Questioning Modern Pentecostalism

[Bismarck]

For brevity, I shall give two specific examples of people moved by the spirit in the Bible, one OT and one NT.

2 Chronicles 20
13 And all Judah stood before Jehovah, with their little ones, their wives, and their sons.

14 And upon Jahaziel the son of Zechariah, the son of Benaiah, the son of Jeiel, the son of Mattaniah, a Levite of the sons of Asaph, upon him came the Spirit of Jehovah, in the midst of the congregation;
15 and he said, Be attentive, all Judah, and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem, and thou king Jehoshaphat! Thus saith Jehovah unto you: Fear not, nor be dismayed by reason of this great multitude; for the battle is not yours, but God's.
16 To-morrow go down against them: behold, they come up by the ascent of Ziz; and ye shall find them at the end of the valley, before the wilderness of Jeruel.
17 Ye shall not have to fight on this occasion: set yourselves, stand and see the salvation of Jehovah [who is] with you! Judah and Jerusalem, fear not nor be dismayed; to-morrow go out against them, and Jehovah will be with you. 18 And Jehoshaphat bowed his head with his face to the ground; and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem fell down before Jehovah, worshipping Jehovah.

​

Here we have all Judah standing before YHWH in "church" in the Temple in Jerusalem. A Levite is "moved by the Spirit of YHWH" and speaks... intelligbly.

Acts 2
1 When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians--we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God."

​

Again, at Pentecost, much as had been the case for nearly 1,000 years since the days of Jehoshaphat (r. 872-848 BCE), when the Holy Spirit of YHWH alighted upon men, they began to speak... intelligibly, in recognizable and recognized tongues (= languages; "language" means "tongue" in Latin (!)).

I thus question modern Pentecostalism, where people speak in "gibberish"...

the astute reader will understand I mean they "babble"...
and that "babble" comes from the word "Babel" and the Sundering of Tongues (Genesis 11:9)...

I thus question modern Pentecostalism, where people speak in "gibberish"...
because it in no way resembles the clear and intelligble and recognized speech of either the OT or NT epochs.

 

[johnp.]

It looks as if we should expect gibberish:

1CO 14:18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.

I don't think they are out of line if it is done orderly. I neither speak or understand gibberish.

1CO 14:26 What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

john.

 

[GordonSlocum]

It looks as if we should expect gibberish:

1CO 14:18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.

I don't think they are out of line if it is done orderly. I neither speak or understand gibberish.

1CO 14:26 What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

john.

All tongues in Acts are known languages.
Some how, but most likely form the Pagan culture, the emotional gibberish crept in. Paul deals with it using "kids gloves" so to speak.

You have noticed how he permits them to speak but not more than three when they come together to worship. Later Paul compares this false use of tongues to the analogy of raising a child.

He starts gentle and works in the punch line in chapter 14, there clearly telling these new Christians the real purpose of Biblical tongues.

Emphatically, Tongues of today are not from God. It is not Biblical. The Bible does not teach a private prayer language and I challenge any Tom, Dick or Harry to prove it. You will not nor can you defend it from Scripture. Confident you bet. Bring it on. And when we are done and you lose we can shake hands, have a cup of coffee and talk about hot dogs, apple pie and golf (forget baseball - boring).

 

[drfuss]

GordonSlocum writes:
"Emphatically, Tongues of today are not from God. It is not Biblical. The Bible does not teach a private prayer language and I challenge any Tom, Dick or Harry to prove it. You will not nor can you defend it from Scripture. Confident you bet. Bring it on. And when we are done and you lose we can shake hands, have a cup of coffee and talk about hot dogs, apple pie and golf (forget baseball - boring)."

WOW, tallk about a closed mind.

 

[donnA]

I quite agree

 

[canadyjd]

Well, it depends if they are speaking in tongues of their own free-will or if Holy Spirit is being a puppet master, forcing them against their free-will to speak in tongues?

And another thought. Is the ability to speak in tongues part of the evolution of man from apes, or did God create man with a "tongues" gene?

And another thought. Are they speaking in the authorized 1611 version of tongues, or are they using one of those satanic modern versions of tongues?

And another thought. Are their souls aware they are speaking in a spiritually language, or does the body and soul get left out while the spirit takes over?

And one last thought. Why is the President of the United States fighting a war in Iraq when we have Pentecostals in America speaking in tongues? Something just an't right, here.

peace to youraying:

 

[rsr]

Please keep to the topic at hand, which is modern Pentecostalism, not evolution, Bible versions or American foreign policy.

Thank you.

rsr
moderator

 

[johnp.]

Emphatically, Tongues of today are not from God. It is not Biblical. The Bible does not teach a private prayer language and I challenge any Tom, Dick or Harry to prove it. You will not nor can you defend it from Scripture. Confident you bet. Bring it on. And when we are done and you lose we can shake hands, have a cup of coffee and talk about hot dogs, apple pie and golf (forget baseball - boring).

You boast? If tongues is not biblical you cannot prove it. If anything the scripture agrees with gibberish:

1CO 14:18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.

I don't think they are out of line if it is done orderly. I neither speak or understand gibberish.

1CO 14:26 What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

You quoted my post but neglected my scriptures. If you could have proved it you would have done, at least that's what I would have done. Why waste time boasting instead teaching GordonSlocum? I'll look forward to the hand shake, a learning oppotunity.

john.

 

[canadyjd]

Please keep to the topic at handm which is modern Pentecostalism, not evolution, Bible versions or American foreign policy.

Thank you.

rsr
moderator

Obviously my attempt at humor failed.:tonofbricks:

peace to youraying:

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. 23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? 24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

Tongues are a sign gift. This sign is not to benefit them that are of the faith but to them that believe not. Paul spoke in several languages. Tongues are always a known language. To assert otherwise is eisegesis. To speak in giberish does nothig to glorify God. But when the gospel is preached and Christ is lifted up then God is glorified. Whatever gift is given from God they are never self serving and always are related to the gospel.

 

[johnp.]

23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

Why should the Church come together to speak another language and one that strangers coming in won't understand? But even so, I have never had the thought that a person speaking a foreign language was mad like I have often thought that of some Christian's gibberings. With respect.

Talking in tongues edifies the speaker the interpretation edifies the Church. Strangers can be catered for as well. I think Paul is saying, "Cool it." Because he doesn't forbid it but puts it into working orderly.

1CO 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels... It is a known language.

john.

 

[dwmoeller1]

You boast? If tongues is not biblical you cannot prove it. If anything the scripture agrees with gibberish:

1CO 14:18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.

I don't think they are out of line if it is done orderly. I neither speak or understand gibberish.

1CO 14:26 What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

You quoted my post but neglected my scriptures. If you could have proved it you would have done, at least that's what I would have done. Why waste time boasting instead teaching GordonSlocum? I'll look forward to the hand shake, a learning oppotunity.

john.

Actually he does deal with the Scripture. He points out that one can only read into the passages 'gibberish', one cannot read that out of them. Why? Because 'foreign language' would work just as well as 'private language' in each case.

So, in I Cor 14, Paul's mention of speaking in tongues could just as easily be 'foreign languages' (ie. as experienced at Pentacost). The only phrase which might lead one to suggest that he speaks of a private language of some sort would be where he contrasts tongues with 'intelligible'. However, 'unintelligle' does not lead necessarily to 'private language'. Why? Because if one does not understand Greek, then its just as unintelligible as any private tongue.

So, vs. 18 could just as easily mean 'private tongue' as it could 'foreign language'. Both fit equally well within the context. Now, yes, 2 Tim is making the same mistake in the opposite direction when he says that all references to tongues is that of known languages. The verse could be used in either direction and thus can't be used to support either assertion or expectation.

Vs 26 of the same chapter gives no details about the nature of the tongues (only their purpose) and thus also cannot be used to support either particular assertion. So, I Cor 14 simply cannot be used to support (or negate) either position. If one attempts to do so, they are reading into the passage instead of reading out of it.

Now, how are we to know which is meant in the chapter? There are 3 things to take into consideration.
1. What do other sources tell us about early church practices with regards to tongues, their nature and use? If one could find a source which describes the common use of 'private language' and understands that to be the tongues of I Cor 14, then this would be an extremely strong argument for the 'private tongues' view of the chapter. A lack of this sort of source would suggest strongly the opposite.

2. All uses of tongues in Acts seem to be clear uses of foreign languages. Without evidence suggesting the nature of the miracle/gift changed, this would seem to argue in favor of the same being true in I Cor 14. Of course, this is not conclusive, but it certainly is an important consideration.

3. There is I Cor 13:1 which might be used to suggest that indeed there was a change from what was described in Acts. However, one must be careful not to take this mention of 'tongue of angels' out of context. Notice the other things mentioned in the beginning of the chapter. He also mentions the gift of prophecy and ties it with 'understanding all mystery and all knowledge'. So, if speaking in tongues involves using the 'tongue of angels' then it is equally true that having the gift of prophecy involves 'understanding all mystery and all knowledge". That seems like a stretch on several levels.

So how should we see that verse? It seems clear to me that the first several verses of that chapter are intentional hyperbole and is thus not conducive to supporting the concept of the 'tongue of angels' being an actual practice in I Cor 14.


So, what are we left with? Well...the best answer is that we simply don't know. Definitely not from Scripture itself. A knowledge of the historical practice would be a necessity for coming to a more solid answer on the matter.

Regardless of what one feels tongues properly constitutes, the larger question is whether or not its use today (whether it be a 'private tongue' or not) is done in accordance with Scriptural principles. Personally, I don't have any problems with the concept of tongues being a 'private language'. Its not directly supportable from Scripture, but neither is it contradictory to it. However, my impression is that the modern usage does not follow the Scriptural pattern set forth.

 

[johnp.]

Hello dwmoeller.

What is the point of speaking in another language? To be understood by a foreigner. Why should there be no tongues if there is no interpreter present? More or less we get the instruction from God not to speak Spanish when there are no Spanish speakers present?

Is this right? Doesn't this tip it back in favour of gibberish?


john.

 

[GordonSlocum]

You boast? If tongues is not biblical you cannot prove it. If anything the scripture agrees with gibberish:

1CO 14:18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.

I don't think they are out of line if it is done orderly. I neither speak or understand gibberish.

1CO 14:26 What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

You quoted my post but neglected my scriptures. If you could have proved it you would have done, at least that's what I would have done. Why waste time boasting instead teaching GordonSlocum? I'll look forward to the hand shake, a learning oppotunity.

john.

It is coming my friend. I do have to work here and there. Had to move a horizontal rod aft and a vertical rods up - as well as create two cross boars and a few other lesser holes related to these. Some of this while conversing with a friend who was taking chemo therapy, along with a room full of others. Add to that the daily paper work of running a business - takes just a little time.

I will be back just be patient.

 

[johnp.]

It's cool man. It's a good argument ain't it Gordon? At least until dwmoeller comes back and ruins it.

Why does God send a man a tongue to speak if that language is not spoken by any in hearing? Or, if you like, why should a Christian feel the need to speak in French if there are no French in the Church and why would he know there was no interpreter before he speaks? (For us: An interpreter becomes someone who understands French so that he can tell the English speakers what an English speaker is saying in French seems odd).

We have one person in our Church that speaks in tongues/gibberish. He is always interpreted by the same person. If she is not there he remains silent. Now there is a mechanism to know before-hand if there is an interpreter available or not, knowledge of the congregation.

john.

 

[GordonSlocum]

Here are the Scriptural Facts as I see it.

1. Christ ascended to be at the right hand of the father Acts 1:9

2. Those watching Jesus ascend were told to wait for the Holy Spirit around 120 people Acts 1:4, 15

3. The time was the 4th of the annual feasts of the Jews “Passover, Un-leaven Bred, and First Fruits and 50 days after First Fruits is Pentecost the Greek name for the Feast of Weeks.

4. The coming of the Holy Spirit was on the Day of Pentecost or the 50th day after First Fruits.

Evaluation Statement: The setting was Jewish. All that took place that day was centered around the Jewish feast.

5. Who was present in Jerusalem for this special occasion - not the coming of the Holy Spirit - but the Jewish Feast? Jews from many different places who spoke different languages. They were from:

A. Pontus
B. Cappadocia
C. Parthia
D. Media
E. Elam
F. Mesopotamia
G. Arabia
H. Egypt
I. Libya
J. Cyrene
K. Crete
L. Rome
M. Pamphylia
N. Phrygia
O. Asia
P. Judea

6. The list in number “5.” above are Jewish People at the Feast.

7. What does Prophecy say about this day in time when the Holy Spirit was given to the Body of Christ? Luke addresses the advent of the Spirit and the second coming in quoting from Joel. Paul, in I Cor. 14: 21 addresses this occasion and clearly states that tongues are for a sign to the Jews. Notice what the text says in Isaiah 28:11 “Indeed, He will speak to this people (Israel) Through stammering lips and a foreign tongue,”.

A. Historically this passage points to Assyria

B. Prophetically it points to members of the Body of Christ speaking to all the Jews.

C. Drawing an inference from the historical meaning: Tongues are a rebuke to unbelieving Jews.

8. Observation or contextual conclusion: Tongues are a sign to the rebellious nation of Israel and based upon the Isaiah passage - a rebuke because of their rebellion and unbelief.

9. Everyone, in the Upper Room, had a tongue of fire on them - Acts2:3

10. They were all filled with the Holy Spirit - those who were in the upper room Acts 2:4a

11. They all spoke in another tongue or language - how - as the Spirit was giving them utterance. Acts 2:4b

12. Please notice the next verse Acts 2:5 “Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men, from every nation under heaven. See the list above. Living does not mean permanently living in Jerusalem, but there only for the feast.

13. The sound accompanying the coming of the Holy Spirit was heard by these Jews in Jerusalem there for the feast. Acts 2:6 and each heard in their OWN language. Please note - language not an unknown sound they did not understand.

14. Now the marvel of it was that the Jews there from all those nations make this observation: All those speaking in these different languages are “Galileans”. How about that . Acts 2:7

15. Again in verse 8 “how is it that WE EACH HEAR (who) them (the 120) in OUR OWN LANGUAGE, But that is not all “to which we were born”?

16. There isn’t any way in my humble opinion that anyone can misunderstand what is said in this chapter. The tongues here are in known languages. The purpose is clear based upon what the author says, what Paul says, and what Isaiah and Joel state. The use of tongues “Biblical Tongues” attested to by Luke and Paul was intended to be for a historical period in time and for a distinct purpose.

17. Everything recorded by Luke concerning this historical and prophesied event is centered in the witnessing to the Jews. Paul taught “to the Jew first”, Luke recorded the history of the infant church’s message to the Jew first. All we have to do is consider the historical setting insight of prophecy and it is not hard to see that this was a Jewish event. Don’t take this statement and twist it. The coming of the Holy Spirit is for the Church, but the initial coming and setting is as it is. Both truths are real and true and to twist it to say or mean otherwise is to miss the clear point expressed and taught.

18. If we want to keep tongues Biblical and contextual we must recognize its purpose based upon solid clear scripture. Paul later deals with the miss use of it and we are going there next.

 

[GordonSlocum]

Part Two

I Corinthians Chapters 12-15

1. First lets establish the purpose for tongues in this setting and context. Look at 14:22. Now can anyone say that this declaration of the purpose of tongues is not a part of the context. A straight forward statement of the real purpose and use of tongues as discussed in I Cor. 12-15? Let God be true and every man a liar. Can you say amen to that?

2. Question: Are you willing to accept the context of these chapters? This is a hard question and it will take some real gut searching and truth bearing. It is an easy answer but for some it will be a gut wrenching reality. Looking at facts are not easy. I have gone through a number of changes in my thinking over the years when I was willing to deal with facts in Scripture and in life in general. I don’t like the way it makes me feel but the end result is pleasant and rewarding.

3. Chapter 12 Three Classifications

A. Gifts 12:4
B. Ministries 12:5
C. Effects 12:6

4. 12:7 the manifestation for the common good vss. 4-10

A. to one wisdom
B. to one knowledge
C. to one faith
D. to one healing
E. to one miracles
F. to one prophecy
G. to one distinguishing of spirits
H. to one tongues
I. to one interpretation of tongues

5. Who give these gifts, ministries, effects? The Spirit and only as the Spirit wills not us. You can not will to have what the Spirit does not will you to have. This is different from earnestly seeking anything in the list, but seeking and getting are two different things. If the Spirit wills it for you then you will have it. That is so simple.

6. Lets face another real hard reality. The Spirit is God - No problem. God the Spirit decides if you will have this or that. Now everyone in the Church will not have the gift of tongues can I get a witness based upon Scriptural truth? Someone say amen. 12:11

7. Now lets deal with verse 12:13-31

A. “We were all baptized into one body” regardless ok

B. The previous verses clearly teach that no one individual will have all the gifts, effects, ministries. It is not rocket science - it really is simple.

C. The distinct clear doctrinal guidelines of this chapter is solid and the historical reality of the beginner church basically all experiencing the gift of tongues is not a basis to require all to speak in tongues. What did the clear statement in verse 11 say? God the spirit will decide who gets what. It is obvious that God the Holy Spirit chose to give the gift of tongues to basically all who believer in the book of Acts. Now do you think that nullifies this 11th verse. We must let God be God. God has the right to do it His way.

D. Look at verse 18 - Who places in the body as He pleases? That is right! It is God. Who’s desire is it that decides who is what or gets what? Your are right again - it is God

E. What does verse 20 say? Does it not say the same thing in a different way with verse 13? Of course it does.

F. Now you would think that at this point the point is understood, perhaps not, so Paul by the inspiration of the Spirit is carried along to write the following verse 27-31

G. The bottom line “not all have” it is self explanatory - everyone would agree

H. God through Paul puts another twist and clarification with respect to tongues in verse 31. Notice what he says, “earnestly desire the greater gifts.” Two things to remember: (1) God the Holy Spirit decides who gets what. (2) God has instructed Paul to tell us that we should desire the greater gifts. Tongues are not one of the greater gifts. Remember the discussion here is tongues not other gifts so don’t get off on a miracles or healing tangent.

 

[GordonSlocum]

Part Three

8. Chapter 13

A. The “if” verses 1-3

(1) if I speak in tongues of men or angles
(2) if I have the gift of prophecy
(3) if I have the faith
(4) if I give

B. Because Paul uses the work “if” does not mean that anyone spoke in the tongue of angles, nor dos it mean in reality that any believer sacrificed their body to the flames - see verse 3. We must be real and understand the verses for what it is intended to convey and teach. It is not teaching that there is a gift of tongues of angles or burning our bodies with fire. Here again the genre used here is to convey emphasis not reality and we would understand this language as normal literal understanding of grammar. Regardless of the language the angles speak in they are used for the purpose of illustrating by Paul

C. Stop seeing Literal as Wooden Literalism. In reality there is no such thing as wooden literalism. But some simply miss the point in considering or taking into account that literature is to be understood literally which means recognizing and understanding all the genre of literature, as well as being alert to it use in a normal way, not forcing it to say what it does not say.

E. When we look at things literally the right way there is less misunderstanding. Granted there are some difficult passages in the Bible. But there are less when we play by the rules of grammar.

F. Verse 8 and 9 are defined by the following verses 11-13

(1) verse 8 Prophecy will be done away with

(2) verse 8 tongues will cease

(3) verse 8 knowledge will be done away with not eradicated.

(4) Verse 11-the comparison of verses 8 and 9 to the maturation of the life cycle of a person does not leave any room to wiggle does it? I know some will
still argue their case what can I say. Verse 12 a repeat of verse 10 in different words and that too is a form of genre used in the art of language & it is a literal use conveying an emphasis. When these two verses are compared to verse 11 and 13 the teaching is crystal clear and final. They are all context - remember - how important context is and the flow of meaning the author is conveying.

(5) Verse 13 - BUT - now that is a big But. But what “NOW” When? When is now referring to in this context, keep it in context - OK? Would you agree that “Now” is the time in which Paul is living and writing? I would. Why? Because I really want to understand the truth and how to apply it within the context and in my life. If I can not understand the contextual meaning of the section of scripture I am studying then I will never be able to apply it to my life correctly.

(6) The context simply states that three things will stop and that there are three but mainly only one that will remain of these in the context. What are they? Faith, Hope and Love. There isn’t any mystery about all this tongues doctrine. The text and statements of Paul’s writing is so clear. It’s a done deal as some would put it.

9 Chapter 14

A. Paul goes into a gentle loving explanation of the gift of tongues here in chapter 14. Notice the flow of the conversation to the Corinthians. Remember to keep it in context and let the discussion as a whole interpret itself.

B. Starting at verse one read through to verse eleven. Verses 10 and 11 are the explanation and understanding of all that precedes it in chapter 14 up to these verses. If I isolate any of the verses prior to these defining verses I will come to a wrong conclusion and thus a wrong interpretation. Verses 10 and 11 brings us back to the reality that tongues are know languages. The illustration, of not recognizing a sound, is clarified with these two verses. The person speaking in a tongue legitimately is speaking in a know language on the face of the earth. Not an angelic language or a gibberish language but a know language.

C. Notice he is addressing only some and not all. This is very important in this text. Why? Because we must not conclude that the gift of tongues is for all that would be a contradiction of previous teaching and of this context as well. There isn’t any basis in any of the teaching on gifts that everyone has to speak in that gift to prove they have the indwelling Holy Spirit. This is a clear departure from clear Scriptural truth. It is just not I in the text anywhere.

D. Paul now extends the discussion and reasoning with the Corinthians on their apparent misuse of tongues. Notice that he gently leads them back to the truth. As you read verses 12-20 notice the punch line in verse 20. The gentle approach leading up to this statement if classical Paul. He is so tactful. “Brethren, do not be children in your thinking” really what thinking are we taking about? Their thinking about tongues. Is that not the topic of discussion? Of course it is.

E. If the previous verse was not enough look at what the Holy Spirit leads Paul to pin. Can you imagine that. He has brought these baby Corinthians full circle back to the clear meaning and purpose of tongues. What does it say, “So then tongues (the subject at hand) are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to unbelievers, (remember Acts). Now back up to verse 21. Who are the tongues for ? What does it say? “This people” Israel.

F. You see the real God the Spirit given gift of tongues was given to believers in the infant church stages as a sign to the Jews. There is absolutely no way to miss understand this verse. I can’t think of one unless I refuse to accept the truth, and twist the meaning .

G. The last instruction to the immature Christians at Corinth. Here Paul is not running rough shod over the new immature believers The none biblical speaking in tongues these believer were engage in is permitted in a setting to stop it completely. Notice he say OK don’t stop it but if you want to speak in tongues one, two or not more than three and you must have some one to interpret the tongue and it must be a know language. Everyone knows that only known languages are relevant in this stetting.

 

[GordonSlocum]

Regardless of what one feels tongues properly constitutes, the larger question is whether or not its use today (whether it be a 'private tongue' or not) is done in accordance with Scriptural principles. Personally, I don't have any problems with the concept of tongues being a 'private language'. Its not directly supportable from Scripture, but neither is it contradictory to it. However, my impression is that the modern usage does not follow the Scriptural pattern set forth.

I agree- enjoyed reading you post.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Hello dwmoeller.

What is the point of speaking in another language? To be understood by a foreigner. Why should there be no tongues if there is no interpreter present? More or less we get the instruction from God not to speak Spanish when there are no Spanish speakers present?

Is this right? Doesn't this tip it back in favour of gibberish?

Why does it really matter? Does it matter if I speak with the tongue of men or of angels. Obviously its not talking about just speaking in a foreign language they naturally know, its speaking of talking in a tongue under the power and influence of the HS. If no one else understands it, then it doesn't really matter if it is gibberish or German. Either way, the experience will meet the goal of 'encouraging the speaker'.

Consider the example of Pentacost. To many of the hearers, the apostles speaking in a known but foreign language was gibberish. Hence the reason why they thought the apostles were drunk.

The point is that it doesn't really tip it either way. It is suggestive and it does leave open the possibility of it being gibberish (hence why I will disagree with anyone who says that *all* references to tongues is of known languages), but it does not argue strongly either way.