Speaking in tongues.

[SoliDeoGloriaa]

How do I best refute a pentecostals argument for speaking in tongues. I've used the argument of it being a gift to the early church to prove their message. And of course there being interpreters present if they do.

 

[No Other Name]

That depends on how the Pentecostal in question is using Scripture. Do they see it as an incidental? Or do they link it to a distinct and subsequent event after the new birth?

Take a couple of hours and absorb this documentary which addresses all so-called gifts of charismatics:

 

[MW]

How do I best refute a pentecostals argument for speaking in tongues. I've used the argument of it being a gift to the early church to prove their message. And of course there being interpreters present if they do.

It is best to first establish what speaking in tongues was. Acts 2 demonstrates they were actual languages spoken by the hearers but unknown by the speakers. That eliminates 100% of tongue-speaking done by pentecostals. Then one can turn to 1 Cor. 13 to show that they were to cease with the rest of the revelatory gifts. Then to chapter 14, to show that tongues required interpretation so as to give revelation that would be edifying to the hearer. This chapter also refers to the book of Isaiah to show they were given as a sign to unbelieving Jews. The idea of "languages" only makes sense if there is a mother-tongue and that mother-tongue was the language spoken by Jews. At this point it is evident that tongues were intended to reveal the will of God while the gospel was in the process of moving from Jewish to Gentile speakers. Then one could show that the revelatory gifts ceased with the apostles. Heb. 2:3, 4 looks back on the gifts of the Spirit as an historical fact that has served its purpose.

 

[SoliDeoGloriaa]

It is best to first establish what speaking in tongues was. Acts 2 demonstrates they were actual languages spoken by the hearers but unknown by the speakers. That eliminates 100% of tongue-speaking done by pentecostals. Then one can turn to 1 Cor. 13 to show that they were to cease with the rest of the revelatory gifts. Then to chapter 14, to show that tongues required interpretation so as to give revelation that would be edifying to the hearer. This chapter also refers to the book of Isaiah to show they were given as a sign to unbelieving Jews. The idea of "languages" only makes sense if there is a mother-tongue and that mother-tongue was the language spoken by Jews. At this point it is evident that tongues were intended to reveal the will of God while the gospel was in the process of moving from Jewish to Gentile speakers. Then one could show that the revelatory gifts ceased with the apostles. Heb. 2:3, 4 looks back on the gifts of the Spirit as an historical fact that has served its purpose.

Thank you!!!

 

[FivePointSpurgeonist]

I think it's important to address 1 Cor 14 also.
Chapter 13 says "various kinds of tongues".

They will argue that "For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit." - 1 Cor 14:2, is a different kind of tongue than real languages and that it can be for self edification, "The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself..." - 1 Cor 14:4. "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful." - 1 Cor 14:14

 

[MW]

The idea that "speaking mysteries" could be positive is contrary to the whole argument of the passage, which maintains speaking in church is to be for the purpose of communicating intelligently for the benefit of everyone. Chapter 12 shows that the gifts of the Spirit are given for the common good, not for personal benefit. Also, chapter 13, the qualities of love are not self-seeking.

On divers kinds of tongues, 1 Cor. 12:10, it is explained by 14:10, "There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification." These refer to the various languages which are spoken. All of them have meaning. The point is that none are spoken as meaningless gibberish.