Tongues as Private Prayer Language

SPF · Jun 25, 2020

Bob Carabbio said:
rationalizations noted.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, can you elaborate? My goal when it comes to theology and beliefs is to strive towards making sure everything I believe is lined up with first and foremost what Scripture says. Emotions and experiences ought to always take a backseat to Scripture, and I assume that you would agree with that.

Have I said anything that would indicate a rationalization? If so, can you help me see where I might be doing that? I certainly don't want to.

Phil W · Jun 25, 2020

SPF said:
Hi Bob, thanks for the reply. I'll do my best to address your questions. Again, for me this all goes back to context. In the 4 Pentecost events from Acts, when speaking in tongues is mentioned, we know that in these instance it was speaking other known languages. That is our foundation to build off when it comes to understanding the gift of speaking in tongues.

The burden is on us to find where in Scripture this leap is made from the gift of tongues being other languages to being some non-sensical (to us) language that we can't understand.

The problem is that we can easily, without any magical wordsmithing interpret Paul's teaching to the Corinthian Believers from the viewpoint that the tongues they were speaking was the same as the tongues that the Apostles and other new believers spoke in Acts.

For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue - This verse is designed to show that the faculty of speaking intelligibly, and to the edification of the church, is of more value than the power of speaking a foreign language. The reason is, that however valuable may be the endowment in itself, and however important the truth which he may utter, yet it is as if he spoke to God only. No one could understand him.

Speaketh not unto men - Does not speak so that people can understand him. His address is really not made to people, that is, to the church. He might have this faculty without being able to speak to the edification of the church. It is possible that the power of speaking foreign languages and of prophesying were sometimes united in the same person; but it is evident that the apostle speaks of them as different endowments, and they probably were found usually in different individuals.

But unto God - It is as if he spoke to God. No one could understand him but God. This must evidently refer to the addresses “in the church,” when Christians only were present, or when those only were present who spoke the same language, and who were unacquainted with foreign tongues. Paul says that “there” that faculty would be valueless compared with the power of speaking in a manner that should edify the church. He did not undervalue the power of speaking foreign languages when foreigners were present, or when they went to preach to foreigners; see 1Co_14:22. It was only when it was needless, when all present spoke one language, that he speaks of it as of comparatively little value.

For no man understandeth him - That is, no man in the church, since they all spoke the same language, and that language was different from what was spoken by him who was endowed with the gift of tongues. As God only could know the import of what he said, it would be lost upon the church, and would be useless.

Howbeit in the Spirit - Although, by the aid of the Spirit, he should, in fact, deliver the most important and sublime truths. This would doubtless be the case, that those who were thus endowed would deliver most important truths, but they would be “lost” upon those who heard them, because they could not understand them. The phrase “in the Spirit,” evidently means “by the Holy Spirit,” that is, by his aid and influence. Though he should be “really” under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and though the important truth which he delivers should be imparted by his aid, yet all would be valueless unless it were understood by the church.

He speaketh mysteries - For the meaning of the word “mystery,” see Note, 1Co_2:7. The word here seems to be synonymous with sublime and elevated truth; truth that was not before known, and that might be of the utmost importance.

Well, for one Paul uses different words for "speak" and "pray" When Paul says speaks, he's using the word laleō which means to talk.

When Paul uses the word "pray", like in 14:13, he uses the word proseuchomai.

Different words with different meanings.

14:13 - Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.

You can see the difference in verse 13 very clearly. To speak in tongues is different than praying. Different words with different meanings.

I don't recall saying that edifying ones self was a bad thing. Paul seems to think in I Corinthians 14 though that praying in a tongue without an interpreter is unfruitful. I then have to ask myself why I would want to do something unfruitful?

1Co 14:13-15 Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What is the outcome then? 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.

At the end of the day, the example we have of the gift on tongues in the book of Acts is clearly speaking other languages. There's no reason that I can find to think that when Paul is addressing the Corinthians, that he is not assuming that tongues is other known languages.

There doesn't seem to be anything in Scripture to support the idea that tongues made a transition from known languages in Acts to non-sensical, gibberish sounding "words".

It isn't "us" speaking: it is the Spirit of God speaking.
If the words are meant for foreign ears, it will be in a foreign language.
If the words are spoken to God, it will be in His language.

SPF · Jun 25, 2020

Phil W said:
It isn't "us" speaking: it is the Spirit of God speaking.
If the words are meant for foreign ears, it will be in a foreign language.
If the words are spoken to God, it will be in His language.

Hi Phil, you're going to need to clarify what instance of "us" you're referring to in your comments. As far as I understand the act of speaking, I haven't actually seen the Holy Spirit speak. I've seen people speak before, using their own vocal cords, but I've never seen the actual Holy Spirit speak.

I suppose you mean that the Holy Spirit sort of takes control of the person and sort of possesses them and they become some sort of vessel for the Spirit? I don't really see that in Scripture.

I also don't see anything in Scripture about God's language, can you demonstrate from Scripture that God has a secret language?

Phil W · Jun 25, 2020

SPF said:
Hi Phil, you're going to need to clarify what instance of "us" you're referring to in your comments. As far as I understand the act of speaking, I haven't actually seen the Holy Spirit speak. I've seen people speak before, using their own vocal cords, but I've never seen the actual Holy Spirit speak.

By "us", I mean those who speak in tongues.
God is a spirit, so can't be seen.
He can manifest Himself in other ways though.
One of those other ways is by the gift of tongues.
Those with the Spirit of God in them can manifest the Spirit within them by speaking in tongues.
But it is the Spirit speaking, not the man or woman.
Were it the man speaking, he would know what he was saying.
But when the Spirit speaks, we won't understand unless we also have the gift of interpretation of tongues.

I suppose you mean that the Holy Spirit sort of takes control of the person and sort of possesses them and they become some sort of vessel for the Spirit? I don't really see that in Scripture.

Exactly, as scripture states in Matt 10:20 and Acts 2:4.

I also don't see anything in Scripture about God's language, can you demonstrate from Scripture that God has a secret language?

"Secret" language...no.
But 1 Cor 13:1 is one demonstration of a heavenly language..."Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."

SPF · Jun 26, 2020

Hi Phil, thanks again for the response. The problem I have is that you clearly are approaching Scripture with a specific view to a theology, and therefore everything you read is interpreted through that lens. I'm trying to be objective in how I approach it, and when one removes personal experience and emotion from the discussion, Scripture seems to be telling a different story.

Phil W said:
By "us", I mean those who speak in tongues.
God is a spirit, so can't be seen.
He can manifest Himself in other ways though.
One of those other ways is by the gift of tongues.
Those with the Spirit of God in them can manifest the Spirit within them by speaking in tongues.
But it is the Spirit speaking, not the man or woman.
Were it the man speaking, he would know what he was saying.
But when the Spirit speaks, we won't understand unless we also have the gift of interpretation of tongues.

I don't disagree with you. I believe the gift of tongues is a valid gift, and is still active today. I think we see it used most clearly in Acts where it is clearly understood to be other known languages.

I see nothing from a Scriptural point of view to suggest that the gift of tongues as used by the Apostles and other Believers in Acts somehow makes a jump from other known languages to a private, self edifying, not for unbelievers private prayer language. In fact, everything we know about the gifts that the Spirit gives indicates that they are not for our benefit, but for the benefit of the church and the expansion of the Gospel.

Phil W said:
Exactly, as scripture states in Matt 2:20 and Acts 2:4.

Mat 2:20 "Get up, take the Child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel; for those who sought the Child's life are dead."

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

Not sure why you referenced the Matthew passage. But with regards to the Acts passage, that's pretty much what happened. The Holy Spirit gave the apostles the gift of tongues and they began speaking other known languages.

You however, take this a step further than what Scripture says. Scripture doesn't say that it is the Spirit speaking, not the man or woman. In fact, it actually says that it was the apostles that began speaking as the Spirit empowered them.

Phil W said:
"Secret" language...no.
But 1 Cor 13:1 is one demonstration of a heavenly language..."Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."

Again, this just displays a lack of understanding in what Paul was teaching. Context matters. Paul was not teaching that there is a secret, language that is unique to the angels that the Holy Spirit gives us to speak.

And of angels - The language of angels; such as they speak. Were I endowed with the faculty of eloquence and persuasion which we attribute to them; and the power of speaking to any of the human family with the power which they have. The language of angels here seems to be used to denote the highest power of using language, or of the most elevated faculty of eloquence and speech.

It is evidently derived from the idea that the angels are “superior” in all respects to human beings; that they must have endowments in advance of all which man can have. It may possibly have reference to the idea that they must have some mode of communicating their ideas one to another, and that this dialect or mode must be far superior to that which is employed by man.

Man is imperfect. All his modes of communication are defective. We attribute to the angels the idea of perfection; and the idea here is, that even though a man had a far higher faculty of speaking languages than would be included in the endowment of speaking all the languages of human beings as people speak them, and even had the higher and more perfect mode of utterance which the angels have, and yet were destitute of love, all would be nothing.

It is possible that Paul may have some allusion here to what he refers to in 2Co_12:4, where he says that when he was caught up into paradise, he heard unspeakable words which it was not possible for a man to utter. To this higher, purer language of heaven he may refer here by the language of the angels. It was not with him mere “conjecture” of what that language might be; it was language which he had been permitted himself to hear. Of that scene he would refain a most deep and tender recollection; and to that language he now refers, by saying that even that elevated language would be valueless to a creature if there were not love.

So again, in conclusion - I see Scripture teaching that the Holy Spirit is the member of the Trinity that is responsible for giving out different gifts of the Spirit.

The gifts of the Spirit that the Holy Spirit gives out are purposed for the edification of Believers, and the growth of Christianity. Yet, we all seem to believe this with the one exception that some people hold to that there is one gift of the Spirit that is actually meant for our own edification - this being praying in a private, non-sensical language that nobody can understand.

I don't see it in Scripture. The more you people talk and defend it, the more it becomes obvious you aren't relying on Scripture, and that you're reading into Scripture your personal experiences trying to make sense of them.

Phil W · Jun 26, 2020

SPF said:
Hi Phil, thanks again for the response. The problem I have is that you clearly are approaching Scripture with a specific view to a theology, and therefore everything you read is interpreted through that lens.

Of course I am viewing it through a "lens".
Isn't everybody?
However the lens I use is the written word and my own experiences that go along with the written word.

I'm trying to be objective in how I approach it, and when one removes personal experience and emotion from the discussion, Scripture seems to be telling a different story.

All "objectivity" is based on personal objectivism.
Please show where scripture counters my POV (point of view).

I don't disagree with you. I believe the gift of tongues is a valid gift, and is still active today. I think we see it used most clearly in Acts where it is clearly understood to be other known languages.

In some cases it is indeed a foreign, existing, language. But to imply "most" cases...I feel you will need to either show how and when it was translated into Greek, Parthian, Mede, or some pertinent language.
An example. Man to man.
A specific translatable language, if you will.
Like Acts 2 does.

I see nothing from a Scriptural point of view to suggest that the gift of tongues as used by the Apostles and other Believers in Acts somehow makes a jump from other known languages to a private, self edifying, not for unbelievers private prayer language. In fact, everything we know about the gifts that the Spirit gives indicates that they are not for our benefit, but for the benefit of the church and the expansion of the Gospel.

Beside Acts 2, I see no other instance of a man unexpectedly speaking in the native language of a foreigner.
Perhaps you could show me an example I have overlooked?

Mat 2:20

"Get up, take the Child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel; for those who sought the Child's life are dead."
Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.
Not sure why you referenced the Matthew passage. But with regards to the Acts passage, that's pretty much what happened. The Holy Spirit gave the apostles the gift of tongues and they began speaking other known languages.

I meant Matt 10:20...not Matt 2:20, to show that the Holy Spirit takes over and it isn't the man actually speaking his own thoughts at all.
Matt 10:20..."For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you."

Were I to walk up to a Mexican here in Phoenix, Arizona, and start speaking in tongues in order to "witness" to him about the faith, I would need to be working from a "script", of sorts, to go from point A to point B and then C and D etc to make my case, and that in English.
My English would need to emerge in Spanish for it to qualify as the gift of tongues in your scenario.
That would be an example of "tongues" being used as you suppose it is most commonly used in scriptural history.
So give a scriptural example of that.

You however, take this a step further than what Scripture says. Scripture doesn't say that it is the Spirit speaking, not the man or woman. In fact, it actually says that it was the apostles that began speaking as the Spirit empowered them.

"Empowered", isn't that the same as "caused"?
And Matt 10:20 DOES say it.

Again, this just displays a lack of understanding in what Paul was teaching. Context matters. Paul was not teaching that there is a secret, language that is unique to the angels that the Holy Spirit gives us to speak.

The gift of tongues can be used by God in both Spirit to man and Spirit to God conversations.
It isn't limited to only one arena of use.

So again, in conclusion - I see Scripture teaching that the Holy Spirit is the member of the Trinity that is responsible for giving out different gifts of the Spirit.
The gifts of the Spirit that the Holy Spirit gives out are purposed for the edification of Believers, and the growth of Christianity. Yet, we all seem to believe this with the one exception that some people hold to that there is one gift of the Spirit that is actually meant for our own edification - this being praying in a private, non-sensical language that nobody can understand.
I don't see it in Scripture. The more you people talk and defend it, the more it becomes obvious you aren't relying on Scripture, and that you're reading into Scripture your personal experiences trying to make sense of them.

I hope my correction of Matt 10:20 for Matt 2:20 can straighten out your misgivings about more than one usage of the gift of tongues.

SPF · Jun 27, 2020

Phil W said:
Of course I am viewing it through a "lens".
Isn't everybody?
However the lens I use is the written word and my own experiences that go along with the written word.

The genuine student will strive to separate their personal bias when reading Scripture. What you do is take your personal experiences as authoritative and interpret Scripture to support them.

The genuine student places their experiences and emotions on the backburner and interprets them through Scripture.

In other words, were you unbiased, you would be open to the notion that tongues as a gibberish private prayer language that is not edifying anyone else (and arguably not you other than your emotions) is a learned behavior. But you aren’t.

Phil W said:
All "objectivity" is based on personal objectivism.

Truth is objective and personal opinion bears no weight upon its reality. For example, “God exists”, is a truth-claim. That truth claim is true independent of what anyone thinks, feels, or believes.

100% of self thinking beings in the universe could believe that God does not exist, and 100% would be wrong.

Phil W said:
Please show where scripture counters my POV (point of view).

Apparently you’re new to this thread and haven’t read anything I’ve written, not even in response to you! Just about every single passage I’ve posted with commentary disagrees with your POV.

Phil W said:
In some cases it is indeed a foreign, existing, language. But to imply "most" cases...I feel you will need to either show how and when it was translated into Greek, Parthian, Mede, or some pertinent language... Beside Acts 2, I see no other instance of a man unexpectedly speaking in the native language of a foreigner.
Perhaps you could show me an example I have overlooked?

It isn’t disputed that the Pentecostal experiences in Acts are all instances of tongues being a known, foreign language. If you don’t know that, I can’t help you.

The very issue is that everything Paul says can be readily understood to be in the context of the gift of tongues being the same as the tongues used like the Believers from Acts.

There’s nothing in Scripture to support the notion that tongues went from what we see in Acts to some private, gibberish language that is meant to be used privately between only the Speaker and God.

Indeed, if you know anything about the gifts of the Spirit you would recognize that NONE of the other gifts are meant to be used that way, why would gibberish tongues get its own set of rules that aren’t even provided in Scripture?

Phil W said:
Empowered", isn't that the same as "caused"?

No, those are different words with different meanings. Is English your primary language?

Bob Carabbio · Jul 1, 2020

SPF said:
I'm not sure what you mean by that, can you elaborate?

It's obvious that when Paul says that speaking in a "tongue" is self edifying, that you don't agree, since you consider it worthless (remember that the SPIRIT sometimes prays even when we say nothing).

You play some "Word games" about "Speaking to God" to make Speaking to HIM in a tongue of no value in spite of what the WORD says about it.

It's also obvious that Paul HAD NO PROBLEM with the tongues themselves being manifested in the Corinthian church, but DID have problems about their "Manner of usage" usage in the common meeting, which he addresses.

OBVIOUSLY if the Holy Spirit burdens somebody to speak in a tongue in a meeting, He wouldn't do that unless he KNEW that he could burden either the speaker, or another with interpretation. I've been burdened to Interpret many times, but have NEVER been burdened to speak in a tongue.

Paul is clear however, that "tongues" in the Corinthian church generally were NOT understood by those present. The MINORITY view ABout Acts 2:4 is that it wasn't a miracle of SPEAKING at all, but a Miracle of "Hearing". Peter, however didn't do the preaching in a "Tongue" but in the common language.

The gist of the Message to the Corinthians were that they were an unruly bunch taking selfish PRIDE in their "Giftings" as though they actually had any contribution to what the Spirit was doing in them. The FOOLS actually were telling those who had "the lesser" gifts (in their carnal judgement - actually there ARE NO "Lesser Gifts") that they HAD NO NEED OF THEM!!!

The FACT is that in the Full-Gospel churches that are in order, the Holy Spirit Choreographs the manifestation of the gifts: He "holds" the service, burdens the tongues speaker (or the Prophet), burdens the interpreter(s), and then releases the service to continue when He's done. The Corinthians were obviously "Showing off" and trying to outdo each other with their gifts, and there was confusion with both "Tongues", and Prophetic utterance.

Acts 2:4 is a "Special case" - the initial introduction of the Holy SPirit ON the Disciples who were already infilled by the Holy SPirit in John 20:22. In 1962 (or so) "Tongues" were the Significant SIGN to the churches (mostly liberal denominations) that something spiritually significant was going on.

The KNOWN manifestations in 2020 are (unless all our pastors and missionaries are bald faced liars):
Speaking in the common tongue, but being heard/understood in one or more different languages.
Speaking in a tongue unknown to the speaker but understood by the listeners, often in their "mother tongue" with proper regional accent.
Speaking in a tongue unknown to ANYBODY, and then followed by a Holy SPirit gifted Interpretation in the common tongue.
Speaking in a tongue (that is not understood privately) according to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

If the "tongues speaker" is "Making up his own utterance" (same with Prophetic utterance), then they're deluding themselves - and some of the IDIOTIC teaching in Pentecostal churches: "Priming the pump", "saying nonsense syllables", "talking baby talk" / "GIbberish" in order to "get it started". Guarantees that some proportion of "Tongues"/"Prophesy" is phony as a three dollar bill.

SPF · Jul 1, 2020

Bob Carabbio said:
It's obvious that when Paul says that speaking in a "tongue" is self edifying, that you don't agree, since you consider it worthless (remember that the SPIRIT sometimes prays even when we say nothing).

I don't recall saying it is worthless. I agree with what Albert Barnes says about 14:4

Edifieth himself - That is, the truths which are communicated to him by the Spirit, and which he utters in an unknown language, may be valuable, and may be the means of strengthening his faith, and building him up in the hopes of the gospel, but they can he of no use to others. His own holy affections might be excited by the truths which he would deliver, and the consciousness of possessing miraculous powers might excite his gratitude.

Bob Carabbio said:
You play some "Word games" about "Speaking to God" to make Speaking to HIM in a tongue of no value in spite of what the WORD says about it.

You'll need to actually show what word games I'm playing instead of stating it matter of factly. I'm not trying to play any word games at all, so if you think I actually am, I would appreciate the courtesy of exposing it so I don't do it again.

Bob Carabbio said:
It's also obvious that Paul HAD NO PROBLEM with the tongues themselves being manifested in the Corinthian church, but DID have problems about their "Manner of usage" usage in the common meeting, which he addresses.

I completely agree that Paul had no problem with someone utilizing the gift of tongues. I think the gift of tongues was/is a valid gift of the Holy Spirit.

Bob Carabbio said:
OBVIOUSLY if the Holy Spirit burdens somebody to speak in a tongue in a meeting, He wouldn't do that unless he KNEW that he could burden either the speaker, or another with interpretation.

This would imply that the people utilizing the gift of tongues at the Corinthian church weren't being burdened by the Holy Spirit to do so. Yet, they were still able to utilize a gift of the Holy Spirit a part from being burdened by him?

Bob Carabbio said:
Paul is clear however, that "tongues" in the Corinthian church generally were NOT understood by those present.

I agree. The people in the Corinthian church spoke the same language. There's a really good chance that if I started speaking in tongues this coming Sunday at Church, nobody would understand if I was speaking Bushi.

Bob Carabbio said:
The MINORITY view ABout Acts 2:4 is that it wasn't a miracle of SPEAKING at all, but a Miracle of "Hearing". Peter, however didn't do the preaching in a "Tongue" but in the common language.

I don't hold to the minority view. I don't think it follows that people would accuse the disciples of being drunk if the minority view were true. However, if the Spirit gave to some apostles the gift of speaking one language, and others another, and others another - then the passage about people thinking they were drunk makes sense.

Bob Carabbio said:
Acts 2:4 is a "Special case" - the initial introduction of the Holy SPirit ON the Disciples who were already infilled by the Holy SPirit in John 20:22.

I think all of the 4 Pentecostal events in Acts were special cases. Jesus said in 1:8 that his disciples will be his witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest parts of the earth.

If you look at the 4 "Pentecost" moments in Acts, you'll see a neat pattern. The first takes place with the Jews. The second takes place with God-Fearers (Gentiles that converted), then with the Samaritans, and finally with the Gentiles in Ephesus. I think what you have are 4 unique, one-off type moments where the new Covenant was being shown.

Now that Pentecost has happened, and now that the New Covenant is in place, all people when they accept Christ are simultaneously forgiven, and sealed with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit just as Paul says in Ephesians 1.

Bob Carabbio said:
If the "tongues speaker" is "Making up his own utterance" (same with Prophetic utterance), then they're deluding themselves

I think this might actually be the case. It's not hard for us to deceive ourselves. It's not hard to convince ourselves something is true if we really want to. I think it's altogether possible that tongues as a gibberish, non-sensical "language" is a self-taught behavior.

Nova2216 · Jul 4, 2020

SPF said:
I'm having trouble seeing how Scripture teaches the idea that there is such a thing as praying in tongues as some sort of private prayer language where Christians speak non-sensical syllables that is the result of the Holy Spirit.

Before I get into why, let me make a quick disclaimer. I've spent a good bit of time, on and off over the past few months reading and studying on this issue. I've done this at work, where I don't have dedicated time, nor was I meaning to share my thoughts with others. Therefore, the notes I took, I took on a Word document, and a lot of times I copy/pasted from websites. Therefore, there is a good chance that things I copy/paste from my notes are not my words. So i'm sure i'll be plagiarizing thoughts in this post.

I think the best thing to do is look at Acts as a starting place for this issue. In the book of Acts, we have the primary Pentecost event, which takes place in Acts 2. This particular section actually makes it really clear that the speaking in tongues is, without a doubt, speaking other known languages.

What I do find interesting is that some people attempt to claim that the miracle wasn't actually a miracle of speaking, but a miracle of hearing. I disagree with this interpretation, as I don't think it accurately accounts for verse 2:13 where some people accused them of being drunk. I like to play things out. So let's play it out.

If this were a miracle of hearing, and everyone present (people who spoke different dialects of Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Arabic, potentially Asian languages), all heard anything any of the apostles spoke in their own language - that would sound normal. By normal, I mean it wouldn't be confusing. There would be no reason to accuse them of being drunk.

However, if it was a miracle of speaking, then verse 13 makes sense. If the Spirit gave to some the gift of speaking Arab, and some the gift of speaking Latin, and some the gift of speaking an Asian language, then while it may have been the case that everyone present was able to hear speaking in their native language, it would still seem potentially confusing because they also heard someone like Peter speaking Arabic, which would be odd. That would make sense then why some people would accuse them of speaking non-sense and being drunk.

So what I think we have in Acts 2 is the Holy Spirit making Himself known, indwelling the Believers, and giving them the gift of speaking tongues. All present heard about the "mighty deeds of God" in their own language, by the people that were gifted to speak their own language.

Thus, we have the first instance of speaking in tongues, which is done primarily as a sign to unbelievers.

Moving on from there, we essentially have 3 other Pentecostal events that take place in Acts. What stands out to me about these is how they line up with what Jesus said in Acts 1:8 about being His disciples in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest parts of the earth.

So what we have at the first Pentecost is that it takes place among the Jews. Then if you look at the other 3 Pentecostal events, you'll see that one takes place with the Samaritans, one takes place with the God Fearers (converted Gentiles), and finally one takes place in Ephesus with Gentiles.

Thus, what we have in Acts in relation to the gift of speaking in tongues is that God is demonstrating that the new Covenant has expanded to include all people. Furthermore, when the Holy Spirit came and people spoke in tongues, it was always in another known language of the people.

For me, that's the foundation of speaking in tongues. The question I then have is how do we make the leap from what we see in Acts to the notion that tongues becomes some sort of private prayer language for the edification of the person praying, when that isn't what we actually see take place.

Romans 8:26 - Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered..

Romans 8:26 is interpreted by many to support the belief that “praying in tongues” is an experience where a person prays in an otherwise unknown language that the speaker does not understand. This passage is used to support this belief by arguing that this passage describes what happens when we pray in tongues. This interpretation is problematic for two reasons:

1) It is the Spirit that groans, not Believers.

2) The groans of the Spirit cannot be uttered. Speaking in tongues is uttering words. Words are expressed and uttered.

A better interpretation would be that the reason we do not know what to pray and require the Spirit to intercede can be because:

1) We do not know what would be really best for us.

2) We do not know what God might be willing to grant us.

3) We are to a great extent ignorant of the character of God, the reason of his dealings, and our own real needs.

4) We are often in real, deep perplexity. We are encompassed with trials, exposed to temptations, feeble by disease, and subject to calamities. In these circumstances, if left alone, we would neither be able to bear our trials, nor know what to ask at the hand of God.

The word used for intercession here is found nowhere else in the NT. However, a similar word is used several times, and it means to be present with anyone for the purpose of aiding, as an advocate does in a court of justice. This is what the Spirit does for us. It means that the Spirit greatly assists or aids us, not by praying for us, but in our prayers.

With regards to cannot be uttered, perhaps, which is not uttered; those emotions which are too deep for utterance, or for expression in articulate language. This does not mean that the Spirit produces these groanings; but that in these deep-felt emotions, when the soul is oppressed and overwhelmed, he lends us his assistance and sustains us. The phrase may be thus translated: “The Spirit greatly aids or supports us in those deep emotions, those intense feelings, those inward sighs which cannot be expressed in language, but which he enables us to bear, and which are understood by Him that searcheth the hearts.”

I think that is enough to start a conversation. Thoughts are more than welcome on this.

Nova2216 · Jul 4, 2020

Bob Carabbio said:
It's obvious that when Paul says that speaking in a "tongue" is self edifying, that you don't agree, since you consider it worthless (remember that the SPIRIT sometimes prays even when we say nothing).

You play some "Word games" about "Speaking to God" to make Speaking to HIM in a tongue of no value in spite of what the WORD says about it.

It's also obvious that Paul HAD NO PROBLEM with the tongues themselves being manifested in the Corinthian church, but DID have problems about their "Manner of usage" usage in the common meeting, which he addresses.

OBVIOUSLY if the Holy Spirit burdens somebody to speak in a tongue in a meeting, He wouldn't do that unless he KNEW that he could burden either the speaker, or another with interpretation. I've been burdened to Interpret many times, but have NEVER been burdened to speak in a tongue.

Paul is clear however, that "tongues" in the Corinthian church generally were NOT understood by those present. The MINORITY view ABout Acts 2:4 is that it wasn't a miracle of SPEAKING at all, but a Miracle of "Hearing". Peter, however didn't do the preaching in a "Tongue" but in the common language.

The gist of the Message to the Corinthians were that they were an unruly bunch taking selfish PRIDE in their "Giftings" as though they actually had any contribution to what the Spirit was doing in them. The FOOLS actually were telling those who had "the lesser" gifts (in their carnal judgement - actually there ARE NO "Lesser Gifts") that they HAD NO NEED OF THEM!!!

The FACT is that in the Full-Gospel churches that are in order, the Holy Spirit Choreographs the manifestation of the gifts: He "holds" the service, burdens the tongues speaker (or the Prophet), burdens the interpreter(s), and then releases the service to continue when He's done. The Corinthians were obviously "Showing off" and trying to outdo each other with their gifts, and there was confusion with both "Tongues", and Prophetic utterance.

Acts 2:4 is a "Special case" - the initial introduction of the Holy SPirit ON the Disciples who were already infilled by the Holy SPirit in John 20:22. In 1962 (or so) "Tongues" were the Significant SIGN to the churches (mostly liberal denominations) that something spiritually significant was going on.

The KNOWN manifestations in 2020 are (unless all our pastors and missionaries are bald faced liars):
Speaking in the common tongue, but being heard/understood in one or more different languages.
Speaking in a tongue unknown to the speaker but understood by the listeners, often in their "mother tongue" with proper regional accent.
Speaking in a tongue unknown to ANYBODY, and then followed by a Holy SPirit gifted Interpretation in the common tongue.
Speaking in a tongue (that is not understood privately) according to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

If the "tongues speaker" is "Making up his own utterance" (same with Prophetic utterance), then they're deluding themselves - and some of the IDIOTIC teaching in Pentecostal churches: "Priming the pump", "saying nonsense syllables", "talking baby talk" / "GIbberish" in order to "get it started". Guarantees that some proportion of "Tongues"/"Prophesy" is phony as a three dollar bill.

*You did a very good job explaining your point.

I had a discussion with someone on this subject and I asked them why they needed to speak in ANOTHER language in prayer to God when He KNOWS OUR VERY THOUGHTS.

He said I DO NOT KNOW - that's why I went to the ______ church.

Albion · Jul 4, 2020

SPF said:
I suppose you mean that the Holy Spirit sort of takes control of the person and sort of possesses them and they become some sort of vessel for the Spirit? I don't really see that in Scripture.

You're correct about that.

I also don't see anything in Scripture about God's language, can you demonstrate from Scripture that God has a secret language?

Correct again.

The notion that there is a private divine language--or that there is a language which the angels speak--is a modern concoction intended to sidestep the fact that speaking in tongues was supposed, according to Scripture, to be translated.

In addition, the purpose of such tongues-speaking is supposedly to edify the speaker and/or the listener, which a private or untranslated "language" obviously does not do. Having an emotional release is not understanding or edification.

bbbbbbb · Jul 4, 2020

Albion said:
You're correct about that.

Correct again.

The notion that there is a private divine language--or that there is a language which the angels speak--is a modern concoction intended to sidestep the fact that speaking in tongues was supposed, according to Scripture, to be translated.

In addition, the purpose of such tongues-speaking is supposedly to edify the speaker and/or the listener, which a private or untranslated "language" obviously does not do. Having an emotional release is not understanding or edification.

I am told, by a reliable friend who has traveled extensively in Germany, that there is a tiny denomination there which conducts its services exclusively in English although none of the members are fluent in English. The reason is that the German word for angel (engel) is similar to the German word for English (Englisch). They have concluded that the language of angels is English and is, therefore, God's language.

Albion · Jul 4, 2020

Wow. It seems as though there's nothing that cannot be found somewhere in the world of Christian denominations and ideas, doesn't it?

bbbbbbb · Jul 4, 2020

Albion said:
Wow. It seems as though there's nothing that cannot be found somewhere in the world of Christian denominations and ideas, doesn't it?

Yes. Every time I think I have come across the last weird idea, something else comes up.

Bob Carabbio · Jul 8, 2020

Nova2216 said:
I asked them why they needed to speak in ANOTHER language in prayer to God when He KNOWS OUR VERY THOUGHTS.

No problem at all. GOD knows before we even ask - that's a given. For us to EXPRESS PRAYERS to HIM indicates that take Him Seriously, and that WE trust Him to provide. It's an activity of Worship.

Bob Carabbio · Jul 8, 2020

SPF said:
This would imply that the people utilizing the gift of tongues at the Corinthian church weren't being burdened by the Holy Spirit to do so. Yet, they were still able to utilize a gift of the Holy Spirit a part from being burdened by him?

SUre I can speak in tongues any time I please - when you receive "tongues" as a gifting, they're alyays there, and you can speak them when you please - what we refer to as "Prayer / Worship" mode. I could personally get up anytime in a service, interrupt the pastor, and start speaking in my tongue. Personally, I know better. Remember, though that COrinthians were treating THEIR Gifts as "Badges of Honor" and apparently were prone to "Showing off" in meetings. I can speak English, and I COULD deliver a convincing and Bible based PROPHETIC UTTERANCE - but it wouldn't be real. ANYBODY could do that with a little practice.

I don't hold to the minority view. I don't think it follows that people would accuse the disciples of being drunk if the minority view were true.

Sure they would - somebody (a lot of somebodys) is blatting off a bunch of meaningless sounds, and you're not "Miraculously gifted" to understand it (Miracle of hearing) accusing them of intoxication would be normal. Did you ever listen to the Orthodox chant: Ghospodi Pomilui??

It's not hard for us to deceive ourselves. It's not hard to convince ourselves something is true if we really want to. I think it's altogether possible that tongues as a gibberish, non-sensical "language" is a self-taught behavior.

BOY HOWDY!!! is that ever true. AND unfortunately Pentecostal (and Charismatic) churches actually employ teaching methods to practically guarantee that there'll be phony business going on. That, however doesn't eliminate the existence of the REAL. The WAY International (Dr. Victor Weirwille) for $400 1975 dollars would TEACH YOU to speak in tonguse, give prophesy, and interpret tongues on cue, anytime you wanted. All as phony as a three dollar bill, but he had lots of followers.

bbbbbbb · Jul 8, 2020

This reminds me of an interesting experience i had in China. i went to teach at a small, illegal Bible school in an apartment. My assistant was a huge fan of Benny Hinn and very much into speaking in tongues. She was disappointed (to say the least) that i did not share either interest, but was restricted to the Bible. For her, tongues was a personal prayer language, so I never heard her or anyone else speaking in another language, other than English, Mandarin, and the local dialect.

One thing I learned about most Chinese people is that they cannot roll their r's. Most see it as a genetic issue, but i have encountered a few Chinese individuals who learned the technique as children.

One weekend i was whiling away my time at my computer in my bedroom and I began making noises with my mouth, such as fluttering my lips, etc. As it turned out, one of my noises was precisely the same as the "tongues" my assistant did. She overheard me and was quite surprised to find me speaking in her "tongues" even though it was senseless noise to myself. Who knew?

Bob Carabbio · Jul 20, 2020

She overheard me and was quite surprised to find me speaking in her "tongues" even though it was senseless noise to myself. Who knew?.

Apparently, neither of you.

Nova2216 · Jul 20, 2020

Tongues were a sign to the unbelievers (1Cor.14:22).

Please tell me how the unbeliever is going to understand the jibberish we hear today?

Also the only biblical way of passing the gifts to other INDIVIDUALS was by the laying on of the apostles hands according to (Acts 6:6 ; 8:18,19 , 19:1-6).

The are no RECORDED examples of individuals being baptized by the Holy Spirit.

There are several examples of individuals being baptized (in water) for the remission of sins (Acts 8:13,26-40 ; 16:15 ; 22:16)

Tongues as Private Prayer Language

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Old guy -

Well-Known Member

If truth is discounted then lies become normal.

If truth is discounted then lies become normal.

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Old guy -

Old guy -

Well-Known Member

Old guy -

If truth is discounted then lies become normal.

Similar threads