what is Speaking in tongues

[Wansvic]

Then Peter said unto them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Notice what Jesus stated about asking for the Holy Ghost relates to what is recorded in the Acts 8 and 19 accounts:

When all of the Scriptures concerning receiving the Holy Ghost are studied together, they reveal that the sequence of events is not always identical. Scripture does not establish one inflexible order for every circumstance.

Peter's original message on the Day of Pentecost established God's promise:

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38)

This reveals the essential elements of God's plan: faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sin, and the receiving of the Holy Ghost.

The Book of Acts also demonstrates that God varied the sequence for specific purposes without changing the message itself.
The variations in sequence highlight God's sovereign purposes, not different plans of salvation. Rather than creating exceptions to the apostolic message, they demonstrate God's freedom to accomplish His redemptive purposes while consistently bringing believers into the same New Testament experience.


Acts 8 (Samaritans): The Samaritans believed and were baptized, yet did not receive the Holy Ghost until Peter and John arrived and laid hands on them. This confirmed the unity of the Samaritan believers with the Jerusalem church and affirmed apostolic authority.

Acts 10 (Cornelius' household): The Gentiles received the Holy Ghost before water baptism. God deliberately reversed the expected order to unmistakably demonstrate to the Jewish believers that He had granted salvation to the Gentiles. Their speaking with tongues convinced Peter and the Jewish brethren that God had given them the Holy Ghost, after which Peter immediately commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

Acts 19 (Ephesus): Disciples who had received only John's baptism believed Paul's preaching concerning Jesus, were rebaptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and then received the Holy Ghost, speaking with tongues and prophesying.

These accounts show that while the sequence may differ according to God's purpose, the essential elements remain unchanged. Scripture never presents one element as replacing another. Faith, repentance, baptism in Jesus' name for remission of sin, and the gift of the Holy Ghost all remain integral parts of the New Testament rebirth.

 

[Thaddeus]

Sometimes I am reminded of the pharisees of Jesus day and how they rigidly quoted the letter of scripture and insisted it must be fully followed in order to be acceptable to God. They of course were blinded to the truth

 

[Wansvic]

Come on man, stop with the hype.

Luke 11:13 is of course true but it is stated as an adage not a set in stone and all encompassing axiom.

No hype. Just pointing out a fact.

Take note that i never said it was necessary for everyone to ask for the Holy Ghost. Rather, the point was those who have not yet received the Holy Spirit should ask God. This was revealed by Jesus in Luke 11:13, and confirmed in conversion accounts such as Acts 8:12-18 and Acts 19:1-7.

I was addressing Roger316, concerning the erroneous idea that asking for the Holy Ghost is not necessary as scripture reveals at times it certainly is.

"If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" Luke 11:13

 

[TMS]

The gift of tongues is a supernatural ability granted by the Holy Spirit to speak in actual, foreign languages that the speaker has not previously learned, primarily for the purpose of sharing the gospel with people of different nationalities.

It isn't a sign amongst believers. They already believe. Practically???

Act 2:8-11
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

In a church setting, if someone speaks in an unknown tongue, there must be an interpreter so that the congregation can understand and be edified.

1Co 14:12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

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


If no one can understand what you are saying, it has no purpose. It does not edify anyone. God understands every language so we do not need to speak in any heavenly language. If you do not understand then it is even worse, you could be speaking evil or nothing at all.

True spiritual gifts involve the understanding; speaking without meaning is likened to a trumpet giving an uncertain sound.

1Co 14:7-9
7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? 8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? 9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

It is better to speak five words with understanding to teach others than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue 1 Corinthians 14:19

 

[Wansvic]

Sometimes I am reminded of the pharisees of Jesus day and how they rigidly quoted the letter of scripture and insisted it must be fully followed in order to be acceptable to God. They of course were blinded to the truth

God's Word reveals there's a significant difference between the two situations.

The Pharisees trusted in their observance of the Law of Moses and their own traditions as the basis of righteousness, while rejecting the One to whom the Law pointed. Jesus did not rebuke them for believing Scripture or for obeying God. He rebuked them for substituting human tradition for God's commandments, for their hypocrisy, and ultimately for rejecting Him.

New Testament believers should understand they are not called to seek justification through the Law of Moses. Rather, are called to respond in faith to the gospel that Jesus and His apostles preached. And that includes believing in Jesus Christ, repenting, being baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and receiving the Holy Ghost. Those are not traditions of Pharisees or works of the OT Law—they are the commands of the New Covenant given by Christ and preached by the apostles.

The new birth is not something we invent or earn; it is God's work. But Scripture reveals that we are expected to respond in obedient faith to what God has revealed. Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15). Hebrews 5:9 says He "became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." Peter preached, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38).

So I don't see a parallel between trusting in the Law and traditions of men and obeying the gospel of Jesus Christ. The issue has always been whether we will believe and obey what God has revealed for the covenant under which we live.

 

[Wansvic]

The gift of tongues is a supernatural ability granted by the Holy Spirit to speak in actual, foreign languages that the speaker has not previously learned, primarily for the purpose of sharing the gospel with people of different nationalities.

It isn't a sign amongst believers. They already believe. Practically???

Act 2:8-11
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

In a church setting, if someone speaks in an unknown tongue, there must be an interpreter so that the congregation can understand and be edified.

1Co 14:12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

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


If no one can understand what you are saying, it has no purpose. It does not edify anyone. God understands every language so we do not need to speak in any heavenly language. If you do not understand then it is even worse, you could be speaking evil or nothing at all.

True spiritual gifts involve the understanding; speaking without meaning is likened to a trumpet giving an uncertain sound.

1Co 14:7-9
7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? 8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? 9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

It is better to speak five words with understanding to teach others than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue 1 Corinthians 14:19

The biblical evidence does not support limiting tongues to merely speaking foreign languages for evangelism. That view does not account for the full testimony of the New Testament.

First, speaking in tongues was a miraculous manifestation produced by the Spirit of God—not a natural human ability. Paul writes:

"But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal... to another divers kinds of tongues... But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will." (1 Corinthians 12:7-11)

The source of tongues is not the speaker's linguistic ability but the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.

Second, the New Testament never says the gift of tongues exists primarily to evangelize people in foreign languages. At Pentecost (Acts 2), the miracle drew the crowd's attention, but it was Peter's preaching—not the tongues themselves—that brought conviction and led to about 3,000 conversions.

Third, tongues repeatedly accompanied people receiving the Holy Ghost.

• Acts 2 – The Jewish believers received the Holy Ghost and spoke with tongues.
• Acts 10:44-48 – The Gentiles received the Holy Ghost. Peter knew they had because "they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God."
• Acts 19:1-7 – About twenty years after Pentecost, the Ephesian disciples received the Holy Ghost and "spake with tongues, and prophesied."

In each of these accounts, tongues functioned as the observable evidence that the recipients had received the Holy Ghost—not as a method of preaching to foreigners.

Fourth, Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians cannot be describing evangelistic foreign languages. He is instructing a congregation of believers concerning the operation of spiritual gifts in the local church. He says:

• "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God..." (1 Cor. 14:2)
• "...no man understandeth him..."
• "...he speaketh mysteries in the Spirit."
• "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself." (1 Cor. 14:4)

If tongues were simply the natural ability to speak a foreign language for evangelism, there would be no need for the supernatural gift of interpretation (1 Cor. 12:10; 14:13, 27-28). The very existence of the gift of interpretation demonstrates that the manifestation of tongues is itself a miraculous work of the Spirit.

Finally, if there were no observable manifestation accompanying the reception of the Holy Ghost, how did Peter know the Gentiles had received the Spirit in Acts 10? Scripture answers: "For they heard them speak with tongues..." (Acts 10:46). Likewise, Paul knew the Ephesian disciples had received the Holy Ghost because "they spake with tongues, and prophesied." (Acts 19:6).

The New Testament therefore presents tongues as a supernatural manifestation of the Holy Spirit, serving different purposes in different contexts: as the accompanying sign of receiving the Holy Ghost (Acts 2, 10, and 19), as a spiritual gift in the church requiring interpretation (1 Corinthians 12–14), and as a sign in fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy (1 Corinthians 14:21-22). Reducing every occurrence to evangelistic foreign languages does not account for all of the biblical evidence.

 

[Lamar]

No hype. Just pointing out a fact.

Take note that i never said it was necessary for everyone to ask for the Holy Ghost. Rather, the point was those who have not yet received the Holy Spirit should ask God. This was revealed by Jesus in Luke 11:13, and confirmed in conversion accounts such as Acts 8:12-18 and Acts 19:1-7.

I was addressing Roger316, concerning the erroneous idea that asking for the Holy Ghost is not necessary as scripture reveals at times it certainly is.

"If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" Luke 11:13

Yes, the hype.

Because Roger316 does not agree with you does not imply that he is calling Jesus Christ a liar.

Roger316 may be right or you may be right.
Maybe both of you are somewhat right.
Or maybe both of you are dead wrong.
But that does not mean that one of you is calling Jesus Christ a liar.

 

[Wansvic]

Yes, the hype.

Because Roger316 does not agree with you does not imply that he is calling Jesus Christ a liar.

Roger316 may be right or you may be right.
Maybe both of you are somewhat right.
Or maybe both of you are dead wrong.
But that does not mean that one of you is calling Jesus Christ a liar.

The World is all about gray areas. However, there are no gray areas in scripture; it expresses the truth whether people accept it or not.

"If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" Luke 11:13

 

[Lamar]

The World is all about gray areas. However, there are no gray areas in scripture; it expresses the truth whether people accept it or not.

"If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" Luke 11:13

I agree there are no gray areas in scripture but much of scripture is written in the general.

Luke 11:13 is a good example.

Am I also calling Jesus Christ a liar because I can see the general nature of this passage?

 

[TMS]

First, speaking in tongues was a miraculous manifestation produced by the Spirit of God—not a natural human ability. Paul writes:

No
You need to accept the meaning of the translation.

Tongues = G1100
glōssa
Thayer Definition:
the tongue, a member of the body, an organ of speech
a tongue, the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations
Origin: of uncertain affinity

Part(s) of speech: Noun Feminine

Strong's Definition: Of uncertain affinity; the tongue ; by implication a language (specifically one naturally unacquired): - tongue.

The definition is clear... G1100

Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues G1100;

Acts 2:3,5,11 users G1100.
2 Cor 14:5,6,14,18 uses G1100...

Look it up and accept what the word means..

 

[TMS]

Throughout Scripture, God's promises are received by those who believe and obey His Word. The promise of the Holy Ghost is no different. A person first believes God's promise, responds in obedient faith, and seeks what God has promised. This is consistent with Hebrews 5:9, which says of Christ, "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him."

I agree
But the promise of the Holy Spirit does not mean you will speak in tongues.
The gifts are given as God sees the need.

He will not heal you of a disease that you do not have.

If everyone can understand the gospel truth being preach there is no need to give the gift of Speaking in tongues.

Confusion is not the work of the Holy Spirit. (The exception was the tower of Babel). Gen 11:6-9.

Babel = confusion.
Babylon

When they did not understand each other it was confusion..

Do you think God wants to confuse people about the gospel?

 

[TMS]

I've seen people talk in what they believe is tongues.
It is not a known language. It is confusion and gibberish.

People that are not familiar with this say it is crazy and wonder what GOOD it is achieving.

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.

" that the church may receive edifying."

Gibberish unknown speaking does not edify. What practical good does it achieve?

 

[Roger316]

So Jesus was lying?

"If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" Luke 11:13

Luke 11 raises a perfectly reasonable concern, because Jesus explicitly ties “asking” to receiving the Holy Spirit. It’s natural to wonder whether believers are meant to request the Spirit in the same way. But that good question becomes the doorway to seeing the passage in its pre‑Pentecost setting, where Jesus is promising a future gift rather than describing a normal Christian practice.

The New Testament never shows believers asking for the Spirit
The New Testament contains no example of an ordinary believer asking God to give them the Holy Spirit, nor does any apostle ever instruct Christians to do so. Every instance of receiving the Spirit—Pentecost, Samaria, Cornelius, Ephesus—occurs as God’s sovereign act, not as the result of human petition. And in the epistles, believers are told to *walk* by the Spirit, *be led* by the Spirit, *not grieve* the Spirit, but never to *ask* for Him. This silence is deliberate: after Pentecost, the Spirit is the defining mark of belonging to Christ (Romans 8:9), already given to all who believe. Asking for the Spirit would be like asking for justification after already being justified. The New Testament assumes the Spirit’s presence as a settled reality, not a gift still to be requested.

What Jesus meant in Luke 11:13
In Luke 11 Jesus is speaking before Pentecost, to disciples who do not yet possess the Spirit and who are still living within the Old‑Covenant horizon. When He says the Father will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask, He is not prescribing a post‑Pentecost prayer practice; He is promising the coming gift. The point of the passage is not the mechanics of receiving the Spirit but the character of God: if flawed human fathers give good gifts, the Father will certainly give the greatest gift when the appointed hour arrives. Luke’s Gospel anticipates Acts, where this promise is fulfilled not by people asking, but by God pouring out the Spirit in His own timing. Jesus’ words are therefore anticipatory assurance, not an instruction for Christians to request the Spirit’s indwelling.

 

[Wansvic]

No
You need to accept the meaning of the translation.

Tongues = G1100
glōssa
Thayer Definition:
the tongue, a member of the body, an organ of speech
a tongue, the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations
Origin: of uncertain affinity

Part(s) of speech: Noun Feminine

Strong's Definition: Of uncertain affinity; the tongue ; by implication a language (specifically one naturally unacquired): - tongue.

The definition is clear... G1100

Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues G1100;

Acts 2:3,5,11 users G1100.
2 Cor 14:5,6,14,18 uses G1100...

Look it up and accept what the word means..

I do accept what the word means. The same Strongs definition applies to tongues in 1 Cor. 14:2. And Paul makes it clear that no man knows the tongue that is spoken between God and man. (1 Cor 14:2). Also, Paul reveals tongues can be those of man or angels. (1 Cor. 13:1) And when all scripture on the topic is viewed in context it is obvious the manifestation is mirculous and serves a variety of the purposes of God.

 

[Wansvic]

I agree
But the promise of the Holy Spirit does not mean you will speak in tongues.
The gifts are given as God sees the need.

He will not heal you of a disease that you do not have.

If everyone can understand the gospel truth being preach there is no need to give the gift of Speaking in tongues.

Confusion is not the work of the Holy Spirit. (The exception was the tower of Babel). Gen 11:6-9.

Babel = confusion.
Babylon

When they did not understand each other it was confusion..

Do you think God wants to confuse people about the gospel?

Speaking in tongues is, by God's design, the sign that reveals a person has received the Holy Ghost. The objection you're raising seems to result from conflating the different biblical purposes for speaking in tongues.

The tongues on the Day of Pentecost were not given because the disciples needed a way to communicate the gospel. The crowd already understood Peter's preaching. In fact, after hearing and believing the gospel, they asked, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37). Peter then instructed them to repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and they would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38).

The miraculous speaking in tongues occurred before Peter preached and before anyone responded to the gospel. It was a supernatural manifestation of the Spirit of God declaring "the wonderful works of God" (Acts 2:11), not a method by which Peter communicated his sermon.

Throughout Acts, speaking in tongues consistently accompanies the initial receiving of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2, 10, and 19), while Acts 8 strongly indicates there was an observable sign that convinced Simon the sorcerer the Samaritans had received the Spirit. These passages concern the initial infilling of the Holy Ghost.

The spiritual gift of speaking in tongues serves an entirely different purpose. That gift is used within a church gathering and is accompanied by the gift of interpretation for the edification of the congregation.

So the issue is not whether tongues can serve different functions—they can. The issue is whether Scripture presents speaking in tongues as the confirming sign of initially receiving the Holy Ghost. And the answer is yes as revealed in the conversion accounts recorded in the Book of Acts (Acts of the Apostles).

 

[Wansvic]

I've seen people talk in what they believe is tongues.
It is not a known language. It is confusion and gibberish.

People that are not familiar with this say it is crazy and wonder what GOOD it is achieving.

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.

" that the church may receive edifying."

Gibberish unknown speaking does not edify. What practical good does it achieve?

It is a bold claim to suggest you can determine whether another person's renewed spirit is communicating with the Spirit of God. That is precisely why Scripture provides an objective, observable confirmation of receiving the Holy Ghost rather than leaving the experience to personal feelings or subjective claims.

In Acts, people didn't simply assume someone had received the Holy Ghost because they professed faith or described an inner experience. There was a supernatural manifestation by which others knew the Spirit had been given. At Pentecost they spoke with other tongues (Acts 2:4). The Gentiles spoke with tongues, convincing the Jewish believers that they had received the Holy Ghost (Acts 10:44–47). The disciples at Ephesus spoke with tongues and prophesied when they received the Holy Ghost (Acts 19:6). Even in Samaria, there was an observable manifestation that convinced Simon the sorcerer something extraordinary had occurred (Acts 8:17–19).

God did not leave the initial infilling of the Holy Ghost to human speculation. He provided a miraculous witness so there would be objective evidence that His Spirit had been received. Rather than relying on our opinions about another person's inward experience, it is wiser to accept the pattern God chose to reveal in Scripture.

 

[Wansvic]

Luke 11 raises a perfectly reasonable concern, because Jesus explicitly ties “asking” to receiving the Holy Spirit. It’s natural to wonder whether believers are meant to request the Spirit in the same way. But that good question becomes the doorway to seeing the passage in its pre‑Pentecost setting, where Jesus is promising a future gift rather than describing a normal Christian practice.

The New Testament never shows believers asking for the Spirit
The New Testament contains no example of an ordinary believer asking God to give them the Holy Spirit, nor does any apostle ever instruct Christians to do so. Every instance of receiving the Spirit—Pentecost, Samaria, Cornelius, Ephesus—occurs as God’s sovereign act, not as the result of human petition. And in the epistles, believers are told to *walk* by the Spirit, *be led* by the Spirit, *not grieve* the Spirit, but never to *ask* for Him. This silence is deliberate: after Pentecost, the Spirit is the defining mark of belonging to Christ (Romans 8:9), already given to all who believe. Asking for the Spirit would be like asking for justification after already being justified. The New Testament assumes the Spirit’s presence as a settled reality, not a gift still to be requested.

What Jesus meant in Luke 11:13
In Luke 11 Jesus is speaking before Pentecost, to disciples who do not yet possess the Spirit and who are still living within the Old‑Covenant horizon. When He says the Father will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask, He is not prescribing a post‑Pentecost prayer practice; He is promising the coming gift. The point of the passage is not the mechanics of receiving the Spirit but the character of God: if flawed human fathers give good gifts, the Father will certainly give the greatest gift when the appointed hour arrives. Luke’s Gospel anticipates Acts, where this promise is fulfilled not by people asking, but by God pouring out the Spirit in His own timing. Jesus’ words are therefore anticipatory assurance, not an instruction for Christians to request the Spirit’s indwelling.

Your conclusion depends on an argument from silence.

Jesus plainly taught, "How much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him" (Luke 11:13). If that instruction was intended to expire at Pentecost, where does Scripture ever say so?

In fact, the first ones to receive the promised Holy Ghost were doing exactly what Jesus instructed. The disciples gathered in the upper room and "continued with one accord in prayer and supplication" (Acts 1:14) as they waited for "the promise of the Father" (Acts 1:4-5). It is entirely consistent with Jesus' teaching that they were asking God to fulfill His promise.

The same principle applies in Acts 8. Peter and John came to Samaria specifically so the believers there "might receive the Holy Ghost" (Acts 8:15). Luke tells us they prayed for them and then laid hands on them. The passage is actually evidence that prayer was involved in their receiving the Holy Ghost.

Likewise, in Acts 19, Paul instructed the disciples, baptized them in the name of Jesus, laid his hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost, speaking with tongues and prophesying. Luke summarizes the event but does not claim to record every word Paul spoke or every prayer that was offered. To conclude that Paul simply laid hands on them without asking God to give them the promised Spirit is reading far more into the silence of the text than the text itself allows.

This is how Acts is written throughout. Luke compresses events, omits conversations, prayers, and details that undoubtedly occurred. The absence of a recorded prayer is not evidence that no one prayed.

What we do know is this: Jesus taught people to ask the Father for the Holy Ghost. The disciples sought God in prayer before Pentecost. Peter and John prayed for the Samaritans to receive the Holy Ghost. Nothing in Acts or the epistles ever changes Jesus' instruction.

And noteworthy is the fact that the epistles were written to those who had already received the Holy Ghost; thus, no need to tell them to ask for the gift.

 

[Lamar]

Speaking in tongues is, by God's design, the sign that reveals a person has received the Holy Ghost. The objection you're raising seems to result from conflating the different biblical purposes for speaking in tongues.

The tongues on the Day of Pentecost were not given because the disciples needed a way to communicate the gospel. The crowd already understood Peter's preaching. In fact, after hearing and believing the gospel, they asked, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37). Peter then instructed them to repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and they would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38).

The miraculous speaking in tongues occurred before Peter preached and before anyone responded to the gospel. It was a supernatural manifestation of the Spirit of God declaring "the wonderful works of God" (Acts 2:11), not a method by which Peter communicated his sermon.

Throughout Acts, speaking in tongues consistently accompanies the initial receiving of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2, 10, and 19), while Acts 8 strongly indicates there was an observable sign that convinced Simon the sorcerer the Samaritans had received the Spirit. These passages concern the initial infilling of the Holy Ghost.

The spiritual gift of speaking in tongues serves an entirely different purpose. That gift is used within a church gathering and is accompanied by the gift of interpretation for the edification of the congregation.

So the issue is not whether tongues can serve different functions—they can. The issue is whether Scripture presents speaking in tongues as the confirming sign of initially receiving the Holy Ghost. And the answer is yes as revealed in the conversion accounts recorded in the Book of Acts (Acts of the Apostles).

For anyone to believe this as true you would first have to explain why someone should accept the glossolalia of the Pentecostals as New Testament tongues.

Are the modern day Pentecostal tongues the same as New Testament tongues?

Wansvic, is your claim confirmable??? Yes or No?

 

[LTL]

im a bit confused on this

Hi NiNA,

The gift of tongues is a method of sharing the gospel across language barriers.

For example, if your native language is Spanish and I speak in English, then the spirit might convert the words that I speak into Spanish for you to hear. That is the gift of tongues.

 

[Roger316]

Speaking in tongues is, by God's design, the sign that reveals a person has received the Holy Ghost. The objection you're raising seems to result from conflating the different biblical purposes for speaking in tongues.

The tongues on the Day of Pentecost were not given because the disciples needed a way to communicate the gospel. The crowd already understood Peter's preaching. In fact, after hearing and believing the gospel, they asked, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37). Peter then instructed them to repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and they would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38).

What makes Acts 2 so striking is that Luke—who never hesitates to report tongues when they occur—says nothing about the three thousand new believers speaking in tongues. He carefully records the apostles’ tongues at the start of the chapter, then describes the crowd’s conversion through *intelligible* preaching, and then moves directly to baptism and fellowship. The absence of tongues at this decisive moment is not accidental; it is a deliberate narrative silence that shows tongues were not the expected or universal sign of receiving the Spirit.

The spiritual gift of speaking in tongues serves an entirely different purpose. That gift is used within a church gathering and is accompanied by the gift of interpretation for the edification of the congregation.

To the contrary, Paul actually discourages the use of tongues in the gathered church, precisely because uninterpreted tongues do not edify anyone. His repeated instruction in 1 Corinthians 14 is that the church should prioritize prophecy—the gift that builds up the whole body through intelligible speech. Tongues, unless interpreted, create confusion and mirror the judgment pattern of Isaiah 28, so Paul restricts their use and elevates prophecy as the proper gift for congregational worship.

Paul never tells a tongues‑speaker to look for someone with a separate “gift of interpretation.” Instead, he commands the one who is speaking to *pray that he himself may interpret* (1 Cor 14:13). This shows that interpretation is not a second person’s supernatural ability to decode another person’s ecstatic speech; it is the speaker’s own Spirit‑enabled capacity to make his message intelligible. Paul’s instruction collapses the charismatic two‑gift model and reinforces his larger point: **intelligibility is the responsibility of the speaker**, and without it, tongues have no place in the gathered church.

Understand? The gift of tongues is NOT the ability to speak a foreign language. The gift of tongues is in the ear of the listener; it is when the hearer understands what is being spoken in his own language.