Critics of speaking in tongues have no good answer to these 5 points:
(1) Paul's command to "pray in the Spirit" is fulfilled by striving to speak in tongues. 2 points establish this teaching:
(a) Paul commands us to "pray in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18)" and speaking in tongues is the only form of praying in the Spirit specified in the Bible (1 Cor. 14:15).
(b) Paul commands us to "strive for spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14:1)" and clarifies this command with his desire for all of us to speak in tongues (14:5).
(c) Paul repeatedly commands us to imitate his spirituality (! Cor. 4:16; 11:1; Phil. 3:17) and makes it clear that such imitation includes a demonstration of the Spirit and of power (2:4-5; 4:19-20).
(2) Point (1) is not undermined by his preference that we all prophesy (14:5).
(a) Nowhere does Paul claim that tongues is the least of the spiritual gifts. On the contrary, if prophecy is the greatest spiritual gift, speaking in tongues is equally great if it is interpreted (so 14:5). In that sense both gifts are equally great and therefore both should be diligently sought.
(b) What critics overlook is that in 1 Cor. 14 Paul is addressing the specific situation in which believers are speaking in uninterpreted tongues in public worship services at which outsiders are present who are not ready for such unintelligible Spirit manifestations. But Paul encourages speaking in uninterpreted tongues in private prayer sessions (1 Cor. 14:28; cp. 14:4) and in believers-only public meetings (e. g. Acts 19:6).
(c) Believers who dismiss tongues are pointless are in danger of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit by implying that some of His gifts are irrelevant and not needed.
I would not be a Christian today, were it not for a mind-bending experience of Spirit baptism at age 16. See my Life Journey thread in the site's Introduction section. If tongues were not important, why does Paul celebrate the fact that he speaks in tongues more than everyone else (14:18)?
(3) Point (1) is not refuted by the false claim based on 12:29-30) that that the gift of tongues is not divinely intended by everyone.
(a) Paul insists that we "can all prophesy one by one (14:31)." Yet the gift of prophesy is included in the gift list cited by critics to support their claim that these gifts are not intended for everyone. So what Paul is instead teaching is this: Look around you: not everyone actually exercises their prophetic potential, but I want all believers to do so.
(4) In 3 of the 4 descriptions of receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts, they demonstrate this by speaking in tongues (2:1-18; 10:44-47; 19:1-6). In the 4th case, tongues are not mentioned, but the experience is so dramatic that Simon the Magician offers Peter money to bestow on him the same power to impart the experience of the Spirit (8:19-20). So it is not unreasonable to presume that the Samaritan converts also spoke in tongues when they received their Spirit baptism. This well-established pattern doesn't mean speaking in tongues is required for Spirit baptism, but it is further evidence that the gift of tongues should be diligently sought (12:31; 14:1).
(5) The tongues in contemporary languages in Acts 2 is NOT normative for later manifestations of this gift. That eruption is identified as prophecy (2:17-18 citing Joel 2:28), but tongues is subsequently distinguished from prophecy (19:5-6; 1 Cor 12 and 14). The tongues in Acts 10:44-47 and 19:1-6 are neither understood nor interpreted. In Greco-Roman parallels speaking in tongues (Greek: "glossai") is understood as ecstatic gibberish that needs a prophet for interpretation. Paul prefers to view this non-human gibberish as angelic language (1 Cor 13:1) and labels tongues speakers as "zealots of spirits (14:12)," a phrase that means "zealots of angels (see Heb 1:7)." Jews in Paul's day embraced the possibility of interpreting angelic languages (e. g. Testament of Job and famous first century Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai).
(1) Paul's command to "pray in the Spirit" is fulfilled by striving to speak in tongues. 2 points establish this teaching:
(a) Paul commands us to "pray in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18)" and speaking in tongues is the only form of praying in the Spirit specified in the Bible (1 Cor. 14:15).
(b) Paul commands us to "strive for spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14:1)" and clarifies this command with his desire for all of us to speak in tongues (14:5).
(c) Paul repeatedly commands us to imitate his spirituality (! Cor. 4:16; 11:1; Phil. 3:17) and makes it clear that such imitation includes a demonstration of the Spirit and of power (2:4-5; 4:19-20).
(2) Point (1) is not undermined by his preference that we all prophesy (14:5).
(a) Nowhere does Paul claim that tongues is the least of the spiritual gifts. On the contrary, if prophecy is the greatest spiritual gift, speaking in tongues is equally great if it is interpreted (so 14:5). In that sense both gifts are equally great and therefore both should be diligently sought.
(b) What critics overlook is that in 1 Cor. 14 Paul is addressing the specific situation in which believers are speaking in uninterpreted tongues in public worship services at which outsiders are present who are not ready for such unintelligible Spirit manifestations. But Paul encourages speaking in uninterpreted tongues in private prayer sessions (1 Cor. 14:28; cp. 14:4) and in believers-only public meetings (e. g. Acts 19:6).
(c) Believers who dismiss tongues are pointless are in danger of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit by implying that some of His gifts are irrelevant and not needed.
I would not be a Christian today, were it not for a mind-bending experience of Spirit baptism at age 16. See my Life Journey thread in the site's Introduction section. If tongues were not important, why does Paul celebrate the fact that he speaks in tongues more than everyone else (14:18)?
(3) Point (1) is not refuted by the false claim based on 12:29-30) that that the gift of tongues is not divinely intended by everyone.
(a) Paul insists that we "can all prophesy one by one (14:31)." Yet the gift of prophesy is included in the gift list cited by critics to support their claim that these gifts are not intended for everyone. So what Paul is instead teaching is this: Look around you: not everyone actually exercises their prophetic potential, but I want all believers to do so.
(4) In 3 of the 4 descriptions of receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts, they demonstrate this by speaking in tongues (2:1-18; 10:44-47; 19:1-6). In the 4th case, tongues are not mentioned, but the experience is so dramatic that Simon the Magician offers Peter money to bestow on him the same power to impart the experience of the Spirit (8:19-20). So it is not unreasonable to presume that the Samaritan converts also spoke in tongues when they received their Spirit baptism. This well-established pattern doesn't mean speaking in tongues is required for Spirit baptism, but it is further evidence that the gift of tongues should be diligently sought (12:31; 14:1).
(5) The tongues in contemporary languages in Acts 2 is NOT normative for later manifestations of this gift. That eruption is identified as prophecy (2:17-18 citing Joel 2:28), but tongues is subsequently distinguished from prophecy (19:5-6; 1 Cor 12 and 14). The tongues in Acts 10:44-47 and 19:1-6 are neither understood nor interpreted. In Greco-Roman parallels speaking in tongues (Greek: "glossai") is understood as ecstatic gibberish that needs a prophet for interpretation. Paul prefers to view this non-human gibberish as angelic language (1 Cor 13:1) and labels tongues speakers as "zealots of spirits (14:12)," a phrase that means "zealots of angels (see Heb 1:7)." Jews in Paul's day embraced the possibility of interpreting angelic languages (e. g. Testament of Job and famous first century Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai).
