I've seen men and women "speaking in tongues" in my church and being "filled" by the Holy Spirit, but I'm not sure what to think about the practice. Are these things consistent with the Bible's teaching?

The question of speaking in tongues is a hotly-debated issue within the church, one that often elicits strong emotions from both sides of the debate. Therefore, in settling this question, we have endeavored to provide a comprehensive and detailed answer, based on scripture, and addressing the most common points and counterarguments. Our article is quite lengthy, but we believe the controversial nature of this topic warrants an in-depth response.

I have divided my answer into three arguments: a scriptural argument, a historical argument and a theological argument, and we begin with an introduction to tongues itself.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOY73FChaPE

Introduction on Tongues


First, it's critical to recognize that when the Bible uses the term "tongue," it refers to normal, spoken language (e.g., English, Spanish, French, etc.). The word tongue does not mean a strange, non-human sound or utterance. A "tongue" is a real, understandable human language, and therefore the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues always involves speaking a real, human language, complete with syntax, vocabulary, and sentence structure.

The gift of tongues never involves making gibberish sounds or chanting repetitive phrases or nonsense words. A person with the gift to speak in tongues will suddenly begin speaking in a recognizable, human language that the person did not previously know and cannot understand. If that foreign tongue is spoken in the presence of a person who knows that language naturally, then he or she will immediately understand the speech because it is a natural language. If an English-speaking Christian with the gift of tongues is prompted by the Spirit to speak in Spanish, then this person will not understand his or her own speech, which is the essence of the miracle. Nevertheless, anyone who knows the Spanish language could understand the speech perfectly.

We can see this important principle evidenced in Acts 2, when thousands of new Jewish Christians began to speak in unknown tongues at Pentecost. In Acts 2:4-8 we see plainly that these "tongues" were normal, human languages that many foreigners in the crowd could understand naturally:

Acts 2:6 And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language.
Acts 2:7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans?
Acts 2:8 “And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?
Acts 2:9 “Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,
Acts 2:10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes,
Acts 2:11 Cretans and Arabs — we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.”
The miracle of that moment was Galileans speaking foreign languages they did not know or even understand. Importantly, notice that visitors from those foreign regions could understand the speech, because it was a true language. The Galileans were NOT speaking in gibberish or made up babbling. They were speaking in a true human language as evidenced by the fact that some in the crowd could understand them naturally. The Galileans spoke in foreign languages they didn't previously know, which is the miracle of tongues.

Since the Bible testifies that authentic speaking in tongues involves speaking a real, knowable language, then the fact that the modern-day practice of "speaking in tongues" involves uttering gibberish or chanting repetitive sounds is clear evidence it is a manmade attempt to imitate a work of God and not a genuine movement of the Spirit.
Conclusion

Based on Paul's teaching in 1Cor 12-14, we learn that the gift of tongues served its spiritual purpose in the first century by fulfilling the Old Testament prophecy, and the Church should have expected the gift to diminish in practice thereafter. As Paul wrote, the Spirit will only permit the gift of tongues to be expressed within the church gathering in the presence of unbelieving Jews or when an interpreter is present (which would be very rare today). Even then, only by two or three people, never by the entire congregation.

Any other mass expression of tongues cannot be a work of the Spirit since it would contradict scripture and the Spirit of God never acts contrary to Scripture. A Christian who genuinely possess the gift of tongues may express it privately, but if they feel led to share their gift in the gathering, they may only do so when an interpreter is present (see 1Cor 14:27-28).

Once a statement in tongues has been spoken, the church body is to wait for interpretation so they may understand the meaning of the word. If no interpretation is offered, then the one speaking in tongues must remain silent since his expression of tongues has failed the Bible's test and must be considered a false expression (similar to the way all gifts of prophecy must stand a test of accuracy according to 1Cor 14:29).

Knowing that these are God's purposes in the expression of the gift of tongues, we should take a critical view of any congregation that encourages or allows the routine expression of a (supposed) gift of tongues contrary to these rules. If repetitive gibberish is labeled "speaking in tongues," or if such experiences occur outside the presence of unbelieving Jews (as Paul explained) or an interpreter, then it cannot be an authentic display of tongues. Instead, it is a false, contrived work of the flesh, and it should be avoided by every Christian.

Lastly, if the church teaches that all Christians can and should speak in tongues, this teaching is false because it directly contradicts the Bible. Every believer is assigned a spiritual gift at the moment of our salvation by the Spirit, and we cannot change or add to God's choice.

Given the biblical restrictions Paul establishes in these chapters, we must conclude that the common experience called "speaking in tongues" which is present in many churches today is simply an act. Crowds imitate each other in mindless babbling thinking that they are speaking in "tongues." They must resort to babbling because it is impossible to replicate the true miracle of speaking in a foreign language, and since the crowds are not taught this distinction, they fall prey to the deception and follow their leader's demands. The result? Millions of deceived and willing participants persuaded by false teaching and peer pressure to engage in chanting meaningless gibberish, which lacks any spiritual power and only serves to bring shame on the Church (1Cor 14:23).


Historical Argument


Before the rise of the charismatic movement in the early 20th century, the practice of speaking in tongues was unknown in the church. There is no mention of it in any authoritative church literature after the end of the first century, and no respected church leaders after the Apostolic age ever taught on the continuing use or appearance of this gift. Based on this silence in church literature, it seems the gift disappeared from the body of Christ around the end of the first century (as Paul's teaching in 1Corinthians 12-14 would anticipate).

Mysteriously, on April 14, 1906, in Southern California, something resembling the practice of speaking in tongues re-emerged. Most church historians trace the origins of this practice to a revival meeting led by William J. Seymour in the African Methodist Anglican Church. The unorthodox practices of this group included claims of extreme manifestations of the Spirit among the faithful, which continued for several years and were roundly criticized by many respected Christian authorities as unbiblical. Central to these manifestations was an emphasis on speaking in "tongues."

Seymour's movement, which he linked to the holiness movement and Pentecostalism of the 19th century, was roundly rejected by his Los Angeles church, which subsequently barred him from further preaching in response to his teaching that true salvation must be accompanied by speaking in tongues. This claim was correctly labeled heresy by his church, and they wisely distanced themselves from his movement.

Despite losing his church, Seymour eventually found a new audience for his false teaching, and this new movement grew by peddling a captivating style of emotional, experiential religion united with a works-based salvation. Under the influence of Seymour's preaching (and those who followed after him), the new movement made speaking in tongues (i.e., babbling) an essential requirement for salvation.

The Bible clearly teaches that salvation comes by grace alone through faith in Christ alone, and, therefore, speaking in tongues is not a requirement of salvation.[url][/url]https://edentvseries..com/2023/09/the-hidden-truth-about-speaking-in.html