Speaking in tongues

swordsman1 · Feb 22, 2017

ImAllLikeOkWaitWhat said:
Swordsman1 you seem to be very anti-tongues. So my question to you is do you speak in tongues yourself? if not do you think if you did it would change your view on it? I personally have always been fascinated by those who say they spoke in tongues so when I began to do it myself I was thrilled. I'd assume if you don't speak in tongues and began one day you would understand the perspective of those who do speak in tongues. Although there are some who can speak in tongues who claim it to be hogwash. So its possible you fit in one of these two camps.

I am certainly not anti-tongues per se (tongues being the New Testament gift described in Acts 2, and referred to in Acts 10, 19 & 1 Cor 12-14). But, on the basis of scripture, I don't believe that the modern phenomenon of glossolalia (unintelligible utterances) that has been practiced in charismatic and pentecostal churches for the last few decades is that NT gift.

Could I speak in glossolalia? Yes! Linguists and anthropologists who have studied the phenomenon have observed that anyone, Christian or not, can discover the technique whereby you can 'let go' of your tongue and produce strings of syllables that sounds like a strange language. See post #56 in this thread for further details. I can understand the wonder and excitement when people experience this phenomenon and are led to believe it is the NT gift of tongues; are told they are speaking the language of angels; that it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit; and they have finally 'arrived' as a blessed and favored Christian.

But does it match the NT description of tongues? No. Even Gordon Fee, Pentecostalism's foremost theologian, has to admit that modern glossolalia is only something analogous to NT tongues; that tongues is nothing to do with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit; and speaking the language of angels was only something the Corinthians thought they were doing.

1stcenturylady · Feb 22, 2017

swordsman1 said:
Acts 2:6

NIV When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken.

NASB 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.

ESV And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language.

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

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

ISV When that sound came, a crowd quickly gathered, startled because each one heard the disciples speaking in his own language.

NKJV And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language.

NET When this sound occurred, a crowd gathered and was in confusion, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.

CEB When they heard this sound, a crowd gathered. They were mystified because everyone heard them speaking in their native languages.

NABRE At this sound, they gathered in a large crowd, but they were confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language.

NRSV And at this sound the crowd gathered and was bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in the native language of each.

etc

Acts 2:4

NIV All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

NASB And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.

ESV And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

KJV And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

RSV And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

ISV All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in foreign languages as the Spirit gave them that ability.

NKJV And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

NET All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them.

CEB They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them to speak.

NABRE And they were all filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim.

NRSV All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability.

etc

Thank you for the scripture references. By your boldings, you are only focusing on the speaking. But right before it, it was the hearing. Be open to the whole of those scriptures. The hearing was supernatural. Read them carefully and you will see that each man heard THEM (all of them) speaking their own language. Do you see it now? Go look. Both the speakers and the hearers were experiencing supernatural gifts.

swordsman1 · Feb 22, 2017

1stcenturylady said:
Thank you for the scripture references. By your boldings, you are only focusing on the speaking. But right before it, it was the hearing. Be open to the whole of those scriptures. The hearing was supernatural. Read them carefully and you will see that each man heard THEM (all of them) speaking their own language. Do you see it now? Go look. Both the speakers and the hearers were experiencing supernatural gifts.

There is no mention of hearing in v4. It says plainly - "they began to speak in other tongues". The disciples spoke in other languages.

In verse 6 is says that "each one heard their own language being spoken". That too means what is says. Someone heard their native Persian being spoken. If I said "I heard a Frenchman speaking in English" it means I heard him speaking in English, not that he was speaking some other language but I miraculously heard him in English.

No bible version says "all of them". The "them" are the disciples who were speaking that particular language. There were 120 disciples and 15 languages. That's about 8 disciples per language.

There is no mention in Acts 2 of any interpretation. If this was the miracle that occurred at Pentecost then Luke would have told us, not kept silent. It would have been a far greater miracle than the disciples speaking gibberish. Instead it tells us the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the disciples giving them the gift of tongues, not upon the unregenerate crowd giving them the gift of interpretation. The Holy Spirit is poured out on believers, not unbelievers. Spiritual gifts are given to believers, not unbelievers.

1stcenturylady · Feb 22, 2017

swordsman1 said:
There is no mention of hearing in v4. It says plainly - "they began to speak in other tongues". The disciples spoke in other languages.

In verse 6 is says that "each one heard their own language being spoken". That too means what is says. Someone heard their native Persian being spoken. If I said "I heard a Frenchman speaking in English" it means I heard him speaking in English, not that he was speaking some other language but I miraculously heard him in English.

No bible version says "all of them". The "them" are the disciples who were speaking that particular language. There were 120 disciples and 15 languages. That's about 8 disciples per language.

There is no mention in Acts 2 of any interpretation. If this was the miracle that occurred at Pentecost then Luke would have told us, not kept silent. It would have been a far greater miracle than the disciples speaking gibberish. Instead it tells us the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the disciples giving them the gift of tongues, not upon the unregenerate crowd giving them the gift of interpretation. The Holy Spirit is poured out on believers, not unbelievers. Spiritual gifts are given to believers, not unbelievers.

I never said the disciples weren't speaking in other tongues, just not necessarily of those present. But they were real languages. I said that not only was the speaking supernatural, but the hearing as well - the gift of interpretation of tongues. I know you don't think 1 Cor. 14:2 is speaking to this event too, but it is. All scripture is given for all of our instruction, and vs. two is the rule whereby we have to interpret an event. Remember this letter from Paul went to all the other churches. It wasn't private.

There is a reason why getting this right is so important. It is because of the misrepresentation of what actually was happening on the Day of Pentecost, that there is false teaching based on this mistake, willful or ignorant, that tongues is ONLY for preaching. Therefore, what is happening today in Pentecostal churches is false tongues, because no one understands them. Some false teachers go so far as to say the interpretation of tongues was given to Paul to understand the foreigners he was converting. And the most heinous of the false teachings today of these gifts of the first century is to say they can't still happen today because we now have the Bible, so any manifestations today are of the DEVIL!

My friend, you have been robbed of great blessings.

swordsman1 · Feb 22, 2017

1stcenturylady said:
I never said the disciples weren't speaking in other tongues, just not necessarily of those present. But they were real languages. I said that not only was the speaking supernatural, but the hearing as well - the gift of interpretation of tongues.

There is no mention of miraculous interpretation in Acts 2. Not only is it contrary to the plain reading of the text, but it presents awkward theological difficulties such as the Holy Spirit falling on unbelievers and giving them spiritual gifts.

When looking at scripture we must always be on our guard against the fallacy of eisegesis - reading our own ideas and preconceptions into a passage. The correct method of bible interpretation is exegesis, bringing out the meaning of the text. We must rightly divide the Word of Truth and apply the correct methods of Bible interpretation (hermeneutics) in our studies. A good summary of the principle of hermeneutics can be found here.

1stcenturylady said:
I know you don't think 1 Cor. 14:2 is speaking to this event too, but it is. All scripture is given for all of our instruction, and vs. two is the rule whereby we have to interpret an event. Remember this letter from Paul went to all the other churches. It wasn't private.

Although the same phenomenon, the setting of 1 Cor 14 tongues is completely different from that at Pentecost. At Pentecost the tongues were spoken in front of an audience of thousands of foreigners, and the purpose was as a confirming sign. In Corinth they were spoken in small house groups of Greek believers, and the proper purpose was for the edification of the church.

faroukfarouk · Feb 22, 2017

PollyJetix said:
Very interesting.
I am also divorced, although it was against my will, and happened about 15 years ago.
The Pentecostal church I am in is rather old-fashioned in many respects, which suits me fine. However, they have no problem with me being divorced, as several in the church are divorced and remarried.

My background is very Conservative Mennonite... which was hard for me to let go of. I was trained thoroughly as a child, in viewing the Scriptures through Mennonite lenses.
But it is my very large family who has the problem with divorce... and even worse, remarriage.

I have never remarried. I did not find freedom to do so until just a year ago... when God suddenly opened my eyes to the fact that the moral code of the Law still stands. God does not change. The definition of sin in the NT is "sin is the transgression of the law." Paul says that even in this day of grace, he could not knwo sin, except by the Law. And Paul says also that even in the NT, "the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just and good."
And Paul also said that now the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in those who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

At the intro to the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said he did not come to destroy the law, but that as long as heaven and earth endured, not one jot or one tittle would pass.
Upon further study, I found that everything Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount was found also in the OT!

This means Deuteronomy 24:1-4 still stands as God's moral code on the matter of divorce and remarriage. Even the abomination of verse 4... which is what my old Mennonite church requires!

Jesus never turned an abomination of the OT into a commandment of the NT.

Best wishes to you! It sounds like you landed on your feet.

Hi there; good to see you on the forums. Just out of interest, how would you understand 1 Corinthians 7.11?

"But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."

1stcenturylady · Feb 22, 2017

swordsman1 said:
There is no mention of miraculous interpretation in Acts 2. Not only is it contrary to the plain reading of the text, but it presents awkward theological difficulties such as the Holy Spirit falling on unbelievers and giving them spiritual gifts.

When looking at scripture we must always be on our guard against the fallacy of eisegesis - reading our own ideas and preconceptions into a passage. The correct method of bible interpretation is exegesis, bringing out the meaning of the text. We must rightly divide the Word of Truth and apply the correct methods of Bible interpretation (hermeneutics) in our studies. A good summary of the principle of hermeneutics can be found here.

Although the same phenomenon, the setting of 1 Cor 14 tongues is completely different from that at Pentecost. At Pentecost the tongues were spoken in front of an audience of thousands of foreigners, and the purpose was as a confirming sign. In Corinth they were spoken in small house groups of Greek believers, and the proper purpose was for the edification of the church.

Those reading Luke already knew about interpretation of tongues; it didn't need to be spelled out to them in Luke, as the understanding of the tongues could only be through interpretation of tongues. 1 Corinthians had been read in all the churches already for 20 years. Besides, they knew the rules and knew that each man heard his own language being spoken by THEM. You can stay in unbelief, but rightly dividing the word of truth is reading it in context. And part of context is 1 Corinthians 14:2.

It is true that only a believer can SPEAK in tongues, but on more than one occasion in the Bible, God has used one of the HEARING gifts to someone he is calling to Himself. Remember the only ones who were able to interpret (a hearing gift) were DEVOUT Jews, they already belonged to God in heart, unlike the Pharisees whose hearts were darkened. The darkened hearts of the mockers only heard gibberish. A word I've taken from cessationists today.

1stcenturylady · Feb 22, 2017

faroukfarouk said:
Hi there; good to see you on the forums. Just out of interest, how would you understand 1 Corinthians 7.11?

"But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."

Your discussion is off topic, but would be a good one for you to start - the subject of remarriage after divorce. I would if I knew how, so why don't one of you two.

PollyJetix · Feb 22, 2017

PollyJetix · Feb 22, 2017

faroukfarouk said:
Hi there; good to see you on the forums. Just out of interest, how would you understand 1 Corinthians 7.11?

"But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."

I'm glad you asked.
I've started a new thread with my answer.
you can read it here: Divorce and Remarriage

Presbyterian Continuist · Feb 22, 2017

faroukfarouk said:
Hi there; good to see you on the forums. Just out of interest, how would you understand 1 Corinthians 7.11?

"But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."

Paul wrote those verses to counter a problem in the Corinthian church where people were being deceived into thinking that being single brought a person closer to God, and so husbands were divorcing their wives so they could be more spiritual. Paul did say that if a man was not able to control his sexual desires he should marry and that the marriage bed was not defiled. When I went through my divorce, and it was because my wife deserted me, God told me that the Bible was not a rule book for lawmakers, and that He dealt with such matters on a case by case basis. Seven years later, He allowed me to meet my second wife and we have been happily married since 1990, and God has not stopped using me effectively for His kingdom.

PollyJetix · Feb 22, 2017

Oscarr said:
Paul wrote those verses to counter a problem in the Corinthian church...

Oscarr, you may enjoy the new thread on that subject.

Presbyterian Continuist · Feb 22, 2017

1stcenturylady said:
Those reading Luke already knew about interpretation of tongues; it didn't need to be spelled out to them in Luke, as the understanding of the tongues could only be through interpretation of tongues. 1 Corinthians had been read in all the churches already for 20 years. Besides, they knew the rules and knew that each man heard his own language being spoken by THEM. You can stay in unbelief, but rightly dividing the word of truth is reading it in context. And part of context is 1 Corinthians 14:2.

It is true that only a believer can SPEAK in tongues, but on more than one occasion in the Bible, God has used one of the HEARING gifts to someone he is calling to Himself. Remember the only ones who were able to interpret (a hearing gift) were DEVOUT Jews, they already belonged to God in heart, unlike the Pharisees whose hearts were darkened. The darkened hearts of the mockers only heard gibberish. A word I've taken from cessationists today.

Luke was not a theologian. He was a doctor and a diarist. We cannot use Acts as a foundation for doctrine. 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 is more reliable for doctrine. It is like basing the history of England during the time of the Great Fire of London on the diaries of Samuel Pepys. He wrote what he saw and heard, and Luke was the same. I think Luke would have been shocked and amazed that anyone would have treated what he wrote as unshakeable doctrine. In saying that, his accounts of believers being baptised with the Holy Spirit gives us the best indication of what happened, and what would happen to modern believers. If Luke was not in unity with Paul with his personal doctrine, I doubt whether Paul would have had him as one of his closest companions who stuck to him right to the end. I am just adding to your already excellent posts.

1stcenturylady · Feb 22, 2017

Oscarr said:
Luke was not a theologian. He was a doctor and a diarist. We cannot use Acts as a foundation for doctrine. 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 is more reliable for doctrine. It is like basing the history of England during the time of the Great Fire of London on the diaries of Samuel Pepys. He wrote what he saw and heard, and Luke was the same. I think Luke would have been shocked and amazed that anyone would have treated what he wrote as unshakeable doctrine. In saying that, his accounts of believers being baptised with the Holy Spirit gives us the best indication of what happened, and what would happen to modern believers. If Luke was not in unity with Paul with his personal doctrine, I doubt whether Paul would have had him as one of his closest companions who stuck to him right to the end. I am just adding to your already excellent posts.

Thank you, Oscar. Based on stories, the false teaching of tongues was for preaching to foreigners began in the cessationist realm, therefore no longer needed. Yikes!

swordsman1 · Feb 22, 2017

1stcenturylady said:
Those reading Luke already knew about interpretation of tongues; it didn't need to be spelled out to them in Luke, as the understanding of the tongues could only be through interpretation of tongues. 1 Corinthians had been read in all the churches already for 20 years. Besides, they knew the rules and knew that each man heard his own language being spoken by THEM. You can stay in unbelief, but rightly dividing the word of truth is reading it in context. And part of context is 1 Corinthians 14:2.

Just because the gift of interpretation is mentioned elsewhere in scripture doesn't mean that is what was occurring in Acts 2. If a miraculous gift of interpretation was taking place in the ears of the hearers Luke would have told us, not remain silent on such an important fact. Instead Luke tells us plainly that the disciples spoke in other languages, and the hearers recognized those languages without any mention of interpretation taking place. The book of Acts is a detailed and accurate narrative of what happened in the early church. Omitting such a fundamental fact, and leaving us to second guess what really happened using some form of cryptic reasoning that goes against the plain meaning of his words, would be unthinkable for Luke.

The context of a passage is what it says preceding and following the verse(s) in question. Not what it says in a different book by a different author in completely different circumstances. Can I respectfully suggest you take a look at that page on the principles of bible interpretation in my last post.

1stcenturylady said:
It is true that only a believer can SPEAK in tongues, but on more than one occasion in the Bible, God has used one of the HEARING gifts to someone he is calling to Himself.

Where?

1stcenturylady said:
Remember the only ones who were able to interpret (a hearing gift) were DEVOUT Jews, they already belonged to God in heart, unlike the Pharisees whose hearts were darkened.

The hearers had not received the Holy Spirit. Only Christians can receive the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13-14; Rom 8:9). They did not become believers until Peter gave them the gospel afterwards. Therefore they could not have been given the gift of interpretation which is a manifestation of the Spirit (1 Cor 12).

1stcenturylady said:
The darkened hearts of the mockers only heard gibberish. A word I've taken from cessationists today.

The mockers didn't recognize the foreign languages spoken because they were the local inhabitants of Jerusalem (Acts 2:14-15), not because the languages spoken were incomprehensible gibberish.

PollyJetix · Feb 22, 2017

Jerusalem was filled with people from other countries on the Day of Pentecost.
There were lots of groups talking to each other in foreign languages.

If you were in an international airport, and you heard a group of strangers talking to each other in a language you didn't understand, would you call them drunk?

Of course not. That's illogical.
You would be ridiculed for such an accusation.

People who are drunk don't stand around acting normal, talking in foreign languages.

People who are drunk have lost a bit of control of their "normal bodily functions."
They might get loud. They might stagger. They might laugh, cry, or do other emotional things.
All of which are rather disturbing to those who like things well-regulated and predictable.

But drunks do NOT stand around speaking foreign languages in a dignified manner.

Now, if you were in an international airport, and saw a group talking foreign languages while doing other behaviors, which are common actions of drunk people, then you might accuse them of being drunk.

Notice Peter's defense. He never once said they weren't acting drunk. Because they were.

1stcenturylady · Feb 22, 2017

swordsman1 said:
Just because the gift of interpretation is mentioned elsewhere in scripture doesn't mean that is what was occurring in Acts 2. If a miraculous gift of interpretation was taking place in the ears of the hearers Luke would have told us, not remain silent on such an important fact. Instead Luke tells us plainly that the disciples spoke in other languages, and the hearers recognized those languages without any mention of interpretation taking place. The book of Acts is a detailed and accurate narrative of what happened in the early church. Omitting such a fundamental fact, and leaving us to second guess what really happened using some form of cryptic reasoning that goes against the plain meaning of his words, would be unthinkable for Luke.

The context of a passage is what it says preceding and following the verse(s) in question. Not what it says in a different book by a different author in completely different circumstances. Can I respectfully suggest you take a look at that page on the principles of bible interpretation in my last post.

Where?

The hearers had not received the Holy Spirit. Only Christians can receive the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13-14; Rom 8:9). They did not become believers until Peter gave them the gospel afterwards. Therefore they could not have been given the gift of interpretation which is a manifestation of the Spirit (1 Cor 12).

The mockers didn't recognize the foreign languages spoken because they were the local inhabitants of Jerusalem (Acts 2:14-15), not because the languages spoken were incomprehensible gibberish.

You are replying as if you haven't read anything I said. The plain wording is just as I've said. SOMEHOW, if you don't like mention of a description that perfectly answers the wording of each man hearing his own language, each man understood them (plural) speaking his language (singular). Too bad Luke didn't make it even clearer so this wouldn't happen, but I believe God meant for it to be written just the way it was. Otherwise the sign of tongues couldn't have confirmed an unbeliever in their unbelief by their mocking.

swordsman1 · Feb 22, 2017

1stcenturylady said:
You are replying as if you haven't read anything I said. The plain wording is just as I've said. SOMEHOW, if you don't like mention of a description that perfectly answers the wording of each man hearing his own language, each man understood them (plural) speaking his language (singular). Too bad Luke didn't make it even clearer so this wouldn't happen, but I believe God meant for it to be written just the way it was. Otherwise the sign of tongues couldn't have confirmed an unbeliever in their unbelief by their mocking.

I read everything you said. It doesn't make exegetical sense. Luke's description is clear. "All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues"..."each one heard their own language being spoken". No mention of interpretation. Nor something that is theologically impossible.

1stcenturylady · Feb 22, 2017

swordsman1 said:
I read everything you said. It doesn't make exegetical sense. Luke's description is clear. "All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues"..."each one heard their own language being spoken". No mention of interpretation. Nor something that is theologically impossible.

Let me ask you a personal question about your beliefs on tongues. You said on this thread that Pentecostal tongues today is not the same as in the first century. So, to you, what was the purpose of tongues back then, and is that purpose still necessary today?

Presbyterian Continuist · Feb 22, 2017

swordsman1 said:
Just because the gift of interpretation is mentioned elsewhere in scripture doesn't mean that is what was occurring in Acts 2. If a miraculous gift of interpretation was taking place in the ears of the hearers Luke would have told us, not remain silent on such an important fact. Instead Luke tells us plainly that the disciples spoke in other languages, and the hearers recognized those languages without any mention of interpretation taking place. The book of Acts is a detailed and accurate narrative of what happened in the early church. Omitting such a fundamental fact, and leaving us to second guess what really happened using some form of cryptic reasoning that goes against the plain meaning of his words, would be unthinkable for Luke.

Luke's narrative is the account of one person's view of what happened in the Early Church. He related events that he personally witnessed and what was told to him by Peter and Paul. Later on he recounted his journey's with Paul and what happened on those journeys as Paul's companion. Therefore his account is just a slice of everything that happened in the Early Church. Therefore we have no knowledge of events that took place in the areas where Peter and Paul never went. For example, there were 11 other Apostles. We only have early Christian history to have any clue to how they ministered and spread the gospel. We have an idea of how the Early Church functioned through Luke's account, just enough to give some idea of it, but not a hard and fast doctrine which we must adhere to or else.

Speaking in tongues

Well-Known Member

Spirit-filled follower of Christ

Well-Known Member

Spirit-filled follower of Christ

Well-Known Member

Fading curmudgeon

Spirit-filled follower of Christ

Spirit-filled follower of Christ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Spirit-filled follower of Christ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Spirit-filled follower of Christ

Well-Known Member

Spirit-filled follower of Christ

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency