What Was Tongues? (Part 2)
March 12th, 2008
(By Nathan Busenitz)
This is a continuation of our notes from the 2007 Shepherds’ Conference. The goal of this seminar was to identify the New Testament description/definition of the charismatic gifts and then to compare it to contemporary charismatic practice. Today, we continue our look at the gift of tongues.
Yesterday, we saw that there is good reason to regard the gift of tongues as described in Acts as the same in kind as the gift of tongues as described in 1 Corinthians 12-14. In other words, there is only one kind of “gift of tongues” — not multiple kinds as some charismatic groups claim.
But was that solitary gift the ability to speak foreign languages (as cessationists claim), or was it some sort of unintelligible ecstatic utterance (as charismatics claim)?
Additional Thoughts Regarding Tongues:
1. The gift of tongues is closely associated with evangelism [in the NT]. It authenticates the message of the evangelist (Mark 16:17, 20; Acts 2; 1 Cor. 14:20–22; cf. Heb. 2:2–3). According to Acts, the content of tongue-speech was “the mighty deeds of God.”
2. The gift of tongues consisted of authentic foreign languages which the speaker had not previously learned (Mark 16:17; Acts 2:4, 8–11). According to Acts 10:47 and 11:17, the tongues of Acts 10 were the same as the tongues of Acts 2. By implication, the tongues of Acts 19 are also the same.
(This sets the precedent for seeing tongues as authentic foreign languages in 1 Corinthians 14—especially when one considers that Luke, who was Paul’s close associate, probably finished Acts after 1 Corinthians was written. In light of the Corinthian controversy, it is unlikely that Luke would have used identical terminology in Acts for something that he realized was intrinsically different than what was taking place in Corinth.)
3. 1 Corinthians 12:8–11 and 27–31 make it unmistakably clear that not everyone is given the gift of tongues (cf. 14:26). (Note that there is no contextual or grammatical warrant for seeing 1 Cor. 12 as one type of tongues [that only a few receive] and 1 Cor. 14 as a different type [that everyone is to receive]. Paul’s statement in 14:5 [“Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues”] is almost identical to his earlier statement in 7:7 regarding singleness [“Yet I wish that all men were even as myself”]. Thus, Paul’s wish does not indicate that which is possible, and in fact makes it clear that not everyone in the Corinthian congregation actually did speak in tongues. Moreover, in the verse, Paul is actually emphasizing the priority of prophecy over tongues. He is not promoting tongues, in the context, but rather prophecy.)
4. The “tongues of angels” in 1 Corinthians 13:1 is probably hyperbolic in keeping with the context. Paul seems to be using hyperbole here (as his subsequent examples make clear). It may even be a figure of speech meaning, “to speak very eloquently.” Even if it is taken literally, there are two things to consider: (1) It is the exception and not the rule (as evidenced by the rest of the NT teaching on tongues and as evidenced by Paul’s hyperbolic list); (2) Every time angels spoke in the Bible they spoke in a real language that people could understand (cf. Gen. 19; Exod. 33; Joshua 5; Judges 13) (cf. Geisler, Signs and Wonders, 166).
5. Paul makes it clear that the gift of tongues was never intended to be the hallmark of the church or its most prestigious spiritual gift. Rather, the gift of prophecy is preferable because it does not require interpretation or translation in order to edify the church (1 Cor. 14:1–5)
6. Paul defines what he means by speaking to God and not to men when he says that “no one understands” (v. 2). This would be true of a foreign language which someone spoke but no one else in the congregation knew. They would not be edified because they would not understand what was being said.
7. Geisler, Signs and Wonders, 167: “The fact that the tongues of which Paul spoke in 1 Corinthians could be ‘interpreted’ shows that it was a meaningful language. Otherwise it would not be an ‘interpretation’ but a creation of the meaning. So the gift of ‘interpretation’ (1 Corinthians 12:30; 14:5, 13) supports the fact that tongues were a real language that could be translated for the benefit of all by this special gift of interpretation.”
8. The purpose of the gifts (within the church) is to edify the body (12:7; the whole point of “love” overrides the gifts in chp. 13; cf. 1 Pet. 4:10–11). The intended use of tongues, therefore, is when the gift is interpreted (translated) so that fellow believers are edified. Tongues (languages) that are not interpreted (translated) do not profit the body because the message cannot be understood (14:6–11). The intended use of the gifts is the edification of the church (v. 12). Tongues that are not interpreted do not edify the church (and are therefore do not fulfill their intended purpose). (The private use of tongues is not ideal since the ideal usage edifies others—c.f 14:12–19)
9. The context implies that Paul’s prayer in 14:14–15 is a public prayer, not a private prayer, since the entire discussion regards the use of the gift in the church, and since verse 16 mentions that the ungifted person (who does not understand the language being spoken) will not be able to affirm a public prayer which he does not understand.
Again, verses 14–15 do not mitigate against the view that tongues are authentic foreign languages. The person who prays in a foreign language should also pray that he will be able to interpret the foreign language so that all who are present will be blessed by the translation of the message.
10. The madness of 14:23 seems to be similar to the supposed drunkenness of Acts 2:13. This, of course, would be a fitting response from those who heard others speaking in an authentic foreign language that they did not know.
11. Paul defines what he means by “let him speak to himself and to God” in verse 28 with the preceding phrase, “he must keep silent in the church.” This again does not preclude authentic foreign languages as the essence of tongue-speech.
12. Verses 10–11 directly mention foreign languages. Paul’s reference to Isaiah 28:11, 12 is a reference to foreign languages. These bolster the interpretation that tongues are languages, as the normal interpretation of glossa would suggest.
13. The gift of tongues was to be used in an orderly manner in the church (14:27–28, 39–40).
Note: There are no other passages that specifically teach about the gift of tongues. Some charismatics try to find tongues in Romans 8:26 and 2 Corinthians 5:13…but the context in those passages makes it clear that the gift of tongues is not in view.
Viewing tongues as authentic foreign languages best fits the clearer passage (of Acts 2) and has the least number of problems in interpreting 1 Cor. 14.
[Thomas] Edgar, Satisfied [by the Promise of the Spirit], 147: “There are verses in 1 Corinthians 14 where foreign language makes sense but where unintelligible ecstatic utterance does not (e.g. v. 22). However, the reverse cannot be said. A foreign language not understood by the hearer is no different from unintelligible speech in his sight. Therefore, in any passage where such ecstatic speech may be considered possible, it is also possible to substitute a language not familiar to the hearers. In this passage there are no reasons, much less the very strong reasons necessary, to depart from the normal meaning of glossa and to flee to a completely unsupported usage.”
[Gerhard] Hasel, Speaking in Tongues, 55: “There is but one clear and definitive passage in the New Testament which unambiguously defines ‘speaking in tongues’ and that is Acts 2. If Acts 2 is allowed to stand as it reads, then ‘tongues’ are known, intelligible languages, spoken by those who received the gift of the Holy Spirit and understood by people who came form the various areas of the ancient world to Jerusalem. We may raise a question of sound interpretation. Would it not be sound methodologically to go from the known definition and the clear passage in the New Testament to the less clear and more difficult passage in interpretation? Should an interpreter in this situation attempt to interpret the more difficult passage of 1 Cor 12–14 in light of the clearer passage of Acts 2? Is this not a sound approach?”
Thankyou my brother for this series. When the first part arrived in my inbox, I had been defending the use of tongues to a friend of mine.
My story may help someone.
I was born again into Pentecostalism in 1989. I spoke in tongues from the start. I rested upon all the familiar pentecostal scriptures. Initially, when recieving the so called ‘Baptism of the Spirit’,the 3 people laying hands on me and praying in tongues over me were telling me to, “Just recieve”. They were wanting me to open my mouth and just say what you hear in your heart…like , ba, ka, ba,ba,ka…etc. So then after some time I began babbling away in what I was told was tongues. In my heart I felt gratitude to God, I also felt clean and loved. I attended a church that taught strongly on tongues. The pastor would teach that we should pray in tongues to edify or charge up our inner man…1 Cor 14:2
1Co 14:4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.
I was taught that where scripture says praying in the spirit, as in Jude 20..Jud 1:20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit,” and Eph 6:18 , that this means tongues.
I was taught to pray in tongues all the time, in my mind silently, at work, whilst driving, everywhere!!
BUT in 2003 somehow God opened my eyes to see the scriptures I had been leaning on were not in their right context.
We left the whole thing behind and came away from it all disallusioned and disappointed.
Now 5 years on I have come to a new understanding of scripture regarding tongues. I agree with most ofwhat you are sharing Nathan.
What is very hard for me at times is that I still can , at any time speak in ” tongues” if I choose to. I have asked God to take it away. I have shared with my pastor and asked him to pray for me…he just said , “Dont do it, refrain from speaking it at all” So I have not.
But just in the last week I have been speaking in tongues a lot again. It’s like an alcoholic getting back on the drink after trying to give it up.
Even though I know the scriptures do not support the modern day tongues, I went ahead into it again because I can and because I like the feelings it gives.
So when I opened up your teaching I was rebuked and corrected by our Father.
I do not believe it is a spirit in me as some groups would say of tongue talkers. I believe it is somehow a human ability and thus is part of the fallen nature, the flesh.
The problem for many ex pente’s is that experience speaks louder than intellectual understanding of scripture.
It ’s almost like for me to believe, really believe that tongues today are not of Him, I must have another equally powerful and tangible experience to prove it!
I know that the word should be enough for me…just obey, just believe….
Thanks again.
Dennis
Hi Dennis
I was also born again into a pentecostal church and the first question I asked was about tongues. We were taught two baptisms and initial evidence and I can honestly say that it goes beyond just tongues - traditional pentecostalism teaches incorrect unbiblical pneumatology.
I saw all the “baptisms” with other people inducing the “gift” and was never really comfortable with it. Eventually I asked the Lord to teach me the Truth. The next time someone was being “baptised” in the spirit I noticed that true believers were not receiving the gift yet a lady who ended up a month later leaving her husband for another younger man was evidencing the gift. She has shown not to be even a true believer since. the same thing happened with others. I have many stories - bottom line is that if experience dictates then the experiences aren’t even that credible anyway.
I have heard people saying the same sentence for years yet the interpretation was different every time showing that it isn’t a language - to them its like a code or message that god wants to speak.
Ironically its called “pentecostalism” - can’t be the one described in Acts 2 that’s for sure. There was no teaching beforehand, definitely no expectation of languages by those being used and they spoke audible languages that are clearly stated. This confirms the teaching in 1Cor 14 where Paul quotes Isaiah and says that it is with the languages of STRANGERS that God would speak to this people yet they would not hear. It was THE sign of the coming of the Spirit. It had to happen so that THE APOSTLES would understand that God was going to include Gentiles in the Body. If you disagree check out the whole of Acts 10 - Peter wasn’t exactly rushing off to Cornelius place - the Samaritans were already stretching their limits. But God showed them that “the whole world” was going to receive this gift of the Spirt and eternal Life.
The gift was there to bring unity. It was spontaneous and unrehearsed and unexpected.
Question: has it brought unity and evidence of holiness today? Why doesn’t God get John Macarthur to speak in languages during a service to bring unity to the body as he did then - as I said there was no human agency contriving it. Why isn’t it like this now. Then it was Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles. Now its limited to ‘denominations” who first teach it their way and then contrive it and the gift is very different to Pentecost and hence it must be another “gift” of tongues?
Yeah right. And of course the ones manifesting it the most are also those guilty of other major doctrinal aberrations. Evidence of the Spirit of Truth? Not the biblical gift that’s for sure
What a topic for a new reader to Pulpit and a first time responder!
This issue is very important to me because of personal experience. I desperately want wisdom and understanding.
I attended a charasmatic church for several years where I often heard and questioned the tongues. When I don’t understand something and don’t have that “you know that you know” feeling, I pray about it and ask God for wisdom and Scripture support. I left the church when the pastor insited that the members speak in tongues as evidence of the manifestation of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. (I had thought my English prayers and the fruit being produced in my life were enough…) I knew that tongues spoken out in church were out of order when not interpreted, but what about the people that have what they call a “private” prayer language? If someone can help me understand and make peace with this, please respond. I have several very close friends who pray in tongues. It’s not accepted in their church, so they use it in private. Like the poster suggested yesterday, if it’s not of God, is it of the devil? Can Satan mimic the gifts of God through Christians? Before I bring up this discussion with my friends…very Word based Christians…I need the weapon of the Word. If the tongues they use are not of God, what are they? I have printed these two articles and will study diligently, but I still need help in understanding what the tongues I actually hear, are? I know what the Scriptures say (thanks for the articles, by the way), but I also know what I hear, and I know the caliber of the Christians from whom it comes. Dennis, what else can you explain about it being part of your flesh? Nathan, how would you direct me? Thanks to any who God leads to help me. Sarah
Hey Dennis and John,
Thanks for your openness about your experiences. I can relate. I was led to some prosperity teachers through a business friend. First it was only to show how the Lord blessed His people through prosperity. It led me down the path of trying to speak in tongues and bind spirits. I had Cd’s and books by the whole gambit of guys from Copeland to Roberts, Dollar, Hinn, etc. I read and studied all of this “junk” to try and get it.
Fact is I was a blind sheep for about 4 years. What changed it all? When I shut off their CD’s and closed their books and… opened the very Word of God. Their mumbo jumbo collapsed when Scripture itself was held up to their teachings. What a blessing the Bible is and how perfect and condemning it is to false works.
That is why articles like this on Pulpit which stay true to the scriptures alone provide the guiding light that brings the “true” light to bad translation and shady use of scripture.I can never thank the Lord enough for first coming across GTY and the Gospel According to Jesus. When I read these articles, I remembered the darkness I lived in. Praise the Lord for Godly men like you Nathan.
Dennis,
You are right, the modern day practice of ’speaking in tongues’ is a human ability (i.e. learned response) in the geat majority of cases. I think the demonic is involved in only a few instances, although I think the practice and theology can open one up to error.
Some ‘learn’ it easier than others. From the little that you described, you did learn it. I had a similar experience over 25 years ago (people praying over me and telling me to start making noises…), I just couldn’t learn it. Again, you are right, the experience often speaks louder than the Bible or any intellectual understanding. I think the statement “I like the feelings it gives” tells us why. We mistakenly equate good feelings with being edified. However, God is not in the business of giving us ‘experiences’ (i.e. if we don’t have an ‘experience’ it’s not real).
In Joshua 4 where Israel crosses the Jordan, and God dries the river up, they set up 12 stones. In verses 21-22 Joshua says “When your children ask their fathers in time to come ‘What are these stones?’, then you shall inform your children, saying ‘Israel crossed this Jordan on dry ground.’” (similar to the Red Sea vs 23) and in verse 24 “that all the peoples of the earth may know that the hand of the LORD is mighty, so that you may fear the LORD your God forever.” What is the point of me bringing this up? God wasn’t going to give each new generation a sign (experience) by drying the Jordan up each time they came to it. They were to look to the witness (the stones) and believe. God has spoken to us in these last days in His Son (Heb.) and all Scripture is inspired and profitable…that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work (2 Tim.). Scripture is sufficient to equip you for every good work, not some, not most, but every good work. You have Christ, you have His Spirit, you have His word, you don’t need an experience.
Nathan,
I want to echo with my own expression of gratitude for this little series as well. I was also saved in a Pentecostal church, having no previous church background whatsoever. After a period of time I actually began to serve as a Youth Pastor in that same church. However, I was never really clear on the purpose and usage of the sign gifts as taught by our denomination. And needless to say, the way they were used, exercised, opererated (whatever you want to call it) in public worship was very troubling to me. As a young Youth Pastor, and as one with no formal Biblical training at that time, I stuck to the simple truths of the biblical text in my preaching and teaching. I was unwilling to teach the students about the I.F.E doctrine and the like. I felt though, after a period of time, that my convictions, which were based on Biblical texts, were creating an internal conflict within me. I told my wife that we had to leave, and she felt the same way. So at that time we made a formal break with the group and I went on to a conservative Bible College. My exodus out of Pentecostalism was due to the obvious tension between the practice of the miraculous gifts in the New Testament and the practice of our local church in an attempt to duplicate or mimic those same gifts. I do remember however, that shorlt after my mind was made up that someone handed me a copy of Pastor MacArthur’s Charismatic Chaos. I thank God for that book, for it helped me organize my own conclusions into a format that I could work with. As a Pastor today, i find that book to be a very helpful tool for dealing with these issues. Thanks again
Mark T
I would like to add that my old church also believes in modern day apostles and prophets. Its more consistent than those who are anti-cessassionism yet say that apostles and prophets have ceased (what’s that called - part cessassionist?!).
However when it came to the practise of all this and it is compared with what is shown in Acts and elsewhere it does not match. It sounds good but its based on a lack of understanding of the volume and unfolding of revelation and its actually hypocritical. Also this stuff is NOT neutral and leads to other errors and abuses which traumatize and hurt believers and brings reproach to the name of Christ.
I often say to those who claim that they want to see 1Corinthians and Acts in action - take me to where I can see it that it doesn’t look like the Kenny and Benny show and let’s test what’s going on - if God is using men in this way today I think we need it. But they never produce the real goods. Sad really cause as I said the whole purpose of the gifts and the baptism in 1Cor 12 was to bring UNITY and clarity not confusion and division. These modern “signs” have done the exact opposite. Real signs and miracle workers were very apparent.
What a balm in Gilead you all bring to my life! The people who speak in tongues that I have known have a works-based faith they say is grace. It is a different religion than Biblical Christianity. They produce their own salvation and their own proof of their salvation. It leads to much legalism and hypocrisy. They live in a continual fear of “losing their salvation”. They speak in tongues to prove that they are worthy before Christ. Otherwise everyone will think they are not saved. It is a completely different religion that uses the same scriptures “saved by grace through faith” and “eternal security” but it is a works-based faith. Also, I have never known a person who grew up with their parents speaking tongues, who speaks in tongues when they grow to adulthood. Anyone? God promises future generations.
Hey Nate (or anyone who has thought about this),
Do you think there is any connection between the legitimate gift of tongues in the NT and the confusion of languages at Babel in Genesis 11? Missions theologians draw connections between Genesis 11 and Pentecost in Acts 2. I’m struggling in my as to what, if any, implications there are between the two events.
Thanks.
Wow excellent responses!
I do believe a lot of what we see right now are learned responses. To put it in perspective, a prof. during med school put it this way (in regards to learned responses) part of the difficultly of quitting smoking is simply the physical action itself. He asked us to imagine if you got into the habit of putting your hand in front of your mouth (without a cigarette) for 5 years. It would be very difficult to pop out of even the mannerisms, let alone the emotional experiences assoc. with the events (ie euphoria of cigs or tongues)
And just to note I am not the other “john” here
Thanks every one. I would have replied sooner but for the 16 hour time difference!
Sarah C. I came to the conclusion that the gibberish that is called tongues is a part of the flesh for a few reasons.
One thing that stood out to me in my quest to know whether todays tongues were legitimate or not.
1 Cor 14 says that ‘he who prays in tongues edifies himself’
This became a(false) teaching on its own. So the big deal was that we should be edifying ourselves through speaking in tongues. Charging up our battery/spirit.
Now I know what Paul was saying.
His point was that we should be doing all things to edify the church/others….not OURSELVES!! Thats why he said he would rather we prophesied(speak God’s word) in english as our case is, so all could be edified.
So to speak in gibberish or an uninterpreted language does not edify.
Pauls whole tone in this chapter was to correct the selfishness going on with tongues. So he was not teaching that we should pray in tongues more to edify ourselves…he was rebuking those who did that! He was saying that they should edify others in the common lingo.
Also if you read 1Cor 14 you see that it is UNDERSTANDING the WORDS spoken that edifies the hearer. Hearing sounds without having any understanding of their meaning does not edify in the way Paul is saying. So if the Corinthians were able to edify themselves thru speaking in langauges, it was only because they were given the interpretation.
Here is an example…Sinifesela Ukhisimusi Omuhle Nonyaka Omusha Onempumelelo
Very edifying isn’t it? In Zulu it means Merry Christmas and a happy New Year!No, there is no edifying without understanding.
I freely admit that when I pray(not really prayer cos it’s not of God) in gibberish, I have no understanding at all.
The reason pentecostals think they are being edified by noises is based on subjective feelings. I did not make my stand clear on this before.
They are taught to pray in tongues UNTIL you get(feel) the breakthrough. Until you FEEL edified.
There is something about the speech centre of the brain and the making of noises out our mouth that gives a certain type of feeling.
And it is feelings that most charismatics are chasing if they would admit it. At least I did for years. I am sharing my struggles and past life here to help any.
So Sarah I say it is of the flesh, the old nature because it’s use is to give our flesh some feelings. We are to walk by faith in His word. We are to believe…you know that.
I bet your friends say that Romans 8:26,27 teach that when we pray in tongues the Holy Spirit is praying a perfect prayer through them?
There is no need to assume that. In fact it says the Spirit Himself prays….not us. Also, with groanings that cannot be uttered….so why are we uttering because they cannot be uttered.
They join this to the next verses which say that all things are working together for good ……so the thinking is that if I pray in tongues then thru the Spirits help all things are working together for good.
Does that mean that all the millions of Christians who do not do this, or even believe this stuff, are without such wonderful hope in their lifes circumstances? Surely not sister.
I have prayed to Father for years to deliver me of the spirit behind tongues if it is from one… I have asked Him to take the ability away if he gave it. All to no avail.
Because of that I believe that it is not from a devil,and it is not from God, then it must be from me!! So then I must treat it as a work of the flesh, something that cannot please God. It is only when I am seduced and tempted to feel something in my flesh, that I have gone back to it.
But then time may prove me wrong…maybe one day I will find that is is a spirit energized ability…small s.
Make sense?
Bless you guys and gals
Dennis
Lisa asked, “I have never known a person who grew up with their parents speaking tongues, who speaks in tongues when they grow to adulthood. Anyone? God promises future generations.”
Hello Lisa,
Well, my parents spoke in tongues, I have (for fifty years), and I believe most of my children do, but I’m not sure, because we don’t emphasize it. Nor is it a matter of group pressure (I presently attend a Southern Baptist church). I don’t believe tongues are directly tied to salvation, because it’s my personal suspicion that one can speak in tongues and not be saved.
In my understanding, tongues happen when I give God’s Spirit within me permission to use my vocal capabilities. It is volitional, non-’ecstatic,’ and generally unrelated to emotion. The words I speak also have nothing to do with my mind. I pray when I am burdened in spirit, often in intercession, and also when my spirit is rejoicing. Paul mentions this kind of prayer in conjunction with singing, blessing, and giving of thanks (I Corinthians 14:15-16). I actually see it as a matter of obedience, rather like fasting, where God can accomplish things I don’t (and don’t have to) understand.
The only reason I’m getting in on this conversation is because I think I have a responsibility to testify to something precious our Lord offers His people. If the prospect of this kind of gift is painful to you, then I pray you will experience His power and presence in other ways.
Diane
Dear Diane,
You said
“I don’t believe tongues are directly tied to salvation, because it’s my personal suspicion that one can speak in tongues and not be saved.”
Is your suspicion that someone can speak in “tongues” as a Christian and then go on to be “unsaved” while still retaining the ability to speak in “tongues”?
I hope not, because once He saves you you cannot become unsaved unless you were never really His in the first place.
On the other hand ,if you suspect that someone can speak in “tongues” while having never been regenerated in the first place, then this shows that the tongues they have are not from God, for they are still outside of Christ and strangers without hope.
If someone can speak in “tongues” and not be saved it is because they never were saved in the first place.
As troubling as this idea is, I have had to face it myself. Are we trusting in Him and His work done for us or in our abilities even if we think He gave them to us.
Isaiah says…sa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to THIS people,
Isa 28:12 To whom He said, “This is the rest with which You may cause the weary to rest,” And, “This is the refreshing”; Yet they would not hear.
I used to use these verses to say that when I speak in tongues it brings me into rest and refreshing. I have heard it preached many times in Charismatic circles.
But the application here is that God will speak to THIS people, the Jews in Jesus days on earth, through foreign tongues which they would hear(Acts 2). What would God speak to THIS people? The Gospel of course, believe on Jesus and be justified from all things that you could not be justified through the Law. Come to Me all you who are heavy laden and I will give you REST. The rest and refreshing comes to those who rest in His finished work. But mant tongue talkers are trying to rest through work, by speaking in tongues!! This is not what Isaiah was saying.
The majority of the THIS people, the Jews did not believe and would not hear and so Jerusalem was destroyed as Isa 28 goes on to foretell.
If you look at all of the scripture that modern teaching on tongues hangs on you will see, if you are willing that they are all used wrongly.
Dennis
Thank you, Diane, for sharing your “family history” with me, and for your prayer for His power and experience. Lord, I pray we choose to walk faithfully in Your word. So be it.
Dennis especially and others, thank you for the response. I remain in prayer and desire only that in my life which would Glorify Him! Yes, His Word is sufficient.
Sarah C.
I was baptized at a pentecostal church in Dec 2007. But not until this past sunday’s service (april 6, 2008) did I feel like I was truly filled with the Holy Spirit. My crying was uncontrollable. I continuously called Jesus’ name with conviction during the testimonial part of the service. After a while, my headache and pain that I was having in my feet left my body. I began to feel a warm feeling throughout my body. Next thing you know I was mumbling some gibberish. I was aware of what I was doing, but I couldn’t understand it nor stop it from coming out of my mouth. Even though I didn’t understand it or know why I was doing it, it felt very warm and extremely natural.
Keep in mind that I’m new to the faith and my biblical understanding is very limited. I’m reading the KJV in chronological order and just recently completed the book of Matthew.
From my personal experience, the notion that tongues have to be taught and practiced is ridiculous. From my experience, tongues flows naturally and will only come once in a blue moon. When it comes it comes. But otherwise, just calling the name of JESUS is enough power in itself. My church doesn’t “practice” speaking tongues. Why should you have to practice something that comes from the word of GOD. I believe that real tongues will be natural and spontaneous and totally unexpected.