Below is my interaction with an anti-tongues article written by David Cloud on at:

http://www.wayoflife.org/database/pentecostaltongues.html

Cloud's article is in BLACK.....My responses are in RED

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PENTECOSTAL-CHARISMATIC TONGUES VS. THE BIBLE

The following is an excerpt from our new ---- page book The Pentecostal-Charismatic Movement: Its History and Error, available from -------------

The view that tongues is a gift for every believer and that it is to be exercised today has been a part of the Pentecostal movement from its inception. Tongues-speaking, according to most Pentecostals and Charismatics, has a three-fold purpose: First, it is a sign of the “baptism of the Holy Spirit.” In this capacity it is a sign both to the believer himself as well as to those who are observing. Second, it is a means whereby God communicates to the church. This allegedly occurs as the messages of tongues are interpreted. Third, it is a “private prayer language” whereby the user edifies himself. Under this category the private edification is said to produce a wide assortment of benefits, including encouragement during spiritual trials, physical healing, spiritual guidance, even a sleep aid!

Consider some quotes from Pentecostals and Charismatics:

“The distinctive doctrine of the Pentecostal churches is that speaking with tongues is the ‘initial evidence’ of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This article of belief is now incorporated in the official doctrinal schedules of practically all Pentecostal denominations” (Donald Gee, Now That You’ve Been Baptized in the Spirit, 1972, p.

“God took the baptism in the Holy Spirit out of the theoretical by giving the believer an undeniable physical evidence when the believer was filled. That evidence is speaking with other tongues. ... The fact is those who receive the gift of the Holy Spirit will speak in tongues” (Charles Crabtree, “How Practical Is the Pentecostal Lifestyle?”, Questions and Answers about the Holy Spirit, 2001, p. 70; Crabtree is assistant general superintendent of the Assemblies of God). [Note that he uses the terms “baptism in the Holy Spirit” and “filling of the Holy Spirit” as synonyms.]

“Speaking in tongues is always manifested when people are baptized in the Holy Ghost” (Kenneth Hagin, Sr., Concerning Spiritual Gifts, 1974, p. 89).

“Speaking in tongues is not the baptism in the Holy Spirit, but it is what happens when and as you are baptized in the Spirit, and it becomes an important resource to help you continue...” (Dennis Bennett, The Holy Spirit and You, p. 71).

“I say to all those who have a problem of insomnia due to their thoughts and reasoning, ‘speaking in tongues and you will sleep’. ... If you speak in tongues in your bed, your reasoning will cease and you will soon be asleep. ... The remedy is infallible” (G. Ramseyer, You Think Too Much).

“Even your physical and cerebral fatigue will disappear [as you speak in tongues]” (Thomas Roberts, late French Pentecostal leader, cited from Fernand Legrand, All about Speaking in Tongues, 2001, p. 123).

In his autobiography, David DuPlessis said God showed him that tongues was a means for determining the divine will. “… the light clicked on. I was speaking to God in tongues, and He was speaking back to me in my mind. I began to find beautiful revelation that way. ... Praying in tongues proved to be a wonderful step in working my way out of such an impasse [in not being able to discern God’s will]. I would merely pray in tongues, and if the idea held firm, then I knew it was real” (A Man Called Mr. Pentecost, pp. 76-78).

Following is a summary of the Bible reasons why we reject the Pentecostal-Charismatic doctrine of tongues.

First, I am convinced that there are some details pertaining to tongues speaking that we cannot understand today, since the legitimate gift has not been practiced for almost 2,000 years. There are many things in Scripture like this. We know almost nothing about the operation of the Urim and Thummim, for example. This is mentioned in seven passages in the Old Testament. We know that it was something that was kept in the breastplate of the high priest (Ex. 28:30) and it was a means whereby the priest ascertained God’s will (Num. 27:21; 1 Sam. 28:6). Beyond this we know nothing at all. We don’t even know what the Urim and Thummim looked like and we don’t have any idea about how they were used to determine divine direction. Since the Urim and Thummim are not in operation in our day, it is enough to believe what the Bible says and to draw general spiritual applications for our time. “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope” (Rom. 15:4).

This is the situation that we face in regard to tongues-speaking. Even by the late 4th century the preacher John Chrysostom (c. 347-407) made this comment on 1 Corinthians 12-14: “This whole place is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to, and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place” (“Homilies on 1 Corinthians,” Vol. XII, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Hom. 29:2).

Apologists love to allude to the teachings of the early fathers to support their theological assertions.  In this case, the author appeals to Chrysostom to sneak in early theology about tongues, namely “their cessation”.  Interestingly, Irenaeus (115 – 202 AD), who was a pupil of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote in his book "Against Heresies" (Book V, vi.): "In like manner do we also hear many brethren in the church who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light, for the general benefit, the hidden things of men and declare the mysteries of God, who also the apostles term spiritual." So we can easily have a “my church father” vs. “your church father” debate and get absolutely nowhere.  Even notorious Augustine of Hippo, a contemporary of Chrysostam, wrote: "We still do what the apostles did when they laid hands on the Samaritans and called down the Holy Spirit on them in the laying-on of hands. It is expected that converts should speak with new tongues." (Augustine, Vol 4)

In fact, using historical theology to disprove tongues will quickly quench our author’s fire.  The History of the Christian Church, by Philip Schaff records that speaking in tongues occurred among the Camisards, the Cevennes in France, among the early Quakers and Methodists in the Irish revival of 1859, and among the Irvingites in 1831. The Encyclopedia Britannica states that glossolalia (speaking in tongues) has recurred in Christian revivals of every age — among the mendicant friars of the thirteenth century, among the Jasenists and early Quakers, the persecuted Protestants of the Cevennes, and the Irvingites.

Thus, while there are questions in regard to tongues that I cannot answer with complete confidence, I don’t believe that I am obligated to answer every question. WE ARE OBLIGATED TO FORM OUR DOCTRINE ON THIS (OR ANY OTHER SUBJECT) UPON THE TEACHING OF THE CLEAREST SCRIPTURES, AND THE MORE OBSCURE ONES WILL TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES. The false teacher takes exactly the opposite approach. He builds his pet doctrines upon relatively obscure and difficult Scriptures while ignoring and overthrowing the clearest ones. The Charismatic will hang his doctrine of a “private prayer language” composed of unintelligible mutterings upon 1 Cor. 14:15, even though that is a doubtful interpretation at best, while ignoring the clear teaching of Scripture that tongues were languages that were supernaturally spoken as a sign to the nation Israel.

BIBLICAL TONGUES WERE REAL EARTHLY LANGUAGES.

A foundational fact about biblical tongues is that they were real languages, not some sort of unintelligible mutterings.

The law of first mention is an important rule of Bible interpretation, and the first time we see the exercise of tongues in the New Testament is in Acts 2. Here we see that the gift of tongues was the miraculous ability to speak in a language that one had never learned.

“Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak IN HIS OWN LANGUAGE. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man IN OUR OWN TONGUE, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak IN OUR TONGUES the wonderful works of God” (Acts 2:6-11).

At least 14 or 15 different languages are mentioned here. These were normal earthly languages spoken by men in that day, and the Jewish disciples were able to speak in these languages even though they were not their native tongues and they had never learned them and never before spoken in them.

There is no reason to believe that the gift of tongues mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is any different from that mentioned in the book of Acts. In both places the tongues involved speaking in earthly languages that one had never learned.

The same Greek word “glossa” is used for both. This word refers to the tongue itself (Mk. 7:33) or to a language spoken by the tongue.

I must note two important things.  First, the law of first mention is not always the plumb line when you have second, third, and fourth mentions that significantly, yet consistently, differ from the first.   Obviously, the events surrounding the day of Pentecost were different from the other pneumatological downpours in Acts. The tongues of fire and mighty rushing wind were exclusive to Pentecost, showing that it was a special inauguration of the giving of the Spirit to the world.  Even with the inauguration of the Gentiles in Acts 10, we don’t see such physical phenomena. In addition, both inauguratory downpours (Jews in Acts 2, and Gentiles in Acts 10) were corporate, where all subsequent instances were personally administered by the laying on of hands (Acts 8-Samaritans, Acts 9-Saul, Acts 19-Ephesian Disciples).  Therefore, we should not expect our modern day occurrences to mimic the first mention, but rather to mimic those occurrences mentioned later (personal, laying on of hands, followed by tongues, no extravagant physical phenomena). So the author is wrong in demanding a universal application of the first occurrence of the Holy Spirit baptism.

Secondly, I’d like to show something that is often missed.  Notice Acts 2:6 states that “every man” (singular) heard “them” (plural) speaking “in his own language”.  A simple reading of this tells me that each person heard the collective tongues (which were NOT human languages) in their own language.  In other words, a miracle took place in the hearing of the unbelievers, not only in the mouths of those filled with the Spirit. God granted each unbeliever (singular) the gift of interpretation to hear the whole crowd of tongue speakers in his own language.  There were various people groups there that day.  So this means that each person in these various people groups heard the crowd of tongue speakers in his language.  There weren’t some speaking language X and some speaking language Y.  No, they were all speaking in tongues (NOT a human language), and being heard in various languages.  Scholar J. Rodman Williams concurs:

“What is said in these passages, however, is not the hearing of one’s own language but the hearing in one’s own language.  Such being the case, at the same moment that ‘other tongues’ were spoken through the Holy Spirit, they were immediately translated by the same Holy Spirit into the many languages of the multitude. Closely related is the gift of interpretation that Paul describes in 1 Corinthians. This gift follows a tongue and is given so that hearers can understand in their own language.  In any event the tongues spoken at Pentecost and thereafter were not foreign languages but pneumatic speech – the speaking by the Holy Spirit through the mouths of human beings.” (Renewal Theology)

One might ask, how could God give a temporary gift of interpretation to unbelievers?  The same way he spoke a prophecy through the mouth of the high priest Caiaphas (an unbeliever). The same way he gave a dream to Nebuchadnezzar.  We can’t put God in a little box.  He can work through whoever He wants.

The author is placing much emphasis on these tongues being human languages.  Jesus specifically told his disciples that believers (not just believers in the first Century by the way) would speak in NEW tongues (Mark 16:17-18).  Of course this could mean that a person speaks in a language they hadn’t spoken before.  Yet, it could just as plausibly mean that humans are speaking in languages that humans never spoke before!  In addition, why would many of the bystanders think the disciples were drunk in Acts 2?  Why would speaking in human languages make someone appear drunk.  Wouldn't unrecognizable speech lend itself more to such an accusation?  I lean towards the latter because Paul tells us that tongues are not really designed for human to human communication:

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.

So either:

              OR

• The tongues Paul is speaking of in 1 Corinthians 14 is a different form of tongues, in which case all of the author's arguments above are completely inapplicable.

WHAT ABOUT THE DOCTRINE OF A “PRIVATE PRAYER LANGUAGE” that is not understood by anyone on earth, including the one who is praying?

Pentecostals and Charismatics often teach that there are two types of tongues described in the New Testament: the “public language” tongues of Pentecost and the “private prayer language” tongues of 1 Corinthians 14. Some call this distinction “ministry tongues” and “devotional tongues.”

As we have seen in the history section of this book, early Pentecostal leaders understood that biblical tongues were real earthly languages. They even thought they would be able to go to foreign mission fields and witness through miraculous tongues without having to learn the languages. Eventually the “heavenly language” and “private prayer language” doctrine was developed.

Those are the terms we have heard frequently at Charismatic conferences, such as those in New Orleans in 1987, Indianapolis in 1990, and St. Louis in 2000. The tongues that I heard in these conferences were not languages of any sort but merely repetitious mumblings that anyone could imitate. Larry Lea’s “tongues” at Indianapolis in 1990 went like this: “Bubblyida bubblyida hallelujah bubblyida hallabubbly shallabubblyida kolabubblyida glooooory hallelujah bubblyida.” I wrote that down as he was saying it and later checked it against the tape. Nancy Kellar, a Roman Catholic nun who was on the executive committee of the St. Louis meeting in 2000, spoke in “tongues” on Thursday evening of the conference. Her tongues were a repetition of “shananaa leea, shananaa higha, shananaa nanaa, shananaa leea…”

This is taken directly from the audiotapes of the messages. If these are languages, they certainly have a simple vocabulary!

This type of ridicule is no different than the ridicule the church receives from the world.  The author is trying to sway his audience using natural logic.  Is God not sovereign and all powerful?  Are not his ways past finding out?  Couldn’t God fill one “shananaa” with a wealth of supernatural revelation?  Or is God confined to our natural way of doing things?  For an interpretation to have 13 words, must the original tongue have had 13 words?  Must things always “add up”? Where is that rule in the Bible?  Didn’t Samson destroy 1000 men by himself with a single jawbone?  That doesn’t quite add up does it?  Didn’t a one hundred year old couple have children?  That doesn’t quite add up does it?  Didn’t three boys come out of a fire unscathed? That doesn’t quite “add up” does it?  Not in the natural, that’s for sure.  The supernatural is not the natural.  Why is the author treating a miraculous gift as something natural?  When dealing with the supernatural, we can’t apply natural logic. 

Even in the natural I would argue that the author is wrong.  Consider Morse code.  Every beep is the same pitch.  It all sounds the same. Yet a slight difference in timing changes what it is being communicated.  Consider the wailing of an infant.  The sound is often the same, yet the baby is expressing various needs (e.g. hunger, change of diaper, upset stomach, fear, etc).  If such a thing is possible in the natural, how much more so “in the spirit”?  Paul tells us:

1Co 14:14  For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15  What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.  

Clearly, Paul is making a contrast between praying with the spirit (i.e. the unseen spiritual realm) and praying with the understanding (the tangible rational realm).  “With understanding” and “with the spirit” are mutually exclusive in this context.  That is why Paul insists, “I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also.”  If praying “with the spirit” always included “understanding”, Paul would never need to make that statement. 

Michael Harper says: “In the short history of the Charismatic Renewal speaking in tongues has become rare in public, but continues to be a vital expression of prayer in private (These Wonderful Gifts, 1989, p. 97). He says this type of “tongues” is “a prayer language: a way of communicating more effectively with God” (p. 92). He claims that this experience “edifies” apart from the understanding: “Modern Western man finds it hard to believe that speaking unknown words to God can possibly be edifying. ... All one can say is ‘try it and see’. I can still remember today the moments when I first used this gift, and the immediate awareness I had that I was being edified. This is one of the most important reasons why the gift needs to be used regularly in private prayer” (These Wonderful Gifts, p. 93).

Harper says he is mystically aware of being edified even though he does not know what he is saying. He also says this “gift needs to be used regularly” and is therefore something important for the Christian life.

To prove his point he simply invites the skeptical observer to “try it and see,” reminding us that experience is the Charismatic’s greatest authority. (The “try it and see” approach creates a new problem, though, for the Bible never says to “try tongues” or to seek after tongues and never describes how one could learn how to speak in tongues. In the Bible, tongues-speaking is always a supernatural activity that is sovereignly given by God.)

Here we see the common notion that “tongues speaking” is sovereignly given by God.  We have nothing to do with it, right?  God just opens our mouth, right?  Wrong.  Paul told the Corinthians, “If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.” (1 Cor 14:27).  This means that the speakers can speak at will.  They can wait their turn.  They can turn it on and off.

For the following reasons we are convinced that the Bible does not support the doctrine of a “private prayer language.”

First, Paul said the tongues speaker edifies himself (1 Cor. 14:4). That would not be possible unless the words could be understood, because throughout the fourteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians Paul says that understanding is necessary for edification. In verse 3 he says that prophesying edifies because it comforts and exhorts men, obviously referring to things that are understood to the hearer. In verse 4 he says that tongues speaking does not edify unless it is interpreted. In verses 16-17 he says that if someone does not understand something he is not edified. Words could not be plainer. If there is no edification of the church without understanding, how is it that the individual believer could be edified without understanding? This is confusion. The word “edify” means to build up in the faith. Webster’s 1828 dictionary defined it as “to instruct and improve the mind in knowledge generally, and particularly in moral and religious knowledge, in faith and holiness.”

The author commits hermeneutical suicide here.  Paul’s letter was written in Greek, not in English.  Why is the author looking up the word “edify” in the English dictionary to establish the necessity of the mind’s involvement as a required part of edification?  One must look up the word oikodomeo, which literal means “to be a house builder”.  There is not a hint of the word “mind” or “understanding” in the Greek definition of this word.  If Paul says that praying in uninterpreted tongues edifies a person (1 Cor 14:4), then it does, regardless of the English definition of the word “edify”. The author is trying really hard to prove that a person speaking in tongues “understands” what he is saying.  Paul tells us otherwise:  “Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.”  The one speaking must pray for an interpretation (i.e. understanding in his native tongue) because when he prays in tongues his understanding is not fruitful! Paul couldn’t be more clear.

The words “edify,” “edification,” “edified,” and “edifying” are used in 18 verses in the New Testament and always refer to building up in the faith by means of instruction and godly living. For example, in Ephesians 4 the body of Christ is edified through the ministry of God-given preachers (Eph. 4:11-12).

The author is assuming that the type of edification the speaker receives must be the same type of edification the hearer receives.  Paul makes it clear that they aren’t the same.  He tells us:

1. The speaker doesn’t have the understanding

• In spite the authors attempt to prove that the speaker has understanding, Paul makes it clear that the speaker should PRAY FOR AN INTERPRETATION (1 Cor 14:13).  Therefore, he doesn’t know what he just spoke in his own native tongue.

2. The speaker is edified

• 1Co 14:4  He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself;

3. The hearer also doesn’t have the understanding

4.  The hearer is NOT edified

• 1Co 14:17  For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

Therefore, instead of using philosophical arguments we should just accept scripture. We don’t try to disprove the Trinity because it fails to appease logic.  Why should we then try to disprove devotional tongues on this basis?  The Bible is telling us that when we pray in tongues, we don’t understand what we’re praying, and it edifies us spiritually somehow.  At the same time, other believers are not edified if they hear us.  Yet if they heard what we were saying, they would be.  Unbelievers, on the other hand, may be granted supernatural insight into what we’re saying, as on the day of Pentecost.  This would serve as a sign and wonder to them (Mark 16:17-18). 

So how can tongues edify me and not edify other believers who hear me?  Is it that hard to imagine?  Of course not.  The edification I receive when I speak in tongues is a result of God answering my tongues, not in me HEARING what I’m saying!  Paul tells us that when we speak in tongues we are praying mysteries to God in (Notice the word “pray” in 1 Cor 14:14-15).  We are speaking “to God” (1 Cor 14:2).  Does God answer prayer?  YES. So the edification I am receiving is God’s interaction with my praying. Of course those around me are not hearing me in their own language.  So they aren’t joining with me in praying the mysteries I’m praying, and therefore are not edified.  It’s kind of like a massage.  Someone can watch me get a massage, but it doesn’t benefit them the same way.  I am the one receiving the blissful relaxation.  They aren’t entering the experience.  However, if my tongue is interpreted and they enter into the same prayer experience, they also will receive God’s interaction with those prayers.

Second, if the tongues-speaking of 1 Corinthians 14 is different from that of Acts 2, the Bible never explains the difference. We leave “tongues” in the book of Acts (the last mention is in Acts 19:6) and we do not see them again until 1 Corinthians 12-14. If the “tongues” in this epistle is a different type of thing than the “tongues” in Acts, why doesn’t the Bible say so?

First of all, the author has not given any credence to the fact that 1 Corinthians 12:11 mentions “various kinds of tongues” (ESV).  Yet, I will refrain from pursuing that argument any further, because within the framework of the author’s position, various “kinds of tongues” could be seen as various human languages.  Of course this position is wrong for various reasons articulated in my various responses. So I will use a different line of argumentation, namely, that tongues are tongues.  The author is wrong to suppose that Pentecostals advocate two kinds of tongues – one spoken TO MEN as a sign, one spoken TO GOD in prayer.  The Bible doesn’t make this distinction at all.  There don’t have to be different kinds, but rather different manifestations and multiple roles of the same tongues.  Tongues are never spoken TO MEN, but only TO GOD (1 Cor 14:2).  So this is the primary role of tongues – prayer.  In Acts 2, they were praising God for His “mighty works” (2:11).  In Acts 10, the Gentiles speaking in tongues were “magnifying God” (10:46).  As a secondary role, however, those tongues may be miraculously interpreted in the hearing of unbelievers, as on the Day of Pentecost, and thus serve as a sign to them (Mk 16:17). So speaking in tongues has two roles – Prayer/praise to God, as well as a sign to unbelievers. We can also add a tertiary role, namely, the edification of Christians when the tongues are interpreted.  Paul clearly tells us that tongues are not a “sign” for believers (1 Cor 14:22).  Yet he tells us that with an interpretation they can edify believers in the church (14:5).  Thus the role of tongues is not limited to a “sign” role.

As mentioned, tongues also has different manifestations or venues.  One can pray in tongues silently (1 Cor 14:28), or corporately with interpretation (14:5).  Not all people speak in tongues in the latter venue (1 Cor 12:30). I surmise that those who operate in the latter venue are frequently given the divine impression that they or someone else will be given an interpretation.  Those who do not frequently get such an impression will be content to remain private with their prayers, whether in or outside of the church setting.

Therefore, though tongues may have different roles and manifestations, I do not claim that there are different kinds of tongues.  Tongues are tongues!

Third, Paul says that tongues are an earthly language (1 Cor. 14:20-22). If the tongues-speaking in 1 Corinthians 14 were some sort of “private prayer language,” why would Paul give this prophetic explanation of it and state dogmatically that it is an earthly language? He does not say that only some “types of tongues” are languages.

This is a very hermeneutically immature argument.  The author obviously lacks understanding in the application of Old Testament prophecies.  Most Old Testament prophecies have dual fulfillments, the local and the remote.  For example, Jeremiah 50 and 51 are prophetic of the overthrow of the kingdom of Babylon, but the extensive use of the language of these chapters in Revelation 17 and 18 shows that this overthrow was typical of the overthrow of spiritual Babylon at Christ's return. Psalm 41 (not strictly prophecy) is about David's experiences in the revolt of Absalom, but his betrayal by Ahithophel is typical of Judas's betrayal of Christ (v. 9, quoted in John 13:18). We could give hundreds of examples of this. 

Isaiah 28:11 has an immediate fulfillment concerning the soon-coming Babylonian captivity of Israel.  Jeremiah summarizes it well:

Jer 5:15  Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel, saith the LORD: it is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say.

Yet, Paul quotes Isaiah 28:11 concerning modern-day speaking in tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:20-22.  Therefore it has a remote prophetic application as well.  Anyone with any knowledge of prophetic fulfillment in the New Testament knows that the remote application becomes more prophetic, symbolic – an antitype.  Applied to the Babylonian captivity, Isaiah 28:11 is therefore speaking strictly of human languages.  Applied to New Testament Pneumatology, it loses that element of exactness.  The human languages were only a type of what would ultimately be a supernatural fulfillment.

Fourth, in 1 Cor. 14:28 Paul says the tongues speaker speaks both to himself and to God. “But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.” This means that he can understand what he is speaking. Otherwise, how could he speak to himself? Does anyone speak to himself in “unknown gibberish”?

The best hermeneutical approach is to interpret the passage at-hand with the immediate preceding context, paying attention to grammatical conjunctions (e.g. “therefore”, “for”, etc.).  When you see the word “therefore”, see what it’s “there for”.  When you see the word “for”, see what “for”.

The author has clearly failed to do this.  Paul clearly states, “let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret”.  The Greek word diermeneuo simply means to "translate". Then in the next verse, using the conjunction “for” (Gr. gar), Paul goes on to qualify the reason one must pray for an interpretation, namely that the person’s “understanding is unfruitful”.  If the person praying in tongues already has the understanding, as the author asserts, why would he need to pray for a translation?  Certainly those in the Corinthian church were predominantly Greek speaking Gentiles.  Why would the person speaking in tongues need to pray for a "translation" for those in the church if they speak the same language as him?   If he understood what he was saying, that would mean he already has a translation in the common language of the church at Corinth.  Let’s stick with the obvious interpretation!  The one speaking in tongues does not understand what he is speaking, and therefore he himself needs a translation to understand it!

Fifth, there is no example in 1 Corinthians 14 of a believer speaking in tongues privately and there is no encouragement to do so. What about verse 28? “But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God” (1 Cor. 14:27-28). This says nothing about praying in tongues privately. It is talking about the exercise of gifts in a public meeting. Paul says that if there is no interpretation, the individual tongues speaker should keep silent and pray to God, but he says nothing about getting off by oneself and praying privately in tongues. One must read all of that into the passage.

The author is making a false definition of “private”.  He is presupposing that private means “outside of the church”.  He then assumes that, since Paul is speaking of things occurring “in the church”, then there is no such thing as private tongues.  Yes, Paul is specifically dealing with corporate meetings, as this is the issue that needed addressed in the epistle.  Yet he is clearly advocating a private prayer language DURING A CORPORATE MEETING.  How do I know that?  Well the location is “in the church”, yet the person without an interpretation is told to speak "to God" (i.e. pray) in “silence” (i.e. privately).  Hence, he is encouraged to pray privately in tongues during the corporate meeting. 

In addition, Paul’s failure to deal extensively with private prayer “outside the church” in no way negates the importance of it.  In fact, I am inclined to think that is the very venue Paul was strongly insinuating when he wrote, “I want you all to speak in tongues” (v5, ESV). If they were out of order during the church service, then the only other place for “all” of them to speak in tongues without hindering edification of the church would be “outside of the church”.  Paul also makes this distinction when he writes, “I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all. Yet in the church I had rather speak five words…” (v18-19a).

Sixth, if there were a “private prayer language” that edified the Christian’s life it would be very important and the Bible would explain it clearly and circumscribe its usage as it does the use of tongues in the church. Further, a “private prayer language” that helped the Christian to be stronger in his walk with Christ would doubtless be mentioned in other places in the New Testament in the context of sanctification and Christian living. In fact, though, it is never mentioned in such a context. The apostles and prophets addressed many situations in the New Testament epistles and gave all things necessary for holy Christian living, but they never taught that the believer needs to speak in a “private prayer language” in order to have spiritual victory or to find God’s guidance or to be healed or to be able to fall asleep or any other such thing.

First of all, I believe that the private prayer language is mentioned in other places.  Let’s first clarify some Pauline terminology.  He calls speaking in tongues praying “with the Spirit” or “in the Spirit”, and contrasts this with praying “with the understanding”:

1Co 14:14  For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15  What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. 16  Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

The preposition “with” is not in the original language.  Rather the word for spirit (pneuma) is in the dative case, which could be translated as instrumental (“with”) or locative (“in”).  Hence the Weymouth Version translates these verses in the following manner:

1Co 14:14  For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is barren. 15  How then does the matter stand? I will pray in spirit, and I will pray with my understanding also. I will praise God in spirit, and I will praise Him with my understanding also. 16  Otherwise, if you bless God in spirit only, how shall he who is in the position of an ungifted man say the 'Amen' to your giving of thanks, when he does not know what your words mean?

With the locative understanding, other verses commanding us to pray “in the spirit” begin to make sense:

Eph 6:18  Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

Jud 1:20  But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

Is Paul telling us to pray with more energy, as some would advocate?  This is a more Americanized version of the word "spirit", and certainly wouldn't do any justice to Jude 1:20 which tells us to pray "in the Holy Spirit".  Is Paul perhaps telling us to just pray in the power of the Holy Spirit in English?  This would seem to put a distinction between regular prayer (1 Thess 5:17) and prayer “in the Holy Spirit” – both in our native tongue, yet with some kind of difference.  There is no such distinction in the Bible.  In our native tongue, prayer is prayer.  Yet Paul tells us to pray “in the Holy Spirit” or “in the Spirit”.  Surely he is referring to praying in the spirit as defined in 1 Corinthians 14:14-16.

Secondly, the author makes the logical fallacy of necessity.  He claims that if the private prayer language was important it “would doubtless be mentioned in other places in the New Testament.”  In other words, since this phenomenon is not mentioned in more places, it is insignificant.  He’s assuming such a necessity.  Yet, Paul doesn’t assume such a necessity with regard to other gifts of the Spirit.  For example, in 1 Corinthians 12, there are mentioned two other gifts of the Spirit – the “word of knowledge” and the “word of wisdom” which are not mentioned by name anywhere else in the New Testament.  As a result, theologians must speculate what Paul meant by these phrases by correlating them with more general uses of the words “knowledge” and “wisdom”.  Are these gifts unimportant because of their singular mention?  Of course not.  We must realize that the majority of Paul’s writings are written to either correct problems in specific churches or to answer specific questions.  His lack of repetition of certain teachings in no way minimizes their importance. In fact, some of the foundational teachings mentioned in Hebrews 6:1-2 have very little didactic mention in the Pauline epistles.  For example, the “laying on of hands” is a foundational teaching.  Yet, Paul’s epistles never teach on this phenomenon, other than a single negative exhortation to Timothy – “Lay hands on no man suddenly” (1 Tim 5:22).  His other two mentions are also exclusively to Timothy, and they are passive and indirect (1 Tim 4:14, 2 Tim 1:6).  He omits any teaching on this subject in his general church epistles.  Why?  Because, the churches already knew about it, and there apparently weren’t many problems to address concerning it.  Likewise, the foundational doctrine of “baptisms” (plural) must include both water baptism and the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Since tongues are a normal accompaniment of the latter, tongues is a foundational doctrine.  We should expect that all the churches already knew about tongues and their application to daily life and ministry. 

Seventh, it is not possible that tongues-speaking could be a necessary part of the Christian life, because Paul plainly states that not all speak in tongues (1 Cor. 14:29-20). Some will ask, “Why, then, does Paul say, ‘I would that ye all spake with tongues’” (1 Cor. 14:5)? The answer is that Paul was not saying that all did speak with tongues or that all could speak with tongues; he was merely expressing a desire that the exercise of spiritual gifts be done and that it be done right. In 1 Cor. 7:7, Paul uses exactly the same expression in the context of celibacy. He said, “For I would that all men were even as I myself...” We do not know of any Pentecostals or Charismatics who take this statement literally by teaching that it is God’s will for every believer to remain unmarried, but they take the same expression in 1 Cor. 14:5 as a law. There is a strange inconsistency here.

Even if Paul is speaking hyperbolically, that in no way lessens his general persuasion that he delights in a plethora of people speaking in tongues.  How can a cessationist possibly get the exact opposite from his statement, namely, that he doesn’t want anyone to speak in tongues?

The author is using uncontextual prooftexting here to sway his readers.  1 Corinthians 7:7 is not in the context of spiritual gifts whatsoever.  Paul is speaking of celibacy in that chapter.  Celibacy is not mentioned as a spiritual gift in 1 Corinthians 12.  There is a difference between regular “gifts”, and the gifts which are referred to as the pneumatikos in 1 Corinthians 12:1.  In fact, 1 Corinthians 12:1 doesn’t even contain the word “gifts” in the original langue.  The proper way to translate 1 Corinthians 12:1 is as follows: “And concerning the spiritual things, brethren, I do not wish you to be ignorant”.  Of course, these spiritual endowments are later called gifts, but they are a special type of gift of which celibacy does not belong.  Another example of a "gift" that doesn't belong to this category is "eternal life" (Rom 6:23).  So, in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul is not speaking at all about the spiritual things (pneumatikos), but rather of one’s endowment of being married or celibate.

Eighth, all of the New Testament’s instruction about prayer take for granted that prayer is a conscious, understandable act on the part of the believer and that he is speaking to God in understandable terms. We see this in Jesus’ instructions about prayer. “After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen” (Matt. 6:5-13). This is a conscious, understandable prayer. We see the same thing in Paul’s instructions about prayer (i.e., Rom. 15:30-32; Eph. 6:18-20; Col. 4:2-3; Heb. 13:18-19). There is not one example of a prayer recorded in Scripture that is anything other than an individual speaking to God in conscious, understandable terms. In fact, Christ forbade the repetitious type of “prayers” that are commonly heard among those that practice a “private prayer language.” “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking” (Mat. 6:7). Yet I have oftentimes heard “prayer tongues” that sound like this: “Shalalama, balalama, shalalama, balalama, bubalama, shalalama, bugalala, shalalama....” Whatever that is, it is not New Testament “tongues” and it is not New Testament prayer.

The author is wrongly assuming that praying “in the spirit” has all the same rules and applications as regular prayer.  Jesus speaks nothing of tongues, so why should we apply his rules to something that is not yet introduced in scripture.  The author is applying natural standards to something that is supernatural.  Paul said that when we pray in tongues, our spirit “prays” (1 Cor 14:14).  Things “in the spirit” are invisible and imperceptible to the natural mind.  Therefore, how can the author know that a repetition of a physical sound is producing a repetition of a spiritual communication.  He doesn’t.  Consider morse code.  Every beep is the same pitch.  It all sounds the same. Yet the slight difference in timing changes what those sounds mean.  If such a thing is possible in the natural, how much more “in the spirit”. 

Ninth, even if we were to agree that 1 Corinthians 14 refers to a “private prayer language,” it would not be something that could be learned or imitated. Whatever is described in 1 Corinthians 14 is a divine miracle, but this is contrary to the Pentecostal-Charismatic practice whereby people are taught to speak in a “prayer language.” We discuss this under a later point in our study on tongues.

Though tongues are not necessarily learned, one can grow in and develop that gift just like any other spiritual gift.  Most of the other spiritual gifts require human participation and development.  This is surely true of teaching, preaching, pastoring, and evangelism.  What about prophecy?  Surely God can show someone something in a “catching away” experience, a vision, a trance, a dream, a “perceiving”, or any other Biblical form of revelation. Yet, until that person opens his mouth and communicates it, the prophetic gift is not in operation.  That person therefore needs to learn how to best communicate that revelation.  Healing and miracles operates the same way.  I may have a gift of healing, but I may have no clue how or when to operate in it or who to lay hands on.  So I can grow in this gift as well. Paul tells us, “Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith” (Rom 12:6).  So we operate in our gifts according to the faith we have for that gift.  God can and will increase that measure of faith.  I have often found that due to anti-tongues teaching, as well as a general hesitation about the supernatural in America, people’s faith level for speaking in tongues may begin at a small level.  Therefore, I may have to encourage them to just open their mouth and let God fill it. I never tell them to mimic me though.

Tenth, to use the gift of tongues as a “private prayer language” would be to destroy its chief purpose, which is a sign to unbelieving Israel. Former Pentecostal Fernand Legrand wisely observes: “By using this sign in private, some think they can profit from ONE of its aspects, while ignoring the others, but you cannot dismantle a gift and retain only one of its components. A car is a complex mechanical object that is driven as an entity or is not driven at all. You cannot take the wheels for a run and leave the body and the engine in the garage. When a car is running it is the whole car that moves. In the same way, TONGUES WERE NOT TO BE SLICED UP LIKE A SAUSAGE. They were to edify the speaker AND the others AND be a sign for the Jewish unbelievers AND be understandable or be so rendered by interpretation. They had to be all that at the same time. The gift was inseparable from its one and only unchanging purpose: to be a sign for non-believing Jews of the universal offer of salvation (Acts 2:17; 1 Cor. 14:20-22)” (All about Speaking in Tongues, p. 67).

I somewhat agree with this paragraph.  We should be more open about praying in tongues while evangelizing.  I was led to pray in tongues in front of an Arabic Muslim during a street evangelism outreach.  He began talking back to me in Arabic.  After a minute of conversing, he said, “you know some Arabic”!  That was awesome!

Yet, the failure of Pentecostals to do more of this in no way negates the truth that tongues still exist.  That’s like saying the Great Commission is no longer applicable because so many Christians fail to share their faith audibly. 

The fact is that biblical tongues were real earthly languages, and this is a foundational truth. Any doctrine of tongues that reduces this practice to mere gibberish of any sort that is not a real language is unscriptural.

BIBLICAL TONGUES WERE A SIGN TO UNBELIEVING ISRAEL REGARDING THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH AND THEY CEASED WHEN THIS PURPOSE WAS COMPLETED.

Another foundational truth about biblical tongues is that they were chiefly a sign to Israel that God was extending the gospel to all nations. Note the following teaching that Paul gave to the church at Corinth:

“Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe” (1 Cor. 14:20-22).

The Corinthians were abusing the spiritual gifts and were particularly enamored with tongues. As spiritual infants (1 Cor. 3:1), they were “showing off” to one another. Paul tells them to stop being children and to be men by understanding the true purpose of tongues. It was a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 28:11-12 that was directed to the Jews.

“For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to THIS PEOPLE. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear” (Isa. 28:11-12).

The miraculous tongues was a sign to the unbelieving Jews that God was speaking to all nations of men and calling them into one new spiritual body composed of both Jews and Gentiles. “This people” refers to the Jewish nation to whom the prophet Isaiah was speaking.

Each time we see the gift of tongues exercised in the book of Acts Jews were present (Acts 2:6-11; 10:46; 19:6). On the day of Pentecost and in Acts 19 it was the Jews themselves that spoke in tongues. Fernand Legrand, a former Pentecostal, makes this important observation:

Notice the author claims “Jews were present”, and not “unbelieving Jews”.  He has created a useless straw men.  He himself, in other places, says that tongues are a sign for “unbelievers”.  So to be more consistent to his view, he should look for “unbelieving Israel” to be present on every occasion.  Let’s see if this is the case.  The Ephesian disciples spoke in tongues in Acts 19.  Only Paul and Apollos were present.  Are Paul and Apollos “unbelieving Israel”?  Of course not.  Cornelius’ household spoke in tongues in Acts 10?  Were the Christian Jews which accompanied Peter (v45) “unbelieving Israel”?  Of course not.  Why would believing Jews need a sign?  Paul specifically said, as the author notes above, that tongues act as a sign to “unbelievers” (1 Cor 14:20-22).  Since there were no unbelieving Jews present in these situations, we must conclude that tongues are not exclusively a sign to unbelievers.  That cannot be their sole purpose, even if it is a secondary purpose. Yes, tongues are a sign, but they are more than a sign.  In the same way, taking up serpents is not exclusively a sign (Mark 16:17-18).  In the kingdom age, children will take up serpents normatively (Isa 11:8).  Since disbelief will already be minimal, taking up serpents will no longer serve its secondary purpose of being a sign to win the lost, as it did in the days of Paul (Acts 28:3-6).  According to the logic of the author, taking up serpents would have no value in a world without unbelievers.  Yet, in the new world, children will play with serpents as a wonderful experience of interacting in God’s recreated world.  Likewise, when we speak in a tongue we speak wonderful mysteries to God (1 Cor 14:2).  We interact with the supernatural.  Yes, this is a sign if unbelievers are present.  But, we are not speaking to men.  We are speaking to God.  Even without a single unbeliever present, we are speaking to God.

 “It is worth noting that wherever the sign appears, it is always in the presence of JEWS, and where we do not find Jews, as in Athens or in Malta, neither do we find the sign. ... It is in the very nature of the sign that we find the nature of their unbelief. ... The sign denounced or corrected their lack of faith concerning the salvation of those who spoke languages that were foreign to their own, that is, the Gentiles. .... But this was precisely what the Jews did not want to believe. In fact, they were ‘contrary to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved’ (1 Thess. 2:15-16). ... The idea of now being made one with foreigners was more than the first-century Jews could stand. The thought alone was enough to fire up their Hebrew atavism. Yet that was the first thing they had to understand and finally admit. So God gave them the best sign possible to make them understand what they could not or would not believe; HE MIRACULOUSLY MADE JEWS SPEAK IN THE LANGUAGES OF FOREIGNERS. IN SO DOING, GOD PUT JEWISH PRAISE INTO THESE PAGAN TONGUES. ...

“A simple but attentive reading of the Bible reveals the scenario of fierce Jewish opposition towards everything that was not specifically Jewish. We see Jonah who hates the men of Nineveh to the point of disobeying God. ... In his frustration he goes as far as asking for his own death. If Nineveh lives, may Jonah die! ... This spirit of opposition and unbelief will only be reinforced over the centuries. The Jews belong to Yahveh and Yahveh to them, in a closed circle of bigotry; everyone else is cursed. ...

“Daring to suggest that people with a tongue different from their own could benefit from the goodness of God, was to risk one’s life. They led Jesus to the top of a hill to throw Him off because He had just said: ‘many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; but unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow.’ Jesus added to their immense rage: ‘And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian’ (Luke 4:25-27). This was, in their eyes, more than enough to deserve death. ...

“What a narrative in Acts 22! The prisoner Paul stands on the steps of the fortress. He motions to the crowd with one hand and asks to speak. As he begins in Hebrew, silence falls upon the crowd. ... But at the very instant that he starts, ‘And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles,’ the sentence freezes in mid-air. They listened as far as that word Gentiles (or nations); and threw dust into the air, shouting, ‘Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.’ What made them explode like that? Simply the idea that God could also be the God of every man and every tongue. It is now easier to understand why speaking in tongues is the sign of this great truth and that for ‘this people’ it was the means of access to it. ...

“They alone had to be convinced to abandon this particular unbelief and to consider no longer impure the people and the languages that God considered pure, languages pure enough to be spoken by His Holy Spirit. ... This sign in foreign languages, like the triple vision of Peter, taught them that salvation was for ‘whosoever,’ for ‘all flesh,’ for ‘every tongue.’ ...

“But WHO in today’s Church composed of peoples, tribes, nations and languages, WHO still needs to be convinced by a repeated sign that the Spirit of God is poured out on all peoples, nations, tribes and languages?” (Legrand, All about Speaking in Tongues, pp. 24-27, 33).

It is impossible to have a correct doctrine of tongues without understanding that it was a sign to the nation Israel of the new thing that God was doing, which was extending the gospel to all men and bringing both Jews and Gentiles into one new spiritual body.

The need for such a sign ceased entirely in the first century. By 70 A.D. Jerusalem had been destroyed by the Roman armies led by Titus and the Jews had been scattered to the nations. By then, Gentiles had come to Jesus Christ by the tens of thousands and Gentile churches had been established throughout the Roman Empire. The purpose for the gift of tongues as a sign to the nation Israel had ended. Israel had rejected the sign and she had been judged just as the prophet foretold.

“For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: YET THEY WOULD NOT HEAR. But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; THAT THEY MIGHT GO, AND FALL BACKWARD, AND BE BROKEN, AND SNARED, AND TAKEN” (Isaiah 28:11-13).

Isaiah not only prophesied that God would give the sign of tongues to Israel but he also prophesied that Israel would reject it and be judged, which is exactly what happened.

The author obviously lacks understanding in the application of Old Testament prophecies.  Most Old Testament prophecies have dual fulfillments, the local and the remote.  For example, Jeremiah 50 and 51 are prophetic of the overthrow of the kingdom of Babylon, but the extensive use of the language of these chapters in Revelation 17 and 18 shows that this overthrow was typical of the overthrow of spiritual Babylon at Christ's return. Psalm 41 (not strictly prophecy) is about David's experiences in the revolt of Absalom, but his betrayal by Ahithophel is typical of Judas's betrayal of Christ (v. 9, quoted in John 13:18). We could give hundreds of examples of this. 

Isaiah 28:11 has an immediate fulfillment concerning the soon-coming Babylonian captivity of Israel.  Jeremiah summarizes it well:

Jer 5:15  Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel, saith the LORD: it is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say.

Yet, Paul quotes Isaiah 28:11 concerning modern-day speaking in tongues.  Therefore it has a remote prophetic application as well.  Anyone with any knowledge of prophetic fulfillment in the New Testament knows that the remote application becomes more prophetic, symbolic – an antitype.  Applied to the Babylonian captivity, Isaiah 28:11 is therefore speaking of human languages.  Applied to New Testament Pneumatology, it loses that element of exactness.  The human languages were only a type of what would ultimately be a supernatural fulfillment.

The author fails to apply this common hermeneutical understanding.  Instead, he wrongly treats the remote (antitype) as one would treat the immediate fulfillment.  Anyone familiar with covenantal theology knows that, in the New Testament, Paul sees the church as the “Israel of God” and the “seed of Abraham” (Gal 6:16, Rom 2:28, Gal 3:28-29, Heb 12:22-23).  We can’t pull Old Testament prophecies into the New Testament without applying Paul’s understanding to them.

In 1 Corinthians 13 Paul taught the church at Corinth that the gift of tongues would cease:

“Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away” (1 Cor. 13:8-10).

This passage is talking about the revelatory gifts of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge. It is not knowledge itself that will cease; it is the gift of knowledge. It is not tongues that will cease; it is the gift of tongues.

When will these gifts cease? The passage indicates that they will cease in two stages. The gift of tongues is treated separately from the gifts of prophecy and knowledge. The gift of tongues is mentioned in verse 8 and then is not mentioned again, whereas the gifts of prophecy and knowledge are mentioned again in verses 9-10. I believe that this teaches that the gift of tongues would cease of its own accord prior to the cessation of the other two gifts. We can see this in the book of Acts. The final time that we see tongues speaking is in Acts 19. By that point in church history there was no question that God was calling the Gentiles by the gospel. That matter had been made crystal clear.

Once a sign has been fulfilled it is foolish to continue with it. If I were to tell someone who is meeting me at the airport that he will know me because I will be wearing a red hat, the red hat is the sign. Once we meet and he recognizes me by the sign of the hat the need for the sign has ceased. If I were to continue to wear a red hat for the rest of my life, that would be foolish.

The author is making an appeal to ridicule to point the reader to a conclusion he came to by pure philosophical reasoning.  His reasoning is very weak.  He claims “By that point in church history there was no question that God was calling the Gentiles”.  Really?  I just spoke to someone today during a street evangelism outreach who had no clue what the Gospel was.  Oh, and what about the countless tribes in remote areas who are still being reached with the Gospel?  They know NOTHING of Jesus Christ.  If tongues was a purely inaugoratory sign, why in the world would God give the sign of tongues to twelve Ephesian Gentiles in Acts 19, when he had already inaugurated a crowd of Gentiles in Acts 10?  Why the repetition?  And if he gave the sign to those twelve, why would he stop there?  He wouldn’t!  The author’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13 is bogus.

Thus the gift of tongues ceased even before the events recorded in the book of Acts concluded, but the gifts of prophecy and knowledge continued to operate until “that which is perfect is come,” which was the completed canon of Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says the Scripture is able to make the man of God “perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” The gifts of prophecy and knowledge were used by the prophets and apostles for the completion of Scripture and then they vanished away. The final book of Scripture to be written was Revelation.

This is the most blatant eisegesis ever invented.  Without explicitly being told, everyone reading  1 Corinthians 13:8-10 would naturally conclude that it is speaking of the consummation of all things, and certainly not the canonization of scripture. Notice the contrast between “when” (Gr. Hotan) in 1 Corinthians 13:10, and “now” (Gr. arti, nun) in 1 Corinthians 13:12,13. Paul’s reference to “faith, hope, and love” remaining in the “now” shows us that “Now” is referring to the church age, and not some short period of time between Pentecost and canonization. 

The adjective teleion (“perfect, or complete”) is a stand-alone adjective. Hence, instead of translating it “when the perfect comes”, the translators have given the adjective a more substantive sense like a noun: “when that which is perfect is come”(KJV), “when what is complete comes” (GWV), “when the perfect state of things is come” (WEY). Since the gender of teleion is neuter, it is likely not referring to a person (i.e. Jesus), nor is it referring to the word "love", which is feminine.  It is likely referring to a perfect state or order of things.  The critics claim that the perfect thing referenced here is the completed Bible (based on Jas 1:25 - "perfect law of liberty"). This is clearly eisegesis (i.e. reading your theology into a passage) in light of the fact that the word "law" is always masculine, and not neuter. 

Read the following passage:

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

This passage clearly shows that prophetic and apostolic offices (which would have accompanying signs - 2 Cor 12:12), as well as pastoral and teaching, are necessary until the body of Christ comes into unity of faith and knowledge, at which point we will be the “perfect man” (perfect here is the same Greek word as in 1 Cor 13:10). The division and immaturity in the body clearly indicates that this hasn’t happened yet. If it had, we wouldn’t need pastors or teachers either.

In addition, Peter describes the phenomena that occurred on the day of Pentecost as a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy in Joel 2:28ff:

Act 2:17  And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18  And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: 19  And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: 20  The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: 21  And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Notice the supernatural gifts mentioned – prophesy, dreams, visions.  This is what Pentecost was all about – supernatural revelation from God.  To say that these gifts ceased is to destroy the context of the passage.  Notice the time frame Peter includes spans the whole church age – up until the coming of Christ, which occurs shortly after the darkening of the sun and moon (See Matthew 24:29).  Pentecostal power is to be typical of the entire church age; the entire age in which people can “call on the name of the Lord”.

There is another major problem with claiming the cessation of the verbal gifts of the Spirit.  The book of Revelation tells us that during the church age, the gift of prophecy will still be in motion.  Note the following passage:

Rev 11:3  And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. 4  These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. 5  And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. 6  These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will. 7  And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them

Since future prophesying is described in the book of  Revelation (the last book written), the author is entirely wrong to claim that prophesying ceased immediately after Revelation was written.  The only way for that to be possible is if Revelation 11 is describing events that occurred prior to the writing of the book.  Of course that would be ridiculous, because Revelation is a prophecy, not a history (Rev 1:1).

Even reading earlier in Paul's letter to the Corinthians, we find no hint of cessationism (i.e. ceasing of the gifts of the Spirit in that generation).  Paul told his readers:

Clearly, Paul is indicating that every "spiritual gift" (Gr. Charisma) is to be in operation until the "revealing" (Gr. Apocolupsis) of Jesus Christ.  Only a full preterist (i.e. one who believes that the Apocolypse of Jesus Christ occurred entirely and invisibly in 70AD) would have a leg to stand on when facing this passage.  Any future placement of the apocolypse of Christ means a full ensemble of every charismatic gift mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:4-10 until the future coming of Christ. "We know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. " (1 Jn 3:3).  Surely this language is similar to 1 Corinthians 13:12, which states, "we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."  This indicates that "that which is perfect" in 1 Corinthians 13:10 is speaking of the perfecting state of things when Christ returns, and certainly not the canonized Bible.

John wrote it in his extreme old age in about A.D. 96 on the Isle of Patmos, and it concluded with a solemn divine warning not to add to or to take away from “the words of the prophecy of this book” (Rev. 22:18-19). This applies not only to the book of Revelation itself but also to the entire Book of which Revelation forms the final chapter.

Yet again, we have a very naïve argument based on John’s warning to not add or subtract from the words of “this book”.  The author has failed to mention to the reader that this type of exhortation was also written in Old Testament books:

Deu 4:2  Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deu 12:32  What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Based on the author’s faulty logic, we would assume that the entire New Testament canon is of the devil. Surely we were commanded not to add anything to the Bible since the times of Moses!  Wrong.  It doesn’t take much thought to figure out that both Moses and John are speaking of adding or subtracting details from the the specific law or prophecy aforementioned.

I am convinced that this clear biblical doctrine about tongues single-handedly destroys all modern tongues speaking. When Charles Parham’s Bible School students began speaking in “tongues” in 1901 or when “tongues” broke out on Azusa Street in 1906, what Jews were present? Had Jews been present, in what way could the tongues speaking have been a sign that God was extending the gospel to all nations and creating a new body through the Gospel? That sign had already been given 1,900 years earlier. In what way was that sign not entirely fulfilled in the first century?

Again, the author is still assuming that the sole purpose of tongues is a sign only for physical Israel, based on a misapplication of Isaiah 28:11.  We have already shown this to be a shallow understanding of Isaiah 28:11 with regard to New Testament fulfillment.  In addition, why would a New Testament fulfillment in 1 Corinthians nullify an going fulfillment?  Think of other Old Testament prophecies, such as the prophecy of the coming of Elijah in Malachi 4:5.  According to Jesus, this prophecy had one fulfillment in the coming of John the baptist (Mt 11:14).  Yet, we know that the “Dreadful day of the Lord” is not fully come yet. The coming of the Elijah ministry is yet to be fulfilled again in the two witnesses (See Revelation 11).

Therefore, the Bible gives much clearer evidence that:

1. The Isaiah 28:11 reference had an immediate reference to the Babylonian captivity of physical Israel

2. The antitypical fulfillment in 1 Corinthians 14:21 is not applied to physical Israel but rather the “Israel of God” (i.e. the church”) – Gal 6:16, Rom 2:28, Gal 3:28-29, Heb 12:22-23

3. Fulfillments of Old Testament prophecies often have ongoing fulfillment up until the final consummation of all things. Thus the application of Isa 28:11 didn’t cease on the day of Pentecost.  In fact Peter tells us that the signs they saw on Pentecost are characteristic of the whole span of time until the sun and moon darken, which immediately precedes the coming of Christ (compare Acts 2:20 with Mt 24:29)

These are the hard questions that every Pentecostal and Charismatic must answer. If someone would rejoin that the Jews still need the sign of tongues, we would ask, “Why, then, has the Pentecostal-Charismatic movements almost entirely ignored this aspect of tongues?” Parham in Topeka and Seymour in Los Angeles did not seek for tongues as a sign to Israel but as a sign of the “baptism of the Holy Spirit.” The same is true for the Assemblies of God and the Church of God of Prophecy and the Foursquare Pentecostal Churches and you name it.

“Someone, after reading my book, said to me, ‘For you it all boils down to being a sign.’ Of course it does! Take a sign-post for instance; you may discourse at length on its height, its shape, the colour, the phosphorescence and size of its letters, but however accurate your remarks may be, it is impossible to get around the fact that its sole and ultimate purpose is to be a sign-post. And so is it with speaking in tongues. However you may look at it, the Holy Spirit said it was a SIGN for incredulous Israel. In this matter as in others, it can be seen that the rules of the game are not being followed” (Fernand Legrand, All about Speaking in Tongues, p. 67).

The fact that tongues are not solely a sign is made evident in 1 Corinthians 14.  Paul tells us:

1Co 14:5  I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Am I reading this wrong or did Paul say that “the church may receive edifying” if the tongues are interpreted?  Therefore tongues are not solely a sign for unbelievers. Verse 22 tells us that tongues are not a SIGN for a believer.  Yes, this is true.  Believers are already saved.  They don’t need signs anymore.  But that doesn’t mean that tongues can’t edify the church (v5), or the individual believer (v4) in their “non-sign” role of being a prayer language. Otherwise, Paul would not have even told them to seek interpretation (v5), or to pray silently to God (v28).  He would have said “Just don’t do it at all!” So apparently Paul saw the value in speaking in tongues.

BIBLICAL TONGUES WERE NOT A SIGN TO BELIEVERS.

“Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. WHEREFORE TONGUES ARE FOR A SIGN, NOT TO THEM THAT BELIEVE, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe” (1 Cor. 14:20-22).

The Bible plainly states that tongues are not a sign to believers. This is a far reaching doctrine, because in the context of the Pentecostal-Charismatic movements tongues are commonly said to be a sign to believers. Tongues-speaking is considered a sign of faith and a sign of God’s blessing and a sign of the indwelling Holy Spirit and a sign of power. In all these cases, tongues-speaking is looked upon as a sign to believers. In 1 Cor. 14:20-22 Paul refutes this error in the clearest of words.

I already addressed this above. Tongues are a sign for unbelievers.  But that doesn’t mean that tongues can’t edify the church (1 Cor 14:5), or the individual believer (v4) in their “non-sign” role of being a prayer language. Otherwise, Paul would not have even told them to seek interpretation (v5), or to pray silently to God in tongues without an interpretation (v28).  It’s like the massage illustration I give in other places.  I may get a massage by a new massage therapist who is in town.  Someone walking by, who has never had a massage, sees me getting a massage.  I am edified because my muscles are being relaxed and stretched.  The other person at the same time sees this as a sign that there is now a massage therapist in town.  Both parties are benefited.

Up to this point, I have been stating that tongues are not a sign for believers.  Now that I ponder a little more, I must admit that this is only half correct.  Yes, tongues are not necessarily a sign for believers.  They are already believers.  But in another sense, tongues spoken by others confirms to believers that those other people have been filled with the Spirit.  Consider the following account which makes this point clear:

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

Obviously “the circumcision” is referring to Peter and his other Christian associates.  There were no Gentile converts in the mix yet.  By hearing them speak in tongues, these Christians (who happened to be Jewish) were given evidence that God gave the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles. 

BIBLICAL TONGUES WERE SPOKEN TO GOD.

“For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue SPEAKETH NOT UNTO MEN, BUT UNTO GOD: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries” (1 Cor. 14:2).

Paul says that biblical tongues were not spoken unto men but unto God. This is what we see on the day of Pentecost. Those that heard the disciples speak in tongues on that day said, “We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God” (Acts 2:11). The tongues messages were addressed to God but were understood by those who heard them in the various languages. The Jewish tongues speakers might even have been quoting from the Psalms that day. The Jews that heard them were amazed to hear their own Jewish brethren speaking the praises of God in the “unclean” pagan languages. When it came time for God to speak directly to men that day, He used the preaching of Peter and it was not in tongues. No one was saved through hearing a message in tongues; they were saved by hearing and believing the gospel.

Paul said that the tongues-speaking in the churches was for the same purpose. The tongues were addressed to God, and if they were translated men could understand what was being said to God and thus be edified. But tongues-speaking was not a message addressed directly to men, as prophesying was.

In contrast to this clear biblical teaching, Pentecostals and Charismatics everywhere claim that tongues are messages directed to men. Consider the following by former Pentecostal Fernand Legrand:

“After more than thirty years of close contact with these churches, and after having accepted some of their ideas, I have been forced to admit that there is a glaring discordance with the Word of God on this point. I, first of all, capitulated before the authority of the Scriptures; I then proceeded to verify for myself what was being taught and practised. On several occasions, talking to people who were deeply anchored in their convictions, I asked the question, ‘When tongues are interpreted in your assembly, what is the context of the message?; I did not enquire because I did not know the answer, but I wanted to hear it straight from the horse’s mouth, so leaving no place for ambiguity. Without exception, the replies always confirmed what I had already observed. It was a word of encouragement, or prophecy, or exhortation, or even of evangelization. Quite clearly, these were addressed to those present, that is, to men and was therefore in complete contradiction with the Holy Spirit who said just the opposite, ‘he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God.’ ... One of my friends, an enthusiastic pastor, invited me for a Gospel campaign in his church. He told me about a lady who, in a private talk with him, had spoken in tongues. ‘In what she said,’ he explained, ‘I discerned a message for myself.’ The opportunity was ideal. I simply asked him, ‘How do you reconcile the idea of a message addressed to you personally with the biblical statement that “he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God”? You are not God!’ It was like hitting him over the head. He was totally speechless. He had just discovered a text that he had never seen before, or that he had not taken the time to examine. ...

“Thirty years later, nothing seems to have changed. The last interview previously mentioned, finished in the same way as the first. After having once more pointed out that the speaking in tongues in his Church, as corroborated by his personal experience and observations, was obviously addressed to men, and that it was contrary to what the Bible says, I asked him, ‘What will you put aside, the Word of God or your experiences; you must make a choice between the two; which will it be?’ Without hesitation and twice in succession, his reply was, ‘I choose experience!’ Understandable but wretched obstinacy that is explained by the terrible confession of a pastor who said to me on this particular point of doctrine, ‘When this word of Paul began to circulate in our assemblies, it had the effect of a bomb. We could not allow it to continue, because we WOULD HAVE HAD TO ADMIT THAT EVERYTHING DONE UP UNTIL THEN WAS FALSE!’” (All about Speaking in Tongues, pp. 12-14).

Though I agree that tongues are vertical and not horizontal.  I do not doubt that some vertical prayers often take on horizontal elements.  Consider the prayers in the Bible that begin vertically, but include exhortational elements within them, and even refer to the Lord in the third person:

Psa 3:3  But thou, O LORD, art a shield for me; my glory, and the lifter up of mine head.

Psa 3:4  I cried unto the LORD with my voice, and he heard me out of his holy hill. Selah.

Psa 3:5  I laid me down and slept; I awaked; for the LORD sustained me.

Psa 3:6  I will not be afraid of ten thousands of people, that have set themselves against me round about.

Psa 3:7  Arise, O LORD; save me, O my God: for thou hast smitten all mine enemies upon the cheek bone; thou hast broken the teeth of the ungodly.

Psa 3:8  Salvation belongeth unto the LORD: thy blessing is upon thy people. Selah.

Some of David’s prayers begin and end with God in the first person, but in the middle contain exhortations to people:

Psa 4:1  Hear me when I call, O God of my righteousness: thou hast enlarged me when I was in distress; have mercy upon me, and hear my prayer.

Psa 4:2  O ye sons of men, how long will ye turn my glory into shame? how long will ye love vanity, and seek after leasing? Selah.

Psa 4:3  But know that the LORD hath set apart him that is godly for himself: the LORD will hear when I call unto him.

Psa 4:4  Stand in awe, and sin not: commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still. Selah.

Psa 4:5  Offer the sacrifices of righteousness, and put your trust in the LORD.

Psa 4:6  There be many that say, Who will shew us any good? LORD, lift thou up the light of thy countenance upon us.

Psa 4:7  Thou hast put gladness in my heart, more than in the time that their corn and their wine increased.

Psa 4:8  I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, LORD, only makest me dwell in safety.

Following is another example of a prayer with a pseudo exhortation in verse 11:

Psa 5:10  Destroy thou them, O God; let them fall by their own counsels; cast them out in the multitude of their transgressions; for they have rebelled against thee.

Psa 5:11  But let all those that put their trust in thee rejoice: let them ever shout for joy, because thou defendest them: let them also that love thy name be joyful in thee.

Psa 5:12  For thou, LORD, wilt bless the righteous; with favour wilt thou compass him as with a shield.

Notice in the next Psalm, David addresses his enemies right in his prayer in verse 8:

Psa 6:4  Return, O LORD, deliver my soul: oh save me for thy mercies' sake.

Psa 6:5  For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?

Psa 6:6  I am weary with my groaning; all the night make I my bed to swim; I water my couch with my tears.

Psa 6:7  Mine eye is consumed because of grief; it waxeth old because of all mine enemies.

Psa 6:8  Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity; for the LORD hath heard the voice of my weeping.

Psa 6:9  The LORD hath heard my supplication; the LORD will receive my prayer.

The next example seems like a discourse on sanctification.  Yet, it begins as a prayer to the Lord:

Psa 15:1  LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?

Psa 15:2  He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart.

Psa 15:3  He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour.

Psa 15:4  In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the LORD. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.

Psa 15:5  He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.

I show these examples just to point to the possibility of exhortational content in prayers.

BIBLICAL TONGUES WERE ACCOMPANIED BY THE MIRACULOUS GIFT OF INTERPRETATION.

“For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues” (1 Cor. 12:8-10).

“If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God” (1 Cor. 14:27-28).

The gift of interpretation was a supernatural enablement whereby a believer could give an exact interpretation of a message that had been delivered to God in tongues. No tongues speaking was allowed in the church without interpretation, because it is God’s will that everyone present in the church services understand everything that is said and done and thus be edified thereby. Thus, even though one or two people might be present in the service who understood the tongue’s message because it was given in their native language, this was not sufficient because everyone needed to understand. On the day of Pentecost, no interpretation was needed because there were men present from many locations who spoke the languages that were given by tongues.

Notice Acts 2:6 states that “every man” (singular) heard “them” (plural) speaking “in his own language”.  A simple reading of this tells me that each person heard the collective tongues (which were NOT human languages) in their own language.  In other words, a miracle took place in the hearing of the unbelievers, not only in the mouths of those filled with the Spirit. God granted each unbeliever (singular) the gift of interpretation to hear the whole crowd of tongue speakers in his own language.  There were various people groups there that day.  So this means that each person in these various people groups heard the crowd of tongue speakers in his language.  There weren’t some speaking language X and some speaking language Y.  No, they were all speaking in tongues (NOT a human language), and being heard in various languages.

When we come to the Pentecostal-Charismatic movements, the “interpretation of tongues” is a very strange thing, because there is little semblance between the “tongues” and the “interpretation.” I have oftentimes heard short tongues messages given long interpretations, and I have heard tongues messages composed of three or four words (i.e., shalalama, shalabama, shalanoona, shalalama, shalabama, shalanoona) interpreted as a complex spiritual message.

Former Pentecostal Fernand Legrand of France describes the Pentecostal “interpretation dilemma”--

“IN ALL THE CASES OF INTERPRETATION THAT I HAVE CHECKED PERSONALLY WITH THE GREATEST CARE AND WITH AN OPEN MIND, I HAVE DISCOVERED NOTHING OTHER THAN HUMAN FABRICATION AND DELIBERATE TRICKERY. What surprised me was the unacceptable difference between the brevity of the tongues and the disproportionate length of the interpretation. ... Having taken offence at such deceit, I was candidly told that the interpretation was not a real translation but a heart-felt translation!! So it was just any odd thing left to the fantasy of a pseudo-interpreter. ... Someone else, to try to get himself out of this embarrassing situation, told me that the interpretation was not the translation of what was said in tongues, but the response from heaven to what had just been said! Here we are completely rambling. Scripture is deliberately trampled underfoot, that very Word that points out (v. 16) that giving thanks in tongues must be interpreted so that we may understand ‘what thou sayest,’ so the congregation can show their agreement and join in the thanksgiving by saying, Amen’!

“Another Pentecostal leader dared even to tell me that the same case of speaking in tongues could very well have several interpretations!! ... Do you expect that a cat can give birth at the same time to kittens, puppies, and chicks? But no one gets upset when, in the spiritual realm, we are asked to believe that ONE kind of speaking in tongues brings forth several kinds of interpretation? Does Pentecostal Darwinism exist? Are we witnessing a sort of mutation of the species? Am I just supposed to accept all this passively without pointing out the fraud? ...

“I personally noted that this counterfeiting was a known thing in the circles concerned. I was present in a meeting when a Christian from the Cape Verde Islands had just prayed in his own language, a Portuguese dialect. Scarcely had he said, ‘Amen,’ that an elder who was wiser than the others interrupted the word of interpretation by saying, ‘Our brother has just given thanks in his native tongue.’ This means that without this intervention, there would have been the ‘miracle’ of an interpretation, evangelical in terms of the vocabulary used, but in the spirit as false as the words of the young fortune teller of Acts 16:17. ...

“One can imagine how attentively I listened to one incident of speaking in tongues that was as jerky, staccato and incomprehensible as all the others, in the middle of which suddenly stood out a thrice-repeated ‘spiriti santi’ [Holy Spirits, plural] in Italian. Having grasped this triple repetition, I watched for its reappearance in the interpretation. I waited for it in vain....

“Profoundly saddened by this newly discovered dishonesty, I made up my mind to move on to a more advanced verification. I asked a Scottish brother who had the typical broad accent of his country, to put ‘The Lord’s Prayer’ twice in a row onto cassette. Armed with this recording and that of two other ‘genuine’ tongues followed by their interpretations taped ‘on location,’ I went to see some very moderate Pentecostal friends, for whom exaggerations and digressions were only found amongst others. No one in the community doubted their conversions, or their sincerity, or the reality of their ‘charisma.’ After praying together, I asked them to interpret the pseudo and ‘real’ tongues. This was done without objection or reticence. Alas, and alas again, the ‘Lord’s Prayer’ in English transformed itself into a message of encouragement in French! As to the rest, it was as different from the first as the Rhone is different from the Rhine and flows in the opposite direction. ...

“Indeed can we still call ourselves Christians when we team up so closely with him who disguises himself as an angel of light?

“In order to get out of this sticky situation, many people claim, without really believing it, that one does not submit a gift of the Spirit to an electronic test. But it must be pointed out that it is not the test that created the trickery, it only confirmed it and it demonstrated moreover that these so-called gifts are not among those good and perfect gifts that come down from above (James 1:17).

“In addition, what more than sufficiently demonstrates that everything is purely human and subjective in today’s gift of tongues and that the Holy Spirit has nothing whatsoever to do with it, is that the interpretation is always the reflection of particular tendencies and feelings. The Roman Catholic charismatics show their allegiance to the doctrines of their Church. The spiritualists find occult revelations. The Pentecostals, being evangelicals, adopt an evangelical language, as well as phraseology and convictions specific to their group” (Legrand, All about Speaking in Tongues, pp. 47-51).

Legrand devised a simple test for the interpretation of tongues, but no Pentecostal or Charismatic has offered to submit to it. Here is his proposal:

“Prepare a meeting where one of you will speak in tongues and three others will make a recorded interpretation in isolation. The interpretations that ought to say more or less the same thing will then be compared. ... HERE IN WRITING I STAND BY THIS YET UNANSWERED PROPOSITION AS A CHALLENGE TO ANY CHARISMATIC TONGUES-SPEAKING COMMUNITY. Why has there not yet been, and will there never be, an answer to this offer, which is, nevertheless, an honest one?” (All about Speaking in Tongues, p. 52).

The very attitude behind such a test is pharisaical to be honest.  We as Pentecostals love the Lord with all of our hearts.  We’ve asked him for the Holy Spirit and he’s given it.  He’s not given serpents or scorpions instead (per my argument below concerning Luke 11). Yet, the author is convinced, based firstly on his disposition against tongues, and secondly on his false hermeneutic to support it, that tongues to do not exist.  Every test he creates is with the sole intention of destruction.  I’ve seen it again and again in Christian vs. non-Christian circles as well.  Those who are already against Christianity can look at the same archaeological findings as Christian archaeologists, and yet see something totally different.  I am convinced that God will not honor the Legrand’s “test” as long as Legrand’s attitude is against the supernatural.  The pharisees saw Jesus’ miracles first hand, and STILL didn’t believe they were of God.  You can’t satiate unbelief with any proof:

Mat 12:22  Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. 23  And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? 24  But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

If Pentecostals and Charismatics have the genuine miraculous gift of speaking in languages and of interpreting the same, let them step forward and prove it. Otherwise, their very refusal is sufficient refutation of their practice.

In light of the Bible’s warnings about the very real danger of spiritual deception, we would be foolish to accept these things at face value without testing them. God has commanded us to “try to the spirits” and “to prove all things” and to “search the Scriptures daily whether those things were so.” We are warned that there will be false christs, FALSE SPIRITS, and false gospels (2 Cor. 11:4). The Spirit of God Himself has warned us that in the last days there will be an onslaught of deception. “The Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils” (1 Tim. 4:1). We are warned that “in the last days perilous times shall come” (2 Tim. 4:1) because professing believers will have “a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof” and “evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:5, 13). We are warned that “the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:3-4). Could false tongues and false interpretations not be among these fables? Of course, so we must be exceedingly careful.

The author is making a false appeal to the end time apostasy.  Every example the author provides is concerning the Gospel and the times of apostasy from that Gospel which began IN THAT GENERATION! It has nothing to do with speaking in tongues 2000 years later.  The Gospel content concerns the belief in the sacrificial atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 15:3ff).  The judaizers were denying the sufficiency of the work of Christ and forcing Christian Jews to keep the law, thereby preaching “another Gospel” (Gal 1:6). The gnostics were also preaching an antichrist Gospel, denying the incarnation of Jesus (1 Jn 4:3), thus proving they were already in the “last time” (1 Jn 2:18). The apostasy from the Gospel was already occurring 2000 years ago!

Notice also that none of the apostasy texts speak about tongues at all.  They speak of people those who “depart from the faith”, “evil men”, going after “lusts”.  I also noticed the author cleverly quoted 2 Tim 3:5 without its surrounding context.  Observe Paul’s description of these people who deny the power of God:

2Ti 3:6  For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

2Ti 3:7  Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

2Ti 3:8  Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

What does speaking in tongues have anything to do with creeping into houses and commiting sexual sins with women?  Paul is speaking of reprobates;  those who fall from the faith ; those who enter back into corruption.  I love the Lord and live a holy (not yet perfect) life, AND I speak in tongues.  How in the world can such descriptions apply to me?  The author should repent for such horrible characterization of fellow believers.

The fact that the Pentecostals and Charismatics typically do not want their “gifts” to be analyzed carefully is evidence of fraud.

BIBLICAL TONGUES WERE BOUND BY APOSTOLIC DIRECTION.

Paul said, “Forbid not to speak in tongues,” but he also gave many serious restrictions on how tongues could be used. I have never seen the practice of “tongues” in modern times restrained in the following manner.

Isn’t this entire article dedicated to the forbidding of contemporary tongues speaking?  As far as I can see it, the author is directly violating Paul’s very admonition to permit tongues! The author now cleverly proceeds to a section which expresses the modern day abuse of tongues.  Yet, if he has already supposedly disproven tongues as necessary for today, why even bother.  It is superfluous and redundant to use occurrences of abuse as evidence that something doesn’t exist anymore.  That would be like claiming Christianity is false because there are so many fake Christians.  This is bad apologetics. Either tongues are for today or not.  Is this article about the abuse of tongues, or about the cessation of tongues?

* Tongues are to be spoken only by course, one by one (“If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course...” 1 Cor. 14:27). In most of the Pentecostal-Charismatic meetings I have attended the “tongues” were spoken by many people at once.

Actually Paul disagrees with the author, so I’ll agree with Paul:

1Co 14:27  If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28  But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Paul is telling us that those who have a tongue, and feel it necessary to share it with the congregation, should wait their turn. If they have prayed and not received an interpretation, and no one with a gift of interpretation is in the service, they should remain silent, and speak to themselves and to God.  The structure of the sentence leads me to believe that Paul means “just silently speak to yourself and to God IN THE CHURCH”. There is no indicator that Paul means “outside of the church”, although this is an acceptable location as well. Therefore, Paul is differentiating between public tongues “in the church” and private tongues “in the church”.  I’ll admit, the private tongues increase in volume at times, but only at times when intense prayer is permissible and not distracting to the song service and teaching time.  We respect Paul’s order by having times of psalms (songs), teaching, public tongues, public prophecies, public interpretations (1 Cor 14:26). The Corinthians did not.  They blended it all together in one free for all. They weren’t edifying each other.  The last time I checked, the charismatic church is the fast growing sect of the church across the earth.  Certainly the fruit is proof that edification is occurring in our services!

* Tongues must be interpreted (“If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret”1 Cor. 14:27). Rarely are the tongues messages interpreted in modern Pentecostalism, and when they are it is often obvious that the “interpretation” is something different than the “tongue.”

I address this issue all through this article.  The bottom line is, if the author is wrong (and he is), then tongues are a prayer language that you speak to God, and only need interpreted when they are offered as a corporate prayer for the whole congregation to participate in.  Surely the tongues speaker will “perceive” (Ac 27:10) if and when such a corporate manifestation is needed and interpretation will be provided.  Otherwise, the edification is solely for the individual praying, just like any other form of prayer.

* There is to be no confusion or lack of peace (“For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints” 1 Cor. 14:33). Every time I have been in a Pentecostal-Charismatic service where “the Spirit was moving” I have thought to myself, “This is confusing.” Disorder reigns. The “tongues” cannot be understood. Things happen that make no sense and that are not found in the Bible. But we are told that God is not the author of confusion, and that covers a lot of territory.

I think the author is confusing order and peace with “low volume”.  Yes, charismatic churches may get loud at times.  Certainly the first charismatic church got loud at times!  On the day of Pentecost, 120 people were simultaneously speaking in tongues, and loud enough for 3000 people to hear them!  Were they causing "confusion" and "disorder"? 

In my experience, these are often times when major breakthrough occurs in people’s lives.  Just as times of praise can be elevated, so can times of prayer, including praying "in the Spirit".  The Psalmist makes it clear that the shout and the high praises of God are a key to victory in the supernatural. 

Psalm 47:1 Oh clap your hands all you peoples, shout unto God with the voice of triumph!

Psalm 47:5  God is gone up with a shout, and the Lord with the sound of a trumpet!

Isaiah 44:23  Sing , O ye heavens for the LORD hath done it. shout ye lower parts of the earth. break forth into singing ye mountains, O forest and every tree therein: for the LORD hath redeemed Jacob and glorified himself in Israel