I Agree with John Calvin on Tongues:)

As I share my personal understanding of what scripture teaches on tongues allow me to give a preamble (adapted from Kreeft's and Tacelli's "Handbook on Christian Apologetics").
1. I am totally convinced that Christianity is true and the Scriptures are inerrant.
2. I am a little less convinced, but still certain that the SBC has accurately expressed the great doctrines of the faith in the BFM.
3. I am even less convinced, but still confident, that the Trustees of the IMB have accurately understood the Scriptural position of a PPL as evidenced by their actions.
With the above in mind I share my understanding of a PPL with confidence but reverence.

I will not be addressing the practice of tongues from the book of Acts: nearly all-credible scholars agree - tongues in Acts were known languages. I believe the gift of tongues as practiced in Acts is still dispensed by God today according to His good pleasure. I believe God can and does give individuals, on the mission field, the gift of speaking in a language, they do not know, in order for others to be saved. However, I will be dealing with tongues as ecstatic utterances. But before I deal with 1 Corinthians 14, I want to make some observations.

1. We have no Scriptural evidence that ecstatic utterances (commonly called tongues today) were ever uttered in any NT church outside of Corinth. In fact, we have no Scriptural evidence that any believer other than Corinthian believers experienced ecstatic utterances.

The early church did not have the NT: they had the letters Paul and the other apostles sent them, and the OT. We can conclude that the Christians outside of Corinth received no Scripture concerning the practice of tongues – NONE (we have no evidence that the letters to Corinth were circular letters passed to other churches).

It is interesting that Paul did not speak to the Christians in Galatia, Ephesus, Rome, Philippi, Thessalonica, Colosse, or Crete about tongues…he never even mentions it.

I shall logically deduce it is because they were not practicing tongues like the Corinthians, which begs the question as to why the church at Corinth evidently was the only church in the entire world where Christians were practicing ecstatic utterances (especially in light of the Corinthian abuses).

Perhaps more than any other evidence, the silence of Scripture on Tongues (outside of the Corinthian abuses) speaks volumes.

2. Corinth was an area where pagan religious belief included ecstatic utterances, and the Corinthian believers were guilty of bringing such cultish beliefs into the church. Thus, Dr. Yarnell notes, “Examples of ecstatic, untranslatable speech may be found in the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi as well as the cults of Dionysius and Cybele. The pre-Christian background of the Corinthians indicates that ecstatic religious experiences involving unintelligible speech conferred special status upon those who practiced such. Unfortunately, the Corinthian believers brought their pagan religious practices, its attendant elitism, and the resulting social divisions into the Christian church (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10-11; 3:1-4, 18; 11:17- 22).”

It is not unusual for new Christians, without proper discipleship, to syncretize Christian beliefs with the dominant religion of their locale. Perhaps, the Corinthians were guilty here (as Dr. Yarnell implies). This would explain why the Corinthians were the only Christians, we know of, who were practicing ecstatic utterances.

3. Paul was an encourager who always saw the glass half-full. Instead of criticizing the errant and foolish beliefs of the philosophers at Rome he commended their religious zeal. Amazingly, he even took one of their idols and rather than condemn idol worship, he exclaimed that the God which, that idol represented (unknown God) was the God of the Bible. In other words Paul gently pointed out their abuses of religion by pointing to the True God without diluting their zeal in seeking God.

I believe Paul did this (gentle rebuke without diluting religious zeal) on numerous occasions, including the Corinthian abuse of tongues. Rather, than pour water on their zeal and dilute their fire for Christ…he set up guidelines or POLICY:) which would have the effect of diminishing the practice of ecstatic utterances without diminishing the zeal of those who practiced such.

Here was a church divided, and Paul, as a gentle pastoral father, corrected the abuses of tongues in such a way that tongues (ecstatic utterances) themselves were subjugated to an unnecessary and irrelevant gift. And yet those who practiced such were not forbidden from doing so and thus their zeal was not affected: they were able to save face, so to speak.

However, with the new policy Paul effectually stopped the practice of tongues within the church. In fact, if we were to relegate tongues to the minor gift which Paul relegated it to and if churches would follow the policy of Paul, tongues (ecstatic utterances) would effectually cease today. Paul's policy and revelation about tongues included: 1) 5 words of understanding spoke in church is better than 10,000 words in a tongue; 2) Tongues are a sign to unbelievers, so don’t confuse unbelievers, who may be attending your church service, by practicing ecstatic utterances; 3) let no more than 3 speak at a time and have an interpreter; 4) Remember, God is not the author of confusion (thus, if tongues confuses members of the church, then they are not from God); 5) Women are forbidden from speaking in tongues in the church; 6) Let all things be done decently and in order.

4. During the apostolic age the Canon was not yet complete. Paul, Peter, James and other apostles were still receiving Divine Revelation from God (SCRIPTURE). The church did not have the complete Revelation (Bible) yet. Thus, there was still a need for “words” (revelation) from God.

It appears to me that the purpose of most manifestations of tongues (ecstatic utterances) today is to share a word or revelation from God. However, we now have the entire Bible: the completion of the Canon invalidates that purpose. We have no need for further Revelation from God. His Word is SUFFICIENT for every area of life and every trial we face. Any “further” revelation immediately raises RED FLAGS (the Mormon cult originated from “further” words from God). I am amazed that many who are claiming the sufficiency of Scripture are also supporting the practice of tongues, which is facially duplicitous.

5. It is very possible that Paul uses a dual meaning of tongues in his letter to the Corinthians: on the one hand he is speaking of the validity of Scriptural tongues not being forbidden and used for salvation purposes; on the other hand he is creating guidelines but refusing to condemn ecstatic utterances because he does not desire to quench the flames of some of his converts or to create more division in the already divided church at Corinth. And yet his new policy would have the effect of causing ecstatic utterances to cease.

With these observations in mind I conclude that the only Biblically valid practice of tongues was the practice in Acts, where tongues were languages whereby the gospel was shared. I further conclude the Corinthian abuses of tongues through ecstatic utterances did not validate ecstatic utterances then, nor does it today.

I shall now proceed to PPL. Again, let us begin with some observations:

1. Scripture does not mention a PPL anywhere. Such a concept is derived from 1 Cor 14.

2. There is no mention of a PPL in any Commentary or Theological work, of which I am familiar, before the Azusa Street Revival (Modern charismatic Movement). In fact, the linguistic and critical commentaries do not mention it still (they do mention tongues used in prayer but not a PPL). Which implies a belief in PPL is due more to the practice and traditions of men than to God's Word.

3. The individuals that I have had experiences with, who had a PPL, used it to gain NEW REVELATION from God. Such revelation inevitably led to unbiblical comprehensions of Scripture. One lady (a very spiritual woman who loves Jesus very much) spent hours in prayer daily. She was an avid reader of books on prayer, including David Jeremiah’s. She knew Scripture very well and had a PPL. To make a long story short, I will just address the most outrageous revelation she received: she claimed God told her, in her PPL, that she and I were the two witnesses in the book of Revelation!!!

Is it possible that many others are deceived about a PPL as she was?

With these observations in mind, we proceed to 1 Corinthians 14:14. I shall quote from commentaries, which reveal my understanding of this passage. John Calvin gives perhaps the clearest indictment against a PPL: therefore, I will end this post with his comments.

The ICC states: “Paul will not pray in ecstatic utterances that he cannot understand but he will pray with understanding as well as in the spirit.” In other words, Paul’s practice of tongues (1 Cor 14) was not a PPL, for he prayed in a language he could understand, thus his practice was the gift of foreign languages and he sets his practice as the example the Corinthians should follow.

The Translators Guide to the First Letter to the Corinthians concludes similarly: “Paul will use clear intelligible words besides the unintelligible sounds.”

John MacArthur makes a convincing argument that Paul was speaking sarcastically of false tongues (ecstatic utterances) but affirming the practice of the tongues of Acts. He further confirms what others have stated: namely, Paul will pray with the mind and the spirit (intelligible words).

John Calvin felt that the Corinthians were actually practicing the Biblical form of tongues (foreign languages) but doing so in prayer. He says, “for it is likely that the Corinthians also went wrong in this respect that, just as they were in the habit of speaking in foreign languages, so they were also using them in prayer.” He further reveals that, “the gift of tongues was bestowed for the purpose of communication.”

Calvin concludes: “if the gift of speaking in a tongue is kept distinct from the understanding, so that the speaker is a foreigner to himself, as well as to others, what good will he do by stammering along like that...the meaning is now plain. If I devise prayers in a language that is unknown to me and the spirit provides me with a rich flow of words, it is clear that the spirit itself, which controls my tongue, will indeed be praying, but my understanding will be wandering elsewhere, or at any rate will not be involved in the prayer. We should note that Paul thinks it a GREAT FAULT (caps mine) if the understanding takes no part in prayer. No wonder. For what else do we do in praying but pour out our thoughts and desires before God…in view of the fact that spiritual prayer is a means of worshipping, what is more out of keeping with its very nature than its coming only from the lips and not from the innermost recesses of the soul” (our thoughts).

BR