Do Pentecostals really speak in Languages? The Research

[Postvieww]

I acknowledge that there may be legitimate "scriptural" tongues somewhere in the Church today, but they are not those that are found within the Pentecostal movement (which is to say meaningless glossolalia).

For tongues to be "scriptural" they must be 1) in a genuine language (i.e. something understandable and translatable) or 2) a person speaking in one language and the same thing being understood by multiple people, independently in their own languages. In each case, we don't have babble.

If any "tongues" do not follow these patterns, they are not tongues as described in the Bible. Period. End of report. They are not what Paul describes. They are a different phenomenon which is very well understood and has featured in several African, Mediterranean, and Indic indigenous religions for hundreds of years and are found with other phenomena that usually accompany Pentecostal "tongues" such as euphoria and losing control of one's body.

With Biblical tongues, the speaker was always cogent and in control of themselves, the Spirit speaking through them. As has been described earlier in this thread, the euphoria and loss of control was only seen in one place in the Bible, and it wasn't from God.

Steve Caruso said:
I acknowledge that there may be legitimate "scriptural" tongues somewhere in the Church today, but they are not those that are found within the Pentecostal movement (which is to say meaningless glossolalia).

Could you describe an instance of “legitimate scriptural" in their proper use tongues, anywhere in the church world today?


If not I would submit to you and the readers your “study” and motive on this topic are somewhat skewed toward denigrating the entire Pentecostal movement of which you could not possibly judge in its entirety.

For tongues to be "scriptural" they must be 1) in a genuine language (i.e. something understandable and translatable) or 2)

By whose definition of a “genuine language”?


Understandable by an educated linguist or the Spirit of God?


What scripture do you use to support this statement?

a person speaking in one language and the same thing being understood by multiple people, independently in their own languages.

This example of the use of tongues is only given in Acts 2:7-11 and is not a pattern for the validity of tongues in all cases.

In each case, we don't have babble.

Correct, but in Acts 2:13 there were mockers who may have perceived it that way.

If any "tongues" do not follow these patterns, they are not tongues as described in the Bible. Period. End of report. They are not what Paul describes. They are a different phenomenon which is very well understood and has featured in several African, Mediterranean, and Indic indigenous religions for hundreds of years and are found with other phenomena that usually accompany Pentecostal "tongues" such as euphoria and losing control of one's body.

There are different uses and purposes of tongues described in scripture. There is not a one size fits all rule as you suggest here.

With Biblical tongues, the speaker was always cogent and in control of themselves, the Spirit speaking through them.

Agreed, 1 Corinthians 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.


33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

As has been described earlier in this thread, the euphoria and loss of control was only seen in one place in the Bible, and it wasn't from God.

I have witnessed personally this loss of control in non- Pentecostal churches with no tongues involved.


So the problem you are addressing here is not unique to the Pentecostal churches. I would suggest it is a larger in scope problem than even what you are suggesting. Tongues are not the problem; IMHO we have a teaching, adhering to the written word of God and in some cases a pastoral problem.

 

[Righttruth]

If the New Testament is of no value to you we are done here and I'll be praying for you.

Gospel books are of paramount importance to me. All other should complement that which can be checked by the help of the Holy Spirit.

 

[SteveCaruso]

If not I would submit to you and the readers your “study” and motive on this topic are somewhat skewed toward denigrating the entire Pentecostal movement of which you could not possibly judge in its entirety.

I am not interested in denigrating the entire Pentecostal movement. I am focused upon dealing with the theological problems with modern "tongues" – which happened to *start* with the Pentecostal movement in the 19th century and has since spread to other groups as well.

By whose definition of a “genuine language”?

By the conventional, unexceptional definition. A language, like what the Bible is written in: Syntax, grammar, meaning. All languages have these.

Understandable by an educated linguist or the Spirit of God?

Understandable by an average person who speaks it as a first or second language.

What scripture do you use to support this statement?

Every time we see tongues, they follow the criteria I laid out above which is based off of every example of tongues in the Bible. It is something miraculous. This modern babbling has no Biblical precedent and is demonstrably not a language (it lacks all of the basic features thereof).

So the problem you are addressing here is not unique to the Pentecostal churches.

Correct.

Tongues are not the problem; IMHO we have a teaching, adhering to the written word of God and in some cases a pastoral problem.

Genuine tongues are not the problem.

The asemic babble that passes for "tongues" in your average Pentecostal/Charismatic-flavored church these days is the problem. They are not the tongues of the Bible. They are well-understood glossolalia and are not unique to Christianity. And I have yet to see any compelling evidence out of any of these churches that they actually possess the gift as it is described in the Bible (despite having an open mind about it).

 

[Alithis]

I am not interested in denigrating the entire Pentecostal movement. I am focused upon dealing with the theological problems with modern "tongues" – which happened to *start* with the Pentecostal movement in the 19th century and has since spread to other groups as well.

yet this is the result.but it is not the pentecostal movement you denigrate but the book of acts . you simply cant say what occurred there or what did not occur there .you weren't there . it states those around herd them talking in their own language ..it also says people said they were drunk .

I noted some one put up a teaching by william seymour elsewhere. he made the warning(not in these words ) that if tongues becomes the central focus of being filed with the holy spirit that it would open the way for great error ,the demonic and all sorts of rubbish . so i don't say your wrong when you say a lot of tongues speaking (so called) may not be that .when people say they have the holy Spirit and the ONLY evidence is tongues .that is a warning sign something is not fully in tune . tongues s an initial outward sign .but the Holy spirit is not limited to tongues by any means ., the individual must go onwards to outwork ALL the will of God ,in healing, in the preaching of the gospel,in driving out devils , baptising and making more disciples . if he ONLY gathers into sunday clubs to sing songs and chatter in tongues but does not grow up and out into the harvest then he deceives himself by being a hearer of the word but not a doer . there becomes no different between him and those that gather in sunday clubs sing songs and have idols (images made by mans hands ) of mary etc . both are centered on particular things but not obeying the lord . Both equally erroneous

you may think i'm defending all pentecostals or charismatics ..i'm not . im defending tongues as given by the holy Spirit . i differentiate it from the actions of men . we must never attribute the errors of men to god .

{i have already testified to you that i have observed recently a person who having never even been to a sunday club nor ever had anything to do with pentecostalism .. was baptised in the holy Spirit and cried out in tongues (a language unknown to myself and my friend .. but my wife heard the same sound and she understood the words (as though she was hearing it in english ) we understand she was experiencing the gift of interpretation of tongues .
and i will credit your language skills to know what i'm speaking of when i say to you - I fully Admit it was not the sound of hubba bubba bubble gum which seemed to be commonly coached back in the ate 80's in the charismatic movement .And it was not many words . but a deep crying out "abba father " (the interpretation told us) .}

so again , i don't discredit your account of "false tongues " being a real possibility -because we have had people who did just that .. and when we ministered to them they manifest a demon which was then cast out - and when the were free and began to speak in tongues ..it was different .-nope cant explain that it is just what we have observed .

 

[Jezmeyah]

So you mean all people who claim to have the gift of interpretation

I did not say that any Christian can claim the gift of interpretation as their own.

The interpretation comes from the Holy Spirit. The Christian can claim to be baptized in and by the Holy Spirit and thereby receive the interpretation.
1 Corinthians 14:13 He that prays in tongues, pray that he may interpret.

[They] can make their own short or long interpretation of some utterance which they themselves have not understood.

I have said that the Holy Spirit gives the utterance.. both of the unknown tongues, and of the interpretation. It's not the one who speaks in unknown tongues, then interprets, that decides how long or short it will be.

By contrast, a translator of a known tongue can decide to a certain degree how long or short the translation will be.

Paul did not connect the unknown tongue to the Holy Spirit. It is related to spirit of an emotional person.

There is no verse of scripture that says that.

But, there are a number of scriptures that state the connection between speaking in unknown tongues and the Holy Spirit. I mention just a few.

Acts 2:4 They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.
1 Corinthians 12:4-11 (the gifts of the Spirit; various kinds of tongues and interpretation of tongues) One and the same Spirit works all these things.
1 Corinthians 14:2 One who speaks in an unknown tongue, speaks not unto men but unto God.
1 Corinthians 14:23-25 Those who speak in tongues,.. the ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all,.. and so he will declare that God is among you.

Spurious claims do work fancifully!

If the speaking was in an emotional person as you stated, then what reason would there be for an interpretation?
And since the interpretation is given by the Holy Spirit then we must all conclude that the Holy Spirit is somewhat confused in how to identify emotion, and operate His giftings.

Orderly way demands speaking in a tongue that will be understood by a few present.

Understood by all present,.. but yes, that is what the apostle Paul taught.

However, you contradict yourself. Why would there be a need to understand someone who is speaking in an unknown tongue when you claim that the apostle Paul wrote that it's merely someone being emotional?

So, you are speaking on behalf of God? What a pacifying assumption!

The statement clearly means something to you. But there is no way that you could be sure that it means anything to anyone else, unless they said it to you.

God has clearly said to test the spirits. The fake would not like it!

The real has no worries about that.

1 Corinthians 14:29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets;

A text for both of us to pay attention to.

Sorry, you are wrong.

Ditto. Let's rejoice in the Lord that we agree on something.

The Holy Spirit works in a yielding spirit.

Yes.

A yielded spirit has been baptized in the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues.

Yes.

So also that speaking in unknown tongue is directly related to utterance of the Holy Spirit as it happened on Pentecost.

Yes.

They are definitely not related.

Huh? How are they related, but not related?

Please don't consider interpretation of a known language to another known language is same as interpreting an unknown language to a known language.

I wrote to that effect already in my previous post.

This is a misinterpretation basically.

Apparently there are those that use "translation" and "interpretation" synonymously. However the original text, as I wrote of in my previous post, shows that there is a distinct difference between the two.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit is done by Jesus for the obedient. It cannot be done by a human leading to speaking gibberish.

I have already answered this on my previous post. It's too bad that you didn't read that part.

Paul never taught of speaking unknown tongue. He mentioned it and advised to desist it.

The apostle Paul taught how to operate in an orderly fashion during a gathered assembly. He did not ever advise to desist it. To do so would be strange indeed when he himself admitted that he speaks in tongues more than they all. And didn't add anywhere that he intended to desist.

He advised Corinthians to grow spiritually instead of behaving like immature people.

Anyone who was mature, would not object to Christians speaking in unknown tongues. Clearly the apostle Paul implied that if the Corinthians spoke in tongues as much as he did, then they'd get as mature as him. That implication was in the words "I speak in tongues more than you all."

I don't bother what one does privately. Paul never spoke in a congregation openly with an unknown tongue.

He taught them to pray in the spirit aka speak in an unknown tongue in order to interpret an unknown tongue, so it's scripturally logical that at anytime that he gathered with other believers, that he spoke in the unknown tongues and interpreted. It would be foolish to teach others but not practice it too.

Paul simply did not want to put an abrupt halt to a nuisance that was created in his absence.

I believe that the apostle Paul expected them to seek the leading of the Holy Spirit by speaking in unknown tongues, on how to conduct themselves in the church gathering. Exactly as he had done, in order to teach them what to do.

Rm.8:14 They that are the children of God are led by the Spirit of God.

He was there for more than one and a half years. He discouraged them of this attitude,

As I previously pointed out, he did not discourage it, but he rather encouraged orderliness in the practice of speaking in unknown tongues. If he had meant to discourage it, he wasted his time in teaching them the proper way to operate in it.

and it ceased for centuries before getting relapsed in USA recently.

No one knows for certain if it totally ceased at anytime. Our church history records are not that detailed.
I praise God for the blessings that He's poured out upon His children of every generation, and I praise God for His faithfulness to His Word.

 

[Alithis]

No one knows for certain if it totally ceased at anytime. Our church history records are not that detailed.
I praise God for the blessings that He's poured out upon His children of every generation, and I praise God for His faithfulness to His Word.

it didn't just because world global communication could not know about things happening in far off lands like we do today .does not mean it ever ceased .. that would be to say the holy Spirit on earth has ceased to be . its not the case of course - in the post above your arguing with a ceassationist .

 

[Jezmeyah]

it didn't just because world global communication could not know about things happening in far off lands like we do today .does not mean it ever ceased .. that would be to say the holy Spirit on earth has ceased to be . its not the case of course

- in the post above your arguing with a ceassationist .

Yes, I certainly did recognize some of the usual objections that those in that camp say. Although 'right-truth' did have momentary lapses of charismatic thinking.

 

[Righttruth]

I did not say that any Christian can claim the gift of interpretation as their own.

The interpretation comes from the Holy Spirit. The Christian can claim to be baptized in and by the Holy Spirit and thereby receive the interpretation.

Who gives the baptism of the Holy Spirit? An ordinary mortal man? No way! Speaking unknown language is not a sign of the Holy Spirit. It is speaking a known language unknown to the speaker but understood by a few is the utterance of the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 14:13 He that prays in tongues, pray that he may interpret.

Why is that this remains unanswered? Where is the need of praying with an unknown tongue and then offer explantion? A sheer waste of time and energy! So also depending upon another person for interpretation something not related what was uttered! The Holy Spirit will not look for another person to help another person.

I have said that the Holy Spirit gives the utterance..

No, Paul says that his spirit prays and his mind remains unfruitful!

But, there are a number of scriptures that state the connection between speaking in unknown tongues and the Holy Spirit. I mention just a few.

Acts 2:4 They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

This is the root of the problem! Don't equate the happenings in the book of Acts with Corinthian scene. In the entire book of Acts it was the utterance of the Holy Spirit that required no interpreter. Not so in Corinthian church

1 Corinthians 12:4-11 (the gifts of the Spirit; various kinds of tongues and interpretation of tongues) One and the same Spirit works all these things.

Gift is for common good. Gift can be misused. A gift that requires another person to help is not a gift at all.

1 Corinthians 14:2 One who speaks in an unknown tongue, speaks not unto men but unto God.

Therefore, it ought to be in private.

1 Corinthians 14:23-25 Those who speak in tongues,.. the ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all,.. and so he will declare that God is among you.

This part quoting of the verses is misleading. Shall I take that you are doing that to defend your erroneous thinking at any cost?

23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?

However, you contradict yourself. Why would there be a need to understand someone who is speaking in an unknown tongue when you claim that the apostle Paul wrote that it's merely someone being emotional?

Paul was only trying to bring order in a disorderly church step by step using his strategy of giving a long rope to start with.

Huh? How are they related, but not related?
I wrote to that effect already in my previous post.
Apparently there are those that use "translation" and "interpretation" synonymously. However the original text, as I wrote of in my previous post, shows that there is a distinct difference between the two.

Yes, translation and interpretation are some what different. Nevertheless, translation may involve interpretation that is why we have different versions of the Bible.

The apostle Paul taught how to operate in an orderly fashion during a gathered assembly. He did not ever advise to desist it. To do so would be strange indeed when he himself admitted that he speaks in tongues more than they all. And didn't add anywhere that he intended to desist.

Self-proclaimed apostle Paul spoke, may be, all kinds of tongues in private. He never indulged in speaking in an unknown tongue and waited for interpretation in any congregation. Did he write in an unknown tongue?

Anyone who was mature, would not object to Christians speaking in unknown tongues. Clearly the apostle Paul implied that if the Corinthians spoke in tongues as much as he did, then they'd get as mature as him. That implication was in the words "I speak in tongues more than you all."

No, this was what he assessed of them:

1 Corinthians 14:20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.

Do you attend a church that is full of unbelievers and immature people?

Rm.8:14 They that are the children of God are led by the Spirit of God.

This is no way related to speaking in unknown tongue which cannot be case with the Holy Spirit.

 

[Righttruth]

I have created a video on how to receive the Holy Spirit. It is a short video and to the point... Reviews appreciated...

We don't have choices and options to receive the Holy Spirit.The Holy Spirit will be given to people who are obedient to the words of Jesus, not otherwise. God is invisible. So visible appearances and actions are deceptive!

 

[Alithis]

The words of the lord jesus include belief and faith ..not unbelief and carnal comprehension.
Most arguments opposing are simply the latter 2

 

[Jezmeyah]

Who gives the baptism of the Holy Spirit? An ordinary mortal man? No way!

Acts 2:4 And they were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues as the He gave them utterance.

Speaking unknown language is not a sign of the Holy Spirit.

You do not remember? Acts 10:44-46 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were amazed that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. All the circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were amazed that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and exalting God.

It is speaking a known language unknown to the speaker but understood by a few is the utterance of the Holy Spirit.

From the commentary at "Bible Search"
1100 glṓssa – tongue, used of flowing speech; (figuratively) speaking, inspired by God, like the evidence of tongues-speaking supplied by the Lord in the book of Acts to demonstrate the arrival of the new age of the covenant (i.e. NT times).

[The normative experience of the 120 believers received "tongues (1100 /glṓssa) as of fire" (Ac 2:3) and miraculously spoke in other actual languages, i.e. that they could not speak before (Ac 2:4f). This sign was repeated in Ac 10:46, 19:6 – furnishing ample proof (three attestations) that the Lord had incorporated all believers into Christ's (mystical) body (1 Cor 12:13).]

Why is that this remains unanswered? Where is the need of praying with an unknown tongue and then offer explantion? A sheer waste of time and energy! So also depending upon another person for interpretation something not related what was uttered! The Holy Spirit will not look for another person to help another person.

Read 1 Corinthians chapter 12 through chapter 14 for the answer to your question.

No, Paul says that his spirit prays and his mind remains unfruitful!

Paul wrote in 1 Cor.14:14-15 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What is the outcome then? I shall pray with the spirit and I shall pray with the mind also.
Therefore one is not depending upon another person for the interpretation of one's own unknown tongues, but receiving the interpretation directly from the Holy Spirit.

This is the root of the problem! Don't equate the happenings in the book of Acts with Corinthian scene. In the entire book of Acts it was the utterance of the Holy Spirit that required no interpreter. Not so in Corinthian church.

In Acts was the concentration of receiving the Holy Spirit in order to speak in unknown tongues. In Corinth, and in Colossi, and in Ephesus, and in Rome is the focus of the operation of the gifts in the assembly.

Gift is for common good. Gift can be misused. A gift that requires another person to help is not a gift at all.

So parents who buy presents for their children which requires that the parents help the child to assemble it, is not really a gift at all?

Therefore, it ought to be in private.

Therefore, the Holy Spirit should stay out of the church services and let someone like you preach to the congregation.

This part quoting of the verses is misleading. Shall I take that you are doing that to defend your erroneous thinking at any cost?

Is that to be the thinking concerning the epistles which make statements then use scriptures to support what they've said?
For instance, in 1 Cor.14:20-22 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be babes, but in your thinking be mature. In the law it is written, "By men of strange tongues and by the lips of the strangers I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to Me" says the Lord. So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to unbelievers.

Is the person who reads that supposed to think, This part quoting of the verses is misleading. Shall I take that you are doing that to defend your erroneous thinking at any cost?

23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?

vs.24-25 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or and ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.

Paul was only trying to bring order in a disorderly church step by step using his strategy of giving a long rope to start with.

The problem is, that some believe that "orderly" means, no speaking in unknown tongues in the church. As you said earlier, "Therefore, it ought to be in private."

Yes, translation and interpretation are some what different. Nevertheless, translation may involve interpretation that is why we have different versions of the Bible.

The various translations of Bibles do not re-interpret the intended meaning to something else. However different doctrinal theology does. Which explains why there are disagreements among various Christian denominations.

Self-proclaimed apostle Paul spoke, may be, all kinds of tongues in private. He never indulged in speaking in an unknown tongue and waited for interpretation in any congregation. Did he write in an unknown tongue?

The scripture does not say that he did, and it does not say that he did not. You are making a judgement without Biblical evidence.

No, this was what he assessed of them:
1 Corinthians 14:20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.

Do you attend a church that is full of unbelievers and immature people?

If your church is actively evangelical, then it would be populated with the unsaved. And of all the congregation of believers in attendance, none of them will be at exactly the same level of knowledge of God's Word, and spiritual growth. Just as in the natural there are adults, young adults, teens, children, babies. The Word of God addresses and instructs concerning every age and level of faith.

This is no way related to speaking in unknown tongue which cannot be case with the Holy Spirit.

Your comment that speaking in unknown tongues to have ceased is in no way related to the number of revivals from the 19th and 20th centuries which were markedly involving speaking in unknown tongues. Revival happens because of a move from God, and so also does baptism in the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in unknown tongues occur because His Word does not return to Him void.

 

[Postvieww]

Ephesians 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

Putting on the whole armour of God includes praying in the spirit, (tongues). If someone wants to challenge this statement with the point that this passages does not say praying I tongues , lets go to:

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

15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Paul said if he prayed in tongues it was his spirit praying and his mind did not understand what he was praying. He also said he sang in tongues. If we stick to Paul’s definition, praying in the Spirit is praying in tongues.
If someone would like to make the distinction Of spirit and Spirit . I would just say the Spirit is in the spirit of the believer.


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.

27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

Everyone likes to quote verse 28 below and leave out verses 26 & 27, but I submit to you the in the context of the passage verse 28 is the result when verses 26 & 27 are being exercised. Believe what you will but I believe we cannot separate these 3 verses.

28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.



Jude 18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

The way to build up yourself (edify) is to pray in the Holy Ghost (tongues)

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

3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

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

There is a private use of tongues that edifies yourself. Jude said the same thing Paul said he just did not use the word tongues.


There is no scripture that says this has to be interpreted or that it has to be language that can be scientifically identified and analyzed by anyone.

 

[Righttruth]

Acts 2:4 And they were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues as the He gave them utterance.

What happened in Acts was not the same with Corinthian conditions which you seem to ignore.

You do not remember? Acts 10:44-46 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were amazed that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. All the circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were amazed that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and exalting God.

People could hear them exalting God requiring no interpreter. Again this is different from mockery in Corinth.

From the commentary at "Bible Search"
1100 glṓssa – tongue, used of flowing speech; (figuratively) speaking, inspired by God, like the evidence of tongues-speaking supplied by the Lord in the book of Acts to demonstrate the arrival of the new age of the covenant (i.e. NT times).

Yes, in Acts, not in Corinth

[The normative experience of the 120 believers received "tongues (1100 /glṓssa) as of fire" (Ac 2:3) and miraculously spoke in other actual languages, i.e. that they could not speak before (Ac 2:4f). This sign was repeated in Ac 10:46, 19:6 – furnishing ample proof (three attestations) that the Lord had incorporated all believers into Christ's (mystical) body (1 Cor 12:13).]Read 1 Corinthians chapter 12 through chapter 14 for the answer to your question.

All is OK excepting that 1 Cor. 12:13 is nothing to do with speaking in unknown tongue. Even Paul says all cannot speak in unknown tongue; he recommends better gifts.

Paul wrote in 1 Cor.14:14-15 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What is the outcome then? I shall pray with the spirit and I shall pray with the mind also.

That is it! It is his spirit, not the Holy Spirit. Notice small letter 's' for spirit.

Therefore one is not depending upon another person for the interpretation of one's own unknown tongues, but receiving the interpretation directly from the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit directly utters through a person; no tongue is unknown to Him, so there is no question of the Holy Spirit speaking an unknown tongue through a person and asking an agent to interpret that. Such second hand sales tactics are worldly antics!

In Acts was the concentration of receiving the Holy Spirit in order to speak in unknown tongues.

In the entire book of Acts no one spoke unknown tongue. You are mixing with Corinth: one is awesome demonstration another is spurious instinct.

In Corinth, and in Colossi, and in Ephesus, and in Rome is the focus of the operation of the gifts in the assembly.

This is a wild presumption. Only in notorious Corinth this mocking of what happened in Acts was practiced after Paul left.

So parents who buy presents for their children which requires that the parents help the child to assemble it, is not really a gift at all?

Do parents buy gifts for their children and invite neighbourhood kid to open that for them? No way. Each child will love to open his gift package.

Therefore, the Holy Spirit should stay out of the church services and let someone like you preach to the congregation.

Why only the Holy Spirit, many will rush out of such noisy and misbehaved congregation!

Is that to be the thinking concerning the epistles which make statements then use scriptures to support what they've said?
For instance, in 1 Cor.14:20-22 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be babes, but in your thinking be mature. In the law it is written, "By men of strange tongues and by the lips of the strangers I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to Me" says the Lord. So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to unbelievers.

Strange and new existing tongues, not unknown tongues. You are trying to equate the two.

Is the person who reads that supposed to think, This part quoting of the verses is misleading. Shall I take that you are doing that to defend your erroneous thinking at any cost?
vs.24-25 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or and ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.

That is during prophesying, not during unknown tongue drama.

The problem is, that some believe that "orderly" means, no speaking in unknown tongues in the church. As you said earlier, "Therefore, it ought to be in private."
The various translations of Bibles do not re-interpret the intended meaning to something else. However different doctrinal theology does. Which explains why there are disagreements among various Christian denominations.

Jesus, Paul and chosen apostles and other disciples never spoke in unknown tongue publicly. Paul might have spoke privately. Who do you follow?

The scripture does not say that he did, and it does not say that he did not. You are making a judgement without Biblical evidence.

Paul strongly spoke against public nuisance of speaking in unknown tongue. Please read his letter with an open mind.

If your church is actively evangelical, then it would be populated with the unsaved. And of all the congregation of believers in attendance, none of them will be at exactly the same level of knowledge of God's Word, and spiritual growth. Just as in the natural there are adults, young adults, teens, children, babies. The Word of God addresses and instructs concerning every age and level of faith.

The new comers will be appalled by animal insticts so displayed!

Your comment that speaking in unknown tongues to have ceased is in no way related to the number of revivals from the 19th and 20th centuries which were markedly involving speaking in unknown tongues.

You admit for nearly 2000 years unknown tongue speaking had ceased. It got revived in a fermented society.

Revival happens because of a move from God, and so also does baptism in the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in unknown tongues occur because His Word does not return to Him void.

You are very much wrong here. People, to show off, speak in unknown tongues but there is no body to interpret in many Pentecostal churches. So what happens to what they spoke? So your claim is obviously misplaced.

 

[SteveCaruso]

You are very much wrong here. People, to show off, speak in unknown tongues but there is no body to interpret in many Pentecostal churches. So what happens to what they spoke? So your claim is obviously misplaced.

But it's not even in unknown languages. It has no syntax or structure that every language must have. It's babble.

 

[Alithis]

But it's not even in unknown languages. It has no syntax or structure that every language must have. It's babble.

again.. in same cases that may be so . but it is not always so and you cant apply that accusation . For there is a cry of the heart that has no words of mere mortal comprehension . a language of the spirit which cannot be comprehended by the carnal mind .
if in the past you encountered the fake , then you encountered the fake . don't charge God by implication of being a liar

 

[SteveCaruso]

again.. in same cases that may be so . but it is not always so

I'm waiting for a single example, and I have seen countless samples and all investigated examples have been debunked -- from the very beginning with the earliest Pentecostals traveling to India and trying to speak in tongues to the natives (which didn't work because their "tongues" were none of the native languages).

A language as it is described in the Bible, requires syntax -- like the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic of its own pages -- otherwise it is not a language.

I don't "charge God," but those who partake in asemic glossolallia need to self-examine, as it is not a Biblical practice.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

A language as it is described in the Bible, requires syntax -- like the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic of its own pages -- otherwise it is not a language.

This raises the interesting case of LISP macros, which allow for variable syntax (you (still (have (parenthesis (everywhere , however)))))

 

[SteveCaruso]

This raises the interesting case of LISP macros, which allow for variable syntax (you (still (have (parenthesis (everywhere , however)))))

Indeed, but even variable syntax has syntax, if metasyntax.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Syntax can become optional within the context of certain structures which consist basically of unsorted or temporally sorted lists of data which nonetheless conveys semantics. I believe that one could develop a sort of impressionistic language based on human emotional and instinctual responses to sensory stimuli, which would have semantics but only the most vague syntax, perhaps reduced to the idea of a simple linear progression.

I think we can infer the existence of such communications from human emotional responses to artwork, music, scents even industrial design (where "visual language" is something of a buzzword).

That said, it is unclear whether or not such syntax-free languages could actually replace a conventional language altogether; I suspect that as language loses syntactic expressiveness, civilization suffers, and for this reason I would support efforts to bootstrap the second personal pronoun back into English either via the vulgar route of turning "you" into it by promoting the Southern affectation "y'all", or more elegantly, by restoring "Thou" from the degenerated accents of West Yorkshire where it has survived to a limited extent.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Of course, needless to say, glossolalia remains non-linguistic owing to the absence of syntax. It is probably less expressive than the quacking of a duck (or Orwellian duckspeak).