I don't see a separate type of prayer language tongue in the chapter. The way I see it, I Corinthians 14:27-28 prove that the type of tongue we use in prayer is the same type of tongue that is interpreted... minus the interpretation. 'Speak with tongues' refers to interpreted or uninterpreted tongues. Wouldn't it have been reckless for Paul to ask 'do all speak with tongues?' if all were supposed to?
What I see is that there are a lot of people who go to Pentecostal churches who have beat themselves up or consider themselves to be second class Christians because they've never spoken in tongues. I've also seen people straining to get other people to speak in tongues. I saw one woman wobble another woman's jaw with her hand. I've seen someone just try to get a girl to utter a bunch of syllables, as if someone else has to pull tongues out of you.
I was in a meeting in Indonesia where the whole room was told to pray in tongues at the same time. I abstained because I considered that to be disorderly according to scripture. That gave me the chance to hear and realize that the whole room sounded like it was saying 'ba ba ba ba ba' or 'bada bada bada bada'. The guest preacher, a reasonably well-known WOFer from the US had everyone blank their mind, say whatever 'bubbled up out of your spirit' while other people surrounded them and spoke in tongues. If you blank your mind and say whatever comes to you what a group of people are saying 'ba ba ba ba', you might just say 'ba ba ba', too, without anything supernatural going on.
The teaching that everyone is supposed to speak in tongues leads to some immense pressure to make it happen. But is this what the Bible teaches? Doesn't the idea run contrary to I Corinthians 12, where Paul teaches that the gifts are distributed as the Spirit wills to each member, who plays a different function in the body. The passage that asks 'Not all speak in tongues, do they?' is arguing that we have different gifts.
Acts doesn't teach that every believer will speak in tongues. 'They all' spoke with tongues in Acts 2. But in Acts 10, 'they' spoke with tongues and magnified God, and in Acts 10, the men there spoke in tongues and prophesied. The passage would be just as much true if half spoke in tongues and half prophesied or some other combination that did not involve all speaking in tongues. These are the verses the doctrine is supposed to be derived from, so it isn't reasonable to assume that all spoke in tongues in Acts 10 or Acts 19. It's circular reasoning to do so.
And we could use the same type of reasoning to' prove' that anyone who goes to Mt. Sinai/Horeb hears the audible voice of God. Moses did. The whole nation of Israel did. Elijah heard the still small voice. Does that guarantee that anyone who goes there hears the audible voice of God? That's the same reasoning that says in Acts 2, 10, and 19, they all spoke in tongues, so everyone else will. But then in Acts 10 and 19 it is not clear that all did.
So, Biblically, the foundation for it is lacking. Historically, the teaching has caused division. I believe God has used Pentecostals in spite of the divisiveness over this and other issues.
I used to believe strongly in initial evidence. Something that caused me to reconsider my view was meditating on my own beliefs as I considered Oneness soteriology in a conversation with someone who was Oneness. Tongues as initial evidence was actually one of the weaker links in their argument.
I'd been taught that tongues was something you did before you got other gifts of the Spirit. I met someone who'd had a vision who did not speak in tongues. He's since prophesied, interpreted tongues, and has been used in healing, but hasn't spoken in tongues. Sometimes, someone else in the A/G he went to got the same prophecy or interpretation and gave it first-- the same sort of thing that happens to people who speak in tongues and interpret. Historically, there were people who healed who did not speak in tongues, some of whom did so before joining the Pentecostal movement when it started. The Holy Spirit does not seem to have been bound to the idea that tongues has to come first before gifts can operate in history.
As far as tongues for intercession goes, that may be what's going on. I can't be sure because I have never interpreted tongues when I pray. Romans 8 is about groanings that cannot be uttered, which I believe is something that is a bit hard to explain that can be experienced internally in the believer, as the Holy Spirit does this. Tongues can be uttered. They are spoken as the Spirit gives utterance. The groanings that cannot be uttered cannot be uttered. So I don't think that is talking about tongues. So I don't see any scripture that speaks of tongues for intercession, though I am not opposed to the idea.
If I want God to do something for someone, I believe I should ask, like Jesus told the disciples to do if they wanted something. So I ask in a way that I know I asked. Hopefully, I can remember when the prayer is answered so that I can give thanks. I can't do that in tongues. I know some people pray almost all in tongues, which makes it hard to know what was prayed so they can give thanks later, unless they interpret their prayers, which I've also seen.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
