Amazing, ALL men in general?
Birds of a feather flock together?
Like you, I was “generalizing”-it was 2 o clock in the morning and should have typed “some”
I still see you as a sister in Christ Jesus.
Always, gave you the history of Pentecostal-ism and Charasmatic cultic movement via Justin Peters.
Radical departure from the orthodox faith, wouldn’t you say?
Shalom.
J.
If I may comment on “Baptism with the Holy Spirit”. I’ve heard a lot of theories from different sources.
However when I look strictly at what Scripture says, I can’t help but notice that this phrase is applied in a very limited way. Which has led me to conclude that baptism with the Holy Spirit refers to a specific event, not to a personal experience.
The first time we encounter this is from the words of St. John the Baptist, who says “I baptize you with water, but the One who comes after me, whose sandals I am unfit to strap, He will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire”.
The second time we encounter this is in Acts 1, where the Lord just before His Ascension mentions this again in connection with the Apostles gathered in the upper room, when they will “receive power” to be His witnesses.
In Acts 2, on Pentecost, we then see the Holy Spirit poured out on all who were gathered in the upper room.
Later, when St. Peter preaches to Cornelius and his household, we see a “mini-Pentecost” as a sign that the Gospel is for the uncircumcised as well as the circumcised. Peter then recounts this to the leadership in Jerusalem, and specifically mentions what Jesus said in Acts 1, and that what happened at Cornelius’ house was as it was for them on Pentecost.
And that’s it. That is the whole biblical use of “baptism with the Holy Spirit”, and it always is pointing to what happened on Pentecost.
Paul does not use Luke’s narrative phrasing “baptized with the Holy Ghost,” but he very clearly teaches the same reality with theological precision rather than story form, because that is literally his job.
Start with the most explicit Pauline statement, where the metaphor is unmistakable and universal rather than episodic.
1 Corinthians 12:13[1]
Here baptism is not confined to Acts, not limited to apostles, not tied to Pentecost as an event, and not future or repeatable. It is something that has happened to all believers, by one Spirit, into one body. If this is not Spirit baptism, the term has no remaining meaning.
Paul then connects Spirit baptism directly to union with Christ in His death and resurrection, which already dismantles the idea that it belongs only to Acts.
Romans 6:3–4[2]
This baptism places the believer into Christ’s death and resurrection, meaning it cannot be a historical Pentecost-only phenomenon. Pentecost did not crucify you. Christ did, and Paul says the Spirit applies that work to believers.
The same logic appears again in Galatians, where baptism is the means of incorporation into Christ, not a reference to water ritual alone.
Galatians 3:27[3]
No timeline restriction, no reference to Jerusalem, no dependency on Acts 2. This is soteriological, not historical.
Paul also describes the Spirit’s work using sealing language, which describes the same initiatory act from another angle.
Ephesians 1:13[4]
The Spirit is given at belief, not postponed until some Acts-style event, and certainly not reserved for first-century Jewish pilgrims.
Later in the same letter Paul collapses all initiatory rites into a unified reality.
Ephesians 4:5[5]
If Spirit baptism were only a temporary Acts phenomenon, Paul would be affirming a baptism that no longer exists, which would be a strange thing for an apostle to normalize.
Titus reinforces the same doctrine using regeneration language rather than baptismal imagery.
Titus 3:5–6[6]
This is Spirit-applied salvation flowing from Christ’s redemptive work, grounded in the cross and resurrection, not a replay of Pentecost.
Finally, Paul makes possession of the Spirit the defining mark of belonging to Christ at all.
Romans 8:9[7]
If receiving the Spirit were limited to Acts events, then Paul has accidentally excluded most Christians from being Christians, which is unlikely given his education.
So yes, Acts narrates the historical inauguration of the Spirit’s outpouring, but Paul explains its theological meaning and ongoing application. Pentecost is the once-for-all redemptive-historical event; Spirit baptism is the once-for-each-believer salvific reality grounded in the cross and sealed by the resurrection.
Reducing Spirit baptism to Acts alone is not a high view of Scripture. It is a selective reading strategy with confidence issues.
BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT
The first time this phrase is mentioned is in connection to the minnistry of John the Baptist (cf. Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33). It is linked with “fire.” Jesus’ baptizes with the Holy Spirit and fire, which denotes a cleansing process, as well as an empowering process.
The Messiah will inaugurate the new age of the Spirit (i.e., “Pour out My Spirit on all mankind,” cf. Joel 2:28-32). His baptism will be with (or “in” or “by”) the Spirit (i.e., Pentecost, cf. Acts 1:5; 2:1-4). There has been much discussion among denominations as to what event in the Christian experience this refers. Some take it to refer to an empowering experience after salvation, a kind of second blessing. Personally I think it refers to becoming a Christian (i.e., “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body,” cf. 1 Cor. 12:13; this is theologically parallel to “born of the Spirit” in John 3:5-6). I do not deny later and repeatable fillings and equippings (cf. Acts 2:4; 4:8,31; Eph. 5:18), but I believe there is only one initial spiritual baptism into Christ in which believers identify with Jesus’ death and resurrection (cf. Rom. 6:3-4; Eph. 4:5; Col. 2:12). This initiating work of the Spirit is delineated in John 16:8-11. In my understanding the works of the Holy Spirit are:
convicting of sin
revealing the truth about Christ
leading to acceptance of the gospel
baptizing into Christ
convicting the believer of continuing sin
forming Christlikeness in the believer
It seems to me that the phrase is used of two things.
the beginning of the Spirit-empowered church (Acts 1:5)
the initial slavation of believers, who are empowered for ministry (1 Cor. 12:13)
Correct @TheologyNerd ?
J.
I want to be clear, I’m not saying we haven’t received this baptism–but rather that this refers to the inundation of the whole Church; and it refers to the pouring-forth of the Spirit upon the whole Church. That I think the biblical language is pointing us to an historic objective moment–but a moment that is central to the whole life of the Church, and which we are partakers.
Because the Holy Spirit was poured out, you and I, because we receive the same Spirit, have the fullness of the Spirit who was poured out–by the same Spirit we were baptized and have drank of the same Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13).
Though I will note, however, that I believe 1 Corinthians 12:13 cannot be divorced from the ordinary Sacrament of Holy Baptism; as St. Peter said in his Pentecost sermon, “repent and be baptized … and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38); and as our Lord Himself taught and commanded, “God and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit”
As such by the same Spirit we have been baptized is not another baptism beside the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5; this is not the baptism with the Holy Spirit as properly applied to Pentecost. But rather through the ordinary means of God bringing us into the household of faith we have become partakers of the same Spirit, drank of the same Spirit, the same Spirit who was active when we were baptized is, likewise, the same Spirit who gives a diverse variety of gifts for the sake of the entire edification of the Body of Christ.
For we were all baptized into Christ, into His Body, through the same precious Sacrament of Baptism which the Lord instituted, which the Apostle St. Peter says brings with it forgiveness and the Spirit, which the Apostle St. Paul says brings with it the end of slavery to sin, union to Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection; and being clothed with Christ. Water which, with the word and the Spirit, is regenerative, saving, and inundates us into the mystery of our life with God in Christ as believers.
I’ve witnessed the fake ones. Tilton, Donnie Swaggart, the TV pastor whose eyes look like a serpents.
I think tongues as pertains to the scripture description of them means other human 
languages.
The Apostles were sent out into the world. They’d have to know the tongue of other people in order to bring good news.
Sorry got two throw my two cents in. I think I’ve been talking in tongues my whole life. Not very many people understand what I’m talking about. Half the time I’m not sure I understand what I’m talking about myself. And I’m sure 99% of the people I’ve communicated with were talking in tongues too. Meaning communication is deeper than I understand. If I only had a interpreter imagine what I could have learned. I’m sure all the women in my life have always been talking in tongues. I know it’s English but I swear it’s bable to me as most guys think as well. Again if I only had a interpreter imagine what I could have truly learned.
I’m sorry, @Bestill, I thought that you were expecting every Christian to speak in tongues. I stand corrected.
Thank you. No harm done.
Yes — I believe speaking in tongues is real and still active today because that’s exactly what I see in Scripture. The Bible never presents tongues as a temporary sign just for the early church. They’re part of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that began at Pentecost and was promised to continue.
When I read Acts 2, I see that when people first received the Holy Ghost, they spoke in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. That didn’t stop there. The same thing happened in Acts 10 with Cornelius and his household, and again in Acts 19 when Paul laid hands on believers in Ephesus — they spoke in tongues and prophesied. Every time people received the Baptism of the Spirit in Acts and NOW, tongues ALWAYS followed/follows as the initial sign.
Jesus Himself said believers would speak with new tongues (Mark 16:17). And Peter made it clear the promise wasn’t just for those at Pentecost, but for future generations too — “for you, and for your children, and for all that are afar off.” That includes us today.
One common objection I hear is, “Tongues ceased when the Bible was completed.” But the Bible never says that. People usually point to 1 Corinthians 13 where Paul says tongues will cease “when that which is perfect is come.” But in context, Paul connects “the perfect” with seeing Christ face to face and knowing fully as we are known. That clearly points to Jesus’ return, not the completion of Scripture. Until Christ comes back, the gifts of the Spirit are still in operation.
Another objection is, “Tongues were just known human languages for evangelism.” While Acts 2 did involve real languages being understood, Scripture also shows tongues that no human understood without interpretation (1 Corinthians 14). Paul even says, “He that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God.” That shows tongues aren’t limited to earthly languages — they’re Spirit-given utterances.
Some also say, “Not everyone spoke in tongues in the Bible.” But when I look specifically at people receiving the Holy Ghost in Acts — the actual moment they received the Spirit — tongues consistently appear as the sign. The verses that say “do all speak with tongues?” in Corinthians are about the public gift operating in church services, not the initial experience of receiving the Spirit. That’s two different contexts that often get mixed together.
Others argue, “Tongues cause confusion.” But Paul never told the church to stop tongues — he told them how to use them properly. He said God is not the author of confusion, then went on to give order and guidelines, not abolition. You don’t regulate something God never intended to continue.
I also hear, “I’ve never seen it, so I’m not sure it’s real.” But personal experience can’t override Scripture. There were people in Jesus’ day who never saw miracles either, but that didn’t mean miracles weren’t happening. The Bible shows tongues as part of God’s work, whether we’ve personally witnessed it yet or not.
When I read 1 Corinthians 12–14, I don’t see Paul saying tongues were fading away. I see him treating them as a living, active part of the church. He even said, “I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all.” That tells me this wasn’t just a historical footnote — it was part of his daily spiritual life.
I also believe a lot of confusion comes from mixing up tongues as the initial sign of receiving the Holy Ghost with the public gift of tongues that requires interpretation. In Acts, tongues appear as the sign of receiving the Spirit. In Corinthians, tongues can function as a gift in the congregation for edification. Both are biblical, but they serve different purposes.
As for whether it happens today — yes, I’ve seen and experienced that it does. All over the world, people are still being filled with the Holy Ghost just like in Acts, and they still speak in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance. It’s not learned, forced, or emotional hype — it’s a supernatural work of God.
For me, the real issue isn’t whether the Bible teaches it. It clearly does. The real question is whether people are willing to accept the full biblical experience instead of stopping short of what God has promised.
And that same promise still stands today. If we repent, believe the gospel, and seek God sincerely, He will fill us with His Spirit just like He did in the book of Acts.
I’m not sure, I haven’t gone back and read all the posts, but I do not believe anyone has addressed the Elephant in the room. Here is another reason that I hesitate to say speaking in tongues is real and still relevant today. I was in a few churches, and this “Gift” is on full display. One church, true story, the Pastor came out and taught something like this, then said this.
“Jesus! Jesus came for you. Just put your faith in Him. He is the way, John 14. Now, brothers and sisters, God has put this on my heart. Tithes have been down a bit, but we need funds to get a new roof. I ask that you give above and beyond this week.”
Now, as he was speaking, someone shot up, and all I heard was, “Goony Goo Goo. Shalamth seeka Goony goo goo alahcat.” Immediately, someone else stood up, supposedly to interpret. “Thus sayeth the Lord, you are all part of this church, you have read in my Word that you must give, or I see you as a thief. The Lord says, ‘Give the Pastor $200 today. I will bless those who do mightily. Thus saith the Lord.”
Did He? Did God really say that? So “Goony goo, goo” Means give two hundred dollars? So if I hear that again, I now “know” what the speaker in tongues is saying? You see my point.
“Goony Goo Goo. Shalamth seeka Goony goo goo alahcat.” Means nothing. I made it up. The translator did not translate, and God did not say, "Give two hundred dollars.” I did. The Pastor did. The long-time member did so with good intentions to help.
“Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.” 1 Corinthians 14:19
Now if someone is teaching and the Word lines up with what they are teaching, Thus, sayth the Lord. It’s called the Bible.
Peter
The problem is there are many short disciple of the Holy Bible, having insufficient knowledge and wisdom, gone ahead to become teachers.
Since they’re ‘shortsighted’, they are blind guides to the blind, and added up to becoming workers of ‘iniquity’ or ‘lawlessness’.
The gifts of the Holy Ghost are purposeful for the church, even to ‘edification’ of the church, and to proclaim the Gospel in all language for salvation.
But when they are conducted scripturally opposed and unfaithfully, these gifts serve no purpose, become wild, twisted and ceases.
To the Apostles who received tongues on the day of Pentecost, are the tongues known to men of other nations.
But the church who received tongues based on Apostle Paul, are the unknown tongues to men, that is the tongues of angels.
It is given for fellowship in the spirit between the church and GOD in Heaven in angelic tongues for the ‘edification’ of the church, (as how the angels fellowship with GOD in Heaven)
The gifted individuals who speak in the spirit this unknown tongues, themselves are without understanding in the common language what they mean.
That’s why Paul commanded at the same time they should pray for ‘interpretation’, in order for the congregation to understand in plain language the uttrence.
Therefore together at every speech in fellowship and at the end they can finish in agreeance by saying, ‘Amen’
As a result, the whole congregation is ‘edified’, but on the other hand, unable to ‘interpret’, the one who speak this unknown tongues is to remain silent.
They are to speak within themselves, between them and GOD, since only they are ‘edified’.
Therefore what you are generally witnessing in churches today is madness and meaningless. as to workers of iniquity or lawlessness.
If this unknown tongues of angels without ‘interpretation’ taking places in the churches is no difference from the cults and false religion established by the devil and his angels.
For the devil and his angels originated from Heaven as well before the rebellion, and been banished to earth. (hence also to decieve the inhabitants of the earth).
So how do we know this unknown tongues of angels men speak even in church without interpretation, whether the church fellowshiping with GOD or the devil?
Be blessed in the name of Jesus Christ the Lord
If every Christian should experience the gift of tongues, as you appear to be saying, @The_Omega, why doesn’t Luke mention that happening in every church that Paul started? He doesn’t. And if your contention is biblical, why doesn’t Paul include the gift in his lists of spiritual gifts in Romans 12 and Ephesians 4?
Rom 12:4 For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function,
Rom 12:5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.
Rom 12:6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith;
Rom 12:7 if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching;
Rom 12:8 the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.
Eph 4:11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,
Eph 4:12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
Eph 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,
Eph 4:14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.
I think the reason is that Paul’s lists are descriptive of those churches’ spiritual gifts. Therefore, God had not given the Roman and Ephesian Christians the gift of tongues.
As a result, we can rightly conclude that the spiritual gift of tongues is only given to some Christians, not to all of us.
I understand what you’re saying, but I think that argument assumes something the Bible itself never says — that Luke was trying to record every spiritual experience in every church Paul started. Luke is selective all throughout Acts. He doesn’t mention repentance every single time someone believed either, yet we know repentance was always preached. He doesn’t list every miracle, every sermon, or every conversion in detail. Acts gives us representative accounts, not exhaustive ones.
What Luke does consistently show is this: whenever he actually describes people receiving the Holy Ghost, tongues are the accompanying sign. In Acts 2, Acts 10, and Acts 19 — the three times the Spirit is clearly poured out and described — tongues appear every time. That’s not accidental. When Luke wants us to see what receiving the Spirit looks like, he shows tongues.
Now about Paul’s lists in Romans 12 and Ephesians 4 — those passages aren’t meant to be complete catalogs of every spiritual gift God has ever given. They’re focused on ministry functions and roles within the body: teaching, serving, leadership, exhortation, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers. They aren’t even the same list between the two letters. Meanwhile, the most detailed gift list — including tongues — is in 1 Corinthians 12, where Paul clearly includes them.
So if we argue that tongues aren’t for today or weren’t given to all because they don’t appear in Romans 12 or Ephesians 4, then we’d also have to argue that miracles, healings, prophecy, and discernment aren’t for all churches either — because those aren’t always listed there either. But Paul never intended those lists to be exhaustive.
I also think there’s an important distinction that often gets missed. I’m not saying every Christian will operate in the public gift of tongues that requires interpretation in a church service. Paul makes it clear not everyone functions in every gift in that sense. But that’s different from the initial sign of receiving the Holy Ghost.
In Acts, tongues aren’t presented as a ministry gift — they’re presented as the evidence of the Spirit being poured out. In Corinthians, tongues can also function as a gift for the congregation. Two related but distinct contexts.
When Paul asks, “Do all speak with tongues?” he’s talking about the public gift operating in church gatherings — not about the experience of receiving the Spirit. If we apply that question to Acts, it would directly contradict what Luke shows happening when people received the Holy Ghost.
As for the idea that God simply didn’t give tongues to the Roman and Ephesian believers, Scripture never actually says that. That’s an assumption built from silence. Luke doesn’t say they didn’t speak in tongues — he just doesn’t describe every detail of their conversions. But Paul does talk about the Spirit being received, about spiritual gifts being active, and about the supernatural life of those churches.
For me, the pattern is clear:
When the Spirit is poured out in Acts, tongues follow.
When gifts are discussed in Corinthians, tongues are included and regulated — not dismissed.
When the promise of the Spirit is explained in Acts 2:39, it’s extended to all whom God will call.
So I don’t see tongues as something randomly given to a few believers while others receive a different kind of Spirit. I see one Holy Spirit, given to all believers, with the same initial sign shown in Scripture — and then different gifts operating afterward according to God’s will.
In short, I don’t believe Luke’s silence in certain places cancels out the clear pattern he does show. And I don’t believe Paul’s ministry-focused lists were ever meant to erase a supernatural experience that he himself said he practiced more than anyone else.
From what I see in the Bible, tongues aren’t a rare optional extra. They’re part of the normal New Testament experience of receiving the Holy Ghost, with additional gifts flowing afterward as God wills.
Ever considered you might be wrong brother @The_Omega ?
Charismatics Who Lie About The Holy Spirit
Just to demonstrate that I am not biased, Corrie holds a continuationist position.
J.
No one on earth could ever convince me that what God did in my life isn’t real.
The gift of tongues I received from God isn’t something I was taught, coached, or worked up emotionally. It came as I sought Him, just like in the book of Acts. And I exercise it every day in prayer and worship. The joy, peace, and transformation that followed didn’t come from people or from a church environment — it came from the Lord Himself.
The world didn’t give me this joy, and the world can’t take it away.
Now, I’m not saying personal experience replaces Scripture. But in my case, my experience lined up perfectly with what I read in the Bible. When I saw the same pattern in Acts that I had lived through, it confirmed rather than contradicted the Word.
I also don’t hold this position out of stubbornness or pride. I hold it because both Scripture and my walk with God point in the same direction.
If someone could show me clearly in the Bible where the gifts ended. or find someone who goes to the altar raising their hand asking God sincerely to baptize them in the Holy Ghost and not speak in Tongues, I would honestly consider it. But every time I go back to the Word, I see the opposite — the promise continuing, the gifts operating, and believers being encouraged to desire spiritual things.
So yes, I’ve considered whether I could be wrong. But between the clear biblical pattern and the real work God has done in my life, I’m fully convinced this is from Him.
And I’m grateful every day for it.
Let’s get biblical @The_Omega
“The spirit is leading me” instead of being “led” BY the Spirit.
“The lord told me”
“Slain in the spirit”
“Speaking in tongues”
“Deliverance”
“Gifts of the spirit” 3 different viewpoints.
Are you being led by the Spirit? Is being slain in the Spirit biblical? And what about the gifts of the Spirit? Join me and Corey Minor as we discuss four common yet dangerous misunderstandings about the Holy Spirit.
Glossolalia, from γλῶσσα (tongue, language) + λαλέω (to speak), literally means “tongue-speech” or “language-speaking.” In modern usage it has come to denote unintelligible vocalization, but that meaning is not inherent in the Greek compound itself. The term is post-biblical and descriptive, not biblical.
Xenoglossia, from ξένος (foreign) + γλῶσσα, refers to speaking a real human language not previously learned. This term also is post-biblical but accurately describes what is unambiguously happening in Acts 2.
Now, here is the complete inventory of Greek nouns and verbs used for tongues/languages in the New Testament, with Strong’s numbers and basic semantic range.
Primary noun for tongues or languages:
γλῶσσα G1100
Meaning: tongue, language, speech
Usage: literal tongue, human language, mode of speech
Appears in Acts, 1 Corinthians, James, Revelation
This is the only noun used for tongues in the NT
There is no second noun for “ecstatic utterance”
Related noun specifying dialect or native language:
διάλεκτος G1258
Meaning: dialect, native language
Used in Acts 1:19, Acts 2:6, Acts 2:8, Acts 21:40, Acts 22:2, Acts 26:14
Always refers to identifiable human languages
Never used in 1 Corinthians
Primary verb for speaking in tongues:
λαλέω G2980
Meaning: to speak, to utter, to articulate sounds
Used for ordinary speech, prophecy, tongues, divine speech
This verb governs γλῶσσα in every tongues passage
It never denotes non-verbal sound
It does not mean babble or incoherent noise
Supporting verbs associated with tongues:
ἀκούω G191
Meaning: to hear
Crucial in Acts 2, where hearers understand
Used to assess intelligibility
ἑρμηνεύω G2059 and ἑρμηνεία G2058
Meaning: to interpret, interpretation
Used only in 1 Corinthians 12–14
Assumes the utterance is language-like, not random sound
Interpretation is linguistic, not revelatory translation of nonsense
προφητεύω G4395
Meaning: to speak forth, prophesy
Often contrasted with tongues in 1 Corinthians 14
Used as intelligible speech by definition
φωνή G5456
Meaning: sound, voice
Used in 1 Corinthians 14:7–11 as an analogy
Paul explicitly distinguishes sound from meaningful language
Now, here are all NT passages involving tongues, classified only by the Greek used, not by theological assumption.
Acts 2:4
ἐλάλουν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις
They spoke with other languages
Acts 2:6–8
ἤκουον εἷς ἕκαστος τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ
Each heard in his own dialect
Acts 2:11
ἀκούομεν λαλοῦντων αὐτῶν ταῖς ἡμετέραις γλώσσαις
We hear them speaking in our own languages
Acts 10:46
ἤκουον αὐτῶν λαλούντων γλώσσαις
They heard them speaking languages
Acts 19:6
ἐλάλουν γλώσσαις καὶ προεφήτευον
They spoke languages and prophesied
1 Corinthians 12:10
γένη γλωσσῶν
Kinds or types of languages
1 Corinthians 12:28, 30
γλώσσαι
Languages
1 Corinthians 13:1
ταῖς γλώσσαις τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων
Languages of humans and angels
Still γλῶσσα, not a new category of speech
1 Corinthians 14:2
ὁ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ
The one speaking in a language
1 Corinthians 14:10–11
τοσαῦτα εἴ τυχόν γένη φωνῶν
So many kinds of sounds
Paul explicitly separates sound from language
1 Corinthians 14:13–27
γλώσσῃ, ἑρμηνεία
Language requiring interpretation
Revelation 5:9, 7:9, etc.
ἐκ πάσης γλώσσης
Every language
Unambiguously human languages
Just to be fair, Corey and Parr are continuationists.
I’m not.
J.
@The-Omega
You may be the one person I can get a straight and systematic answer to a question which I have carried with me for quite a while. That is the origin and onset of what has come to be called, “glossolalia”. (“Glossolalia” being witnessed as a string of unintelligible phonemes that no hearer can understand without the aid of a single supernatural interpreter, who not only brings understanding to the hearers, but also to the speaker.) This phenomena in contrast to “xenoglossia” which is supernatural fluency in a language to which one has never learned or been exposed. Please correct me if I am misstating the definitions of these words.
It is clear and undisputed that the manifestation of The Holy Spirit as described in Acts is a phenomena that brought unity and understanding to a group of new believers because as we read:
“And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other languages, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language.” (Acts 2:4-6)
Here, there was no interpreter mentioned. “Devout men, from every nation” were hearing the gospel in his own native language. In their exuberance, they testified:
“And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs–we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God." (Acts 2:8-11)
Supernatural clarity! Here, the manifestation of The Holy Spirit brought supernatural clarity and divine unity by giving certain men the ability to speak The Truth in a language that they were previously untrained in.
Am I on track here?
If this amazing phenomenon is the undeniable and purposeful manifestation of The Holy Spirit, at what point do you think the Holy Spirit began manifesting himself in a contrary way, and why? The kind of unintelligible vocalizations (glossolalia) that you suggest occurred later would no longer have the effect of bringing open clarity with an exposition of The Truth for all to receive simultaneously, but instead, it would oddly obscure understanding by causing unknown utterances requiring interpretation. This seems to be the very opposite purpose, and have the opposite result of the initial manifestation. This unintelligible utterance would no longer bring unity (level the playing field) to a congregation, but foster elitism, singling out gifted speakers and gifted interpreters. Also, the initial manifestation of The Spirit was inimitable, no one could explain it, no one could reproduce it, it could not be conjured by clever men. The very thing that makes a miracle miraculous is the fact that only God can do it. Likewise, the only convincing manifestation of God is that He shows up in a way that cannot be conjured by men. The kind of manifestation you are suggesting does not conform to this definition.
If we read 1 Corinthians 14 passages with the understanding we have been given in Acts, to me it makes much more sense. The Holy Spirit had made His presence manifest by giving certain disciples the ability to speak in languages they had never learned. For example, let’s say The Holy Spirit endowed me with the ability to speak fluent German. This would be a wonderful expression of H.S. Unity and clarity if spoken in a congregation where some native Germans were present and could hear the Word of God clearly. If I become a bit proud of this gifted ability, and felt the urge to speak German in a congregation where no Germans are present, my ability is no less a gift of the H.S., but in this case, only God understands it, since no one there speaks German. Even if I could speak German supernaturally, in this case it would be far better for me to speak the Word of God in the language the congregation could understand. This would still bring clarity and unity, the very purposes of the H.S.
For he who speaks in a foreign language does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. (1 Corinthians 14:2-3)
So likewise you, unless you utter, by the particular language, words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. (1 Corinthians 14:9)
I don’t think I need to go through each mention of speaking in “tongues” in this deductive way for you to get my point.
So, in your learned view, when and why would the Holy Spirit begin to manifest Himself in an uncertain way that no longer produced the effect for which He was sent into the body? Please help me to understand this doctrine of “Glossolalia”
Your Friend
KP
I have a theory that, in some ways, there are two competing “spiritual epistemologies” that Christians tend to use to arrive at truth and doctrinal clarity. While I’m presenting these as a dichotomy, I suspect that the truth of the matter is more nuanced and things exist more on a spectrum than in the extremes.
Specifically: the interior (esoteric) and the exterior (exoteric). Is truth confirmed by internal perceptions, interior witness, experiences, by my own perception of what the Holy Spirit says to me personally? Or is truth confirmed by the external–that in spite of my experience and perception, the Holy Spirit’s confirmation of truth is by those external and objective works (such as the objective word of Scripture).
Like I said, I think things exist, in truth, along a spectrum. And I’ll freely admit my biases here. Lutheranism has long held Enthusiasm as not only suspect, but intrinsically dangerous. The archetypal Enthusiast of the 16th century, Thomas Müntzer, effectively argued the extreme esoteric position: internal experience of the Spirit was to be regarded as greater than the pure external word of Scripture. Müntzer, and other Enthusiasts of the time, led Luther to argue explicitly that any claim that the Spirit speaks and works apart from Word and Sacrament is to be understood not as the voice of God, but as the voice of the devil. As only the devil would lead men away from the objective presence of God in His Word and Sacraments.
But speaking of things on the spectrum; I suspect more common would be a confession of the explicit and chief authority of Scripture; though confirmation of truth (and interpretation) becomes concentrated on internal confirmations–what I or you believe the Spirit confirms within ourselves. In my observations over many years, I’ve seen this sort of epistemological operation result in claims that one cannot be taught what Scripture means, but that only the Holy Spirit can witness the truth of Scripture. I’ve seen this used to exclude the importance of the historic Christian witness, the Creeds, and even to deny that we should have pastors and teachers (or that pastors and teachers are only necessary for “immature” Christians but the “mature” can rely solely on the internal witness of the Spirit). In other forms I’ve seen this used in such a way as to say, “I don’t interpret Scripture, I just read and believe it”.
Psychologically, and spiritually, we must always and ever remember our own fallibility and fallenness; because the truth of ourselves as human beings is that we don’t like to be wrong. And we are, by nature, inclined to always insist that we are correct even when provided evidence against our opinions and views. This is universal human instinct; and while people can and do change their minds, and can be persuaded; it comes with no small amount of difficulty. Which is to say I don’t condemn anyone for this mindset–I have it, you have it, we all have it. In spite of our best intentions. We remain fallen and sinful and finite–and so we are pigheaded creatures. All of us.
With that said, and admitting my biases here. I do, truly, believe that we must be incredibly skeptical of our own experiences and perceptions when it comes to matters that we regard as objective truth. If I arrive at a position, as it pertains to the Christian faith, which is so fundamentally outside of anything which the long history of God’s people have witnessed and confessed, then my first instinct should not be “Everyone else got it wrong, and I’m right” but instead “Since I know that the Holy Spirit dwells within all His people, and that my brothers and sisters have access through the same Spirit and have heard the same word of God as I do; then perhaps I have erred in my reasoning and I should lean upon the wisdom of those who have studied, who have believed, and who have gone before me in the faith.” Not to attribute infallibility to anyone or to anything beside Scripture; but rather to recognize that the same Holy Spirit who dwells in me dwells also in you, and in those who came before me, and that surely the Spirit will not contradict Himself. Thus leaning on the wisdom, the godly wisdom, of others is a fundamentally good thing. And that we do not arrive at truth through private opinion; but rather the hearing of the word and the believing of the word occurs in communion–in the “I and thee” of the Body of Christ.
Beloved brothers and sisters,
I say this with a heart full of love and deep conviction born out of both Scripture and lived experience. I have been in Pentecost for over 33 years, and time after time I have watched sincere seekers come to the altar with hungry hearts, asking the Lord to baptize them in the Holy Ghost. And every single time — just as the Book of Acts records — the Spirit responded the same way: they spoke with other tongues as the Spirit gave the utterance. Not once have I seen God fail to confirm His Word.
My passion for the oneness of God flows from the same devotion to Scripture. In Isaiah, the Lord declares plainly, “I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour” (Isaiah 43:11), and again that there is no God beside Him. When we come into the New Testament and see that Christ is our Savior, the revelation becomes beautifully clear — He is not a different Savior from the Old Testament, but the same one God manifest in flesh. The only distinction is the humanity God graciously assumed to redeem us. The Savior of Isaiah and the Savior of the Gospels are one and the same.
My heart truly yearns for everyone to receive this revelation, not because of tradition, but because it is the consistent testimony of Scripture. God is one in His being. He is not internally divided, nor externally separated. Isaiah’s proclamations leave no room for a fragmented Godhead. The Lord alone is God.
I also hold firmly that Scripture is absolute truth, not something we reshape to fit our doctrines. We must never elevate our beliefs to the level of Scripture — rather, we must allow Scripture to define what we believe. If something is not clearly taught in the Word, then it should not be presented as biblical truth.
Regarding tongues, the Bible makes an important distinction that is often misunderstood. When Paul speaks of tongues not being for all, he is addressing the operation of the gift of tongues in the church — a public ministry gift that requires interpretation and serves to edify the entire body. That is different from the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost. Throughout the Book of Acts, whenever believers were first baptized with the Spirit, tongues accompanied that experience. These two are not the same, though both are biblical.
I share all of this not to argue, but out of love — because I believe God’s Word is clear, powerful, and life-changing. My prayer is that every person would experience the fullness of His Spirit and come into the beautiful revelation of who Jesus truly is.
May the Lord continue to lead us into all truth with humility, hunger, and love for one another.
The exact modern phrase “slain in the Spirit” isn’t found in Scripture, but the experience of people being overwhelmed by the manifest presence and power of God absolutely is.
Throughout the Bible, when God’s glory, Spirit, or angelic presence was revealed, human strength failed — not emotionally, but because flesh cannot stand in unveiled holiness and power.
• When God’s glory filled the Tabernacle and Temple, the priests could not stand to minister (Exodus 40:34–35; 1 Kings 8:10–11)
• When Daniel encountered the heavenly presence, he said “there remained no strength in me” and fell to the ground (Daniel 10:8–9)
• When Jesus revealed Himself in power in the garden, the soldiers went backward and fell to the ground (John 18:6)
• When Saul encountered the Spirit of God, he fell and lay before the Lord for hours (1 Samuel 19:23–24)
• When John saw Christ in glory, he said “I fell at His feet as dead” (Revelation 1:17)
In every case, it wasn’t hype.
It wasn’t manipulation.
It was the overwhelming encounter with God’s presence and authority.
Now — the Bible never presents falling as a goal or a spiritual badge.
The focus is always on encounter, transformation, obedience, and empowerment.
Sometimes people fell.
Sometimes they trembled.
Sometimes they cried out.
Sometimes they stood in awe.
The common thread wasn’t the physical reaction — it was the power of God meeting humanity.
So biblically speaking:
God’s presence can overwhelm the human body
People did fall under divine encounters
But Scripture never commands or promotes chasing a physical manifestation
The danger today is when people try to manufacture what should only come from genuine divine encounter.
If God’s Spirit causes someone to fall — that has biblical precedent.
If people are being pushed, coached, or emotionally worked up — that does not.
The real evidence of the Spirit isn’t falling backward.
It’s:
Repentance
Holiness
Power to overcome sin
Bold witness
Transformed lives
Encounters may move the body —
but the Spirit always changes the heart.
