Assembly of God and Tongues

Deadworm

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2016
1,061
714
76
Colville, WA 99114
✟68,313.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Stan J., thank you! You have articulately and decisively refuted swordsman.
He has no sensible answer to the angelic tongues implied by Paul's phrase, though I speak in the tongues of men and of angels (13:1)" or of the documentation I provided for a Jewish belief in the possibility of humans speaking in angelic dialects (Testament of Job).

Here is my new set of 3 questions for swordsman:
(1) Why do you grieve the Holy Spirit by ignoring Paul's command to "strive for the spiritual gifts?" The context demonstrates that tongues and prophecy are among the gifts to be sought; and Paul goes on to urge: "Strive to excel in them for building up the church (14:12)." So how's your striving for gifts like speaking in tongues the interpretation of tongues, and prophecy going?
(2) Why do you treat the Holy spirit like a madman who distributes dangerous and unreliable gifts to His church today?
(3) O, and maybe a less important, but interesting question:
When are you going to release the taped transcripts of Corinthian tongues that shows them speaking other human languages?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StanJ
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
When the English word language applies it is translated as the word language. See Genesis 10:5 but when it is referring to a tongue other than another language it's his tongue.

No, tongue simply means language. The words are synonymous in this context. The word 'tongue' in Isaiah 28:11 and 'language' in Gen 10:5 is the same Hebrew word, lashon. In the NIV it is translated as 'language', not only in Gen 10:5, but also in Gen 10:20, Gen 10:31, Deut 28:49, Neh 13:24, Esther 1:22, Esther 8:9, Jer 5:15, Ezek 3:5, Dan 1:4, Zech 8:23. It is translated as 'tongue' in Isaiah 28:11, Job 15:5, Proverbs 17:20.

I gave you versions that apparently you don't find reputable and although I have no real problem with the NASB and ESV they are older translations and prefer the more accurate and functionally equivalent NIV.
Out of the 3 most popular modern translations the NASB is widely considered to be the most literal. The NIV the least literal but the most readable. The ESV somewhere in the middle. I am happy to use either of them.

It is not only the NASB and ESV that translates it as a "foreign" tongue or language. The AMP, CEB, CJB, CEV, EXB, GW, HCSB, ICB, ISV, MEV, NOG, NET, TLV also use the word "foreign". Only the NIV, DARBY, GNV, NABRE, NLV, NLT translates it as a "strange" tongue or language.

The following is what Ellicott's Commentary says;
(11) With stammering lips and another tongue . . .—The “stammering lips” are those of the Assyrian conquerors, whose speech would seem to the men of Judah as a barbarous patois. They, with their short sharp commands, would be the next utterers of Jehovah’s will to the people who would not listen to the prophet’s teaching. The description of the “stammering tongue” re-appears in Isaiah 33:19. (Comp.Deuteronomy 28:49.) In 1 Corinthians 14:21, the words are applied to the gift of “tongues,” which, in its ecstatic utterances, was unintelligible to those who heard it, and was therefore, as the speech of the barbarian conquerors was in Isaiah’s thoughts, the antithesis of true prophetic teaching.

Ellicott is right in that Isaiah is referring to the language of the Assyrian conquerors. Although I doubt the more discerning pentecostal would describe tongues as 'ecstatic utterances'.

When Paul quotes Isaiah's prophecy he makes a slight alteration. He changes 'tongue' from singular to plural to indicate the multiple foreign languages spoken in Corinth applies to the same prophecy.

No he's applying what Isaiah said in 28:11 to this instance as far as the sounds are concerned not as far as languages are concerned. See Ellicott above.
No, it was the fact the language was foreign that Paul applies Isaiah's prophecy to tongues. Foreign languages heard in Israel were considered a curse from God. Not just in Isaiah 28 but see also Deut 28:49 and Jer 5:15:

Deut 28:49 "The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the ends of the earth, like an eagle swooping down, a nation whose language you will not understand,"

Jeremiah 5:15 "People of Israel,” declares the Lord, “I am bringing a distant nation against you—an ancient and enduring nation, a people whose language you do not know, whose speech you do not understand."

As I've already pointed out, the apostles were speaking in unknown tongues and the Holy Spirit allowed those God-fearing Jews to hear their own language. Two different things going on at the same time.
Am I correct in thinking you believe that the disciples were not speaking forieign human languages but rather they were speaking the language of heaven and that there was a miracle occurring within the ears of the listeners with some kind of automatic translation occurring in their ears?

There are a number of problems with this far fetched theory:

1. Luke makes no mention of such a miracle occurring. Interpretation is never mentioned or even hinted at in Acts 2. Such a miracle would be even greater than that of the disciples, yet no mention is made of it.

2. The Spirit fell on the disciples not on the unbelieving crowd. The gospel hadn't been preached to them at that point. How can unbelievers be given the Holy Spirit, let alone the gift of interpretation?

3. It clearly says the disciples were speaking in other languages:

Acts 2:6 "each one heard their own language being spoken"

The plain reading of that verse is that the disciples were speaking the native languages of the crowd. If someone said "I heard the man speaking in French". The most obvious understanding would be the man was speaking French, not he was speaking German but I somehow heard it in French. One of the first rules of bible interpretation is that the most obvious interpretation of a passage is invariably the right one.

4. The disciples spoke in multiple languages, not the single language of heaven.

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 word tongues is in the plural.

5. Even the most respected charismatic/Pentecostal theologians (Fee, Carson, Grudem, Piper etc) all affirm that the disciples were speaking foreign human languages.

The 'they' in Acts 2:1 refers to the 12 in Acts 1:26. Peter corroborates this in Acts 2:14-15 where it states;
But Peter stood up with the eleven, raised his voice, and addressed them: “You men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, know this and listen carefully to what I say. In spite of what you think, these men are not drunk, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning.
The 'they' in Acts 2:1 is referring to the same 'they' in the previous verse, which is the 120.

Peter was not referring to the 11 who stood up with him, but the 120 who were speaking in tongues.

Not that the number who spoke in tongues makes any difference to the argument. If you count up the number of languages spoken, aggregating those regions listed together which are also geographically adjacent and most likely spoke the same language - "Medes and Elamites", "Phrygia and Pamphylia" , "Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene" it amounts to 12.

Other tongues, γλῶσσα (glōssa), represented as spiritual by the tongues γλῶσσα (glōssa) of fire that appeared to rest on each one of them.
Language in Greek is διάλεκτος (dialektos) as shown in Acts 2:6

Glossa means the organ in your mouth, or a language:

Strongs:
the tongue, a language, a nation (usually distinguished by their speech).​

Theyers:
1. the tongue, a member of the body, the organ of speech: Mark 7:33, 35; Luke 1:64; Luke 16:24; 1 Corinthians 14:9; James 1:26; James 3:5, 6, 8; 1 Peter 3:10; 1 John 3:18; (Revelation 16:10)

2. a tongue, i. e. the language used by a particular people in distinction from that of other nations: Acts 2:11; hence, in later Jewish usage (Isaiah 66:18; Daniel 3:4; Daniel 5:19 Theod.; Theod.; Judges 3:8) joined with φυλή, λαός, ἔθνος, it serves to designate people of various languages (cf. Winer's Grammar, 32), Revelation 5:9; Revelation 7:9; Revelation 10:11; Revelation 11:9; Revelation 13:7; Revelation 14:6; Revelation 17:15.​
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
He has no sensible answer to the angelic tongues implied by Paul's phrase, though I speak in the tongues of men and of angels (13:1)"

Yes I do.

Neither Paul nor anyone else spoke in the language of angels. He was speaking hypothetically to make the point that having even the most ultimate form of the gift is worthless without love. If you look at the context of that verse it is obvious what Paul means. This verse forms one of 5 parallel statements to illustrate the superiority of love over the spiritual gifts:

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
If I have the gift of prophecy, and know
all mysteries and all knowledge; and
if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and
if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

Paul doesn't say he did any of those things. Each of them is an IF statement. Paul is saying that even if he possessed spiritual gifts to an impossibly superlative degree, but not have love, it would be to no avail. It is quite obvious that in each of these statements Paul is using exaggerated figures of speech to make his point.

Did Paul really have the gift of prophecy to such a degree that he literally knew ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge. ie was he was omniscient? Obviously not.

Did Paul really have the gift of faith to such a degree that he could literally move mountains? No.

Did Paul really have the gift of giving to such a degree that he literally gave ALL his possessions to the poor and made himself destitute? No.

Did Paul literally give his own body to be burned? No.

And neither did he literally speak in the language of angels. He was speaking hypothetically. None of those parallel statements are meant to be taken literally.

There is only one type of tongues described in scripture - foreign human languages as defined in Acts 2:4-11. Nowhere is it redefined as an angelic language or anything else.

or of the documentation I provided for a Jewish belief in the possibility of humans speaking in angelic dialects (Testament of Job).
The Testament of Job is an ancient Jewish fairy tale.

(1) Why do you grieve the Holy Spirit by ignoring Paul's command to "strive for the spiritual gifts?" The context demonstrates that tongues and prophecy are among the gifts to be sought; and Paul goes on to urge: "Strive to excel in them for building up the church (14:12)." So how's your striving for gifts like speaking in tongues the interpretation of tongues, and prophecy going?
As those commands was directed at the Corinthian church as a whole, I affirm that we should collectively desire spiritual gifts. The gifts to be desired are the greater gifts (1 Cor 12:31) such as teaching, not the least of the gifts - tongues. Individually it is a waste of time striving for a gift that we fancy having. Spiritual gifts are given only as the Holy Spirit pre-determines, not as we will.

(2) Why do you treat the Holy spirit like a madman who distributes dangerous and unreliable gifts to His church today?
Eh?

(3) O, and maybe a less important, but interesting question:
When are you going to release the taped transcripts of Corinthian tongues that shows them speaking other human languages?

Now that's just silly. We have the scriptures that clearly show tongues to be human languages.
 
Upvote 0

StanJ

Student & Correct Handler of God's Word.
May 3, 2016
1,767
287
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
✟3,516.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Liberals
No, tongue simply means language
So in Isaiah 32:4 tongue means language?
How many Greek words are there for 'love'?
  1. Φιλἐω (Phileō)
  2. Ἀγάπη or Ἀγαπάω (Agapē or Agapaō)
  3. Στοργή (Storgē)
  4. Εροσ (Eros)
You are apparently willing to throw away a lot of grammatical rules just to try to prove your point which I find very disingenuous. I'm pretty sure most people aren't buying your rationale here.
Out of the 3 most popular modern translations the NASB is widely considered to be the most literal. The NIV the least literal but the most readable. The ESV somewhere in the middle. I am happy to use either of them.
Again your concept of what makes a good Bible translation is not sound nor accurate.
https://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/08/fifteen-myths-about-bible-translation/
Ellicott is right in that Isaiah is referring to the language of the Assyrian conquerors. Although I doubt the more discerning pentecostal would describe tongues as 'ecstatic utterances'.
And your remark here leads me to the obvious conclusion that you have no idea what it means to be filled with the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues so you have no idea what a Discerning Pentecostal would be let alone what they would think.
When Paul quotes Isaiah's prophecy he makes a slight alteration. He changes 'tongue' from singular to plural to indicate the multiple foreign languages spoken in Corinth applies to the same prophecy.
What Paul did was took the well-known words and applied it to a totally different situation and the small changes you referred to and the application he used it in. It had nothing to do with what I say I was talking about except in the context I have already given you by Ellicott. Funny how you accept some of his commentary but not the whole thing. Did Paul lie in 1 Corinthians 14:21 or did he mispeak? Do you believe Paul's words were inspired of God or not?
No, it was the fact the language was foreign that Paul applies Isaiah's prophecy to tongues. Foreign languages heard in Israel were considered a curse from God. Not just in Isaiah 28 but see also Deut 28:49 and Jer 5:15:
So you're saying that God used foreign languages as a curse for unbelievers? You're advocating that the apostles used foreign languages that the God-fearing Jews understood and it was a curse to them? It couldn't possibly have been foreign languages if all the Jews that were there understood the languages. Why would the God-fearing Jews be confused about hearing their own languages? Don't you think it was because they were each hearing their language out of the same miles that the others were hearing? Now if the crowd of tongue speakers were bigger than the hearers, then it wouldn't be problematic for each of them to hear their own languages coming from specific people in a crowd that you advocate outnumbered them 5 to 1. The confusion laid in the fact that a group of 12 men we're speaking in a tongue that more than 15 hearers heard in their own language and that each hearer heard the whole group speak their language. Now pay attention here, the question that was asked was; "how is it that each one of us hears them in our own native language?"
Am I correct in thinking you believe that the disciples were not speaking foreign human languages but rather they were speaking the language of heaven and that there was a miracle occurring within the ears of the listeners with some kind of automatic translation occurring in their ears?
Well more likely within the brains rather than the years but yes very astute.
There are a number of problems with this far fetched theory:
1. Luke makes no mention of such a miracle occurring. Interpretation is never mentioned or even hinted at in Acts 2. Such a miracle would be even greater than that of the disciples, yet no mention is made of it.
2. The Spirit fell on the disciples not on the unbelieving crowd. The gospel hadn't been preached to them at that point. How can unbelievers be given the Holy Spirit, let alone the gift of interpretation?
3. It clearly says the disciples were speaking in other languages.
4. The disciples spoke in multiple languages, not the single language of heaven.
I just answered these questions above and it's no more unbelievable that it is to think that the Holy Spirit infilled/baptised these men with fire and power and caused them to speak other languages they didn't know in the off chance that others would hear these languages and recognize them as praises to God. Apparently you think that would have been a curse?
The plain reading of that verse is that the disciples were speaking the native languages of the crowd. If someone said "I heard the man speaking in French". The most obvious understanding would be the man was speaking French, not he was speaking German but I somehow heard it in French. One of the first rules of bible interpretation is that the most obvious interpretation of a passage is invariably the right one.
The plain reading would be just that, to accept it as plainly stated. The eisegetical reading would be too make it say something that it does not, by applying your own rationale upon the text. That is what would be called positional bias. Your analogy fails because another question that was asked was in
Act 2:7, where it asks; “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans?"
The word tongues is in the plural.
Yes because every person spiritual language is unique to them. Just as unique as their own physical tongue is to them.
Even the most respected charismatic/Pentecostal theologians (Fee, Carson, Grudem, Piper etc) all affirm that the disciples were speaking foreign human languages.
Well now I know you have no idea what you're talking about because none of these are Pentecostal theologians. Piper is Baptist calvinist, Grudem is RT, as is Carson. Gordon Fee us the only Pentecostal Theologian among this group, and I proudly a Canadian. Feel free to say anything he has written that would disagree with anything I have so far stated or posted.
The 'they' in Acts 2:1 is referring to the same 'they' in the previous verse, which is the 120.
Peter was not referring to the 11 who stood up with him, but the 120 who were speaking in tongues.
Not that the number who spoke in tongues makes any difference to the argument. If you count up the number of languages spoken, aggregating those regions listed together which are also geographically adjacent and most likely spoke the same language - "Medes and Elamites", "Phrygia and Pamphylia" , "Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene" it amounts to 12.
I have already shown you why you were wrong, so repeating yourself really doesn't affect any change. Peter stood up with the 11 as they were all speaking in tongues and he said "these men". Ignore clear indication at your own peril.
Glossa means the organ in your mouth, or a language:
Strongs:
the tongue, a language, a nation (usually distinguished by their speech).
Yes and in the context of Acts 2:4 a strange tongue or spiritual language, not another worldly language, as the Greek ἕτερος (heteros) supports and conveys the proper usage thereof.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
So in Isaiah 32:4 tongue means language?
How many Greek words are there for 'love'?
  1. Φιλἐω (Phileō)
  2. Ἀγάπη or Ἀγαπάω (Agapē or Agapaō)
  3. Στοργή (Storgē)
  4. Εροσ (Eros)
You are apparently willing to throw away a lot of grammatical rules just to try to prove your point which I find very disingenuous. I'm pretty sure most people aren't buying your rationale here.

You are misrepresenting me. I didn't say tongue ALWAYS means language. As I said in my next sentence (which you omitted to quote), it depends on the context. I've already cited the lexical definitions of both the Hebrew and Greek words for tongue (lashon and glossa). Just like the English word it can mean the thing in your mouth or a language, depending on the context.

Again your concept of what makes it good Bible translation is not sound more accurate.
https://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/08/fifteen-myths-about-bible-translation/

Again you are misrepresenting me. I never said a word-for-word translation is the best kind, as your link warns against. A very literal translation would be virtually unreadable. But if you did a straw poll among theologians I doubt very much they would say the NIV is the most accurate out of the three.

And your remark here leads me to the obvious conclusion that you have no idea what it means to be filled with the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues so you have no idea what a Discerning Pentecostal would be let alone what they would think.
Rather than address the point, I see you are more inclined to make derogatory personal remarks about me. Are you familiar with the fallacy of 'ad hominem'?

What Paul did was took the well-known words and applied it to a totally different situation and the small changes you referred to and the application he used it in. It had nothing to do with what I say I was talking about except in the context I have already given you by Ellicott. Funny how you accept some of his commentary but not the whole thing. Did Paul lie in 1 Corinthians 14:21 or did he mispeak? Do you believe Paul's words were inspired of God or not?
No, Paul applies Isaiah's to exactly the same situation, foreign languages being heard amongst the unbeleiving Jews.

Ellicot endorses what I originally said which was the tongues referred to by Isaiah was the Assyrian native language. And not what you said which was - "A foreign or strange tongue is not the same as a foreigner speaking their language/mother tongue". Nothing in Ellicots commentary contradicts my argument, although as I said his term 'ecstatic utterances' to describe the Corinthian tongues is something I and even most charismatic/pentecostal theologians would reject. There was nothing 'ecstatic' about tongues.

So you're saying that God used foreign languages as a curse for unbelievers? You're advocating that the apostles used foreign languages that the God-fearing Jews understood and it was a curse to them?
No, that is not what I said.

It couldn't possibly have been foreign languages if all the Jews that were there understood the languages.
Why not?

Why would the God-fearing Jews be confused about hearing their own languages?
It doesn't say they were confused. It says they were bewildered, amazed and perplexed because they heard their own language being spoken fluently by Galileans, who had a reputation of being uncultured and poorly educated.

The confusion laid in the fact that a group of 12 men we're speaking in a tongue that more than 15 hearers heard in their own language and that each hearer heard the whole group speak their language. Now pay attention here, the question that was asked was; "how is it that each one of us hears them in our own native language?"
I'm afraid the word 'them' doesn't appear in the original Greek, it is a word added by the translators.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/2-8.htm

Even if it did, I don't see the problem. The foreigners are collectively commenting on the situation as a whole. They heard the disciples speaking their native language. It doesn't mean each foreigners heard all of the disciples speak their language at the same time. That is something you are reading into the text.

I just answered these questions above
No you haven't.

Please tell us why, if such an amazing miracle of automatic translation was occurring in the ears of the hearers, Luke makes no mention of it? There is not even a hint that any interpretation is taking place.

Why would the Holy Spirit fall on the unbelieving crowd and give them the gift of interpretation, when the text clearly says the Holy Spirit was only poured out on the disciples?

Why should we disregard the plain reading of the text, which is the disciples were speaking foreign languages?

Why is tongues in the plural if they were speaking the language of heaven?

it's no more unbelievable that it is to think that the Holy Spirit infilled/baptised these men with fire and power and caused them to speak other languages they didn't know in the off chance that others would hear these languages and recognize them as praises to God.
Yes, it is more unbelievable. Acts 2 says that is exactly what happened, whereas your theory about interpretation occurring in the ears of the hearers is completely unwarranted.

The plain reading would be just that, to accept it as plainly stated. The eisegetical reading would be too make it say something that it does not, by applying your own rationale upon the text. That is what would be called positional bias.
..which is exactly what you are doing with your implausible theory about miraculous interpretation in the ears of the hearers. It is a totally unwarranted assumption.

Yes because every person spiritual language is unique to them. Just as unique as their own physical tongue is to them.
Totally unscriptural. Where does it say such a thing? It says in Acts 2:4 they spoke in other languages (plural). And the foreigners affirmed it - "we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!"

Well now I know you have no idea what you're talking about because none of these are Pentecostal theologians. Piper is Baptist calvinist, Grudem is RT, as is Carson. Gordon Fee us the only Pentecostal Theologian among this group, and I proudly a Canadian.
Yet again you are misrepresenting me. I said charismatic/pentecostal theologians. Grudem, Carson and Piper are all charismatic theologians. They believe in the continuation of the charismatic gifts of tongues, prophecy, healing. Charismatic is not a separate denomination. I will dig out some quotes to show they all say tongues of Acts 2 are foreign human languages.

I have already shown you why you were wrong, so repeating yourself really doesn't affect any change. Peter stood up with the 11 as they were all speaking in tongues and he said "these men". Ignore clear indication at your own peril.
Dispite your repeated assertion that I am wrong and you are right, most commentators agree that it was the 120 gathered at Pentecost.

Adam Clarke Commentary
They were all with one accord in one place - It is probable that the All here mentioned means the one hundred and twenty spoken of Acts 1:15, who were all together at the election of Matthias.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible
They were all - Probably not only the apostles, but also the 120 people mentioned in Acts 1:15.
Expository Notes of Dr. Thomas Constable
The antecedent of "they" is apparently the believers Luke mentioned in Acts 1:15.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible
Though this need not be restrained to the twelve apostles, but may be understood of the hundred and twenty, on whom, as well as on the apostles, the Holy Ghost might be poured forth, that so they might speak with tongues;

Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary
Not the Apostles only, nor the hundred and twenty mentioned ch. Acts 1:15; but all the believers in Christ, then congregated at the time of the feast in Jerusalem. The former is manifest from Acts 2:14, when Peter and the eleven stand forward and allude to the rest as οὗτοι: and the latter follows on the former being granted. Both are confirmed by the universality of the promise cited by Peter, Acts 2:17 ff. See Chrys. below, on Acts 2:4.
Pett's Commentary on the Bible
‘They.’ Some seek to limit this to the Apostles, referring it back to the phrase ‘the eleven Apostles’ in Acts 1:26. But from Acts 1:15 on all the stress has been on ‘the disciples’, whom Luke then immediately defined in terms of the one hundred and twenty, the ‘men and brothers (and sisters)’ of Acts 1:16, described as ‘they’ in Acts 2:23-24; Acts 2:26 a. These must surely then also be the ‘they’ mentioned here.
People's New Testament
They were all... in one place. Not only the apostles, but the hundred and twenty disciples.
Joseph Benson's Commentary of the Old and New Testaments
It is probable that the ALL here mentioned, included the whole one hundred and twenty who were together when Matthias was chosen.
Schaff's Popular Commentary on the New Testament
‘All’ here certainly includes more than the twelve apostles, as when Peter (Acts 2:14), standing up with the eleven, evidently speaks of many others on whom the Spirit had fallen. Very possibly ‘all’ refers to the ‘hundred and twenty mentioned in chap. Acts 1:15. Many modern commentators prefer to understand from this expression a still larger company, composed of all believers then assembled in Jerusalem. Augustine and Chrysostom assume that the assembly on whom the Spirit fell was composed of the ‘hundred and twenty’ only.
Thomas Coke Commentary on the Holy Bible
It is said, ch. Acts 1:14-15 of all the hundred and twenty, all these met with one accord, to choose an apostle, &c. The history is continued, as would appear more plainly if we had not divided it into chapters and verses;—and of the same company it is here said again, they were all met together with one accord in the same place, (for so it should be rendered,) when the Holy Spirit was poured down upon them.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes
So here was a conjunction of company, minds, and place; the whole hundred and twenty being present.
Whedon's Commentary on the Bible
All with one accord—The same one accord as in Acts 1:14, of the same body enumerated in Acts 1:15; namely, the about one hundred and twenty names representative of the New Testament Church.

Yes and in the context of Acts 2:4 a strange tongue or spiritual language, not another worldly language, as the Greek ἕτερος (heteros) supports and conveys the proper usage thereof.
Heteros simply means 'other' (as virtually all translations render it), as in other than their own tongue. It doesn't mean 'spiritual' or 'strange'.
 
Upvote 0

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟43,594.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Yet again you are misrepresenting me. I said charismatic/pentecostal theologians. Grudem, Carson and Piper are all charismatic theologians. They believe in the continuation of the charismatic gifts of tongues, prophecy, healing. Charismatic is not a separate denomination. I will dig out some quotes to show they all say tongues of Acts 2 are foreign human languages.
As for Carson, Grudem and Piper, they each state that the normative application of tongues is through an inarticulate utterance that no man is able to understand; they do not see tongues as being given in known human languages, though they rightfully acknowledge that in Acts 2 that the Holy Spirit enabled the 120 to speak in the human languages of the nearby Jews.

D. A. Carson
Showing the Spirit (1988) p.86

“There is a category of linguistic phenomenon that conveys cognitive content, may be interpreted, and seems to meet the constraints of the biblical descriptions, even though it is no known human language. Of course, this will not do for the tongues of Acts 2, where the gift consisted of known human languages; but elsewhere, the alternative is not as simple as "human languages" or "gibberish," as many noncharismatic writers affirm. Indeed, the fact that Paul can speak of different kinds of tongues (12:10, 28) may suggest that on some occasions human languages were spoken (as in Acts 2), and in other cases not--even though in the latter eventuality the tongues were viewed as bearing cognitive content”.​

Wayne Grudem
Systematic Theology (1994) p.1072

“Some have objected that speaking in tongues must always consist of speech in known human languages, since that is what happened at Pentecost. But the fact that speaking in tongues occurred in known human languages once in Scripture does not require that it always happen with known languages, especially when another description of speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 14) indicates exactly the opposite”.​

John Piper
In a 2013 video interview states at the 2.15 minute mark that within 1 Cor 12-14 that the tongues being spoken were not human languages, but to use his term that they were ‘ecstatic’ tongues that can only be understood when the Holy Spirit provides an interpretation, either through the speaker or through another.

Even though Piper strongly promotes a Charismatic theology, at the 2.20 mark he does admit that he has not been able to speak in tongues, so this would mean that even though he is theologically charismatic, it would be difficult for many Pentecostals to say that he was in fact a charismatic.


-----------------------------------
For those who would like to read through Grudem's expose on tongues and interpretation, I have included his commentary from pages 1069 to 1076 along with his footnotes within the following spoiler;
Systematic Theology, Wayne Grudem (1994) InterVarsityPress

1069
53 : GIFTS OF THE HOLT SPIRIT (2)​

E. Tongues and Interpretation

It should be said at the outset that the Greek word glossa, translated “tongue,” is used not only to mean the physical tongue in a person’s mouth, but also to mean “language.” In the New Testament passages where speaking in tongues is discussed, the meaning “languages” is certainly in view. It is unfortunate, therefore, that English translations have continued to use the phrase “speaking in tongues,” which is an expression not otherwise used in ordinary English and which gives the impression of a strange experience, something completely foreign to ordinary human life. But if English translations were to use the expression “speaking in languages,” it would not seem nearly as strange, and would give the reader a sense much closer to what first century Greek speaking readers would have heard in the phrase when they read it in Acts or 1 Corinthians.38 * However, because current usage of the phrase “speaking in tongues” is so widely established, we will continue to use it in this discussion.

1. Tongues in the History of Redemption. The phenomenon of speaking in tongues is unique to the new covenant age. Before Adam and Eve fell into sin, there was no need to speak in other languages, because they spoke the same language and were united in service of God and in fellowship with him. After the fall people spoke the same language but eventually became united in opposition to God, and “the wickedness of man was great in the earth” and “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). This unified language used in rebellion against God culminated in the building of the tower of Babel at a time when “the whole earth had one language and few words” (Gen. 11:1). In order to stop this united rebellion against him, God at Babel “confused the language of all the earth” and scattered people abroad over the face of the earth (Gen. 11:9).

When God called Abraham to himself (Gen. 12:1), he promised to make of Abraham a “great nation” (Gen. 12:2), and the nation of Israel that resulted from this call had one language that God wanted them to use in service for him. Yet this language was not spoken by the rest of the nations of the world, and they remained outside the reach of God’s plan of redemption. So the situation was improved somewhat, for one language out of all the languages of the world was used in service of God, whereas in Genesis 11 God was not praised with any language.

Now if we pass over the age of the New Testament church and look at eternity future, we see that once again unity of language will be restored, but this time

38The niv margin does translate “or languages” or “other languages” in Acts 2:4, 11; 10:46; 19:6,
and throughout 1 Cor. 12-14. This is a preferable translation, for reasons mentioned above.



1070
53 : GIFTS OF THE HOLT SPIRIT (2)​

everyone will once again speak the same language in service of God, and in praise to him (Rev. 7:9-12; cf. Zeph. 3:9; 1 Cor. 13:8; perhaps Isa. 19:18).

In the New Testament church, there is something of a foretaste of the unity of language that will exist in heaven, but it is given only at some times, and only in a partial way. At Pentecost, which was the point at which the gospel began to go to all nations, it was appropriate that the disciples gathered in Jerusalem “began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4).39 The result was that Jewish visitors to Jerusalem from various nations all heard in their own languages a proclamation of “the mighty works of God” (Acts 2:11). This was a remarkable symbol of the fact that the gospel message was about to go forth to all the nations of the world.40 Such a symbolic action would have been inappropriate in the Old Testament, for there the evangelistic message was one of inviting people from other nations to come and join themselves to the Jewish people and become Jews, and thereby worship God. But here the message is about to go to each nation in its own language, inviting people in every place to turn to Christ and be saved.41

Moreover, within the context of the worship service of the church, speaking in tongues plus interpretation gives further indication of a promise that one day the differences in languages that originated at Babel will be overcome. If this gift is operating in a church, no matter what language a word of prayer or praise is given in, once there is an interpretation, everyone can understand it. This is, of course, a two-step process that is “imperfect,” as are all gifts in this age (1 Cor. 13:9), but it is still an improvement on the situation from Babel to Pentecost when there was no provision to enable people to understand a message in a language they did not know.

Finally, prayer in tongues in a private setting is another form of prayer to God. Paul says, “If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful” (1 Cor. 14:14). In the overall context of the history of redemption, this also may be seen as one more partial solution to the results of the fall, whereby we were cut off from fellowship with God. Of course, this does not mean that people’s spirits can only have fellowship with God when they speak in tongues—for Paul affirms that he prays and sings both in tongues and in his own language (1 Cor. 14:15). However, Paul does see prayer in tongues as an additional means of fellowship directly with God in prayer and worship. Once again, this aspect of the gift of speaking in tongues was not operative, so far as we know, before the new covenant age.

2. What Is Speaking in Tongues? We may define this gift as follows: Speaking in tongues is prayer or praise spoken in syllables not understood by the speaker.

39This verse shows that the miracle was one of speaking, not of hearing. The disciples “began to speak in other tongues (or languages).”

40The speaking in tongues at Pentecost was unusual in that it was accompanied by “tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them” (Acts 2:3). Since fire in Scripture is often a symbol of God’s purifying judgment, the presence of fire here may be a symbol of the fact that God was purifying language for use in his service.


41It is true that the first hearers of this message were still only Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 2:5), not Gentiles, but the symbolism of the gospel being proclaimed in many languages did give an indication of the worldwide evangelistic effort that would soon follow.


1071
53 : GIFTS OF THE HOLT SPOUT (2)​

a. Words of Prayer or Praise Spoken to God: This definition indicates that speaking in tongues is primarily speech directed toward God (that is, prayer or praise). Therefore it is unlike the gift of prophecy, which frequently consists of messages directed from God toward people in the church. Paul says, “one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God” (1 Cor. 14:2), and if there is no interpreter present at the church service, Paul says that someone who has a gift of speaking in tongues should “keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God” (1 Cor. 14:28).

What kind of speech is this that is directed toward God? Paul says, “If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful” (1 Cor. 14:14; cf. w. 14-17, where Paul categorizes speech in tongues as praying and giving thanks, and v. 28). Therefore speaking in tongues apparently is prayer or praise directed to God, and it comes from the “spirit” of the person who is speaking. This is not inconsistent with the narrative in Acts 2, because the crowd said, “we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God” (Acts 2:11), a description that certainly could mean that the disciples were all glorifying God and proclaiming his mighty works in worship, and the crowd began to listen to this as it occurred in various languages. In fact, there is no indication that the disciples themselves were speaking to the crowd until Acts 2:14, when Peter then stands and addresses the crowd directly, presumably in Greek.42

b. Not Understood by the Speaker: Paul says that “one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit” (1 Cor. 14:2). Similarly, he says that if there is speaking in tongues without interpretation no meaning will be communicated: “I shall be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me” (1 Cor. 14:11). Moreover, the entire paragraph of 1 Corinthians 14:13—19 assumes that speech in tongues in the congregation, when it is not accompanied by interpretation, is not understood by those who hear:

Therefore, he who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how can any one in the position of an outsider say the “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? For you may give thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified. I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all; nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.​

42In Acts 10:46 the people at Cornelius’ household began “speaking in tongues and extolling God.” Again, this either means that the speech consisted of praise to God or was very closely connected with it—grammatically one cannot tell from the text itself.

I do not want to rule out the possibility that speaking in tongues could sometimes include speech directed to people, not to God, because it is just possible that Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 14:2 is a generalization that is not intended to cover every instance, and, in any case, the main point of the verse is that only God can understand uninterpreted tongues, not that God is the only one to whom speech in tongues can be addressed. In fact, speech to men might be what is happening in Acts 2. Nevertheless, the evidence that we do have in 1 Cor. 14 indicates speech directed toward God, and it seems safe to say that that is generally what speaking in tongues will be.

1072
53 : GIFTS OF THE HOLT SPIRIT (2)​

Now at Pentecost speech in tongues was in known languages that were understood by those who heard: “each one heard them speaking in his own language” (Acts 2:6). But once again the speech was not understood by the speakers, for what caused the amazement was that Galileans were speaking all these different languages (v. 7). It seems, therefore, that at times speaking in tongues may involve speech in actual human languages, sometimes even languages that are understood by some of those who hear. But at other times—and Paul assumes that this will ordinarily be the case—the speech will be in a language that “no one understands” (1 Cor. 14:2).

Some have objected that speaking in tongues must always consist of speech in known human languages, since that is what happened at Pentecost. But the fact that speaking in tongues occurred in known human languages once in Scripture does not require that it always happen with known languages, especially when another description of speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 14) indicates exactly the opposite. Paul does not say that foreign visitors to Corinth will understand the speaker, but he says that when someone speaks in tongues “no one” will understand and the outsider will not know what the person is saying (1 Cor. 14:2, 16).43 In fact, Paul explicitly says that quite the opposite of the phenomenon at Pentecost will happen in the ordinary conduct of church life: if “all speak in tongues” and “outsiders or unbelievers enter,” far from understanding the message, they will say “that you are mad” (1 Cor. 14:23). Moreover, we must realize that 1 Corinthians 14 is Paul’s general instruction based on a wide experience of tongues-speaking in many different churches, whereas Acts 2 simply describes one unique event at a significant turning point in the history of redemption (Acts 2 is historical narrative while 1 Cor. 14 is doctrinal instruction). Therefore it would seem appropriate to take 1 Corinthians 14 as the passage that most closely describes the ordinary experience of New Testament churches, and to take Paul’s instructions there as the standard by which God intends churches to regulate the use of this gift.44

Are tongues known human languages then? Sometimes this gift may result in speaking in a human language that the speaker has not learned, but ordinarily it seems that it will involve speech in a language that no one understands, whether that be a human language or not.45

43Robertson and Plummer note that 1 Cor. 14:18, “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all,” is “strong evidence that Tongues are not foreign languages” (A. Robertson and A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, ICC [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914], p. 314). If they were known foreign languages that foreigners could understand, as at Pentecost, why would Paul speak more than all the Corinthians in private, where no one would understand, rather than in church where foreign visitors could understand?

44Note that at Pentecost this speaking in tongues had another characteristic that was not shared by any later speech in tongues: there were tongues of fire appearing over the heads of those who spoke (Acts 2:3). But this is not a paradigm for all later experiences of speaking in tongues, not even for those found later in Acts.


45Paul does say, “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels” (1 Cor. 13:1), suggesting that he sees the possibility that speaking in tongues may include more than merely human speech. Whether he thinks this is only a hypothetical possibility or a real one is difficult to say, but we certainly cannot rule out the idea that angelic languages would be involved with this speech as well.



Some have objected that since glossa elsewhere in Greek (outside the New Testament) refers to known human languages, it must refer to known languages in the New Testament as well. But this objection is not convincing, since there was no other word in Greek better suited to refer to this phenomenon, even if it involved talking to God in languages that were not human languages or not.


1073
53 : GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT (2)​

c. Prayer With the Spirit, Not With the Mind: Paul says: “If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also” (1 Cor. 14:14-15).

Paul is not here talking about the Holy Spirit praying through us. The contrast between “my spirit” and “my mind” in verse 14 indicates that it is Paul’s own human spirit that he is talking about, the nonmaterial aspect of his being. As he uses this gift, his spirit speaks directly to God, even though his mind does not have to formulate words and sentences and decide what to pray for.46 Paul sees this kind of prayer as an activity that occurs in the spiritual realm, whereby our spirits speak directly to God but our mind is somehow bypassed and does not understand what we are praying.

We may wonder why God would give the church a gift that operates in the unseen, spiritual realm and that is not understood by our minds. One reason may be to keep us humble, and to help prevent intellectual pride. Another reason may be to remind us that God is greater than our understanding and that he works in ways that transcend our understanding. Finally, it is characteristic of much that God does in the new covenant age that it is done in the unseen, spiritual realm: regeneration, genuine prayer, worship “in spirit and in truth,” the spiritual blessings that come through the Lord’s Supper, spiritual warfare, laying up treasures in heaven, setting our minds on things above, where Christ is—all these and many more elements of the Christian life involve activities that occur in the unseen, spiritual realm, activities that we do not see or fully understand. In that light, speaking in tongues is simply another activity that occurs in the unseen spiritual realm, an activity we believe is effective because Scripture tells us it is, not because we can comprehend it with our minds (cf. 1 Cor. 14:5).

d. Not Ecstatic but Self-controlled: The New English Bible translated the phrase “speaking in tongues” as “ecstatic speech,” thus giving further support to the idea that those who speak in tongues lose awareness of their surroundings or lose self-control or are forced to speak against their will. Moreover, some of the extreme elements in the Pentecostal movement have allowed frenzied and fully developed languages of any sort, so long as some content or information was conveyed by the speech.

I am not here arguing that speaking in tongues in Acts 2 was a different phenomenon from the speaking in tongues that Paul discusses in 1 Cor. 14.1 am simply saying that the phrase “speaking in tongues” in Acts 2 and 1 Cor. 14 refers to speech in syllables not understood by the speaker but understood by God, to whom this speech is directed. In Acts 2 this happened to be speech in known human languages that had not been learned by the speakers, whereas in 1 Cor. 14 the speech may have been in unknown human languages, or in angelic languages, or in some specialized kind of language given by the Holy Spirit to various speakers individually. The expression is broad enough to include a wide variety of phenomena.

46 The phrase “pray in the Holy Spirit” in Jude 20 is not the same expression, since it is specifically the “Holy Spirit” who is designated. Jude is simply saying that Christians should pray in conformity to the character and leading of the Holy Spirit, and that may certainly include prayer in tongues, but it would include any other kind of prayer in an understandable language as well. Similarly, “Pray at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication” (Eph. 6:18) is specifically a statement that claims to cover all prayer that is made at all times. It refers to prayer in conformity to the character of the Holy Spirit and sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit, but it should not be restricted to speaking in tongues. Once again, it may include speaking in ·tongues, but should include all other types of prayer as well (See the discussion of activities done “in the Holy Spirit” in chapter 30, pp. 651-52.)

1074
53 : GIFTS OF THE HOLT SPIRIT (2)​

disorderly conduct at worship services, and this has, in the minds of some, perpetuated the notion that speaking in tongues is a kind of ecstatic speech.

But this is not the picture given in the New Testament. Even when the Holy Spirit came with overwhelming power at Pentecost, the disciples were able to stop speaking in tongues so that Peter could give his sermon to the assembled crowd. More explicitly, Paul says:

If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God. (1 Cor. 14:27-28)​

Here Paul requires that those who speak in tongues take turns, and he limits the number to three, indicating clearly that those who spoke in tongues were aware of what was going on around them, and were able to control themselves so as to speak only when it was their turn, and when no one else was speaking. If there was no one to interpret, they were easily able to keep silence and not speak. All of these factors indicate a high degree of self-control and give no support to the idea that Paul thought of tongues as ecstatic speech of some kind.


e. Tongues Without Interpretation: If no one known to have the gift of interpretation is present in the assembly, the passage just quoted indicates that speaking in tongues should be in private. No speech in tongues without interpretation should be given in the church service.47

Paul speaks of praying in tongues and singing in tongues when he says, “I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also” (1 Cor. 14:15). This gives further confirmation to the definition given above in which we viewed tongues as something primarily directed toward God in prayer and praise. It also gives legitimacy to the practice of singing in tongues, whether publicly or privately. Yet the same rules apply for singing as for speaking: if there is no interpreter, it should only be done in private.48

In 1 Corinthians 14:20-25 Paul says that if believers speak in tongues without


47 It is troubling that, in some churches today where speaking in tongues is allowed, those who do not give a message publicly (perhaps because it is not the appropriate time in the service or perhaps because they do not know if someone will interpret) will still sometimes speak in tongues not “silently” but so that four or five people nearby can hear their speech in tongues. This is simply disobedience to Paul’s directive, and is not acting in love toward others in the church. Paul says to “keep silence in church” if one is not giving a public message in tongues. (Many who have spoken in tongues today say that it can easily be done in an inaudible whisper, so that no one else will hear, and Paul’s directions will be obeyed.)

48 Many churches today, however, practice what is sometimes called “singing in the Spirit,” in which many or all the congregation will simultaneously sing in tongues, individually improvising their melodies around a certain dominant musical chord. While many people will testify that there is beauty and spiritual power in such occurrences, once again we must object that it is directly contrary to Paul’s instructions in 1 Cor. 14:27-28, where those who speak in tongues are to take turns, and there are to be at most three in a worship service, and interpretation is to follow. Though this practice may sound beautiful to those who are familiar with it, and though God may at times graciously use it as a means of winning an unbeliever, Paul explicitly says that the expected result generally will be that unbelievers will say “that you are mad” (1 Cor. 14:23). An alternative to this practice, and one that would both be consistent with Scripture and follow the path of love toward outsiders, would be for everyone to sing in this way, not in tongues, but in an understandable language (whether English or whatever language is commonly understood in the area where the church assembles).


1075
53 : GIFTS OF THE HOLT SPIRIT (2)​

interpretation in church, they will be acting and thinking like “children” (1 Cor. 14:20). He first quotes a prophecy of judgment from Isaiah 28:11-12: “In the law it is written, ‘By men of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord’ ” (1 Cor. 14:21).

In the context of Isaiah 28, God is warning the rebellious people of Israel that the next words they heard from him would be words of foreigners that they could not understand—the Assyrian army would come on them as agents of God’s judgment. Now Paul is about to take this as a general principle—when God speaks to people in language they cannot understand, it is quite evidently a sign of God’s judgment.

Paul rightly applies that to the situation of speaking in tongues without interpretation in the church service. He calls it a sign (that is, a sign of judgment) on unbelievers:

Thus, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers. If, therefore, the whole church assembles and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?​

(1 Cor. 14:22-23)

Here Paul uses the word “sign” to mean “sign of God’s attitude” (whether positive or negative). Tongues that are not understood by outsiders are certainly a negative sign—a sign of judgment. Therefore Paul cautions the Corinthians not to give such a sign to outsiders who come in. He tells them if an outsider comes in and hears only unintelligible speech, he will certainly not be saved but will conclude that the Corinthians are mad, and the uninterpreted tongues will in his case function as a sign of God’s judgment.

By contrast, Paul says that prophecy is a sign of God’s attitude as well, but here a positive sign of God’s blessing. This is why he can say that prophecy is a sign “for believers” (v. 22). And this is why he concludes his section by saying, “If all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you” (w. 24—25). When this happens, believers will certainly realize that God is active among them to bring blessing, and prophecy will regularly function as a sign for believers of God’s positive attitude for them.49

Nevertheless, however much Paul warns against using tongues without interpretation in church, he certainly views it positively and encourages it in private. He says, “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself but he who prophesies edifies the church” (1 Cor. 14:4). What is his conclusion? It is not (as some would argue) that Christians should decide not to use the gift or decide that it has no value when used privately. Rather he says, “What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also” (v. 15). And he says, “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all” (v. 18), and “Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy” (v. 5), and “Earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues” (v. 39). If our previous
49For further discussion of this passage, see Wayne Grudem, “1 Corinthians 14:20-25■ Prophecy and Tongues as Signs of God’s Attitude,” WTJ 41:2 (Spring 1979), pp. 381-96.


53 : GIFTS OF THE HOLT SPIRIT (2)
1076​

understanding of tongues as prayer or praise to God is correct, then we would certainly expect that edification would follow, even though the speaker’s mind does not understand what is being said, but his or her own human spirit is communicating directly with God. Just as prayer and worship in general edify us as we engage in them, so this kind of prayer and worship edifies us too, according to Paul.

f. Tongues With Interpretation: Edification for the Church: Paul says, “He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified” (1 Cor. 14:5). Once a message in tongues is interpreted, all can understand. In that case, Paul says that the message in tongues is as valuable to the church as prophecy. We should note that he does not say they have the same functions (for other passages indicate that prophecy is communication from God toward human beings, while tongues is generally communication from human beings to God). But Paul clearly says they have equal value in edifying the church.

g. Not All Speak in Tongues: Just as not all Christians are apostles, and not all are prophets or teachers, and not all possess gifts of healing, so not all speak with tongues. Paul clearly implies this when he asks a series of questions, all of which expect the answer “no,” and includes the question “Do all speak with tongues?” (1 Cor. 12:30). The implied answer is no.50 Some have argued that Paul here only means that not all speak with tongues publicly, but that perhaps he would have admitted that all can speak in tongues privately. But this distinction seems foreign to the context and unconvincing. He does not specify that not all speak with tongues publicly or in church, but simply says that not all speak with tongues. His next question is, “Do all interpret?” (v. 30). His previous two questions were, “Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing?” (w. 29-30). Would we wish to make the same arguments about these gifts—that not all interpret tongues publicly, but that all Christians are able to do it privately? Or that not all work miracles publicly, but that all are able to work miracles privately? Such a distinction seems unwarranted by the context in every case.

In actuality, the desire to say that every Christian can speak in tongues (even though Paul says that not all speak in tongues) is probably motivated in most cases by a prior doctrinal understanding that views baptism in the Holy Spirit as an experience subsequent to conversion,51 and sees speaking in tongues as an initial “sign” of receiving this baptism in the Holy Spirit.52 But there are serious questions that remain about this doctrinal position (as explained in chapter 39). It seems better to take 1 Corinthians 12:30 to mean just what it says: not all speak in tongues. The gift of tongues—just like every other gift—is not given by the Holy Spirit to every Christian who seeks it. He “apportions to each one individually as he wills” (1 Cor. 12:11).

However, there is nothing in Scripture that says that only a few will receive the


50The Greek particle me, which precedes this question, expects the answer “no” from the reader. The nasb captures this sense: “All do not speak with tongues, do they?”
51See chapter 39 for a discussion of baptism in the Holy Spirit.
52This is still the official doctrinal position of the Assemblies of God, for example.


1077
53 : GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT (2)​

gift of speaking in tongues, and, since it is a gift Paul views as edifying and useful in prayer and worship (on a personal level even if not in church), it would not be surprising if the Holy Spirit gave a very widespread distribution of this gift and many Christians in fact received it.53


53Mark 16:17 is sometimes used to claim that all Christians can speak in tongues: “And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues.” But in response to this verse it must be noted (1) that the verse probably was not originally part of Mark’s gospel, since many early and very reliable manuscripts do not include Mark 16:9-20, and its doubtful status means that it is a precarious basis upon which to build doctrine (see chapter 17, p. 365); (2) that even if it is not part of Scripture, it does of course bear witness to a very early tradition in the history of the church, but even in this case, it does not affirm that all believers will speak with tongues: the immediately following phrase says, “They will pick up serpents” (v. 18), something that no responsible interpreter would say should be true of every Christian; and (3) that no connection is made between speaking in tongues and baptism in the Holy Spirit in this passage.
 
Upvote 0

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟43,594.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
I have already shown you why you were wrong, so repeating yourself really doesn't affect any change. Peter stood up with the 11 as they were all speaking in tongues and he said "these men". Ignore clear indication at your own peril.
Stan, from a Full Gospel perpective, the vast majority of us (maybe 99%) would recognise that it was the 120 who were empowered by the Holy Spirit and not just with the Twelve. We would also recognise that it was the 120 who spoke the unknown tongues of the nearby listeners and not that they were empowered by the Spirit to individually understand what the 120 were saying in either Hebrew or Aramaic.

As for the Holy Spirit supposedly empowering the unregenerate to hear what the Holy Spirit was saying to the Father, this would undoubtedly take away from the importance of the Father granting the Holy Spirit to the Believers and thus to the Church as a whole.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
As for Carson, Grudem and Piper, they each state that the normative application of tongues is through an inarticulate utterance that no man is able to understand; they do not see tongues as being given in known human languages, though they rightfully acknowledge that in Acts 2 that the Holy Spirit enabled the 120 to speak in the human languages of the nearby Jews.

D. A. Carson
Showing the Spirit (1988) p.86

“There is a category of linguistic phenomenon that conveys cognitive content, may be interpreted, and seems to meet the constraints of the biblical descriptions, even though it is no known human language. Of course, this will not do for the tongues of Acts 2, where the gift consisted of known human languages; but elsewhere, the alternative is not as simple as "human languages" or "gibberish," as many noncharismatic writers affirm. Indeed, the fact that Paul can speak of different kinds of tongues (12:10, 28) may suggest that on some occasions human languages were spoken (as in Acts 2), and in other cases not--even though in the latter eventuality the tongues were viewed as bearing cognitive content”.​

Wayne Grudem
Systematic Theology (1994) p.1072

“Some have objected that speaking in tongues must always consist of speech in known human languages, since that is what happened at Pentecost. But the fact that speaking in tongues occurred in known human languages once in Scripture does not require that it always happen with known languages, especially when another description of speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 14) indicates exactly the opposite”.​

John Piper
In a 2013 video interview states at the 2.15 minute mark that within 1 Cor 12-14 that the tongues being spoken were not human languages, but to use his term that they were ‘ecstatic’ tongues that can only be understood when the Holy Spirit provides an interpretation, either through the speaker or through another.

Even though Piper strongly promotes a Charismatic theology, at the 2.20 mark he does admit that he has not been able to speak in tongues, so this would mean that even though he is theologically charismatic, it would be difficult for many Pentecostals to say that he was in fact a charismatic.


-----------------------------------
For those who would like to read through Grudem's expose on tongues and interpretation, I have included his commentary from pages 1069 to 1076 along with his footnotes within the following spoiler;
Systematic Theology, Wayne Grudem (1994) InterVarsityPress

1069
53 : GIFTS OF THE HOLT SPIRIT (2)​

E. Tongues and Interpretation

It should be said at the outset that the Greek word glossa, translated “tongue,” is used not only to mean the physical tongue in a person’s mouth, but also to mean “language.” In the New Testament passages where speaking in tongues is discussed, the meaning “languages” is certainly in view. It is unfortunate, therefore, that English translations have continued to use the phrase “speaking in tongues,” which is an expression not otherwise used in ordinary English and which gives the impression of a strange experience, something completely foreign to ordinary human life. But if English translations were to use the expression “speaking in languages,” it would not seem nearly as strange, and would give the reader a sense much closer to what first century Greek speaking readers would have heard in the phrase when they read it in Acts or 1 Corinthians.38 * However, because current usage of the phrase “speaking in tongues” is so widely established, we will continue to use it in this discussion.

1. Tongues in the History of Redemption. The phenomenon of speaking in tongues is unique to the new covenant age. Before Adam and Eve fell into sin, there was no need to speak in other languages, because they spoke the same language and were united in service of God and in fellowship with him. After the fall people spoke the same language but eventually became united in opposition to God, and “the wickedness of man was great in the earth” and “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). This unified language used in rebellion against God culminated in the building of the tower of Babel at a time when “the whole earth had one language and few words” (Gen. 11:1). In order to stop this united rebellion against him, God at Babel “confused the language of all the earth” and scattered people abroad over the face of the earth (Gen. 11:9).

When God called Abraham to himself (Gen. 12:1), he promised to make of Abraham a “great nation” (Gen. 12:2), and the nation of Israel that resulted from this call had one language that God wanted them to use in service for him. Yet this language was not spoken by the rest of the nations of the world, and they remained outside the reach of God’s plan of redemption. So the situation was improved somewhat, for one language out of all the languages of the world was used in service of God, whereas in Genesis 11 God was not praised with any language.

Now if we pass over the age of the New Testament church and look at eternity future, we see that once again unity of language will be restored, but this time

38The niv margin does translate “or languages” or “other languages” in Acts 2:4, 11; 10:46; 19:6,
and throughout 1 Cor. 12-14. This is a preferable translation, for reasons mentioned above.



1070
53 : GIFTS OF THE HOLT SPIRIT (2)​

everyone will once again speak the same language in service of God, and in praise to him (Rev. 7:9-12; cf. Zeph. 3:9; 1 Cor. 13:8; perhaps Isa. 19:18).

In the New Testament church, there is something of a foretaste of the unity of language that will exist in heaven, but it is given only at some times, and only in a partial way. At Pentecost, which was the point at which the gospel began to go to all nations, it was appropriate that the disciples gathered in Jerusalem “began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4).39 The result was that Jewish visitors to Jerusalem from various nations all heard in their own languages a proclamation of “the mighty works of God” (Acts 2:11). This was a remarkable symbol of the fact that the gospel message was about to go forth to all the nations of the world.40 Such a symbolic action would have been inappropriate in the Old Testament, for there the evangelistic message was one of inviting people from other nations to come and join themselves to the Jewish people and become Jews, and thereby worship God. But here the message is about to go to each nation in its own language, inviting people in every place to turn to Christ and be saved.41

Moreover, within the context of the worship service of the church, speaking in tongues plus interpretation gives further indication of a promise that one day the differences in languages that originated at Babel will be overcome. If this gift is operating in a church, no matter what language a word of prayer or praise is given in, once there is an interpretation, everyone can understand it. This is, of course, a two-step process that is “imperfect,” as are all gifts in this age (1 Cor. 13:9), but it is still an improvement on the situation from Babel to Pentecost when there was no provision to enable people to understand a message in a language they did not know.

Finally, prayer in tongues in a private setting is another form of prayer to God. Paul says, “If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful” (1 Cor. 14:14). In the overall context of the history of redemption, this also may be seen as one more partial solution to the results of the fall, whereby we were cut off from fellowship with God. Of course, this does not mean that people’s spirits can only have fellowship with God when they speak in tongues—for Paul affirms that he prays and sings both in tongues and in his own language (1 Cor. 14:15). However, Paul does see prayer in tongues as an additional means of fellowship directly with God in prayer and worship. Once again, this aspect of the gift of speaking in tongues was not operative, so far as we know, before the new covenant age.

2. What Is Speaking in Tongues? We may define this gift as follows: Speaking in tongues is prayer or praise spoken in syllables not understood by the speaker.

39This verse shows that the miracle was one of speaking, not of hearing. The disciples “began to speak in other tongues (or languages).”

40The speaking in tongues at Pentecost was unusual in that it was accompanied by “tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them” (Acts 2:3). Since fire in Scripture is often a symbol of God’s purifying judgment, the presence of fire here may be a symbol of the fact that God was purifying language for use in his service.


41It is true that the first hearers of this message were still only Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 2:5), not Gentiles, but the symbolism of the gospel being proclaimed in many languages did give an indication of the worldwide evangelistic effort that would soon follow.


1071
53 : GIFTS OF THE HOLT SPOUT (2)​

a. Words of Prayer or Praise Spoken to God: This definition indicates that speaking in tongues is primarily speech directed toward God (that is, prayer or praise). Therefore it is unlike the gift of prophecy, which frequently consists of messages directed from God toward people in the church. Paul says, “one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God” (1 Cor. 14:2), and if there is no interpreter present at the church service, Paul says that someone who has a gift of speaking in tongues should “keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God” (1 Cor. 14:28).

What kind of speech is this that is directed toward God? Paul says, “If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful” (1 Cor. 14:14; cf. w. 14-17, where Paul categorizes speech in tongues as praying and giving thanks, and v. 28). Therefore speaking in tongues apparently is prayer or praise directed to God, and it comes from the “spirit” of the person who is speaking. This is not inconsistent with the narrative in Acts 2, because the crowd said, “we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God” (Acts 2:11), a description that certainly could mean that the disciples were all glorifying God and proclaiming his mighty works in worship, and the crowd began to listen to this as it occurred in various languages. In fact, there is no indication that the disciples themselves were speaking to the crowd until Acts 2:14, when Peter then stands and addresses the crowd directly, presumably in Greek.42

b. Not Understood by the Speaker: Paul says that “one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit” (1 Cor. 14:2). Similarly, he says that if there is speaking in tongues without interpretation no meaning will be communicated: “I shall be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me” (1 Cor. 14:11). Moreover, the entire paragraph of 1 Corinthians 14:13—19 assumes that speech in tongues in the congregation, when it is not accompanied by interpretation, is not understood by those who hear:

Therefore, he who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how can any one in the position of an outsider say the “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? For you may give thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified. I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all; nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.​

42In Acts 10:46 the people at Cornelius’ household began “speaking in tongues and extolling God.” Again, this either means that the speech consisted of praise to God or was very closely connected with it—grammatically one cannot tell from the text itself.

I do not want to rule out the possibility that speaking in tongues could sometimes include speech directed to people, not to God, because it is just possible that Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 14:2 is a generalization that is not intended to cover every instance, and, in any case, the main point of the verse is that only God can understand uninterpreted tongues, not that God is the only one to whom speech in tongues can be addressed. In fact, speech to men might be what is happening in Acts 2. Nevertheless, the evidence that we do have in 1 Cor. 14 indicates speech directed toward God, and it seems safe to say that that is generally what speaking in tongues will be.

1072
53 : GIFTS OF THE HOLT SPIRIT (2)​

Now at Pentecost speech in tongues was in known languages that were understood by those who heard: “each one heard them speaking in his own language” (Acts 2:6). But once again the speech was not understood by the speakers, for what caused the amazement was that Galileans were speaking all these different languages (v. 7). It seems, therefore, that at times speaking in tongues may involve speech in actual human languages, sometimes even languages that are understood by some of those who hear. But at other times—and Paul assumes that this will ordinarily be the case—the speech will be in a language that “no one understands” (1 Cor. 14:2).

Some have objected that speaking in tongues must always consist of speech in known human languages, since that is what happened at Pentecost. But the fact that speaking in tongues occurred in known human languages once in Scripture does not require that it always happen with known languages, especially when another description of speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 14) indicates exactly the opposite. Paul does not say that foreign visitors to Corinth will understand the speaker, but he says that when someone speaks in tongues “no one” will understand and the outsider will not know what the person is saying (1 Cor. 14:2, 16).43 In fact, Paul explicitly says that quite the opposite of the phenomenon at Pentecost will happen in the ordinary conduct of church life: if “all speak in tongues” and “outsiders or unbelievers enter,” far from understanding the message, they will say “that you are mad” (1 Cor. 14:23). Moreover, we must realize that 1 Corinthians 14 is Paul’s general instruction based on a wide experience of tongues-speaking in many different churches, whereas Acts 2 simply describes one unique event at a significant turning point in the history of redemption (Acts 2 is historical narrative while 1 Cor. 14 is doctrinal instruction). Therefore it would seem appropriate to take 1 Corinthians 14 as the passage that most closely describes the ordinary experience of New Testament churches, and to take Paul’s instructions there as the standard by which God intends churches to regulate the use of this gift.44

Are tongues known human languages then? Sometimes this gift may result in speaking in a human language that the speaker has not learned, but ordinarily it seems that it will involve speech in a language that no one understands, whether that be a human language or not.45

43Robertson and Plummer note that 1 Cor. 14:18, “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all,” is “strong evidence that Tongues are not foreign languages” (A. Robertson and A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, ICC [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914], p. 314). If they were known foreign languages that foreigners could understand, as at Pentecost, why would Paul speak more than all the Corinthians in private, where no one would understand, rather than in church where foreign visitors could understand?

44Note that at Pentecost this speaking in tongues had another characteristic that was not shared by any later speech in tongues: there were tongues of fire appearing over the heads of those who spoke (Acts 2:3). But this is not a paradigm for all later experiences of speaking in tongues, not even for those found later in Acts.


45Paul does say, “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels” (1 Cor. 13:1), suggesting that he sees the possibility that speaking in tongues may include more than merely human speech. Whether he thinks this is only a hypothetical possibility or a real one is difficult to say, but we certainly cannot rule out the idea that angelic languages would be involved with this speech as well.



Some have objected that since glossa elsewhere in Greek (outside the New Testament) refers to known human languages, it must refer to known languages in the New Testament as well. But this objection is not convincing, since there was no other word in Greek better suited to refer to this phenomenon, even if it involved talking to God in languages that were not human languages or not.


1073
53 : GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT (2)​

c. Prayer With the Spirit, Not With the Mind: Paul says: “If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also” (1 Cor. 14:14-15).

Paul is not here talking about the Holy Spirit praying through us. The contrast between “my spirit” and “my mind” in verse 14 indicates that it is Paul’s own human spirit that he is talking about, the nonmaterial aspect of his being. As he uses this gift, his spirit speaks directly to God, even though his mind does not have to formulate words and sentences and decide what to pray for.46 Paul sees this kind of prayer as an activity that occurs in the spiritual realm, whereby our spirits speak directly to God but our mind is somehow bypassed and does not understand what we are praying.

We may wonder why God would give the church a gift that operates in the unseen, spiritual realm and that is not understood by our minds. One reason may be to keep us humble, and to help prevent intellectual pride. Another reason may be to remind us that God is greater than our understanding and that he works in ways that transcend our understanding. Finally, it is characteristic of much that God does in the new covenant age that it is done in the unseen, spiritual realm: regeneration, genuine prayer, worship “in spirit and in truth,” the spiritual blessings that come through the Lord’s Supper, spiritual warfare, laying up treasures in heaven, setting our minds on things above, where Christ is—all these and many more elements of the Christian life involve activities that occur in the unseen, spiritual realm, activities that we do not see or fully understand. In that light, speaking in tongues is simply another activity that occurs in the unseen spiritual realm, an activity we believe is effective because Scripture tells us it is, not because we can comprehend it with our minds (cf. 1 Cor. 14:5).

d. Not Ecstatic but Self-controlled: The New English Bible translated the phrase “speaking in tongues” as “ecstatic speech,” thus giving further support to the idea that those who speak in tongues lose awareness of their surroundings or lose self-control or are forced to speak against their will. Moreover, some of the extreme elements in the Pentecostal movement have allowed frenzied and fully developed languages of any sort, so long as some content or information was conveyed by the speech.

I am not here arguing that speaking in tongues in Acts 2 was a different phenomenon from the speaking in tongues that Paul discusses in 1 Cor. 14.1 am simply saying that the phrase “speaking in tongues” in Acts 2 and 1 Cor. 14 refers to speech in syllables not understood by the speaker but understood by God, to whom this speech is directed. In Acts 2 this happened to be speech in known human languages that had not been learned by the speakers, whereas in 1 Cor. 14 the speech may have been in unknown human languages, or in angelic languages, or in some specialized kind of language given by the Holy Spirit to various speakers individually. The expression is broad enough to include a wide variety of phenomena.

46 The phrase “pray in the Holy Spirit” in Jude 20 is not the same expression, since it is specifically the “Holy Spirit” who is designated. Jude is simply saying that Christians should pray in conformity to the character and leading of the Holy Spirit, and that may certainly include prayer in tongues, but it would include any other kind of prayer in an understandable language as well. Similarly, “Pray at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication” (Eph. 6:18) is specifically a statement that claims to cover all prayer that is made at all times. It refers to prayer in conformity to the character of the Holy Spirit and sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit, but it should not be restricted to speaking in tongues. Once again, it may include speaking in ·tongues, but should include all other types of prayer as well (See the discussion of activities done “in the Holy Spirit” in chapter 30, pp. 651-52.)

1074
53 : GIFTS OF THE HOLT SPIRIT (2)​

disorderly conduct at worship services, and this has, in the minds of some, perpetuated the notion that speaking in tongues is a kind of ecstatic speech.

But this is not the picture given in the New Testament. Even when the Holy Spirit came with overwhelming power at Pentecost, the disciples were able to stop speaking in tongues so that Peter could give his sermon to the assembled crowd. More explicitly, Paul says:

If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God. (1 Cor. 14:27-28)​

Here Paul requires that those who speak in tongues take turns, and he limits the number to three, indicating clearly that those who spoke in tongues were aware of what was going on around them, and were able to control themselves so as to speak only when it was their turn, and when no one else was speaking. If there was no one to interpret, they were easily able to keep silence and not speak. All of these factors indicate a high degree of self-control and give no support to the idea that Paul thought of tongues as ecstatic speech of some kind.


e. Tongues Without Interpretation: If no one known to have the gift of interpretation is present in the assembly, the passage just quoted indicates that speaking in tongues should be in private. No speech in tongues without interpretation should be given in the church service.47

Paul speaks of praying in tongues and singing in tongues when he says, “I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also” (1 Cor. 14:15). This gives further confirmation to the definition given above in which we viewed tongues as something primarily directed toward God in prayer and praise. It also gives legitimacy to the practice of singing in tongues, whether publicly or privately. Yet the same rules apply for singing as for speaking: if there is no interpreter, it should only be done in private.48

In 1 Corinthians 14:20-25 Paul says that if believers speak in tongues without


47 It is troubling that, in some churches today where speaking in tongues is allowed, those who do not give a message publicly (perhaps because it is not the appropriate time in the service or perhaps because they do not know if someone will interpret) will still sometimes speak in tongues not “silently” but so that four or five people nearby can hear their speech in tongues. This is simply disobedience to Paul’s directive, and is not acting in love toward others in the church. Paul says to “keep silence in church” if one is not giving a public message in tongues. (Many who have spoken in tongues today say that it can easily be done in an inaudible whisper, so that no one else will hear, and Paul’s directions will be obeyed.)

48 Many churches today, however, practice what is sometimes called “singing in the Spirit,” in which many or all the congregation will simultaneously sing in tongues, individually improvising their melodies around a certain dominant musical chord. While many people will testify that there is beauty and spiritual power in such occurrences, once again we must object that it is directly contrary to Paul’s instructions in 1 Cor. 14:27-28, where those who speak in tongues are to take turns, and there are to be at most three in a worship service, and interpretation is to follow. Though this practice may sound beautiful to those who are familiar with it, and though God may at times graciously use it as a means of winning an unbeliever, Paul explicitly says that the expected result generally will be that unbelievers will say “that you are mad” (1 Cor. 14:23). An alternative to this practice, and one that would both be consistent with Scripture and follow the path of love toward outsiders, would be for everyone to sing in this way, not in tongues, but in an understandable language (whether English or whatever language is commonly understood in the area where the church assembles).


1075
53 : GIFTS OF THE HOLT SPIRIT (2)​

interpretation in church, they will be acting and thinking like “children” (1 Cor. 14:20). He first quotes a prophecy of judgment from Isaiah 28:11-12: “In the law it is written, ‘By men of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord’ ” (1 Cor. 14:21).

In the context of Isaiah 28, God is warning the rebellious people of Israel that the next words they heard from him would be words of foreigners that they could not understand—the Assyrian army would come on them as agents of God’s judgment. Now Paul is about to take this as a general principle—when God speaks to people in language they cannot understand, it is quite evidently a sign of God’s judgment.

Paul rightly applies that to the situation of speaking in tongues without interpretation in the church service. He calls it a sign (that is, a sign of judgment) on unbelievers:

Thus, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers. If, therefore, the whole church assembles and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?​

(1 Cor. 14:22-23)

Here Paul uses the word “sign” to mean “sign of God’s attitude” (whether positive or negative). Tongues that are not understood by outsiders are certainly a negative sign—a sign of judgment. Therefore Paul cautions the Corinthians not to give such a sign to outsiders who come in. He tells them if an outsider comes in and hears only unintelligible speech, he will certainly not be saved but will conclude that the Corinthians are mad, and the uninterpreted tongues will in his case function as a sign of God’s judgment.

By contrast, Paul says that prophecy is a sign of God’s attitude as well, but here a positive sign of God’s blessing. This is why he can say that prophecy is a sign “for believers” (v. 22). And this is why he concludes his section by saying, “If all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you” (w. 24—25). When this happens, believers will certainly realize that God is active among them to bring blessing, and prophecy will regularly function as a sign for believers of God’s positive attitude for them.49

Nevertheless, however much Paul warns against using tongues without interpretation in church, he certainly views it positively and encourages it in private. He says, “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself but he who prophesies edifies the church” (1 Cor. 14:4). What is his conclusion? It is not (as some would argue) that Christians should decide not to use the gift or decide that it has no value when used privately. Rather he says, “What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also” (v. 15). And he says, “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all” (v. 18), and “Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy” (v. 5), and “Earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues” (v. 39). If our previous
49For further discussion of this passage, see Wayne Grudem, “1 Corinthians 14:20-25■ Prophecy and Tongues as Signs of God’s Attitude,” WTJ 41:2 (Spring 1979), pp. 381-96.


53 : GIFTS OF THE HOLT SPIRIT (2)
1076​

understanding of tongues as prayer or praise to God is correct, then we would certainly expect that edification would follow, even though the speaker’s mind does not understand what is being said, but his or her own human spirit is communicating directly with God. Just as prayer and worship in general edify us as we engage in them, so this kind of prayer and worship edifies us too, according to Paul.

f. Tongues With Interpretation: Edification for the Church: Paul says, “He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified” (1 Cor. 14:5). Once a message in tongues is interpreted, all can understand. In that case, Paul says that the message in tongues is as valuable to the church as prophecy. We should note that he does not say they have the same functions (for other passages indicate that prophecy is communication from God toward human beings, while tongues is generally communication from human beings to God). But Paul clearly says they have equal value in edifying the church.

g. Not All Speak in Tongues: Just as not all Christians are apostles, and not all are prophets or teachers, and not all possess gifts of healing, so not all speak with tongues. Paul clearly implies this when he asks a series of questions, all of which expect the answer “no,” and includes the question “Do all speak with tongues?” (1 Cor. 12:30). The implied answer is no.50 Some have argued that Paul here only means that not all speak with tongues publicly, but that perhaps he would have admitted that all can speak in tongues privately. But this distinction seems foreign to the context and unconvincing. He does not specify that not all speak with tongues publicly or in church, but simply says that not all speak with tongues. His next question is, “Do all interpret?” (v. 30). His previous two questions were, “Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing?” (w. 29-30). Would we wish to make the same arguments about these gifts—that not all interpret tongues publicly, but that all Christians are able to do it privately? Or that not all work miracles publicly, but that all are able to work miracles privately? Such a distinction seems unwarranted by the context in every case.

In actuality, the desire to say that every Christian can speak in tongues (even though Paul says that not all speak in tongues) is probably motivated in most cases by a prior doctrinal understanding that views baptism in the Holy Spirit as an experience subsequent to conversion,51 and sees speaking in tongues as an initial “sign” of receiving this baptism in the Holy Spirit.52 But there are serious questions that remain about this doctrinal position (as explained in chapter 39). It seems better to take 1 Corinthians 12:30 to mean just what it says: not all speak in tongues. The gift of tongues—just like every other gift—is not given by the Holy Spirit to every Christian who seeks it. He “apportions to each one individually as he wills” (1 Cor. 12:11).

However, there is nothing in Scripture that says that only a few will receive the


50The Greek particle me, which precedes this question, expects the answer “no” from the reader. The nasb captures this sense: “All do not speak with tongues, do they?”
51See chapter 39 for a discussion of baptism in the Holy Spirit.
52This is still the official doctrinal position of the Assemblies of God, for example.


1077
53 : GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT (2)​

gift of speaking in tongues, and, since it is a gift Paul views as edifying and useful in prayer and worship (on a personal level even if not in church), it would not be surprising if the Holy Spirit gave a very widespread distribution of this gift and many Christians in fact received it.53


53Mark 16:17 is sometimes used to claim that all Christians can speak in tongues: “And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues.” But in response to this verse it must be noted (1) that the verse probably was not originally part of Mark’s gospel, since many early and very reliable manuscripts do not include Mark 16:9-20, and its doubtful status means that it is a precarious basis upon which to build doctrine (see chapter 17, p. 365); (2) that even if it is not part of Scripture, it does of course bear witness to a very early tradition in the history of the church, but even in this case, it does not affirm that all believers will speak with tongues: the immediately following phrase says, “They will pick up serpents” (v. 18), something that no responsible interpreter would say should be true of every Christian; and (3) that no connection is made between speaking in tongues and baptism in the Holy Spirit in this passage.

Thanks for posting those quotes. Although I would strongly disagree with their views that Corinthian tongues was something different from Acts 2, most prominent continuationist theologians do at least affirm that foreign human languages were spoken at Pentecost. I'm pretty sure that also applies to the likes of Fee, Storms, Warnock, Brown, Packer et al.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,803
13,115
72
✟362,269.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Stan, from a Full Gospel perpective, the vast majority of us (maybe 99%) would recognise that it was the 120 who were empowered by the Holy Spirit and not just with the Twelve. We would also recognise that it was the 120 who spoke the unknown tongues of the nearby listeners and not that they were empowered by the Spirit to individually understand what the 120 were saying in either Hebrew or Aramaic.

As for the Holy Spirit supposedly empowering the unregenerate to hear what the Holy Spirit was saying to the Father, this would undoubtedly take away from the importance of the Father granting the Holy Spirit to the Believers and thus to the Church as a whole.

Why would this "take away from the importance of the Father granting the Holy Spirit to the Believers and thus to the Church as a whole"? Is the importance something you think is inherent, but is not given in scripture? It seems to me that if God wills something to happen, then it is important and there is nothing we can do to lessen that importance in God's sight.
 
Upvote 0

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟43,594.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for posting those quotes. Although I would strongly disagree with their views that Corinthian tongues was something different from Acts 2, most prominent continuationist theologians do at least affirm that foreign human languages were spoken at Pentecost. I'm pretty sure that also applies to the likes of Fee, Storms, Warnock, Brown, Packer et al.
With the term “something different”, its use can be problematic in that we each need to define what we mean by it. For most scholars, even those who are soft-cessationists such as J.I. Packer, they recognise that the tongues spoken on the Day of Pentecost, where the 120 spoke in known human languages that they did not know, were essentially the same as that of 1 Cor 12, 13 & 14 where they (and we) speak to the Father through inarticulate sounds.

Even though Pentecost tells us that the 120 spoke in known languages but in every other instance these same tongues are spoken as inarticulate sounds, they are still one and the same. With Acts 2:11 Luke tells us that the nearby Jews heard “them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God." This has a direct bearing on Paul’s writings within 1 Cor 14 where in verse 2 he says;

“For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit”.​

On the Day of Pentecost, even though we know that the 120 were speaking of “the greatness of God”, we of course do not know exactly what they were saying to the Father, but we at least know that their words were being directed toward the Father and not to man, which is the same as with how tongues are used within the congregational setting and with our times of personal devotion; though with our devotions we can of course allow the Holy Spirit to intercede on our behalf to the Father for our needs.

Without going through each passage of chapter 14, we only need to refer to verse 16 where Paul tells us that what we speak through the Holy Spirit (or the Holy Spirit through us) are words of “praise and thanksgiving” which has a direct parallel with Acts 2 where the crowd heard the 120 speaking of “the greatness of God”.

To summarise, this means that even though the tongues of Pentecost were given in known human languages and where the normative use of tongues are given within inarticulate sounds, they are still one and the same, where the Holy Spirit is the agency of both but on the Day of Pentecost he chose to allow the 120 to speak in known languages so that the Jewish visitors to Jerusalem could better understand that something very special and unrepeatable had just occurred.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟43,594.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Why would this "take away from the importance of the Father granting the Holy Spirit to the Believers and thus to the Church as a whole"? Is the importance something you think is inherent, but is not given in scripture? It seems to me that if God wills something to happen, then it is important and there is nothing we can do to lessen that importance in God's sight.
By allowing the crowd to witness the 120 rustic and unsophisticated Galileans speaking in languages that they would not normally be expected to know and within a strong rural Galilean accent as well, this would undoubtedly let them know that something very special had just occurred; but as their words were being directed to God in praise and thanksgiving this meant that the crowd were understandably at a loss as to what was happening, other than what they were hearing was something very unusual. This is why Peter had to provide an evangelistic message to let the crowd know that they had just witnessed the fulfillment of Joel 2 where the Holy Spirit has now been given to the people of the New Covenant.

If the Holy Spirit had of merely allowed the crowd to hear the Aramaic words of the 120 in their own native languages, then Peter would have had to have told us (and them) that this was the case, where eveyone would have walked away saying that "As the Holy Spirit has come upon us and obviously not on you 'Christians', then obviously God is blessing us and not you".
 
Upvote 0

StanJ

Student & Correct Handler of God's Word.
May 3, 2016
1,767
287
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
✟3,516.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Liberals
You are misrepresenting me. I didn't say tongue ALWAYS means language. As I said in my next sentence (which you omitted to quote), it depends on the context. I've already cited the lexical definitions of both the Hebrew and Greek words for tongue (lashon and glossa). Just like the English word it can mean the thing in your mouth or a language, depending on the context.
I didn't misrepresent you, I quoted what you said, which was; "No, tongue simply means language." It appears it's not so simple is it?
That's right, it depends on the context, so what is the context in Isaiah 28? I'm pretty sure I gave it to you a few posts back when I quoted Ellicott. Did you read what he had to say? If you didn't agree with it then please indicate why you think he was wrong.
Again you are misrepresenting me. I never said a word-for-word translation is the best kind, as your link warns against. A very literal translation would be virtually unreadable. But if you did a straw poll among theologians I doubt very much they would say the NIV is the most accurate out of the three.
And I never said you said that, so why accuse me of it? Look at exactly what I posted. I said; "your concept of what makes a good Bible translation is not sound nor accurate." If you can't even quote me properly I have a feeling you're going to have a hard time understanding what the Bible actually says.
http://www.christianity.com/bible/choosing-a-bible-translation-11631126.html
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/09/what-bible-should-i-own-dan-wallace/
https://bible.org/article/why-so-many-versions
Rather than address the point, I see you are more inclined to make derogatory personal remarks about me. Are you familiar with the fallacy of 'ad hominem'?
I did address the point and it wasn't an ad hominem. Are you Pentecostal? Have you received the in filling of the holy spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues?
No, Paul applies Isaiah's to exactly the same situation, foreign languages being heard amongst the unbeleiving Jews.
Actually what Paul was referring to was the stammering and stuttering that Isaiah spoke of, that did not actually sound like a language that anybody would recognize. Just as tongues is. The Greek word in 1 Cor 14:21, is ἕτερο(héteros), and has a qualitative sense about it that depicts another: i.e. one not of the same nature, form, class, kind, different. This is exactly what Paul was referring to, not a known or foreign language, but an unknown, never-before-heard language. The exact same thought that Isaiah was conveying, because obviously Isaiah recognized the Assyrian language. What Isaiah also states in verse 10 is exactly what the God-fearing Jews experienced in Acts 2:12-13.
Ellicot endorses what I originally said which was the tongues referred to by Isaiah was the Assyrian native language. And not what you said which was - "A foreign or strange tongue is not the same as a foreigner speaking their language/mother tongue". Nothing in Ellicots commentary contradicts my argument, although as I said his term 'ecstatic utterances' to describe the Corinthian tongues is something I and even most charismatic/pentecostal theologians would reject. There was nothing 'ecstatic' about tongues.
I'll quote it again FYI;
(11) With stammering lips and another tongue . . .—The “stammering lips” are those of the Assyrian conquerors, whose speech would seem to the men of Judah as a barbarous patois. They, with their short sharp commands, would be the next utterers of Jehovah’s will to the people who would not listen to the prophet’s teaching. The description of the “stammering tongue” re-appears in Isaiah 33:19. (Comp.Deuteronomy 28:49.) In 1 Corinthians 14:21, the words are applied to the gift of “tongues,” which, in its ecstatic utterances, was unintelligible to those who heard it, and was therefore, as the speech of the barbarian conquerors was in Isaiah’s thoughts, the antithesis of true prophetic teaching.
Again as you have never spoken in tongues, then you really can't make that judgement call. I on the other hand, have, and I can tell you that initially it is very ecstatic. Both Isaiah and Paul were referring to the sound of the language, again read Isaiah 28:10, and not the fact that it was a foreign language.
No, that is not what I said.
It may not be what you meant but then again you're not taking the opportunity to clarify yourself.
Because they wouldn't have understood them if it was foreign to them plus the hearers knew that the speakers were Galilean.
It doesn't say they were confused. It says they were bewildered, amazed and perplexed because they heard their own language being spoken fluently by Galileans, who had a reputation of being uncultured and poorly educated.
I was quoting from the NET, but what do you think perplexed means? I'm afraid your understanding of the nature and culture of Galilee is greatly misinformed. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/galilee.html
I'm afraid the word 'them' doesn't appear in the original Greek, it is a word added by the translators.
Even if it did, I don't see the problem. The foreigners are collectively commenting on the situation as a whole. They heard the disciples speaking their native language. It doesn't mean each foreigners heard all of the disciples speak their language at the same time. That is something you are reading into the text.
And when you can establish that you are a credentialed Greek scholar we may be able to give this type of observation some credulity, but for now your observations are like somebody saying that person is sick and not being an actual doctor. Again I refer you to v7. I'm not reading anything into the text, the text actually says; "how is it that each one of us hears them in our own native language?"
They didn't say, 'how is it they are speaking our language', so if anybody is not taking what is being written literally my friend, it is you.
No you haven't.
Just because you haven't read it doesn't mean I didn't state it.
Please tell us why, if such an amazing miracle of automatic translation was occurring in the ears of the hearers, Luke makes no mention of it? There is not even a hint that any interpretation is taking place.
Duke does mention it as I clearly shown above from v8.
Why would the Holy Spirit fall on the unbelieving crowd and give them the gift of interpretation, when the text clearly says the Holy Spirit was only poured out on the disciples?
Your question comes from a pre dispositional bias and is not ever asked by somebody who actually accept this scripture as written. Again it says "how is it we hear?"
Why should we disregard the plain reading of the text, which is the disciples were speaking foreign languages?
Well I'm pretty sure you're not speaking for anybody but yourself here, but the plain text doesn't say foreign languages.
Why is tongues in the plural if they were speaking the language of heaven?
Who said they were speaking the language of Heaven? The reason that says tongues is because every person's spiritual tongue is different just as they are. It is indeed an ecstatic language or a new spiritual tongue, just as Jesus said, and that means not just new to the hearer, but new to the speaker.
Yes, it is more unbelievable. Acts 2 says that is exactly what happened, whereas your theory about interpretation occurring in the ears of the hearers is completely unwarranted.
And that is what you call taking the literal view of scripture, when it actually says "how is it we hear", and NOT, "how is it they speak"?
..which is exactly what you are doing with your implausible theory about miraculous interpretation in the ears of the hearers. It is a totally unwarranted assumption.
Your opinion, and that opinion doesn't make it fact. Being clouded by a pre-dispositional bias is even worse than not accepting the words that scripture gives us literally, even though you claim you prefer literalness.
Totally unscriptural. Where does it say such a thing? It says in Acts 2:4 they spoke in other languages (plural). And the foreigners affirmed it - "we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!"
They spoke in other tongues and the foreigners HEARD their language. Where does it say The Apostles actually spoke the languages of the God-fearing Jews that were there? You keep quoting the words "they heard" but you don't accept them.
Yet again you are misrepresenting me. I said charismatic/pentecostal theologians. Grudem, Carson and Piper are all charismatic theologians. They believe in the continuation of the charismatic gifts of tongues, prophecy, healing. Charismatic is not a separate denomination. I will dig out some quotes to show they all say tongues of Acts 2 are foreign human languages.
They all label themselves as Reformed Theology, so obviously they're not Charismatic, and yes Charismatic is a sect of Christianity, just as Reformed is.
Dispite your repeated assertion that I am wrong and you are right, most commentators agree that it was the 120 gathered at Pentecost.
Then feel free to start a thread about this issue but it doesn't belong here and it is off topic.
 
Upvote 0

StanJ

Student & Correct Handler of God's Word.
May 3, 2016
1,767
287
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
✟3,516.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Liberals
Stan, from a Full Gospel perpective, the vast majority of us (maybe 99%) would recognise that it was the 120 who were empowered by the Holy Spirit and not just with the Twelve. We would also recognise that it was the 120 who spoke the unknown tongues of the nearby listeners and not that they were empowered by the Spirit to individually understand what the 120 were saying in either Hebrew or Aramaic.
As for the Holy Spirit supposedly empowering the unregenerate to hear what the Holy Spirit was saying to the Father, this would undoubtedly take away from the importance of the Father granting the Holy Spirit to the Believers and thus to the Church as a whole.
I definitely don't concur about the number or your point of view but as this would be off-topic to the thread, it would be better if we dealt with it in its own thread, so either you or swordsman can initiate a thread about it and I would be more than happy to participate.
 
Upvote 0

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟43,594.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
I definitely don't concur about the number or your point of view but as this would be off-topic to the thread, it would be better if we dealt with it in its own thread, so either you or swordsman can initiate a thread about it and I would be more than happy to participate.
As the thread is about the views of the AoG in relation to tongues, the question is important in that if the Holy Spirit granted the unregenerated crowd to understand what was happening instead of empowering the 120, then the Day of Pentecost certainly becomes a bit of a non-event for the Church and undoubtedly all AoG scholars would agree that it was the 120 who were filled with the Holy Spirit and who spoke in tongues on the Day of Pentecost; I am trying to find an AoG position paper which reflects their position but at this point of time the best I can find is with the following;

http://ag.org/top/beliefs/topics/baptmhs_faq.cfm

“On the Day of Pentecost 120 disciples (committed followers of Jesus) were "filled" with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4). This fulfilled the promise Christ had made to them a few days earlier. He had said, "John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:5). But this initial experience of being baptized in the Holy Spirit is only the beginning of a lifelong experience. God wants us to remain filled with the Spirit”.​

With regard to another point, the AoG recognise that the tongues of Acts 2 and of 1 Corinthians and elsewhere that they are one and the same but that on the Day of Pentecost tongues had a different purpose:

http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/statement_of_fundamental_truths/sft_full.cfm#8

8. The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit

The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance.
  • Acts 2:4 [KJV/NIV]
The speaking in tongues in this instance is the same in essence as the gift of tongues, but is different in purpose and use.
  • 1 Corinthians 12:4-10 [KJV/NIV]
  • 1 Corinthians 12:28 [KJV/NIV]
 
Upvote 0

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟43,594.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Stan, finally, I found it!

http://ag.org/top/beliefs/topics/baptmhs_faq.cfm

Who should be baptized in the Holy Spirit?

"When the believers were assembled in prayer on the Day of Pentecost, "All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them" (Acts 2:4). Not one was left out. It was not just the apostles who were filled, but all the men and all the women in that company of 120 persons. Then the apostle Peter addressed the onlookers and told them that they should be filled. He said "The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off -- for all whom the Lord our God will call" (Acts 2:39).

As Peter said, the baptism in the Holy Spirit is for every believer in every generation. It is an all-inclusive promise of universal dimension. The baptism in the Holy Spirit is promised to every Christian believer".
Even though I disagree with numerous aspects of AoG doctrine, I can certainly agree with the AoG that it was the 120 who spoke in tongues on the Day of Pentecost and that the tongues of Acts 2 and 1 Cor 12-14 are one and the same.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟43,594.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for posting those quotes. Although I would strongly disagree with their views that Corinthian tongues was something different from Acts 2, most prominent continuationist theologians do at least affirm that foreign human languages were spoken at Pentecost. I'm pretty sure that also applies to the likes of Fee, Storms, Warnock, Brown, Packer et al.
It can be a bit of minefield at times when we look at the material that the various scholars contribute on the Person and ministry of the Holy Spirit (or for any subject I suppose) as they might say one thing in the main body of the text but where they can often make a qualification or two in their footnotes. It's often said that the best material within a serious and comprehensive commentary is usually found in the fine print of the footnotes which the average reader unfortunately tends to ignore.

You mentioned J.I. Packer, where Packer is certainly warm towards the Charismatic Movement and he greatly values their input for a very tired and lacklustre church but at the sametime he is still what we deem to be a soft-cessationist.
 
Upvote 0

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟43,594.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Stan, I went and checked out the two non-academic links that you've provided, but as they do not reflect the position of the AoG (which is the point of this particular thread) or even with maybe 99.9% of Pentecostal scholarship, then I suppose that I can leave them aside. If you can find any authoritative Pentecostal or even charismatic sources then I must admit that I would value a link if you can manage to find one.
 
Upvote 0

StanJ

Student & Correct Handler of God's Word.
May 3, 2016
1,767
287
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
✟3,516.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Liberals
Stan, I went and checked out the two non-academic links that you've provided, but as they do not reflect the position of the AoG (which is the point of this particular thread) or even with maybe 99.9% of Pentecostal scholarship, then I suppose that I can leave them aside. If you can find any authoritative Pentecostal or even charismatic sources then I must admit that I would value a link if you can manage to find one.
I have been a lifelong member of Foursquare and PAOC in Canada, and I'm not sure exactly what their stance is on this issue.
I see no reason to discount any exegesis that is properly done.
https://www.studylight.org/commentary/acts/2-4.html#jtc
https://www.studylight.org/commentary/acts/2-4.html#whe
http://www.baptistbiblebelievers.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=xhIe7BNJBJs=&tabid=162&mid=534
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟43,594.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
I have been a lifelong member of Foursquare and PAOC in Canada, and I'm not sure exactly what their stance is on this issue.
I see no reason to discount any exegesis that is properly done.
https://www.studylight.org/commentary/acts/2-4.html#jtc
https://www.studylight.org/commentary/acts/2-4.html#whe
http://www.baptistbiblebelievers.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=xhIe7BNJBJs=&tabid=162&mid=534
The three links were interesting but due to their age I found it a bit hard to work out exactly what they meant. The third link was interesting in that it supported the standard Pentecostal view that those who were filled with the Holy Spirit spoke in actual human languages, not that the crowd were empowered to understand what was being said.

If you can track down any position papers by the Canadian Foursquare and the PAOC as to the Holy Spirit only falling on the Twelve or on the 120 who were present, then this would undoubtedly make for some interesting reading - must go!
 
Upvote 0