This Writer Testifies with Me - Tongues Testified

Tongues as described in the Bible are not the tongues we see today. I begin this challenge by qualifying my understandings of charismatic/pentecostal theology. I spent several years, approximately 12, in this movement. My mother is ordained as a charismatic, my step brother had his own Pentecostal church for a time, and I have read several books and listened to countless sermons as well. I left charismania after discovering orthodoxy. I remain friends with many of my old associates, and discuss these things with my mother on occasion. I have personally witnessed several hundred if not over one thousand of these occurrences; as well as the various other gifts.

Definition:
Glossolalia is the term given to the experience of “speaking in tongues” in the New Testament of the Bible. It is a compound Greek word that comes from GLOSSA (“tongues”) – LALIA (speaking). The word GLOSSA, is translated “tongues” in the English version of the Bible. GLOSSA is used 50 times in the New Testament. Ten times it refers to the literal tongue, a few times it is used metaphorically, but at least 35 times it refers to language. GLOSSA, for the most part can be accurately translated “languages” (this may be a clearer rendering than “tongues").

(Note - Actually tongues is the best meaning since tongues is language but not always, but at the same time it is not forced either like that taught in Pentecostalism and when it is non-language it is but for a brief second or two. Otherwise it becomes demonic and a way of life to kill God's Word and replace it with a tower of Babel medium. For example, have you ever had perhaps a moment of epiphany and said a couple babbling utterances in excitement of spontaneously, like "holy moly" or "oopsiedaisy" sounding out how you feel. These are not really words just utterances that roll off the tongue in revelation. These can be considered tongues if they were well pleasing to the Lord in their utterance to help you or others. This is much different than the forced tower of Babel in Pentecostals for hours or even minutes on end for it is like trying to draw a wedge between them and God with this medium and psychic activity - Troy).

G1100
glōssa
gloce'-sah
Of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication a language (specifically one naturally unacquired): - tongue.

Strong's (1100)

The language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations.

G2980
laleō
lal-eh'-o
A prolonged form of an otherwise obsolete verb; to talk, that is, utter words: - preach, say, speak (after), talk, tell, utter. Compare G3004.

We can see this by example of the first use of tongues. In the second chapter of the book of Acts, at Pentecost, Peter and the other apostles could speak, and unsaved people of many languages could hear them in their own native tongues, speaking the “wonderful works of God”.

Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Act 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
Act 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
Act 2:7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
Act 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Act 2:9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
Act 2:10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
Act 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
Act 2:12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

This usage shows that “tongues” have reference to distinct categories (generations, families) of languages. Tongues used here could not have been ecstatic or unknown to the hearers – or those who would receive the message. There is no such thing as various ‘kinds” of gibberish. Luke did not need to address the problem of two kinds of GlOSSA (“tongues”) [known language and unknown ecstatic speech] in the book of Acts, because there is only one “kind” of GLOSSA (“tongues”), which is “language.” And language is an intelligible form of communication, not ecstatic utterances for self edification.

As if to emphasize that the disciples were speaking real languages and not gibberish, Luke even lists the peoples which heard their native tongues: “Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues (glossais) the wonderful works of God” (Acts 2:9-11). In Acts 2, glossais is used by Luke interchangeably with dialektos. The biblical account records that on three occasions the multitude said that they heard their own language being spoken. Luke even records the different national languages and regional dialects which were spoken by the disciples.

G1258
dialektos
dee-al'-ek-tos
From G1256; a (mode of) discourse, that is, “dialect”: - language, tongue.

The testimony throughout the rest of the book of Acts gives no indicator that a different kind of tongue was manifested in the experiences of the church after Pentecost. On the contrary, the evidence supports a continuation of the same kind of ‘tongues-speaking’ as occurred on the day of Pentecost. In Acts 10, Peter justifies the baptism of the Gentiles who had spoken in tongues, for ‘the Spirit came on them just as it did on us’ (Acts 10:47). In reporting his action to the church at Jerusalem, Peter calls special attention to the same point: ‘The Holy Spirit came on them just as it did on us at the beginning’ (Acts 11: 15). The experience of the Holy Spirit at Caesarea corresponded to the Spirit’s baptism that came on the apostles on the day of Pentecost. If the gift of speaking in tongues in Acts 2 involved speaking in a foreign language never studied, then the same explanation would apply to the experience of tongues as manifested among the Gentiles in Caesarea. In this light, it may be assumed that the same explanation would apply to the gift of tongues manifested in Ephesus (Acts 19:7). It may be worth noting that the experience of tongues in Ephesus occurred after Paul’s visit to Corinth (cf. Acts 18:1-19). While no specific description characterizes the tongues-speaking in Ephesus, the use of the identical language used to describe the phenomenon in Ephesus as had been used in previous narratives in Acts strongly suggests that the nature of the ‘tongues’ in Ephesus corresponded to the ‘tongues’ mentioned by Luke throughout the book of Acts.

Unknown Tongues:
The translators of the King James Version (KJV), have inserted the helping word “unknown” when used with GLOSSA into five places in 1 Cor. 14 for clarification. This unfortunate insertion has not clarified, but led to some confusion in modern interpretation. I believe there is a modern misinterpretation when studying the usage of “tongues” in the New Testament, and it is somewhat caused from the unfortunate insertion of the word “unknown,” several times into the text.

1Co 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
1Co 14:2 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.
1Co 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
1Co 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

The first thing that needs to be noted regarding this passage is that, regardless of one’s interpretation of “edifies himself” (v. 4); the tongues spoken of throughout chapter 14 are definite, real foreign languages. There is nothing within the passage or within the broader context that teaches that the tongues spoken of in verses two through four are peculiar (e.g., ecstatic gibberish), unique, or different. The tongues spoken of in verse four are real, foreign languages, just as the tongues in verse 21 and 22 are real, foreign languages.
Does this passage teach the private use of tongues? No. Paul is discussing edification in the assembly during public worship. He argues that he prefers prophecy over tongues because of its superior capability for the edification of the church. When he says, “He who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but God, for no one understands him,” he is not telling the Corinthians that they should be praying in tongues to God in private; he is emphasizing that without an interpreter, no one in the assembly understands except God. Likewise, when Paul discusses praying and singing with the Spirit, he makes it clear that it must be interpreted, since it takes place in public worship.

Angelic tongues:
But what about 1 Corinthians 13:1? Doesn’t this passage teach that we can pray with the tongues of angels?

1Co 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
1Co 13:2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

It is clear from the Greek grammar and the context that Paul is speaking hypothetically. He raises it hypothetically to the most magnificent realization of it possible—that is, to make a point. Paul is not telling the church to pray in the tongues of angels. He is saying that no matter how great your gift is, you need love. And even if it were possible to speak in the tongues of angels, it would still be a real, translatable language, not 50,000 unique forms of gibberish.
The context would also require Saint Paul to have accomplished everything listed in verse two and three as well. Paul mentions nothing of this sort. But, then, what does Paul mean when he says, “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself”? The context indicates that Paul is describing someone who speaks in tongues in church without an interpreter. Paul is not saying that Christians should pray in tongues in private to be edified. Throughout this chapter, Paul argues again and again for the need to interpret tongues; otherwise, the church is not edified: “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” (1 Cor. 14:12-13). Since the whole thrust of chapter 14 is the edification of the body, it is probable that “edifies himself” is meant to be taken in a negative sense. To speak in tongues without an interpreter merely calls attention to oneself and does not benefit the body. Speaking in tongues in the assembly without an interpreter is a form of self-glorification.

Historical:
If the miraculous gifts of the New Testament age had continued in the church, one would expect an unbroken line of occurrences from apostolic times to the present. If they are of God, why should such miracles be absent for centuries?
The entire controversy exists because the miraculous gifts of the New Testament age did cease and did not occur for almost 1,900 years of church history and certainly have not continued in an unbroken line. Questions about their presence today as well as differing opinions, even among charismatics, regarding the nature of tongues, prophecy, and certain other gifts are due to the fact that they ceased. Chrysostom, a fourth-century theologian, testified that they had ceased so long before his time that no one was certain of their characteristics.
History contradicts the charismatics. Though some have attempted to prove that tongues and other miraculous gifts have occurred in the postapostolic history of the church, the very paucity and sporadic nature of alleged occurrences is evidence against this claim. Referring to alleged instances of tongues-speaking, Hinson, a church historian, sums up the situation this way: "The first sixteen centuries of its history were lean ones indeed. . . . if the first five centuries were lean the next were starvation years for the practice in Western Christendom and doubtful ones in Eastern Christendom."
After a few alleged instances in the second century there is a gap of almost 1,000 years before a few more occur. Obviously it would not have been difficult to produce evidence for these gifts during the apostolic age. Why then is there such a dearth of evidence if the gifts continued throughout church history? The alleged instances are even more rare if restricted to genuine believers, and if hearsay evidence is omitted. If instances of the gift of healing rather than supposed answers to prayer are considered, the alleged instances all but vanish. That these miraculous workings ceased in the past can hardly be refuted, and this is recognized by many charismatics. Most charismatics actually prefer to grant that certain gifts ceased, since they regard today's phenomena as a latter-day pouring out of the Spirit.

Last Days:
Many Pentecostals hold that the sign gifts did cease and that they have reoccurred in these "latter days." This must be demonstrated from Scripture, however. There is no biblical evidence that there will be a reoccurrence in the church of the sign gifts or that believers will work miracles near the end of the Church Age. However, there is ample evidence that near the end of the age there will be false prophets who perform miracles, prophesy, and cast out demons in Jesus' name (cf. Matt. 7:22-23; 24:11, 24; 2 Thess. 2:9-12). During the Church Age there will be false leaders who fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness (2 Cor. 11:13-15). During the Tribulation period, there is no indication that believers, other than the two witnesses of Revelation 11:3-12, will perform miracles. Those performed by the two witnesses are exceptional, and their actions are comparable to those of Old Testament prophets rather than to those of the apostles. The two witnesses are not part of the church, and if they were, they could hardly be considered typical of the church.
The "latter rain" arguments are incorrectly based on verses that actually are referring to seasonal rainfall in Israel. Hosea 6:3 and Joel 2:23, for example, refer not to some unusual outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the last days of the Church Age. They refer instead to spring rains, in contrast to early rains in the fall.
The arguments based on the expression "in the last days" in Acts 2:16-21 are also invalid. If the "last days" referred to in Acts 2:17 includes the day of Pentecost, the beginning of the Church Age, and "if this is that" (v. 16) includes Pentecost, then it cannot mean at the same time the "last days” of this Church Age. On the other hand if the "last days" do not include Pentecost, then Pentecost was not a fulfillment of Joel's prophecy, and Acts 2:16-21 refers specifically to Israel and is still future. Either way this passage gives no evidence for a reoccurrence of miraculous gifts during the "last (latter) days" of the church.
The present charismatic movement is characterized by phenomena that began in the church about 100 years ago, which apart from any historical connection or evidence are claimed to be the same as the miracles performed in the apostolic age. It is simply naive to accept this claim without some direct historical link or solid biblical evidence that these present phenomena are the same as those in the days of the apostles. The most reliable evidence would be a direct historical link with the apostolic gifts due to their continuity in the church. However, as already argued, history testifies to the contrary. The gifts ceased and there is no reason to expect their presence or reoccurrence today.

Other claims:
It is proposed that the tongues of today, though not of the nature of New Testament tongues, are nonetheless a gift of the Spirit to the modern church. Though admittedly not the same as the tongues of the New Testament, it is said that they have a proper role in the life of God’s people today. Because of the frantic pace of modern life, God’s Spirit has devised this means by which the modern-day, stressed-out Christian may find emotional and psychological relief. Through ‘speaking in tongues’, an answer may be found to the tensions associated with living in today’s world.
Obviously this conclusion cannot arise from an exegesis of Scripture, since the position affirms that the tongues of the New Testament are not the same as modern-day ‘tongues’. Instead, it is being proposed that the public assemblies of God’s people be opened to a most spectacular phenomenon on the basis of psychological observations concerning the possible effects of tongues-speaking. Modern-day tongues are presented as a legitimate element in worship today on the basis of a hypothesis about the way God might decide to meet the special emotional stresses of the modern world.
But is it to be supposed that the apostle Paul had no need for emotional relief from the tensions associated with his ‘care of all the churches’ (2 Cor. 11:2)? Should it be concluded that Martin Luther had no need of the ‘psychological relief’ that comes from the supposedly modem gift of tongues? With kings and governors constantly seeking his life, did Luther have a less stressful situation than Christians in the world today?
Many activities can function as psychological relieves. Going out to eat, watching a video, or playing a game of golf can serve to uplift the spirit. Yet none of these things should be viewed as a ‘gift’ of the Spirit. Spiritual gifts are special administrations of the Holy Spirit by which members of Christ’s body nourish and minister to one another. To suggest that the modern tongues phenomenon is not of the same nature as the tongues of the New Testament and yet is a gift of the Spirit for the church today could open the door to almost any kind of experience-centered phenomenon.
It would appear much more consistent with the biblical evidence to acknowledge that because the tongues of the first century were foreign languages, the tongues of today, which do not appear to be foreign languages, must be regarded as a phenomenon not endorsed by the New Testament Scriptures.

The church deceived?:
Here is what five top theologians said about the Azusa Street Revival when it first appeared in their day:
G. Campbell Morgan described the Azusa Street activities as "the last vomit of Satan.”" R.A. Torrey declared that this new Pentecostal movement was "emphatically not of God, and founded by a Sodomite." H. A. Ironside said both the holiness and Pentecostal movements were "disgusting… delusions and insanities." In 1912 he said of their meetings 'pandemonium's where exhibitions worthy of a madhouse or a collection of howling dervishes,” were causing a “heavy toll of lunacy and infidelity ." W. B. Godbey said of the Azusa Street participants "Satan's preachers, jugglers, necromancers, enchanters, magicians, and all sorts or mendicants," and he claimed the movement was the result of Spiritualism. Clarence Larkin “But the conduct of those possessed; in which they fall to the ground and writhe in contortions, causing disarrangement's of the clothing and disgraceful scenes, is more a characteristic of demon possession, than a work of the Holy Spirit. From what has been said we see that we are living in "Perilous Times” and that all about us are "Seducing Spirits,” and that they will become more active as the Dispensation draws to its close, and that we must exert the greatest care lest we be led astray.” (All of these statements were taken from "From Holy Laughter to Holy Fire" by Michael L. Brown, pages 197&198) Did these men of faith miss it?

Challenge:
The "charismatic gifts" of today are not similar to the New Testament phenomena either in general perspective or in the details. There is no evidence to conclude that they are the same; there is every reason to conclude that they are not. The historical fact that the New Testament gifts ceased long ago and the fact that there is no historical link whatever between the charismatic phenomena and the New Testament gifts require the same conclusion. The only remaining possibility for giving credence to the modern charismatic claims would be to produce direct statements of Scripture that the apostolic phenomena will always be present in the church, or that they will specifically be in the modern church despite their cessation through most of church history. Even if this were produced, there must also be evidence that the charismatic phenomena are somehow the same phenomena referred to in the passages. However, there is no specific biblical evidence such as this. There is no biblical statement that requires a denial of historical fact or that requires an equation of such dissimilar entities merely on the assertion of the proponents. All objective evidence is contrary to the charismatic claims. It is not sufficient to assert that by faith their claims must be taken contrary to the evidence. This is existential naivetT, not faith. Faith is trust in biblical evidence rather than in experience.
If modern “tongues” (i.e., gibberish) are completely different than tongues in Scripture (which were real, foreign languages), what happened to real, biblical tongues? Why is it significant that tongues-speaking refers to foreign languages and not gibberish (e.g., “Yabba-dabba-doo”)? It is significant because it gives us an objective method to determine if modern tongues-speaking is genuine, or manmade nonsense. If the Charismatic movement is truly a work of God, then anyone should be able to verify it simply by recording people speaking in tongues and having it analyzed by linguists, to see what language was being spoken. If tongues were merely the gibberish one encounters in Charismatic churches and not real languages, then tongues are not a sign to unbelievers, as Paul clearly asserts. A sign is a publicly-verifiable miracle. Speaking in foreign languages which were not learned would certainly constitute a divine miracle; however, speaking in gibberish or in unknown sounds could easily be done by either a Christian or an unsaved person. Every instance in the twentieth century where Charismatic tongues-speaking was taped and analyzed by linguists revealed that modern “tongues” were not real languages but gibberish. Modern tongues-speaking doesn’t even resemble any language, structurally. The conclusion of the linguists indicates that modern glossolalia is composed of unknown sounds with no distinguishing vocabulary and grammatical features, simulated foreign features, and total absence of language characteristics. The essential character of this new movement is therefore at variance with the biblical phenomenon of speaking in known languages. Thus we conclude that modern tongues-speaking contradicts the clear testimony of Scripture, as well as objective empirical findings. Here is a challenge to any Pentecostal or Charismatic: tape your church service and have the “tongues” that are spoken analyzed objectively. I await the evidence.

Averagefellar