Brain Scan Study on Glossalia

[Sixtus]

Daniel Marsh, you raise some good points.

Of course the ‘tongue speakers’ would argue that their babbling is actually an unknown language that is why no discernable speach patterns are observed.

 

[guanophore]

So, how does “tongues” in the mystry religions differ with “tongues” in the church?

Tongues used by the church are those inspired by the Holy Spirit.

1 Cor 12:10-11
10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills."

The apostle Paul encouraged all to use the gift of tongues:

1 Cor 14:4-5
5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues, unless some one interprets, so that the church may be edified."

But as a private prayer language, it only edifies the believer himself, and not the body.

1 Cor 14:39-15:1
39 So, my brethren, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues; 40 but all things should be done decently and in order. "

Why do you wish to forbid a gift given by God! Especially now, at Pentecost!

---

Look at the flow of the chapter, it plainly calls for order in church, one speaker at a time, with interpretation. Not the confusion in pentecostal churches.***

I wasn’t advocating THAT for goodness sake! Just don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater!
Daniel Marsh;2270164:

During Augistines’ time “tongues” ceased because there was no need for them.

hogwash.

In the US, most people speak English, and as such there is no need for them today.

Who are you to determine that? Did someone die, and make you God?

Rom 11:29
29 For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."

God does not take the gifts back.

Tongues is the least of the spiritual gifts — ask yourself, how many people in pentecostal churches have a higher gift like healing?

So, because it is the least it is suddenly of no importance at all? Is that the same for the “least of mine” in the kingdom?

What percentage of pentecostal congregations have the higher gifts?

Jesus teaches us to mind our own business, and not to find fault with others.

To Augustine, tongues were a special apostolic dispensation for evangelizing and no more. In referring to the baptism of the Spirit he wrote:

“For the Holy Spirit is not only given by the laying on of hands amid the testimony of temporal sensible miracles, as was given in former days to be the credentials of rudimentary faith, and for the extension of the first beginning of the church. For who expects in these days that those on whom hands are laid that they may receive the Holy Ghost should forthwith being to speak with tongues?” (Homilies on 1 John VI 10; NPNF2, v. 7, pp. 497-498).

Fortunately not all of Augustine’s opinions have been accepted as the infallible deposit of faith by the Church.

Do we really have a need for speaking in tongues today?

It sure seems like you don’t feel a need. But why criticise the practice for those of us that do?

Why do Pentecostals lack the Fruits of the Holy Spirit? Gal 5.

Why are you so intent upon judging them?

 

[Sixtus]

My understanding of ‘tongues’ is speaking in other languages.

Also, speaking in words which come from the Holy Spirit.

I am nto aware of any other speaking in tongues. But then I do not profess to be an expert on the subject.

 

[Geremia]

From the [ articleCatholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03588e.htm):

(4) The gift of tongues and (5) the interpretation of tongues (collectively known as glossolalia) are described at length in 1 Corinthians 14. In what did glossolalia exactly consist?

• It was speaking, opposed to being silent (1 Corinthians 14:28), yet
• not always in a foreign tongue. On the day of Pentecost the Apostles did indeed speak the various languages of their hearers, but the still unbaptized Gentiles in the house of Cornelius “speaking with tongues, and magnifying God” (Acts 10:46) and the twelve newly baptized Ephesians speaking with tongues and prophesying (Acts 19:6) had no reason for using any strange tongue. Again, instead of the expression “speaking with tongues” Paul uses the alternative phrases, “speaking in a tongue”, “by a tongue”, “with a tongue” (1 Corinthians 14:2, 4, 13, 14, 27). The object of the gift was not to convey ideas to listeners, but to speak to God in prayer (ibid., 2, 4), an object for which a foreign language is unnecessary. Lastly — and this argument seems conclusive — Paul compares glossolalia, as regards its effect, with talking in an unknown language; it is, therefore, not itself an unknown language (ibid., 11).
• It was an articulate language, for the speaker prays, sings, gives thanks (ibid., 14-17).
• The speaker was in a kind of trance — “If I pray in a tongue, my spirit pneuma prayeth, but my understanding nous, mens is without fruit” (ibid., 14).
• on unbelievers glossolalia made the impression of the marvellous; perhaps it recalled to their mind the religious ravings of hierophants: “Wherefore (i.e. because unintelligible) tongues are for a sign, not to believers, but to unbelievers. If . . . all speak with tongues, and there come in unlearned persons or infidels, will they not say that you are mad?” (1 Corinthians 14:22, 23).
• The gift of tongues is inferior to that of prophecy: “Greater is he that prophesieth, than he that speaketh with tongues: unless perhaps he interpret, that the church may receive edification” (ibid., 5).
• The charisma of interpretation is, then, the necessary complement of glossolalia; when interpretation is not forthcoming, the speaker with tongues shall hold his peace (ibid., 13, 27, 28). Interpretation is the work either of the speaker himself or of another (ibid., 27). It takes the form of an intelligible address; the explanation was to follow the speech with tongues as regularly as the discerning of spirits succeeded prophecy (1 Corinthians 14:28, 29).

Among the Fathers it is sententia communissima that the speaking with tongues was a speaking in foreign languages. Their interpretation is based upon the promise in Mark 16:1, “They shall speak with new tongues”, and on its final fulfilment in the gift of tongues to the apostles (Acts 2:4). A new tongue, however, is not necessarily a foreign language, and a gift which had a special use on the day of Pentecost appears purposeless in meetings of people of one language. There are, besides, textual objections to the common opinion, although, it must be owned, not quite convincing [see the second point above]. Many explanations of this obscure charisma are proposed, but not one of them is free from objection. It may indeed be that there is some truth in all of them. St. Paul speaks of “kinds of tongues”, which may imply that glossolalia manifested itself in many forms: e.g. in the form of foreign languages when required by circumstances, as with the Apostles; as a new language — “a kind of speech distinctive of the spiritual life and distinguished from common speech, which to the exuberant feeling of the new faith appeared unsuitable for intercourse with God” (Weizsacker); or as the manifestation of the unspeakable groanings of the Spirit, asking for us, and causing us to cry, [“Abba (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01006d.htm), Father” (Romans 8:15, 26).