Why I Am Not Charismatic: The Holy Spirit, Pentecost, and Tongues

[@sdhute]

Good teaching the more I listen the more I like the reformed view

[@DevinWardMusic]

Thank you for your gracious attitude toward charismatics as brother and sharing your position. I am a Charismatic, though sadly there are so many groups who abuse the teaching and falsify “gifts” which is often I think due to how many Pentecostal groups despise theological education. I was always discouraged by family for seeking seminary but am now gladly an MDiv student. I think Dr. Michael Brown covers the issues of abuse very well in his book “playing with holy fire” and Dr. Sam Storms has a great apologetic for the charismata gifts of the spirit being for today as a reformed teacher himself. This is a highly debated issue of course with strong arguments on both sides by highly educated scholars.

[@enriquebermudez943]

@Devin Ward God bless you brother! I totally agree and am greatful for Pastor Matt's gracious and brotherly heart. He's a man of God, a brother in Christ and a champion of the faith. Also, Dr. Michael Brown and Sam Storms do very well with these issues. I also think Wayne Grudem, John Piper, and R.T. Kendall do well with the topic. If you don't mind me asking, where did you receive your MDiv from? I'm Pentecostal and am looking for theological education.

[@DevinWardMusic]

@@enriquebermudez943 The main thing to look for an ATS accredited school. I had several I was looking at then found Kairos University which was originally Sioux Falls seminary but is now a coalition of five theological institutions providing an accredited degree at a much more affordable price and they are innovating the way the way theological education has been done for the past several hundred years while still doing a traditional M.Div. I encourage you to check them out and find their white paper written on theological hospitality.

[@Light17784]

Discerning of spirits - Teaching and Experiences with the Gift - kzbin.info/www/bejne/gardmWambcxmfLc

[@tomtemple69]

Sam Smith is a mark and avoid

[@OLBUCKLEY]

Excellent exegesis and communicated with charity.

[@TheSmithPiper]

You sir, are a cessationist-we are aligned in our thinking. 😀

[@TrinityTruth05]

Great teaching Pastor Matt!

[@TheSmithPiper]

Recommendation when recording these videos. For your online audience, it would be good if you repeat the question asked by the attendees before answering the question so that you understand the context of the question you are answering.

[@jeffholm3503]

If everything recorded in the book of Acts was normative then we would cast lots to determine who is to be an Elder in the local church per Acts 1:24-26.

[@Dwayne_Green]

Pentecostal theology isn't quite what you've talked about around the 16:00 mark. Pentecostals (classic pentecostalism as distinct form the later Charismatis stuff) see salvation and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as to separate and distinct events. A believer can be saved, but not be baptized in the Holy Spirit, believers are encouraged to seek and pray for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Pentecostal Proper states that if someone is Baptized in the Holy Spirit, as an event subsequent to salvation, the sign is that they will speak in tongues.

[@josueinhan8436]

Yes, you're right. However their position of a second baptism is not theologically accurate. We are all baptized in the Spirit at the moment of our conversion. We all who are saved we pass through the laver of the renewal and regenaration of th Spirit

[@JBM101]

Acts 19:2

[@MatthewEverhard]

This may be true to some extent. However as a non-creedal and non-confessional movement, there are as many forms, expressions, and interpretations of Pentecostalism as there are Pentecostal churches and even practitioners! There is no where to look for such definitive statements aside from hundreds of localized church website statements. Unfortunately it is a very hard movement to scrutinize as it floods across and around various churches and movements, often with incredible variation and indefinably permeable boundaries. I accept what you said for your own church/denomination however.

[@Dwayne_Green]

@@MatthewEverhard This is a very good point. That there is no centralized confession or statement of faith does make it difficult to pinpoint things from the outside. I'm part of the PAOC (Pentacostal Assemblies of Canada), which is Canada's biggest Pentecostal denomination. It's modeled after the AOG, but there are slight differences in both statements. From the inside, I do wish that there was a more widespread confession of sorts, because people tend to confuse us with a lot of the crazy stuff that goes on (including John MacArthur!)

[@jonmichaelgalindo]

1Co 14.2 "he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men" and 14 "If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful" and 18 "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all" 14.15 "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." Followed by 16 "when thou shalt bless with the spirit ... he understandeth not what thou sayest" The Christian who speaks in tongues by a supernatural gift of the spirit does not understand what he is saying, and neither does the rest of the church. Paul sets it in direct opposition to understanding, calls it edifying, encourages its use privately, and counsels restraint in a group setting for orderliness. You could say, "even if no one present understands, it's still a human language" to which Paul responds "There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification." There are hundreds of extinct languages, but that's unknowable--angels on the head of a pin.

[@KevinDay]

Love how he says "we should derive our answers from the text" so emphatically about Acts 2, but then just intentionally skips over these verses when saying Paul's not talking about supernatural languages in 1 Cor. 14...

[@jonmichaelgalindo]

​@@KevinDay I don't love it, and I think he wrestles with the possibility that this is true, but I would like to hear his thoughts on these verses. I also don't know if he has a doctrinal board presiding over his sermons' contents, although he is still responsible for pursuing and speaking the truth regardless. (And as long as there's still relationship with the Spirit, God can and will get over any doctrinal hurdle in chasing down a Christian's heart. I'm not trying to condemn.)

[@OLBUCKLEY]

@@KevinDay Me too. He helped make it abundantly clear. I’m speaking as former one born and raised pentecostal of the most strident stream.

[@tomtemple69]

Where did Paul ever encourage private usage of a gift? What were the gifts given for?

[@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474]

At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit gave the 12 apostles (yes, 12, not 120, but that’s a story for another day) what in the Greek text is “apophtheggesthai” - usually translated as “to give utterance”. This is not, however, the most accurate translation of this Greek word, but it’s the one that has come to be the more or less ‘de facto’ rendering. This word is from “apophtheggomai” which is best translated as “to give bold, authoritative, inspired speech to” (don’t go to Strong’s and look it up - “Strong’s” is a _concordance_ , not a lexicon; there’s a _huge_ difference). It refers *not* to the content/means of the speech (i.e., the language used), but rather to the *manner* of speaking. In each instance where this word occurs in scripture, the person's speech is bold, authoritative, and inspired and it is always, by the way, in the speaker’s native language. In short, the Holy Spirit did not give the _language_ of the utterance (i.e. the means/content), it gave the _manner_ in which it was uttered. The Jews present at Pentecost, as we are told, came from three areas: Judea, the Western Diaspora and the Eastern Diaspora. “All nations under heaven” is an idiomatic expression - Acts II: 9-11 tells us where those visiting were from. Jews from Judea spoke Aramaic as their mother tongue. I don’t think there’s any argument there. Jews from the Western Diaspora spoke Greek - all those lands had been Hellenized for centuries and Greek had long displaced indigenous languages. Eastern Diaspora was different - no Hellenization and countries had their own languages. Though people in Jewish communities in these lands spoke the local languages in varying degrees of fluency, it was never their ‘mother tongue’. For Jews in the Eastern Diaspora, the language of ‘hearth and home’, the language “wherein they were born” was Aramaic. This language was one of the things that set them apart as being Jewish; it gave them their cultural and religious identity. Many lands, many places and people, but only two languages; Aramaic and Greek; and of course, the apostles spoke both. Something to think about - In the entire Pentecost narrative, not one language is ever referenced by name. Why do you suppose that is? When Peter stood up and addressed the crowd, what language do you suppose he addressed them in?? The “list of nations”, as it’s called, of Acts 2: 9-11 is simply that - a list of countries, lands and nations that tell us where these people were from; *not* what language(s) they spoke, as most people assume. Further, the idea that the “tongues” of Acts II was xenoglossy also stems from this false assumption. The miracle of language at Pentecost was making the God of the Jews accessible to all people and moreover, not having to do so in one prescribed language; namely, Hebrew, the sacerdotal language of Judaism. Jewish religious custom and tradition demanded that any teaching, praying, reading, prophesying, etc. done from the temple (where the apostles were) be rendered _first_ in Hebrew, then followed by a translation into the vernacular. There even existed an ecclesiastical office for the individuals who did these translations (called the ‘mertugem’). On Pentecost, the apostles broke this tradition and “began to speak in ‘other’ (i.e. _other_ than Hebrew) languages (Aramaic and Greek), as the Holy Spirit kept giving a bold, authoritative, inspired manner of speaking to them. The apostles, by help and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did away with this cultural and religious tradition, and addressed the crowd in Greek and Aramaic; the mother tongue of the attendees, instead of the culturally and religiously correct, and expected tradition of Hebrew first, then translations into the vernaculars. Doing this from the Temple where they were, broke a slew of cultural and religious taboos. The shock to the crowd was that they did not first hear the expected and culturally correct Hebrew first, then vernaculars. May sound a bit silly nowadays, but at the time, to do such a thing was unthinkable. Further added to the crowd’s reaction was to hear Galileans (the “country bumkins” of their day) speak so boldly, completely inspired, and with such authority. To suggest, as the apostles did that the God of the Jews was now available to non-Jews and in any language, completely dispensing with Hebrew altogether was tantamount to heresy; hence also part of the crowd's reaction (i.e., they must be drunk to dare to do such a thing). Sounds a bit ridiculous in today’s times perhaps, but there was a time when many religions had specific sacred languages ‘attached/associated’ with them, and it was heresy to veer from their usage in the prescribed manner. In addition to the above, according to the Pentecost narrative, there were around 3,000 people who were baptized on Pentecost. If these 3,000 were 'baptized in the Spirit', I would think that at the very least, according to some Pentecostal/Charismatic beliefs, they should have starting “speaking in tongues”. Yet *nothing* of the sort is recorded. Certainly 3,000+ people “speaking in tongues" would at least merit a sentence or two in the narrative, wouldn’t it? If one argues they were not baptized in the spirit, but only in water, not only would the apostles have been violating a slew of work prohibitions on a high holy day (and would not likely have been allowed to do such a thing), considering one of the main focuses of the day was about being baptized in/receiving the Holy Spirit, that would be a rather anti-climactic ending to the narrative, wouldn’t it? No xenoglossy, no modern tongues-speech, just real, rational language(s). There was a language miracle at Pentecost provided by the Holy Spirit; just not the one most people assume. And of course, again, when the apostles received the Holy Spirit, the only tongues (read ‘languages’) spoken were their own. In short, the gift of languages was not evidenced on Pentecost - it didn’t need to be. I would argue that, if looking for a gift to assign to Pentecost, it would be more the gift of Prophesy than of Languages.

[@tomtemple69]

I wanna read up on this, can you provide sources? This is a fascinating brand new perspective

[@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474]

@@tomtemple69 There are not a ton of sources. One on-line source are articles written by Robert Zerhusen. Another is a publication called Tongues Revisited - A Third Way by Renton MacLachan. As a linguist, it's a subject that has interested me for some time and several years ago I did an extensive study on this. Most of what is in the post is more a formalization of my notes, but it is VERY similar to MacLachan's book. I thought I was the only one who questioned this, but apparently not.

[@tomtemple69]

@@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474 do you have any more notes you can share? this is fascinating 😮 I am gonna get that book too

[@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474]

@@tomtemple69 On tongues, yes, on Pentecost, I have a longer more in-depth version of the above post, but that's really about it. I can post it further below, if you'd like - may need to do it in two or more posts due to length. I'm not sure if the book is still available - it was printed out of Auteoroa/New Zealand. And it is not overly well written unfortunately. It tends to ramble on.

[@tomtemple69]

@@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474 the one question i have is how everythng you said harmonizes with 1 Corinthians 12-14, specifically 14 where it says the one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, speaks to God, speaks mysteries in his mystery, etc

[@ML-yb6te]

The question is not why I am not a charismatic But do I want to be baptized by the Baptizer of the Holy Spirit and with Fire. Or do I just to be theologically agreeable with my denomination so I don’t have to answer for my supernatural experience with the Baptizer of the Holy Spirit

[@natevankoevering2423]

Hi pastor Matt I hope you are well, I just watched your video on covenant theology, could you recommend a good starter book on this topic? that would be wonderful. Thanks

[@AJMacDonaldJr]

Hearing isn't speaking. The Acts 2 text says people *heard* known tongues, not that those who spoke in tongues were *speaking* known tongues.

[@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474]

The phrase (in the Greek, anyway) “in their native language” modifies the verb “speaking” in verse 6, not the verb “hearing.” So there is exactly one miracle of speech at Pentecost.

[@AJMacDonaldJr]

@@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474 Miracle of hearing.

[@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474]

@@AJMacDonaldJr See my response further above on Pentecost.

[@tomtemple69]

@@AJMacDonaldJr hearing is not a miracle.... the miracle at pentecost was speaking in tongues.... read Acts 2 from the start, not imposing your belief on the text what does the Spirit explicitly do? it tells us in Acts 2:4....

[@AJMacDonaldJr]

@@tomtemple69 The text says they spoke in tongues (γλώσσαις) and that the people heard them speaking in their own languages (διαλέκτῳ). The text does not say they spoke languages (διαλέκτῳ) but that the people heard languages (διαλέκτῳ). If 120 people were each speaking a different language all at the same time no one could have made sense of it. But it they spoke a heavenly tongue and each person heard the language in which they were from they all would have heard what was being said.

[@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474]

There is absolutely nothing mysterious about Biblical "tongues" - and there is only one type - when referring to something spoken, they are nothing more than real, rational language(s); usually unknown to those listening to them, but always known by the speaker(s) - it’s their native language (in some cases, it is a language the speaker has learned). In contrast, the “tongues” Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are producing today is an entirely self-created phenomenon. It is non-cognitive non-language utterance; random free vocalization based upon a subset of the existing underlying sounds (called phonemes) of the speaker’s native language, and any other language(s) the speaker may be familiar with or have had contact with. It is, in part, typically characterized by repetitive syllables, plays on sound patterns, alliteration, assonance, and over-simplification of syllable structure. It is also interesting to note that any disallowed sound combinations, i.e. consonant clusters, in the speaker’s native language are also disallowed in his/her tongues-speech. Further, this subset of phonemes typically contains only those sounds which are easiest to produce physiologically. There is absolutely _nothing_ that “tongues-speakers” are producing that cannot be explained in relatively simple linguistic terms. Conversely, when it comes to something spoken, there are absolutely _no_ Biblical references to “tongues” that do not refer to, and cannot be explained in light of, real rational language(s), though it may not be the explanation you want to hear, and it may be one which is radically different from what you believe, or were taught. _Nowhere in the Bible is modern tongues-speech advocated or evidenced._ “Praying in the Spirit” does _not_ refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. I'm not doubting or questioning the 'tongues experience'; glossolalia as the spiritual tool that it is, can be very powerful and, for many people, the experience is profound. As one commenter put it, “Speaking in tongues distracts the ego/analytical/conscious mind while leaving the subconscious (the heart) wide open to import the divine." Both the spiritual and physical benefits of using this tool are also well documented. Again though, it is important to note that this same statement can be made for virtually _any_ other culture that practices glossolalia. Religious and cultural differences aside, the glossolalia an Evenki Shaman in Siberia, a vodoun priestess in Togo and a Christian tongues-speaker in Alabama are producing are in no way different from each other. They’re all producing their glossolalia in the exact same way; they just have different explanations and beliefs as to why they’re doing it, and where it comes from. “Tongues” is to some Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful experience but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best; non-cognitive non language utterance - the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is perceived and interpreted as actual, meaningful speech. “In _some_ cases, I would argue that it is clearly a self/mass delusion prompted by such a strong desire to “experience God” that one creates that experience via “tongues”. Indeed, as one writer puts it: “You want this to be real. You’ve convinced yourself it’s real. You’re improvising the sounds, but there is nothing about what you’re doing that cannot be explained in natural terms. The only reason it sounds like a language is that you want it to sound like a language. But it’s not.” Known by many different names, “tongues”, “glossolalia”, or more accurately “non-cognitive non-language utterance” (NC-NLU), is practiced by many cultures and religious beliefs from literally all over the world; it is relatively new to Christianity and certainly not unique to it. As a point of note, I’m a Linguist, and let me also add here that I am neither a so-called ‘cessationist’ nor a ‘continuationist’ - I do not identify with either term; in fact, I had never heard the two terms until just late in 2016. As far as I’m concerned, quite frankly, since the Biblical reference of “tongues” is to real, rational languages, obviously “tongues” haven’t “ceased”; as far as I’ve been able to ascertain, people still speak.

[@TKK0812]

*but always known by the speaker(s) - it’s their native language (in some cases, it is a language the speaker has learned)* What? Paul tells Corinth that he wishes they "all spoke in tongues". If tongues is simply a known language of the speaker, then that statement by Paul is nonsense. Perhaps you could flesh this out a bit more. *In contrast, the “tongues” Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are producing today is an entirely self-created phenomenon. It is non-cognitive non-language utterance; random free vocalization based upon a subset of the existing underlying sounds (called phonemes) of the speaker’s native language, and any other language(s) the speaker may be familiar with or have had contact with. It is, in part, typically characterized by repetitive syllables, plays on sound patterns, alliteration, assonance, and over-simplification of syllable structure. It is also interesting to note that any disallowed sound combinations, i.e. consonant clusters, in the speaker’s native language are also disallowed in his/her tongues-speech. Further, this subset of phonemes typically contains only those sounds which are easiest to produce physiologically. There is absolutely nothing that “tongues-speakers” are producing that cannot be explained in relatively simple linguistic terms* The fact that you point to a scientific term and description of what is happening is immaterial to the discussion. You could literally do this with anything in Christianity. *I'm not doubting or questioning the 'tongues experience'; glossolalia as the spiritual tool that it is, can be very powerful and, for many people, the experience is profound. As one commenter put it, “Speaking in tongues distracts the ego/analytical/conscious mind while leaving the subconscious (the heart) wide open to import the divine." Both the spiritual and physical benefits of using this tool are also well documented. Again though, it is important to note that this same statement can be made for virtually any other culture that practices glossolalia* Other religions pray. Maybe we should get rid of prayer. Other religions also have holy books. Maybe we ought to get rid of the Bible? Other religions recognize holy days. Dump those too? Seems like another point that just simply demonstrates nothing in regards to the case you are attempting to make. *They’re all producing their glossolalia in the exact same way; they just have different explanations and beliefs as to why they’re doing it, and where it comes from* Mormons describe a "burning in the bosom" as evidence of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps we ought to abandon any emotional feelings we may have in our worship towards God. As you've stated, other religions describe this phenomenon as well, so therefor the Christians must be fake. If not, then you're just simply special pleading against tongues. *As far as I’m concerned, quite frankly, since the Biblical reference of “tongues” is to real, rational languages, obviously “tongues” haven’t “ceased”; as far as I’ve been able to ascertain, people still speak* 1 Cor 14:2 / For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. So you say it's always a "real and rational" language (never mind the fact you just assume what it would mean to be "real" and "rational") that the hearer would sometimes know and that the speaker will undoubtedly know. Yet Paul says the person who speaks in a tongue isn't speaking to men (God must only be able to speak "real" languages) and that no one understands him. So you say many will understand, yet Paul says no one will.

[@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474]

@@TKK0812 Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles - it stands to reason he would use his knowledge of foreign languages more than the average person to spread the Gospel, and thanked God for giving him the ability to do so. A frequent use of foreign languages was sort of part of his “job description”. It also stands to reason that he wished others were able to do the same - would make his job a lot easier and the message could be better spread to all corners of the known world. Paul is not speaking about, nor is he advocating here for, modern tongues-speech. Not sure how you get that it’s immaterial - I don’t think you can do this with anything in Christianity. Modern tongues-speech is what it is - non-cognitive non-language utterance. There just isn’t anything you’re doing that can’t be explained in relatively simple linguistics. There’s nothing about the production of tongues-speech that suggests anything divine in origin. There are, of course, many things in religion which must be taken on faith; they can neither be proved nor disproved. "Tongues" however, is not one of these things. It is something very concrete and tangible; it is a phenomenon which can be (and has been) studied and analyzed. You’re completely missing the point. The point I’m making is that glossolalia is not at all unique to Christianity. As the religious tool that it is, it can be a very powerful one, spiritually and emotionally. But like other forms of glossolalia practiced around the world, it is something self-created. 1Cor. 14:2 is perhaps *the* quintessential verse used by many to “evidence” modern tongues-speech in the Bible. Let’s paraphrase this verse into a more modern English. To do this, you need to get rid of the added “unknown”, use a more accurate translation from the Greek, and a more modern rendering of the archaic “tongue” - Once done, we have something more like this - “He that speaks in a language isn’t speaking to others, but only to God; no one hears [him] with understanding; nevertheless, though he’s praying in the Spirit, he’s speaking mysteries.” The whole passage is talking about real, rational language. Let me use an analogy - If I attend a worship service in “East Haystack”, some remote town in the US out in the middle of nowhere, two things are going to be evident: one; there’s only going to be so many people at that service (i.e. there will be a finite given amount of people there) and two; the chances that anyone speaks anything *but* English is pretty slim to nil. If I start praying aloud in say Lithuanian, there’s no one at that service that’s going to understand a single word I’m saying. Even though I’m speaking a real language, no one _there_ will understand my “tongue”. That does not mean or imply that no one else understands Lithuanian; just no one at _that particular service._ In this sense, therefore, I am speaking _only to God,_ since he understands all languages. To everyone at the service, even though I’m praying in the Spirit (as defined in my original post), to the people listening to me, I’m still speaking “mysteries” - i.e. even though I’m praying as I ought, no one understands me; no one has a clue what I’m saying as no one speaks my language. When one looks at the original Greek, the verb which is usually translated as “understandeth/understands” is actually the verb “to hear” in the sense of understanding what you’re hearing someone say. The verb is *not* “to understand”. That part of the verse is more properly “no one hears [him] with understanding”, i.e. no one listening to him understands what he’s saying. There is _nothing_ in this passage that suggests modern tongues-speech nor is there anything that even _remotely_ suggests that the speaker does not understand what he himself is saying. The Greek bears this out; it is the _listeners_ who do not understand, *not* the speaker - no matter how hard modern tongues-speakers want the speaker to also not understand…….it just isn’t there.

[@TKK0812]

@@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474 *Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles - it stands to reason he would use his knowledge of foreign languages more than the average person to spread the Gospel, and thanked God for giving him the ability to do so. A frequent use of foreign languages was sort of part of his “job description. It also stands to reason that he wished others were able to do the same - would make his job a lot easier and the message could be better spread to all corners of the known world. Paul is not speaking about, nor is he advocating here for, modern tongues-speech* You're reading these ideas into the text unfortunately because it says none of it. "It stands to reason" is an interpretive method that can be used to make the Bible say anything you want it to and as such, ought to be rejected. This is the epitome of eisegesis. You're also saying that Rossetta Stone is a adequate replacement for a Holy Spirit given gift. *Not sure how you get that it’s immaterial - I don’t think you can do this with anything in Christianity* I've heard many, many atheists try and use science to explain "what's really going on" when Christians experience God in worship, when we fast, when we pray, when people claim they were healed etc. So yes, it happens all the time. Simply because you are able to give a materialistic explanation is irrelevant to the truth of what is also taking place spiritually *You’re completely missing the point. The point I’m making is that glossolalia is not at all unique to Christianity. As the religious tool that it is, it can be a very powerful one, spiritually and emotionally. But like other forms of glossolalia practiced around the world, it is something self-created* You're just begging the question here that the tongue speech you are opposing is self-created. Other religious texts are "self-created", but that doesn't mean the Bible isn't the word of God. Simply pointing out that other religions do this has nothing to do with whether it is an authentic practice of Christianity. *He that speaks in a language isn’t speaking to others, but only to God; no one hears [him] with understanding; nevertheless, though he’s praying in the Spirit, he’s speaking mysteries. The whole passage is talking about real, rational language* Again, just begging the question. I can't believe you are seriously contending that the gift of languages is simply the ability to speak a language that the person already knows. *Let me use an analogy - If I attend a worship service in “East Haystack”, some remote town in the US out in the middle of nowhere, two things are going to be evident: one; there’s only going to be so many people at that service (i.e. there will be a finite given amount of people there) and two; the chances that anyone speaks anything but English is pretty slim to nil. If I start praying aloud in say Lithuanian, there’s no one at that service that’s going to understand a single word I’m saying. Even though I’m speaking a real language, no one there will understand my “tongue”. That does not mean or imply that no one else understands Lithuanian; just no one at that particular service* Again, you're reading ALL of this into the text. There's hardly anything for me to respond to because it's like we're not even reading from the same text. Paul mentions nothing of the sort nor is it inferred by anything in the passage. He doesn't ever say "I only mean this in a sense because there may be a visitor who is multi-lingual", he says "no one understands". *I’m still speaking “mysteries” - i.e. even though I’m praying as I ought, no one understands me; no one has a clue what I’m saying as no one speaks my language* So your position is you bring a tongue, and no one understands it. Then, because obviously Paul says there must be an interpreter, this same person now interprets what they've said (translates, really) into another language that the congregation can understand therefor rendering the original tongue speech irrelevant and practically useless? OK....... *When one looks at the original Greek, the verb which is usually translated as “understandeth/understands” is actually the verb “to hear” in the sense of understanding what you’re hearing someone say. The verb is not “to understand”. That part of the verse is more properly “no one hears [him] with understanding”, i.e. no one listening to him understands what he’s saying* No idea what point you think this makes, because I am aware of this fact and agree with the translation and it perfectly well with my exegesis of the text. *There is nothing in this passage that suggests modern tongues-speech nor is there anything that even remotely suggests that the speaker does not understand what he himself is saying. The Greek bears this out; it is the listeners who do not understand, not the speaker - no matter how hard modern tongues-speakers want the speaker to also not understand…….it just isn’t there* Oh but there is, and I've already demonstrated as much. Paul says "no one" understands and that he speaks to God. You are the one who imports "in a sense" and the idea that Paul has some multi-lingual individual in mind. You've also undermined the work of God by saying this gift can be accomplished using a smart phone and google translate. You've also not defined what a "real" language is and who defines as much. Apparently God can only understand codified language, never mind who determines that. Sorry, but I believe you've demonstrated nothing.

[@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474]

@@TKK0812 I’m not reading anything into the text that isn’t already there. I would argue that it’s those denominations that adhere to modern tongues-speech that have redefined the text to fit what it is they’re producing. If the history of the Pentecost movement is examined, one fact is very clear: at some point, between 1906 and 1907, the Pentecostal church was compelled to re-examine the narrative of Scripture with respect to “tongues”. The reason for this re-examination was that it quickly became embarrassingly obvious that their original supposition, and fervent belief in tongues as xenoglossy, certainly wasn’t what they were producing. This forced a serious theological dilemma - As a whole, either the Pentecostal movement would have to admit it was wrong about “tongues”, or the modern experience needed to be completely redefined. It seems the latter option was chosen. In redefining “tongues”, Pentecostals looked to primary and secondary source works for an alternative explanation. It is during this time that, that (mainly) five German scholars promoted a fresh new approach to Biblical interpretation that purposely tried to avoid the trappings of traditional and enforced interpretations of Biblical texts, collectively known as “Higher Criticism”. Part of this tradition was examining “tongues” as ecstatic utterance, rather than the supposed xenoglossy as understood by mainstream Christianity for centuries. As a quick aside, an important thing to note is that, prior to 1879, the term ‘glossolalia’ did not exist - it is a word coined by English theologian, Frederick Farrar (Dean of Canterbury) in 1879 in one of his publications. The Pentecostal solution to the issue was an adaptation from the works of Farrar, Schaff and a few others. These ideas were further ‘tweaked’ to more adequately fit their new notion of tongues. From this, the concept of “prayer language” as an explanation for the modern phenomenon of tongues-speech was formed. Over a short period of time, a Pentecostal apologetic was built. The emergence of the term “utterance” was strongly emphasized - it kept the definition ambiguous as it allowed for a variety of definitions beyond real, rational language, it was something sort of related to language, and could be defended more easily. “Utterance” fit much better in the Pentecostal paradigm and did not require empirical evidence. ‘Natural Praise’ and ‘adoration’ became a feature of ‘tongues’, and then ‘heavenly’ or ‘prayer language’ further broadened the definition. The term ‘glossolalia’ was transferred in from academia and was given a Pentecostal definition. In short, the tongues doctrine simply shifted into new semantics without any explanation. Xenoglossy one day, “prayer language” the next. The resulting implicit theology however was not a synthesis of revelation and philosophy, but rather a synthesis of trying to make sense of the modern “tongues experience” in light of the narrative of Scripture. A way to legitimize and justify the modern phenomenon by ‘proofing’ it in the Bible. The problem with this however, was an obvious overwhelming absence therein of anything resembling modern tongues. Call it what you will, but for this group of Christians, the result was a virtual re-definition of scripture with respect to the understanding and justification of modern “tongues”; a re-interpretation of select Biblical texts to fit the modern practice/connotation of what ”tongues” was/is perceived to be. What is amazing to me is how absolutely none of this is taught. It’s a topic that today is completely glossed over and conveniently “forgotten about” and swept under the rug in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles. Whether one is interested in this part of Pentecostal history or not, this redefinition has heavily influenced many other Christian denominations that adhere to the modern tongues phenomenon; specifically, it is from this historical doctrinal change that various modern Christian denominations’ belief in tongues, ultimately originated. Well, first, I’m not an atheist. Secondly, there are, of course, many things in religion which must be taken on faith; they can neither be proved nor disproved. "Tongues" however, is not one of these things. It is something very concrete and tangible; it is a phenomenon which can be (and has been) studied and analyzed with all studies yielding the same conclusions. Further, I am not doubting or questioning the 'experience'; as mentioned, glossolalia as the spiritual tool that it is, can be very powerful and, for many people, the experience is profound. As one commenter put it, “Speaking in tongues distracts the ego/analytical/conscious mind while leaving the subconscious (the heart) wide open to import the divine." Both the spiritual and physical benefits of using this tool are also well documented. I never implied that the Bible is not the word of God. Pointing out that other religious paths do the exact same thing is demonstrating that the concept is not one that is unique to Christianity. As to modern tongues-speech being authentic to Christianity, it is authentic to certain denominations only. See my comment further above on the Pentecostal/Charismatic redefinition of texts dealing with ‘tongues’. I’m not reading anything into the text that isn’t there. Again, see the comment further above re the Greek version of the text. No, that’s not at all what I’m saying. No one is “bringing a tongue” - they are speaking their native language; one that no one else at the gathering speaks/understands. Paul calls for a translation to the vernacular such that all may benefit; not just the speaker. The native language if the speaker is not irrelevant; it’s just that no one speaks/understands it. _No idea what point you think this makes, because I am aware of this fact and agree with the translation and it perfectly well with my exegesis of the text._ Obviously not, since this demonstrates that the speaker knows perfectly well what he’s saying; it’s the audience that does not understand. _Oh but there is, and I've already demonstrated as much. Paul says "no one" understands and that he speaks to God._ For the passage to “work” for tongues-speakers, it’s paramount that the speaker does not understand what he is saying. Again, this speaks to the redefinition of the text by certain Christian denominations to fit, or to ‘Biblically evidence’ what it is they’re producing. There just isn’t anything in the text that remotely suggests this. Without writing a small book, to put it as briefly as possible, if a person or being (angelic or otherwise) produces a stream of speech, in order for it to be ‘language’, regardless of whether spoken in front of you, in some remote corner of the word, on some alien planet, or on some heavenly/spiritual plain of existence, to be 'language', at its most basic level, it must contain at a minimal two features - (1) discrete units of various sorts, and (2) rules and principles that govern the way these discrete units can be combined and ordered. These two features are _universal, regardless of where or by whom the speech is being produced._ Tongues-speech contains neither one. It is simply a facade of language. Neither, by the way, is modern tongues/glossolalia gibberish. Gibberish does not seek to mimic language. Glossolalia does. The ‘gift of languages’ is the God/Holy Spirit -given ability, talent, knack (call it what you will), i.e. _the gift_ of being able to learn languages more easily and quickly than most others, but more so, as far as Paul was concerned, using that ability in spreading the message of Christianity, edifying the church, and to the further glory of God in general. This can be said of any of the gifts Paul references. They are God/Holy Spirit given abilities; thus, to be clear, they are supernaturally given. But the gift of languages, the least of all gifts, is nothing more than that. It is not xenoglossy, nor is it modern tongues-speech. The idea that the gift of languages is xenoglossy comes from the false assumption that the crowd at Pentecost, as described in Acts 2 narrative, was linguistically diverse. A closer examination reveals that this was not the case, but that’s a story for another day. And yes, anyone can learn a language, just as anyone can learn music, or advanced mathematics, etc., but as I think anyone will admit, there are those people who are just _gifted_ with these abilities and seem to accomplish them effortlessly. Just as some may be gifted with knowledge and wisdom, healing abilities, etc. I believe they all may be considered gifts given by the Holy Spirit. How one choses to use these gifts may further define them, but it seems, as far as Paul was concerned, he was focused on their use in a religious setting. In short, ‘tongues’ (read, ‘languages’) - the divine gift, is the ability to speak and be understood through real-language barriers.

[@MichaelSmith-yy8fw]

Pastor Matt much of what passes for speaking in tongues in Pentecostal churches is erroneous but I think the gift of tongues on Pentecost is a very real thing. The Holy Spirit gave the disciples the ability to communicate the Gospel in unknown languages to reach those in the outermost Roman Empire. There is also a private prayer language used to communicate with God mentioned in the Corinthian Epistles when our native tongue fails us. Both appear to be legitimate Gifts of the Spirit. It's not something that you "go to camp," to learn but a real blessing of the Holy Spirit that falls on devout Christians. You can be Reformed without putting down the Pentecostal experience. MikeInMinnesota

[@MichaelSmith-yy8fw]

I am further prompted to refer Paul In 1 Thes 5:19 where he cautions us not to quench the Holy Spirit in all manifestations in His church. Often self generated expressions are in self centered error but genuine spiritual gifts are to be celebrated and appreciated. I am reformed in outlook but I find my Pentecostal expression gratifying. Blessings MikeInMinnesota. 👨🏻‍🦳🔥♿️ I'll see You at the Top!

[@tomtemple69]

Where is praying in tongues mentioned? The only time it's mentioned is a hypothetical rhetorical question from Paul in ONE verse🤔 Romans 8:26-27 is not talking about tongues, neither is Jude 1:20

[@skippy675]

If this guy lives up to his last name there is no charisma needed. He keeps the ladies happy.

[@thewolfpack4119]

Funny there’s like 3 people.

[@MatthewEverhard]

We had about 25 that night for midweek Bible study. Camera shows only front rows. You've got 3 subscribers though, so there's that! 😅

[@flowerlass]

Why be rude? We can't see the rest of the group. People don't tend to sit in the first few rows.

[@tomtemple69]

whats funny about that?