TONGUES false teaching.
- Thread starter Major
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Book for those who wish to learn another tongue - Fluent Forever
though reading and writing is far more important than speaking IMHO. The problem with tongues if you have learnt it from someone else is getting the pronounciation right.
If you have been given tongues as a gift, you dont need to think about how you say it. He just gives you the words to say. Perfect pronounciation every time.
though reading and writing is far more important than speaking IMHO. The problem with tongues if you have learnt it from someone else is getting the pronounciation right.
If you have been given tongues as a gift, you dont need to think about how you say it. He just gives you the words to say. Perfect pronounciation every time.
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
When the Spirit gives utterance, who am I to say "no one benefits"?
am I supposed to say "no thanks, not for me"?
Just because we don't see benefit does not mean there is no benefit ... just sayin'
When the Spirit gives utterance, who am I to say "no one benefits"?
am I supposed to say "no thanks, not for me"?
Just because we don't see benefit does not mean there is no benefit ... just sayin'
-
1
-
1
- Show all
If you have been given the gift of tongues you will be German, or Spanish, or Hindi perfectly without every having studied them. Had the King James translators consistently used the word ""language" instead of using "tongues" this would not even be an issue. At that time those words were used interchangeably. Today not so.
Part 1 -
There is absolutely nothing mysterious about Biblical "tongues" – when referring to something spoken, they are nothing more than real, rational language(s); usually unknown to those listening to them, but always known by the speaker(s) – it’s their native language.
In contrast, the “tongues” Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are producing today is an entirely self-created phenomenon. It is non-cognitive non-language utterance; random free vocalization based upon a subset of the existing underlying sounds (called phonemes) of the speaker’s native language, and any other language(s) the speaker may be familiar with or have had contact with.
It is, in part, typically characterized by repetitive syllables, plays on sound patterns, assonance, alliteration, and over-simplification of syllable structure. It is also interesting to note that any disallowed sound combinations, i.e. consonant clusters, in the speaker’s native language are also disallowed in his/her tongues-speech. Further, this subset of phonemes typically contains only those sounds which are easiest to produce physiologically.
Tongues-speech is occasionally sprinkled with recognizable praise words/phrases (things like ‘hallelujah’, ‘praise Jesus’, ‘Meshiach’, ‘Adonai’, etc.). Sometimes, part of the utterance is rendered in the speaker’s native language, and part in tongues-speech. One of the most immediately recognizable results of all these processes is that no two ‘speakers’ will ever have the same “tongue”…ever. There are as many ‘tongues’ as there are speakers of tongues.
Occasionally some speakers will use two or more subsets of phonemes to generate glossolalia, producing what, to them, sounds like two (or more) distinct “tongues languages”, thus claiming to be able to speak in “divers tongues”.
Here’s the thing, if a person or being produces a stream of speech, in order for it to be ‘language’, regardless of whether spoken in front of you, in some remote corner of the word, on some alien planet, or on some heavenly/spiritual plain of existence, for it to be 'language', it must contain, at a minimal, two specific features – I can’t stress enough that these two features are universal, regardless of where or, more to our point, by whom the speech is being produced; 'tongues-speech’ contains neither one of these two features. It is simply a facade of language. Neither, by the way, is modern tongues/glossolalia gibberish. Gibberish by its nature does not seek to mimic language. Glossolalia does.
People tend to believe something to be supernatural because they can't explain it otherwise. There are, of course, many things in religion which must be taken on faith; they can neither be proved nor disproved. "Tongues" however, is not one of these things. It is something very concrete and tangible; it is a phenomenon which can be (and has been) studied and analyzed. As one writer rather bluntly put it: “tongues speakers need to understand they are making a very testable claim, and the test has failed, every single time.”
Indeed, there is absolutely nothing that “tongues-speakers” are producing that cannot easily be explained in linguistic terms.
Conversely, when it comes to something spoken, there are absolutely no Biblical references to “tongues” that do not refer to, and cannot be explained in light of, real rational language(s), though it may not be the explanation you want to hear, and it may be one which is radically different from what you believe, or were taught.
If the history of the Pentecost movement is examined, one fact is very clear: at some point, between 1906 and 1907, the Pentecostal church was compelled to re-examine the narrative of Scripture with respect to “tongues”. The reason for this re-examination was that it quickly became embarrassingly obvious that their original supposition, and fervent belief in tongues as xenoglossy, certainly wasn’t what they were producing.
As a result of things like Azusa Street, early Pentecostal missions were sent all over the world. The issue was that no one bothered to learn the language of the country they were going to, as they firmly believed their “tongues” were these languages. In not one instance was anyone able to even carry on the most basics of simple everyday conversation, let alone preach the gospels.
Not much has been recorded about the failure of these missions – you kind of have to hunt it down.
This forced a serious theological dilemma — As a whole, either the Pentecostal movement would have to admit it was wrong about “tongues”, or the modern experience needed to be completely redefined.
It seems the latter option was chosen.
There is absolutely nothing mysterious about Biblical "tongues" – when referring to something spoken, they are nothing more than real, rational language(s); usually unknown to those listening to them, but always known by the speaker(s) – it’s their native language.
In contrast, the “tongues” Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are producing today is an entirely self-created phenomenon. It is non-cognitive non-language utterance; random free vocalization based upon a subset of the existing underlying sounds (called phonemes) of the speaker’s native language, and any other language(s) the speaker may be familiar with or have had contact with.
It is, in part, typically characterized by repetitive syllables, plays on sound patterns, assonance, alliteration, and over-simplification of syllable structure. It is also interesting to note that any disallowed sound combinations, i.e. consonant clusters, in the speaker’s native language are also disallowed in his/her tongues-speech. Further, this subset of phonemes typically contains only those sounds which are easiest to produce physiologically.
Tongues-speech is occasionally sprinkled with recognizable praise words/phrases (things like ‘hallelujah’, ‘praise Jesus’, ‘Meshiach’, ‘Adonai’, etc.). Sometimes, part of the utterance is rendered in the speaker’s native language, and part in tongues-speech. One of the most immediately recognizable results of all these processes is that no two ‘speakers’ will ever have the same “tongue”…ever. There are as many ‘tongues’ as there are speakers of tongues.
Occasionally some speakers will use two or more subsets of phonemes to generate glossolalia, producing what, to them, sounds like two (or more) distinct “tongues languages”, thus claiming to be able to speak in “divers tongues”.
Here’s the thing, if a person or being produces a stream of speech, in order for it to be ‘language’, regardless of whether spoken in front of you, in some remote corner of the word, on some alien planet, or on some heavenly/spiritual plain of existence, for it to be 'language', it must contain, at a minimal, two specific features – I can’t stress enough that these two features are universal, regardless of where or, more to our point, by whom the speech is being produced; 'tongues-speech’ contains neither one of these two features. It is simply a facade of language. Neither, by the way, is modern tongues/glossolalia gibberish. Gibberish by its nature does not seek to mimic language. Glossolalia does.
People tend to believe something to be supernatural because they can't explain it otherwise. There are, of course, many things in religion which must be taken on faith; they can neither be proved nor disproved. "Tongues" however, is not one of these things. It is something very concrete and tangible; it is a phenomenon which can be (and has been) studied and analyzed. As one writer rather bluntly put it: “tongues speakers need to understand they are making a very testable claim, and the test has failed, every single time.”
Indeed, there is absolutely nothing that “tongues-speakers” are producing that cannot easily be explained in linguistic terms.
Conversely, when it comes to something spoken, there are absolutely no Biblical references to “tongues” that do not refer to, and cannot be explained in light of, real rational language(s), though it may not be the explanation you want to hear, and it may be one which is radically different from what you believe, or were taught.
If the history of the Pentecost movement is examined, one fact is very clear: at some point, between 1906 and 1907, the Pentecostal church was compelled to re-examine the narrative of Scripture with respect to “tongues”. The reason for this re-examination was that it quickly became embarrassingly obvious that their original supposition, and fervent belief in tongues as xenoglossy, certainly wasn’t what they were producing.
As a result of things like Azusa Street, early Pentecostal missions were sent all over the world. The issue was that no one bothered to learn the language of the country they were going to, as they firmly believed their “tongues” were these languages. In not one instance was anyone able to even carry on the most basics of simple everyday conversation, let alone preach the gospels.
Not much has been recorded about the failure of these missions – you kind of have to hunt it down.
This forced a serious theological dilemma — As a whole, either the Pentecostal movement would have to admit it was wrong about “tongues”, or the modern experience needed to be completely redefined.
It seems the latter option was chosen.
-
2
-
2
-
1
- Show all
Part 2 -
One would think it impossible to study the history of Pentecostalism without, at the very least, a cursory look at this ‘tongues issue’. Because the Pentecostal doctrine and understanding on tongues was completely redefined, this would seem to present a problem – how can something like this be taught by Pentecostals to Pentecostals, or other denominations that adhere to ‘tongues’? The answer is not overly surprising. The entire issue seems to have been conveniently ‘forgotten about’, and for all intents and purposes, swept under the rug. Very few, indeed if any, Pentecostals are taught about this issue, and in my experience, most aren’t even aware that it ever existed in the first place. One is left to deduce that it represents a chapter in the history of the early Pentecostal church they many would like to just forget.
In redefining “tongues”, Pentecostals looked to primary and secondary source works for an alternative explanation. It is during this time that, that (mainly) five German scholars promoted a fresh new approach to Biblical interpretation that purposely tried to avoid the trappings of traditional and enforced interpretations of Biblical texts, collectively known as “Higher Criticism”. Part of this tradition was examining “tongues” as ecstatic utterance, rather than the supposed xenoglossy as understood by mainstream Christianity for centuries.
As a quick aside, an important thing to note is that, prior to 1879, the term ‘glossolalia’ did not exist – it is a word coined by English theologian, Frederick Farrar (Dean of Canterbury) in 1879 in one of his publications.
The Pentecostal solution to the issue was an adaptation from the works of Farrar, Schaff and a few others. These ideas were further ‘tweaked’ to more adequately fit their new notion of tongues. From this, the concept of “prayer language” as an explanation for the modern phenomenon of tongues-speech was formed.
Over a short period of time, a Pentecostal apologetic was built. The emergence of the term “utterance” was strongly emphasized - it kept the definition ambiguous as it allowed for a variety of definitions beyond real, rational language, it was something sort of related to language, and could be defended more easily. “Utterance” fit much better in the Pentecostal paradigm and did not require empirical evidence. ‘Natural Praise’ and ‘adoration’ became a feature of ‘tongues’, and then ‘heavenly’ or ‘prayer language’ further broadened the definition. The term ‘glossolalia’ was transferred in from academia and was given a Pentecostal definition. In short, the tongues doctrine simply shifted into new semantics without any explanation. Xenoglossy one day, “prayer language” the next.
The resulting implicit theology however was not a synthesis of revelation and philosophy, but rather a synthesis of trying to make sense of the modern “tongues experience” in light of the narrative of Scripture. A way to legitimize and justify the modern phenomenon by ‘proofing’ it in the Bible. The problem with this however, was an obvious overwhelming absence therein of anything resembling modern tongues. Call it what you will, but for this group of Christians, the result was a virtual re-definition of scripture with respect to the understanding and justification of modern “tongues”; a re-interpretation of select Biblical texts to fit the modern practice/connotation of what ”tongues” was/is perceived to be.
What is amazing to me is how absolutely none of this is taught. It’s a topic that today is completely glossed over and conveniently forgotten about in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles.
Whether one is interested in this part of Pentecostal history or not, this redefinition has heavily influenced many other Christian denominations that adhere to the modern tongues phenomenon; specifically, it is from this historical doctrinal change that various modern Christian denominations’ belief in tongues, ultimately originated.
With respect to the concept of scriptural re-definition I mentioned earlier, the best two examples of this are the phrase “praying in the Spirit”, and the word “tongue(s)” itself.
“Praying in the Spirit” does not refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. In Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the phase has come to be equated with modern “tongues”, i.e. when one “prays in the Spirit”, one is typically engaged in some form of tongues-speech.
The word “tongue(s)” itself is simply a more archaic word for (real) “language(s)”, nothing more. Replace “tongue(s)” with “language(s)” in these various passages and the whole modern Pentecostal/Charismatic concept of “tongues” begins to become difficult to posit – “language(s)” sounds a lot less mysterious, and in many cases, adds more clarity to the text. Again, in Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the word has come to be equated with the modern concept of “tongues-speech”.
The popular modern typical, almost ‘standard’ distinction/classification of ‘four types of tongues’, two public and two private, is also the direct result of the Pentecostal redefinition of ‘tongues’ in order to fit the modern phenomenon/understanding.
The most damning result of this re-definition is the reading into scriptural texts of things that are simply just not there.
So, what are modern tongues, then? Modern tongues is a tool , remotely akin to chanting, deep prayer, or meditation, etc.; a way by which one may establish a closer relationship with the divine and strengthen one’s spiritual path. In this respect (i.e. as the tool it is), it can be quite powerful one to accomplish these goals, as attested by many of those who use it. Most other cultures that practice glossolalia realize it as a 'spiritual tool'. It is only in certain Christian denominations where is it construed as something it never was.
Most people who use ‘tongues’ are very keen on describing the ‘experience’. Indeed, for those that use it, it is very psychologically, physically, and spiritually fulfilling. It’s almost like primal screaming. When people practice ‘tongues’, they feel a sense of sweet release and inner peace, in that virtually all stress can be gone after the experience.
People describe the experience, but in examining the “mechanics” behind it…well, not so much. When a person has experienced tongues, s/he is absolutely convinced as to the ‘scripturalness’ of his/her experience, and the correctness of his/her doctrinal beliefs – this, despite the overwhelming scriptural absence of anything remotely akin to what they’re doing.
I'm not doubting or questioning the 'experience'; as mentioned, glossolalia as the tool that it is, can be very powerful, and for many people, the experience is profound. Again though, it is important to note that this same statement can be made for virtually any other culture that practices glossolalia. Religious and cultural differences aside, the glossolalia an Evenki Shaman in Siberia, a vodoun priestess in Togo and a Christian tongues-speaker in Alabama are producing are in no way different from each other. They’re all producing their glossolalia in the exact same way.
“Tongues” is to some Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful experience but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best; non-cognitive non language utterance – the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is perceived and interpreted as actual, meaningful speech. In _some_ cases, I would argue that it is clearly a self/mass delusion prompted by such a strong desire to “experience God” that one creates that experience via “tongues”.
Known by many different names, “tongues”, “glossolalia”, or more accurately non-cognitive non-language utterance (NC-NLU), is practiced by many cultures and religious beliefs from literally all over the world; it is relatively new to Christianity and certainly not unique to it.
As a point of note, I’m a Linguist, and let me also add here that I am neither a so-called ‘cessationist’ nor a ‘continuationist’ – I do not identify with either term; in fact, I had never heard the two terms until just late in 2016. As far as I’m concerned, quite frankly, since the Biblical reference of “tongues” is to real, rational languages, obviously “tongues” haven’t “ceased”; people still speak.
For a discussion on the "Gift of Tongues", see:
One would think it impossible to study the history of Pentecostalism without, at the very least, a cursory look at this ‘tongues issue’. Because the Pentecostal doctrine and understanding on tongues was completely redefined, this would seem to present a problem – how can something like this be taught by Pentecostals to Pentecostals, or other denominations that adhere to ‘tongues’? The answer is not overly surprising. The entire issue seems to have been conveniently ‘forgotten about’, and for all intents and purposes, swept under the rug. Very few, indeed if any, Pentecostals are taught about this issue, and in my experience, most aren’t even aware that it ever existed in the first place. One is left to deduce that it represents a chapter in the history of the early Pentecostal church they many would like to just forget.
In redefining “tongues”, Pentecostals looked to primary and secondary source works for an alternative explanation. It is during this time that, that (mainly) five German scholars promoted a fresh new approach to Biblical interpretation that purposely tried to avoid the trappings of traditional and enforced interpretations of Biblical texts, collectively known as “Higher Criticism”. Part of this tradition was examining “tongues” as ecstatic utterance, rather than the supposed xenoglossy as understood by mainstream Christianity for centuries.
As a quick aside, an important thing to note is that, prior to 1879, the term ‘glossolalia’ did not exist – it is a word coined by English theologian, Frederick Farrar (Dean of Canterbury) in 1879 in one of his publications.
The Pentecostal solution to the issue was an adaptation from the works of Farrar, Schaff and a few others. These ideas were further ‘tweaked’ to more adequately fit their new notion of tongues. From this, the concept of “prayer language” as an explanation for the modern phenomenon of tongues-speech was formed.
Over a short period of time, a Pentecostal apologetic was built. The emergence of the term “utterance” was strongly emphasized - it kept the definition ambiguous as it allowed for a variety of definitions beyond real, rational language, it was something sort of related to language, and could be defended more easily. “Utterance” fit much better in the Pentecostal paradigm and did not require empirical evidence. ‘Natural Praise’ and ‘adoration’ became a feature of ‘tongues’, and then ‘heavenly’ or ‘prayer language’ further broadened the definition. The term ‘glossolalia’ was transferred in from academia and was given a Pentecostal definition. In short, the tongues doctrine simply shifted into new semantics without any explanation. Xenoglossy one day, “prayer language” the next.
The resulting implicit theology however was not a synthesis of revelation and philosophy, but rather a synthesis of trying to make sense of the modern “tongues experience” in light of the narrative of Scripture. A way to legitimize and justify the modern phenomenon by ‘proofing’ it in the Bible. The problem with this however, was an obvious overwhelming absence therein of anything resembling modern tongues. Call it what you will, but for this group of Christians, the result was a virtual re-definition of scripture with respect to the understanding and justification of modern “tongues”; a re-interpretation of select Biblical texts to fit the modern practice/connotation of what ”tongues” was/is perceived to be.
What is amazing to me is how absolutely none of this is taught. It’s a topic that today is completely glossed over and conveniently forgotten about in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles.
Whether one is interested in this part of Pentecostal history or not, this redefinition has heavily influenced many other Christian denominations that adhere to the modern tongues phenomenon; specifically, it is from this historical doctrinal change that various modern Christian denominations’ belief in tongues, ultimately originated.
With respect to the concept of scriptural re-definition I mentioned earlier, the best two examples of this are the phrase “praying in the Spirit”, and the word “tongue(s)” itself.
“Praying in the Spirit” does not refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. In Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the phase has come to be equated with modern “tongues”, i.e. when one “prays in the Spirit”, one is typically engaged in some form of tongues-speech.
The word “tongue(s)” itself is simply a more archaic word for (real) “language(s)”, nothing more. Replace “tongue(s)” with “language(s)” in these various passages and the whole modern Pentecostal/Charismatic concept of “tongues” begins to become difficult to posit – “language(s)” sounds a lot less mysterious, and in many cases, adds more clarity to the text. Again, in Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the word has come to be equated with the modern concept of “tongues-speech”.
The popular modern typical, almost ‘standard’ distinction/classification of ‘four types of tongues’, two public and two private, is also the direct result of the Pentecostal redefinition of ‘tongues’ in order to fit the modern phenomenon/understanding.
The most damning result of this re-definition is the reading into scriptural texts of things that are simply just not there.
So, what are modern tongues, then? Modern tongues is a tool , remotely akin to chanting, deep prayer, or meditation, etc.; a way by which one may establish a closer relationship with the divine and strengthen one’s spiritual path. In this respect (i.e. as the tool it is), it can be quite powerful one to accomplish these goals, as attested by many of those who use it. Most other cultures that practice glossolalia realize it as a 'spiritual tool'. It is only in certain Christian denominations where is it construed as something it never was.
Most people who use ‘tongues’ are very keen on describing the ‘experience’. Indeed, for those that use it, it is very psychologically, physically, and spiritually fulfilling. It’s almost like primal screaming. When people practice ‘tongues’, they feel a sense of sweet release and inner peace, in that virtually all stress can be gone after the experience.
People describe the experience, but in examining the “mechanics” behind it…well, not so much. When a person has experienced tongues, s/he is absolutely convinced as to the ‘scripturalness’ of his/her experience, and the correctness of his/her doctrinal beliefs – this, despite the overwhelming scriptural absence of anything remotely akin to what they’re doing.
I'm not doubting or questioning the 'experience'; as mentioned, glossolalia as the tool that it is, can be very powerful, and for many people, the experience is profound. Again though, it is important to note that this same statement can be made for virtually any other culture that practices glossolalia. Religious and cultural differences aside, the glossolalia an Evenki Shaman in Siberia, a vodoun priestess in Togo and a Christian tongues-speaker in Alabama are producing are in no way different from each other. They’re all producing their glossolalia in the exact same way.
“Tongues” is to some Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful experience but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best; non-cognitive non language utterance – the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is perceived and interpreted as actual, meaningful speech. In _some_ cases, I would argue that it is clearly a self/mass delusion prompted by such a strong desire to “experience God” that one creates that experience via “tongues”.
Known by many different names, “tongues”, “glossolalia”, or more accurately non-cognitive non-language utterance (NC-NLU), is practiced by many cultures and religious beliefs from literally all over the world; it is relatively new to Christianity and certainly not unique to it.
As a point of note, I’m a Linguist, and let me also add here that I am neither a so-called ‘cessationist’ nor a ‘continuationist’ – I do not identify with either term; in fact, I had never heard the two terms until just late in 2016. As far as I’m concerned, quite frankly, since the Biblical reference of “tongues” is to real, rational languages, obviously “tongues” haven’t “ceased”; people still speak.
For a discussion on the "Gift of Tongues", see:
-
1
-
1
- Show all
You know I like to think of tongues as not a word of faith but a word of power, when the apostles received it tongues of fire appeared over them representing the holy spirit back then it was to reach to lost as the church was still new but just my experience with it being in it's presence there was actual power in it so I wonder if not for that or reaching the lost what is it's actual purpose?
Honestly Ihink it is to empower the church mainly the apostles didn't even use tongues often but that fire that appeared is interesting fire especially when it comes to the holy spirit represents life and power and though tongues is probably the most uncommon gift I do believe it will make a huge comback including all the gifts and the movement we saw in the early church an annointing of the holy spirit not seen even with the days of pentecost is on the horizon at least this is what God has spoken to my spirit not just me either but many others as well.
The spirit confirms the spirit and it all speaks the same thing I thought I was crazy when I first believed this anointing was coming. as far as any of the gifts of the spirit I don't understand logic that waters down or dismisses any of them I mean how can say all things are possible with him and how can we boast of the power of the holy spirit if we water him down like that?
Honestly Ihink it is to empower the church mainly the apostles didn't even use tongues often but that fire that appeared is interesting fire especially when it comes to the holy spirit represents life and power and though tongues is probably the most uncommon gift I do believe it will make a huge comback including all the gifts and the movement we saw in the early church an annointing of the holy spirit not seen even with the days of pentecost is on the horizon at least this is what God has spoken to my spirit not just me either but many others as well.
The spirit confirms the spirit and it all speaks the same thing I thought I was crazy when I first believed this anointing was coming. as far as any of the gifts of the spirit I don't understand logic that waters down or dismisses any of them I mean how can say all things are possible with him and how can we boast of the power of the holy spirit if we water him down like that?
-
1
- Show all
I would encourage you to examine Acts 2, Acts 10, and 1 Corinthians 12-14 much more closely. Nothing in those texts supports your assertions. Speaking one's native language is not a particular manifestation of the Holy Spirit given to a Christian believer, but rather a skill that 99+% of humans can do. The descriptions of tongues in both Acts and 1 Corinthians are inconsistent with mere native-language speech.
While the idea of Spirit-empowered speech does not sit well with ungifted people, it is clearly the concept about which Luke and Paul wrote. If all the disciples did at Pentecost was preach in a variety of "native" languages, there is nothing to wonder about, in contrast to what the text states. It would just be cosmopolitan babble no different than what was heard in the markets of the day. Further, if the Corinthians were merely speaking learned languages, Paul would have no reason to include either "speaking in tongues" or "interpretation of tongues" as manifestations of the Spirit. "Interpretation of tongues" would be nothing other than knowing more than one language. Again, many non-Christians were and are able to do that.
Finally, if the phenomenon is merely speaking one's native language, there is no reason for Scripture to include anything about Cornelius or the believers in Acts 19 speaking in tongues, because they would have been merely doing something subsequent to salvation that they would have been perfectly able to do prior to salvation.
While the idea of Spirit-empowered speech does not sit well with ungifted people, it is clearly the concept about which Luke and Paul wrote. If all the disciples did at Pentecost was preach in a variety of "native" languages, there is nothing to wonder about, in contrast to what the text states. It would just be cosmopolitan babble no different than what was heard in the markets of the day. Further, if the Corinthians were merely speaking learned languages, Paul would have no reason to include either "speaking in tongues" or "interpretation of tongues" as manifestations of the Spirit. "Interpretation of tongues" would be nothing other than knowing more than one language. Again, many non-Christians were and are able to do that.
Finally, if the phenomenon is merely speaking one's native language, there is no reason for Scripture to include anything about Cornelius or the believers in Acts 19 speaking in tongues, because they would have been merely doing something subsequent to salvation that they would have been perfectly able to do prior to salvation.
S
I do not understand your reference to a 'word of faith' unless you are somehow connecting tongues to WOFers? Jesus told the disciples they would receive power after the Holy Spirit came upon them. They were already saved at that time. The 'power' is that of the Holy Sprit operating through believers. I would go with what Jesus said. He did not lie. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are for the benefit of believers, although certainly reaching out to the unsaved in the power of the Spirit of God is normal for those who are filled with the Holy Spirit as per the original meaning of same.
How do you possibly know how often the Apostles spoke or prayed in tongues? The initial outpouring records the Holy Spirit coming as 'tongues of fire' and resting on those in the upper room. Tongues is absolutely NOT the most uncommon gift. In fact, it is for all believers, even though Paul did say all do not speak in tongues, there are several ways this gift reveals itself. In prayer is one of the most effectual ways it can be used. What needs to 'come back' are truthful servants of God and not the sensationalist abuse of the gifts, which, are a major turnoff to anyone who actually abides by scripture.
The Holy Spirit is not a showoff and He does not cause people to show off. I'm afraid many have the wrong idea about the gifts and some of those are people who are for them.
How do you possibly know how often the Apostles spoke or prayed in tongues? The initial outpouring records the Holy Spirit coming as 'tongues of fire' and resting on those in the upper room. Tongues is absolutely NOT the most uncommon gift. In fact, it is for all believers, even though Paul did say all do not speak in tongues, there are several ways this gift reveals itself. In prayer is one of the most effectual ways it can be used. What needs to 'come back' are truthful servants of God and not the sensationalist abuse of the gifts, which, are a major turnoff to anyone who actually abides by scripture.
The Holy Spirit is not a showoff and He does not cause people to show off. I'm afraid many have the wrong idea about the gifts and some of those are people who are for them.
S
Blain:
What is uncommon? It isn't uncommon. I'm really not sure you quite understand tongues or how it works. Paul does make it pretty clear though in what he says.
That is really no proof of anything. How much experience do you have and have you been to all churches and all round the world? I will go with no, so considering our own experience as the bona fide way to prove something is not really valid, especially considering we do not judge the heart of others.
Tongues operates in more than one way. Tongues should never be considered 'credentials' to prove one is a Christian.
What is uncommon? It isn't uncommon. I'm really not sure you quite understand tongues or how it works. Paul does make it pretty clear though in what he says.
That is really no proof of anything. How much experience do you have and have you been to all churches and all round the world? I will go with no, so considering our own experience as the bona fide way to prove something is not really valid, especially considering we do not judge the heart of others.
Tongues operates in more than one way. Tongues should never be considered 'credentials' to prove one is a Christian.
S
It is not possible that it was a known language. There would be no need for the Holy Spirit gift of interpretation. You would only need a translator instead, no Holy Spirit gift required, the translator would not even need to be saved. You could take any unsaved German and have them translate.
Also Paul had been praying in tongues more than all the Corinthians for twenty years after receiving the gift and he said when he prayed in tongues his understanding was unfruitful. After twenty years you would expect someone to have identified his known language. But they did not and he did not. Therefore it was like what you see today.
Just accept the scriptures at face value and don't try to explain it away and you know that you are on solid ground.
Also there is no examples of them going to another location and preaching the gospel to them in languages that they had never learned. This is often the argument of those that think it must be a known language. They did not preach the Gospel in tongues on the day of Pentecost. Those that heard them in their own language heard them praising God about the wonderful works of God, they were focused on God not on communication with those who gathered and it was discovered that they could understand them in their own language. When Peter addressed them and preached the Gospel he addressed them most likely in Aramaic since this was a common language to all Jews even those who lived far from Jerusalem and spoke other languages of their location they still learned Aramaic in the home, as it was the "Hebrew" of that time, until Hebrew itself was restored again in the Jewish home much later. Peter was not speaking in tongues when he preached the Gospel to them.
There are no cases when tongues were manifested in Acts where it was used to preach the Gospel to people in their own language.
It is always an exuberant utterance between the person and God except there is a manifestation in the church that includes the gift of interpretation and this was addressed in 1 Cor 14 about how to do it in order. Not everyone is going to operate in this public gift in the assembly, but everyone who was baptized in the Holy Ghost did speak in tongues, at Pentecost, the Ephesian believers, the house of Cornelius, and so it was the normative experience of all early Christians.
I wonder if anyone has changed their minds about their interpretation of scriptures on tongues since CC started discussing it over the last 12 years.
Also Paul had been praying in tongues more than all the Corinthians for twenty years after receiving the gift and he said when he prayed in tongues his understanding was unfruitful. After twenty years you would expect someone to have identified his known language. But they did not and he did not. Therefore it was like what you see today.
Just accept the scriptures at face value and don't try to explain it away and you know that you are on solid ground.
Also there is no examples of them going to another location and preaching the gospel to them in languages that they had never learned. This is often the argument of those that think it must be a known language. They did not preach the Gospel in tongues on the day of Pentecost. Those that heard them in their own language heard them praising God about the wonderful works of God, they were focused on God not on communication with those who gathered and it was discovered that they could understand them in their own language. When Peter addressed them and preached the Gospel he addressed them most likely in Aramaic since this was a common language to all Jews even those who lived far from Jerusalem and spoke other languages of their location they still learned Aramaic in the home, as it was the "Hebrew" of that time, until Hebrew itself was restored again in the Jewish home much later. Peter was not speaking in tongues when he preached the Gospel to them.
There are no cases when tongues were manifested in Acts where it was used to preach the Gospel to people in their own language.
It is always an exuberant utterance between the person and God except there is a manifestation in the church that includes the gift of interpretation and this was addressed in 1 Cor 14 about how to do it in order. Not everyone is going to operate in this public gift in the assembly, but everyone who was baptized in the Holy Ghost did speak in tongues, at Pentecost, the Ephesian believers, the house of Cornelius, and so it was the normative experience of all early Christians.
I wonder if anyone has changed their minds about their interpretation of scriptures on tongues since CC started discussing it over the last 12 years.