A Problem with Pentecostalism: Speaking in Tongues in the Bible

Photo by Mahkeo on Unsplash

Two thousand years ago on the day of Pentecost something remarkable happened. A group of believers, including the apostles, were “all together in one place” when

Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. (Acts 2:2-4 NIV)

This event astonished the visitors in Jerusalem who had come from distant lands to celebrate the annual festival. They asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language?” (vv. 7-8). According to Acts 1, the total number of believers at this point was about 120 and they “all joined together constantly in prayer” (v. 14). So, many assume all 120 were filled with the Holy Spirit, but we can’t be certain.

Jesus’ followers had acquired miraculous speech and were instantly able to declare “the wonders of God” in unknown or unlearned languages. Peter then explains the meaning of this event to the crowd—God was pouring out his Spirit as he had promised and they too could receive the gift of the Holy Spirit if they repented and turned to Christ.

A similar event, without the sound of wind or appearance of fire, occurred when Peter visited a Roman centurion named Cornelius and announced the good news of Jesus. While he was speaking, “the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message” and the Gentile listeners began “speaking in tongues and praising God” (vv. 44-46).

Likewise, after conversing with a group of disciples in Ephesus, Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus then placed his hands on them and “the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied” (19:6).

Pentecostal Logic 

Classical Pentecostals believe these episodes prescribe a pattern: followers of Jesus will speak in tongues when they are “baptized with the Holy Spirit.” What is speaking in tongues? It is instantly speaking an unknown language with God’s help. What is the baptism in or with the Spirit? It is an experience after salvation that all believers should “earnestly seek,” empowering them to be Christ’s witnesses.

Although the three stories in Acts do not use the phrase “baptism in/with the Holy Spirit,” Christ used it before he ascended to heaven in reference to the dramatic experience in Acts 2: “John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5). Consequently, Pentecostals identify the accounts above as “baptisms in the Holy Spirit.” And since each of the three episodes mention speaking in tongues, they arrive at this conclusion: the initial physical evidence of being baptized in the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues. (There is also a story of Samaritan believers receiving the Spirit in Acts 8, but speaking in tongues is not mentioned.)

Here then is the Pentecostal logic:

  • All followers of Jesus should be baptized in the Holy Spirit.
  • The initial physical evidence of this baptism is speaking in tongues.
  • Therefore, all believers should speak in tongues.

What does this mean for believers who have not spoken in tongues? They are deficient, lacking power for the Christian life.

Pentecostals are so certain of this logic that many consider it to be a key teaching of the Christian faith. For example, the Assemblies of God, the largest Pentecostal denomination in the world, has 16 Fundamental Truths. Number eight is this: “The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance.”

Do you see any problems with this logic?

My Experience

I grew up in a Pentecostal Christian family. We attended a small independent Pentecostal church then an Assemblies of God church so we were not Oneness Pentecostal but Trinitarian Pentecostal. My mom is the strongest advocate I know of speaking in tongues. While growing up I saw her pray for many people to speak in tongues and even coach them in the process, trying to get them to articulate a new word. “Say it,” “it’s right there,” “just say it.” As a young boy she did the same to me. Eventually, I did speak in tongues, or, I guess I should say, I spoke incomprehensible words, but obviously, I was pressured.

I believed in the Pentecostal teaching in which I was raised and even taught it to others in small group Bible studies. After graduating from high school, I moved to Barrington, Rhode Island to attend a Pentecostal Bible college. While there I began reading voraciously in the school library on many subjects, including speaking in tongues. I also had conversations with pastors and students and learned that some who call themselves “Pentecostal” do not believe that everyone should speak in tongues. After an intense struggle, I concluded that I could no longer support this distinct doctrine.

What changed my mind?

The genre of Acts.

Let me explain.

The Genre of Acts

What kind of literature is the book of Acts? Is it prescriptive or descriptive? Is it telling us what happened or what should happen or both?

Acts is a historical narrative describing the movement of Jesus’ followers during the first thirty years after his resurrection. Narratives primarily tell a story; they don’t necessarily convey life instructions. Just because it happened doesn’t mean it should continue to happen. Consider the following questions:

  • Should we stay in Jerusalem because the first disciples did in Acts 1?
  • Should we not claim any personal possessions following the examples in Acts 2 and 4?
  • Should we pray at 3 p.m. because Peter and John observed that hour for prayer in Acts 3?
  • Should we choose seven people to wait on tables as the apostles did in Acts 6?
  • Should we follow Paul’s example and travel by boat or work as tentmakers?

Narratives require us to think carefully when moving from interpretation to application. Unfortunately, this careful thinking does not occur in the Pentecostal logic because it moves from what happened on three occasions in Acts to what should happen to every believer today.

Does this mean narratives cannot prescribe or present doctrine? Of course not. Paul’s exhortation to “Believe in the Lord Jesus” (Acts 16:31) applies to more than his immediate audience. How do we know? He teaches faith in Christ throughout his letters which were sent to a variety of churches. This means we can use narratives to support doctrine, but we need direct teaching from other places.

So what do other parts of the New Testament say about speaking in tongues? The only NT author who teaches about speaking in tongues is Paul and he does so only in one letter—1 Corinthians. For those who repeatedly teach on speaking in tongues this fact alone should be a wake up call. The majority of NT authors—Matthew, Mark, John, the author of Hebrews, James, Peter, Jude—do not mention this practice. And out of the thirteen letters ascribed to Paul, he only mentions it in one letter. Hence speaking in tongues should not be considered a core teaching or major doctrine in the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 12

In 1 Corinthians 12 Paul says that the Spirit distributes gifts to individual believers as he determines. What are these gifts?

  • a message of wisdom
  • a message of knowledge
  • faith
  • gifts of healing
  • miraculous powers
  • prophecy
  • distinguishing between spirits
  • speaking in different kinds of tongues
  • interpretation of tongues (vv. 8-10)

According to Paul, “speaking in different kinds of tongues” is one of the gifts of the Spirit, but he says it is only given to some believers:

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines. (vv. 7-11, emphasis mine)

He continues by comparing the church to a body. Just as a body is composed of different parts so we bring our different gifts and functions into the church where together with others we form one body.

What’s the point?

Rather than expecting everyone to perform the same function or have the same gift, Paul wants the Corinthians to appreciate diversity within their community. He then asks a series of questions:

  • Are all apostles?
  • Are all prophets?
  • Are all teachers?
  • Do all work miracles?
  • Do all have gifts of healing?
  • Do all speak in tongues?
  • Do all interpret? (vv. 29-30)

How should we answer these questions? His entire argument depends on the same resolute answer to all seven questions—”No.” “All” do not work miracles or heal or speak in tongues.

Since Paul’s letter, which prescribes doctrine, rejects the idea that the same gift is given to all, speaking in tongues should not be a requirement or even an expectation for every believer. Those who claim that everyone must or can speak in tongues are contradicting Paul’s teaching.

Pentecostals respond to this objection by saying that Paul is referring to the public use of tongues in a church setting, but, they claim, the private use of tongues is for everyone. That, however, is a distinction Paul never makes. He never says “the personal gift of tongues is given to everyone, while the public gift of tongues is given to some.”

1 Corinthians 14

After celebrating the “most excellent way” of love which outlasts prophecies, tongues, and knowledge (13:8), Paul says, “Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy” (14:1) because

anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. (vv. 2-4)

According to these statements, there is something deeply personal and mysterious about the gift of tongues that inhibits its effectiveness in public settings. Prophecy, however, does not have the same limitation because it is an encouraging message expressed in the language of the audience.

Paul then explicitly states his preference, “I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy” (v. 5a). Does this mean Paul thinks everyone should speak in tongues? He has just made the point that the Spirit distributes gifts as he determines. He has just said that all do not have the same gift. He has just asked, “Do all speak in tongues?” with the implied answer “No.” In light of the context, Paul’s statement, “I would like every one of you to speak in tongues” cannot mean that he expects all to speak in tongues or prophesy. He is simply saying that he doesn’t have a problem with believers speaking in tongues, but there is something better.

Note the contrast in verse 5, “I would like . . . but I would rather.” What is he saying? If everyone could have the same gift, which they can’t as he has already explained, Paul would want that gift to be prophecy not speaking in tongues because “the one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified” (v. 5b).

In the first five verses of 1 Corinthians 14 Paul is trying to give the Corinthians a proper perspective of tongues because they have overestimated its importance in their public gatherings. He is not against speaking in tongues, but he is putting that gift in its place—prophecy is better than tongues. As a result, rather than urging his audience to speak in tongues, he urges them to prophesy: “Eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy . . . I would rather have you prophesy.”

Paul continues, “if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you . . . ?” He then makes an argument from instrumental sounds. Just as the pipe, harp, and trumpet must make distinct sounds for the audience to know what is being played, “So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air” (v. 9). He adds, “Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit, try to excel in those that build up the church” (v. 12).

Which gift does not build up the church?

Speaking in tongues: “Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church” (v. 4).

Paul proceeds by encouraging those who speak in tongues to pray that they may interpret because without an interpretation their words are meaningless to others (vv. 13-17). Although Paul has said negative things about speaking in tongues, he wants to make it clear that he is not opposed to the practice. In fact, he writes, “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you” (v. 18). Since that gift, however, is not useful in the church setting, he says: “But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue” (v. 19). Think of that: in the church “five intelligible words” are better than “ten thousand words in a tongue.”

As Paul ponders the Corinthian’s distorted view of tongues, he seems to be getting more irritated, leading to this charge: “stop thinking like children . . . in your thinking be adults” (v. 20). He explains that if visitors come in and hear everyone speaking in tongues, “will they not say that you are out of your mind?” (v. 23). I like Paul’s down-to-earth way of speaking and his sympathy for outsiders who walk into the meeting. In Paul’s view, simultaneous tongues’ speaking is madness to outsiders so it should not be practiced.

What is the solution to this chaos? “If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret” (v. 27). Paul is not saying that there must be speaking in tongues in every meeting, but if it happens, this is how it should proceed.

What if there is no interpreter? “If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God” (v. 28). In other words, without an interpreter, people should not speak in tongues in church.

Here, then, are Paul’s instructions for speaking in tongues in church:

  1. “two—or at the most three—should speak”
  2. “one at a time”
  3. “someone must interpret”
  4. “If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church”

The arguments in 1 Corinthians 14 lead me to this conclusion: Paul was not a fan of mass speaking in tongues in church. In fact, he was not a fan of speaking in tongues in church at all, unless it was followed by an interpretation. This is the opposite of what I experienced in Pentecostal services with people speaking in tongues simultaneously, and at times, the pastor or leader encouraging this behavior.

Why is Paul giving these instructions? Because he wants order to be maintained in Christian gatherings. “God is not a God of disorder but of peace” (v. 33) and “everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way” (v. 40).

Acts Versus 1 Corinthians

Comparing Acts 2 with 1 Corinthians 14 presents us with a difference. In Acts 2 the foreign audience understood the languages spoken whereas in 1 Corinthians 14 Paul says “no one understands” those who speak in tongues because “they utter mysteries by the Spirit” (v. 2). So which is it? Is speaking in tongues a miraculous expression of human languages or is it speaking an incomprehensible spiritual language?

Perhaps the answer is both. In A Shorter Guide to the The Holy Spirit, Anthony Thiselton identifies six views on the meaning of tongues which he divides into two main categories: the power to speak known foreign languages and “ecstatic” speech. He continues, “The Greek term genē glōssōn tells us at once that utterances in tongues need not be restricted to one particular understanding of tongues alone” (59). So, there may be different kinds of tongues, but still all do not speak in tongues.

On the other hand, the difference disappears when the miracle in Acts 2 is assigned to the hearers rather than the speakers. Thiselton notes that some think the miracle in Acts 2 was a miracle of hearing. The crowd “heard” the believers speaking in their native languages so, perhaps, the tongue speaking was not actually a foreign language.

Finally, maybe it is best to understand Paul as giving a general rule: In general no one understands tongues, but on special occasions, such as in the birth of the church in Acts 2, they can be understood.

In any case, the primary concern of this post—that all believers should speak in tongues—is not affected by this matter.

Acts Overview

Now let’s return to Acts. If Pentecostals believe Acts shows a pattern that must be followed today, they must pay closer attention to the details. First, the number of believers who speak in tongues in Acts:

  • possibly 120 (Acts 2; see 1:15)
  • Cornelius, his relatives and close friends (we don’t know the number, but let’s be generous and say 100) (Acts 10:24)
  • About 12 men (Acts 19:7)

So let’s round up and estimate 250 people maximum speak in tongues in Acts. While that is a significant number of people, it is only a small percentage of the total number of conversions in Acts. What about the following people who became believers?

  • three thousand who were baptized (2:41)
  • those who were being added daily (2:47)
  • the Ethiopian eunuch (8:38)
  • “all those who lived in Lydda and Sharon” (9:35)
  • “the great number of people” in Antioch (11:21)
  • the proconsul in Cyprus (13:12)
  • the Gentiles in Pisidian Antioch (13:48)
  • Lydia and her household (16:15)
  • the jailer and his household (16:33)
  • the Jews, “large number of God-fearing Greeks,” and prominent women in Thessalonica (17:4)
  • the many in Berea (17:12)
  • those who became followers in Athens (17:34)
  • Crispus and his entire household (18:8)
  • the many who believed in Ephesus (19:18)

Obviously, we have no way of knowing the exact number of these converts, but it was definitely several thousand. Did any of them speak in tongues?

Acts doesn’t say. If the author wanted to make the point that every believer must be baptized in the Spirit and speak in tongues, he missed many opportunities. He selected three examples and missed fourteen.

Second, how do people begin speaking in tongues in Acts? Did they pray for long periods of time to receive the gift of tongues? Did they encourage people to say a single incomprehensible word or make a particular sound? Did they even ask God for the gift of tongues?

None of those elements are included in the accounts. In Acts we see a sudden arrival of the Spirit leading to miraculous speech. The recipients speak new languages fluently, instantaneously, and unexpectedly. This is not what I observed in Pentecostal churches.

Third, this event is bound up with coming to faith in Christ.

  • While Peter was preaching in Cornelius’s home, “the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message,” they spoke in tongues, then they were baptized with water (Acts 10:44-48).
  • When Paul visited Ephesus he met with about twelve men who were baptized into John’s baptism. Paul taught them, then baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, placed his hands on them, and “the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied” (19:1-7). These first two examples do not support the Pentecostal doctrine of a subsequent experience to salvation/conversion because the events are bound together.
  • Admittedly, in Acts 8, we have a break in time between conversion and the arrival of the Holy Spirit, but this is unique and purposeful. After the Samaritans accepted the gospel message from Philip and were baptized in water, Peter and John visited and prayed for the new believers to receive the Spirit. When Peter and John laid their hands on them, they received the Holy Spirit (8:12-17). Having the leaders from Jerusalem give their approval and prayers for the new believers in Samaria shows unity between groups that were historically divided—Jews and Samaritans.

Fourth, in two of the three cases in Acts, the recipients of the Spirit do more than speak in tongues. In Acts 10, they speak in tongues and praise God (v. 46). In Acts 19, they speak in tongues and prophesy (v. 6). Is praising God or prophesying also “initial physical evidence”? If not, why not?

Fifth, contrary to modern Pentecostal teaching, Acts does not call speaking in tongues “initial physical evidence” nor does any other New Testament author.

Charles Parham

The first to identify speaking in tongues as the initial biblical evidence of being baptized with the Spirit was American evangelist Charles Parham (1873-1929). This is incredible in itself: in 1900 years of Christianity no one had made this explicit connection. Parham’s student William J. Seymour (1870-1922) took this unique teaching to Los Angeles, where Seymour became the leader of the Asuza Street Revival (1906-1915), which was characterized by intense spiritual experiences.

Surprisingly, when Parham visited the Mission in October 1906, he reacted with disgust at “animal noises, trances, shaking, jabbering,” and so forth. In fact, Seymour himself disowned some of these phenomena, preferring to emphasize the fruit of love. Tragically, there began a series of power struggles and splits, which marred claims to the unity of the Spirit among Pentecostals from the earliest days of the movement. Parham founded a rival community only five blocks away from Seymour . . . (185)

Parham also denounced Seymour’s meetings because the ecstatic speech he heard was not human languages. According to Parham, speaking in tongues should correspond to what happened in Acts 2—believers miraculously speaking known human languages for the purpose of evangelization. (For an historical account of these events, see this book.)

Summary

In sum, here are my problems with the doctrine that every believer should speak in tongues, along with a challenge to anyone who wants to refute this conclusion.

  • It is not taught anywhere in the New Testament. Find one place in the New Testament where it says every believer should speak in tongues.
  • It is contradicted by the New Testament. Paul asked, “Do all speak in tongues?” (1 Cor. 12:30). The answer to his question must be “no.” Explain how the answer could be “yes.”
  • It interprets the descriptive literature of Acts as prescriptive. Why should we interpret the narration of three episodes in Acts to mean that every believer today should have a similar experience?
  • It is a highly selective reading of Acts, focusing on three episodes while ignoring fourteen others. How could Acts teach that every believer should speak in tongues when it is silent on this issue in the majority of cases?
  • It is not a major or fundamental teaching in the New Testament. If speaking in tongues is a key teaching for all believers, why did Paul only mention it in one letter? Didn’t the believers in Rome, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, or Colossae need to know about this vital practice?

Conclusion

To know what applies to us today we must go with the direct teaching in prescriptive or didactic literature rather than examples in descriptive literature. Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 are the only direct teachings on speaking in tongues in the Bible. Instead of teaching that every believer should speak in tongues, Paul says the opposite.

In total, then, we have three stories in Acts and Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians. As noted above, no one else in the New Testament even mentions speaking in tongues. (Scholars do not believe Mark 16:9-20 is original to Mark’s Gospel because it is not found in the earliest manuscripts.) If nothing else, this limited data shows that speaking in tongues was not a major concern of the biblical authors and those who have made it a core teaching have blown it out of proportion.

I’m grateful for certain things in Pentecostal Christianity, such as an appreciation for the Spirit, who is often the forgotten member of the Trinity, and the importance of personal experience. And I am not a cessationist—I don’t see any reason to conclude that the gifts of the Spirit have ceased. But rather than believing every spirit, we should “test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 Jn 4:1). Hence, we should be cautious about accepting every miraculous claim we hear.

The biblical data leads me to this conclusion: the distinct teaching of Pentecostal Christianity, that all believers can and should speak in tongues, is a misinterpretation of Scripture. To be more direct, it is a false teaching.

 

65 thoughts on “A Problem with Pentecostalism: Speaking in Tongues in the Bible”

  1. We all have a tendency to align ourselves with a carnal identity rather than a Kingdom Identity. We are Christians because we align with Christ, but we are Pentecostal or Baptist, because we are carnal. Why do we say we follow ________, ————, —————. Are we not carnal? Christ and He crucified or we will always be divided.

    Reply
    • Good article John. You got it right for the most part but I believe your overall conclusion is still not correct. While I agree with you that Paul’s intention was to forbid speaking in tongues in public settings when there’s no accompaniment of interpretation, I disagree that Paul also meant that not everyone should speak in tongues.
      To cut to the chase, examine the Greek verb tense in 1 Cor 12:30 where “lalousin” is used and is translated as “speak.” This is a present tense verb in the Greek, indicative of continuous, ongoing action in this verse. Thus, in my opinion, v.30 should read “Not all “speaking” (ongoing action) in tongues, do they? In other words, Paul is stating that not all should be speaking in tongues at the same time when meeting together particularly when no one is also not interpreting. This only makes for confusion when the saints meet together. He is not making a declarative statement that not all Christians speak in tongues. After all, why would he make such a declaration when in 1 Cor 14:5 Paul states that he wishes that all would be speaking in tongues? Paul cannot contradict himself. Either he wishes all people be speaking in tongues or he declares that not all speak in tongues, but it cannot be both.
      I think this interpretation fits much better within the whole context of chapter 12 instead of going beyond what the verb tense indicates by claiming that Paul is also stating that not all “speak” in tongues. To make matters even more confusing, the English Bible translators lack consistency in translating speak vs speaking as seen earlier in 12:3, where the same word lalōn, which is a present tense participle is rendered as “speak.” when it should instead read “speaking.” This mistranslation or inattention to the verb tenses has caused great controversy when there need not be any, in my opinion.

      Reply
      • Understanding 1 Cor 14:5 in light of 1 Cor 12:30 is challenging, but I don’t think your solution works. First, your proposed translation of 1 Cor 12:30 is not supported by any English Bible version. See the translations here. If your translation was viable I would expect to see at least a couple of versions using it. Second, Paul’s “wish” is not a statement of fact. It is simply a wish, which means it does not have to be a reality. Third, translation depends on context so the same Greek word does not always have to be translated in exactly the same way.

        Reply
  2. Thank you for posting this, I knew I wasn’t crazy in reading the scripture and coming to this conclusion myself. It makes it difficult to find a church that has this belief they all seem to be to strong “Pentecostal” or the gifts are no longer active.

    Reply
    • Erica,

      Yes, it’s human nature to go to the extremes, but wisdom is often in the middle. I remember meeting a pastor many years ago who worked in a Wesleyan church. He was open to the gifts, but he said they never had anyone speak in tongues during a service in a public way.

      Reply
      • Church is entertainment, money raised no doubt for missions etc but. Says Sir Winston Churchill, what comes after BUT, our. Buts. Too.

        19 years old I rebellious, got saved and few days later received infill of baptism speaking in tongues. Polish language, I just got out of high school . Went yo city to get away. The proverbial prodigal kid.
        Pentecostal church located in building off nain street, outside looked like anything but church

        Polish sailor dicked at the wharf of the city .. wandered up the street, heard singing and entered building thinking it was tavern.

        Prayer meeting night, the holy spirit was real. I had received earlier in the month. I felt to stand up and had Bible in KY hand, everywhere I pointed it was go preach gisirl etc.
        As I spoke my language changed from English to Polish.

        Interpreter came next day write the sailirs story down, KY oadtyr had documented my vision and what I thought it meant in English.
        Comparison done was perfectly confirmed that I spoke fluently in Polish.

        My vision I imparted was I saw cobbled stoned road and limo back drove by Wright Iron railings and a man stepped Dien from the church was killed. I saw people like sheep and one man with old cap on salt. Pepper style I warned if he rejected Jesus would be killed… the church I saw in vision was typical. Old architecture and each platform had a rising podium to enter and speak from. The sailor was saved. Dust know a word of English.

        Missionary too in inuit. Shack of a church had visitor from Hull, England working anobst the natives. She came to the runned down building , as service progressed a womN native jumps up and talked British language gave her the guidelines for salvation sat down. Later after closing English Lady said I want to speak to her, she said to Eskimo you are from Hull, England, womanhood at her astonished ,uneducated and two teeth in her head, the missionary Said these are unlearned natives can’t speak English. The lady received christ. So that’s how she gies . My friend.
        I did piano for pentecostal. Assemblies 60 years. Big changes in acceptance today of ACTS OF APOSTLES .

        I DONT JUDGE CHURCHS OR EVANGELISNS APPROACH BUT JUST TEACHING AND SOCIAL HOURS RARELY GETS CONVERTS. WE CAN ALL APORECIATE THE GREAT CATHEDRALS AND THE NARTIN LUTHER STURUES BUT REALLY BOTTOM LONE IS FREEDOM OF THE SPIRIT AND HOW GOD CAN DTILL CHANGE LIVES WITHOUT ALL THE HYPE, RAISING OF FUNDINGS OVER AND ABOVE WHAT IS NEEDED AND SOFT SEAT ON SUNDAYS. DAKE CARNAGES .HOW TO WIN AND INFLUENCE PEOPLE, QUESTION IS DOES GOD THAT WE KNOW AND HOLY SPIRIT WE VE KNOW STILL WORK TODAY. SO MANY SOULS AT STAKE.

        Reply
    • I will let the word of God speak for itself as it should, read 2 Tim 3:5.
      Receiving the baptisim in the Holy Spirit isn’t for yourself, it is for power to witness, to help you be that witness. Jesus command Matt. 28:19.
      enought said

      Reply
  3. Great article. Finally, someone who ask the same questions that I have often wondered about. However, I would like your view on what the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is.

    Reply
    • Richard,

      Good question. Let me first address another question. Is there a difference between being filled with the Spirit and being baptized in the Spirit or are they simply different ways of referring to the same thing? I don’t see a major difference between them because in Acts 1 Jesus said “For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (v. 5) then a few days later “All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:4). It seems to be different ways of referring to the same thing.

      Regarding evidence for being “filled with the Spirit,” which is used much more in the New Testament than “baptized with the Spirit,” speaking in tongues, praising God in words and song, or even making a proclamation are all mentioned. Here is what happened to Elizabeth in Luke 1: “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!” (vv. 41-42).

      Paul writes, “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Eph. 5:18-20)

      And Jesus said his followers would “receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

      The point is the Bible never says all who are filled or baptized with the Spirit must show one particular type of evidence.

      Reply
      • Hi Lee,

        You say being baptized in the Holy Spirit is the same thing as being filled with the Holy Spirit. But isn’t there a sense that baptism of the Holy Spirit is a one-time experience whereas being filled with the Holy Spirit is a recurrent thing that can happen over and over again? Being baptized in the Holy Spirit can involve being filled with the Holy Spirit, but there could be repeated fillings of the Holy Spirit subsequent to the initial baptism of the Holy Spirit.

        In the book of Acts, we find that the disciples got baptized in the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2), and they were filled with the Holy Spirit on this occasion. However, in Acts 4, we find that the same disciples got filled again with the Holy Spirit: “After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.” (Acts 4:31). In Ephesians 5:18, Paul admonishes the Ephesian believers to “be filled with the Spirit”, which seems to imply that being filled with the Spirit is something we should experience continually and, perhaps, again and again.

        What do you think?

        Reply
        • Carl,

          Here’s what I said: I don’t see a major difference between them because in Acts 1 Jesus said “For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (v. 5) then a few days later “All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:4).

          From that example, the “filled/baptized” language is used interchangeably.

          I agree that the “filled” language is used much more frequently and being filled seems to indicate an on-going process. But I don’t think we have enough data to say that being filled with the Spirit is something different in essence from being baptized with the Spirit. And I think the example above clearly points us toward seeing baptized and filled in similar ways.

          Les

          Reply
          • Les, I agree.

            The baptism of water and that in the Holy Spirit are alike in that both are accomplished by immersion. In the book of Acts, the Greek verb ‘baptizo’ is used to describe both baptisms, meaning to immerse. It implies submersion.

            In Acts 1: 5 the Greek text uses the preposition ‘en’ with the verb ‘baptizo’. In the koine Greek language ‘en’ can also mean in, not only with. Hence it means that a person who are baptized in the Holy Spirit, is completely immersed in the Spirit.

            In Acts 13: 9 – 10 and verse 52; we read that the apostles walked with the Lord and was continually filled with the Holy Spirit, so they could do the will of God. We can therefore conclude that you are filled with the Holy Spirit more than once.

            Greetings
            Lars

      • Les your Calvinism is showing, the gift of speaking in tongues is amazing, Paul agreed first look at 1Corinthian 14:2, you can’t get more bless than speaking directly to God Almighty! done miss it, check out Paul 1Corinthians 14:18 Paul was having a great time talking it over with GOD, it looks like with all Paul did he was well impowered by speaking in tongues. You know all you have to do is ask, get rid of legalism and fear and you will be blessed speaking in tongues to your Heavenly Father, Amen, Blessings

        Reply
        • With all due respect, your comments don’t reflect what Bridgeman wrote. He never said that speaking in tongues wasn’t biblical. He only said that it isn’t a gift for all believers and that it isn’t the initial evidence of being baptized in the Holy Spirit, and he arrived at these conclusions by reasoning through Scripture. Also, you remarked that his “Calvinism is showing,” but, as he wrote in one of his responses (8/22/22), he is not a cessationist. This was written after your comment, so this is not a criticism, just a clarification.

          Reply
        • The word is clear, NOT everyone, and AFTER the day of Pentecost, it is written, not to have more than 1 at a time and someone is to interpret this is rare to see in church.

          Reply
  4. everyone can speak in a tongue, but not everyone has the gift of prophesying in a tongue and interpretation of speaking it forth in an assembly.” do all speak in tongues [prophecy]do all interpretate” 1cor 12;28 b ”various kinds of tongues” you haven’t really studied from the bible about
    the gift of tongues. you listened to and read other peoples opinions on the subject .
    ”tongues of men and of angels” so, not always a human tongue. when you pray in tongues
    privately, God will speak and direct angels through you eph 3 ;10. or, you could be rebuking demonic forces or binding them. or praying for someone. tongues is not for proof of the baptism but a weapon of power and of faith building Jude 1;20 maybe a re-study with an open mind would help

    Reply
    • Hi Patrick,

      In 1 Corinthians 13:1 where Paul mentions something about tongues of men and of angels, he is NOT teaching that the gift of tongues can manifest as tongues of angels. It is a serious error of interpretation to conclude that Paul is teaching tongues of angels as one form of the gift of tongues.

      Paul used hyperbole (exaggeration) to describe a hypothetical scenario when he spoke of “tongues of angels” in 1 Corinthians 13:1. All you need to do in order to get at the correct interpretation of this verse is to look at the very next verse. In the very next verse (1 Cor. 13:2), Paul says: “And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge, and though I have ALL faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.”

      Paul says in verse 2 that even IF he could “understand ALL mysteries and all knowledge . . . “. Now, I want you to ask yourself this question: is there any human being who can understand ALL mysteries and who has ALL knowledge? It is impossible for any human being to understand all mysteries and to have all knowledge, regardless of how much spiritual gifts he/she possesses. Only God understands all mysteries, and it is only God Who has all knowledge. So, Paul is clearly using hyperbolic language to describe a hypothetical scenario in this verse. Paul himself did not have all knowledge nor did he understand all mysteries. In verse 14, Paul admitted that he didn’t have all knowledge when he said, “I know in PART, . . . . “. So, Paul knew in PART, not in full.

      Since Paul did not understand all mysteries and did not possess all knowledge, what does he mean when he says: “Though I understand all mysteries and all knowledge” (1 Cor. 13:1)? Well, he is not claiming that he understood all mysteries nor is he claiming to possess all knowledge. Rather, his point is: “Even IF I understood all mysteries and even IF I had all knowledge, it would amount to nothing if I did not also have love.” This is simply the point that Paul making here. He is NOT saying that he actually understood all mysteries nor is he saying that he actually had all knowledge.

      By the same token, Paul statement in verse 1 “Though I speak in the tongues of angels” does not mean he actually spoke in the tongues of angels nor does it mean that there is a type of tongues consisting of angelic language. What Paul is simply saying in verse 1 is, even IF it were possible for him to speak both in the tongues of men and of angels, it would amount to nothing if he did not have love. We can be sure this is the correct interpretation by looking at the context of this statement, which means examining the surrounding verses (verses 2 and 3). We’ve already examined verse 2 where we found that Paul was using hyperbolic language to speak hypothetically when he said “Though I understand all mysteries and have all knowledge”. Context is key in interpretation of scriptures. If you ignore the context of a specific verse and try to interpret the verse in isolation, you are likely to end up with an erroneous interpretation.

      We need to be very careful about how we interpret scriptures. The problem with Pentecostals is that they very often ignore the context of a passage and interpret individual verses of scripture in isolation, which is a recipe for error. The Bible tells us to “rightly divide” the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). To righty divide the Word of God simply means to correctly interpret it. The Bible student is to very carefully cut and divide the Word of God in order to understand it aright.

      Reply
      • Victor, I fully agree with you. Reading a verse in the Bible in context, is the key to a truthful understanding.

        We should always use exegesis, never insert our own private opinions into a biblical text. Exegesis is legitimate interpretation which “reads out of’ the text what the original author or authors meant to convey. Eisegesis, which is the opposite, reads into the text what the interpreter wishes to find or thinks he finds in the text.

        Reply
  5. I just want to thank you Les for your time to explain all of this. I am a christian who was raised in the Nazarene church but have attended Freewill baptist and Church of God ,Anderson Indiana groups and branches off that.Also I attend baptist and go with my wife to The Assembly of God where of course they teach exactly like you say here. I don’t understand how they can turn it on speaking in tongues in prayer at the request of the leader in a little prayer group. Great people though. I believe The Holy Spirit is His own witness to whether we are filled with The Spirit of God or not. Anyways ,I just want to say thank yopu so much for your article and it means more to me coming from one with your background how you were raised and have a better understanding,etc of this subject matter,along with all of the scripture you gave. Excellent job. Thanks again. bob grimm

    Reply
  6. Sidetracked from the more excellent way of faith hoop and love as Paul gives us. The question is why do we do this? Who do we fight against? We are drawn away of our own lusts.

    Reply
  7. Hi Les,

    Great article and a timely one too. I couldn’t agree more with you. I have been in the Pentecostal church for decades and I believed everything they taught about tongues without taking the time to do a personal Bible study. But over the past few months, as I began to prayerfully study this topic of tongues and to depend on the Holy Spirit to give me understanding. it soon became clear to me that much of the Pentecostal teaching on tongues is a man-made doctrine that does not stand a thorough biblical scrutiny and, thus, is not scripturally sustainable. There are lots of inconsistencies in their doctrine on tongues. One of the first things that struck me about the Pentecostal view of tongues is their belief that there are two types of tongues even though the Bible does not teach two types of tongues. It is weird! They use this belief in two types of tongues to get around Paul’s very clear teaching that speaking in tongues is not meant for every believer (1 Cor. 12:30). Furthermore, they insist that tongues are non-human “angelic” languages even though the tongues in the book of Acts were clearly human languages. When Pentecostals want to support their view that tongues are meant for all believers, they go to the book of Acts to try and use the few episodes of tongues-speaking in Acts to support their view, but when it comes to determining the nature of tongues, they reject the clear lesson in the book of Acts that tongues are foreign human languages previously unlearned by the speaker; instead, they insist that tongues are non-human gibberish which no human being on earth can understand. What inconsistency! Their view on the nature of tongues is based on a misinterpretation of verses in 1 Corinthians 14. Yet in 1 Cor. 14:22, Paul says tongues are a sign for unbelievers. How can tongues be a sign for unbelievers if tongues are utterances which no human being understands? Had the disciples spoken non-human gibberish on the Day of Pentecost, they would not have attracted the attention of the crowd of unbelieving diaspora Jews on that day.

    Another error in the Pentecostal view of tongues is thei idea that tongues are meant for private devotion, and this is based on a misinterpretation of isolated verses in 1 Corinthians 14. Tongues cannot be for private use because Paul categorically says in 1 Corinthians 12:7 that all spiritual gifts (including the gift of tongues) are given for the collective benefit or common good of the church rather than for personal edification. Peter reiterates this same fact in 1 Peter 4:10 where he says spiritual gifts are meant to be used to serve others in the church. This is one of the reasons that Paul said in 1 Cor. 14:4 that he preferred prophecy over the gift of tongues in the context of public worship in the church. In 1 Cor. 14:4, Paul says, “He who speaks in a tongue (i.e., uninterpreted tongue during a church service) edifies himself [this violates the purpose of spiritual gifts as stated in 1 Cor. 12:7] whereas he who prophesies edifies the church [this fulfills the purpose of spiritual gifts]. Consequently, Paul says he prefers prophecy over tongues. Strangely, the very reason that Paul gave for preferring prophecy over tongues — the fact he who speaks in a tongue during public worship only edifies himself and does not edify the church — is what Pentecostals now use to justify their teaching of private use of tongues.

    There are many other errors in the Pentecostal view of tongues which time will fail me to talk about here. Although I am still in the Pentecostal church, my loyalty is, first and foremost, to the Word of God and not to the doctrine of the church.

    Reply
    • I think the article has some valid points, and I agree with many of them as you do. One thing I’d like to point out, however, comes from 1 Corinthians 13:1, “If I speak in tongues of men OR angels…” This implies that there are two types of tongues.

      That being said, even though I was raised in the AoG I have never taken the firm position that everyone MUST speak in tongues to be baptized in the Spirit. It certainly is evidence that occurs in a number of the stories in Acts, but that lends to probability rather than an absolute.

      I also don’t think that the gift of tongues is given to all, as Paul notes. However, that doesn’t mean anyone couldn’t speak in tongues if the Spirit enables.

      Reply
      • Hi JT,

        In 1 Corinthians 13:1 where Paul mentions something about tongues of men and of angels, he is NOT teaching that the gift of tongues can manifest as tongues of angels. It is a serious error of interpretation to conclude that Paul is teaching tongues of angels as one form of the gift of tongues.

        Paul used hyperbole (exaggeration) to describe a hypothetical scenario when he spoke of “tongues of angels” in 1 Corinthians 13:1. All you need to do in order to get at the correct interpretation of this verse is to look at the very next verse. In the very next verse (1 Cor. 13:2), Paul says: “And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge, and though I have ALL faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.”

        Paul says in verse 2 that even IF he could “understand ALL mysteries and all knowledge . . . “. Now, I want you to ask yourself this question: is there any human being who can understand ALL mysteries and who has ALL knowledge? It is impossible for any human being to understand all mysteries and to have all knowledge, regardless of how much spiritual gifts he/she possesses. Only God understands all mysteries, and it is only God Who has all knowledge. So, Paul is clearly using hyperbolic language to describe a hypothetical scenario in this verse. Paul himself did not have all knowledge nor did he understand all mysteries. In verse 14, Paul admitted that he didn’t have all knowledge when he said, “I know in PART, . . . . “. So, Paul knew in PART, not in full.

        Since Paul did not understand all mysteries and did not possess all knowledge, what does he mean when he says: “Though I understand all mysteries and all knowledge” (1 Cor. 13:1)? Well, he is not claiming that he understood all mysteries nor is he claiming to possess all knowledge. Rather, his point is: “Even IF I understood all mysteries and even IF I had all knowledge, it would amount to nothing if I did not also have love.” This is simply the point that Paul making here. He is NOT saying that he actually understood all mysteries nor is he saying that he actually had all knowledge.

        By the same token, Paul statement in verse 1 “Though I speak in the tongues of angels” does not mean he actually spoke in the tongues of angels nor does it mean that there is a type of tongues consisting of angelic language. What Paul is simply saying in verse 1 is, even IF it were possible for him to speak both in the tongues of men and of angels, it would amount to nothing if he did not have love. We can be sure this is the correct interpretation by looking at the context of this statement, which means examining the surrounding verses (verses 2 and 3). We’ve already examined verse 2 where we found that Paul was using hyperbolic language to speak hypothetically when he said “Though I understand all mysteries and have all knowledge”. Context is key in interpretation of scriptures. If you ignore the context of a specific verse and try to interpret the verse in isolation, you are likely to end up with an erroneous interpretation.

        We need to be very careful about how we interpret scriptures. The problem with Pentecostals is that they very often ignore the context of a passage and interpret individual verses of scripture in isolation, which is a recipe for error. The Bible tells us to “rightly divide” the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). To righty divide the Word of God simply means to correctly interpret it. The Bible student is to very carefully cut and divide the Word of God in order to understand it aright.

        Reply
    • Victor,

      Nice job pointing out the inconsistencies. I agree that the two types of tongues idea is crucial to the Pentecostal interpretation of the New Testament.

      Reply
      • Yet my fanikyes and church famikes. Who never spoke in tongues. Said this often. Tongues doesn’t give you wings or once saved always saved cliche but.. when people who have stood up prophesied in congregation in few days fell from grace, some parachuted and family s comments Said I wouldn’t do that or cus or commit sin willfully and I don’t speak in tongues. Yet today mist are in heaven. Died to world a martyrs death ,defy this nope.

        Reply
  8. Les, thank you so much for your viewpoint on this. Especially coming from someone who has been in the Pentecostal environment themselves. I go to a church that is considered a “family” church on the marquee, but many there claim the Pentecostal title. Just recently the associate pastor, for lack of better words, attempted to force the Holy Spirit into me. I found this truly heart wrenching. I am on absolute fire for the Lord, and I do not speak in tongues. If the same Spirit that raised Jesus Christ from the grave dwells in me already, then who are we trying to invite in? I totally agree we spend way too much time on pursuing denominations, history and theology, when we need to spend that effort on staying focused on Jesus Christ and introducing others to Him. If a babe in Christ were to walk into a Pentecostal service, it would chase them away. Scripture is very clear on this ‘topic’. I leave with this last question: If we are called to be like Christ, or live like Christ, and nowhere do I read that Jesus spoke in tongues, then…….???? You can not get more full of the Holy Spirit than Jesus Himself, yet Scripture never mentions Him speaking in tongues. The only language we need is the language of ‘truth and love’. God bless you my brother for your obedience to the Kingdom!

    Reply
    • Todd,

      Thanks for sharing your experience and perspective. That pastor was simply following Pentecostal teaching—everyone should speak in tongues. And if someone doesn’t speak in tongues, there is a problem. But the real problem is with that teaching.

      Reply
      • I am new to the Pentecostal church and have been having a real hard time coming to grips with this issue of tongues. I am lead to believe now that it is a holy language between you and god and that this may be spoken in a church environment what is the scriptural view on this

        Reply
  9. Bob, it sounds like we have a similar story. God bless you my brother for staying focused on Jesus Christ and His truth. AMEN!

    Reply
  10. Hi Lee,

    Your article says the Bible teaches only one type of tongues, not two. If this is the case, does it mean that all those who spoke in tongues in the book of Acts (the 120 disciples in Acts 2; Cornelius and his kinsmen in Acts 10; and the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19) received the spiritual gift of diverse kinds of tongues (the one listed in 1 Cor. 12:10) at the moment of their salvation/baptism of with the Holy Spirit? If so, why would ALL 120 disciples (Acts 2), ALL of the Gentiles in Cornelius’ house (Acts 10), and ALL of John the Baptist’s disciples (Acts 19) speak in tongues given the fact that the gift of diverse tongues described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12 is NOT meant for all believers (1 Cor. 12:30)? Why would everyone in each of these 3 groups exercise a gift that is not meant for everyone?

    Also, if the tongues spoken in the book of Acts at the moment of salvation/baptism of the Holy Spirit by these three groups (the disciples of Jesus; the Gentiles at Cornelius’ house; and the disciples of John the Baptist) are the same tongues described by Paul in 1 Corinthians, why is it that there is no record of Paul himself speaking in tongues at the moment he received the Holy Spirit following his salvation in the book of Acts? Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 14 that he spoke in tongues more than all the Corinthian believers, which confirms that he had the gift of diverse kinds of tongues. Yet there is no evidence that he spoke tongues at the moment he received the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts. Does this mean he received his gift of tongues much later, subsequent to his receiving the Holy Spirit? If so, that would be a departure from the pattern we see in the book of Acts where people spoke in tongues at the moment they received the Holy Spirit/salvation. How do we explain this?

    I’d appreciate insights on these questions/ comments.

    God bless you.

    Reply
    • Carl,

      It sounds like you haven’t accepted or processed a main point I made in the post–the difference between prescriptive and descriptive literature. Just because it happened–even it was to all–doesn’t mean it is telling us what should happen today. And the prescriptive literature we have in the New Testament clearly says all will not speak in tongues, so that is what we should expect to happen today.

      Again, I simply cannot see any way that Luke, the author of Acts, expected his audience to interpret his book as saying that all believers must speak in tongues. First of all, he was writing history or descriptive literature. Second, he included three examples of speaking in tongues, but did not mention tongues in at least fourteen other cases, which compose the vast majority of converts in Acts. That is not the recipe for making the persuasive point that all should speak in tongues. And the history of Bible interpretation supports the previous sentence because until Charles Parham in the late 1800s-early 1900s the Pentecostal doctrine didn’t exist, meaning no one had interpreted Acts in that way. So was this really the point Luke was making and everyone missed it until Parham or was this not the point Luke was making?

      Paul says “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you” (1 Cor. 14:18), but I don’t think anyone knows for certain when he first spoke in tongues. Evidently, that was not important enough for Luke to include in Acts or Paul to mention in his letters so I don’t think there is any point in speculating about it.

      Thanks for your questions.

      Les

      Reply
      • The Bible wasn’t easily accessible to a lay person to understand in their own language for hundreds and hundreds of years post Jesus. I should certainly be thankful that the reformation of the 1500s made the scriptures accessible. Without this accessibility and the scholarship that followed it’s unlikely that this thread would even exist 🙂 While the apparent gap between NT episodes of tongues-speaking and the phenomena in the welsh revival and Azusa deal is a gap which raises suspicions, it may be progress, it may point to something that helps us get closer to the truth, just like the Bible translated into the language of the people represents progress. We should scrutinize new things for sure. Seems like it’s more important to have the spirit of the Lord in our lives and deal with the gifts of the Spirit, roles in the body of Christ and let the tongues controversy be saved for later on, maybe it will be resolved as a by product.

        Reply
  11. Les,
    I’m an associate pastor in the Church of the Nazarene, a female pastor at that. I just want to thank you for your clear and consistent interpretation of the teaching of Paul and the recording of events in Acts. I feel a certain sadness when I hear believers in Christ who are more enthusiastic at advancing a particular doctrine than they seem to be in Christ Himself. Especially when that doctrine leaves many feeling as though they have missed something. I see the Holy Spirit so very evidently in many, many believers who have never received the gifts of tongues. Our gifts are according to His giving and for His purpose. Whatever our gifts are, they are to be used in the joyful participation of building and edifying the Kingdom and glorifying the King!

    I’m encouraged by your words, and I thank you for using your gifts to help others “rightly divide” the word of truth!

    Reply
  12. One of the most well written pieces of blasphemy out there. You have, by your own admission, spoken in tongues. Either this was genuine as the Spirit gave the utterance, or you faked it based on pressure.

    If it was real, and you have stated as much through a witness, then this article blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. If it was fake and forced from pressure, then this article is simply fallacy at its best, as everything discussed in your opening discussion can be easily backed through the Bible.

    Lastly, your interpretation of first 3 points you made are incorrect in theology and doctrine alike, this it renders the entire article false.

    People need to be very careful how the publish articles to confound the believers and unbelievers alike.

    Reply
    • Richard,

      I don’t understand your logic. Also, you made strong claims, such as calling my article “simply fallacy at its best” and entirely “false,” but you did not support your claims with evidence.

      Blessings,

      Les

      Reply
  13. “And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues” Mark 16:17

    “For anyone who speaks in a tongue a does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.” 1 Corinthians 14:2

    “Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. I WOULD LIKE FOR EVERY ONE OF YOU TO SPEAK IN TONGUES”
    1 Corinthians 14:4-5

    Reply
    • 5 I wish that all of you could speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets so that the church may be edified.

      Reply
    • You did not complete verse 5. You only quoted the first part of it. You will notice that the second part of the verse says, “…but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.”
      My understanding is that speaking in tongues is not a must for a believer. It is the gift of the Holy Spirit, and it is best at use when an individual is communicating with God. If it must be publicly verbalized, then there should be an interpretation. The whole essence is for the edification of the church. How will anyone one benefit when there is no interpretation?

      Reply
  14. great article….1st corinthians 13:8-10 Paul is talking about gifts…He distively says that ..when that which is perfect (or complete) has come, gifts will cease .The gifts that were giving was to confirm the word of God..we have everything..for direction .edification. knowledge within the Word.The pentecostals are the only ones that do this..The laying on of hands ended with the death of the apostles. in the book of ephesians. Paul talked about the whole armour of God .He said ..take the Spirit of God. which the Word .The word should indwell within us.taking the whole sum of God’s word is time consuming. The three thousand that was Baptised ,was immersed in water and added to the Church. the well is deep..

    Reply
  15. If Jesus go wanted some Angelical language/praying Matthew6:…. Would’ve been a perfect time for Jesus to mention unknown tongues!

    Reply
  16. Does anyone else tire of these pseudo-apologists, filled with calming words, filled with philosophy, always seeking to justify unbelief? Tongues is for every believer. It is a private, holy, divine prayer language, speaking not to men but to God. The manifestation of tongues…speaking out loud to others…should be done with interpretation. It is worth noting that in every instance these same tongues deniers exhibit NONE of the gifts of the Spirit; there is NO manifestation of ANY of the gifts in their lives. For others, I guess.

    Reply
  17. Blessings to you Les,
    I’m 38 and have been Pentecostal all my life and for awhile I thought that something was wrong with me because I was always taught that speaking in tongues was evidence to the Holy Spirit. I know that I’m not perfect, but my Heavenly Father knows that I die daily to turn away from my sinful ways. When I started to focus more on studying the scriptures for myself and came across Ist Corinthians 12&14 my soul was filled with so much joy and a huge weight was lifted off my shoulders. I would love for God to bless me with any of the spiritual gifts, but it’s wonderful to know that they’re not requirements to the Holy Spirit and God’s Kingdom. So, thank you brother and may God bless you with more wisdom.

    Reply
  18. Hi guys

    I don’t like blanket proclamations, like it’s all fake, and the like.
    But it’s all fake….. Just kidding.

    It seems to me(I’ve got 50± years of experience),

    Everything I’ve heard is precisely what a person does when they mimic a language they don’t know. I do this joking around in pretend German “Strisen Clausen, von housen,” or Chinese “ching Jong wing Wong”.
    Notice I end with all the same sounds. When these people riff… I always hear “Shala ma, shocka shalaba shamana”
    It’s so predictable and nothing like real language. In fact it is beyond childish.
    Now some have practiced to the point where they don’t do this too much anymore. It depends on how closely you’ve heard other languages and what type of language.

    Consider this: if this is the language angels have – then any linguistics expert could piece together the structure by aligning the commonalities. What is “Shalama”? Shoka?

    I’m sorry, this appears to be people of weak faith, relying on signs instead Christ and the ones pridefully asserting they are special and we are somehow less…. Well, they are disgusting and the opposite of what they believe. Of course not all do this. Many are fine Christians.

    It’s sad actually but encompasses all of Christianity in one form or another. They ditch the utter simplicity of the gospel – something a child can understand – and trade it for the idea that they are enlightened and special. The Holy Spirit is not enough for them.

    Reply
    • It’s so predictable and nothing like real language. In fact it is beyond childish.
      Remember the baby angels flying around on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? Assuming they were old enough to speak,, they surely spoke like babbling (as in Babel) children.

      Reply
  19. Les , I resonate with many of the points you make in this article as I was born and raised UPCI. About 3 years ago I was pushed into studying some things out in the Word of God.
    I began to see error in the UPCI . During that time I discovered reformed theology and the questions and uncertainty regarding UPCI doctrine grew , as you can imagine.

    I am alternating between a my UPC church and a Reformed Baptist church , my knowledge and appreciation for the Gospel has soared to new heights although I still have many unaswered questions and conflictions internally.

    my question : since we see in services today all across the world the classic : ” i attended a revival and was convicted and repented and raised my hands and began to speak in tongues just like they did on Pentecost then was baptized in Jesus name that night ” type of thing —–what do we do with it ? Experiences are very convincing.

    when does someone receive the Holy Spirit – ? when they “simply believe and place trust in Jesus’s work on Calvary” or afterwards like in Acts

    please respond when you are able , thanks

    Reply
    • Hi Jonathan,

      Great questions. Regarding the experience you described, since I’m not a cessationist, I am open to the possibility that it is genuine. However, I also think it’s possible that it could be the result of social influence, especially if the setting involved the teaching that everyone can and should speak in tongues as well as several people doing so at the time.

      Since no “one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor 12:3), I think people receive the Holy Spirit when they trust in Christ/affirm his Lordship (cf. Eph 1:13; Rom 8:9).

      Reply
  20. Les I think you make some VERY important points. I too was raised in the same religion and belief system. I was assured by a mother that until I was filled I was not yet saved.
    She spoke in tongues , prophesied and interpreted. At 13 yrs old I believed God was speaking to me through her. I made many trips tearfully to the alter to receive the necessary
    Gift. She told me the problem was my lack of faith…go back into the closet and “pray through” After years of failure I listened to satan who made me decide I was just too evil &
    God would never accept me. In my spirit I gave up…sank into depression and almost died. I
    believe there are thousands of people in these churches that have experienced the same thing to some degree. God never gave up on me and many years ago he brought me back into the fold that that I had always been in but was unaware of for a while. These are are well meaning mostly good Christian people. I don’t believe they all understand how dangerous this doctrine can be for some people and what a great weapon it can be for satan to lead souls away from God! You have done a very good thing here. I hope you make it even better by continuing to add new light as time goes by. I am sure there
    are thousands more out there right now suffering in darkness and pain of imagined rejection by God God Bless you Will M

    Reply
    • Will,

      Thanks for sharing your story and thanks for your encouragement. Feel free to share this article with anyone who can benefit. The truth leads to freedom; lies lead to bondage and despair.

      Reply
  21. Hey Les,

    I have also been raised Pentecostal but have recently started to have several questions and finding inconsistencies within the doctrine. My biggest question is this, do we get filled with the spirit when we get saved? People often times say “she got the Holy Ghost” but doesn’t everyone get the Holy Ghost when they get saved? If you could just explain this line of thinking for me and show what the Bible says on it I would greatly appreciate it.

    Reply
    • Hi Gabby,

      Since no “one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor 12:3), I think people receive the Holy Spirit when they trust in Christ/affirm his Lordship (cf. Eph 1:13; Rom 8:9). However, we are also commanded to “be filled with the Spirit.” This spiritual filling is described as “speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph 5:19-20). The fact that Paul gave this command to believers indicates that we can live in a way that is less than full of the Spirit. It is also shows that being filled with the Spirit is an ongoing experience, not a one-time event.

      Reply
      • Hi Les,

        God bless you real good for this article. I have a question from your response to Gabby: are you saying that when we start “speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit” then we are filled automatically?

        I know it was important for the disciples to wait to get filled because they never had the Spirit in them because Jesus had not died yet, so to them salvation and the filling of the Spirit were two distinct experiences. But to us today that the Spirit of God has been available even before we were born is it safe to say that the Spirit of God comes into us at salvation and we get more filled as we carryout spiritual exercises like Bible study, praying, singing and fellowshipping with other believers?

        Thanks Les.

        King

        Reply
        • Hi King,

          I have tended to view things in the opposite direction from what you stated—-first we are filled then we do those things. In Ephesians 5 Paul writes, “Instead, be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

          Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (18b-21)

          But I have to admit that the order of events as in cause and effect may not be clearly expressed in Paul’s statement. Perhaps things can go in both directions–from filled to singing or from singing to filled. Still, I think, when we gather data from other places in the NT, it makes more sense to assume this order: filled first then certain behaviors and attitudes follow.

          Reply
  22. Great article, I have much of the same beliefs, but am curious if you have written anything on baptism or the man made standards in the church?

    Thanks

    Reply
  23. I decided to follow Jesus’s teachings as a teenager. I shopped around for a church, one of which was Pentecostal. The Wednesday evening service was where teenagers attended and often allowed visiting preachers to come. As a general observation, both the resident pastor and the visiting preachers pushed for we teens to experience speaking in tongues hoping thereby to prove we had been filled with the Spirit. We faked it to be cool. It was like playing a game of “Babble” and we had fun playing along. We kids never felt anything from God but we “fit in”, had fun, and the preachers were none the wiser. As for visitors, they thought we were all certifiable lunatics. As to theology, we weren’t old enough to care or understand.

    Reply
  24. Les, thank you for the best explanation on the subject. I agree fully with you.

    It is only a gift of the Spirit given to some people, not all Christians receive the gift of speaking in tongues. It can never be a absolute sign, that only people who have the gift of speaking in tongues are filled with the Holy Spirit. Your explanation is comprehensive and concise. It has sound reasoning and logic conclusions.

    The Holy Scriptures tells us that you receive the Holy Spirit, when you show faith in Jesus Christ.

    It is mentioned in Ephesians 1: 12 – 13
    12 “so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,” ESV

    May God continue to bless your ministry.

    Agape from
    Lars

    Reply
  25. Hi Les,
    I’m really glad to stumble upon your article here as it helps me to understand what I’m believing. I too grew in a Pentecostal church my entire life and still have many questions in this area.

    Would it be okay if I contact you through email concerning this topic? Please let me know. Thank you!

    Reply
  26. Les, I would encourage you to ‘replace’ all the PRONOUNS with PROPER NOUNS as you read Acts chapters one and two. And then carefully ‘watch’ for the time breaks as you read about the 120 in the Upper room (on one day) (and days later only the Apostles) being there on the Day of Pentecost. IF you do that, it will be plain to you that only the 12 Apostles were in that Upper Room on the Day of Pentecost. E.G. Peter saying THESE MEN (NOT these men, women and children) ARE DRUNK! I explain this in more detail on my podcast site: God’s Word Unfiltered. Please check it out!

    Reply
    • Robert,

      Luke does not make the number of believers in Acts 2:1-4 crystal clear. However, in his commentary on Acts, James Dunn writes: “It is unclear how the larger group (about 120) relate to the previous (1.3-6) and future events (2.1-4). But however much Luke may have wanted to make the apostles the custodians of the tradition of Jesus’ teaching . . ., he certainly made no effort to limit the outpouring of the Spirit to the twelve” (18).

      He continues, “‘All’ are present, with nothing in the preceding context to indicate that the ‘all’ should be understood as any other than the 120 or so, indicated in 1.15” (24).

      Reply
  27. Hi Les
    I am no expert on scripture but I have been a Christian for at least 28 years now. Your interpretation of the scripture sits well with my spirit. I was baptised 28 years ago and was disappointed that a dove didn’t come down upon me and fill me with the holy spirit.
    2 weeks later I sat in church and a speaker spoke about Jesus’s death on the cross and I felt this feeling of being filled in my spirit from my feet upwards. Like filling a glass of water. I felt the love of God in my experience.
    I never spoke in tongue but my experience was real to me. Later I came across this pentecostal teaching and then felt like I was some inferior Christian and prayed to God earnestly seeking this gift to see if I was filled. God I am sure did not want me to feel inferior. As I prayed a repetitive word came out of my mouth which I didn’t know. It was the word Adoni. My husband is jewish and knowing that he learnt hebrew I asked him did he know what it meant. He said yeah it means Lord. God gave me an interpreter.
    My husband. He didn’t even know God had used him as such. God made me realise that he is the giver of the gift and will use it when it is necessary. So I never worried about it again. Since I live in an English speaking country I don’t come across too many people who cannot speak English so I don’t feel it is necessary for me as Paul. Paul lived in a region where he passed many people who spoke in different languages so I guess the need to speak in other languages would have been very beneficial for him to advance the word of God. No wonder he said I can speak in tongue more than any of you. It was necessary for him.
    I don’t think this teaching of you are not filled with the holy spirit unless you speak in tongues is correct as if there are 2 different types of Christians. One being more superior than the other.
    In God everyone is equal. I’m not too fussed about the gift of tongues as I don’t need it but It does sadden me that there has to be so much disagreement about one of the gifts.
    If anyone can say Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour and believe it from their heart then that should be enough to believe they have the spirit of God.
    I sin and fall short of the glory of God many times so yes I need to repeatedly get refilled after I have repented for my sin.
    When Peter had his feet washed by Jesus he wanted Jesus to wash all of him but Jesus said he only needed to wash his feet because Peter had already been filled with the holyspirit. He had already been baptised.
    In light of all scripture I honestly think all that you have said is correct. We should eagerly desire the gift of prophecy as it helps to edify the church and as such doing so we give each other encouragement. Prophecy is for encouragement not tearing one another down. God bless you Les for your teaching on this topic. I hope it clears it up for many who are confused or feel inferior.

    Reply
  28. I am really just trying to seek the truth here .. why can’t I find any major person in the history who has performed Jesus work like ‘casting out demons, healing the sick , prophesying ..” who does not speak in tongues ?? Why someone plz tell me because I really want to meet that person .. because it makes sense that Beleivers should be doing these things ‘healing the sick, casting out demons etc’.. I feel that Jesus teaching on that pretty simple and clear .. but in practicality I have never come across anyone who does those things to also not have spine in tongues they all did .. I am just tired of not having a practical e widen q to this .. like anyone who agreed to this article , ( which by the way is legit ) who can also say I have been living what Jesus said out in my life .. that would validate this so much better coz what if the reality is that one can be saved without gift of tongues but to do his work ( healing sick etc and not just preaching in other languages ) requires speaking in tongues what if that is the enabler of other gifts or something .. atleast all the people who in the modern or past that i know of who have performed Godly miracles seem to line up with this thought. I just wish there was more practical evidence to what I just shared. Thanks again for the scriptural summary its legit for sure.

    Reply
  29. This is one of the most helpful, clear, and well organized explanation of such a controversial and divisive topic. Even the comments are helpful.

    I can’t stand it and I always felt it was wrong the way Christians try to put shackles on the congregation and invent laws, or make following Jesus complicated and guilt inducing.

    Thank you, Les, for this wise and logical post!

    Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.