What do you think about speaking in tongues?

NerdGirl · Oct 18, 2020

JAL said:
The word "tongue" in Acts means "language".

There is no "gift of tongues" in Acts - that gift expects an interpreter (see 1Cor 14), and no such interpreter/interpretation is found in Acts.

Acts lacks the gift of tongues because all such references are actually dealing with the gift of prophecy (Acts 2:17-18). Acts defines evangelism as prophetic utterance (see post 179 on another thread, and post 180), and one advantage of prophets is their ability to do miracles such as healing, signs and wonders, and supernaturally overcoming language barriers.

1Cor 14 introduces the gift of tongues, which is assuredly NOT a (currently) known language and might often be an angelic language.

1 Corinthians 14 makes it clear, still, that unless there is understanding and interpretation, then the speaking in tongues is useless to others around you. This is why I maintain that most of it is not genuine. I think people force it because they want to seem uber-spiritual, special, closer to God than others. I think many times people genuinely believe they're receiving some kind of angelic language, but I'm pretty sure the angels don't speak in "ha-buh-buh-buh, sha-buh-buh-buh", which is pretty much what all "tongue speaking" sounds like. Nor is it often followed with any sort of interpretation or "God is saying x-y-z". Because those people have no clue what they're supposedly "saying".

6 Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction?
9 So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.
11 If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me. 12 So it is with you. Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit, try to excel in those that build up the church.
13 For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.
16 Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit, how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer, say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying?
19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.

ViaCrucis · Oct 18, 2020

We would first have to define what speaking on tongues is, and what it is not; and then ask the question of whether the "speaking in tongues" that happens in some traditions and churches today is actually speaking in tongues or not.

If I ask, "Do you like eating beef?" And show a picture of a carrot and call it "beef", then that's going to be confusing, and thus we should probably carefully figure out what we're talking about.

To be more clear: I disagree that what is usually called "speaking in tongues" today is what Scripture talks about. So while I have no problem with the gift of tongues as a very real gift that God may utilize today, I don't think that modern glossolalia is ancient glossolalia. What the New Testament describes is the speaking of real languages, not ecstatic, unintelligible utterances.

Note, I'm not speaking as someone who has no experience with modern speaking in tongues. I used to be Pentecostal. At the age of 12 an evangelist came and preached a Sunday night service and I was one of several other kids my age who had hands laid on them and were "slain in the spirit" and found myself making sounds. And for many years I identified that moment as the time I was "baptized with the Holy Spirit". And, in fact, continued in my own personal devotions to "speak in tongues" well into my mid-late 20's.

-CryptoLutheran

anna ~ grace · Oct 18, 2020

ImAllLikeOkWaitWat said:
Since I was young I've seen a few family members do it and was always interested and hopeful I could do it. Then in my mid twenties I was able to do it at will and it's such a spiritual blessing. Sometimes I feel almost too blessed but God always reassures me that I have it because I need it and that I have all I need. I've had some spiritual experiences that speaking in tongues helps me always remember. It can be easy to have doubts even when you have spiritual blessings simply because you don't pray enough, or talk to God enough or constantly feed your faith.

My personal opinion is that, at best, it’s an emotional reaction to an inner desire to do what others do.

ViaCrucis · Oct 18, 2020

ImAllLikeOkWaitWat said:
Paul said he spoke in tongues more than anyone else. Doesn't this sound like he was doing a lot of speaking in tongues by himself? Or how else was he able to speak in tongues so much?

The Apostle doesn't tell us.

What he is clear about, however, is the principle significance of glossolalia within an ecclesiastical context, which is that it is a sign not for the believing, but rather for the unbelieving; to make this point he quotes from the Prophet Isaiah who speaks of the day when Israel be so stubborn that they would not even listen when God sends people speaking foreign tongues. Thus glossolalia was, in this sense, a sign of judgment against unbelieving Israel. Thus St. Paul tells us that for glossolalia to be beneficial and meaningful to other believers, it requires interpretation. In this glossolalia is not different than prophecy, i.e. preaching. It is not ecstatic, spontaneous noise; it is real language, and is something the speaker deliberately does--but does so by the power of the Spirit, not their own natural ability.

-CryptoLutheran

chad kincham · Oct 19, 2020

NerdGirl123 said:
I do not believe that the random, monosyllabic babbling that some claim are "tongues" are anything at all. Most people who claim to speak in tongues wind up sounding like some sort of sub-Saharan party mix; it's just repeated syllables over and over. It's curious that I've yet to hear someone speak in "tongues" that sound like Chinese or French or Dutch.

"Speak in other tongues" means that they were speaking in other ordinary, earthly, human languages of the people who were present. Nothing more.

Paul wrote that there are DIVERSITIES of tongues, meaning more than just one.

1Co 12:10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.

There’s a tongue found in Acts 1 that’s understood by everyone in their own language, needing no interpreting.

There’s an unknown tongue that’s never understood by any man, because it’s the Holy Spirit speaking mysteries unto God.

1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him;howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

The above is what some claim is babbling.

I’ve heard foreigners speaking to each other in languages I don’t know, and many of them sound like gibberish to my ears.

There’s a couple of other kinds tongues found in the NT as well.

JAL · Oct 19, 2020

ViaCrucis said:
We would first have to define what speaking on tongues is, and what it is not; and then ask the question of whether the "speaking in tongues" that happens in some traditions and churches today is actually speaking in tongues or not.

If I ask, "Do you like eating beef?" And show a picture of a carrot and call it "beef", then that's going to be confusing, and thus we should probably carefully figure out what we're talking about.

To be more clear: I disagree that what is usually called "speaking in tongues" today is what Scripture talks about. So while I have no problem with the gift of tongues as a very real gift that God may utilize today, I don't think that modern glossolalia is ancient glossolalia. What the New Testament describes is the speaking of real languages, not ecstatic, unintelligible utterances.

Note, I'm not speaking as someone who has no experience with modern speaking in tongues. I used to be Pentecostal. At the age of 12 an evangelist came and preached a Sunday night service and I was one of several other kids my age who had hands laid on them and were "slain in the spirit" and found myself making sounds. And for many years I identified that moment as the time I was "baptized with the Holy Spirit". And, in fact, continued in my own personal devotions to "speak in tongues" well into my mid-late 20's.

-CryptoLutheran

Pretty much all your points here seem valid to me and your evaluation of the modern Pentecostal experience is understandable. From what I've seen, there is quite a bit of spurious glossolia today.

On the other hand, your assumption that "laba shaba kaba" (or whatever) can't POSSIBLY be legitimate in some cases is perhaps debatable - and I'm not insisting you're wrong, just that it is debatable. Here's why.

I agree with Pentecostalism's assessment that Paul often prayed "with his spirit" (as he called it) and thus not always "with his mind". The reason that God would want this is that some prayer is better than none at all. Eloquent prayer is too exhausting to maintain 24-7, therefore any form of non-eloquent prayer can be beneficial. Example - Paul said, "Therefore I want men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands." And again, "As long as Moses held up his arms, the Israelites were winning."

Paul said, "[Outside the church] I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you" - he doesn't seem to be talking about eloquent speech here, because he proceeds to CONTRAST this experience with the need for eloquence INSIDE the church.

My theory, then, is that God will typically visit a Christian with a "real" inspired experience of tongues - deliberately leaving him with the ability to mimic those syllables later. Why? Again, because it can foster a LOT of prayer otherwise hindered by the burden of eloquence. If I'm praying over a sick person, I don't need to be eloquent. God knows what I'm asking for.

And regarding those Pentecostals who never had a legitimate experience of tongues - these are people who (somewhat misguidedly) began speaking in tongues "by faith" - even this too is probably beneficial to the Kingdom, in the sense of being a source of prayer.

In a nutshell, there are salient points on both sides of the controversy. That's why I consider it to be a debatable issue.

JAL · Oct 19, 2020

Guojing said:
For your 1st point, Acts 2:5-11 made that clear

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

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

This passage is a very clear scripture telling us that tongues are a known foreign language. We have the actual interpreters of those languages in the form of "Jews from every nation under heaven" in vs 5.

As for for your 2nd point about 1 Cor 14, Paul used Isaiah 28:11 in his 1 Cor 14:21-22

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

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

If you are aware of the context of Isa 28, the Israelites (the northern kingdom) were so hard-hearted and stubborn in breaching their covenant with God that God sent a judgment upon them (the Assyrian nation – who spoke in the Akkadian language – a foreign language that Israel would not have known) by bringing them into Assyrian captivity.

The northern kingdom of Israel rejected the rest and the covenant relationship from God, hence, God speak to them in foreign tongues.

The causality is hence

If you reject the rest, then God will speak to you in foreign tongues (the Assyrian language of Akkadian).

So tongues in 1 Cor 14:21-22, from context, also refers to known foreign languages.

I do understand that when Paul gave instructions for tongue speaking in 1 Cor 14, some passages may be unclear in the sense that Paul could be referring to a heavenly language, especially in verses like

2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

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

These could be taken to imply Paul was actually referring to tongues as a heavenly language.

So the principle is "Use clear scripture of tongues to understand those unclear passages regarding tongues".

The first time tongues were mention, whether in the OT, or in Acts 2 and Acts 10, were actual foreign languages.

So if that is the clear scripture on tongues, when we come to the unclear teachings, say in 1 Cor 14, unless there is clear scripture that tells us that Paul is referring to heavenly languages, we use that principle to guide us in our understanding there.

Strawman. Whether it was angelic or not wasn't my main point. What IS clear is that the gift of tongues in 1Cor 14 is unintelligible. NO ONE understands it, said Paul.

Which is totally different than the gift of prophecy in Acts.

Guojing · Oct 19, 2020

JAL said:
Strawman. Whether it was angelic or not wasn't my main point. What IS clear is that the gift of tongues in 1Cor 14 is unintelligible. NO ONE understands it, said Paul.

Which is totally different than the gift of prophecy in Acts.

To establish that point, you have to explain why, in 1 Cor 14:21-22, which used the context in Isaiah 28, tongues is referring to "unintelligible" language, instead of an actual foreign language.

Do you think anyone understanding Isa 28 would go away with that understanding and why?

JAL · Oct 19, 2020

Guojing said:
To establish that point, you have to explain why, in 1 Cor 14:21-22, which used the context in Isaiah 28, tongues is referring to "unintelligible" language, instead of an actual foreign language.

Do you think anyone understanding Isa 28 would go away with that understanding and why?

1Cor 14:21-22, vis a vis its reference to Isaiah, consitutes one of the most difficult and obscure passages in the entire NT. For my first 20 years as a Christian, I refrained from even forming any opinions about it. One bible scholar even thinks that the passage is a total contradiction in terms, probably due to a bad manuscript. A Christian on this forum has even claimed that Paul simply contradicted himself there. Recently, however, I read Gordon Fee's commentary on the passage and found it to be the most plausible theory I had ever seen.

My point: Don't build your theology on the most confusing passages of the Bible. Instead focus on what Paul clearly taught about tongues.

"For anyone who speaks in a tongue a does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit." (14:2)

Not sure why you think there is some burden of proof on me to "establish" that such was Paul's position. It's what he said. The burden of proof is on you to convince us that such was NOT Paul's position, despite those seemingly crystal clear words.

Guojing · Oct 19, 2020

JAL said:
1Cor 14:21-22, vis a vis its reference to Isaiah, consitutes one of the most difficult and obscure passages in the entire NT. For my first 20 years as a Christian, I refrained from even forming any opinions about it. One bible scholar even thinks that the passage is a total contradiction in terms, probably due to a bad manuscript. A Christian on this forum has even claimed that Paul simply contradicted himself there. Recently, however, I read Gordon Fee's commentary on the passage and found it to be the most plausible theory I had ever seen.

My point: Don't build your theology on the most confusing passages of the Bible. Instead focus on what Paul clearly taught about tongues.

"For anyone who speaks in a tongue a does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit." (14:2)

Not sure why you think there is some burden of proof on me to "establish" that such was Paul's position. It's what he said. The burden of proof is on you to convince us that such was NOT Paul's position, despite those seemingly crystal clear words.

First, do you agree that Acts 2 tongues were known foreign languages, given what verses 5-11 spell that out clearly? If not, why?

Next, I already explained to you the context of Isaiah 28. Its neither difficult nor obscure. The Israelites (the northern kingdom) were so hard-hearted and stubborn in breaching their covenant with God that God sent a judgment upon them (the Assyrian nation – who spoke in the Akkadian language – a foreign language that Israel would not have known) by bringing them into Assyrian captivity.

The northern kingdom of Israel rejected the rest and the covenant relationship from God, hence, God speak to them in foreign tongues.

JAL · Oct 19, 2020

Guojing said:
First, do you agree that Acts 2 tongues were known foreign languages, given what verses 5-11 spell that out clearly? If not, why?

Irrelevant. Acts is not the gift of tongues. It was prophesying in other "languages" ("tongues") - see my original post plus read the two posts that I linked to. When, for example, Rev 7:9 refers to men of every nation and tongue, it is not talking about the gift of tongues. It simply means "language".

The biblical historians never introduced the gift of tongues. They REGULARLY dealt in prophecy. Luke penned his writings in that tradition.

The epistles initiated a new didactic tradition - an excellent place to introduce and explain two new concepts known as:
(1) The gift of tongues
(2) The gift of interpretation.

Next, I already explained to you the context of Isaiah 28. Its neither difficult nor obscure. The Israelites (the northern kingdom) were so hard-hearted and stubborn in breaching their covenant with God that God sent a judgment upon them (the Assyrian nation – who spoke in the Akkadian language – a foreign language that Israel would not have known) by bringing them into Assyrian captivity.

The northern kingdom of Israel rejected the rest and the covenant relationship from God, hence, God speak to them in foreign tongues.

Neither difficult or obscure? I strongly disagree. For example, I have often found the prophetic corpus ambiguous as to whether the message is past, present, near future, or eschatological. And that wasn't even my point. My point was that Paul's allusion to it in 1Cor 14 has seemed baffling to many scholars, as Gordon Fee has attested, because if you look at the context of Paul's words, he seems to be contradicting himself.

Meanwhile you continue to ignore Paul's clear statements. Tell me, what are the two gifts mentioned above? How precisely do they operate, in your view? Let's start with that. Because first I need to find out if you even have a theory of tongues that makes sense, otherwise there's no point in debating any verses with you.

Guojing · Oct 19, 2020

JAL said:
Irrelevant. Acts is not the gift of tongues. It was prophesying in other "languages" ("tongues") - see my original post plus read the two posts that I linked to. When, for example, Rev 7:9 refers to men of every nation and tongue, it is not talking about the gift of tongues. It simply means "language".

The biblical historians never introduced the gift of tongues. They REGULARLY dealt in prophecy. Luke penned his writings in that tradition.

The epistles initiated a new didactic tradition - an excellent place to introduce and explain two new concepts known as:
(1) The gift of tongues
(2) The gift of interpretation.

Neither difficult or obscure? I strongly disagree. For example, I have often found the prophetic corpus ambiguous as to whether the message is past, present, near future, or eschatological. And that wasn't even my point. My point was that Paul's allusion to it in 1Cor 14 has seemed baffling to many scholars, as Gordon Fee has attested, because if you look at the context of Paul's words, he seems to be contradicting himself.

Meanwhile you continue to ignore Paul's clear statements. Tell me, what are the two gifts mentioned above? How precisely do they operate, in your view? Let's start with that. Because first I need to find out if you even have a theory of tongues that makes sense, otherwise there's no point in debating any verses with you.

Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Mark 16:17 first tells us that those who believe in Jesus shall speak with new tongues, and Acts 2 showed us how, as the Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost, those believers began to utter foreign languages that they have not learned.

Are you saying that the term tongues in Acts 2 is a different Greek word from the tongues that Paul instructed in 1 Cor 14?

To me, I use the law of first mention there. If the first usage of tongues in Scripture refers actual foreign languages, that usage should guide you to later usage of that term, unless of course the later passages is clear in specifying a different application.

For you, I think you are using 1 Cor 14 to guide your interpretation of earlier usage.

Danthemailman · Oct 19, 2020

Jesus is YHWH said:
I don't think about it or believe its relevant or needed today.

The only exception would be someone on the mission field who does not know the native language of the people and God miraculously speaks their language through the missionary to lead them to Christ as in Acts 2. Tongues is real language not babbling that passes for the fake gift being paraded around Christendom in modern times.

hope this helps !!!

In regards to speaking in tongues, I will never forget when my friend (who previously attended an Assemblies of God church) went to a Bible study at his Pastor's house once a week and sometimes the Pastor would speak in tongues during their Bible study. My friend worked with a woman who was a Baptist and she was terrified of being around people who spoke in tongues, yet my friend convinced her to come to the Bible study to see for herself that she has nothing to fear. When his lady friend showed up at the Bible study, as soon as she walked in the door, the Pastor began speaking in tongues very loudly with his hands high in the air, then he fell backwards to the floor! My friend said that even he was freaked out by the incident and when he turned around, his lady friend was running for the hills!

JAL · Oct 19, 2020

Guojing said:
Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Mark 16:17 first tells us that those who believe in Jesus shall speak with new tongues, and Acts 2 showed us how, as the Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost, those believers began to utter foreign languages that they have not learned.

As R.C. Sproul has noted, that passage is one of the most suspect manuscripts in the NT, he said he'd certainly would never build any doctrines on it.

Are you saying that the term tongues in Acts 2 is a different Greek word from the tongues that Paul instructed in 1 Cor 14?

Clearly that was not my argument. It's beginning to seem like you don't want to become aware of any positions alternative to yours. After all, ignorance is bliss. Prior to this retort, did you read either of the two posts that I linked you to, on prophecy?

To me, I use the law of first mention there. If the first usage of tongues in Scripture refers actual foreign languages, that usage should guide you to later usage of that term, unless of course the later passages is clear in specifying a different application.

Ridiculous. That might be a fairly reliable rule for the same writer discoursing twice on the same topic, but two different writers and contexts can easily undermine that assumption. Take for example the Greek word Logos. I see it appearing as early as Mathew, but Mathew isn't using it in the sense of the "The Word became flesh" (Jn 1:14).

Again, I'm not going continue this debate with you until you present a clear theory of the gift of tongues and gift of interpretation. What exactly are they, and how do they function in daily life?

tturt · Oct 19, 2020

The manifestation of spiritual gifts are given by the Spirit of God. (I Cor 12:7)

including "another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues;..." I Cor 12:10

The divers of tongues defined as: 1- a message of tongues with interpretation (edifies the church and often given in the church I Cor 12:10 , I Cor 14:5 ) and 2- prayer language (I Cor 14:14-15). These have numerous purposes such as edifies believers, magifies God (Acts 10)

However, all tongues can be interpreted (I Cor 14:13).

Tongues are a sign - To unbelievers By believers "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not:" "And these signs shall follow them that believe; ...they shall speak with new tongues; (I Cor 14:22 and Mark 16:17) So that means any believer can speak in tongues which is given to them by the Holy Spirit.

"Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues." I Cor 14:39

"Pray without ceasing" "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also." (I Thess 5, I Cor 14).

Guojing · Oct 19, 2020

JAL said:
As R.C. Sproul has noted, that passage is one of the most suspect manuscripts in the NT, he said he'd certainly would never build any doctrines on it.

Clearly that was not my argument. It's beginning to seem like you don't want to become aware of any positions alternative to yours. After all, ignorance is bliss. Prior to this retort, did you read either of the two posts that I linked you to, on prophecy?

Ridiculous. That might be a fairly reliable rule for the same writer discoursing twice on the same topic, but two different writers and contexts can easily undermine that assumption. Take for example the Greek word Logos. I see it appearing as early as Mathew, but Mathew isn't using it in the sense of the "The Word became flesh" (Jn 1:14).

Again, I'm not going continue this debate with you until you present a clear theory of the gift of tongues and gift of interpretation. What exactly are they, and how do they function in daily life?

To me, Acts 2:5-11 is the clearest scripture that states what the gift of tongues are.

So I use that scripture to guide me in understanding what Paul was trying to instruct the Corinthians in the proper usage of that gift.

Furthermore, Paul use Isaiah 28, which if you bother to understand the context, is referring to the Assyrian language which is foreign to those Jewish exiles from the Northern Kingdom of Israel.

Together with all the cross references for Isa 28, such as Jeremiah 5:15

15 Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel, saith the Lord: it is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say.

Deuteronomy 28:49
The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the end of the earth, swooping down like the eagle, a nation whose language you do not understand,

Isaiah 33:19
You will see no more the insolent people, the people of an obscure speech that you cannot comprehend, stammering in a tongue that you cannot understand.

I don't see why you can claim that Isaiah 28:11, and hence 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 is "one of the most difficult and obscure passages in the entire NT"

I suspect you are claiming this because you are already set in your doctrine that Paul was referring to tongues as "unintelligible" languages, and that exposition goes against that doctrine, that is why you don't want to understand it.

JAL · Oct 19, 2020

Guojing said:
To me, Acts 2:5-11 is the clearest scripture that states what the gift of tongues are.

So I use that scripture to guide me in understanding what Paul was trying to instruct the Corinthians in the proper usage of that gift.

And still no clear definition of the two gifts. On Pentecost, EVERYONE understood what was being said - there was no separate gift of interpretation. Yet Paul says that NO ONE understands the gift of tongues (1Cor 14:2) until someone with the gift of interpretation proclaims the meaning to them. According to Paul, even the tongues-speaker doesn't understand and therefore must pray for an interpretation:

"For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say" (1Cor 14:13)

So there would appear to be some discrepancies between the phenomenology of Acts versus that of 1Cor 14, and between your theory of tongues and Paul's doctrine. Are you able to resolve these discrepancies? If not, I conclude you have no viable theory of tongues.

Guojing · Oct 19, 2020

JAL said:
And still no clear definition of the two gifts. On Pentecost, EVERYONE understood what was being said - there was no separate gift of interpretation. Yet Paul says that NO ONE understands the gift of tongues (1Cor 14:2) until someone with the gift of interpretation proclaims the meaning to them. According to Paul, even the tongues-speaker doesn't understand and therefore must pray for an interpretation:

"For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say" (1Cor 14:13)

So there would appear to be some discrepancies between the phenomenology of Acts versus that of 1Cor 14, and between your theory of tongues and Paul's doctrine. Are you able to resolve these discrepancies? If not, I conclude you have no viable theory of tongues.

Don't be ridiculous, if your claim is true that "EVERYONE understood what was being said" at Pentecost, Acts 2:13-15 would be silly

13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

I am saying use "clear scripture to understand unclear scripture". 1 Cor 14:2 is not a clear scripture that states that tongues are an "unintelligible language".

You wanted to force it to mean that, and hence it results in you claiming that Acts 2 tongues is not the gift of tongues, even though Acts 2:6-11, interpreters WERE present.

JAL · Oct 19, 2020

Guojing said:
Don't be ridiculous, if your claim is true that "EVERYONE understood what was being said" at Pentecost, Acts 2:13-15 would be silly

13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

Don't be ridiculous. Heres what it says,

"We hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”

They understood it because they heard it in their own languages. There were a few OTHERS who mocked - perhaps they did not hear it in their own language (perhaps they weren't privy to the revelation) or perhaps they DID hear it in their own language but chose to mock anyway.

Others, however, made fun of them and said, “They have had too much wine." (verse 13).

But nice try, though.

JAL · Oct 19, 2020

You said that Acts "guides" you on tongues but I'm still waiting for a clear definition of the two gifts.

What do you think about speaking in tongues?

The untamed daughter

Confessional Lutheran

Newbie

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Similar threads