Speaking in Tongues - Are we all wrong?

[Saint Steven]

…
Yes I have spoken in tongues, not in church though, only in private.

So, you know the difference between someone using a tongue to worship (speaking to God) and a prophetic tongue (addressing the congregation). Right? (both are "public" tongues)

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Could you expound on 1 Corinthians 14:1-5, 13-15, 27-28, 39 ?

Here is my article:
http://www.divinehealingtraining.org.nz/Articles/1Corinthians14.pdf

 

[Hillsage]

That might make sense to some, but there is nothing in the Act 2 passage that connects the speaking in tongues to the preaching of the gospel. The tongues speakers were praising God, but Peter preached the gospel in his own native language and not tongues. Read it for yourself. We need to be careful not to add our own opinions to what the Word of God actually says.

You are correct that it makes no sense to speak out in tongues in a church service, unless it is interpreted so that all may be edified.

Oh brother Oscarr, I was 'liking' and 'agreeing' til now. Of course there is a benefit. If there is none then why would scripture even advocate "addressing one another is Psalms, hymms AND SPIRITUAL SONGS"?which according to 1Cor is SINGING I"N TONGUES??? I admit, that singing in a language no man understands, but God, would still obviously put a smile on God's face, but why would this scripture tell us to "address one another" with such a practice, in your opinion?

As for me personally, I know I'm always blessed when I hear people praying in tongues in church, even if I don't understand one word. I liken it unto "deep calls unto deep" when talking about the 'waterspouts/waterfalls' of God's words. But in this case we're talking about "rivers of living water/words" coming up from our belly/spirit

JOH 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive:

Even the babe in the womb of Elizabeth sensed the babe in the womb of Mary and 'leaped with joy' though no words at all were spoken.

 

[Hillsage]

I choose to ignore the linguistic research, because I don't believe it. I believe what the Bible says about tongues.

But true understanding is going to require eyes that truly see too. Ours may be old, but they're still "gifted" and again I say....and Good night.

 

[DamianWarS]

Speaking in tongues originally had the purpose of communicating the gospel to people who spoke in different languages, did it not? What is the purpose now?

the central focus to all things we do is giving glory to God. There are a few examples in Acts with speaking in tongues but only the first explicitly has others hearing tongues in their own language... but what did they hear? "declaring the wonders of God". After this event Peter preached to them (in a common language) and this is when they heard the gospel and responded to it. Tongues doesn't actually have biblical examples for speaking the explicit gospel but rather it is always praising and giving glory to God, the gospel seems to always be spoken in the languages already understood by the speaker. It does seem to play a key role in evangelism, as we see in Acts, but I think we misidentify tongues when we say it is to preach the gospel, the only examples shows people praising God in tongues not preaching the gospel in tongues.

 

[mindlight]

On the description page at Amazon <staff edited out the Amazon link> there is a book called the Doctrine And Teaching Of Speaking With Tongues, that suggest we are all wrong when it comes to speaking in tongues: that tongues is neither a language to aid the first disciple in the spreading of the gospel nor is it gibberish! Because they say that tongues is neither a language nor gibberish they draw the sword against themselves on both sides of the issue.

Now I can see how tongues can be proven not to be an unknown gibberish prayer language, but to prove that tongues is not a real language is another thing; which is close to impossible, I suppose, for those who believe tongues to be a language - only because they are so sure it is a language!

However if indeed it can be proven that neither of these teachings are true and that we are all wrong this would be a great turning point in the Christian world; and much need, I suppose, to end our endless debates; but especially for the weaker brethren and those searching for this truth that they should no longer be tossed to and fro from both sides of the issue.

Has anyone heard of this book that is supposed to show all that we are wrong or read of the great claims it makes on the description page on Amazon! Or is it possible that we are all wrong and have overlooked that one key element! And what about our teachers, what are they going to do! Would those teaching and defending their teaching for ten, twenty or even forty years put away their beliefs for the sake of truth, if indeed it turns out we are all wrong! Or is the Christian world even ready for this new teaching - if it can be called a new!

Mainly tongues is a private gift given to build up the believer. When publicly spoken in a church there should be an interpretation , as otherwise it is not edifying to the congregation as a whole. What is spoken is understood by God , maybe some angels but only in part by the believer speaking. There is more a feeling of the spiritual issues being addressed than an actual articulation. The gift is not given to everyone and is not needed by everyone.

One analogy I would draw is with my children just before they learned to speak. They would grunt and groan and point etc at me as if in conversation. We learnt to communicate in such a relationship before words entered the conversation.

There are often times in my life when there are just too many issues and feelings and prayers and thoughts swirling around and I just do not have the words to say what needs to be said and I want to recentre on God. Spending time with God speaking in tongues somehow unravels the mess, clears out the worldliness and puts it all in some kind of perspective. I tend to sing to God in tongues on long car journeys for instance ( I do not have a radio in my car). There is something deeply affirming and strengthening about the intimacy of such times with God. But most people in my acquaintance do not have the gift. Maybe they are just stronger than I am and do not need it or maybe they have never really asked for it.

 

[swordsman1]

Act 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

The miracle was in the hearing, not the speaking. Tongues has always been a prayer language of the spirit speaking to the Holy Spirit, and is always gibberish to our minds, which is a part of our souls.

Whose voice did the crowd hear speaking in their own languages? Was it a voice inside their heads, or was it the disciples speaking their languages? Scripture tells us plainly:

Acts 2:6 "the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language"​

It was the disciples who were speaking in the languages of the crowd. There is no mention in of any kind of 'miracle of hearing' taking place in Acts 2. If there was this great miracle of automatic translation in the ears of the hearers Luke would have told us, not remain silent on such an important fact. Verse 4 says the Holy Spirit fell on the disciples giving them the miraculous ability of speaking other languages they hadn't learnt - "they began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them" - before any of the foreigners heard them. There is no mention of the Spirit falling on anyone else. Notice the plural tongues in that verse. The disciples spoke in multiple languages, not a single 'heavenly' language

 

[swordsman1]

Also, if one has never spoken in tongues on a regular basis, he or she can never know whether it is spiritually uplifting or not. One cannot make definite assertions without commensurate experience.

I am sure when you discover the technique it is 'spiritually uplifting' especially when you are told that what you a speaking is the genuine New Testament gift and having it elevates you to being a superior Christian who is 'baptized in the Spirit' (despite scripture saying otherwise). The peer pressure in charismatic and pentecostal churches is enormous. The question is whether it is the genuine gift or whether you have discovered the well-researched linguist phenomenon of 'free vocalization' where the vocal organs go into autopilot and produce strings of syllables from a persons vocabulary of phonemes. The professional linguists who have studied today's 'tongues' tell us it has no linguistic structure and is therefore the latter. And this phenomenon is not unique to Christianity.

 

[swordsman1]

What I am saying is Paul wished that they all spoke in Tongues, but the greater wish was that they all prophesied.
This would have been a senseless wish if Tongues was a known language because a known language is how prophesy is spoken.

Prophecy was a message from God spoken to others in their common language. Tongues was praise to God miraculously spoken in a foreign language you haven't learned. There is only one description of the gift in scripture (Acts 2). In Corinth it was spoken in a church where no one in the congregation understood the language, and Paul rebuked the Corinthians for doing so. Paul said if someone wanted to practice their gift in church it must be translated so that the whole congregation can benefit.

 

[swordsman1]

Because the things of God are spiritually discerned, then non-Christian researchers will always come to different conclusions but not any real answers about how something can be real and genuine. The natural man cannot discern or understand the ways of God no matter how hard he tries or how much research he does.

A professional linguist does not need to be spiritually discerned to be able to determine whether a language is genuine or not. It simply requires them to be professionally trained to identify the linguistic structures present in any language.

 

[swordsman1]

I choose to ignore the linguistic research, because I don't believe it. I believe what the Bible says about tongues.

The linguistic research is fully compatible with scripture. That is because what it practiced today is not the NT gift. Scripture tells us tongues is miraculously speaking a foreign language and nothing else; the linguists tell us today's phenomenon has no linguistic structure and is fundamentally not a language.

 

[swordsman1]

Have you ever heard a conversation in Hindi, Chinese, Arabic, or Vietnamese? These languages sound like absolute gibberish to me, but those speakers understand each other. So, if I pray in a language that I believe, on the basis of 1 Corinthians 14, is a language understandable to God, even though it may sound like gibberish to me, then who is there to doubt that what I am praying is genuine language?

But it wouldn't be gibberish to a professional linguist who would quickly be able to identify a regularly spoken utterance as being a language no matter how obscure it is.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I am sure when you discover the technique it is 'spiritually uplifting' especially when you are told that what you a speaking is the genuine New Testament gift and having it elevates you to being a superior Christian who is 'baptized in the Spirit' (despite scripture saying otherwise). The peer pressure in charismatic and pentecostal churches is enormous. The question is whether it is the genuine gift or whether you have discovered the well-researched linguist phenomenon of 'free vocalization' where the vocal organs go into autopilot and produce strings of syllables from a persons vocabulary of phonemes. The professional linguists who have studied today's 'tongues' tell us it has no linguistic structure and is therefore the latter. And this phenomenon is not unique to Christianity.

i know that we have had many debates on this issue and we could both get sucked into the vortex if we decided to go through the quicksand all over again.

But the bottom line for me is that when I pray in tongues it is privately to the one Person who hears it. He is the only One who knows whether what I am saying is understandable or not.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Prophecy was a message from God spoken to others in their common language. Tongues was praise to God miraculously spoken in a foreign language you haven't learned. There is only one description of the gift in scripture (Acts 2). In Corinth it was spoken in a church where no one in the congregation understood the language, and Paul rebuked the Corinthians for doing so. Paul said if someone wanted to practice their gift in church it must be translated so that the whole congregation can benefit.

The only word that I disagree with in your correctly worded post is the word "translated". Paul doesn't use the word "translate". He uses "interprets". There is a difference. The tongue spoken out may not require a direct translation because it may be an intercession to God to allow those who prophesy to stir up their gift and allow the word of prophecy to come forth in the meeting. But that is just an unproven theory of mine, when in fact, we don't really know how it actually works.

But I have no argument about your post in general.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

But it wouldn't be gibberish to a professional linguist who would quickly be able to identify a regularly spoken utterance as being a language no matter how obscure it is.

I don't actually have any argument with that. But tongues is a gift of the Spirit and the purpose is to enhance a person's prayer life and so it is intended for private use, unless in conjunction with an interpreter. If a person uses tongues in order for it to be examined by a professional linguist then in my opinion it is a misuse of the gift and a degrading of the sacredness of it; therefore it would not be genuine and could very well end up being gibberish with no meaning - because the spoken tongues is not directed to God as it should be.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

A professional linguist does not need to be spiritually discerned to be able to determine whether a language is genuine or not. It simply requires them to be professionally trained to identify the linguistic structures present in any language.

A linguist trying to discover a structure in tongues would be like a surgeon dissecting a human body to try and find the spirit of the person. He could take it apart and find that there is nothing there. As I said, a demonstration of tongues for examination would not be genuine tongues and be like the counsellor's advice to Absolom - pointless and foolish babble.

 

[Saint Steven]

Whose voice did the crowd hear speaking in their own languages? Was it a voice inside their heads, or was it the disciples speaking their languages? Scripture tells us plainly:

Acts 2:6 "the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language"​

It was the disciples who were speaking in the languages of the crowd. There is no mention in of any kind of 'miracle of hearing' taking place in Acts 2. If there was this great miracle of automatic translation in the ears of the hearers Luke would have told us, not remain silent on such an important fact. Verse 4 says the Holy Spirit fell on the disciples giving them the miraculous ability of speaking other languages they hadn't learnt - "they began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them" - before any of the foreigners heard them. There is no mention of the Spirit falling on anyone else. Notice the plural tongues in that verse. The disciples spoke in multiple languages, not a single 'heavenly' language

Thank you for addressing this. I agree with what you are saying here.

I was just thinking as I read these posts how widely this "doctrine" has now been accepted. I don't buy the "interpretative hearing" idea at all. The scriptural proof is at the end of Peter's sermon, where he indicates that they would receive the HS after repentance and baptism. Which meant they HAD NOT YET received it. The manifestations of the Spirit are evidence of the filling. They were not yet filled.

Acts 2:38-39
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

 

[Saint Steven]

I am sure when you discover the technique it is 'spiritually uplifting' especially when you are told that what you a speaking is the genuine New Testament gift and having it elevates you to being a superior Christian who is 'baptized in the Spirit' (despite scripture saying otherwise). The peer pressure in charismatic and pentecostal churches is enormous. The question is whether it is the genuine gift or whether you have discovered the well-researched linguist phenomenon of 'free vocalization' where the vocal organs go into autopilot and produce strings of syllables from a persons vocabulary of phonemes. The professional linguists who have studied today's 'tongues' tell us it has no linguistic structure and is therefore the latter. And this phenomenon is not unique to Christianity.

We take the gift on faith. Jesus said it is given to those who ask. Questioning what God has given us, or others, is skating on the thin ice of possible blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. (attributing the work of God to something else, especially the enemy)

Luke 11:13
If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

 

[Saint Steven]

Prophecy was a message from God spoken to others in their common language. Tongues was praise to God miraculously spoken in a foreign language you haven't learned. There is only one description of the gift in scripture (Acts 2). In Corinth it was spoken in a church where no one in the congregation understood the language, and Paul rebuked the Corinthians for doing so. Paul said if someone wanted to practice their gift in church it must be translated so that the whole congregation can benefit.

I don't think the Corinthians were so much being rebuked as instructed. I mean concerning messages in tongues without interpretation. The Apostle indicated that a message in tongues was of equal value when accompanied by interpretation. How so?

But how could this be true if tongues is only "praise to God"? Would that be on par with a prophetic message in its level of edification for the church? I say, no. There must be something in the interpretation that will build up the church. Therefore, tongues is not limited to praising God.

1 Corinthians 14:5
I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.

 

[Saint Steven]

I choose to ignore the linguistic research, because I don't believe it. I believe what the Bible says about tongues.

As I recall, the linguistic researcher concluded that tongues was a genuine manifestation. But those who want to discredit tongues use the findings to discredit tongues. Claiming that it is a natural phenomenon. As I recall, the researcher said tongues happened in an altered mental state. How the speaker got there was an individual thing. The nay-sayers use this possibility to throw cold water at the whole idea. It fits Cessationist apologetics.