Speaking in Tongues

[Starcrash]

We’re living in the internet age. All the information you could possibly want is at your fingertips, and yet there’s an interesting thing missing from this proliferation of knowledge - a dictionary full of the “heavenly language”.

When I use the phrase “speaking in tongues”, I don’t mean the sense mentioned in the book of Acts where a person speaks in such a way that anyone speaking any language can understand it (although I’d think if anyone could pull that off they could post it to YouTube and win many instant converts with such hard-to-counter evidence). I mean speaking a heavenly language that requires an interpreter.

Despite being commanded to give time in a church service to those who speak in tongues, nobody does except the modern Pentacostal church, and that’s not “tongues”… that’s gibberish. We can study the brain and decipher the difference between real words and made-up words. And there’s never been a scientific test (that I know of) where people who claim to interpret tongues did so with the same phrases but independently, and the reason for that is because interpreters are in short supply. Do a search yourself and see if you can find someone claiming to interpret tongues. It’s easy to test (and debunk), which is my guess as to why nobody claims to be able to do this.

I know that you may claim that this gift is done away with, which makes it a rather questionable addition to a bible that we are to read and follow today (especially when the command to give time to speaking in tongues arrives in the same letter as this passage).

So my question is this: why do churches not carry out this commandment?

 

[bmullins]

The reason would be that speaking in tongues is not a requirement but a gift. The Sacred Scriptures tell us specifically that ‘not all will speak in tongues’. As to the other statement, that only Pentecostals allow it or make time for it, that is not true either. There are many charismatic movements in many different denominations. There is even a Catholic charismatic movement.

The difference is Pentecostals(at least to my understanding with what experience I’ve had in their churches) teach that if you do not speak in tongues, you aren’t a child of God or aren’t ‘saved.’ To them it’s a requirement.

Also I’d like to address the statement that no one is making time for it. If you understand speaking of tongues as in speaking different languages and not a divine language only understandable by God, then many churches are indeed making time for it. Many bilingual masses occur with interpreters, and often times we have a person doing sign language in front of the priest.

As to the other type of speaking in tongues, there is no requirement to do so.

 

[DavidFilmer]

So my question is this: why do churches not carry out this commandment?

I’m not familiar with this commandment. Are you referring to 1Cor 14:38, " do not forbid speaking in tongues?" That is hardly a commandment to do it.

The Corinthians were apparently the only Christian community to practice speaking in unknown tongues (which, as you pointed out, was not like what happened in Acts 2, where many people of different backgrounds could understand what Peter was saying). The practice was causing confusion and scandal, and was causing outsiders to question their sanity. Frankly, I don’t think Paul knew what to make of the situation. He was reluctant to forbid it - I think his mindset was much like Gamaliel, who did not exactly *support *the early Church, but refused to condemn it, preferring to let it run its course:

If it be of men, it will come to naught, but if it be of God, ye will not be able to overthrow it; lest perhaps ye be found even to fight against God. (Acts 5:39)

But Paul did everything he could to limit and control the practice (making tongues unique - no limits were placed on any other spiritual gift).

Apparently, his strategy worked - the activity did die out on its own; it is not mentioned in Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians (or anywhere else). Furthermore, the Early Church Fathers affirm that the practice did not continue (either speaking in known (Acts 2) or unknown (1 Cor) tongues):

In the earliest time, "the Holy Spirit fell upon them that believed; and they spake with tongues, "which they had not learned, "as the Spirit gave them utterance. " These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a sign, and is passed away. [St. Augustine, TEN HOMILIES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN, Vol. VII]

This entire passage [regarding tongues in 1Cor] is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer takes place [St. John Chrysostom, HOMILIES ON FIRST CORINTHIANS, Vol. XII]

I describe the history of the whole modern tongues thing (including how it came to infiltrate the Catholic Church) in post #6 of this thread.

 

[Starcrash]

I’m not familiar with this commandment. Are you referring to 1Cor 14:38, " do not forbid speaking in tongues?" That is hardly a commandment to do it.

Actually, 1 Cor. 14:26-28 would be the scripture I was referring to, where church services are to include everyone who has something from God to share it (including tongues, assuming that there is an interpreter available). It “must be done”, which I see as a commandment rather than an option.

But if we’re talking about a practice that was relevant only to one church and pointless to the reader, why exactly is it in the bible? And why is it a “gift of the spirit” given to those who receive the Holy Spirit if it is, as you claim, limited to one church?

 

[bmullins]

I don’t see 1 Corinthians 14 speaking of a requirement as much as a limitation. Telling people that if there is a group gathered and people begin to speak in tongues, stop at 3. I’m pretty sure it’s a list of a way to do things in order to keep it from taking all day. It reminds them specifically that God is not an author of confusion but of peace. These are not requirements but a reminder that people shouldn’t be talking over each other, and interrupting each other, but to have an orderly meeting.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Actually, 1 Cor. 14:26-28 would be the scripture I was referring to, where church services are to include everyone who has something from God to share it (including tongues, assuming that there is an interpreter available). It “must be done”, which I see as a commandment rather than an option.

Let’s examine this particular passage:

What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.

I don’t get the impression that any of these actions are mandated or required – only that WHATEVER is done (regardless of what it might be) “must be done so that the Church may be built up” - and not become a status symbol for the various participants (as the abusive practice of speaking in tongues was doing).

But if we’re talking about a practice that was relevant only to one church and pointless to the reader, why exactly is it in the bible?

Because it was a liturgical abuse occurring in the Corinthian parish. Paul wrote to them to limit and control this abuse - good advice that is still relevant today. As I wrote per my earlier citation,

This Epistle is somewhat unique in Scripture. It is the most disapproving and condemnatory letter in the Bible. Whereas other epistles were predominately instructive or pastoral, this particular epistle was overwhelmingly critical of multiple abuses which were occurring in this particular young church. Nowhere else does any Bishop say anything even approaching, “I do not praise the fact that your meetings are doing more harm than good.” (1Cor 11:17). Paul accuses the Corinthians of “immorality not found even among the pagans” (1Cor 5:1). Paul is absolutely scathing in his assessment of the Corinthians: “My brothers, I could not talk to you as spiritual people, but as fleshly people, as infants in Christ. I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were unable to take it. Indeed, you are still not able, even now, for you are still of the flesh." (1Cor 3:1-3a).

According to Holy Scripture, these “fleshly people,” who were even more immoral than the pagans, and whose counterproductive worship services were “doing more harm than good,” and whose bishop heaped upon them criticism not found anywhere else in Scripture, just happen to be the ONLY people who ever spoke in “unknown tongues.”

Waitaminute - we want to emulate THESE GUYS??? C’mon!

We are not really supposed to be doing more harm than good, yet Paul mentions it. WHY does he mention it? To discourage us from doing it! The same as he says NOTHING to encourage the practice of speaking in unknown tongues. He does not forbid it, but he strictly limits it.

In this same Epistle, Paul also mentions the practice of these wacky Corinthians of proxy baptism of the dead (a practice which would be very familiar to our Mormon friends, but absolute heresy for Catholics).

Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? [1Cor 15:29]

It is mentioned in Scripture because it was happening in this wacky counterproductive early Christian community. Yet, Paul never seeks to limit or control this obviously heretical practice, yet he does so for speaking in unknown tongues.

Scripture mentions both good things and bad things. Just because something is mentioned in Scripture does not mean we are supposed to actually do it - especially if it is only mentioned in a context designed to discourage it.

And why is it a “gift of the spirit” given to those who receive the Holy Spirit if it is, as you claim, limited to one church?

There are two types of “speaking in tongues.” The first was evidenced when Peter preached to a diverse crowd as described in the second chapter of Acts. This is a *legitimate *gift of the spirit.

Then there’s the illegitimate form. This is what the fleshly, counterproductive Corinthians were doing. This is what Paul strictly limited and controlled, and which quickly died out, as the Church Fathers have assured us.

 

[Starcrash]

There are two types of “speaking in tongues.” The first was evidenced when Peter preached to a diverse crowd as described in the second chapter of Acts. This is a *legitimate *gift of the spirit.

Then there’s the illegitimate form. This is what the fleshly, counterproductive Corinthians were doing. This is what Paul strictly limited and controlled, and which quickly died out, as the Church Fathers have assured us.

If it is a legitimate gift of the spirit, why does no one possess this gift? It’s not hard to test scientifically - you simply need to have this person speak in front of 2 or more people who don’t speak the same language. The more people the better, of course, but I mentioned YouTube as a very realistic possibility for someone to demonstrate God’s power in a very convincing fashion. But no one has, and no is stepping forward for a very simple test with huge benefits for the church.

But this is to take you seriously. This phrase may be used in two different ways in two different passages, but Paul only uses it in one sense. He doesn’t differentiate between the type he talks about in the same letter or mention the Acts sense of the phrase, so it’s not reasonable to assume that he meant that version of speaking in tongues.

 

[ltwin]

The difference is Pentecostals(at least to my understanding with what experience I’ve had in their churches) teach that if you do not speak in tongues, you aren’t a child of God or aren’t ‘saved.’ To them it’s a requirement.

Just a slight correction. There are Oneness Pentecostals who believe you must speak in tongues to be saved.

The majority of Pentecostals are Trinitarian. We believe that speaking in tongues is a physical evidence of being “baptized with the Holy Spiirt,” which Pentecostals believe is a separate and subsequent event following conversion. It is not a requirement to be saved, but is an experience which empowers the Christian life.

Frankly, I don’t think Paul knew what to make of the situation. He was reluctant to forbid it - I think his mindset was much like Gamaliel, who did not exactly *support *the early Church, but refused to condemn it, preferring to let it run its course:
But Paul did everything he could to limit and control the practice (making tongues unique - no limits were placed on any other spiritual gift).

I think he knew pretty good what to make of it. He spoke in tongues himself, and wanted the Corinthians (1 Cor. 14) to speak in tongues as well-just with the correct attitude:

2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. 3 On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. 4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. 5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up . . . . . .18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

As to the original poster’s question: “So my question is this: why do churches not carry out this commandment?’” I’m not sure how you come to the conclusion that churches don’t do this. I don’t think Paul was saying “You must always at every place and time in Christian worship allow someone to speak in tongues and interpret.” I think what he was saying that in an orderly manner if a person has an utterance in an unknown language that he feels needs to be spoken publicly then he should do that and interpret the message.

This happens in hundreds of thousands of Pentecostal and charismatic churches and meetings. I have seen it myself. Someone speaks in an unknown language, the church listens respectfully, and then the church waits for someone to interpret the unknown language. After the interpretation, the church gives thanks to God for the gifts he gives to the church.

 

[Nate13]

If it is a legitimate gift of the spirit, why does no one possess this gift? It’s not hard to test scientifically - you simply need to have this person speak in front of 2 or more people who don’t speak the same language. The more people the better, of course, but I mentioned YouTube as a very realistic possibility for someone to demonstrate God’s power in a very convincing fashion. But no one has, and no is stepping forward for a very simple test with huge benefits for the church.

But this is to take you seriously. This phrase may be used in two different ways in two different passages, but Paul only uses it in one sense. He doesn’t differentiate between the type he talks about in the same letter or mention the Acts sense of the phrase, so it’s not reasonable to assume that he meant that version of speaking in tongues.

Here you go
youtube.com/watch?v=NZbQBajYnEc

 

[Zeldarocks]

The reason would be that speaking in tongues is not a requirement but a gift. The Sacred Scriptures tell us specifically that ‘not all will speak in tongues’. As to the other statement, that only Pentecostals allow it or make time for it, that is not true either. There are many charismatic movements in many different denominations. There is even a Catholic charismatic movement.

The difference is Pentecostals(at least to my understanding with what experience I’ve had in their churches) teach that if you do not speak in tongues, you aren’t a child of God or aren’t ‘saved.’ To them it’s a requirement.

Also I’d like to address the statement that no one is making time for it. If you understand speaking of tongues as in speaking different languages and not a divine language only understandable by God, then many churches are indeed making time for it. Many bilingual masses occur with interpreters, and often times we have a person doing sign language in front of the priest.

As to the other type of speaking in tongues, there is no requirement to do so.

If I may; the Assemblies of God (the Pentecostal denomination I belong to) doesn’t claim tongues as a sign of salvation; but rather, as a sign of Baptism in the Holy Spirit, which follows salvation.

There others however, (most predominantly the United Pentecostal Church, which broke from the Assemblies of God) who DO claim that one is not saved if he does not speak in tongues.

 

[Ian_Ward]

**If speaking in tongues will make you believe in God why don’t you pray to God to speak in tongues. **

Are you afraid your prayer may be answered and will believe in God?
:thumbsup:

 

[PeterGStanley]

I’m always suspect about it when I’ve seen it and it really is of no use if no one is there to interpret other than the visual sight of someone speaking tongues - I always wonder because you would think the holy spirit would have someone interpreting what is said - the only usefulness that I read was in acts when the apostles spoke in all the languages of the people so they could hear the Good New preached and many were converted that day.

 

[ltwin]

I’m always suspect about it when I’ve seen it and it really is of no use if no one is there to interpret other than the visual sight of someone speaking tongues - I always wonder because you would think the holy spirit would have someone interpreting what is said - the only usefulness that I read was in acts when the apostles spoke in all the languages of the people so they could hear the Good New preached and many were converted that day.

Unless there is an interpreter it really doesn’t have any benefit for anyone else. But on why someone would speak in an unknown language, well that’s easy to explain. It’s a form of prayer that allows people to bypass the limits of language and pray, in the spirit, from the groanings of the heart. When one speaks in an unknown language, their spirit is trying to express the inexpressible and, at the same time, the Spirit intercedes as well. (1 Cor. 14; Romans 8:26)

And there are people in Pentecostal and charismatic groups who do claim the gift of interpretation. However, they don’t simply interpret all the unknown utterances they might here. Its usually the practice that someone only interprets a message in an unknown language that is directly addressed to the entire congregation.

 

[PeterGStanley]

Theres a catholic church here that has a charismatic mass on Sunday afternoon - I just haven’t had a chance to go and see for myself.

 

[DavidFilmer]

If it is a legitimate gift of the spirit, why does no one possess this gift?

The legitimate form (as described in Acts 2) was a miraculous sign to validate a prophesy (teaching). Many such signs are recorded which did not persist.

For example, 1Kings 18, which describes how the Lord utterly consumed (by fire) a water-drenched offering of Elijah (stones and all) while none of the more favorable dry-tender offerings to Baal were consumed in any way whatsoever. This miracle testified to Elijah’s message, but nobody today expects to recreate this miracle. This sign was given to testify to the truth of Elijah’s message, and this message was received loud and clear by those around Elijah (who slew the priests of Baal). And, likewise, the (legitimate) gift of tongues was manifest by Peter and the Apostles, and the message was received, but the miracle likewise did not persist. As St. Augustine assures, " That thing was done for a sign, and is passed away."

But this is to take you seriously. This phrase may be used in two different ways in two different passages, but Paul only uses it in one sense. He doesn’t differentiate between the type he talks about in the same letter or mention the Acts sense of the phrase, so it’s not reasonable to assume that he meant that version of speaking in tongues.

I agree - and that’s my point. Paul is not talking to the Corinthians about the legitimate form of tongues as described in Acts 2. There is no indication that the Corinthians even knew about the legitimate form. Paul is discussing the abusive and illegitimate form of tongues which the Corinthians were practicing - and which had become a liturgical abuse and a false status symbol, which is why Paul strictly limited and controlled this abuse.

 

[ltwin]

The legitimate form (as described in Acts 2) was a miraculous sign to validate a prophesy (teaching). Many such signs are recorded which did not persist.

For example, 1Kings 18, which describes how the Lord utterly consumed (by fire) a water-drenched offering of Elijah (stones and all) while none of the more favorable dry-tender offerings to Baal were consumed in any way whatsoever. This miracle testified to Elijah’s message, but nobody today expects to recreate this miracle. This sign was given to testify to the truth of Elijah’s message, and this message was received loud and clear by those around Elijah (who slew the priests of Baal). And, likewise, the (legitimate) gift of tongues was manifest by Peter and the Apostles, and the message was received, but the miracle likewise did not persist. As St. Augustine assures, " That thing was done for a sign, and is passed away."

I agree - and that’s my point. Paul is not talking to the Corinthians about the legitimate form of tongues as described in Acts 2. There is no indication that the Corinthians even knew about the legitimate form. Paul is discussing the abusive and illegitimate form of tongues which the Corinthians were practicing - and which had become a liturgical abuse and a false status symbol, which is why Paul strictly limited and controlled this abuse.

If Paul thought the tongues of the Corinthian church were “illegitimate” and “liturgical abuse,” he being the apostle and man he was would not have condoned such an illegitimate abuse and “false status symbol.” Instead, he acknowledges it as a spiritual gift and something that should not be forbidden.

 

[rom422]

If Paul thought the tongues of the Corinthian church were “illegitimate” and “liturgical abuse,” he being the apostle and man he was would not have condoned such an illegitimate abuse and “false status symbol.” Instead, he acknowledges it as a spiritual gift and something that should not be forbidden.

Hi Itwin,

St. Paul did not think that all cases of tongues speaking (in unknown tongues, that is) in the Church of Corinth was gibberish. But he knew that some could be. The problem is, no one would know which ones were legitimate and which ones were not, unless the speech was interpreted. Therefore, in the absence of an interpretation or an interpreter, St. Paul advised those who wanted to pray in tongues to pray in private.

Now, if an interpreter is available, St. Paul advised that no more than three should speak, and that their speech be interpreted for the edification of the Church. I think that the limitation to 3 speakers was also imposed to give time for the Church to hear and study the interpretation. For interpreted messages are like prophecies; they need to be evaluated and judged.

It is my prayerful wish that people who lead a Church or service where tongues speaking is permitted, be obedient to Holy Scripture and St. Paul, and that they minimize the display of uninterpreted speech in the Church. Especially in today’s world, I think that the indiscriminate practice of tongues speaking without interpretation will only do more harm than good. I am not trying to extinguish any gift of the Holy Spirit. I am just convinved that intelligible but heartfelt prayers are to be preferred. An intelligible and clearly spoken prayer, like the Prayer of St. Francis, does more to edify the Church than any unknown language. And who ever said that angels spoke in unknown languages? We have no evidence of that in Holy Scripture. The Bible gave many examples of angels that spoke, but they all spoke human languages. The angels did sing also, but their song, recorded in the Bible, was understood even by children: “Glory to God in the highest … and on earth peace to men of good will…” That is not the kind you hear from the examples of Tongues Speaking you find at Youtube.

Blessings to you!

 

[ltwin]

Hi Itwin,

St. Paul did not think that all cases of tongues speaking (in unknown tongues, that is) in the Church of Corinth was gibberish. But he knew that some could be. The problem is, no one would know which ones were legitimate and which ones were not, unless the speech was interpreted. Therefore, in the absence of an interpretation or an interpreter, St. Paul advised those who wanted to pray in tongues to pray in private.

Now, if an interpreter is available, St. Paul advised that no more than three should speak, and that their speech be interpreted for the edification of the Church. I think that the limitation to 3 speakers was also imposed to give time for the Church to hear and study the interpretation. For interpreted messages are like prophecies; they need to be evaluated and judged.

It is my prayerful wish that people who lead a Church or service where tongues speaking is permitted, be obedient to Holy Scripture and St. Paul, and that they minimize the display of uninterpreted speech in the Church. Especially in today’s world, I think that the indiscriminate practice of tongues speaking without interpretation will only do more harm than good. I am not trying to extinguish any gift of the Holy Spirit. I am just convinved that intelligible but heartfelt prayers are to be preferred. An intelligible and clearly spoken prayer, like the Prayer of St. Francis, does more to edify the Church than any unknown language. And who ever said that angels spoke in unknown languages? We have no evidence of that in Holy Scripture. The Bible gave many examples of angels that spoke, but they all spoke human languages. The angels did sing also, but their song, recorded in the Bible, was understood even by children: “Glory to God in the highest … and on earth peace to men of good will…” That is not the kind you hear from the examples of Tongues Speaking you find at Youtube.

Blessings to you!

Hi rom422!

My objection is not to biblical guidelines on the use of tongues. I am familiar with them. My concern is the interpretation given to Paul’s instruction by people such as DavidFilmer, that Acts 2 tongues are legitimate and 1 Corinthians 12-14 tongues are not legitimate and a liturgical abuse. I see in DavidFilmer’s comments a misinterpretation of Paul’s words. I particularly disagree with comments such as the following:

There are two types of “speaking in tongues.” The first was evidenced when Peter preached to a diverse crowd as described in the second chapter of Acts. This is a *legitimate *gift of the spirit.

Then there’s the illegitimate form. This is what the fleshly, counterproductive Corinthians were doing. This is what Paul strictly limited and controlled, and which quickly died out, as the Church Fathers have assured us.

The Corinthians were apparently the only Christian community to practice speaking in unknown tongues (which, as you pointed out, was not like what happened in Acts 2, where many people of different backgrounds could understand what Peter was saying). The practice was causing confusion and scandal, and was causing outsiders to question their sanity. Frankly, I don’t think Paul knew what to make of the situation. He was reluctant to forbid it - I think his mindset was much like Gamaliel, who did not exactly *support *the early Church, but refused to condemn it, preferring to let it run its course

Comments like this do not make distinctions between abuse and non-abuse. In fact, comments like this totally disregard the FACT that Paul lists speaking in unknown tongues (as well as the interpretation of the unknown tongue) as a spiritual gift. He does this in 1 Corinthians, and never does he tell the Corinthians that they are not practicing the “true” or “legitimate” gift of tongues because they were not speaking in foreign languages as in Acts 2.

I have already addressed the Judeo-Christian tradition on the “tongues of angels” in this post.

 

[rom422]

Comments like this do not make distinctions between abuse and non-abuse. In fact, comments like this totally disregard the FACT that Paul lists speaking in unknown tongues (as well as the interpretation of the unknown tongue) as a spiritual gift. He does this in 1 Corinthians, and never does he tell the Corinthians that they are not practicing the “true” or “legitimate” gift of tongues because they were not speaking in foreign languages as in Acts 2.

I have already addressed the Judeo-Christian tradition on the “tongues of angels” in this post.

OK, then how would you make a distinction between abuse and non-abuse when it comes to speaking in tongues (in unknown languages)?

In my opinion there is abuse if: (1) the speech is being faked; or (2) the speech is authentic, but is being used in a manner that does not comply with Biblical guidelines. Do you have an alternate opinion about when the gift of tongues might be misused or abused?

Also, I think that it is still a mistake, bordering on abuse, to imagine the uninterpreted tongues being practiced today as “tongues of angels.” As I said in the same post that you indicated (Thoughts on Charasmatic Renewal), there is anthropomorphism in thinking that angels have a language (like “bla bla bla bla shamana lamana lamana, …”) because angels, being spiritual beings, strictly have no tongues and actually communicate with their minds. Any type of literature (like the Testament of Job) that would depict the movement of angels, will necessarily involve this kind of anthropomorphism, but it would be a mistake to take it literally and assume that angels have a “dialect.” It is also debatable whether that was what St. Paul had in mind when he spoke of the “tongues of Angels” in 1 Cor. 13:1. Since he was trying to show in that text the excellence of the virtue of charity, he was contrasting it with beautiful language; he was hinting at charity as being preferrable to even the clarity and beauty of angelic communications. I don’t think he would be making much sense if he tried to compare the higher value of charity to the practically opaque and gibberish-like talk that is being practiced today.

 

[ltwin]

OK, then how would you make a distinction between abuse and non-abuse when it comes to speaking in tongues (in unknown languages)?

In my opinion there is abuse if: (1) the speech is being faked; or (2) the speech is authentic, but is being used in a manner that does not comply with Biblical guidelines. Do you have an alternate opinion about when the gift of tongues might be misused or abused?

I agree with you that tongue speech would be illegitimate if (1) faked or (2) if authentic but not complying with biblical guidelines. On the second point though, these guidelines are for public worship, not for private prayer or even prayer in a public assembly that is not loud enough to be heard over other people (such as during corporate congregational prayer where you are speaking only to God).

I would also stress that something done in an illegitimate way does not mean it isn’t an authentic gift. Also, we must separate the gift of speaking in a tongue with the gift of interpretation. They are two different gifts. Just because the gift of interpretation is lacking does not mean that an unknown language is gibberish or demonic or not of God.

I have seen people assume that if a tongue is not interpreted then it must be silenced because it could be a sign of demon possession. I do not doubt that just as there are probably a variety of languages, many are known by demons as well as angels. This makes since, if we claim that speaking in tongues could be an angelic language then we must also admit that it could be demonic. That is why tongues is never evaluated alone in a spiritual vacuum. The first test is to discern if a person exhibits the fruit of the spirit in their life.

However, its interesting that in 1 Corinthians Paul does not mention the dangers of speaking in unknown tongues. Paul only points out the perception of madness that non-believers might have seeing an entire congregation speak in tongues. He never mentions demonic influence though. He simply said, how can anyone understand your thanksgiving unless it be interpreted?

Also, I think that it is still a mistake, bordering on abuse, to imagine the uninterpreted tongues being practiced today as “tongues of angels.” As I said in the same post that you indicated (Thoughts on Charasmatic Renewal), there is anthropomorphism in thinking that angels have a language (like “bla bla bla bla shamana lamana lamana, …”) because angels, being spiritual beings, strictly have no tongues and actually communicate with their minds. Any type of literature (like the Testament of Job) that would depict the movement of angels, will necessarily involve this kind of anthropomorphism, but it would be a mistake to take it literally and assume that angels have a “dialect.” It is also debatable whether that was what St. Paul had in mind when he spoke of the “tongues of Angels” in 1 Cor. 13:1. Since he was trying to show in that text the excellence of the virtue of charity, he was contrasting it with beautiful language; he was hinting at charity as being preferrable to even the clarity and beauty of angelic communications. I don’t think he would be making much sense if he tried to compare the higher value of charity to the practically opaque and gibberish-like talk that is being practiced today.

Perhaps this might better be a topic for its own thread, but in answer to your question I don’t think it can be a mistake to acknowledge what those Jews and Christians who have come before us believed about something. The literature is clear. The ancients heard human beings (daughters of Job and others in both Jewish and Christian literature were not angels, they were human beings) singing songs in angelic languages. I suppose you can think that it is wrong to take things literally, but I think it is essential to understanding Paul.