Do Pentecostals really speak in Languages? The Research

[SteveCaruso]

Can the Baptists say I have no need of the Pentecostals or the Pentecostals say I have no need of the Catholics on and on?

That's not the thrust of anyone's argument.

Tongues may be the last in the list but it is still in the list and I guarantee you no man on this forum has the authority to remove it or define it out of existence.

But if today's tongues aren't what is depicted in the Bible, then it's *modern* tongues that are the redefinition. They don't fit the bill. Period.

 

[Postvieww]

That's not the thrust of anyone's argument.



But if today's tongues aren't what is depicted in the Bible, then it's *modern* tongues that are the redefinition. They don't fit the bill. Period.

All I have read in your posts are what you believe are certain fake tongues which you or others have analyzed. What Paul taught on this topic is scripture, yet I have not read where you have addressed this. If I have missed it please point it out and you have my apology.


Have you acknowledge anywhere there may be legitimate scriptural tongues anywhere in the church today?

My whole point is what Paul described is the pattern for then and now.

 

[SteveCaruso]

All I have read in your posts are what you believe are certain fake tongues which you or others have analyzed. What Paul taught on this topic is scripture, yet I have not read where you have addressed this. If I have missed it please point it out and you have my apology.


Have you acknowledge anywhere there may be legitimate scriptural tongues anywhere in the church today?

My whole point is what Paul described is the pattern for then and now.

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.

 

[Radrook]

Agreed, but denying these things exist in the church today based on the teaching of scripture denying teachers does not prove they speak for God either.


Attributing the works of God to the evil one when someone really doesn’t know anything about the situation is not wise as well.

I don't trust anything that happens in a place where people are rolling on the floor, shaking, convulsing chirping, ululating, groaning and behaving in ways that aren't biblically described as manifestations of the Holy Spirit but which resemble voodoo practices instead.

 

[Widlast]

How is the Bible flawed in history and science? If indeed it is inspired, then being flawed in any of the twain puts that inspiration claim in doubt.

It is apparent that you walked into the middle of this conversation having no idea where people stood on the issues at hand.
I do not support the notion of tongues as is practiced by modern Protestants, in particular the Pentecostals.

 

[Radrook]

It is apparent that you walked into the middle of this conversation having no idea where people stood on the issues at hand.
I do not support the notion of tongues as is practiced by modern Protestants, in particular the Pentecostals.

I was aware that you do not support the practice of speaking in tongues.

 

[JackRT]

Not having gone through the entire thread, I might be repeating a point already made. The first "tongues event" as recorded in Acts is not "speaking in tongues". It was actually "hearing in tongues".

 

[Righttruth]

To me speaking in tongues is not about the language, but about the Holy Spirit in us.

1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. - Acts 19

The Apostle Paul could not discern the Holy Spirit in these gentlemen's lives. So it is time to pray for them to receive it!

Speaking in unknown tongue by an emotional personal with his spirit is not related to the Holy Spirit. By the way, what language is unknown to the Holy Spirit?

 

[Righttruth]

That's not the way I see it when you look at the verse in context. 1 Cor 13:1-3 consists of 5 parallel statements to emphasize the worthlessness of having spiritual gifts without love. Paul is pointing out that even if someone possessed spiritual gifts to the highest conceivable degree, but not have love, it would be to no avail. Each of them is a IF statement, where he presents 5 extreme hypothetical examples to make his point:

"If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal."​

Even if someone had the gift of tongues to such a degree that they spoke in the language of angels, but didn't have love, it would be worthless to them.

"If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge;...but do not have love, I am nothing."​

Even if someone had the gift of prophecy to such a degree that they knew ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge (ie was omniscient), but didn't have love, it would be worthless to them.

"and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."​

Even if someone had the gift of faith to such a degree that they could remove mountains, but didn't have love, it would be a worthless to them.

"And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, ...but do not have love, it profits me nothing."​

Even if someone had the gift of giving to such a degree that they gave ALL their possessions to the poor, but didn't have love, it would be worthless to them.

"and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing."​

Even if someone had the gift of giving to such a degree that they gave their own life, but didn't have love, it would be worthless to them.

None of these extreme hypothetical examples represents the normal operations of those gifts, including speaking with the tongues of angels. The statements are clearly presented as parallels, so you cannot say one is to be taken as being the normal operation, while the others are not.

Notice that in each case Paul prefaces the hypothetical with the the normal operation of the gift: "If I speak with the tongues of men...", "If I have the gift of prophecy...", "if I have all faith...", "if I give...". So the normal operation of the gift of tongues is to speak in the tongues of men (not the hypothetical tongues of angels).

Proving Paul's controversial and doubt-causing statement by his other verses is of no value.

 

[Righttruth]

In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know how we ought to pray, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groans too deep for words .And He who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.…..- bet no one can translate that either

Graoning of the Holy Spirit in our private prayer has nothing to do with public speaking of unknown tongue by person's spirit!

 

[Righttruth]

How can someone be filled with the Spirit if they are living a sinful life, not saved even?

Being filled with the Spirit is to be controlled by Spirit, as opposed to being controlled by our sinful nature. Paul contrasts it to drunkenness in Eph 5:21 "Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit". You are controlled by the Spirit, like someone is controlled by alcohol. The evidence of being filled with the Spirit is not speaking in tongues. There are well over a dozen instances in the NT of people being filled with the Spirit, only on one occasion did they happen to speak in tongues as well (at Pentecost). The evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit is boldness in witnessing:

Luke 1:41 "Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women,..."

Luke 1:67 "Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied “Praise be to the Lord,..."

Acts 4:8 "Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people!...."

Acts 4:31 "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly."

Acts 7:55 "But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God....”

Acts 9:17 “Brother Saul, the Lord... has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit".....At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God."

Acts 11:24 Barnabas: "He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a great number of people were brought to the Lord."

Acts 13:8 "Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, “You are a child of the devil..."

Acts 13:51 "And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit....There they spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Greeks believed. "​

At Pentecost the miracle was in the speaking, not a miracle of the hearing. It was the disciples on whom the Spirit fell and caused them to miraculously speak in other foreign language. The Spirit did not fall on the crowd and cause them to miraculous have an automatic gift of interpretation in their ears.

Acts 2:4 "...and they began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them."​

There is no mention of interpretation at all in the account.

The entire book of Acts of don't speak of anything related to interpretation because it was the utterance of the Holy Spirit. Not so in case of notorious Corinthian church. They were simply mocking at Pentecost phenomenon to claim spiritual status by babbling.

 

[Righttruth]

In the interest of as short as possible reply, some portions have been snipped.


For every Christian who has interpreted spoken tongues, it was not likely of a known human language. That is why it's called 'interpretation'.. and not 'translation'.

So you mean all people who claim to have the gift of interpretation can make their own short or long interpretation of some utterance which they themselves have not understood. A tall order indeed! So you have number of holy spirits who mould himself to the fancy of an interpreter!

The Holy Spirit utterance is obviously not a language as we know of human languages. Who said that it was anything like a human language when the Bible states that it is a Holy Spirit given utterance.

So in that case we should have a bible written in unknown language requiring different interpretations by different people. No need, since is happening even now by people who are unqualified to interpret in open market.

The 'gift of interpretation' as you call it, does not work in regard to hearing a known human language, and being able to know what is said.. but the ability to interpret only functions regarding a Holy Spirit utterance for the purpose of ministry in edifying believers.

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

If everyone who spoke in tongues and has interpreted before, then heard a tongue, why is it that only one is able to interpret it? Shouldn't they all be able to interpret it? No, that's not how it works.

Spurious claims do work fancifully!

It is the same regarding one who speaks prophecy by the Holy Spirit. Of all believers who've given a prophecy before, not all will speak the same thing at once in the known language. Because the Holy Spirit divides severally as He will. Because God is not a God of confusion. The operation of the ministry gifts are to function in an orderly way.

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

However, the individual use of speaking in tongues in an assembly is acceptable during a time of worship and praise unto God. Because God does not get confused when many are praising Him audibly, each saying individual things.

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

Because 'interpretation' and 'translation' are different things. Not only that, but they can't make the 'gift of interpretation' work whenever they want to.

And because God did not make the 'gift of interpretation' available for the purpose of such a clinical testing because someone is suspicious that it isn't really of God.

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

All things of God are to be discerned spiritually., and not be subject to the wisdom of men.

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;

Again, it must be said, that speaking in a known language by utterance of the Holy Spirit is not according to the will of the believer. So your clinical people will be waiting for a very long time to be able to get satisfaction on that kind of study.

Sorry, you are wrong. The Holy Spirit works in a yielding spirit.

However, there is no verse of scripture that states that speaking in tongues is meaningless babble, except to state that that is what a barbarian calls it.

So also that speaking in unknown tongue is directly related to utterance of the Holy Spirit as it happened on Pentecost. They are definitely not related.

However, there are any number of examples that can be given concerning interpreting certain scripture verses, the same verse can be interpreted with a different angle of meaning. As has been demonstrated above concerning Mat.6:7.
I have heard a similar thing occur when a foreign speaker says something, and then the English speaker translates it. The latter in some cases was shorter, and also longer in number of words than that of the foreign speaker.

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

That is a very poor example to imply that it is done in every church to anyone who is seeking to be baptized in the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues.

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 many times been present when the infilling of the Holy Spirit is ministered to many believers at a time, the preacher gives scriptural basis to bring faith to the seekers, then leads them in a prayer of receiving in faith, then he encourages them to allow the utterance given of the Holy Spirit to come out their mouth, then the minister speaks in tongues to further encourage them to speak it out. But He never says "repeat after me" (to speak the tongues that he speaks). That wouldn't be by utterance of the Holy Spirit within the individual believer, it wouldn't be coming from within them. The direction is from within, out.. not, from outside to inside.

What a interesting drama for the immature!

It intends to imply that the Christians who speak in tongues are not doing so by the Holy Spirit, but rather that it is of the devil.

It is not implied; it is a hard fact!

There is no Bible scripture verse to indicate that. But on the contrary the Bible assures that the speaking in tongues of the new testament is and will always be from God when the believer asks of God for the gift of the Holy Spirit, see Luke 11:9-13.

God has already bestowed on the best gifts of speech to mankind to differentiate from animals, not animal sounds and insticts.

By the clinical studies comparing the Holy Spirit speaking in tongues with voodoo based entirely on how it sounded, if they are right, then that would have to mean that all the new testament believers who spoke in tongues would also be suspect of being of the devil.

No Christian of today is willing to believe that it was.

Pentecostal movement which is about 100 years old is a relapse of notorious Corinthian church's mocking of Pentecost phenomenon. It a cult with Oneness doctrine, etc.

There is no indication that "vain babblings" means speaking in tongues, there is no scripture that would call the speaking in tongues gift of God 'vain babblings'. Neither would the apostle Paul who himself taught about speaking in tongues, and said in 1 Cor.14:18 that he speaks in tongues more than those Corinthian believers.

Paul never taught of speaking unknown tongue. He mentioned it and advised to desist it. He advised Corinthians to grow spiritually instead of behaving like immature people. Now spurious people are coming forward to teach on how to speak gibberish!

By your interpretation of what the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, you are making the apostle Paul speak in a disparaging way of the speaking in tongues that he practices. But indeed it is you who is speaking disparagingly of the Holy Spirit within the apostle Paul and within every believer of the new testament who also spoke in tongues.

You don't seem to know the difference between what is recorded in the book of Acts and what was observed only in Corinth by Paul.

The operative word in verses 19-20 is "teach". Concerning teaching them, Paul speaks the known language for their benefit whereby they are properly taught how to operate in speaking in tongues within the assembly. However, in his own time of prayer seeking wise direction from God, and praise to God, as he said in verse 18, speaks in tongues more than any of them.

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

The apostle Paul in no place discouraged them, or even forbad them from speaking in tongues. Yet, it seems that your post is full of discouraging and forbidding to speak in tongues.

Paul simply did not want to put an abrupt halt to a nuisance that was created in his absence. He was there for more than one and a half years. He discouraged them of this attitude, and it ceased for centuries before getting relapsed in USA recently.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Righttruth]

I agree with the OP that the evidence suggests that tongues isn’t a language. It seems unlikely that tongue-speakers are doing what was done in Acts 2.

However that doesn’t make their practice valueless or wrong. Tongues are a way of praising God with your spirit and emotions. As long as you also involve your understanding at other points in your Christian life, and as long as you don’t maintain that everyone has to use that specific way of expressing themselves, it seems OK.

What the Pentecostals have done is what many other reform movements through church history has done, which is to emphasize the importance of personal religious experience. Christianity isn’t just intellectual and isn’t just moral. However just like other reform movements, it’s easily possible for it to go too far, and to imply that that mode of experiencing God is mandatory, or overemphasize the emotional side of being Christian.

What one does in private matters little. It is claiming spirituality for personal outbursts that is the real culprit.

 

[Righttruth]

My mother was marginalized and left the church because of it. Although she led a saintly life she just would not b overcome with the urgency to drop and roll on the floor or utter sounds. So in tears she asked the pastor why and he told her to pray for one week. So after fervid week of silent supplications and she once again attended church full of expectations and all around her were women rolling and uttering sounds but she still, like some pariah, remained untouched. When she once more told the pastor he said that she must have some hidden sin which was obstructing the holy spirit. That accusation was unfounded and she decided that if God was rejecting her then she might as well not impose her presence and leave.

That was a good spiritual move.

 

[Righttruth]

That's right. The tongues of today is not the tongues of the New Testament.

Today's unknown tongues are the relapse of notorious Corinthian conditions.

 

[Righttruth]

The main reason the "gift of tongues' is so popular is that it is the only "gift of the Spirit" that can be easily faked.

The very gift is useless accoring to Paul himself!

 

[rockytopva]

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

 

[Righttruth]

cant say your wrong ..in some cases it may not be - we have seen demons cast out and the person get free and then speak in tongues properly (by properly i mean the person has control of mind and will ,the spirit being subject to the prophet in that the person themselves can choose to speak out or not speak out-it is so with tongues also (some one spoke earlier of the holy Spirit taking control , but he doe not do so ..he works with us , doesn't make us robot zombies . ..and it is different -interesting . but you cant blanket statement it /.

Speaking gibberish even after a demon has been cast out only proves his continued presece!

 

[Righttruth]

its strange how wording can cause such offense ,but it does . to say she might have some hidden sin .. should have have been worded she may have a hidden adversary -ans what i mean by that is , we have seen people seemingly unable to speak in tongues though on the verge of doing so .. we have prayed and the lord has caused an evil spirit(hiding) to manifest itself .after it is cast out .. the person then suddenly began to freely speak in tongues .. so if he used the word "Sin" and she knew of none ..it may have been best to use the word adversary.. - -interesting

Good example of devil' s work continued

 

[Righttruth]

I do not believe in any serious discussion of this topic anyone would deny there are fake tongues, just like there are fake apostles, prophets, pastors, Christians and miracles. Satan is a master at faking the things of God. It is my opinion far too often many throw the baby out with the bath water because they see a fake.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Speaking gibberish cannot be proved as that of the Holy Spirit.