Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by OneAccord

I know it may seem that I am 'nit-picking" in the above post- that certainly isn't my intention. However, the subject gets confusing when we use interchangable terms in referring to tongues. A careful study of Pauls writings shows a distinction between the different type of tongues. For the sake of clarity,I used the term "other tongues" in reference to what we call the "initial evidence" "Unknown tongues" was used to refer to "praying in tongues or the Spirit," and "prophetic Tongues" was used to refer to the "giving out of a prophetic message in tongues (to be interpreted).

OA, I understand where you're coming from, and I was taught the same.

However, if you look more closely, there is no distinction.

On the day of Pentecost, when those in Jerusalem began to speak with "other" tongues, there were people there who understood them and received the message.

In Corinthians, Paul teaches that tongues are to be understood, either by interpretation, or by the fact that we are speaking in "other" languages, understood by those hearing us.

He says on more than one occasion, that if we speak with an "unknown" tongue, our spirit may be praying, but our understanding and the understanding of those around us is not fulfilled.