I don't agree with Caleb on everything, but I agree with a lot of his views. This video is one of the most well-thought-out I've ever seen on this subject. It's concise and to the point. The truth doesn't need a lot of embellishment; it speaks for itself.
There is a pretty lousy argument here. Basically, he assumes what speaking in tongues is and keeps repeating his assumption.
No evidence of evangelistic speaking in tongues in scripture
Actually read Acts 2. Those who heard speaking in tongues said it was 'the wonderous works of God.' They didn't say anything about preaching the cross or the resurrection. If the disciples had 'preached the Gospel' and explained salvation, why didn't they just dunk all the people right after speaking in tongues. But, no, Peter stood up and preached.
So there is no evidence in the Bible of preaching the Gospel in tongues in the Bible, but our video commentator hear makes a whole argument based on that assumption, repeating the idea over and over again. He even interprets I Corinthians 14:18 to be about Paul saying he preached the Gospel in tongues, when Paul says no such thing. Paul had just spoken about praying in tongues.
Tongues as Prayers of Thanksgiving
I Corinthians 14:16-17 shows us that the content of speaking in tongues can be saying a prayer of thanksgiving. The Spirit can say whatever the Spirit wants to, but the only two examples we have of specifically what was or might be spoken in tongues in scripture are 'wonderous works of God' and giving thanks in tongues.
While I would not say that speaking in tongues cannot be other utterances, there is no example or teaching the speaking in tongues is evangelistic proclamation of the Gospel. To make a doctrine out of such an assumption is ridiculous.
Why Romans 11?
I agree with him that there is no reason to associate the groaning of Romans 11 with speaking in tongues, but he doesn't explain the leap to that line of reasoning, that there are some who teach this. Without that context, bringing this up makes little sense These groanings cannot be uttered. But tongues are spoken as the Spirit gives them utterance.
Tongues of Angels and the Dichotomy
He presents a silly false dichotomy, the idea that tongues are either a human language or a heavenly language. The Pentecostal movement allows for both, but has emphasized human languages more historically. One reason is because of the numerous experiences in the early Pentecostal movement and since of people hearing languages they knew 'in tongues.' Seymour collected testimonies of it in 'The Apostolic Faith' newsletter. There were other people who wrote accounts of it during the Azusa Street Revival. I think I have encountered a few Charismatics who thinks tongues are an angelic or heavenly language. I'd imagine that's a minority that some WOFers or other Charismatics might hold to, but probably not a majority view, or at least not a historical view. In the 1960's, there is evidence that Charismatics believed in speaking in tongues as 'real languages.' You can look at the Book 'The New Charismatics II' for support for this.
Now, Biblically, Pentecostals will allow for the idea that tongues may be tongues of angels based on I Corinthians 13. I notice he doesn't go on to show that some of the things Paul suggests he might do are give all to the poor and give his body to be poor. These are possible to do. Moving mountains is possible also according to Jesus. Even knowing all mysteries and all knowledge should probably be viewed as the _maximum_ possible. So arguing that tongues of angels is impossible isn't a compelling argument. And also the idea of people speaking in tongues of angels shows up in the Testament of Job, so the idea was floating around back then.
As far as application goes, it doesn't matter if tongues are angelic or not. The speaker in tongues does not or may not understand his own tongue. We see this in I Corinthians 14:19, where Paul would rather pray with his mind than in tongues in church. The implication is that if he speaks in tongues, he is not speaking with his mind, but rather with his spirit. If you speak a language you know, you speak with your mind. In this passage, Paul describes speaking in tongues as something. One can understand speaking in tongues with a spiritual gift, the interpretation of tongues.
1
1
