Tongues as Private Prayer Language

[SPF]

I'm having trouble seeing how Scripture teaches the idea that there is such a thing as praying in tongues as some sort of private prayer language where Christians speak non-sensical syllables that is the result of the Holy Spirit.

Before I get into why, let me make a quick disclaimer. I've spent a good bit of time, on and off over the past few months reading and studying on this issue. I've done this at work, where I don't have dedicated time, nor was I meaning to share my thoughts with others. Therefore, the notes I took, I took on a Word document, and a lot of times I copy/pasted from websites. Therefore, there is a good chance that things I copy/paste from my notes are not my words. So i'm sure i'll be plagiarizing thoughts in this post.

I think the best thing to do is look at Acts as a starting place for this issue. In the book of Acts, we have the primary Pentecost event, which takes place in Acts 2. This particular section actually makes it really clear that the speaking in tongues is, without a doubt, speaking other known languages.

What I do find interesting is that some people attempt to claim that the miracle wasn't actually a miracle of speaking, but a miracle of hearing. I disagree with this interpretation, as I don't think it accurately accounts for verse 2:13 where some people accused them of being drunk. I like to play things out. So let's play it out.

If this were a miracle of hearing, and everyone present (people who spoke different dialects of Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Arabic, potentially Asian languages), all heard anything any of the apostles spoke in their own language - that would sound normal. By normal, I mean it wouldn't be confusing. There would be no reason to accuse them of being drunk.

However, if it was a miracle of speaking, then verse 13 makes sense. If the Spirit gave to some the gift of speaking Arab, and some the gift of speaking Latin, and some the gift of speaking an Asian language, then while it may have been the case that everyone present was able to hear speaking in their native language, it would still seem potentially confusing because they also heard someone like Peter speaking Arabic, which would be odd. That would make sense then why some people would accuse them of speaking non-sense and being drunk.

So what I think we have in Acts 2 is the Holy Spirit making Himself known, indwelling the Believers, and giving them the gift of speaking tongues. All present heard about the "mighty deeds of God" in their own language, by the people that were gifted to speak their own language.

Thus, we have the first instance of speaking in tongues, which is done primarily as a sign to unbelievers.

Moving on from there, we essentially have 3 other Pentecostal events that take place in Acts. What stands out to me about these is how they line up with what Jesus said in Acts 1:8 about being His disciples in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest parts of the earth.

So what we have at the first Pentecost is that it takes place among the Jews. Then if you look at the other 3 Pentecostal events, you'll see that one takes place with the Samaritans, one takes place with the God Fearers (converted Gentiles), and finally one takes place in Ephesus with Gentiles.

Thus, what we have in Acts in relation to the gift of speaking in tongues is that God is demonstrating that the new Covenant has expanded to include all people. Furthermore, when the Holy Spirit came and people spoke in tongues, it was always in another known language of the people.

For me, that's the foundation of speaking in tongues. The question I then have is how do we make the leap from what we see in Acts to the notion that tongues becomes some sort of private prayer language for the edification of the person praying, when that isn't what we actually see take place.

Romans 8:26 - Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered..

Romans 8:26 is interpreted by many to support the belief that “praying in tongues” is an experience where a person prays in an otherwise unknown language that the speaker does not understand. This passage is used to support this belief by arguing that this passage describes what happens when we pray in tongues. This interpretation is problematic for two reasons:

1) It is the Spirit that groans, not Believers.

2) The groans of the Spirit cannot be uttered. Speaking in tongues is uttering words. Words are expressed and uttered.


A better interpretation would be that the reason we do not know what to pray and require the Spirit to intercede can be because:

1) We do not know what would be really best for us.

2) We do not know what God might be willing to grant us.

3) We are to a great extent ignorant of the character of God, the reason of his dealings, and our own real needs.

4) We are often in real, deep perplexity. We are encompassed with trials, exposed to temptations, feeble by disease, and subject to calamities. In these circumstances, if left alone, we would neither be able to bear our trials, nor know what to ask at the hand of God.

The word used for intercession here is found nowhere else in the NT. However, a similar word is used several times, and it means to be present with anyone for the purpose of aiding, as an advocate does in a court of justice. This is what the Spirit does for us. It means that the Spirit greatly assists or aids us, not by praying for us, but in our prayers.

With regards to cannot be uttered, perhaps, which is not uttered; those emotions which are too deep for utterance, or for expression in articulate language. This does not mean that the Spirit produces these groanings; but that in these deep-felt emotions, when the soul is oppressed and overwhelmed, he lends us his assistance and sustains us. The phrase may be thus translated: “The Spirit greatly aids or supports us in those deep emotions, those intense feelings, those inward sighs which cannot be expressed in language, but which he enables us to bear, and which are understood by Him that searcheth the hearts.”

I think that is enough to start a conversation. Thoughts are more than welcome on this.

 

[Mr. M]

I'm having trouble seeing how Scripture teaches the idea that there is such a thing as praying in tongues as some sort of private prayer language where Christians speak non-sensical syllables that is the result of the Holy Spirit.

Before I get into why, let me make a quick disclaimer. I've spent a good bit of time, on and off over the past few months reading and studying on this issue. I've done this at work, where I don't have dedicated time, nor was I meaning to share my thoughts with others. Therefore, the notes I took, I took on a Word document, and a lot of times I copy/pasted from websites. Therefore, there is a good chance that things I copy/paste from my notes are not my words. So i'm sure i'll be plagiarizing thoughts in this post.

I think the best thing to do is look at Acts as a starting place for this issue. In the book of Acts, we have the primary Pentecost event, which takes place in Acts 2. This particular section actually makes it really clear that the speaking in tongues is, without a doubt, speaking other known languages.

What I do find interesting is that some people attempt to claim that the miracle wasn't actually a miracle of speaking, but a miracle of hearing. I disagree with this interpretation, as I don't think it accurately accounts for verse 2:13 where some people accused them of being drunk. I like to play things out. So let's play it out.

If this were a miracle of hearing, and everyone present (people who spoke different dialects of Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Arabic, potentially Asian languages), all heard anything any of the apostles spoke in their own language - that would sound normal. By normal, I mean it wouldn't be confusing. There would be no reason to accuse them of being drunk.

However, if it was a miracle of speaking, then verse 13 makes sense. If the Spirit gave to some the gift of speaking Arab, and some the gift of speaking Latin, and some the gift of speaking an Asian language, then while it may have been the case that everyone present was able to hear speaking in their native language, it would still seem potentially confusing because they also heard someone like Peter speaking Arabic, which would be odd. That would make sense then why some people would accuse them of speaking non-sense and being drunk.

So what I think we have in Acts 2 is the Holy Spirit making Himself known, indwelling the Believers, and giving them the gift of speaking tongues. All present heard about the "mighty deeds of God" in their own language, by the people that were gifted to speak their own language.

Thus, we have the first instance of speaking in tongues, which is done primarily as a sign to unbelievers.

Moving on from there, we essentially have 3 other Pentecostal events that take place in Acts. What stands out to me about these is how they line up with what Jesus said in Acts 1:8 about being His disciples in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest parts of the earth.

So what we have at the first Pentecost is that it takes place among the Jews. Then if you look at the other 3 Pentecostal events, you'll see that one takes place with the Samaritans, one takes place with the God Fearers (converted Gentiles), and finally one takes place in Ephesus with Gentiles.

Thus, what we have in Acts in relation to the gift of speaking in tongues is that God is demonstrating that the new Covenant has expanded to include all people. Furthermore, when the Holy Spirit came and people spoke in tongues, it was always in another known language of the people.

For me, that's the foundation of speaking in tongues. The question I then have is how do we make the leap from what we see in Acts to the notion that tongues becomes some sort of private prayer language for the edification of the person praying, when that isn't what we actually see take place.

Romans 8:26 - Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered..

Romans 8:26 is interpreted by many to support the belief that “praying in tongues” is an experience where a person prays in an otherwise unknown language that the speaker does not understand. This passage is used to support this belief by arguing that this passage describes what happens when we pray in tongues. This interpretation is problematic for two reasons:

1) It is the Spirit that groans, not Believers.

2) The groans of the Spirit cannot be uttered. Speaking in tongues is uttering words. Words are expressed and uttered.


A better interpretation would be that the reason we do not know what to pray and require the Spirit to intercede can be because:

1) We do not know what would be really best for us.

2) We do not know what God might be willing to grant us.

3) We are to a great extent ignorant of the character of God, the reason of his dealings, and our own real needs.

4) We are often in real, deep perplexity. We are encompassed with trials, exposed to temptations, feeble by disease, and subject to calamities. In these circumstances, if left alone, we would neither be able to bear our trials, nor know what to ask at the hand of God.

The word used for intercession here is found nowhere else in the NT. However, a similar word is used several times, and it means to be present with anyone for the purpose of aiding, as an advocate does in a court of justice. This is what the Spirit does for us. It means that the Spirit greatly assists or aids us, not by praying for us, but in our prayers.

With regards to cannot be uttered, perhaps, which is not uttered; those emotions which are too deep for utterance, or for expression in articulate language. This does not mean that the Spirit produces these groanings; but that in these deep-felt emotions, when the soul is oppressed and overwhelmed, he lends us his assistance and sustains us. The phrase may be thus translated: “The Spirit greatly aids or supports us in those deep emotions, those intense feelings, those inward sighs which cannot be expressed in language, but which he enables us to bear, and which are understood by Him that searcheth the hearts.”

I think that is enough to start a conversation. Thoughts are more than welcome on this.

1 Corinthians 14:15. 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.

This verse has always been the basis for me to spend time praying and even singing in the Spirit.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I'm having trouble seeing how Scripture teaches the idea that there is such a thing as praying in tongues as some sort of private prayer language where Christians speak non-sensical syllables that is the result of the Holy Spirit.

Before I get into why, let me make a quick disclaimer. I've spent a good bit of time, on and off over the past few months reading and studying on this issue. I've done this at work, where I don't have dedicated time, nor was I meaning to share my thoughts with others. Therefore, the notes I took, I took on a Word document, and a lot of times I copy/pasted from websites. Therefore, there is a good chance that things I copy/paste from my notes are not my words. So i'm sure i'll be plagiarizing thoughts in this post.

I think the best thing to do is look at Acts as a starting place for this issue. In the book of Acts, we have the primary Pentecost event, which takes place in Acts 2. This particular section actually makes it really clear that the speaking in tongues is, without a doubt, speaking other known languages.

What I do find interesting is that some people attempt to claim that the miracle wasn't actually a miracle of speaking, but a miracle of hearing. I disagree with this interpretation, as I don't think it accurately accounts for verse 2:13 where some people accused them of being drunk. I like to play things out. So let's play it out.

If this were a miracle of hearing, and everyone present (people who spoke different dialects of Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Arabic, potentially Asian languages), all heard anything any of the apostles spoke in their own language - that would sound normal. By normal, I mean it wouldn't be confusing. There would be no reason to accuse them of being drunk.

However, if it was a miracle of speaking, then verse 13 makes sense. If the Spirit gave to some the gift of speaking Arab, and some the gift of speaking Latin, and some the gift of speaking an Asian language, then while it may have been the case that everyone present was able to hear speaking in their native language, it would still seem potentially confusing because they also heard someone like Peter speaking Arabic, which would be odd. That would make sense then why some people would accuse them of speaking non-sense and being drunk.

So what I think we have in Acts 2 is the Holy Spirit making Himself known, indwelling the Believers, and giving them the gift of speaking tongues. All present heard about the "mighty deeds of God" in their own language, by the people that were gifted to speak their own language.

Thus, we have the first instance of speaking in tongues, which is done primarily as a sign to unbelievers.

Moving on from there, we essentially have 3 other Pentecostal events that take place in Acts. What stands out to me about these is how they line up with what Jesus said in Acts 1:8 about being His disciples in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest parts of the earth.

So what we have at the first Pentecost is that it takes place among the Jews. Then if you look at the other 3 Pentecostal events, you'll see that one takes place with the Samaritans, one takes place with the God Fearers (converted Gentiles), and finally one takes place in Ephesus with Gentiles.

Thus, what we have in Acts in relation to the gift of speaking in tongues is that God is demonstrating that the new Covenant has expanded to include all people. Furthermore, when the Holy Spirit came and people spoke in tongues, it was always in another known language of the people.

For me, that's the foundation of speaking in tongues. The question I then have is how do we make the leap from what we see in Acts to the notion that tongues becomes some sort of private prayer language for the edification of the person praying, when that isn't what we actually see take place.

Romans 8:26 - Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered..

Romans 8:26 is interpreted by many to support the belief that “praying in tongues” is an experience where a person prays in an otherwise unknown language that the speaker does not understand. This passage is used to support this belief by arguing that this passage describes what happens when we pray in tongues. This interpretation is problematic for two reasons:

1) It is the Spirit that groans, not Believers.

2) The groans of the Spirit cannot be uttered. Speaking in tongues is uttering words. Words are expressed and uttered.


A better interpretation would be that the reason we do not know what to pray and require the Spirit to intercede can be because:

1) We do not know what would be really best for us.

2) We do not know what God might be willing to grant us.

3) We are to a great extent ignorant of the character of God, the reason of his dealings, and our own real needs.

4) We are often in real, deep perplexity. We are encompassed with trials, exposed to temptations, feeble by disease, and subject to calamities. In these circumstances, if left alone, we would neither be able to bear our trials, nor know what to ask at the hand of God.

The word used for intercession here is found nowhere else in the NT. However, a similar word is used several times, and it means to be present with anyone for the purpose of aiding, as an advocate does in a court of justice. This is what the Spirit does for us. It means that the Spirit greatly assists or aids us, not by praying for us, but in our prayers.

With regards to cannot be uttered, perhaps, which is not uttered; those emotions which are too deep for utterance, or for expression in articulate language. This does not mean that the Spirit produces these groanings; but that in these deep-felt emotions, when the soul is oppressed and overwhelmed, he lends us his assistance and sustains us. The phrase may be thus translated: “The Spirit greatly aids or supports us in those deep emotions, those intense feelings, those inward sighs which cannot be expressed in language, but which he enables us to bear, and which are understood by Him that searcheth the hearts.”

I think that is enough to start a conversation. Thoughts are more than welcome on this.

Praying in the Spirit has been equated to praying in tongues. I'm inclined to agree. I used to pray in tongues but the desire just faded away. I discourage tongues in meetings. It's up to the individual if they want to pray in tongues privately.

I think the giveaway is that tongues edifies the person speaking. If tongues is solely for the listener, then tongues would not help the believer. (1 Corinthians 14:4) Paul makes it even more clear: "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful." 1 Corinthians 14:14

 

[Landon Caeli]

I prayed with with a really thick British accent once. I can also speak random syllables that 'sound' French... Is that similar to speaking in tongues..?

...Right now, the sounds: "Este' Bufwah" come to mind. I wonder if that means something somewhere.

 

[SPF]

1 Corinthians 14:15. 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.

This verse has always been the basis for me to spend time praying and even singing in the Spirit.

Thanks for sharing Monardo. The problem with that verse though is there is absolutely nothing in it that would suggest that praying "in the Spirit" means praying in another language that you cannot understand. In fact, the verse says that "I will pray with the mind also" after both praying and singing. People who speak/pray in tongues do NOT speak/pray with the mind - you don't understand what you're praying/singing.

I would suggest to you that every Believer should be praying an singing with the Spirit and with understanding as the passage says. I do so every time I pray and sing. I pray with the Spirit as I am indwelled with the Spirit, and He leads, guides, comforts, encourages - and I pray with the mind because I'm aware and conscious of what I'm saying.

I don't see even one piece of support for there being some sort of unintelligible language that Christians speak through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Praying in the Spirit has been equated to praying in tongues. I'm inclined to agree. I used to pray in tongues but the desire just faded away. I discourage tongues in meetings. It's up to the individual if they want to pray in tongues privately.

Thanks for sharing Aussie Pete. The problem I have with this statement is again, I don't see anything in Scripture to suggest that it's "up to the individual if they want to pray in tongues privately". Tongues as an unintelligible language that we don't understand isn't something I can find in Scripture. Can you?

 

[Mr. M]

Thanks for sharing Monardo. The problem with that verse though is there is absolutely nothing in it that would suggest that praying "in the Spirit" means praying in another language that you cannot understand. In fact, the verse says that "I will pray with the mind also" after both praying and singing. People who speak/pray in tongues do NOT speak/pray with the mind - you don't understand what you're praying/singing.

The idea of praying in a language you cannot understand is addressed in the OP.
Romans 8:26 - Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered..

Romans 8:26 is interpreted by many to support the belief that “praying in tongues” is an experience where a person prays in an otherwise unknown language that the speaker does not understand. This passage is used to support this belief by arguing that this passage describes what happens when we pray in tongues. This interpretation is problematic for two reasons:


Everything about this teaching shows that to pray or not pray in the Spirit is at the discretion of the believer, even the spirit of the prophet is subject to the prophet.
1 Corinthians 14:
6 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?
7 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?
8 For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle?
9 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.
10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance.
11 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.
12 Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel.
13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.
14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15 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.
16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say?
17 For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified.
18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all;
19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue...
26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.
27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret.
28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God.
29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.
30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent.
31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged.
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

 

[SPF]

The idea of praying in a language you cannot understand is addressed in the OP.
Romans 8:26 - Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered..

Romans 8:26 is interpreted by many to support the belief that “praying in tongues” is an experience where a person prays in an otherwise unknown language that the speaker does not understand. This passage is used to support this belief by arguing that this passage describes what happens when we pray in tongues. This interpretation is problematic for two reasons:


Everything about this teaching shows that to pray or not pray in the Spirit is at the discretion of the believer, even the spirit of the prophet is subject to the prophet.
1 Corinthians 14:
6 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?
7 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?
8 For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle?
9 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.
10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance.
11 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.
12 Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel.
13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.
14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15 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.
16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say?
17 For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified.
18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all;
19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue...
26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.
27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret.
28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God.
29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.
30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent.
31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged.
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

Thanks again for the response Monado, I appreciate it. The problem here is context. The only context we have for speaking in tongues is what was done at the 4 Pentecost events outlined in Acts. Those were all clearly understood as speaking in another known human language. Where then is the leap from that to tongues suddenly becoming an unknown language of gibberish sounding syllables?

It is entirely possible to read this passage with a view to Acts where speaking in tongues was another known language.

Consider - let's say that the gift of tongues given to Peter on Pentecost was Arabic. Peter is speaking Arabic, and Arabic people are able to hear and understand what he is saying in their native tongue. Peter isn't able to understand it, the other people that don't speak Arabic aren't able to understand it. It needs to be translated. This is why Paul was teaching that there must be someone to translate the tongues if it is to be spoken in a public Church gathering. There is no reason to assume that the tongues are some sort of private, unknown language.

6 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?

Tongues was a sign to unbelievers. Paul is saying that sure, while he has spoken tongues, and has utilized the gift of tongues, what benefit is it for him to do it in front of them? If they can't understand it, it's worthless.

11 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.

Could verse 11 be any clearer? If Paul is speaking in tongues and is speaking Mandarin to the local church in Ephesus, filled with Greek speaking believers - it would be as if Paul was a foreigner!

12 Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel.

Here's a big key. "Edification of the church" Speaking in tongues does not edify the church (unless interpreted), so this speaks against tongues as a private prayer language.

14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.

If praying in tongues results in unfruitful understanding, why would this be something that Believers ought to seek after? Paul's conclusion in verse 15 is that we shouldn't.

15 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.

Paul emphasizes praying with both the spirit and understanding, which is something a Believer cannot do when they speak in tongues (another foreign language).

The bottom line here is that this entire chapter makes no mention of the gift of speaking/praying in tongues to be an unknown, unearthly, language consisting of syllables without meaning. Read in context, Paul was speaking about tongues as they occurred at Pentecost, which was foreign languages.

Again, I'm not finding anywhere in Scripture that we make the jump from tongues as a foreign language to something that is non-sensical sounding that is of no edification to the speaker, but that is something Christians ought to do in private.

Indeed, the entire underlying foundation seems contrary to the clear teaching that the gifts of the Spirit are for the edification of the Church. Praying quietly, in your room, in a language that you cannot understand brings you no personal edification, and brings the Church no edification.

 

[Mr. M]

Thanks again for the response Monado, I appreciate it. The problem here is context.

The only context we have for speaking in tongues is what was done at the 4 Pentecost events outlined in Acts.

The only context we have for speaking in tongues is what was done at the 4 Pentecost events outlined in Acts. Those were all clearly understood as speaking in another known human language. Where then is the leap from that to tongues suddenly becoming an unknown language of gibberish sounding syllables?

It is entirely possible to read this passage with a view to Acts where speaking in tongues was another known language.

Consider - let's say that the gift of tongues given to Peter on Pentecost was Arabic. Peter is speaking Arabic, and Arabic people are able to hear and understand what he is saying in their native tongue. Peter isn't able to understand it, the other people that don't speak Arabic aren't able to understand it. It needs to be translated. This is why Paul was teaching that there must be someone to translate the tongues if it is to be spoken in a public Church gathering. There is no reason to assume that the tongues are some sort of private, unknown language.

6 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?

Tongues was a sign to unbelievers. Paul is saying that sure, while he has spoken tongues, and has utilized the gift of tongues, what benefit is it for him to do it in front of them? If they can't understand it, it's worthless.

11 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.

Could verse 11 be any clearer? If Paul is speaking in tongues and is speaking Mandarin to the local church in Ephesus, filled with Greek speaking believers - it would be as if Paul was a foreigner!

12 Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel.

Here's a big key. "Edification of the church" Speaking in tongues does not edify the church (unless interpreted), so this speaks against tongues as a private prayer language.

14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.

If praying in tongues results in unfruitful understanding, why would this be something that Believers ought to seek after? Paul's conclusion in verse 15 is that we shouldn't.

15 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.

Paul emphasizes praying with both the spirit and understanding, which is something a Believer cannot do when they speak in tongues (another foreign language).

The bottom line here is that this entire chapter makes no mention of the gift of speaking/praying in tongues to be an unknown, unearthly, language consisting of syllables without meaning. Read in context, Paul was speaking about tongues as they occurred at Pentecost, which was foreign languages.

Again, I'm not finding anywhere in Scripture that we make the jump from tongues as a foreign language to something that is non-sensical sounding that is of no edification to the speaker, but that is something Christians ought to do in private.

Indeed, the entire underlying foundation seems contrary to the clear teaching that the gifts of the Spirit are for the edification of the Church. Praying quietly, in your room, in a language that you cannot understand brings you no personal edification, and brings the Church no edification.

The only context that anyone should speak from is experience. That is, the word of your testimony.

You say that Acts provides the only context to understand Paul's teaching, when clearly he is speaking to what was happening in the home churches of Corinth. That is the context for his teaching.
You are correct in saying that Paul was putting tongues into its proper place. We cannot edify one another, unless, as he points out, there is one who interprets. Otherwise, speak "5 words with understanding rather than 10,000 in tongues". That is the context, your personal time, as opposed to fellowship with others. Praying in the Spirit is for your own personal edification.
If you speak to others by the Spirit, you speak words of edification, exhortation and comfort. (V. 3).
I have found that praying in utterances by the Spirit to be personally edifying. That is my personal prayer closet experience. I will hold to that, but not try to convince another that they should do so. One day, when the "infirmity" is overwelming, they will find themselves groaning, by the Grace of God.
This is not my OP. You still have not spoken to that, which is
Romans 8:26 - Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered..

Romans 8:26 is interpreted by many to support the belief that “praying in tongues” is an experience where a person prays in an otherwise unknown language that the speaker does not understand. This passage is used to support this belief by arguing that this passage describes what happens when we pray in tongues. This interpretation is problematic for two reasons:
I do not want to further derail someone else's OP. You have your ideas on "prayer language", etc...
and I respect that. Peace.

 

[Lost4words]

For me, Tongues means speaking in different languages.

 

[SPF]

The only context that anyone should speak from is experience. That is, the word of your testimony.

I hope you don't actually mean that. Experience will never under any circumstance trump the Word of God. Would you consider the experience of a Muslim to trump that of Scripture? Scripture trumps all, especially experiences. Always.

You say that Acts provides the only context to understand Paul's teaching, when clearly he is speaking to what was happening in the home churches of Corinth. That is the context for his teaching.

Yet again, the Scripture is not clear that what was happening in the home churches of Corinth to be a non-sensical language. The entirety of the passages of Corinthians can be read properly, and make sense, even more sense I would suggest with a view to tongues being foreign languages.

This is not my OP. You still have not spoken to that, which is
Romans 8:26 - Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered..

Yes, I wrote that in my OP, and I'm not sure why you keep referencing it. The passage in Romans 8:26 is evidence that speaking in tongues is NOT a private prayer language.

 

[Richard T]

I'm having trouble seeing how Scripture teaches the idea that there is such a thing as praying in tongues as some sort of private prayer language where Christians speak non-sensical syllables that is the result of the Holy Spirit.

Before I get into why, let me make a quick disclaimer. I've spent a good bit of time, on and off over the past few months reading and studying on this issue. I've done this at work, where I don't have dedicated time, nor was I meaning to share my thoughts with others. Therefore, the notes I took, I took on a Word document, and a lot of times I copy/pasted from websites. Therefore, there is a good chance that things I copy/paste from my notes are not my words. So i'm sure i'll be plagiarizing thoughts in this post.

I think the best thing to do is look at Acts as a starting place for this issue. In the book of Acts, we have the primary Pentecost event, which takes place in Acts 2. This particular section actually makes it really clear that the speaking in tongues is, without a doubt, speaking other known languages.

What I do find interesting is that some people attempt to claim that the miracle wasn't actually a miracle of speaking, but a miracle of hearing. I disagree with this interpretation, as I don't think it accurately accounts for verse 2:13 where some people accused them of being drunk. I like to play things out. So let's play it out.

If this were a miracle of hearing, and everyone present (people who spoke different dialects of Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Arabic, potentially Asian languages), all heard anything any of the apostles spoke in their own language - that would sound normal. By normal, I mean it wouldn't be confusing. There would be no reason to accuse them of being drunk.

However, if it was a miracle of speaking, then verse 13 makes sense. If the Spirit gave to some the gift of speaking Arab, and some the gift of speaking Latin, and some the gift of speaking an Asian language, then while it may have been the case that everyone present was able to hear speaking in their native language, it would still seem potentially confusing because they also heard someone like Peter speaking Arabic, which would be odd. That would make sense then why some people would accuse them of speaking non-sense and being drunk.

So what I think we have in Acts 2 is the Holy Spirit making Himself known, indwelling the Believers, and giving them the gift of speaking tongues. All present heard about the "mighty deeds of God" in their own language, by the people that were gifted to speak their own language.

Thus, we have the first instance of speaking in tongues, which is done primarily as a sign to unbelievers.

Moving on from there, we essentially have 3 other Pentecostal events that take place in Acts. What stands out to me about these is how they line up with what Jesus said in Acts 1:8 about being His disciples in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest parts of the earth.

So what we have at the first Pentecost is that it takes place among the Jews. Then if you look at the other 3 Pentecostal events, you'll see that one takes place with the Samaritans, one takes place with the God Fearers (converted Gentiles), and finally one takes place in Ephesus with Gentiles.

Thus, what we have in Acts in relation to the gift of speaking in tongues is that God is demonstrating that the new Covenant has expanded to include all people. Furthermore, when the Holy Spirit came and people spoke in tongues, it was always in another known language of the people.

For me, that's the foundation of speaking in tongues. The question I then have is how do we make the leap from what we see in Acts to the notion that tongues becomes some sort of private prayer language for the edification of the person praying, when that isn't what we actually see take place.

Romans 8:26 - Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered..

Romans 8:26 is interpreted by many to support the belief that “praying in tongues” is an experience where a person prays in an otherwise unknown language that the speaker does not understand. This passage is used to support this belief by arguing that this passage describes what happens when we pray in tongues. This interpretation is problematic for two reasons:

1) It is the Spirit that groans, not Believers.

2) The groans of the Spirit cannot be uttered. Speaking in tongues is uttering words. Words are expressed and uttered.


A better interpretation would be that the reason we do not know what to pray and require the Spirit to intercede can be because:

1) We do not know what would be really best for us.

2) We do not know what God might be willing to grant us.

3) We are to a great extent ignorant of the character of God, the reason of his dealings, and our own real needs.

4) We are often in real, deep perplexity. We are encompassed with trials, exposed to temptations, feeble by disease, and subject to calamities. In these circumstances, if left alone, we would neither be able to bear our trials, nor know what to ask at the hand of God.

The word used for intercession here is found nowhere else in the NT. However, a similar word is used several times, and it means to be present with anyone for the purpose of aiding, as an advocate does in a court of justice. This is what the Spirit does for us. It means that the Spirit greatly assists or aids us, not by praying for us, but in our prayers.

With regards to cannot be uttered, perhaps, which is not uttered; those emotions which are too deep for utterance, or for expression in articulate language. This does not mean that the Spirit produces these groanings; but that in these deep-felt emotions, when the soul is oppressed and overwhelmed, he lends us his assistance and sustains us. The phrase may be thus translated: “The Spirit greatly aids or supports us in those deep emotions, those intense feelings, those inward sighs which cannot be expressed in language, but which he enables us to bear, and which are understood by Him that searcheth the hearts.”

I think that is enough to start a conversation. Thoughts are more than welcome on this.

You have some good info on tongues though I do respectfully disagree with some of the conclusions and potential omissions. it is often thought that the translators have trouble distinguishing between human spirit and the Holy Spirit as both use the Greek word pnuema. Romans 8 is a potential example of this and makes more sense if you examine the words in ( ). that I have added.
Romans 8:26-28 (KJV)
26 Likewise the (Holy) Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the (human) Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
Think about it, if the Holy Spirit were making intercession for us, then am I wrong to suggest the results are not that stellar? No, it seems more likely that it is our human spirit, empowered by the Holy Spirit, through tongues that not only makes the intercession, but causes all things to work together for our good. If the results are not stellar, it is because we are not exercising our human spirit to make the intercession. Otherwise, why would we need to pray at all the holy Spirit is making intercession for us, wouldn't that be enough?

27 And he (God) that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the (human) Spirit, because he (human) maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
Verse 27 makes little sense that God searches his own spirit, and then makes intercession according to His will.
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. Romans 8:26 (YLT)

Romans 8 is just the icing on the cake for this issue. I admit it just one interpretation, but it makes far more sense than how the translators use the same word pnuema for the human spirit versus the Holy Spirit.

The best evidence goes back to Jesus in the book of John. John 4:13-14 (KJV)
13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: 14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
Ok, so here we have the born again experience, notice the well of water. Now compare the well with the experience of the Holy Spirit.
John 7:37-39 (KJV)
37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
Here we have the Holy Spirit being given to the born again believer. it is no longer just a well, it is now "rivers of living water." Where are they coming from? A believer's belly. This is the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

Ok, now how about Acts? You suggest there are 3 scriptures that speak of tongues. Yes, there are 3 direct references but two other references that have outward signs of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2

Acts 8:14-18 (KJV)
14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. 18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
Here we likely have tongues. It is some outward sign or Simon would not have seen it. Evidence too that one can be a believer (well spring up to eternal life) and not the baptism of the Holy Spirit (rivers overflowing).

Acts 10:44-46 (KJV)
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

Acts 11:14-16 (KJV)
14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
It does not directly say tongues here but why would one think otherwise? The Holy Ghost fell just as the beginning (Acts 2).

Acts 19:6-7 (KJV)
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 7 And all the men were about twelve. If you notice earlier these were men who believed on Jesus, but had not heard of the Holy Ghost. It was preached and they received it.

We all should agree that spiritual gifts should be desired, though obviously not as much as love.

1 Corinthians 14:1-2 (KJV)
1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
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.

1 Corinthians 12:31 (KJV)
31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

Jude 1:20 (KJV)
20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
Since tongues are said to be for edification, Jude most likely is including tongues.

I could go on about the differences of the gift called "various kinds of tongues" and the personal prayer language speaking in tongues." While either could be gibberish, a Christian praying in faith, in tongues will make a difference. It will not give them fruit of the spirit, but the whole purpose of the Holy Spirit to be given in addition to the born again experience is to receive power to witness.

Acts 1:8 (KJV)
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Lets be honest, where does one see the most healings, deliverances and salvations in the church today? Mostly in those (including catholics) who speak in tongues and exercise the gifts. Just as you would expect from scriptures. I am not boasting about this, nor am I suggesting that all groups who do this are great followers of Christ. It is where the power is though.

 

[SPF]

Richard, thank you so much for taking the time to respond. A few thoughts..

Romans 8 is a potential example of this and makes more sense if you examine the words in ( ). that I have added.
Romans 8:26-28 (KJV)
26 Likewise the (Holy) Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the (human) Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
Think about it, if the Holy Spirit were making intercession for us, then am I wrong to suggest the results are not that stellar? No, it seems more likely that it is our human spirit, empowered by the Holy Spirit, through tongues that not only makes the intercession, but causes all things to work together for our good. If the results are not stellar, it is because we are not exercising our human spirit to make the intercession. Otherwise, why would we need to pray at all the holy Spirit is making intercession for us, wouldn't that be enough?

27 And he (God) that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the (human) Spirit, because he (human) maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
Verse 27 makes little sense that God searches his own spirit, and then makes intercession according to His will.
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. Romans 8:26 (YLT)

I can totally grant the distinction in Romans 8 that you make between the Holy Spirit and the human spirit. The problem that still remains is that it says that the human spirit makes intercessions with groanings that cannot be uttered. You still run into the problem that speaking in tongues as a private language is necessarily... uttering. That would contradict what this passage says.

The best evidence goes back to Jesus in the book of John. John 4:13-14 (KJV)
13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: 14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
Ok, so here we have the born again experience, notice the well of water. Now compare the well with the experience of the Holy Spirit.
John 7:37-39 (KJV)
37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
Here we have the Holy Spirit being given to the born again believer. it is no longer just a well, it is now "rivers of living water." Where are they coming from? A believer's belly. This is the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

I'm not sure what you mean by this is the "best evidence" It's certainly not evidence of speaking in tongues as a private prayer language.

If anything, this passage can be related to what Paul said in Ephesians - "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation - having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise..."

All people when they take the step from death to life are given the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I see nothing in Scripture about a second work of grace. Much less anything in this about speaking/praying in tongues.

I could go on about the differences of the gift called "various kinds of tongues" and the personal prayer language speaking in tongues."

I Corinthians 12:10 - and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.

There is no reason not to interpret the phrase "various kinds of tongues" to mean the power of speaking various languages just like the Apostles did on the day of Pentecost.

Again, the more I read Scripture, the more it seems plainer and plainer that this theology of tongues as a private prayer language is not based upon Scripture, but based upon a learned practice that people have taught themselves. Many Christians do this, therefore it must be Biblical, goes the thinking... But I don't see it in Scripture.

My family has been attending an Assemblies of God Church for awhile now, and one thing the Pastor said about a year ago has really stuck with me. He said that for many people when they first speak/pray in tongues it may just be one syllable. The next time, it may be a sentence. he said that over time it becomes easier until it becomes part of your prayer life.

He literally described learned behavior.

The problem I face is that I have incredible and immense respect for my Pastor. I don't doubt for one instant that some of the most genuine, faith filled, active, humble, loving, godly, self-sacrificing Christians on this planet pray in what they believe are tongues. My issue is that I don't see it taught in Scripture beyond a foreign language.

 

[Phil W]

Thanks again for the response Monado, I appreciate it. The problem here is context. The only context we have for speaking in tongues is what was done at the 4 Pentecost events outlined in Acts. Those were all clearly understood as speaking in another known human language. Where then is the leap from that to tongues suddenly becoming an unknown language of gibberish sounding syllables?

Do you figure the visiting Libyan's could understand the apostles who were speaking in Persian?
Don't you think that would have sounded like gibberish?
Would the Medes think those speaking in the tongue of Crete were speaking gibberish?

It is entirely possible to read this passage with a view to Acts where speaking in tongues was another known language.

Consider - let's say that the gift of tongues given to Peter on Pentecost was Arabic. Peter is speaking Arabic, and Arabic people are able to hear and understand what he is saying in their native tongue. Peter isn't able to understand it, the other people that don't speak Arabic aren't able to understand it. It needs to be translated. This is why Paul was teaching that there must be someone to translate the tongues if it is to be spoken in a public Church gathering. There is no reason to assume that the tongues are some sort of private, unknown language.

6 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?

Tongues was a sign to unbelievers. Paul is saying that sure, while he has spoken tongues, and has utilized the gift of tongues, what benefit is it for him to do it in front of them? If they can't understand it, it's worthless.

11 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.

Could verse 11 be any clearer? If Paul is speaking in tongues and is speaking Mandarin to the local church in Ephesus, filled with Greek speaking believers - it would be as if Paul was a foreigner!

12 Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel.

Here's a big key. "Edification of the church" Speaking in tongues does not edify the church (unless interpreted), so this speaks against tongues as a private prayer language.

14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.

If praying in tongues results in unfruitful understanding, why would this be something that Believers ought to seek after? Paul's conclusion in verse 15 is that we shouldn't.

15 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.

Paul emphasizes praying with both the spirit and understanding, which is something a Believer cannot do when they speak in tongues (another foreign language).

The bottom line here is that this entire chapter makes no mention of the gift of speaking/praying in tongues to be an unknown, unearthly, language consisting of syllables without meaning. Read in context, Paul was speaking about tongues as they occurred at Pentecost, which was foreign languages.

Again, I'm not finding anywhere in Scripture that we make the jump from tongues as a foreign language to something that is non-sensical sounding that is of no edification to the speaker, but that is something Christians ought to do in private.

Indeed, the entire underlying foundation seems contrary to the clear teaching that the gifts of the Spirit are for the edification of the Church. Praying quietly, in your room, in a language that you cannot understand brings you no personal edification, and brings the Church no edification.

That is why interpreting of tongues is a gift of the Spirit from God...for the edification of the whole church.
Praying by myself in tongues edifies myself, to the glory of God.

 

[Richard T]

Excellent response. Great to see you have studied this in depth.
Here is one take on the Greek word for groanings.
stenagmós; gen. stenagmoú, masc. noun from stenázō <G4727>, to groan. A groaning, sighing, as of the oppressed (Acts 7:34 quoted from Ex. 2:24; see Ex. 6:5; Judg. 2:18); referring to prayers to God expressed inarticulately (Rom. 8:26; Sept.: Ps. 38:10). The - The Complete Word Study Dictionary – New Testament.

In the late 80s mostly, there were some people that did actually groan and travail in the spirit. It does seem like a stretch here in Romans 8. Still, it is an unknown, and at least to me tongues makes the most sense.

As to the gift "various kinds of tongues." Yes, it does include speaking in a foreign tongue that one does not know. That is one of the various kinds. Others would include speaking a tongue in a church service for interpretation. I also think you can converse in an unknown tongue, with another person with this gift but few have ever mentioned this. I have experienced this many times, and I think when you do this, you are supernaturally speaking blessings and the word of God and encouragement over each other. I also think one of the various gifts of tongues is the ability to easily interact with other cultures.
Genesis 10:31-32 (ASV) 31 These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations. I know this is a stretch but I think one with this part of the gift can easily transition from culture to culture, tongue to tongue, land to land. I have never seen this taught though I think of one were to research this I could easily come up with a subset of Christians where this occurs.
Lastly, I once heard of a youth in my church that was in a Taco Bell when an armed robbery was occurring. He spoke out loud in tongues and the two robbers left without money. Perhaps there are more uses for supernatural tongues than we can imagine. I know some of these variations are anecdotal but we do know for sure there are "various kinds" and "diversities of operations." that can make for alot of iterations of these gifts. We know too that there are even more "gifts of healings" Not just in methods but also in categories of disease. It is not rare to find a person that is highly successful in God using them to heal cancer but not successful in other diseases (or vice versa). Could different diseases constitute a different gift of healing? I think so. If it profits, then so be it. I know there would be certain naysayers about my thinking along this various operations in tongues. I always wonder why others with little or no experience in this gift )various kinds) are qualified to speak about how it works. There are numerous gifts and only about one chapter on their operations. I would never for instance, try to give detailed teaching on other gifts, that I have little or no experience with.
1 Corinthians 12:6-7 (ASV)
6 And there are diversities of workings, but the same God, who worketh all things in all. 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit to profit withal.

As to the rivers of living water, representing the holy Spirit overflowing, that seems pretty clear to me. The sealing would take place when one is born again. Overflowing represents your outward witness. Exactly what the baptism of the Holy Spirit represents in Acts 1.

I do think the bible distinguishes the baptism of the Holy Spirit for all believers, versus the gifts of tongues, which not all believers have. Even I Cor is not entirely clear cut on this. Too many, myself included often do not note the differences or blend the two together.

I know that some teach how to speak in tongues, (personal, from baptism of the spirit) I don't think I have ever tried this, though it could work, it might create doubts too as to whether it is genuine. If one is a resister in their mind, God could simply overwhelm them. Some have even done this waking up in dreams. The Pentecostals used to tarry. I think it is just done by faith. You open your mouth, expect God to fill it and begin. Each time you do it is by faith.
After hearing my church singing in the spirit, I asked the person who got me going for the Lord about this and he simply told me to sing along with them. The next service I did. Very easy and natural to me.

I do hope we all can pray through our apprehensions and falsehoods (mine too) in these areas and become the fullest of God we possible can. There are hurting people that need breakthroughs and gifts of the spirit and intercessions can help along with all the other tools God has given us.

 

[swordsman1]

I'm having trouble seeing how Scripture teaches the idea that there is such a thing as praying in tongues as some sort of private prayer language where Christians speak non-sensical syllables that is the result of the Holy Spirit.

Before I get into why, let me make a quick disclaimer. I've spent a good bit of time, on and off over the past few months reading and studying on this issue. I've done this at work, where I don't have dedicated time, nor was I meaning to share my thoughts with others. Therefore, the notes I took, I took on a Word document, and a lot of times I copy/pasted from websites. Therefore, there is a good chance that things I copy/paste from my notes are not my words. So i'm sure i'll be plagiarizing thoughts in this post.

I think the best thing to do is look at Acts as a starting place for this issue. In the book of Acts, we have the primary Pentecost event, which takes place in Acts 2. This particular section actually makes it really clear that the speaking in tongues is, without a doubt, speaking other known languages.

What I do find interesting is that some people attempt to claim that the miracle wasn't actually a miracle of speaking, but a miracle of hearing. I disagree with this interpretation, as I don't think it accurately accounts for verse 2:13 where some people accused them of being drunk. I like to play things out. So let's play it out.

If this were a miracle of hearing, and everyone present (people who spoke different dialects of Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Arabic, potentially Asian languages), all heard anything any of the apostles spoke in their own language - that would sound normal. By normal, I mean it wouldn't be confusing. There would be no reason to accuse them of being drunk.

However, if it was a miracle of speaking, then verse 13 makes sense. If the Spirit gave to some the gift of speaking Arab, and some the gift of speaking Latin, and some the gift of speaking an Asian language, then while it may have been the case that everyone present was able to hear speaking in their native language, it would still seem potentially confusing because they also heard someone like Peter speaking Arabic, which would be odd. That would make sense then why some people would accuse them of speaking non-sense and being drunk.

So what I think we have in Acts 2 is the Holy Spirit making Himself known, indwelling the Believers, and giving them the gift of speaking tongues. All present heard about the "mighty deeds of God" in their own language, by the people that were gifted to speak their own language.

Thus, we have the first instance of speaking in tongues, which is done primarily as a sign to unbelievers.

Moving on from there, we essentially have 3 other Pentecostal events that take place in Acts. What stands out to me about these is how they line up with what Jesus said in Acts 1:8 about being His disciples in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest parts of the earth.

So what we have at the first Pentecost is that it takes place among the Jews. Then if you look at the other 3 Pentecostal events, you'll see that one takes place with the Samaritans, one takes place with the God Fearers (converted Gentiles), and finally one takes place in Ephesus with Gentiles.

Thus, what we have in Acts in relation to the gift of speaking in tongues is that God is demonstrating that the new Covenant has expanded to include all people. Furthermore, when the Holy Spirit came and people spoke in tongues, it was always in another known language of the people.

For me, that's the foundation of speaking in tongues. The question I then have is how do we make the leap from what we see in Acts to the notion that tongues becomes some sort of private prayer language for the edification of the person praying, when that isn't what we actually see take place.

Romans 8:26 - Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered..

Romans 8:26 is interpreted by many to support the belief that “praying in tongues” is an experience where a person prays in an otherwise unknown language that the speaker does not understand. This passage is used to support this belief by arguing that this passage describes what happens when we pray in tongues. This interpretation is problematic for two reasons:

1) It is the Spirit that groans, not Believers.

2) The groans of the Spirit cannot be uttered. Speaking in tongues is uttering words. Words are expressed and uttered.


A better interpretation would be that the reason we do not know what to pray and require the Spirit to intercede can be because:

1) We do not know what would be really best for us.

2) We do not know what God might be willing to grant us.

3) We are to a great extent ignorant of the character of God, the reason of his dealings, and our own real needs.

4) We are often in real, deep perplexity. We are encompassed with trials, exposed to temptations, feeble by disease, and subject to calamities. In these circumstances, if left alone, we would neither be able to bear our trials, nor know what to ask at the hand of God.

The word used for intercession here is found nowhere else in the NT. However, a similar word is used several times, and it means to be present with anyone for the purpose of aiding, as an advocate does in a court of justice. This is what the Spirit does for us. It means that the Spirit greatly assists or aids us, not by praying for us, but in our prayers.

With regards to cannot be uttered, perhaps, which is not uttered; those emotions which are too deep for utterance, or for expression in articulate language. This does not mean that the Spirit produces these groanings; but that in these deep-felt emotions, when the soul is oppressed and overwhelmed, he lends us his assistance and sustains us. The phrase may be thus translated: “The Spirit greatly aids or supports us in those deep emotions, those intense feelings, those inward sighs which cannot be expressed in language, but which he enables us to bear, and which are understood by Him that searcheth the hearts.”

I think that is enough to start a conversation. Thoughts are more than welcome on this.

What people call tongues today is not the gift of tongues that the New Testament describes. The only description of the gift is in Act 2 and it is clearly people miraculously speaking in a foreign human language they have never learned. There is no other scripture that overrides that description. The unintelligible utterances that have appeared in the last 100 years in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches are clearly not human languages and professional linguists have confirmed this. They will claim it is a heavenly language but there is nothing in scripture that says tongues was a non-human language.

From the writings of the Church Fathers immediately after the apostolic age, right up to the start of the 20th Century the church has always understood tongues to be foreign human languages. And it was also universally accepted that this miraculous gift ceased shortly after the apostolic age. Pentecostals and charismatics say it has now been restored in the last 100 years. But what they practice is not the NT gift of tongues - it doesn't match the biblical description. Instead what they have discovered is the natural physiological phenomenon known to linguists as glossolalia where the human vocal organs go into autopilot and produce strings of random syllables (much like a baby talks nonsense when it is learning to speak). The phenomenon has been well studied by professional linguists and is found among pagan religions and other non-Christian groups (which rules it out as coming from the Holy Spirit). Rather it is a physiological technique which most people can discover how to practice.


As for Romans 8:26, I do not believe it is referring to tongues at all. There is no mention of 'tongues' in that passage, and it would be completely out of place in this context. The tongues of the New Testament were words of praise, not groans of suffering. The disciples were not 'groaning' at Pentecost. The Spirit's intercession in Rom 8:26 also applies to all believers, whereas not everyone was given the gift of tongues (1 Cor 12:29-30).

 

[SPF]

Do you figure the visiting Libyan's could understand the apostles who were speaking in Persian?
Don't you think that would have sounded like gibberish?
Would the Medes think those speaking in the tongue of Crete were speaking gibberish?

I don't know, it might have. The visiting Libyans might have thought the Latin sounded like gibberish, and the visitors from Rome might have thought the Mandarin sounded like gibberish. All that goes to support my idea that it was a miracle of speaking, not hearing.

That is why interpreting of tongues is a gift of the Spirit from God...for the edification of the whole church.
Praying by myself in tongues edifies myself, to the glory of God.

Well, you're sort of jumping the gun here, doing what we call in philosophy, "begging the question". I'm suggesting that the Bible doesn't actually teach that praying by yourself in another, non-sensical language is actually a real thing. I have yet to see it in Scripture. You're more than welcome to address the specific passages that have been brought up, or bring up new passages and provide commentary on them.

 

[SPF]

Richard, thank you for your response. I can often come across combative, but at least in this discussion, I'm not trying to be. I want nothing less than to hold to proper theology, and the last thing I would want to do is discount or deny the work of the Holy Spirit. Especially since I go to an AOG Church at the moment, I'm trying to do my due diligence on this.

As to the gift "various kinds of tongues." Yes, it does include speaking in a foreign tongue that one does not know. That is one of the various kinds. Others would include speaking a tongue in a church service for interpretation. I also think you can converse in an unknown tongue, with another person

You mention 3 different instances of speaking in tongues here. I think the first two are mentioned in Scripture, and I think they both would be understood as foreign languages. As for conversing in an unknown tongue with another person, are you suggesting that both speakers are speaking in tongues and that neither of them know what they are saying to each other? If so, that sounds like one of the things Paul would be speaking against, as there would be no interpreter.

Lastly, I once heard of a youth in my church that was in a Taco Bell when an armed robbery was occurring. He spoke out loud in tongues and the two robbers left without money. Perhaps there are more uses for supernatural tongues than we can imagine.

Yea, if I was robbing a Taco Bell and someone did that, I would probably be like "what the crap" and get out of there too. Most people who rob places are actually cowards who have no intention of utilizing any weapon they may have in hand.

Anyway, again, thanks for the conversation. But I'm still fairly convinced that one of the main parts of the new covenant is that all Believers are immediately indwelled and filled with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit then gives gifts as He chooses, for the edification of the Church.

I see the 4 Pentecost events of Acts to be a unique, perhaps not wise to use as a standard example, event that displayed in candid fashion how the Holy Spirit had come as Jesus said - to all people. First to the Jews, then we saw it go to the Samaritans, God Fearers, and Gentiles. The gift of the Spirit was poured out on all who came to Believe.

Speaking and praying in tongues was an amazing work of the Spirit, which was a sign to unbelievers, in which Christians spoke a foreign language, that was then to be interpreted by someone.

 

[Phil W]

I don't know, it might have. The visiting Libyans might have thought the Latin sounded like gibberish, and the visitors from Rome might have thought the Mandarin sounded like gibberish. All that goes to support my idea that it was a miracle of speaking, not hearing.

Yes, I responded to the first paragraph before reading the entire post.

Well, you're sort of jumping the gun here, doing what we call in philosophy, "begging the question". I'm suggesting that the Bible doesn't actually teach that praying by yourself in another, non-sensical language is actually a real thing. I have yet to see it in Scripture. You're more than welcome to address the specific passages that have been brought up, or bring up new passages and provide commentary on them.

The bible does indeed teach "it is a real thing". (1 Cor 14:17-19)
It is real in my life too.

 

[SPF]

What people call tongues today is not the gift of tongues that the New Testament describes. The only description of the gift is in Act 2 and it is clearly people miraculously speaking in a foreign human language they have never learned. There is no other scripture that overrides that description. The unintelligible utterances that have appeared in the last 100 years in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches are clearly not human languages and professional linguists have confirmed this. They will claim it is a heavenly language but there is nothing in scripture that says tongues was a non-human language.

From the writings of the Church Fathers immediately after the apostolic age, right up to the start of the 20th Century the church has always understood tongues to be foreign human languages. And it was also universally accepted that this miraculous gift ceased shortly after the apostolic age. Pentecostals and charismatics say it has now been restored in the last 100 years. But what they practice is not the NT gift of tongues - it doesn't match the biblical description. Instead what they have discovered is the natural physiological phenomenon known to linguists as glossolalia where the human vocal organs go into autopilot and produce strings of random syllables (much like a baby talks nonsense when it is learning to speak). The phenomenon has been well studied by professional linguists and is found among pagan religions and other non-Christian groups (which rules it out as coming from the Holy Spirit). Rather it is a physiological technique which most people can discover how to practice.


As for Romans 8:26, I do not believe it is referring to tongues at all. There is no mention of 'tongues' in that passage, and it would be completely out of place in this context. The tongues of the New Testament were words of praise, not groans of suffering. The disciples were not 'groaning' at Pentecost. The Spirit's intercession in Rom 8:26 also applies to all believers, whereas not everyone was given the gift of tongues (1 Cor 12:29-30).

I'm pretty sure that I agree with you. I know that Irenaeus and Tertullian made reference to speaking in tongues, but they both acknowledged that it was people speaking or interpreting foreign languages.

Aquinas actually wrote that he understood the gift of tongues to be the super naturally given ability to speak foreign languages, though specifically for missionary work. That makes sense as tongues was a sign for unbelievers.

 

[SPF]

The bible does indeed teach "it is a real thing". (1 Cor 14:17-19)
It is real in my life too.

Thanks Phil, though it's not very useful, beneficial, or helpful to just quote a passage and not provide any commentary. Those passages have already been discussed, and there is no reason to think that Paul was not referring to a real foreign language.

In fact, as Paul was specifically the missionary to the gentiles, we would expect that he would speak in tongues more than anyone as he was reaching more than anyone!

I just don't see anything in Scripture that makes the jump from foreign languages as outlined in Acts to a private prayer language that you don't understand and don't have interpreted.

I don't doubt for a moment that you feel like it's meaningful, but I also suspect it was a learned behavior that you got better at over time, and I bet that if you've done it long enough, you could probably start "speaking in tongues" on the spot if you wanted to.