No, because both of those purposes were accomplished by the same gift of tongues. But those two issues don't justify the idea that the nature of tongues was different between Acts 2 and 1 Cor. 14. The manifestation did not change in that time period. But when talking about modern day tongues, it is absolutely different in manifestation, because it's just gibberish like a toddler pretending to talk. I'm not saying that Pentecostals are intending that, but I'm saying that's reality, that it's the nature of modern tongues.
And if what I'm saying is true, that modern tongues is a natural phenomenon, then every time someone babbles it and then claims "thus saith the Lord...," that person is taking the name of the Lord in vain. The tongue-talker by speaking it in public is saying that very thing by virtue of their doing it in public. Every person in the congregation who hears it is assuming that God is speaking - this is the nature of doing it in public. And then when someone gives an interpretation, They also are virtually saying "thus saith the Lord...," and that person also is taking the name of the Lord in vain, because the Lord did not speak in that way. It doesn't matter that those people are deceived, and don't intend on taking the name of the Lord in vain. The actions, the behavior, the doctrine is wrong, and the Lord isn't in it.
So, concerning interpretation, just because someone can remember some verse of scripture, it doesn't mean that an authentic miraculous language was spoken and there was an authentic interpretation, which would be a translation of the message. In the case of modern tongues, it's merely gibberish, and then someone pretends an interpretation by quoting scripture or declaring "thus saith the Lord..." and speaks out of their imagination. There is a vast difference between what is described in scripture and what is being done today in P/C circles (Pentecostal/Charismatic).
What I hear you saying is that since there were 2 purposes of tongues described that it justifies the idea that there are 2 different manifestations. No, I deny that idea, I don't believe it. And neither is the idea justified that modern babble is "tongues of angels." Although Paul used that phrase once, doesn't mean that He was saying that anyone spoke an angelic language. Let's examine it carefully: was it an exaggerative expression? Are we to take it that he was teaching that some actually spoke angelic languages, or should we take it as a hyperbole where no one literally did that?
There are many hyperboles in scripture, but let's look at the immediate context of 1 Cor. 13. One of the hyperboles Paul mentioned was giving oneself over to be burned. Although it could have happened, and did happen to some, it's still a hyperbole, because Paul did not expect it to happen to himself nor to any of the Corinthians, and certainly not to the entire church nor to all those to whom the Spirit was given. Such expectation is the nature of the language of 1 Cor. 13, which is a conversation to a church. So, even if we claim that tongues of angels was possible or even likely for someone to speak, it certainly was not an expectation for all to speak it by any means. Yet, modern P/Cs claim that the gibberish they all speak are "tongues of angels." Can you see that there is something horribly wrong with the picture? There is a vast difference between what P/Cs claim and what scripture actually says.
But I say that modern tongues is not tongues of angels or men, it is a natural human ability, not a miracle. It's a language phenomenon that people can speak gibberish fluently. And it's the same kind of gibberish that's been done for thousands of years among various religions who claim they are "speaking oracles of the gods." And that linguists can tell that it's nothing but gibberish by the fact that their ear is tuned to real languages, and they are able to tell that there is not enough vocabulary or structure in modern tongues to render it a language or have any intelligible meaning in it. And it can't be an angelic language, since that would have to have structure also, and a vocabulary likely greater than humans.
Consider this: Roman Catholics claim the dogma of transubstantiation in the Eucharist, which means that the bread and wine become "the real body and blood of Christ." And the Protestant doesn't believe that any more than they believe in fairies. In the same way, when a P/C speaks gibberish and claims that the Holy Spirit is speaking through them, I don't believe that either. Further, I am now convinced that the practice of it in public is the sin of taking the Lord's name in vain, even though that's not intended. At best, it's people who are deceived into thinking it's a manifestation of the Holy Spirit when in reality it isn't. I think my 5 issues listed above are the heart of the matter, in addition to my description of it in this post.
TD
