Spirit, also happened in the home of Cornelius.

There were Jews present in Acts 2, and there were Jews present in Acts 10. There are “tongues” present in Acts 2, and there are “tongues” present in Acts 10. We have the witness of Peter by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the occurrence of Acts 10 is a replication of that in Acts 2 with one exception. In Acts 2 the outpouring of the gift of the Holy Ghost was upon Jews, and witnessed by Jews, Proselytes and strangers of Rome. The witnesses in Acts 2 were mainly Jews that were in Jerusalem for Pentecost. In Acts 10 we see the outpouring of the gift of the Holy Ghost upon Gentiles, not Jews. Those that witness this outpouring of the gift of the Holy Spirit were still Jews (those of the circumcision). The significance of this is that God first offers salvation and His gifts to the Jews, and now (in Acts 10) His gifts of salvation and the gifts of the Holy Spirit are given to the Gentiles.

The key point to consider at this time is knowing the two main purposes for “other tongues”.

I want you to read the following verses carefully.
1 Corinthians 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

There are three very important things stated in the above two verses. First, Jews require a sign. Second, tongues are for a sign. Third, tongues are a sign for unbelievers: not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.

Now what does this mean? God gave the gift of “tongues” for two particular reasons. First, God used tongues to get the gospel out to all the Jews, Proselytes, and strangers of Rome in Acts 2. Some may not believe that the previous sentence is true, but I feel obligated to ask those people the following question: Since we know that what was said by the “eleven” glorified God (we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God); if they were not preaching Christ crucified, buried, and risen again the third day: what were they preaching? That was the message God gave to Peter, wouldn’t it seem a good thing for God to use this opportunity to get His gospel throughout the whole region?

However, there is a more direct purpose for “other tongues”. 1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. Tongues are for a sign. Tongues are a sign to the unbelieving Jew. Observe, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not. God gave the unbelieving Jew the sign of “other tongues” or what has been commonly known as “tongues” to know that what was being preached by these Apostles was of God. These Jews in Acts 2 knew these men that were preaching were Galilaeans, and they would not have the natural ability to speak in any other tongue (language). After all, these men were later described as being unlearned (or uneducated). Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. The only way such a miracle could take place, would be by the mighty hand of God. You may ask, Was anyone reached by this outpouring of the gift of “tongues” to the Apostles? Acts 2: 37 ¶ Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. Three thousand people received Jesus as Saviour that day, I would say that the unbelieving Jews understood the sign of God that day. Again, 1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Before I get too carried away with the purpose of “tongues” I must state that “tongues” are also found being used in Acts 19. 1 ¶ And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 7 And all the men were about twelve.

Although the above incident does not declare that there were unbelieving Jews present, this incident would be recorded by the Holy Spirit to show unbelieving Jews (even in our day) that the dispensation of “grace” or “the church” was now “of God” and the Gentiles truly have received the “gospel of Christ”.

Again, 1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. In review we see two things here about tongues. First, tongues are for a sign. Secondly, we not only see what tongues are for, but whom they are for. Tongues are not for believers. They were spoken by believers, but for the benefit of getting a message to unbelievers. God would take the miracle of having an unlearned preacher, speak in language that the people listening to him would know; he was not normally able to speak.

I would like to say one more thing concerning this matter. Please take another look at the following verses.

Acts 2: 4 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?

What I am about to say may seem trivial to some, but please consider the following. There is no argument that the Apostles were filled with the Holy Ghost and that they spoke with other tongues. But I would like to point out that there is as much of a miracle in the hearing of these tongues as in the speaking of them. You may be asking why this is so? Please read the following verses.

Acts 2: 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.

If you look at the above verses you will see that there are 16 regions in which the men came to Jerusalem. Now look at verse 6 above, “that every man heard them speak in his own language”. Also observe verse 8, “And how hear we every man in our own tongue”

There were men from 16 regions, each which has their own dialect. The greatest miracle here is that 11 men were speaking, and men from 16 regions were hearing in their own language wherein they were born. You may be asking, What is the miracle? The miracle is that men from each of the 16 regions mentioned above “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?

I grew up in Lebanon, Pennsylvania. (PA) Lebanon, PA is just north of Lancaster, PA where there is a major settlement of the sect known as Amish, who, in that area are known as the Pennsylvania Dutch. The Amish do not speak the same formal ‘Dutch’ as is spoken in Holland of the Netherlands, or the formal ‘German’ as is spoken in Germany. They have their own dialect. In Lebanon, many people speak another dialect of ‘German’, or ‘Dutch’ that is very much like the Amish “Pennsylvania Dutch”, but is a bit more like formal ‘German’. Also in Lebanon, there is a population of ‘Spanish’ speaking people, who speak not a true formal ‘Spanish’ but a ‘Spanish’ that is more like the ‘Spanish’ that is spoken by Mexicans around the borders of the U. S. Finally, there are also those of us who speak English in Lebanon, PA.

You may be asking at this point why I told you about the town of Lebanon, PA? The reason is that here is one city that has three different languages, and even more separate dialects!

In Acts 2:9-11 there are 16 regions listed. There is really no way of knowing just how many different languages and dialects were being heard! But we do know that every man “heard them speak in his own language.” What a great God we have to perform such a miracle!

I must also point out what is absent from these verses. There are NO interpreters! As we move from the book of Acts into the book of 1 Corinthians we must remember all that we have seen here.

It is necessary at this time to show the difference between the book of Acts and 1 Corinthians.

The book of Acts was written by Luke as a second letter a man named Theophilus. The first letter Luke wrote to Theophilus was his Gospel, which was a letter of the history of Jesus from the time of His birth to His resurrection. The book of Acts was literally an extension of his Gospel. Acts is another book of history that begins at the ascension, covers the first acts of the Apostles after the resurrection including the development of the early church, and then shifts to the missionary journeys of the Apostle Paul. Again, the book of Acts is a book of history.

1 Corinthians on the other hand is not a book of history. 1 Corinthians is a rebuke to the church of Corinth for their carnal practices in the church.

1 Corinthians 3: 1 ¶ And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

As Paul address the subject of “tongues” in chapter 14, he is rebuking them for their wrong practice of “tongues”. This must be kept in mind as we continue our study.

What is your explanation for why onlookers considered them "drunk?"

If, indeed, they were simply speaking in foreign languages, would not most of the listeners be quite comfortable with, and used to hearing, a lot of languages being spoken all over Jerusalem during this special Holy time?

I, personally would not call someone "drunk" if I heard something that sounded like a real language that I knew was already being spoken around town. And I think we can all agree, that even if we cannot understand a language, we can easily identify many languages. I know that I can tell you if a person is speaking German... or Russian... or Spanish... or French... or Italian... or Korean.

And I am not as used to hearing those different languages all over town, every day, as the people of Jerusalem would have been.

I think there is a tip-off in the way it was said that the hearers HEARD......... NOT that the speakers were SPEAKING, a certain language. I believe what the people who weren't HEARING their own languages heard was just as they said... some sort of nonsense that sounded like "drunk talk".

And this is not even taking into consideration that a crowd of 3,000 would certainly have found it almost impossible to selectively distinguish just their own language being SPOKEN while at least eleven other men were also jabbering away in yet another 15 tongues.

I wonder how far away many of the people in that huge throng were standing? After all, the streets were narrow, and not many people could have gotten within several hundred feet of the Apostles. All the voices would have to have melded into just one big noise beyond about 30 or 40 feet.

No, I think there is something big in them saying, "We each hear them in our own tongue"... NOT, "They are speaking in all the languages we use."

This post is a response to Willie T, it is not part of the original work.

Willie T said:

What is your explanation for why onlookers considered them "drunk?"

Click to expand...

This is a good question. The verse, ([13]Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.) shows that those who made this accusation, were mocking. The points you make here are good, but you must remember an important point; usually men whom you knew were from particular places, spoke languages, and/or dialects from those particular places. In other words, here is this text, Galilaeans were supposed to be speaking Galilaean, not any other language or dialect. That is what made this unique. It was an occurrence that simply didn’t fit “in the box of normality”!

If, indeed, they were simply speaking in foreign languages, would not most of the listeners be quite comfortable with, and used to hearing, a lot of languages being spoken all over Jerusalem during this special Holy time?

Click to expand...

Again, it isn’t the amount of languages being spoken that is the issue here; it is who is speaking those languages.

I, personally would not call someone "drunk" if I heard something that sounded like a real language that I knew was already being spoken around town. And I think we can all agree, that even if we cannot understand a language, we can easily identify many languages. I know that I can tell you if a person is speaking German... or Russian... or Spanish... or French... or Italian... or Korean.

And I am not as used to hearing those different languages all over town, every day, as the people of Jerusalem would have been.

I think there is a tip-off in the way it was said that the hearers HEARD......... NOT that the speakers were SPEAKING, a certain language. I believe what the people who weren't HEARING their own languages heard was just as they said... some sort of nonsense that sounded like "drunk talk".

And this is not even taking into consideration that a crowd of 3,000 would certainly have found it almost impossible to selectively distinguish just their own language being SPOKEN while at least eleven other men were also jabbering away in yet another 15 tongues.

Click to expand...

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?
The text is very clear, those who were LISTENING had one reaction: Amazement and marvel; why? Because Galilaeans weren’t speaking Galilaean! Instead, they were speaking in a tongue (language) that a) Galilaeans do not speak; and b) a tongue (language) that the LISTENER recognized. Please notice Willie, the only language heard by the listeners was “our own tongue”. (8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?) Again, “how hear we “every man in our own tongue”. I say this to clarify the fact that the listeners were not hearing 15 other languages, no, the listeners from 16 regions all heard 11 men speak in their own language, the clear message of the gospel. The emphasis of Charismatics today is always on the speaking of a “heavenly language”, but that is NOT what the emphasis was in this text. As a matter of fact, there is no “heavenly language” spoken here; only a heavenly message!

I wonder how far away many of the people in that huge throng were standing? After all, the streets were narrow, and not many people could have gotten within several hundred feet of the Apostles. All the voices would have to have melded into just one big noise beyond about 30 or 40 feet.

No, I think there is something big in them saying, "We each hear them in our own tongue"... NOT, "They are speaking in all the languages we use."

Click to expand...

Now we’re getting somewhere!!! Willie, you’re seeing the bigger picture!!! God gave the unbelieving Jews a sign which said, Listen to the message, it’s a message you need to hear! They heard the message loud and clear, the result; 3,000 souls saved!

Quiz #1

1.What tongues (languages), were heard spoken on the Day of Pentecost?

2.Were there any languages spoken (heard), that were unknown to those listening?

3.Were there any interpreters needed in either Acts 2, 10, or 19?

4.Since Peter states (by inspiration of the Holy Spirit) in Acts 11:15, “And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning”; is there any reason to believe that there were any “unknown” tongues (languages) heard in Acts 10, or 19?

5.Is there any evidence whatsoever that there was any language not known to man (on Planet Earth), was heard in Acts 2, 10, or 19?

6.Does any of the text of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles referring to use of “other tongues”, ever give reference, indication, or insinuation, that the “tongues” (languages) spoken by the Apostles, Jews, or Gentiles, was a “tongue” (language) spoken in Heaven, and NOT a tongue or language in use by Apostles, Jews, or Gentiles?

7.If we read the text of the Book of Acts in its normal, grammatical, historical, and literal meaning; is it reasonable to conclude that God by a supernatural miracle, allowed Jews, and Gentiles to hear men speak in their native languages, (when they were never taught in those languages) in order to 1) give the Jews a required sign; and 2) allow those coming from several regions around Jerusalem the Gospel of Jesus Christ, resulting in thousands of people getting saved?

8.Based on answers from the above questions, is there any basis for the Charismatic’s belief that on the Day of Pentecost, Peter and the other Apostles spoke in a “heavenly language”?

9.Like the above question, based on the answers from the previous questions, is there any basis for the Charismatics to assume (and therefore believe and teach), that a “heavenly language” was used ANYWHERE in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles?

10.Based on the Book of Acts, can anyone see any Scriptural basis for the current practice of “tongues” by the Charismatics?


We will now move on to the Book of 1 Corinthians.

A look at Tongues in the Word of God

By

Dr. Jack Koons


Interesting. Where did you get your doctorate?

standingtall said:

A look at Tongues in the Word of God

By

Dr. Jack Koons


Interesting. Where did you get your doctorate?

Click to expand...

Standingtall,

Rather than name the college, suffice it to say, they obviously had no quarrel with my stand on the KJV. By most standards today, that position would automatically disqualify them from being an authority on anything Biblical. However, I assure you my teachers (professors), were men of rather high learning.

Jack

Gotcha. A diploma mill or an honorary "doctorate"? Fundamentalism, especially of the IFB variety, is full of them.

Where can we find your doctoral dissertation? If you are as learned as you say, you shouldn't mind sharing it with us.

standingtall said:

Gotcha. A diploma mill or an honorary "doctorate"? Fundamentalism, especially of the IFB variety, is full of them.

Where can we find your doctoral dissertation? If you are as learned as you say, you shouldn't mind sharing it with us.

Click to expand...

standingtall,

That is exactly what I would expect from you.

1) I have never approached this anyone here with an attitude, or statement that claimed that I am more "learned" than anyone else.

2) In every post I have presented in this Forum, I have shared information that was supported by documentation; thereby showing that I am not the authority, rather, the supported evidence stands for itself.

3) in every thread I have posted, I not only presented documented, supported evidence that supported my position; but that same evidence refuted the so-called "irrefutable evidence" given by such 'experts' in the field of 'biblical research' as Doug Kutilek.

4) You sir, for one, have never been able to contribute one serious piece of evidence to edify Christians in this Forum, on a single topic I have discussed.

My purpose in this Forum is to edify Christians. This subject of "Tongues", is a serious violation of the doctrine of Theology Proper, something which seems to be above your comprehension. It is a violation of the doctrine of Soteriology (salvation), and the only thing on your mind is trying to attack the character of a man you know nothing about.

If you spent half the time in the study of God's precious Word that you do condemning the character of others, it could be you sharing this vital information, not me.

My only challenge to you is to give me scripturally factual evidence to show that I am theologically wrong in my belief that Salvation, and growth in the scriptures is in error. When you can show me that I have a stand in my theology is incorrect, I will gracefully stand corrected. This tread is for the purpose of showing the error of "Tongues", as taught by the Charismatic Movement. Nothing more, nothing less.

Jack

By the way, just for the record; my Doctorate was earned, by hard laborious hours of study, over a period of many years of working a full time job, followed by heading to school for hours afterward, and vice versa when the classes so required. And yes, I attended and IFB school.

Jack

Well Jack, when you put "Dr." In front of your name, you should expect honest questions...and when you try to dodge the question (as you did the first time), you should also expect skepticism.

Pardon my cynicism, but a great many Independent Fundamental Baptists touting the title of Doctor did not earn it, but were given it by their buddies in the unaccredited IFB college ranks. Jack Hyles and his cronies were/are famous for doing this.

As far as the KJV and "tongues"....it just doesn't matter, and I believe some folks spend far too much time majoring on those minors.

Part Two: Tongues in the book of 1 Corinthians

As we look into 1 Corinthians we will be introduced to different terminology than we have seen prior to this time. Without further delay let us view the scriptures at hand.

1 Corinthians 14:1 ¶ Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

Here, in the very first verse of the “Tongues” chapter Paul gives the Corinthians a charge, Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts. There is no debate here, I am quite sure that Paul meant exactly what he said. But he then follows this charge with the weightier matter. …but rather that ye may prophesy. Paul says following charity is good. Desiring spiritual gifts is good. But, preaching is more important. Why?

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. 3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. 4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. 5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

In the above verses we see the term “unknown tongue”. There has been much controversy over the meaning of this term. However, I believe that it is actually quite simple. An “unknown tongue” is nothing more than a language that the listener does not understand. For example, any other language to him that is only learned in English would be an “unknown tongue”. As we look through the next several verses; keep this in mind, and the simplicity of the scriptures will amaze you.

For example, look at the following verses.

1 Corinthians 14:1 ¶ Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. 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. 3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. 4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. 5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Let’s keep it simple. For this example let’s say that we are in an English speaking church. Let us further understand that a man who only speaks German comes into our church and wants to preach or even pray. It would seem that we would have a little problem. The problem would be that the German speaker would be speaking in an “unknown tongue” (language). Unknown to whom? Unknown to us, who only speak English. We would not understand a single word he would say. Now look at what it says in verse 2 above. 1 Corinthians 14: 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. It says, 2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men… why doesn’t he speak unto men? Because they can’t understand him. Observe, : for no man understandeth him. Why can’t they understand him? Because they only speak English, not German. Then it says, but unto God. In other words, he isn’t speaking to men (since they can’t understand German), but he is speaking unto God (just because we can’t understand German, doesn’t mean God can’t understand German). The same principle applies in verse 4, “4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself…why does he edify himself? Because he understands what he is saying. This is followed by, but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. The word prophesieth here is referring to proclaiming the word of God in a tongue that is known to both speaker and hearer. You may be asking, How do you know this? If the speaker is using a tongue (or language) that the hearer doesn’t know, it would be an “unknown tongue”. Again, the verse reads, 4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. Do you see the conjunction “but” after “himself”? This conjunction “but” is used in order to cause the reader to compare what the first person is doing, with what the second person is doing, because the writer is trying to say there is a difference in what they are doing. The first person is doing “this” action, but, the second person is doing “that” action. The first person, who is speaking in an “unknown tongue” is edifying himself. Why? Because only he understands what he is saying. But, the second person who is prophesying (or preaching) in a language that is known to all, edifies the church, because everyone understands all that he says.

Let us now look at verse 5. I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Now in case you do not yet see the emphasis of this epistle from the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians, it is all gifts must edify the church. The purpose of all spiritual gifts is not to be for the benefit of one, but rather, for the edification for all in the church. No matter what the gift may be, God does not give it for the glory of the individual who may possess it. He allows the individual to exercise the gift, but truly the gift is given to the church for its edification. Hence, when Paul says “I would that ye all spake with tongues”, he is not saying that he would that all would speak with “unknown tongues”. Remember, an unknown tongue is simply that, unknown. Why would the Apostle Paul want all of the New Testament saints to be speaking in tongues that no one understands? He wouldn’t. What then is he trying to say? You must understand at this point that Paul spoke in several languages.

Acts 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

He wrote his epistles in Greek, and as a Roman citizen he most likely spoke Latin, and it was very probable that he also spoke Aramaic. I think what he was saying was that he wished that everyone could speak with several languages as did he for the purpose of spreading the Gospel. Even more than having people speak with many languages, it is better to preach in one language that all can understand, and therefore be edified. The exception to this of course would be that if there were to be there one who could interpret. This gift of the Holy Ghost would allow the possessor of it, to interpret any language at all. This means exactly what it sounds like. It would not matter what language a foreign Preacher would speak. If a MAN in the church has the gift of “interpretation”, he can by the power of the Holy Spirit interpret for any Preacher of any language.

Keep in mind, “unknown” tongues are languages that are simply unknown the people in the church.

The only place the words “unknown tongues” appear in the scriptures is here in 1 Corinthians 14.

6 ¶ Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? 7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? 8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

In these verses Paul I believe wants to make a very valid and simple point. The only way the hearer can “prepare himself to the battle”, is if he understands the command that is given.

Paul says, “if I come unto you speaking with tongues”. The word ‘tongues’ here is plural. Paul says, if I come unto you speaking in more than one language, “shall I profit you”(?) Paul is asking us a question. What shall I profit you, (if I speak in more than one language), except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

Paul says, except, (or unless) I speak to you something that you understand, I will not profit you. If I Paul would speak to people in many languages, the only way they would profit, is if they also spoke (and understand) all the languages I would speak in. Paul says, if I come to you speaking with four languages, and you only speak one of those languages, the only profit you will receive is when I speak in the language you understand.

He then likens this point to musical instruments which make different ‘tunes’. If you do not know the ‘tune’ that is played, you will have no understanding of what is being played for you.

For example, if you have never heard the tune for ‘charge’ (in the battle), and that tune is played, it will have no meaning to you.

9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

I once heard a man say that this ‘speaking into the air’ is speaking to God. This however is not the context. The context is whether or not you are speaking words “easy to be understood”. If you do not speak words that are easy to understand, people will not know what your are trying to say to them, (there will be no understanding of what is trying to be communicated to the person being spoken to). Therefore, you are speaking “into the air”. The air is not God, it is Paul’s way of saying that whenever you speak words not easily understood, the words you are speaking are being wasted in the air.

10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.

The easiest way to describe the above verse is calling to remembrance what I stated about Lebanon, PA. All around the world there are places just like Lebanon, PA. Places with not only different languages, but different dialects of the same language within a single area. Paul is teaching that there are many kinds of languages in the world, and every one of them is significant.

11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

Once again Paul wants to drive home this simple point. If you are listening to someone talk that is not talking in a language you understand, he will be a barbarian to you, and when you talk to him, you will be a barbarian to him.

The thrust of this entire text of 1 Corinthians 14 is that the people in the church must understand what is being spoken, or they will receive no profit.

standingtall said:

Well Jack, when you put "Dr." In front of your name, you should expect honest questions...and when you try to dodge the question (as you did the first time), you should also expect skepticism.

Pardon my cynicism, but a great many Independent Fundamental Baptists touting the title of Doctor did not earn it, but were given it by their buddies in the unaccredited IFB college ranks. Jack Hyles and his cronies were/are famous for doing this.

As far as the KJV and "tongues"....it just doesn't matter, and I believe some folks spend far too much time majoring on those minors.

Click to expand...

standingtall,

A quick note on accreditation.

The following was taken from Landmark Christian Academy :: About Us :: Accreditation

“Landmark Christian Academy now has the distinction of being accredited by the National Association of Private Schools, a nationwide accrediting agency for small Christian schools with quality programs.
What is Accreditation?
This question arises often, and it is perhaps one of the most misunderstood words and concepts of our time. Accreditation actually means that some outside agency or group has evaluated your program and agrees that it meets or exceeds standards established by that agency. It does not mean control. Rather, it means endorsement.
State accreditation means control, because the government will not endorse what it cannot control. We are not seeking state accreditation for the Academy, because we are not willing to teach humanism, evolution, feminism, gay rights, and the rest of the NEA agenda.
The accreditation we have received means that a group of like-minded educators has looked at our program and given us thumbs up.”

While I did not attend Landmark Baptist College, I cannot argue with their philosophy.

Now onto the meat of the matter: if you consider “tongues” a “minor”, you obviously haven’t considered the hundreds of thousands, (possibly millions) of souls trusting their eternal souls to the experience of “tongues”, as the only real evidence of their salvation.

I once spoke to a man in Texas, he was 74 years old. He and his wife were very kind and compassionate people, the problem; they were trusting in “tongues” as evidence for their salvation. You see, whether or not you are aware of it or not, nearly all Charismatics are Arminianists. (Meaning they believe they can loose their salvation.) You see standingtall, belief in a false doctrine such as “tongues”, leading millions of souls to Hell, is not a “minor” as you put it. I spoke to the above gentleman for hours one afternoon, telling him about the wonderful finished work of Christ on the cross of Calvary. In the final analysis of the conversation, he concluded that he could only be sure of his salvation through his faithful living for God, including his actively speaking in tongues. Does that sound like a “minor” problem to you?

Jack

12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

It is my personal belief that this is a very interesting verse. Why would Paul make such a statement? There is a hint in the above verse that many of the members of the early church while being zealous of spiritual gifts, did not understand the underlying purpose of ALL spiritual gifts, “the edifying of the church”. Spiritual gifts are not toys that are handed out by the Holy Spirit for people just to have fun with, or to be used for personal glory. Spiritual gifts are given to individuals in churches for the purpose of edifying the rest of the members of each particular church. It should be our desire to seek spiritual gifts that God can use us to benefit the members of the church.

13 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.

The above two verses go hand in hand with one another.

What about when Paul says the preacher should “pray that he may interpret” I think what Paul is saying is that the man might pray something like this, “Father, these people do not understand anything I am saying, if you want me to preach to them, give me the gift of interpreting from my language to theirs that they may have understanding of this your message for them.”

What is Paul saying about praying in an “unknown” tongue? If a man gets up and prays in a language that no one understands, they will have no understanding of what he has prayed for, or even if he is praying to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. Neither will they know when he is done praying. How do you know when the end of a prayer is? Isn’t it normally after the word “Amen?

If a man who only spoke Latin was to come into a church that only spoke Greek, he was to pray that he could, by the power of the Holy Spirit, interpret his message into Greek so that the Greek speaking church can be edified.

Why?

For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

If the man who only speaks Latin prays in the “unknown tongue” of Latin, in a Greek only speaking church, his spirit does pray to the Lord, however, since only he and the Lord understand what he is saying as he prays, “his understanding” of his prayer “is unfruitful” to the church in which he is praying in front of.

Why?

Because they do not understand a word he is saying as he prays.

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.
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?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

If there is one thing I love about the scriptures, it is their ability to define themselves.

Look at what is said in the above verses. The context here is still ‘speaking in an unknown tongue’.

When you speak in a tongue that is unknown to others, while you may be understanding what you are speaking, and receiving a blessing, those in your presence are not. Look at Paul’s example, he says that the people who hear you praying cannot even say Amen when you have completed your prayer, (again, because they don’t understand a word you are saying.)

18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

The above verse is one of the most misused verses by “Charismatics”.

The above verse is used by Charismatics to say, See, even Paul says that he spoke in tongues more that everyone at Corinth. Paul did not say he spoke in “unknown tongues” more than ye all”, what Paul said, was that he spoke more ‘languages’ than everyone at Corinth.

Look at the next verse.

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.

When a person speaks in a tongue that is unknown in the church, the church receives no edification. Therefore Paul says that “in the church” he would “rather speak five words” that are understood, “than ten thousand words” that are not.

20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

The above verse is a light rebuke to the people in Corinth. Paul is addressing them the same way he did in 1 Corinthians 3:

1 ¶ And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

Paul is simply telling them that their understanding of spiritual gifts should not be as children have, (being unlearned), but rather, they should have the understanding of men.

21 ¶ In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

This is a reference to the prophet Isaiah.

Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. 12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

The outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the gift of speaking in ‘tongues’ that the Jews (to this people) would understand on the Day of Pentecost, was prophesied by Isaiah. As stated in the first part of our study, tongues were for the unbelieving Jew.

1 Corinthians 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

There are three very important things stated in the above two verses. First, Jews require a sign. Second, tongues are for a sign. Third, tongues are a sign for unbelievers: not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.

22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

I know that I said much about this verse in the first part of our study, however, there is another point that I am going to bring out at this time.


Most of the members of the Charismatic churches today, claim to believe in Jesus Christ as their Saviour. It is also part of their belief that one of the main purposes of “tongues” is that “speaking in tongues” is their “evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit”. The problem with this belief is that there is no scriptural basis for this belief. We have in the above verses direct purposes for “tongues”. Verse 22 clearly says that “tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not”. The interesting thing about this is that the members of Charismatic churches state that speaking in “tongues” gives the believing member evidence that the person speaking in “tongues” is filled with the Holy Spirit. This evidence then gives the person who “speaks in tongues” validity of belief and Holy Spirit filling, which in turn gives them acceptance among the other believers in the church.

This entire teaching by the Charismatics is in direct contradiction of the scriptures.

The purpose of this portion of our study however, is to address what the scriptures do teach.

23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

Paul has already addressed what happens if one person speaks in the church in an “unknown tongue”. In the above verse Paul addresses what would happen if visitors would come into a church and “all speak with tongues”. Note, the word “tongues” is plural. Now we have all the people speaking in several tongues. The indication is that visitors would say that the members of the church are mad. (It is a reference to being “crazy”, not “angry”.)

24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

Paul now addresses ‘prophesying’ vs. ‘tongues’.

Prophesying as stated before is simply preaching the Word of God. Now, says Paul, if all preach the Word of God, (with everyone having understanding of what is being said), visitors will come and not only worship God, but they will give a good report outside the church.

26 ¶ How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

Once again Paul is giving the church at Corinth a mild rebuke. Now that he has taught on why speaking in a tongue the church does not understand is wrong, he asks them the above question. After asking the question, why are you doing this wrong, he gives them a simple command, “Let all things be done unto edifying.”

In the following verses Paul is going to give not only the church at Corinth, but all the saints in the generations to come instructions on how to “Let all things be done unto edifying.”

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.

What do we do if we have someone come into our church that speaks a language the people in our church do not understand? First, the most speakers (that speak in an unknown tongue) you may have is three, “and that by course”. By course simply means one at a time. [A four ‘course’ meal is 1) The appetizer; 2) Soup or Salad; 3) Entree; and 4) Dessert. The meal is served by course, meaning, one course at a time.] And then as the man who is speaking in an unknown tongue gives his message, “let one interpret”.

Isn’t that simple?

When I was in Bible College, one of the things I had the privilege of doing was preaching in our Spanish ministry. The only problem is; I don’t speak Spanish. (I only know the important words like, taco and burrito.) So guess what I did? I preached using an interpreter! It was great! But Brother Koons, what would you have done if there would not have been an interpreter? Well, what saith the scripture?

28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

If we would not have had an interpreter, we would not have had a Spanish ministry.

If I would have stood up in front of Spanish speaking people, and spoke in English, they would not have received any benefit at all. Why not? Because they would not have understood anything I said. That is why God says, “But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.”

Jack Koons said:

A quick note on accreditation.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Jack. Believe it or not, I know what accreditation is and it's importance. It's obvious that you and other fundamentalists don't think their schools or educators must meet any kind of recognized national standards. It's a good-old-boy system.

Jack Koons said:

You see standingtall, belief in a false doctrine such as “tongues”, leading millions of souls to Hell, is not a “minor” as you put it. I spoke to the above gentleman for hours one afternoon, telling him about the wonderful finished work of Christ on the cross of Calvary. In the final analysis of the conversation, he concluded that he could only be sure of his salvation through his faithful living for God, including his actively speaking in tongues. Does that sound like a “minor” problem to you?

Click to expand...

Please Jack, tell me in one sentence how a person obtains salvation.

standingtall,

You stated:

standingtall said:

Well Jack, when you put "Dr." In front of your name, you should expect honest questions...and when you try to dodge the question (as you did the first time), you should also expect skepticism.

Pardon my cynicism, but a great many Independent Fundamental Baptists touting the title of Doctor did not earn it, but were given it by their buddies in the unaccredited IFB college ranks. Jack Hyles and his cronies were/are famous for doing this.

As far as the KJV and "tongues"....it just doesn't matter, and I believe some folks spend far too much time majoring on those minors.

Click to expand...

To which I replied:

Jack Koons said:

standingtall,

A quick note on accreditation.

The following was taken from Landmark Christian Academy :: About Us :: Accreditation

“Landmark Christian Academy now has the distinction of being accredited by the National Association of Private Schools, a nationwide accrediting agency for small Christian schools with quality programs.
What is Accreditation?
This question arises often, and it is perhaps one of the most misunderstood words and concepts of our time. Accreditation actually means that some outside agency or group has evaluated your program and agrees that it meets or exceeds standards established by that agency. It does not mean control. Rather, it means endorsement.
State accreditation means control, because the government will not endorse what it cannot control. We are not seeking state accreditation for the Academy, because we are not willing to teach humanism, evolution, feminism, gay rights, and the rest of the NEA agenda.
The accreditation we have received means that a group of like-minded educators has looked at our program and given us thumbs up.”

While I did not attend Landmark Baptist College, I cannot argue with their philosophy.

Now onto the meat of the matter: if you consider “tongues” a “minor”, you obviously haven’t considered the hundreds of thousands, (possibly millions) of souls trusting their eternal souls to the experience of “tongues”, as the only real evidence of their salvation.

I once spoke to a man in Texas, he was 74 years old. He and his wife were very kind and compassionate people, the problem; they were trusting in “tongues” as evidence for their salvation. You see, whether or not you are aware of it or not, nearly all Charismatics are Arminianists. (Meaning they believe they can loose their salvation.) You see standingtall, belief in a false doctrine such as “tongues”, leading millions of souls to Hell, is not a “minor” as you put it. I spoke to the above gentleman for hours one afternoon, telling him about the wonderful finished work of Christ on the cross of Calvary. In the final analysis of the conversation, he concluded that he could only be sure of his salvation through his faithful living for God, including his actively speaking in tongues. Does that sound like a “minor” problem to you?

Jack

Click to expand...

To which you replied:

standingtall said:

Thanks, Jack. Believe it or not, I know what accreditation is and it's importance. It's obvious that you and other fundamentalists don't think their schools or educators must meet any kind of recognized national standards. It's a good-old-boy system.

Please Jack, tell me in one sentence how a person obtains salvation.

Click to expand...

standingtall,

I don’t think you grasp the situation here. So let me make this real simple. In the above excerpt from Landmark Baptist Academy, Dr. Carter states the simple FACT that the Academy, and College over which he presides, has no desire to teach “humanism, evolution, feminism, gay rights, and the rest of the NEA agenda”; all of which are required for “state, and federal accreditation”. You and whomever else you want to associate with, may have no problem teaching these subjects, in order to have “accreditation”. That is your right. Humanism, evolution, feminism, gay rights, and the rest of the NEA agenda, have no part of a truly Scriptural curriculum. The lack of these subjects has absolutely NO bearing on what God expects a person to learn while attending a Bible College. Furthermore, the lack of these subjects, has absolutely NO bearing on whether or not the College Staff are learned men.
Bible Colleges are NOT teaching a secular program. Hence, the government should not be setting the standard for what is taught in Bible Colleges, nor the qualifications of who is doing the teaching. Bible Colleges (that are representative of the Christian faith) need to be governed by men of God, not men of government.

You may feel free to criticize the qualifications of schools, and their teachers as much as you desire; but remember, one day, both they, and you, will give account to God. They for what they teach, you for how you criticize.

My accountability is to God.

By the way, you ignored my question.

“In the final analysis of the conversation, he concluded that he could only be sure of his salvation through his faithful living for God, including his actively speaking in tongues. Does that sound like a “minor” problem to you?”

Before answering, consider the following:

1) 2 Timothy 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
2) Since “all scripture is given by inspiration of God”, God the Holy Spirit thought that the incorrect practice of speaking in “unknown tongues” was important enough to have the Apostle Paul write 1 Corinthians 14.
3) The Apostle Paul, being in subjection to the Holy Spirit, knew that if the Holy Spirit was prompting him to address the matter, (of “unknown tongues”), it must be important, hence, he followed the leading of the Holy Spirit.
4) It is usually not a good idea to say call something “minor”, that God the Holy Spirit had one of the key Apostles of the New Testament address in his epistle to a church. (If it was “minor” to God, he probably would have left it unaddressed.)

Jack