Does anyone today actually speak in tongues for real?

Theology
63

There is precisely zero reason to distinguish the glossolalia we read in Acts 2, Acts 10, and Acts 19 from the glossolalia which St. Paul mentions in his epistles.

This is an artificial distinction created explicitly to defend a doctrine and a phenomenon that does not exist in Scripture and which is in no way recorded in the long history of the Christian Church.

No where does Scripture present glossolalia as “the evidence” for something called “baptism with the Holy Spirit”.

Even if we permit the occasion of Acts 19 to constitute an example of “baptism with the Holy Spirit” (something Scripture itself does not claim, and which I very much disagree with); this only presents us with description, not proscription.

Description is not proscription.

It is also an example of cherry-picking. For we have yet another occasion of group-reception of the Spirit besides Acts 2, 10, and 19. We have the occasion of the mission among the Samaritans. There is an omission of any mention of glossolalia in this occasion; and while ex silencio does not itself constitute a proper argument for absence; we are not free to merely speculate. I.e. We are not able to claim that they must have had a glossolalia experience since we see it mentioned elsewhere in the text. We should note, however, that if the key teaching we ought to be taking away is that glossolalia is the (not even an) evidence of the Spirit then it becomes worthwhile to wonder why St. Luke is not consistent.

More-so: Why is there an entire lack of any corroborating evidence for such an essential doctrine outside of the Acts, if, indeed, this is what the Acts is teaching us? Why does St. Paul say nothing of it in all of his letters? Why do, quite literally, none of the apostles nor their colleagues mention it in any of our other New Testament texts? And why are the immediate generation of Christians–those whose learning came first hand from the apostles and who were specifically hand-picked by the apostles to pastor the churches–seemingly unaware of such a teaching?

So I have these rebukes and criticisms:

  1. An invalid understanding of what “baptism with the Holy Spirit” refers to biblically.
  2. An improper distinction made between a descriptive and proscriptive reading of Scripture.
  3. A cherry-picking of data which constitutes a flagrant example of eisegesis.
  4. The creation of a brand new, entirely un-apostolic and un-historical and un-biblical doctrine which serves only to divide the Church, confuse the Faithful, and sow doubt in the promises of the Gospel. A doctrine which neither leads to repentance, to good works done out of love, nor which leads one back to the total faithfulness of God in the Cross thus assuring one of God’s grace, mercy, and hope in Jesus.

All of these are quite damning, but on this final point I would go beyond merely damning, and say that this instead is evidence of a doctrine of devils.

1 Like
64

@TheologyNerd

  1. “There is precisely zero reason to distinguish the glossolalia in Acts from that in Paul’s epistles.”

Scripture itself actually gives you a reason to distinguish them, and ironically it undermines the modern claim rather than supports it.
In Acts 2, the tongues are explicitly identified as intelligible human languages understood by the hearers, as Luke goes out of his way to emphasize in Acts 2:6[1].
Paul, by contrast, explicitly describes tongues that are not understood by hearers, as stated in 1 Corinthians 14:2[2].

This distinction does not rescue the modern doctrine, it actually damages it, because Paul explicitly refuses to universalize tongues even in the very context where he discusses them most, asking rhetorically in 1 Corinthians 12:30[3], where the Greek grammar assumes a negative answer.
So Scripture itself distinguishes contexts and functions, while simultaneously denying universality.

  1. “This distinction is artificially created to defend a doctrine not found in Scripture.”

Your assessment is textually accurate.

Nowhere does Scripture ever define glossolalia as a normative initiatory sign, nor does it ever command believers to seek it, expect it, or measure spirituality by it.
When Luke records tongues in Acts, he describes what occurred, but never interprets it as a universal rule, which becomes obvious when contrasted with how doctrine is normally taught in the New Testament, such as justification by faith being explicitly articulated in Romans 5:1[4].

If tongues were essential evidence of Spirit baptism, that teaching would appear in propositional form somewhere, yet Scripture is silent.

  1. “Scripture nowhere presents glossolalia as the evidence of baptism with the Holy Spirit.”

You are correct here brother.
The phrase “evidence of the baptism with the Holy Spirit” does not exist in Scripture, nor does the conceptual framework appear implicitly.
Instead, Scripture repeatedly identifies faith in Christ as the decisive marker of receiving the Spirit, as Paul states plainly in Galatians 3:2[5].

Paul does not ask whether they spoke in tongues.
He does not ask whether they manifested signs.
He anchors reception of the Spirit to faith in the crucified and risen Christ, which is entirely consistent with Romans 8:9[6].

No tongues test is applied. Ever.

  1. “Acts 19 is descriptive, not prescriptive.”

This is hermeneutically airtight.
Luke narrates events without instructing readers to replicate the phenomena, exactly as he does elsewhere with casting lots in Acts 1 or communal living in Acts 4.
Nothing in Acts 19 includes a command, pattern declaration, or apostolic interpretation stating “this is how all believers must receive the Spirit,” which becomes decisive when compared to how Paul does issue commands elsewhere, such as in 1 Thessalonians 4:3[7].

Description does not become doctrine simply because it is exciting.

  1. “This is cherry-picking, because Acts includes Spirit reception without tongues.”

Correct, and devastating to the opposing claim.
The Samaritans receive the Spirit in Acts 8, yet Luke makes no mention whatsoever of tongues, as recorded in Acts 8:17[8].
Luke, who had no hesitation describing tongues elsewhere, chooses not to here, which means one of two things must be true: either tongues did not occur, or Luke did not consider them essential to the event.

Either option demolishes the doctrine.

  1. “We are not free to speculate where Scripture is silent.”

This is precisely the biblical principle itself.
Deuteronomy 29:29[9] draws a firm boundary between revelation and imagination.
To insist tongues must have occurred in Acts 8 because they occur elsewhere is not biblical reasoning, it is doctrinal projection.

  1. “If tongues were essential, Luke would be consistent.”

Yes, and Luke is anything but careless.
He is demonstrably capable of precision, as shown in his careful sequencing of resurrection appearances in Luke 24[10].

Out of characters, my bad.

J.

  1. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. - KJV ↩︎

  2. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. - KJV ↩︎

  3. Do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? - KJV ↩︎

  4. Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. - KJV ↩︎

  5. This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? - KJV ↩︎

  6. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - KJV ↩︎

  7. For this is the will of God, even your sanctification. - KJV ↩︎

  8. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. - KJV ↩︎

  9. The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever. - KJV ↩︎

  10. And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. - KJV ↩︎

65

Salvation is explicitly not by works of any kind, moral or religious.
Ephesians 2:8–9[1] leaves no conceptual space for adding human contribution without directly contradicting the text.

Works are explicitly contrasted with grace as mutually exclusive categories.
Romans 11:6[2] does not allow hybrid systems, spiritual add-ons, or sacramental supplements.

Justification is denied to works and assigned solely to faith.
Romans 3:28[3] is Paul summarizing his argument, not offering a debatable aside.

No flesh can be justified by law-keeping or obedience performance.
Romans 3:20[4] shuts the door on every religious system that treats effort as salvific.

David’s definition of justification excludes works entirely.
Romans 4:5–6[5] is Paul arguing from Old Testament authority against works-based righteousness.

Salvation is grounded in mercy, not righteous acts or religious obedience.
Titus 3:5[6] explicitly denies salvific value to even good, moral, religious works.

Faith, not law-keeping, is the means of receiving the Spirit.
Galatians 3:2[7] annihilates the idea that tongues, rituals, or obedience unlock the Spirit.

Adding works to faith nullifies grace entirely.
Galatians 2:21[8] ties works-salvation directly to denying the necessity of the cross.

Circumcision is named, but the logic applies to all ritual acts including baptism.
Galatians 5:4[9] shows that adding a ritual requirement severs one from grace, regardless of how spiritual it sounds.

Baptism is never presented as salvific merit, even when mentioned alongside salvation.
1 Corinthians 1:17[10] would be incoherent if baptism were necessary for salvation.

The gospel itself is defined without works, rituals, or manifestations.
1 Corinthians 15:1–4[11] grounds salvation entirely in the cross and resurrection, not in response performance.

Tongues are explicitly excluded as universal or essential.
1 Corinthians 12:30[12] makes it logically impossible for tongues to be required for salvation or Spirit possession.

Possession of the Spirit is defined by belonging to Christ, not by manifestations.
Romans 8:9[13] sets the criterion as union with Christ, not charismatic experience.

Belief in Christ alone is the condition for eternal life.
John 5:24[14] includes no ritual, no work, no manifestation, no probation period.

The apostles explicitly reject obedience-performance as a salvific yoke.
Acts 15:11[15] is the church’s own doctrinal ruling against adding requirements.

Final synthesis, without sentiment.

The New Testament teaches salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone, grounded in the cross and the resurrection alone.
Works are the fruit of salvation, not the cause.
Baptism is an act of obedience, not a mechanism of justification.

Any system that adds requirements does not deepen grace, it replaces it.

And Paul, who never lacked words, was painfully clear about that.

@TheologyNerd Correct me if I’m wrong here.

J.

  1. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. - KJV ↩︎

  2. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. - KJV ↩︎

  3. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. - KJV ↩︎

  4. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. - KJV ↩︎

  5. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works. - KJV ↩︎

  6. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. - KJV ↩︎

  7. This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? - KJV ↩︎

  8. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. - KJV ↩︎

  9. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. - KJV ↩︎

  10. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. - KJV ↩︎

  11. Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you… By which also ye are saved… how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures. - KJV ↩︎

  12. Do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? - KJV ↩︎

  13. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - KJV ↩︎

  14. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. - KJV ↩︎

  15. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. - KJV ↩︎

66

image
image174×163 26.3 KB

J.

67

My only nitpick (and it really is only a nitpick) is that I think this constitutes a distinction of setting rather than a distinction of kind.

If I speak Arabic in front of someone who knows Arabic, then what I’ve said is intelligible.
If I speak Arabic in front of someone who doesn’t know Arabic, then what I’ve said is not intelligible.

It isn’t a difference or a distinction of kind (in both scenarios Arabic is spoken), but rather the setting has changed, and the hearer in one case and the hearer in the other case are different. In Acts 2 the tongues spoken were intelligible because the hearers knew those languages; the context of 1 Corinthians 14 is that the hearers do not know the language, and thus requires the need for translation, “one to interpret”. Thus the hearers in Acts 2 understood and heard words offering praise to God in intelligible languag–their own; while in 1 Corinthians 14 the hearers require a translator otherwise they are not edified by understanding what is said.

This isn’t an argument against what you’re saying; only nitpicking because I think it is important that we understand that in both cases we are dealing with tongues, the Spiritual charism, gift, of glossolalia; but St. Paul’s pastoral instruction for the Corinthian church is to highlight the necessity of good order, which includes that which is mutually edifying for the Body; and thus speech which cannot be comprehended fails to edify and so edifying speech must be that which is comprehended: whether “prophecy” or “tongues”. What happens in the context of our assembled, gathered worship ought to be orderly, edifying, and ground us deeper in our communion–it is not individualistic and chaotic, but orderly and corporate: as the one Body of Christ in all her members under Christ her Head.

68

…but it is not said that they are unintelligible to any humans .

Bro Johann. Might you consider an understanding of 1 Cor 14 as I outlined it in post #57. (a post The_Omega has not responded to, BTW.) Might you consider Paul describing the Corinthian disciples as speaking in known human languages that he accepts were miraculously gifted by the Holy Spirit, but not understood by hearers who were present in the Corinthian assembly. Do we need to believe that their “speaking” was unintelligible by any human in the world, or just not understood by those in attendance? I am assuming that this gift of another language given to a disciple, was to be used at-will for edification of the body, wherever it was applicable. I read this Pauline correction to say that some were expressing their gifted language even when no one was present who would understand them .

I read: “For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him” to mean “Those among your assembly, who are speaking in a foreign language that no one present understands is understood by God alone.”

I’ll remind you of the passage so you don’t have to look it up.

For he who speaks in a tongue 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. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification. But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching? Even things without life, whether flute or harp, when they make a sound, unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played? For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare himself for battle? So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me. Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel. Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. (1 Corinthians 14:2-15)

Respectfully
KP

P.S. My Paraphrase

For some are speaking in a foreign language in the assembly when no one understands him; in this case he does not speak to men but to God, even though, in the spirit he speaks mysteriously. But the one who prophesies speaks edification, exhortation, and comfort to men. He who speaks in a foreign language brings attention to himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. I wish you all were at least bilingual, but I wish even more that you spoke the word of God boldly; for he who speaks the words of God is greater than he who speaks with in a foreign language, unless indeed he has an interpreter, that the church body may also receive edification.

But now, brethren, if I come to you only speaking in a foreign language, what shall I profit you? Only if I speak to you by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching are you benefited? Even things without life, whether flute or harp, when they make a sound, unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played? For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare himself for battle? So likewise, you, unless you utter words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. Therefore, if I do not comprehend the language, I shall be an alien to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be an alien to me. Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel. Therefore let him who speaks in a spiritually gifted language pray that what he says he may also understand. For if I pray in a foreign language that even I don’t understand, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. (1 Corinthians 14:2-15)

69

I am 99% agreement. But, as you already know, I do not view Baptism as a ritualistic requirement for salvation, nor as an act of obedience, but as divine work and means of Grace. As such I believe that God does, indeed, declare us just in our baptism–not because of our baptism, but within it. In the same way that God declares us just when we hear the Gospel, when we receive the Lord’s Supper. The objective work of justification is finished, once and for all, at Calvary. That justification is proclaimed and declared to us by God in all His precious means of grace.

This would get us, arguably, into a very different conversation: Objective Justification vs Subjective Justification. The key text here is Romans 5:18-19. The universal justification of the Cross (Objective Justification) and the application of that work to me (Subjective Justification). As Luther would argue in his Large Catechism:

For neither you nor I could ever know anything of Christ, or believe on Him, and obtain Him for our Lord, unless it were offered to us and granted to our hearts by the Holy Ghost through the preaching of the Gospel. The work is done and accomplished; for Christ has acquired and gained the treasure for us by His suffering, death, resurrection, etc. But if the work remained concealed so that no one knew of it, then it would be in vain and lost. That this treasure, therefore, might not lie buried, but be appropriated and enjoyed, God has caused the Word to go forth and be proclaimed, in which He gives the Holy Ghost to bring this treasure home and appropriate it to us.

70

I’m with you on this, brother @TheologyNerd , though as you know I do not believe in baptismal regeneration.

This is where I would disagree with Luther. And the Eucharist…

Luther’s eucharistic theology rests almost entirely on a literal insistence on the copula “is” in the words of institution, especially “This is my body” (Matthew 26:26[1]).
His error is not reverence for Scripture.
His error is treating one genre-specific utterance as metaphysically exhaustive, while ignoring how Scripture itself regularly uses sacramental, covenantal, and representational language.

Scripture itself shows that “is” does not always denote ontological identity.
Jesus says “I am the door” (John 10:9[2]), without becoming hinges and wood.
Paul says “that Rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4[3]), without collapsing Christ into geology.

Jesus says 22:20[4]), where the cup clearly represents the covenant ratified by blood, not the covenant itself as a substance.

So Luther’s grammatical absolutism is selective, not consistent.

More importantly, the New Testament never teaches a localized, objectified presence of Christ’s body in multiple places simultaneously, which Luther must assume to sustain his view.
Scripture explicitly affirms Christ’s bodily ascension and localization.

Acts 1:11[5]
Acts 3:21[6]

Paul reinforces this by grounding Christ’s bodily presence in heaven, not on altars.

Colossians 3:1[7]

Luther tries to solve this by appealing to the communicatio idiomatum, arguing that Christ’s human nature participates in divine omnipresence.
But Scripture never teaches omnipresence of Christ’s human body.
That move is theological inference, not biblical assertion.

Additionally, Paul’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper emphasizes proclamation, remembrance, and participation, not metaphysical presence.

1 Corinthians 11:26[8]

The Supper proclaims a death that occurred in history and awaits a bodily return in the future.
That forward-looking eschatology sits awkwardly with the idea of Christ’s body being physically present in the elements now.

Even 1 Corinthians 10:16, often cited in favor of real presence, does not require Luther’s conclusion.

1 Corinthians 10:16[9]

The term κοινωνία (koinōnia) denotes participation or fellowship, not substance localization.
Union does not require physical identity.
Paul uses the same word for spiritual participation elsewhere without implying material presence.

So where does that leave Luther?

He was exegetically serious, not careless.
He was rightly reacting against empty symbolism and sacramental magic.
But he overreached, turning Christ’s promise into a metaphysical claim Scripture itself never spells out.

Praise our Lord Christ Jesus for your contributions!

Still brothers?

Johann.

  1. This is my body. - KJV ↩︎

  2. I am the door. - KJV ↩︎

  3. and that Rock was Christ. - KJV ↩︎

  4. This cup is the new testament in my blood. - KJV ↩︎

  5. This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. - KJV ↩︎

  6. Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things. - KJV ↩︎

  7. Seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. - KJV ↩︎

  8. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. - KJV ↩︎

  9. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? - KJV ↩︎

71

I agree with your paraphrasing, brother @Kpuff, and I’ve noticed that @The_Omega has not yet responded to your direct question(s).

Give me time dear friend, hectic times here where I am, at the moment, and if I could “speak” in tongues, I would!

J.

72

The Bible itself already addresses the most common misunderstandings about the gifts of the Spirit. None of them are new — Paul corrected them in the early church.

Here are four that Scripture directly speaks to:

1. Misunderstanding #1 – The gifts are signs of spiritual maturity

The Corinthians flowed in gifts powerfully — yet Paul called them carnal and babes in Christ (1 Corinthians 3:1–3).

Gifts are manifestations of God’s grace, not proof of personal holiness or maturity.

Jesus even warned that many would prophesy, cast out devils, and do miracles — yet still not truly know Him (Matthew 7:22–23).

Power does not equal character.
Gifts do not replace obedience.

The Spirit can work through a vessel while still working on the vessel.

2. Misunderstanding #2 – The gifts are for personal experience or show

Paul explicitly says:

“The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal” (1 Corinthians 12:7)

That means:

• For edification
• For helping others
• For building the church

Not for entertainment.
Not for personal spotlight.
Not for emotional hype.

This is why Paul corrected chaotic services in Corinth (1 Corinthians 14).

When gifts become about display instead of edification, they are being misused — not disproven.

3. Misunderstanding #3 – The gifts are dangerous or should be avoided

Paul never once warns believers to avoid spiritual gifts.

In fact, he commands:

“Covet earnestly the best gifts” (1 Corinthians 12:31)
“Desire spiritual gifts” (1 Corinthians 14:1)
“Forbid not to speak with tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:39)

What he corrects is abuse, not operation.

Fire can burn a house down if misused —
but that doesn’t make fire evil.

The Spirit’s gifts are from God.
Misuse comes from human flesh.

4. Misunderstanding #4 – The Word and the Spirit are in competition

Some act as if emphasis on the Spirit leads away from Scripture.

But in the Bible, the Spirit always works through and with the Word — never against it.

Jesus said the Spirit would:

• Teach truth
• Bring Christ’s words to remembrance
• Lead into all truth

(John 14:26; 16:13)

The early church was both:

Devoted to doctrine (Acts 2:42)
Operating in signs and gifts (Acts 2:43)

You don’t choose Word or Spirit.

You need both.

The Spirit without the Word leads to deception.
The Word without the Spirit leads to dead religion.

The real biblical balance:

The gifts are real
The gifts are for today
The gifts are from God
The gifts must operate in love, order, and submission to Scripture

The danger is not the Holy Spirit.

The danger is:

• Pride
• Disorder
• Fleshly misuse
• Experience replacing Scripture

Which is exactly what Paul corrected — not what he rejected.

When properly understood, the gifts of the Spirit:

Build the church
Glorify Christ
Confirm the Word
Minister healing and deliverance

Just as they did in Acts.

73

I want to respond to the cessationist concern with both Scripture and charity, because this isn’t about winning an argument — it’s about honoring what God has actually said and done.

Biblically, cessationism is not taught anywhere in Scripture. There is no verse that says the gifts would stop with the apostles, with the closing of the canon, or with the death of the first-century church. In fact, Paul explicitly says the opposite. In 1 Corinthians 13 he teaches that gifts like tongues and prophecy will cease when “that which is perfect is come” — a phrase that, in the context, points not to the New Testament writings, but to the return of Christ and the full knowledge that comes with seeing Him “face to face.” Until then, Paul repeatedly commands believers not to forbid tongues, to desire spiritual gifts, and to expect the Spirit to continue working in the church. A doctrine that says “God no longer does this” has to be read into the text — it is never drawn from it.

Cessationism also struggles to account for the Book of Acts itself. Acts is not a one-time curiosity; it is the inspired record of how the risen Christ continues His work through the Holy Ghost in the church. Luke does not present tongues, prophecy, or spiritual manifestations as temporary scaffolding — he presents them as normal responses to people receiving the Spirit. Nothing in Acts signals an expiration date. Instead, Peter explicitly ties Pentecost to an ongoing promise: “to you, to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” That language stretches forward, not backward.

I would also gently urge you to actually read post 59, where I shared what this looks like beyond theory. For over three decades in the church, I have personally 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. This isn’t one story, or two, or an isolated anomaly. It is well over a hundred people seen and heard, across years, settings, and circumstances, with no coaching, no pressure, and no emotional manipulation — only faith in God’s promise.

You are free to deny the experience if you choose. But you cannot honestly deny that the experience exists, that it continues, and that it aligns precisely with the biblical pattern. Scripture and experience are not at odds here — experience is confirming Scripture. And when God consistently confirms His Word, the safest response is not to explain it away, but to humbly ask whether our theology needs to submit more fully to what God is actually doing.

I say all of this kindly and respectfully. This is not about pride, superiority, or emotionalism. It’s about believing that the same Spirit who fell in Acts is still alive, still faithful, and still doing exactly what Jesus promised He would do.

74

You’re absolutely right that both glossolalia and xenoglossia are post-biblical descriptive terms — Scripture itself simply uses the language of “speaking in tongues.” The question, though, isn’t what later terminology labels the phenomenon, but how the Bible itself presents multiple operations of tongues.

Acts 2 unquestionably involved known human languages — the miracle there was God enabling the disciples to speak languages they had never learned so that the nations could hear the gospel.

But Acts 2 is not presented as the only form tongues ever took.

When you move beyond Acts 2 into the epistles and later narrative passages, you see something broader.

Paul explicitly speaks of:

• Tongues that no man understands (1 Corinthians 14:2)
• Speaking mysteries in the Spirit (1 Corinthians 14:2)
• Needing supernatural interpretation (1 Corinthians 12:10; 14:13)
• Tongues that edify the speaker personally (1 Corinthians 14:4)

If all tongues were simply unlearned human languages (xenoglossia), several of Paul’s statements make little sense:

Why would no one understand, when the language itself exists?
Why would interpretation be needed, when a known language could be recognized?
Why would Paul contrast tongues with prophecy in terms of intelligibility if tongues were always naturally intelligible languages?

The Corinthian church clearly experienced tongues that were not functioning like Acts 2 — and Paul doesn’t deny their legitimacy. He regulates their use.

So biblically speaking:

Acts 2 = known languages as a sign to the nations
1 Corinthians 12–14 = Spirit-uttered tongues that require interpretation

Both fall under the same biblical category of “tongues.”

The Bible never limits tongues to xenoglossia alone.

It presents:

• Tongues as a sign (Acts 2)
• Tongues as prayer in the Spirit (1 Cor 14:2, 14–15)
• Tongues as a gift needing interpretation (1 Cor 12:10)

To insist tongues must always be known human languages is to flatten the full biblical witness into one chapter of Acts while ignoring Paul’s extended teaching.

Acts shows the initial outpouring.

The epistles show the ongoing operation in the church.

Both are Scripture.
Both are inspired.
Both define the doctrine.

And importantly — nowhere does Scripture say the unintelligible operation is pagan, psychological, or illegitimate. Paul repeatedly affirms it while calling for order.

So while later scholars coined technical terms, the Bible itself clearly teaches that tongues are not restricted to one linguistic form.

The real biblical category isn’t:

“xenoglossia vs glossolalia”

It’s simply:

Spirit-given utterance beyond natural ability.

Sometimes understood naturally (Acts 2).
Sometimes requiring supernatural interpretation (1 Corinthians 14).

Both are from the same Spirit.

And both are biblical.

75

We know all of Jesus’ teachings. At least they are all written down by eyewitnesses. Do you not think that if this were as important, or required as evidence, He would have told us this?

"If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him.”

You will receive him at baptism. He will be evident by your speaking in unknown tongues.?? No? Did he not add that?

“You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live.”

You will receive him at baptism. He will be evident by your speaking in unknown tongues.?? No? Did he not add that?

“In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”

So far, it seems He is talking about believing and receiving.

“Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, ‘Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?’ Jesus answered him, ‘If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me.”

This is why you need to be baptized, so that we can come and make our home with you. No?

"These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

When?

“Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid. You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. And now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place, you may believe.”

Again, at Babtism? Speaking in tongues?

“I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no claim on me, but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us go from here.” John 14:15-31

Seems that if this man-made teaching was as important as some say, Jesus left out some important information? Yes?

Peter

1 Like
76

After thought.

“If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” Luke 11:13

Here

“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.” John 15:26

Who gives the Holy Spirit?

“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” Matthew 3:11

“For God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.” 2 Timothy 1:7

No pastor or preacher can ever claim that it is because of them that you receive power and wisdom and the Holy Spirit. God does this. It is not some triggered auto responses to an act performed by a pastor, or through obedience in baptism. God gives it to us when we ask, and when He decides if we need to speak in tongues, because someone He wants to hear the message, can understand it, or whatever gifts He wants the individual to have.

He is the Spirit of adoption whereby we can cry Abba Father.
Peter

1 Like
77

@The_Omega

Paul says “forbid not to speak with tongues” precisely because tongues are not universal, not mandatory, and not supreme, and that sentence only makes sense inside the corrective argument he has been building for three chapters, not as a standalone slogan ripped from its habitat like a verse-shaped souvenir.

First, the grammar and placement matter, because 1 Corinthians 14:39 is a concluding regulation, not a universal mandate, and Paul is summarizing how tongues are to be treated within the church, not defining what every believer must experience.

“Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.”[1]

Notice the deliberate asymmetry: prophecy is urged positively (“covet”), tongues are protected negatively (“do not forbid”), which already tells you Paul is not elevating them to the same level, but rather preventing an overcorrection in the opposite direction.

Why would Paul need to say this at all? Because the Corinthians had already demonstrated their talent for spiritual chaos, and once Paul imposed strict limits on tongues, meaning interpretation required, limited speakers, orderly sequence, intelligibility prioritized, the obvious human response would be to ban the whole thing out of frustration, which Paul refuses to allow.

In other words, Paul is not saying “everyone should speak in tongues,” he is saying “do not outlaw a legitimate gift simply because you have abused it,” which is a very different sentence that only becomes controversial when read without context or patience.

Second, the universality question is already answered earlier in the same letter, and Paul does not contradict himself four paragraphs later, because he has just finished saying, unmistakably, that tongues are not given to all believers, using rhetorical questions that demand a negative answer in Greek syntax.

“Do all speak with tongues?”[2]

If Paul believed tongues were universal, 1 Corinthians 14 would be self-refuting, and Paul was many things, but careless was not one of them.

Third, the function of tongues in Paul’s theology is situational and conditional, not universal and constitutive, because throughout chapter 14 he repeatedly subordinates tongues to edification, intelligibility, and order, meaning they are acceptable only when they serve the gathered body rather than the individual speaker.

“If there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church.”[3]

A gift that can be legitimately silenced is not a universal obligation, and a gift that requires permission, limitation, and translation cannot be the defining mark of Christian identity.

Fourth, Paul’s concern in this entire section is ecclesial order, not spiritual qualification, because the Corinthians were treating tongues as proof of superiority, maturity, or spiritual authenticity, and Paul dismantles that idea relentlessly by reframing tongues as the least intelligible gift, useful only under narrow conditions.

That is why the chapter climaxes not with “seek tongues,” but with “let all things be done decently and in order,” which reveals Paul’s controlling concern is worship that reflects the character of the God revealed in the crucified and risen Christ, not worship that showcases ecstatic experience.

Finally, when Paul says “forbid not,” he is guarding liberty, not imposing necessity, because Christian freedom cuts both ways: you are free to speak in tongues if God grants the gift and the context allows it, and you are equally free to never speak in tongues and lack nothing in Christ.

So no, the verse is not universal in the sense of obligation, identity, or requirement; it is universal only in the sense that no church has the authority to ban what God may give, even while having every authority to regulate how it is practiced.

Paul is not defending tongues as essential; he is restraining human overreaction, which honestly fits his personality and the Corinthians’ behavior a little too well.

Improperly weaponized, however, tongues can become a pseudo-work, not because Scripture defines them that way, but because humans have an impressive talent for rebuilding the very ladders Paul spent his life knocking over.

Answer @KPuff ’ question to you brother.

J.

  1. 1 Corinthians 14:39 - KJV ↩︎

  2. 1 Corinthians 12:30 - KJV ↩︎

  3. 1 Corinthians 14:28 - KJV ↩︎

78

@The_Omega

The Jerusalem Council
Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Act 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
Act 15:3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
Act 15:4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Act 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Act 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Act 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
Act 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Act 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
Act 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
Act 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
Act 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Do a study on repent, believe and the sealing of the Holy Spirit.
We are not saved by works.

J.

79

Brother, I appreciate the careful work you’ve done walking through the Greek terms. It’s clear you’re taking Scripture seriously, and that matters. I only want to gently address a few places where conclusions are being drawn that go beyond what the Greek itself actually proves.

It is absolutely true that γλῶσσα (glōssa) is the noun used throughout the New Testament. But where the leap happens is in assuming that because the same word is used, it must always mean a known human language.

In Greek (just like in English), one word can carry a range of meanings depending on context.

“Tongue” can mean:

• the physical organ
• a human language
• a mode of speech
• or a kind of utterance

The word itself does not automatically limit the meaning to “known earthly languages.” Context always determines that.

For example, in Revelation when it speaks of “every tongue,” the context clearly demands human languages.

But in 1 Corinthians 14, the context repeatedly stresses not understood by men, no one understands, speaks mysteries to God, and requires supernatural interpretation. That is already a different category of use than Acts 2.

So the fact that the same noun is used does not prove the experiences are identical in nature.

The use of διάλεκτος (dialektos) in Acts is actually very important — and it works against the idea that all tongues must be known languages.

Luke goes out of his way in Acts 2 to specify dialect:

“Each heard them in his own dialect.”

Why specify that word at all if glōssa by itself always meant native language?

The very fact that Luke adds dialektos shows he is clarifying that this particular manifestation involved recognizable earthly languages.

Interestingly, Paul never once uses dialektos in Corinthians.

He consistently sticks with glōssa alone — and then repeatedly emphasizes unintelligibility without interpretation.

That strongly suggests two different functions of the same phenomenon:

• Acts 2 — languages miraculously understood by hearers
• Corinthians — Spirit-inspired speech requiring supernatural interpretation

Same word. Different manifestation. Different purpose.

Regarding λαλέω (laleō) — you’re right that it means “to speak” or “to utter,” and it doesn’t mean animal noise or gibberish.

But it also doesn’t require that what is spoken be a known human language.

It’s used in Scripture for:

• God speaking from heaven
• demons speaking
• inspired utterance
• normal conversation

So again, the verb tells us speech occurred — but not the linguistic category of that speech.

Paul actually makes clear in 1 Corinthians 14 that the speaker himself does not understand what he is saying unless interpretation is given. That alone separates it from Acts 2.

On interpretation (ἑρμηνεία / ἑρμηνεύω).

You said it assumes the utterance is a normal language and not “random sound.” I agree it isn’t random sound — but interpretation in Scripture is not limited to translating known human languages.

The same root is used for:

• explaining dreams
• explaining mysteries
• making hidden meaning known

In other words, it is the Spirit giving understanding — not necessarily someone who happens to know that earthly language.

Paul even says:

“Let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.”

That would make no sense if it were just a known foreign language — because you wouldn’t need a supernatural gift to translate Spanish or Parthian or Arabic.

The whole point is that the meaning is hidden unless the Spirit reveals it.

The biggest stretch is treating 1 Corinthians 13:1 as still meaning only earthly languages.

Paul says:

“tongues of men and of angels”

Yes, it’s still the word glōssa — but the phrase itself expands the category beyond human language.

If there are “tongues of angels,” then by definition there are forms of Spirit speech that are not human dialects.

Paul is not creating nonsense speech — but he is clearly acknowledging a heavenly mode of utterance alongside earthly ones.

So the Greek does not support restricting all tongues to known languages.

The sound analogy in 1 Corinthians 14 actually supports Pentecostal understanding rather than undermining it.

Paul’s point is:

• Sounds without meaning don’t edify
• Tongues without interpretation don’t edify the church

But he never says tongues are merely sounds.

He says they are meaningful — just not understood unless interpreted.

That’s the whole argument of the chapter.

In summary (said lovingly):

Yes, glōssa is the consistent word
Yes, tongues are real speech, not chaos
No, the Greek does not limit them to known human languages
No, Acts 2 sets the universal definition

Acts 2 is one manifestation.
Corinthians describes another operation within the church.

Both are biblical.
Both are Spirit-inspired.
Both serve different purposes.

And this actually lines up beautifully with what Pentecostals have taught all along:

• Initial evidence — tongues as the Spirit gives utterance (like Acts)
• Gift of tongues in the church — requiring interpretation (like Corinthians)

Same Spirit.
Same phenomenon.
Different function.

I say all this with respect, not to argue but to clarify. The Greek is rich and beautiful, but it has to be allowed to speak in its full contextual range rather than being pressed into a single category.

My prayer is always the same — that we let Scripture define itself, that we walk humbly with one another, and that we remain open to everything God has promised in His Word.

Grace and peace to you, brother.

80

I want to respond to that gently, because I don’t think that’s actually what you intend to say — but it is where the logic leads.

What you’re essentially suggesting is that if Jesus did not personally spell something out in a few recorded sayings before His ascension, then everything taught and explained afterward is somehow less important or optional. But if we follow that reasoning consistently, we would have to dismiss a large portion of the New Testament itself.

Jesus did not personally write Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, or Ephesians. He did not personally explain church order, spiritual gifts, justification language, or many details of New Covenant life in the Gospels. By that standard, we would be left with only a fragment of Christian doctrine and told to “throw away” the rest simply because Jesus didn’t say every word Himself during His earthly ministry.

But Jesus explicitly prepared the church for this very thing.

He told His disciples that there was much more they could not yet bear, and that the Holy Ghost would come and guide them into all truth. He promised that the Spirit would bring His words to remembrance and would speak what He received from Christ. In other words, the teaching that comes through the apostles is not a downgrade — it is the continuation of Christ’s own instruction by His Spirit.

That’s exactly what the Book of Acts records. It isn’t a man-made add-on; it is the risen Christ teaching and working through the Holy Ghost. To dismiss Acts because Jesus didn’t explain everything beforehand is to ignore the very method Jesus chose to complete His work.

So the issue isn’t that Jesus “left out” something important.

It’s that He intentionally unfolded New Covenant truth in stages:
first in His flesh,
then through His Spirit,
then through the apostolic witness.

If we accept Jesus’ authority, we also have to accept the means He chose to continue speaking. Otherwise, we aren’t really honoring Christ — we’re restricting Him to only the portions of Scripture we’re personally comfortable with.

And that’s not how Jesus designed His church to learn or to grow.

81

I have NEVER said that or INSINUATED that in any way: no pastor, preacher, or human being gives the Holy Ghost. God alone gives His Spirit. Ministers do not dispense power — they simply obey the Word, preach the gospel, and pray in faith. The Spirit is always God’s gift, never a human achievement.

At the same time, Scripture does not present the receiving of the Holy Ghost as something vague, invisible, or left to subjective feeling. The consistent biblical question is not whether God gives His Spirit, but how we know when He has done so.

If the evidence is only internal — “I feel good,” “I feel peace,” “I feel adopted” — then the apostles themselves would have had no way to identify when the Spirit was received. Yet again and again in Acts, they clearly knew when it happened. Why? Because there was a visible and audible manifestation.

In Acts 2, they all spoke with other tongues.
In Acts 10, the Jews knew the Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost because they heard them speak with tongues.
In Acts 19, when Paul laid hands on them, they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

The text never says, “we knew because they felt adopted,” or “we knew because they felt joy.” Adoption is real — absolutely — but adoption is the result of receiving the Spirit, not the sign by which the apostles recognized it.

You’re right that God gives as He wills — but Scripture also shows us how God chose to reveal that gift when it was given. The Spirit is not silent when He comes in His New Covenant fullness. He announces His arrival in a way others can see and hear.

So the question isn’t whether God can give His Spirit without human control — of course He can.

The real question is:
How do we know when someone has been baptized in the Holy Ghost?

Is it only an inward feeling?
Or is it, as Scripture records, an outward, visible, and audible manifestation?

The Book of Acts answers that question clearly.

And none of that takes glory from God. It actually protects His glory — because it keeps the experience anchored in what He Himself chose to do, not in human interpretation or emotion.

I say this respectfully. We are not trying to manufacture anything. We are simply allowing Scripture — not preference, not tradition, and not feeling — to define the experience God promised.

82

You are “reaching” brother and I know what you are doing.

“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.”[1]

Now to the Greek, because Paul is not being mystical here, he is being rhetorically aggressive.

The opening verb is ἐὰν λαλῶ (ean lalō), which is a third-class conditional clause, formed by ἐὰν plus the present subjunctive, and this construction is explicitly used for hypothetical or potential situations, not assertions of fact, meaning Paul is saying “even if I were to speak,” not “when I do speak.”

The noun phrase ταῖς γλώσσαις τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων (tais glōssais tōn anthrōpōn kai tōn angelōn) is grammatically expansive on purpose, because Paul is stacking extremes, not defining categories, moving from the highest conceivable human phenomenon to the highest conceivable non-human one.

This is a standard Jewish rhetorical device called merismus, where totality is expressed by naming polar extremes, similar to “heaven and earth” or “life and death,” and Paul uses this technique constantly, especially when he wants to annihilate pride rather than catalog abilities.

The key point is that Paul does not say that angels speak languages humans can speak, nor that believers can speak angelic languages, nor that such languages exist in the Corinthian assembly; he simply pushes the hypothetical to its absolute limit to make the contrast devastating.

You can see this clearly because the verse does not stop at tongues; Paul immediately escalates further.

“If I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge… if I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains…”[2]

Paul does not actually claim to understand all mysteries or possess all knowledge or have faith that literally moves mountains; these are rhetorical hyperboles designed to strip spiritual phenomena of saving or intrinsic value apart from love.

If “tongues of angels” must be literal, then intellectual omniscience and mountain-moving faith must be literal too, which would make Paul something closer to a minor deity, and that reading collapses under its own weight.

Even more decisively, elsewhere in Scripture angels are consistently portrayed as speaking intelligible human language when they speak at all, not ecstatic or unknown tongues, and Paul himself defines tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 as requiring interpretation precisely because they are otherwise unintelligible to humans, not because they are heavenly dialects.

From a lexical standpoint, γλῶσσα (glōssa) already means “language” or “speech,” and Paul never introduces a new semantic domain for it in chapter 13; he is expanding rhetorically, not redefining ontologically.

Please answer @KPuff ’ question @The_Omega .

J.

  1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. - KJV ↩︎

  2. 1 Corinthians 13:2 - KJV ↩︎