Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Yes, all sipritual gifts, including the gift of tongues (whether in private prayer, or with interpretation ) are for the edifying of the body of Christ. Just because the other hearers in the church gathering are not edified, doesn't mean the body of Christ is not being edified. It is, in the sense that the individuals within the body are benefitting because their spirits are being edified; But Paul is saying that others around them are not getting the benefit of what they're hearing unless there is an interpretation, and that's why he discouraged speaking in tongues in the congregation without the speaker or someone else in the congregation having the gift of interpretation in order to give word that would bless the other hearers.

TRFrance,
In the paragraph above you seem to say that individuals will speak in tongues outside of tongues and interpretation during a church gathering edifying themselves and the church body, but not necessarily the hearers, which I take that as visitors or those not spirit filled.

You go on to say that Paul discourages this practice. Am I reading that correctly?

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Besides, tongues and languages mean the exact same thing... so I'm not sure what your point is when you choose to use the words separately and disctinctly, as if theres some distinction in meaning. New tongues/new languages/unknown tongues/unknown languages... I think we're talking about the same thing.

I agree it is all the same thing.

Originally Posted by TRFrance

It does not say they preached the gospel when they spoke in tongues. I think that its highly speculative to assert that they did.
It said they proclaimed the wonderful works of God (v. 11), but that by itself is not necessarily preaching the gospel. When can also speak of his wonderful works by praising God, without preaching to anyone in the process.

But the gospel wasnt preached until Peter began to address them afterward.... The men asked "what meaneth this?"... and then Peter gave the first gospel message beginning in Acts 2:14, speaking in a single language they all undersood, not in tongues.

I agree with this. I'd like to address what I have come to understand. Not only was God's word fulfilled but his timing was perfect as at the time of Christ's ministry the known world was largely using Greek as the universal language. Would that be correct?