1. Do Pentecostals teach that only people who speak in tongues are baptized with the Holy Spirit? 2. Do Pentecostals teach that we should all strive to pray in tongues? Or is this something that Pentecostalism is divided about?

This question, addressed to Trinitarian Protestants, regards the *nature* of the incident related by Luke, Acts 2:3, when a manifestation of fiery tongues was seen in association with the eleven, after the ascension of Jesus Christ. It is notable that the only manifestation of the Holy Spirit, *himself*, is when, in a direct involvement between Father and Son, he is seen bodily descending, Luke 3:22, in a dove-like form, upon the newly baptised Jesus. I suggest that the manifestation of tongues is not that of the Person, himself, but rather of *what is being gifted*, as a *result* of the Person’s indwelling. Most Protestant Trinitarian commentators of whom I am aware have viewed the manifestation of the Angel of the Lord, or of other angelic presences (such as the three coming to Abraham, the one with whom Jacob wrestled, the angel seen going up in a flame by Manoah and his wife, and the presence in the fiery furnace) as *temporary manifestations* of He who would, later, be fully incarnate. None, that I know of, attribute any such manifestations as being of the Person of the Holy Spirit, making the visibility of the descent, as a dove, a *unique event*. And I have never heard or read any suggestion that such would ever be expected to happen again to any other person. The Head has been anointed and the body shall receive the anointing via the Head and within that body. Then the fact of tongues only ever being seen to visibly descend upon the eleven, and those directly associated with them and nobody else, might therefore suggest that this event is, also, unique, the only other comparable occurrence being, Acts 19:2, in the case of twelve who, since they had never even heard of the Holy Spirit, could not have been aware of either of the above events and therefore were granted an experience similar to, though differing from, that which was unique. Does the *unique character* of these events not point to a non-repetition of them and point to a considered and balanced attitude that such things have, indeed, ceased ? I am interested in hearing argument, to the contrary, from a Protestant and Trinitarian standpoint. -------------------------------------- As stated below in comment : the unique character of the tongues incident (similar to the uniqueness of the descent) suggests to me a non-repetition and I am looking for reasoned arguments to the contrary.

The gift of interpretation of tongues is mentioned in chapters 12 and 14 of the apostle Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians: > 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, **to another the interpretation of tongues**. [1 Cor 12:10, ESV] > > 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? **Do all interpret?** 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts. [1 Cor 12:29-31, ESV] > > 5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, **unless someone interprets**, so that the church may be built up. [1 Cor 14:5, ESV] > > 13 Therefore, **one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret**. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also. [1 Cor 14:13-15, ESV] > > 26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, **or an interpretation**. Let all things be done for building up. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, **and let someone interpret**. 28 **But if there is no one to interpret**, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. [1 Cor 14:26-28, ESV] Besides these two biblical chapters, are there any other extra-biblical documented occurrences of the gift of interpretation of tongues in the history of the Church?

[Xenoglossy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoglossy) , the ability to suddenly speak a language one has never learned or studied, is reported to have taken place at Pentecost in Acts chapter 2. Are there any other independent sources that claim something similar to have happened during the early stages of Christianity? Any other reports of xenoglossy apart from Acts 2 during, say, the first 300 years of Church history? Note: there is a similar question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/57350/50422 , but the question itself and its single answer so far appear to be focused on glossolalia, not xenoglossy. ____ Similar question constrained to modern times: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/80486/50422

I have yet to see anyone speaking in tongues in a Southern Baptist church. Having said that, the lack of speaking in tongues does not necessarily mean that Southern Baptists *never* speak in tongues or that they do not believe in it as a general rule. Clearly they seem to avoid it. Nonetheless, what is the Southern Baptist belief regarding speaking in tongues?

In Acts 2, we read of how the apostles received the gift of tongues so that people heard the gospel in their own languages. Is the gift of tongues, then, specifically evangelistic or does it have a purpose in a congregation where there are only believers? I was under the impression that only Charismatics currently practice this gift. What do they consider the purpose to be and are there others who actually practice the gift that consider the purpose to be different? How are these purposes defended using either Old or New Testaments?

A previous question was answered listing perhaps only one denomination, and it wasn't AOG, that held speaking in tongues as sign of spiritual maturity. Does the Assemblies of God group speak in tongues?

> **1 Corinthians 14:39 (NIV)** > > Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not > forbid speaking in tongues. In the early church, the gift of tongues was a common gift which almost everyone received, as we see in the church in Corinth as an example. Paul had to give advice on how to utilize their spiritual gifts in an orderly manner in the church. However, I can't find any specific method/instruction given in the New Testament on how to receive the gift of tongues. If I want to receive the gift of tongues, what must I do? Is there any **instructions** given by the early **church fathers** on how to receive the gift of tongues? Since the New Testament doesn't give any specific instructions on how to receive the gift of tongues, there must be some writings from the church fathers on this issue.

Is there any method/instruction given by prominent preachers recently on how to receive the gift of tongues? Some specific way of prayer, some specific steps to follow, what kind of attitude is required and so forth?

We see in 1 Corinthians 14:22 that tongues are a sign for unbelievers and prophesy is a sign for believers, yet in the latter verses it appears to indicate the opposite, that tongues are sign for believers and prophesy a sign for unbelievers. What did Paul mean when he said this? I included verse 21 because it seems to indicate that the speaking in foreign tongues like what we see happen at Pentecost is descriptive of how tongues are a sign to unbelievers, naturally a foreigner speaking your tongue will serve as a sign from God. I've heard the interpretation that tongues means two different things in this passage but I don't see that as justifiable since it talking about tongues in such a close proximity without any distinction. > ## 1 Corinthians 14:21-25 ## >21 In the Law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” 22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.

One of the arguments made by those who believe that the gift of speaking in tongues has ceased (cessationists) is that the "tongues" spoken of in both Acts and 1 Corinthians 12–14 are "real" human languages. For example, C. Norman Sellers, in *Biblical Tongues*, writes: > The New Testament references to tongues require that we understand them as referring to real languages [...] There is sufficient scriptural evidence to prove that the tongues in 1 Corinthians are the same as those in Acts chapter 2 and refer to real languages. Charismatics will generally reject this analysis; J. Rodman Williams, for example, argues that "it would have been pointless to speak foreign languages" at Caesarea ([Acts 10:45–46](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+10%3A45-46&version=ESV)) and Ephesus ([Acts 19:6](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+19%3A6&version=ESV)) in *Renewal Theology* (II, p214). In light of this disagreement, I wonder – **did any church fathers clearly and specifically indicate that the "speaking in tongues" of either Acts or 1 Corinthians was *not* a "real" human language?** Here are some clarifying parameters: - I'm interested in church fathers as typically defined – those who followed the apostles up to John of Damascus. I'm fine with including Tertullian and Origen in this group. - From my reading I don't think any pre-Augustine authors clearly make this connection, so I'm asking about church fathers more broadly. But writings of the early fathers would be particularly interesting. - By "clearly and specifically," I mean that the writer *goes beyond* the biblical text and indicates that the "tongues" were not human languages. - Charismatics might argue that the biblical text itself is clear on this point, and that therefore if a church father merely quotes the biblical text, it indicates that he believes that "tongues" were not exclusively human language. I want more than that.

This is not a question whether tongues exist, yesterday or today, but I'm looking for extra-biblical writings on the existence thereof. Is there any documentation outside of the Bible, either from Christian or secular sources, specifically during the first or even second century, discussing speaking in tongues?

This question regards those who support and participate in the modern 'speaking in tongues' and asks what their answer would be regarding the emphasis of scripture. Note that it is not a matter of 'cessation' (or not). It is a matter of *emphasis.* ----------------------------------------------- There is but one mention of tongues in the four gospel accounts, namely in Mark 16:17. Although I do not, many do dispute the acceptance of the last sixteen verses of Mark into the canon of scripture so I will pass over that single text as I assume so few would bring it up in answer to my question, that it would be regarded as moot. **Acts** There are two mentions in Acts which specifically refer to the apostles speaking in known foreign languages such that persons from other nations, attending the event, were able to understand those foreign languages. Then there are two mentions more, both of specific and special occasions, one being the matter of gentiles receiving the gospel, 10:46, and then the matter of twelve receiving the gospel who had not (yet) heard of the Holy Spirit, 19:6. In neither case is it stated what, exactly, the 'tongues' were. These four occasions are the only documented record we have of people actually speaking in tongues and they are all special and specific occurrences upon which the tongues were a sign - a signification. **1 Corinthians** Paul mentions tongues twenty one times in first Corinthians (never in second Corinthians) and his quest is to regulate the matter, as it appears to have got out of hand and to have become disorderly, so he corrects the situation and applies rules. Only if an interpreter is present can anyone speak in an unknown tongue. Paul does not comment on the *origin or the kind of the tongue* in question. He simply regulates all future utterances - of any kind - in the assembly, in such a way that all hearers, on every occasion, must be informed, intelligently - in their own mother tongue - of what is uttered at the gathering, so that all may be edified in an understandable way. **Elsewhere** There is no other mention that I can find of such occurrences in the Greek scriptures. Paul does not mention the subject again to the Corinthians in his second epistle and he never mentions it in any other epistle to any other group or church. (From a purely forensic point of view, this would be circumstancial evidence that only the Corinthians were practising the procedure.) Paul fails to mention the subject in his epistles, shortly before his death, when he instructs the younger ministers, Timothy and Titus, regarding ministerial conduct, teaching of doctrine, and matters of church government. John fails to mention tongues in any of his four books. These books are clearly written at a later stage, clearly complete the canon of scripture and clearly contain all that is relevant to the remainder of the Church Age, prior to the Lord's return. Peter never makes mention of tongues. James never refers to them. Jude, likewise. Nor does the writer to the Hebrews, whoever that author may be. Matthew makes no historical record in his gospel account. Luke, likewise, in his gospel account. ----------------------------------------- If tongues were as central (1) a feature of church activity as some suggest, if tongues are an indication of the presence of the Holy Spirit on every occasion, if tongues are essential to the life of the church, if tongues are also essential to the edification and sound spiritual health of every single believer in the body of Christ . . . . . . . . then why do we see just four mentions in Acts on special occasions when a sign was necessary to mark a particular event, and why do we see just a chapter, or so, and that only when Paul regulates a matter that had got out of hand ? Why is there silence *from every other book and from every other author* ? Leaving aside the matter of 'cessation' that one might therefore expect that tongues - being a sign, given at a specific juncture in the inauguration of the New Testament - had ceased altogether, is it not questionable that there is a matter of emphasis to be considered ? To be even more plain, is there not a *justifiable question of imbalance* with regard to the modern emphasis on the speaking of tongues ? What is the response of those who participate in the speaking in tongues ? --------------------------- Please note that I wish to read responses from persons who actively do speak in tongues, as to their thinking regarding the subject ; or to read references to those persons. I am not looking to read theoretical assumptions from persons who do not actively practice the technique. --------------------------- Please further note that my research was from Young's Analytical Concordance and covered every occurrence of the word tongue/tongues. It could be that this subject is alluded to in different words which I have not listed. Also, I have deliberately not referred to the Old Testament and particularly not to prophetic passages, which require specific interpretations, e.g. Isaiah 28:11. I am interested in keeping the inquiry (and the response) within the compass of that outlined above. -------------------------- (1) This word added as an edit after the comment (below).

Prior to the birth of Jesus Christ, angels spoke to Zechariah, to Joseph and to Mary. After his birth, angels spoke to shepherds, then to Joseph and Mary together, and then to Joseph again (four times). Yet again, an angel spoke to Peter who released Peter from the prison. John the Apostle also received multiple communications from angels in the visions which form the Apocalypse. Yet in none of these cases did any interpretation have to occur. Indeed, in almost all of these occasions, interpretation (by a human interpreter) was impossible, due to circumstances (dreaming, solitude, imprisonment, personal vision). The particular occasion of note is the herald by angels to shepherds in the fields. An angel communicated a message and then the entire host of heaven gave utterance and eleven Greek words are reported : >δοξα εν υψιστοις θεω και επι γης ειρηνη εν ανθρωποις ευδοκια [Luke 2:14 TR], which can be translated into eleven English words 'Glory in highest God-ward, and on earth peace, among humanity goodwill' (which requires but the hearer to add an 'Amen' to make twelve). Yet, though many shepherds were present, none was required to interpret to the others. On *all these occasions* there was no interpretation recorded. The angelic communication was in language *which the hearers were able to understand.* --------------------------------------------- So it would appear that when angels have a message to utter, they speak in a language which the hearers can appreciate and understand without intervention or assistance. Why, then, do some persons nowadays communicate in languages (apparently and reportedly) which do not exist anywhere on earth and thus the communication has to be 'interpreted' by another human person, by (one understands) a form of 'revelation' ? What do those who support and participate in this activity have to say in answer to this question ?

I found this claim in a Protestant Christian web-site (which prompts this question): "In just about every part of the world, glossolalia can be observed. Pagan religions all over the world are obsessed with tongues. These include the Shamans in the Sudan, the Shango cult of the West Coast of Africa, the Zor cult of Ethiopia, the Voodoo cult in Haiti, and the Aborigines of South America and Australia. Murmuring or speaking gibberish that is construed to be deep mystical insight by holy men is an ancient practice." Glossolalia is the term for what is more usually called 'speaking in tongues' as practiced in some charismatic / pentecostal denominations. The quote came from https://www.gotquestions.org/glossolalia.html but there was nothing more about the non-Christian practice, because the page was out to present a biblical view. It was just that claim that I wanted to ask about, preferably getting answers from Christians sympathetic to what they view as modern-day Holy Spirit speaking in tongues. Would they readily admit to that non-Christian (and, therefore, non-Holy Spirit) phenomenon? Or would they deny such a thing went on in non-Christian religions? (Which is NOT to invite arguments for their practice being authentic while non-Christian practices were a sham.) I'm not asking for theological explanations about glossolalia but **whether it goes on in non-Christian circles and, therefore, whether that presents a challenge to Christians sympathetic to its practice in their ranks, or not.**

>Though I speak with the tongues of men *and of angels*, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. (1st Corinthians 13:1 KJV) Is there a Greek or Hebrew root wording to signify that the "tongues of angels" are the tongues heard spoken by Pentecostals, Oneness Apostolics, and other types of similar Christians?

Why do cessationalists seem to especially target prophecy, tongues, and apostleship, as the manifestations of the Spirit that have ceased? Scripture states the manifestation of the Spirit comes in different forms: workings, gifts, services. This includes the 5-fold ministries, plus healing, administration, serving, leadership, words of knowledge, giving, etc. as well as prophecy and tongues, and nowhere does it say that any of them would or have ceased before our individual or unified perfection and fullness has been obtained, which has not occurred, and probably cannot happen in this age. On the contrary, the apostle Paul especially encourages prophecy and writes not to disallow even tongues. Why not claim all the manifestations of the Spirit have ceased including pastors and teachers vs. just the ones they are theologically or experientially biased against? Why not just say everyone can just read their Bibles for themselves and that is enough? I have yet to hear real Biblical evidence that the spiritual gifts have ceased or had a time-stamp on them in this age. Bible-believing Christians who take that position seem to selectively ignore verses that speak of spiritual gifts' ongoing importance, such as 1 Cor 12:4-7, 1 Cor 14:1,5,12,39-40, Ephesians 4:11-16 (with special emphasis on verse 13 word "UNTIL").

Cessationism is the belief held by some protestants that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as prophecy, do not occur in present day. The general thinking is that these gifts "ceased" at the completion of the canon, closing any new revelation. What is the basis for this belief? I'm interested in Biblical, logical, empirical and historical arguments.

One of the fundamental beliefs of the SDA is the belief in ([Spiritual Gifts and Ministries No 17](https://www.adventist.org/spiritual-gifts-and-ministries/)) but what is intriguing is whenever they list these gifts in their commentaries the gift of tongues is always conspicuous by its absence from the list. The gift of tongues is clearly articulated as one of the gifts of the church in the New Testament Mark 16:17 ESV >17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; Acts 2:4 ESV >4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. 1 Corinthians 12:10 esv > 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. Why does the SDA seem to sideline this gift?

In Romans 8:23-27 there is a description of praying with inarticulate "sighs and groanings." There are some who interpret this as, in addition to literal sighs and groans, also being a type of synecdoche for a semantic range of polysyllabic utterances that could include praying in tongues. For example, R.C.H. Lenski writes: > Later writers state that the charisma of tongues was a speaking in > non-human language and either identify these 'groanings' with this non > human language or conceive of them as parallel to it." (*The > Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans,* p. 547) Lenski does not provide any footnotes or references. However, the 19th century theologian, Frederic Godet , writes about this passage: > In every particular case, he who is the object of this assistance > feels no distinct words fully express to God the infinite good after > which he sighs. The pact proves that the aspiration is not his own, > but that is produced in his heart by the Spirit of Him of whom John > said, 'that He is greater than our heart' (1 Hohn 3:20). We here find > ourselves in the domain analogous to that of the *glossais lalein*, > speaking in tongues, to which 1 Cor. 14 reefers; compare vv. 14 and > 15, where Paul says: "When I pray in a tongue, my spirit (*pneuma*) > prayeth indeed, but my understanding (*nous*) is unfruitful.'" Godet adds: > The understanding cannot control, nor even follow the movement of the > spirit, which, exalted by the Sprit of God, plunges into the depths of > the divine. Thus at the moment when the believer already feels the > impulse of hope failing within him, a groan more elevated, holy, and > intense than anything which can go forth even from his renewed heart > is uttered within him, coming from God and going to God, like a pure > breath, and relieves the poor downcast heart (*Commentary on the St. > Paul's Epistle to the Romans*, p. 102) The theologian, referenced above is a Protestant. But, according to Lenski, there were "writers" that interpreted Romans 8:23-27 as parallel to speaking in tongues. What is a general survey of Catholic exegetes, prior to Lenski in the early 20th century, that interpreted Romans 8:23-27 as Lenski described?