Carson
D.A. Carson, Showing the Spirit, A Theological Exposition of I Corinthians 12-14, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987
Xenoglossia = speaking in unlearned human languages.
Glossolalia = speaking verbal patterns that cannot be identified with any human language. p, 79
Noncognitive utterance = without cognitive content, regardless of whether such content is understood by either the speaker or the hearer. p. 81.
“To my knowledge there is universal agreement among linguists who have taped and analyzed thousands of examples of modern tongues-speaking that the contemporary phenomenon is not any human language.” See especiall the much cited works of W.J. Samarin, Tongues of Men and Angels: The Religious Language of Pentecostalism (NY: Macmillian, 1972); idem, Variation and Variables in Religious Glossolalia: Language in Society (London: Cambridge University Press, 1972). p. 83.
“We are dealing here not with language, but with verbalizations whichsuperficially resemble language in certain of its structural aspects.” J.R. Jaquette, “Toward a Typology of Formal Communicative Behaviors: Glossolalia,” Anthropological Linguistics 9 (1967): 6. Carson p. 84
Studies of tongues in different cultures:
1. The tongues phenomena have been related to the speaker’s natural language (e.g., a German or French tongues-speaker will not use one of the two English “th” sounds; and English tongues-speakers will never include the “u” sound on French “cru”).
2. The stereotypical utterance of any culture “mirrors that of the person who guided the glossolalist into the behavior. There is little variation of sound patterns within the group arising around a particular guide.” Felicitas D. Goodman, Speaking in Tongues: A Cross-Cultural Study of Glossolalia (Chicago: :University of Chicago Press, 1972).
“In any case, modern tongues are lexically uncommunicative and the few instances of reported modern xenoglossia are so poorly attested that no weight can be laid on them.” p. 84
Conclusions from these studies:
1. No known contemporary gift of tongues is biblically valid & therefore, the practice should be stopped immediately. John MacArthur, Jr. The Charismatics: A Doctrinal Perspective (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), p. 156.
@. Modern tongues are not biblical tongues & tongues-speakers shouldn’t claim them to be, but they do good to some and therefore should be considered as a good gift from God that nevertheless stands without explicit biblical warrant. J.I. Packer, Keep in Step with the Spirit (Leicester: Inter-Varsity; Old Tappan, N.J.: Revell, 1984) 207ff.
The possibilities of modern tongues:
1. Disconnected sounds, ejaculations, and the like that are not confused with human language.
2. Connected sequences of sounds that appear to be real languages unknown to the hearer not trained in linguistics, even though they are not.
3. Real language known by one or more of the potential hearers, even if unknown to the speaker.
4. Speech patterns sufficiently complex that they may bear all kinds of cognitive information in some coded array, even though linguistically these patterns are not identifiable as human language. Vern S. Poythress, “The Nature of Corinthian Glossolalia: Possible Options,” Westminster Theological Journal 40 (1977): 131
The contemporary gift of interpretation:
D.A. Carson had a friend who recited John 1:1-18 in Greek at a charismatic service. The inteerpretation bore no resemblance to John’s prologue.
“Two people with the gift of interpretation have on occasion been asked to interpret the same recorded tongues message and the resulting different and conflicting interpretations have been justified on the grounds that God gives different interpretations to different people.” p 87 See John P. Kildahl, The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues (NY: Harper and Row, 1972), 63
I cor 14:5 “I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy.” implies that some did not speak in tongues.
Edification demands intelligible content and tongues, by themselves, cannot provide it. “That Paul has to labor the point with examples from musicalinstruments and military bugle calls suggests how deeply committed to advancing the superiority of tongues the Corinthians (or at least some of them) must have been.” p. 103.