Speaking in Tongues - Are we all wrong?

[Saint Steven]

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?

Occasionally I will be out in public and hear what sounds like tongues at church. When I look to see the source, I see foreigners talking to each other. Very interesting.

 

[Richard T]

Science has also been involved in documenting tongues.
A Neuroscientific Look at Speaking in Tongues
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/health/07brain.html

 

[swordsman1]

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)

There is no such thing as 'prophetic tongue' in scripture. It was always prayer and praise to God. Nowhere in scripture does it say God gave a message to a congregation in tongues.

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.

Scripture doesn't say that interpreted tongues is equal to prophecy. Read 1 Cor 14:5 again. It says the person who prophecies is equal to the person who speaks in tongues which is interpreted. That is because they are both edifying the church.

 

[swordsman1]

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.

Speaking tongues in private would be an abuse of a spiritual gift. The purpose of spiritual gifts is to benefit others, not self:

1 Cor 12:7 "Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good."

1 Peter 4:10 "Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others,"​

 

[swordsman1]

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!”

Jesus was not referring to spiritual gifts in that verse, but to the Holy Spirit himself. It says it right there in the text you highlighted.

It is not blasphemy of the Spirit if today's 'tongues' is not the work of Holy Spirit, but rather a natural phenomenon of the flesh. In fact it is defending the Holy Spirit against those who are wrongly attributing to Him something which is clearly not of Him. It is they who are treading on thin ice.

 

[Hillsage]

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.

I couldn't agree more. Let's have a 'linguist' disect a computer and see if he can agree that the binary language of a computer falls into his 'tongues of men' parameters for the truth for proving a language. Same goes for the spirit. Those thinking they understand what we experience is both sad....and laughable as I listen to their twistings of scripture to try and make it fit their "ungifted" walk.

 

[Dave L]

As I understand, the Apostles, or an apostle, distributed the gifts, including tongues, through the laying on of their hands. The gifts verified their authority just as the miracles verified Moses' authority, or Elijah's and Elisha's authority. Tongues were for a sign of impending doom coming upon the Jews who rejected Christ. But Tongues and Prophecy also served in place of the New Covenant scriptures until they were completed (that which is perfect). And when the Apostles expired, so did the Charismatic gifts.

We still have healing through the prayer of faith. And we have the Apostles through their writings. Also Pastors, Teachers, Evangelists etc.

 

[Alithis]

another thread espousing the attributes of the ineffectual god of the cessationist?

 

[Hillsage]

Speaking tongues in private would be an abuse of a spiritual gift. The purpose of spiritual gifts is to benefit others, not self:

1 Cor 12:7 "Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good."

1 Peter 4:10 "Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others,"​

As Oscarr stated 'we too' have gone around and around. Maybe that's why you aren't saying anything to me. You still refuse to CONFESS which of the 'three' groups defines you. I don't blame you, none of the "ungifted" ones have said anything either. But I'm going to just add this one point, as I have a hundred times here at CF; There is a difference between tongues from our spirit to God and from God's Spirit to man. Yes, those of us who are "GIFTED" 'can be' surrendered to our spirit and His spirit when those events happen. Your failure to address this two Sspirit understanding is why your theological POV of the scriptures simply comes off as a nonspiritual 'rightly dividing of the word of truth'....to those of us who 'HAVE walked as you NOW walk'.

I really can't expect you to understand, but my hope is that you will some day be able to lay down your 'obviously well thought out intellect' and pick up what can only come from faith. I know it's difficult, especially for one who has been in the camp you are for as long as you have.

 

[dreadnought]

I don't know where you got that notion from, because it is nowhere in the New Testament. If you carefully read Acts 2, you will see no mention of tongues as related to the preaching of the gospel. Peter explained why the crowd heard the praises of God (not the gospel) in their own languages, and then went on to preach the gospel in his native language (not tongues!). The only 'purpose' of tongues as described by Paul is in 1 Corinthians 14 where he says that tongues is spoken to God and it is the speaking of mysteries in the Spirit. There is no other defining purpose for tongues in the New Testament. So the notion that the original purpose of tongues was for the preaching of the gospel is a made-up notion from someone's own mind.

[6] And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. Acts 2:6 RSV

 

[dreadnought]

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.

You think they were speaking in tongues to gossip?

 

[DamianWarS]

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

There were 120 believers at Pentecost and the text goes into quite a lot of detail to not tell us how many language groups were present but how many regions were present each possibly carrying multiple language groups. You get 120 people together speaking in different languages and tell me if you can pull out your language. It would be difficult because essentially all you would hear is a bunch of noise. There seems implicit in the text a miracle for all those present to hear each in their own tongue so specifically. I don't know how it worked but it does seem remarkable that such a vast number of languages were represented and still each Traveller heard their own language.

 

[dreadnought]

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.

The central focus of all things is doing what the Lord tells us to do.

 

[dreadnought]

I don't know where you got that notion from, because it is nowhere in the New Testament. If you carefully read Acts 2, you will see no mention of tongues as related to the preaching of the gospel. Peter explained why the crowd heard the praises of God (not the gospel) in their own languages, and then went on to preach the gospel in his native language (not tongues!). The only 'purpose' of tongues as described by Paul is in 1 Corinthians 14 where he says that tongues is spoken to God and it is the speaking of mysteries in the Spirit. There is no other defining purpose for tongues in the New Testament. So the notion that the original purpose of tongues was for the preaching of the gospel is a made-up notion from someone's own mind.

[6] And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. Acts 2:6 RSV

You are wrong:
[9] Par'thians and Medes and E'lamites and residents of Mesopota'mia, Judea and Cappado'cia, Pontus and Asia,
[10] Phryg'ia and Pamphyl'ia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyre'ne, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes,
[11] Cretans and Arabians, we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God." Acts 2:9-11 RSV

 

[dreadnought]

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.

You think they were speaking in tongues to gossip?

You are wrong:

[9] Par'thians and Medes and E'lamites and residents of Mesopota'mia, Judea and Cappado'cia, Pontus and Asia,
[10] Phryg'ia and Pamphyl'ia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyre'ne, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes,
[11] Cretans and Arabians, we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God." Acts 2:9-11 RSV

 

[swordsman1]

There were 120 believers at Pentecost and the text goes into quite a lot of detail to not tell us how many language groups were present but how many regions were present each possibly carrying multiple language groups. You get 120 people together speaking in different languages and tell me if you can pull out your language. It would be difficult because essentially all you would hear is a bunch of noise. There seems implicit in the text a miracle for all those present to hear each in their own tongue so specifically. I don't know how it worked but it does seem remarkable that such a vast number of languages were represented and still each Traveller heard their own language.

We need to remember that the disciples were not still in the upper room when they were speaking to the crowds in tongues, but had spread out where the foreign pilgrims were assembled, most likely the Temple Courts. Commentators are divided on whether there were 12 or 120 who spoke in tongues. It depends whether the "they" in Acts 2:1 is referring to the 12 mentioned in the preceding verse (Acts 1:26) or the 120 mentioned in Acts 1:15.

 

[DamianWarS]

The central focus of all things is doing what the Lord tells us to do.

...so that we may give him glory

 

[DamianWarS]

We need to remember that the disciples were not still in the upper room when they were speaking to the crowds in tongues, but had spread out where the foreign pilgrims were assembled, most likely the Temple Courts. Commentators are divided on whether there were 12 or 120 who spoke in tongues. It depends whether the "they" in Acts 2:1 is referring to the 12 mentioned in the preceding verse (Acts 1:26) or the 120 mentioned in Acts 1:15.


View attachment 239791

Acts 2:9-11
Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.

I count around 15 regions represented. Not 15 languages but 15 regions. This could easily be 100 languages and each heard in their own tongue. There was definitely more than 12 speaking but even if it was it would be hard to pick out one language among 12 people. You can think of whatever circumstance you want it still is presented as quite remarkable that not just each language is represented but each was heard by the right person.

 

[Dave L]

According to scripture, God enabled believers to speak to him in a heavenly language. A language unknown except by him and those to whom he gave a gift for interpreting it (1 Corinthians 14:27–28).

Many think the Apostles spoke supernaturally in human languages at Pentecost. And people from different nations naturally understood what they said in their own tongue. But Paul says when a person speaks in tongues, they speak to God and not to men (1 Corinthians 14:2). So on Pentecost, the Apostles spoke to God in a heavenly tongue and devout Jews from every nation overheard them in their own native tongue. So they must have received the gift of interpreting too.

 

[DamianWarS]

You are wrong:

[9] Par'thians and Medes and E'lamites and residents of Mesopota'mia, Judea and Cappado'cia, Pontus and Asia,
[10] Phryg'ia and Pamphyl'ia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyre'ne, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes,
[11] Cretans and Arabians, we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God." Acts 2:9-11 RSV

The question is what is "the mighty works of God" ? Comparing all the examples of tongues in Acts what goes along is praising and prophesying but preaching the Gospel is never explicitly mentioned through tongues. Using the other examples of our reference something analogous to these other manifestations that would compliment them rather than add to them seems most consistent.