Case 04: The Case of Selective Citing || The matter of Tongues

10/05/2026 09:24:00 AM

Case 04: The Case of Selective Citing

Proof-texting, cherry-picking, small sample space fallacy, and confirmation bias — Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 12–14

Previously in The Church Case Files…

In Case 02, Urmila encountered the gift of tongues in a Pentecostal church. Now, in Case 04, she discovers something more intriguing: Christians can read the same biblical passage yet arrive at different conclusions, sometimes because they selectively cite Scripture.

She begins investigating two groups: Pentecostals (P) and Reformed churches (R).

1. Acts 2 vs. 1 Corinthians 14

Choose which view to read

“Look at Acts 2! When the Holy Spirit came, the disciples spoke in tongues!”

Urmila’s observation

Acts 2 explicitly describes recognizable human languages. Yet some Pentecostals appeal to 1 Corinthians 14:2, where the speaker speaks to God, nobody understands, and mysteries are spoken in the Spirit, to argue that tongues can be unknown languages.

Furthermore, Acts 2 was a unique event marking the promised coming of the Holy Spirit. Although tongues appear in other episodes in Acts, Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 12–14 focuses on spiritual gifts within the church, particularly their proper use, interpretation, and edification. He does not explicitly teach that tongues must accompany every believer’s baptism in the Holy Spirit.

“Look at Acts 2! Tongues were recognizable human languages!”

Urmila’s observation

But when discussing 1 Corinthians 14, Paul speaks of unintelligible tongues, interpretation, and speaking one at a time. At Pentecost, the hearers recognized their own languages without an interpreter. Why not apply the same rules to both passages?

If tongues are always foreign human languages intended as a sign to unbelievers or an evangelistic tool, why do tongues appear in Acts 10 and Acts 19 in gatherings of believers?

Paul also refers to different kinds of tongues in 1 Corinthians 12:10, 28. Could this leave room for different categories of tongues-speech? Some interpreters propose human languages, angelic speech, or Spirit-enabled heavenly speech. However, the text does not explicitly identify these as separate categories.

Urmila pauses.

Could both groups be selecting the passages that support their existing conclusions while giving less attention to the passages that challenge them?

2. Is Tongues the Necessary Sign of Spirit Baptism?

Urmila investigates another claim: speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit.

She finds tongues accompanying particular events in Acts 2, 10, and 19. But does the New Testament explicitly establish this as a universal requirement?

Paul discusses Spirit baptism in 1 Corinthians 12:13 and asks, “Do all speak with tongues?” in 12:30. The expected answer is no, because believers do not all possess the same spiritual gift.

Paul never explicitly states that every believer baptized in the Spirit must speak in tongues.

Urmila also notices that Paul places love above tongues and every other spiritual gift in 1 Corinthians 13.

Tongues, therefore, cannot simply be treated as synonymous with love or as a sufficient measurement of Christian maturity.

She writes in her notebook:

Urmila’s notebook

“A recorded occurrence is not automatically a universal rule. We must distinguish what Scripture describes from what it explicitly teaches.”

3. What About “Tongues of Angels”?

Then Urmila encounters a phrase that complicates the debate:

“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.”

1 Corinthians 13:1

Some interpret this as hyperbole: Paul imagines the highest conceivable form of speech to emphasize the supremacy of love. Others consider the possibility that he refers to genuine angelic or heavenly speech.

Urmila asks: Why does Paul distinguish “tongues of men” from “tongues of angels”?

The phrase alone does not prove that Christians possess an angelic prayer language. Nevertheless, Urmila wonders whether dismissing the angelic reference too quickly might also reflect confirmation bias.

She considers the broader context. Some scholars have proposed that certain Corinthians believed they had already attained an elevated spiritual state, perhaps even experiencing aspects of heavenly existence. On this reading, Paul's emphasis on love, order, and the future resurrection challenges their sense of spiritual superiority.

The connection with 1 Corinthians 15 is intriguing, particularly when considered alongside the warning about Hymenaeus and Philetus in 2 Timothy 2:17–18, who claimed that the resurrection had already occurred.

Alert!

However, whether the Corinthians specifically believed they were speaking angelic languages remains a scholarly hypothesis, not an established fact.

Urmila then remembers Hebrews 13:2:

“Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”

Hebrews 13:2

Angels can appear in human circumstances without being immediately recognized. But does their ability to communicate with humans establish that they have no other mode of communication?

Accommodation to human understanding does not necessarily settle the question of angelic speech.

Some interpreters, including Sam Storms, have argued for understanding tongues as potentially involving heavenly speech. Gordon D. Fee's work on 1 Corinthians also engages the difficult questions surrounding tongues and their interpretation. These perspectives deserve examination, but they do not establish that 1 Corinthians 14 necessarily describes angelic languages.

Urmila writes:

Urmila’s notebook

“Hyperbole is possible. Genuine angelic speech is another possibility. But neither should be declared certain without sufficient evidence.”

4. Rethinking 1 Corinthians 14

Urmila returns to Paul's instructions.

The chapter describes tongues that require interpretation, speech that is unintelligible to the congregation, and the need for orderly participation.

She wonders whether Paul is discussing the same phenomenon as Acts 2.

If Corinthian tongues are simply foreign human languages, why is interpretation necessary when the congregation cannot understand them? A foreign language can certainly require interpretation, so this does not disprove that explanation. Yet the repeated emphasis on mysteries, unintelligibility, and interpretation makes the relationship between the two passages a genuine interpretive question.

Urmila refuses to force an easy conclusion.

Acts 2 clearly describes recognizable languages. First Corinthians 14 addresses a different communicative situation, but whether the underlying phenomenon is identical remains disputed.

The distinction matters. Neither passage should be used to silence the questions raised by the other.

5. An Unexpected Possibility

After her last discussion with Pastor Brandon, Urmila begins to reconsider her assumptions.

The church Aisha attends may be mistaken about several things. But could it be right about one particular issue—that tongues might involve something beyond ordinary human languages?

She is not ready to agree.

She is simply no longer willing to dismiss the possibility merely because it challenges her existing framework.

Perhaps the Pentecostal interpretation is right about some aspects and wrong about others. Perhaps the Reformed interpretation explains some passages well but struggles with others.

Urmila has not solved every question about tongues. Instead, she has discovered a more fundamental problem.

A theological position should not be protected from scrutiny by selectively citing Scripture.

Key takeaways

Christians can read the same biblical passage yet arrive at different conclusions, sometimes because they selectively cite Scripture.
A recorded occurrence is not automatically a universal rule. We must distinguish what Scripture describes from what it explicitly teaches.
Tongues cannot simply be treated as synonymous with love or as a sufficient measurement of Christian maturity.
Hyperbole is possible. Genuine angelic speech is another possibility. But neither should be declared certain without sufficient evidence.
A theological position should not be protected from scrutiny by selectively citing Scripture.

Case Conclusion

Urmila closes her notebook.

The real issue is not whether Christians should quote the Bible. It is whether they are willing to read the passages that challenge their conclusions with the same seriousness as those that support them.

She writes one final sentence:

“The purpose of studying Scripture is not to find verses that defend what we already believe. It is to allow Scripture to challenge what we believe.”