Speaking in Tongues - Are we all wrong?

[swordsman1]

What a silly distinction.

Besides that - God made it a point to show us in verses 28-31 that the context in which we are told to desire certain gifts is in the "individual" context. Did you miss that part? or just ignore it

No, the context of v28-31 is the body of Christ, the universal church.

v27 "Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church... "​

Did you miss that part? or just ignore it

Where are you getting this "simply because we fancy having it" bologna?

No one here has said any such thing.

If you follow this discussion back you will see it is in reference to people in general wanting and asking for the gift of tongues.

Which ear posting on this thread has said they wish to be an eye?

I never said it applied to anyone on this thread. I was pointing out the teaching of Paul on the issue.

 

[swordsman1]

Mr. swordsman1 has tried to make the case that when tongues are spoken they are always known languages in the scriptures.

He has failed in providing proof for that position. But I will give him credit for trying head on to make his case.

The proof is right there in scripture. The only description of the gift of tongues is in Acts 2, and it is clearly the miraculous ability to speak a foreign language you have never learned .Nowhere in scripture does it say tongues is a non-human language.

 

[Hillsage]

I reason I ignore your repeated silly question is because you are trying to engineer an off-topic putdown. But seeing as we are here...

Your opinion. My opinion is I'm trying to engineer an absolutely ON topic 'wake up call' to those here discussing a book of the bible which they want us to believe absolutely doesn't relate to 'the church', 'their church' or 'their biblical walk'. A position which is truly egregious when there are those of us here, who are experientially in the exact same boat that the book of Corinthians addresses in 'the BIBLE'. A position which still does relate to US. If you think I'm just working up a 'putdown' YOU SIR are taking an offense where no offense is the intention, and not even Christian. It is not a 'putdown' cry but a 'grow up' call. I want you to have what we have. WE ALL HAD what you HAVE...period.

The church in Corinth had spiritual gifts which are no longer active today. Those who have been told they have them today I'm afraid have been duped by their teachers. The gifts claimed today do not match the biblical descriptions.

Not our 'teaching' and not our experience. You have simply possessed what you've believed and confessed.

EPH 4:29 Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. 30 Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God,

We long for you to experience the 'self edification spiritual gift' which God has given to ALL who WILL. You have grieved the very 'Giver' of that gift, and it is no wonder you've reaped what you've spiritually sown.

The BDAG Lexicon entry for ἰδιώτης (idiotes) translated as 'ungifted' in the NASB is:

one who is not knowledgeable about some particular group’s experience, one not in the know, outsider. In 1 Cor 14:23f ἰδιῶται and ἄπιστοι together form a contrast to the Christian congregation. ​

I am well versed on the things of the Spirit and know exactly what the gift of tongues is, as the Bible gives us a thorough description of the gift. The equivalent of idiotes today then would be people who are ignorant of that description or willfully dismiss it and come up with a definition of their own that is alien to scripture.

You simply are not living in the 'present tense' application of the living WORD IMO. And neither is the BDAG crew which Im sure you would have to agree didn't have a tongue talker allowed on the team.

But that's OK, just answer that question as if you were living back then. And tell me NOW which group WOULD YOU HAVE been in THEN?

 

[Dan the deacon]

I reason I ignore your repeated silly question is because you are trying to engineer an off-topic putdown. But seeing as we are here...

The church in Corinth had spiritual gifts which are no longer active today. Those who have been told they have them today I'm afraid have been duped by their teachers. The gifts claimed today do not match the biblical descriptions.

The BDAG Lexicon entry for ἰδιώτης (idiotes) translated as 'ungifted' in the NASB is:

one who is not knowledgeable about some particular group’s experience, one not in the know, outsider. In 1 Cor 14:23f ἰδιῶται and ἄπιστοι together form a contrast to the Christian congregation. ​

I am well versed on the things of the Spirit and know exactly what the gift of tongues is, as the Bible gives us a thorough description of the gift. The equivalent of idiotes today then would be people who are ignorant of that description or willfully dismiss it and come up with a definition of their own that is alien to scripture.

No longer active today?? Just where did you come up with that idea? (Meaning site chapter and verse) While I agree that tongues are real languages, one of those languages is not spoken here on earth. The tongues of angels.
I agree with you that the modern Pentecostals are not always speaking in gifted tongues. But I do not agree tongues have ceased.

 

[swordsman1]

No longer active today?? Just where did you come up with that idea? (Meaning site chapter and verse) While I agree that tongues are real languages, one of those languages is not spoken here on earth. The tongues of angels.
I agree with you that the modern Pentecostals are not always speaking in gifted tongues. But I do not agree tongues have ceased.

We have only just had a long discussion on the cessation of tongues:
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/speaking-in-tongues-a-cessationists’-view.8075635/
You might want to review that topic, in particular my post here:
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/speaking-in-tongues-a-cessationists’-view.8075635/page-4#post-73012792

We also recently discussed the tongues of angels passage in depth in this thread:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-the-holy-spirit.8076860/page-6#post-73046496

 

[usexpat97]

There is a deeper meaning here.

Whether or not tongues have ceased: what has never ceased--nor will it ever cease-is the real point of all: that when God calls us to a purpose, He will equip us with whatever we need to do it. Those early followers were called to drop everything and preach to all nations. So He gave them tongues. Oh, so you can suddenly speak Russian? Then guess where you are called? What are you called to do? Give the church a million dollars, but you don't have one million dollars? He's not going to give you tongues, which you DON'T need.

Tongues were never the point. Equipping: THAT is the point.

 

[Bruce Leiter]

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!

I prefer to stay close to the Bible passages that refer to speaking in tongues more than getting lost in the many books written about the subject. On the one hand, some have said that the ability stopped when the New Testament finished. On the other hand, some have claimed that all Christians must speak in tongues at some point in their lives. Neither position is taught in the Bible.

Thus, I believe that the truth is in the Scriptures. The Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 12-14 teaches that the gift is less important in the church than prophesying (preaching)--chap. 12, that it must be done in love for other Christians (chap. 13), and that it must be done in public worship in an orderly manner (chap. 14).

I have never spoken in tongues but don't believe that I am any less of a believer than those who have. He made me a preacher and now a writer of his truths, callings that Paul makes more important than speaking in tongues. I've also experienced other people's speaking in tongues during public worship that seemed to be for show, though I don't judged them. However, their speaking interfered with the preacher's sermon, an action that violated Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 14.

The spiritual gift of tongues-speaking is one of many gifts that God has used to renew his church when it was in danger of dying spiritually.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

True that Paul said desire the gifts. Bit that does not negate tje verse saying God gives gifts to who He wills. Our will is not the determining factor. Tongues are not nor have they ever been speaking gibberish. They (tongues) are real language. Not mumbo jumbo as is spoken in Pentecostal services. That is simple excitement and folks trying to show how spiritual they are.

In all my 50 years of belonging to and being associated with Pentecostals, I have never met any of the people you describe, except the one or two immature ones who were clearly recognised as having spiritual and personal problems unrelated to their Pentecostal experience.

Also, I guess that people who get excited over what Jesus has done for them and that they have passed from death to live, are in a more joyful position than those who turn up to church out of a sense of duty, and either sit like wooden Indians or sleep in the back pew at church. Many of these will get very excited over seeing their favoured football team winning on Saturday and yell like Commanche Indians. Perhaps they are more excited over that than their Christianity.

What brought me to Christ in 1966 was encountering a church full of warm, loving, welcoming people excited about their Christian faith - something I never saw in the Anglican or Presbyterian churches that I visited in my home town. Nothing in those churches would have influenced me to become a Christian. They looked to me like dead, boring, dour people who were going to church like they were going to the dentist. And when they walked out of the church at the end of the service they looked as if they had been to the dentist! That was not for me.

But when I first went to a Pentecostal church and saw quite a different group of people who loved and enjoyed their religion, sang with all their hearts, and treated Jesus as a real living Person, I thought, "That's for me!" And I have never regretted it.

Also, in all my 50 years of being associated with Pentecostals and Charismatics, I have never seen any of the vicious, attacking, ungodly criticism of other churches that I have seen of other churches toward Pentecostals. I don't see the spirit of Christ in those attacks on Pentecostals by other churches, and in this forum.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

As I already said, Paul told the Corinthian church to desire certain spiritual gifts, not the individual beleiver. And the gifts the Corinthians were to desire for their church were the greater gifts such as prophecy and teaching, not the least of the gifts - tongues.

If we are told that it is the Holy Spirit who sovereignly determines who gets what gift, then it is folly to pray for a particular gift simply because we fancy having it. (Not that today's 'tongues' is the true NT gift of tongues). It is wrong for an ear to want to be an eye:

1 Cor 12:16-20 And if the ear says, “Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body."​

Maybe the difference between you and me is that I put my personal and individual fellowship with God over and above my commitment to a church. We don't have a unified body. Instead, we have a fragmented Church of different denominations fighting with and criticising one another.

I heard that the Billy Graham crusade in South Africa many years ago was totally ruined because the different churches fought over the converts. Such is the actions of the "body of Christ" in that city.

I fully believe, as you do, that the gifts are for the body of Christ. The reason we don't see them these days very much is that the gifts are designed for the one unified body of Christ and not for any particular denomination. God is not going to favour one faction over another. One of the more serious concerns that Paul had for the Corinthian church was that they were divided into factions. Our denominational churches are no different. There is no such thing as a unified body of Christ these days. All we have is a divided, factionalised, and divisive number of different labelised groups fighting with and criticising each other. I don't see the Holy Spirit doing much in such churches. That is the real reason why there is not much supernatural evidence of the Holy Spirit in most of our churches.

 

[Marvin Knox]

No, the context of v28-31 is the body of Christ, the universal church.

v27 "Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church... "
Did you miss that part? or just ignore it

"Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? But earnestly desire the greater gifts." 1 Corinthians 12:27-31

Note that Paul talks about individuals both in the first sentence and in the sentences which follow.

"ALL" would be the church in totality (your position). It's not all he is talking about - clearly. He makes it a point to talk to individuals about their gifts.

Yours is a tortured position used to support an untenable position on the subject.

If you follow this discussion back you will see it is in reference to people in general wanting and asking for the gift of tongues.

Wanting and asking for what God tells us to want and ask for is not the same as "imply wanting and asking because we fancy having it. You are using hyperbole where none is called for. A person may well not "fancy" something and yet desire to obey the Lord by asking for it. That is the case here.

I never said it applied to anyone on this thread. I was pointing out the teaching of Paul on the issue.

You were not just "pointing out" Paul's words. You were using Paul's words as a charge against God's people here in this thread.

The proof is right there in scripture. The only description of the gift of tongues is in Acts 2, and it is clearly the miraculous ability to speak a foreign language you have never learned .Nowhere in scripture does it say tongues is a non-human language.

No it is not.

We have been through this before and you are clearly wrong. You are adding to the text something which simply is not there.

The description we have in Acts 2 is not of a miraculous ability to speak in known languages. The description in Acts 2 is the hearing in the native language of some what sounded to other people like the speakers were drunk.

Now - if you have objections to how tongues are practiced in certain segments of the church I'd love to hear them. I may even agree with you about many of them.

But you simply are not allowed to say that the scriptures say something they do not say.

Stating the same inaccuracy over and over again does not make it accurate.

 

[swordsman1]

"Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? But earnestly desire the greater gifts." 1 Corinthians 12:27-31

Note that Paul talks about individuals both in the first sentence and in the sentences which follow.

"ALL" would be the church in totality (your position). It's not all he is talking about - clearly. He makes it a point to talk to individuals about their gifts.

Yours is a tortured position used to support an untenable position on the subject.

How could Paul intend for individuals seek those gifts listed if one of them is apostleship? One of the qualification of being an apostle was to see the incarnate Lord Jesus.

Who is the "you" in v27? The Corinthian church. And who is the command in v31 addressed to? Again the Corinthian church. If it had said "Each of you desire the greater gifts" you may have had a valid point. But it doesn't.

Yours is the untenable position I'm afraid.

Wanting and asking for what God tells us to want and ask for is not the same as "imply wanting and asking because we fancy having it. You are using hyperbole where none is called for. A person may well not "fancy" something and yet desire to obey the Lord by asking for it. That is the case here.

Why would somebody want to speak in tongue if they didn't fancy having the gift?

You were not just "pointing out" Paul's words. You were using Paul's words as a charge against God's people here in this thread.

You are disingenuously misrepresenting me. I never accused anyone on this thread of selfishly desiring a gift. I was using Paul's teaching to correct an errant statement.

No it is not.

We have been through this before and you are clearly wrong. You are adding to the text something which simply is not there.

The description we have in Acts 2 is not of a miraculous ability to speak in known languages. The description in Acts 2 is the hearing in the native language of some what sounded to other people like the speakers were drunk.

Now - if you have objections to how tongues are practiced in certain segments of the church I'd love to hear them. I may even agree with you about many of them.

But you simply are not allowed to say that the scriptures say something they do not say.

Stating the same inaccuracy over and over again does not make it accurate.

Nonsense. You are going beyond what is written.

Luke makes it clear the disciples spoke in the foreign languages of the crowd.

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

What did the crowd hear? Was it the disciples speaking in their own language, or was it a voice in their heads? The verse tells us plainly.

What you are doing is starting off with your preconceived idea of what you think tongues is (the unintelligible utterances of today) and then attempting to force that idea into the Acts 2 narrative. That is the fallacy of eisegesis. If there was a 'miracle of hearing' in the unregenerate crowd then Luke would have told us plainly, not kept silent on such an important fact.

 

[Marvin Knox]

How could Paul intend for individuals seek those gifts listed if one of them is apostleship? One of the qualification of being an apostle was to see the incarnate Lord Jesus.

Again you assume things which the scriptures do not say. yours being a majority opinion does not make it accurate.

The scriptures do not say that one of the qualifications of being an apostle was to see the incarnate Lord Jesus.

If you can find a scripture which says that - please post it here. Thanks!

Why would somebody want to speak in tongue if they didn't fancy having the gift?

Why would anyone want to to give up their life for truth if they did not fancy doing it.

Perhaps to obey the Lord???

You are disingenuously misrepresenting me. I never accused anyone on this thread of selfishly desiring a gift. I was using Paul's teaching to correct an errant statement.

Everyone knows what Paul said. Clearly you posted his quote here to insinuate an insult against the people who disagree with your position.

What did the crowd hear? Was it the disciples speaking in their own language, or was it a voice in their heads? The verse tells us plainly.

The verse tells us plainly that they heard the disciples in their own languages. That is all it really tells us - except that many heard them speak drunken gibberish just as the un-gifted hear when they enter a church where tongues are being abused today with no legitimate interpretation.

If there was a 'miracle of hearing' in the unregenerate crowd then Luke would have told us plainly, not kept silent on such an important fact.

He did tell us exactly that.

What he did not tell us is what you assume to be the case.

Of course your assumption may be correct. But the scriptures do not logically support your assumption.

Admit what everyone can clearly see and then move on to making a case against the many abuses of modern day tongues. You may have a winner there.

But everyone can see that you are going beyond what the scriptures teach with your statement that the scriptures teach that the disciples spoke known languages at Pentecost.

 

[gordonhooker]

In all my 50 years of belonging to and being associated with Pentecostals, I have never met any of the people you describe, except the one or two immature ones who were clearly recognised as having spiritual and personal problems unrelated to their Pentecostal experience.

Also, I guess that people who get excited over what Jesus has done for them and that they have passed from death to live, are in a more joyful position than those who turn up to church out of a sense of duty, and either sit like wooden Indians or sleep in the back pew at church. Many of these will get very excited over seeing their favoured football team winning on Saturday and yell like Commanche Indians. Perhaps they are more excited over that than their Christianity.

What brought me to Christ in 1966 was encountering a church full of warm, loving, welcoming people excited about their Christian faith - something I never saw in the Anglican or Presbyterian churches that I visited in my home town. Nothing in those churches would have influenced me to become a Christian. They looked to me like dead, boring, dour people who were going to church like they were going to the dentist. And when they walked out of the church at the end of the service they looked as if they had been to the dentist! That was not for me.

But when I first went to a Pentecostal church and saw quite a different group of people who loved and enjoyed their religion, sang with all their hearts, and treated Jesus as a real living Person, I thought, "That's for me!" And I have never regretted it.

Also, in all my 50 years of being associated with Pentecostals and Charismatics, I have never seen any of the vicious, attacking, ungodly criticism of other churches that I have seen of other churches toward Pentecostals. I don't see the spirit of Christ in those attacks on Pentecostals by other churches, and in this forum.

It was very refreshing to read your post where you talk about young and immature people.

Let me explain why...

I have been reluctant to accept the validity of tongues in a Pentecostal movement because of you described as young and immature. My sister in-law was part of well known group here in Queensland in Australia and some of the younger ones she introduced me and my wife to were just as you described. They would actually break into what they called tongues when ever it took their fancy and would say they were practicing next Sundays church service. I never took any of them seriously after that, and that was back in the 1970's. I would never openly judge anyone who did that but I did keep clear of them and take what was said with a grain of salt.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It was very refreshing to read your post where you talk about young and immature people.

Let me explain why...

I have been reluctant to accept the validity of tongues in a Pentecostal movement because of you described as young and immature. My sister in-law was part of well known group here in Queensland in Australia and some of the younger ones she introduced me and my wife to were just as you described. They would actually break into what they called tongues when ever it took their fancy and would say they were practicing next Sundays church service. I never took any of them seriously after that, and that was back in the 1970's. I would never openly judge anyone who did that but I did keep clear of them and take what was said with a grain of salt.

The ability to pray in tongues is a very sacred act because it the most direct prayer of faith that can be made. It is made directly to God and when one is praying in tongues in the private prayer room, one is on very holy ground because of the direct fellowship with God. When a person prays in tongues they are always praying in the will of God.

Speaking out in tongues anywhere else other than in private with God, unless it is in a church meeting and for the purpose of interpretation, it is a degrading of the sacredness of it. I once mentioned to my old pastor about "this tongues business" and he tore a strip off me for speaking about the gift of tongues in that manner. I have never forgotten that.

So the issue is not praying or speaking in tongues, but the offhand way that people treat the gift. It is not a toy, but a very sacred act for the holy place with God.

 

[Marvin Knox]

"Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. They were amazed and astonished, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.” And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” But others were mocking and saying, “They are full of sweet wine.”" Acts 2:5-13

The apostles (and perhaps others with them) began to speak in tongues when the Holy Spirit fell on them.

At least 15 language groups and probably more heard them praising the Lord in their own language.

I suppose it is possible that the people of the Egyptian language group went out back of the house and heard a few of those filled with the Spirit speaking Egyptian on the back porch.

Perhaps a few of the Medes were around one side of the house where a group of believers were speaking the language of the Medes.

Perhaps those who lived in Cappadocia bumped into a few believers speaking that language.

Perhaps some Arabs went inside where a few believers were fortuitously speaking in the Arab language.

etc.

Or, I suppose the believers may have all spoken sequentially in the language of every group of people who heard the sound of rushing wind and ventured forth to find out what it was.

After a period of time, perhaps, they all had a chance to hear them praising God in their own language and commented on it.

Perhaps it is possible that many of the citizens of Jerusalem, who were quite used to visitors to their city speaking other languages, thought that these particular folks were drunk when they heard them doing so.

Many things are possible I suppose. But, it seems to me, some things are very unlikely.

I suppose that swordsman1's assumptions could possibly be what happened.

But I prefer to just go with what the scriptures tell me and leave it at that.

Each people group "heard" the ones speaking in tongues in their own language.

That's what it says - period.

It does not say or teach that tongues, as used as a gift in Corinth, was a known language - Parthian, Median, Elamitian, Mesopotamian, Judean, Cappadocian, Pontusian, Asian, Phrygian, Pamphylian, Egyptians, Libian, Cyrenian, Roman, Cretan, Arabian, English, Spanish, French, Russian angelic or anything else.

Anyone telling you that the scriptures teach any such thing is smoking something or lying to you about what the scriptures say.

 

[swordsman1]

Again you assume things which the scriptures do not say. yours being a majority opinion does not make it accurate.

The scriptures do not say that one of the qualifications of being an apostle was to see the incarnate Lord Jesus.

If you can find a scripture which says that - please post it here. Thanks!

Here you go - Acts 1:22. The qualification for appointing a new apostle was they had to be an eye-witness of the risen Lord.

Are you seriously suggesting that Paul was commanding each Corinthian to seek to be an apostle? And each of us should also desire to be an apostle?

Why would anyone want to to give up their life for truth if they did not fancy doing it.

Perhaps to obey the Lord???

Now you are just being silly.

We are not talking about people giving up their lives, we are talking about having the gift of tongues. I seriously doubt if anyone wanted the gift of tongues not because they not really want it, but rather to just obey God - "No Lord, please don't give me the gift of tongues like those others, but if you really want me to I'll make the sacrifice and do it for you".

Everyone knows what Paul said. Clearly you posted his quote here to insinuate an insult against the people who disagree with your position.

So quoting scripture in order to correct people is insulting them? Are you serious?

The verse tells us plainly that they heard the disciples in their own languages.

No, you are dishonestly removing a word from scripture. It tells us plainly the crowd heard the disciples speak in their own language. It does not say the crowd heard a voice in their heads.

Acts 2:6 "And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language.

You are committing the fallacy of eisegesis - forcing your own preconceived ideas into the text. No matter how much you try to twist the text to try to make it appear the disciples spoke unintelligible utterances like you do, the plain reading of scripture says otherwise.

 

[swordsman1]

The ability to pray in tongues is a very sacred act because it the most direct prayer of faith that can be made. It is made directly to God and when one is praying in tongues in the private prayer room, one is on very holy ground because of the direct fellowship with God. When a person prays in tongues they are always praying in the will of God.

Speaking out in tongues anywhere else other than in private with God, unless it is in a church meeting and for the purpose of interpretation, it is a degrading of the sacredness of it. I once mentioned to my old pastor about "this tongues business" and he tore a strip off me for speaking about the gift of tongues in that manner. I have never forgotten that.

So the issue is not praying or speaking in tongues, but the offhand way that people treat the gift. It is not a toy, but a very sacred act for the holy place with God.

How can praying in tongues in private be the will of God when scripture tells us that the purpose of spiritual gifts is for the benefit of others?

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]

The apostles (and perhaps others with them) began to speak in tongues when the Holy Spirit fell on them.

At least 15 language groups and probably more heard them praising the Lord in their own language.

I suppose it is possible that the people of the Egyptian language group went out back of the house and heard a few of those filled with the Spirit speaking Egyptian on the back porch.

Perhaps a few of the Medes were around one side of the house where a group of believers were speaking the language of the Medes.

Perhaps those who lived in Cappadocia bumped into a few believers speaking that language.

Perhaps some Arabs went inside where a few believers were fortuitously speaking in the Arab language.

etc.

Or, I suppose the believers may have all spoken sequentially in the language of every group of people who heard the sound of rushing wind and ventured forth to find out what it was.

After a period of time, perhaps, they all had a chance to hear them praising God in their own language and commented on it.

Perhaps it is possible that many of the citizens of Jerusalem, who were quite used to visitors to their city speaking other languages, thought that these particular folks were drunk when they heard them doing so.

Many things are possible I suppose. But, it seems to me, some things are very unlikely.

You seriously think that thousands of foreigners were crammed inside a normal dwelling house when the disciples spoke in tongues? The place where the foreigners were assembled was the house of the Lord, the Temple, where thousands of foreign Jewish pilgrims had gathered for the Feast of Pentecost.

The language of the Temple was Hebrew so when the local Jews, who were not expecting to hear any other language, heard a language they didn't recognize they naturally presumed the people were drunk and were speaking gibberish. Somebody speaking Swahili sounds like gibberish to me. And if I heard a white person unexpectedly speaking Swahili at an all-English speaking club I too might think they were drunk.

But I prefer to just go with what the scriptures tell me and leave it at that.

Each people group "heard" the ones speaking in tongues in their own language.

That's what it says - period.

It does not say or teach that tongues, as used as a gift in Corinth, was a known language - Parthian, Median, Elamitian, Mesopotamian, Judean, Cappadocian, Pontusian, Asian, Phrygian, Pamphylian, Egyptians, Libian, Cyrenian, Roman, Cretan, Arabian, English, Spanish, French, Russian angelic or anything else.

Anyone telling you that the scriptures teach any such thing is smoking something or lying to you about what the scriptures say.

The scriptures tell us plainly what the crowd heard - it was the disciples speaking in the languages of the foreigners, not a voice in their heads. To say otherwise is to denying what scripture plainly says:

Acts 2:6 "And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language."

Acts 2:11 "Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.”​

Notice the word 'tongues' (glossa) in v11 is referring to human languages, the same word that appears in verse 4 - "they began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them". The word 'glossa' means language. To hold that the "tongues" in Acts 2:4 means unintelligible utterances would contradict its usage in Acts 2:11 where it clearly refers to human languages. Notice also the plural tongues in verse 4. The disciples spoke in multiple languages.

Verse 4 says the Holy Spirit fell on the disciples enabling them to speak in other languages. There is no mention of the Spirit falling on the unregenerate crowd and performing a miracle of hearing in their ears. That is pure conjecture and goes beyond what is written.

There can be absolutely no doubt that the disciples spoke in foreign human languages. The idea they spoke in unintelligible utterances is completely alien to scripture. You are committing the fallacy of eisegesis - forcing your own preconceived ideas into the text.

If you wish I can post about a dozen commentaries on Acts by respected evangelical scholars that agree with my position. How many commentaries agree with you? Can you show us even one?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Here you go - Acts 1:22. The qualification for appointing a new apostle was they had to be an eye-witness of the risen Lord.

It does not say that.

So quoting scripture in order to correct people is insulting them? Are you serious?

So - you were not just quoting scripture? You were correcting people?

You said before that you were not accusing anyone of doing the thing the scripture corrects.

Acts 2:6 "And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language.

Note that the emphasis is on what they heard not what was being done by those they were hearing.

The place where the foreigners were assembled was the house of the Lord, the Temple

Show us please.

Acts 2:11 "Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.”

What do you think they would have done if not hear - feel them speak of the mighty deeds of God?

There can be absolutely no doubt that the disciples spoke in foreign human languages. The idea they spoke in unintelligible utterances is completely alien to scripture.

There can be and there is.

Your assumptions don't make what you assume so.

If you wish I can post about a dozen commentaries on Acts by respected evangelical scholars that agree with my position.

Why on earth would I want that? The scriptures say what they say and nothing more. That's true whether 1000 commentators assume something else.

The fact is that the examples and directions Paul gave to the church informs us concerning what was going on at Pentecost. Your assumptions related to Pentecost do not inform us of what was going on in the church.

You are welcome to your opinion as to what was happening at Pentecost. But it is only that - an opinion. The scriptures only say what they say. It is up to us to look for possible explanations elsewhere in the scriptures.

We find those explanations in the reading of the Corinthian letter.

You keep saying the same things over and over again.

As with any ruminations concerning the disciples being driven to the temple by the Holy Spirit - they are just someone surmising what they think happened.

And - if God had meant to say the disciples were in the temple instead of a house - He would have said that.

"When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment".

They came together in the temple when they were already there?

Apparently the room from which they heard the sound coming was in the temple?

I know you believe what you are saying happened. But none of the scriptures in Acts shed enough light on the instances of speaking in tongues throughout the book to clear things up.

However - the scriptures in Corinthians do shed a lot of light on the subject of tongues just as God intended them to.

Of course you believe that the gifts ceased just about the time the ink was dry on the Holy Spirit's detailed instructions concerning them. That's ridiculous in the extreme. I'm sure any thinking bible believer would agree about that.

All scripture is profitable for us. The instructions given in Corinthians are not the exceptions.

Look - I'm not going to go back and forth with you any longer. You are equating your opinions with what the scriptures teach.

I have no more time for that. I want to let scripture inform scripture - not some wag on the internet who only believes that a part of the N.T. instructions to the church is meant for us today.

You can have the last word - and it will in all likelihood be just that - your word.

 

[drich0150]

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!

Why is this an issue to anyone who has ever read the bible?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+cor+14&version=NIV