Bible Study Just What ARE Pentecostal "Tongues"?

[BradtheImpaler]

If those speaking in tongues are proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ at the time, and are interpreted correctly, then they are real; If they bring another gospel or do not bring the gospel of Jesus Christ only, it is counterfeit

How do you know if they are interpreted correctly?

It will align with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Anything apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ is counterfeit.

26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 1 Corinthians 14:26-33

I'm beginning to understand your and Lecoop's plan - to bring me to Jesus by driving me to PRAY FOR PATIENCE :wink:

Free, how do you know if what the tongues speakers said aligns with the gospel (here comes that point again, I'm not shouting, just emphasizing)

IF...YOU...DON'T...UNDERSTAND...THEIR...LANGUAGE??

 

[starbyfar]

I'm beginning to understand your and Lecoop's plan - to bring me to Jesus by driving me to PRAY FOR PATIENCE

This was funny :-D.

Just a question. Do you come to a christian forum to try to help others convert to what you believe or because you're interested in becoming a christian?

Free, how do you know if what the tongues speakers said aligns with the gospel (here comes that point again, I'm not shouting, just emphasizing)

IF...YOU...DON'T...UNDERSTAND...THEIR...LANGUAGE??

Theres always supposed to be an interpreter. If theres no interpreter and the person is going on in pig latin, then its wrong. I wouldn't say that its always false, but the person isn't in step with scripture.. And to not be in step with scripture and be able to speak in tounges sounds kinda funny to me. I believe speaking in tounges isn't something that happens to everyone. Only those that are really in some serious, deep, blood/sweat commune with God, at the time.
So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air (1 Corinth 14:9)

If anyone speaks in a tongue, twoâ€â€or at the most threeâ€â€should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God. (1 Corinth 14:27-28)

This verse implies that people have control over when they speak in tounges, and if they choose to do so, they have to know there is an interpreter there to decipher what they are saying. If not, they have to shut it. Pure and simple. The point of tounges is ur holy spirit having a convo with God. If it happens in public the message is supposed to be delivered otherwise its useless. :D [/quote]

 

[lecoop]

I have to prove nothing. I don't have to defend either God or the bible. Tongues are there for anyone to read about; to believe or not to believe. Do you not believe that the Acts 2 experience was supernatural? I assume nothing, but I believe what God told us about tongues. Well, I do assume that you can read these scriptures as well as I.

I thought we were talking about how do you know if what passes for tongues TODAY is the real thing, not about what the bible says happened 2000 years ago?

[quote:134de]If you understood what happened in Acts 2, 8, 10, and 19, you would not make such silly statements. Let me help you: when the HOly Spirit came, they spoke in tongues. Before the Holy Spirit came, they spoke in thier learned languages. Pretty simple, really.

Yes, I understand the story - why can't you understand the point at hand?

Let's try it again in other words...

Do you see/hear what happened in Acts being duplicated today, or do you hear tongues speakers babbling away in church in what can't even be proven to be authentic languages?

You have to be close enough to God to understand the "inward witness" of the Holy Spirit by yourself! In other words, you cannot go by what someone else tells you - you have to find out yourself

I DID find out for myself, hopefully you will too.

However, there are clues as to who is the author of tongues. Did you ever notice in Acts 10 and Acts 19 what accompanied tongues? It says "then magnified God" and "prophesied." Therefore, if you hear people praying in tongues, see who gets the glory for it. If they magnify God, then you have a very good reason to believe it is from God. Of course, I don't mean that you interpret the tongues, but if they say something in English, see if it glorifies God.

Oh, but the tongues HAVE to be interpreted if the hearers are to know that the speakers are "glorifying God" - that was the whole point of those incidents in Acts!!

Let's try AGAIN (3rd time's a charm?)...

If you don't know what the speakers are saying, how do you know they're -

1) speaking in a real language
2) speaking in a real language they did not know a few seconds before

and...

3) how do you know what they're saying is glorifying God?

If all these things are not verifiable, the (supposed) manifestation is MEANINGLESS.[/quote:134de]

I am sorry, but I did not make myself very clear. On the day of pentecost, they spoke in tongues for a while, but eventually had to quit. For instance, Peter got up and preached. He did not preach in tongues!

My point is, when you hear people praying in tongues today, listen and see what they say AFTER they quit speaking in tongues, and go back to their native language. See of what they say in English is glorifying God or not glorifying God.

How will you EVER know if it is real unless you just experience it yourself. After all, Jesus did command then to not leave home without it (the baptism with the HS.) So why don't you determine to receive it, and you too will speak in tongues. Then you will be in a perfect place to judge it, by your own tongues.

I know you were speaking of today, while I was speaking of then. However, it is the same God, and the same baptism with the HS, and therefore is the same tongues today as it was then. Do you have some proof that it is not? Paul said then that "no man understands" and that seems to be what you describe. Therefore, it seems like what you have described is just as real as what Paul described.

Coop

 

[BradtheImpaler]

I am sorry, but I did not make myself very clear. On the day of pentecost, they spoke in tongues for a while, but eventually had to quit. For instance, Peter got up and preached. He did not preach in tongues!

My point is, when you hear people praying in tongues today, listen and see what they say AFTER they quit speaking in tongues, and go back to their native language. See of what they say in English is glorifying God or not glorifying God

What they say before or after in their native tongue does not validate the tongue - speaking. What would validate the tongues is if someone (who recognized and knew the language in question) could identify it as a genuine language, and interpret it. If not, there is no way to prove it is a real language. It may just be "babble". You are assuming that anyone who utters a few incoherent phrases in this context is speaking a true language which was miraculously bestowed. WHY do you assume that? It is a very simple thing to, consciously or sub-consciously, jumble some english words. Very easy to fake. Why do you assume it is the real thing?

How will you EVER know if it is real unless you just experience it yourself. After all, Jesus did command then to not leave home without it (the baptism with the HS.) So why don't you determine to receive it, and you too will speak in tongues. Then you will be in a perfect place to judge it, by your own tongues

I HAVE experienced it myself, but I am no longer certain that it is anything but a jumbled form of english. In fact, I am pretty certain that is what it is. Now whether I exalt Christ or deny Him in my life and native tongue, I can still speak in tongues and that doesn't change - just what we would expect if these "tongues" were psychologically induced.

I know you were speaking of today, while I was speaking of then. However, it is the same God, and the same baptism with the HS, and therefore is the same tongues today as it was then. Do you have some proof that it is not? Paul said then that "no man understands" and that seems to be what you describe. Therefore, it seems like what you have described is just as real as what Paul described.

I don't need proof it is not the same - you need proof that it IS the same because your claim is that it is the same miraculous manifestation.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Just a question. Do you come to a christian forum to try to help others convert to what you believe or because you're interested in becoming a christian?

I already "became" a Christian many moons ago. Since then, over the years, I became disillusioned with the faith (long story) I'm not trying to convert people now to what I believe because I don't have a strict belief. Right now I'm asking the same questions again I thought were answered when I became a Christian. If anything, I like to see folks RETHINK what they have, in many cases, been indoctrinated with. Don't be afraid to confront your doubts and ask the hard questions.

Theres always supposed to be an interpreter. If theres no interpreter and the person is going on in pig latin, then its wrong. I wouldn't say that its always false, but the person isn't in step with scripture.. And to not be in step with scripture and be able to speak in tounges sounds kinda funny to me. I believe speaking in tounges isn't something that happens to everyone. Only those that are really in some serious, deep, blood/sweat commune with God, at the time

And how do you know the interpreter is on the level? Want to hear a good one? I know a girl (a Christian, but non-Pentecostal/Charismatic) who visited a Pentecostal church. People were standing up and speaking in tongues in turn and one guy was up front interpreting each "message". This girl, quite innocently, stood up, and because she didn't "speak in tongues", she recited a Psalm she had memorized in Hebrew without announcing that fact. (Can you guess the ending by now?) Yes, the "interpreter" translated her speach, but it had nothing to do with the Psalm in question. HE WAS MAKING IT UP. How ridiculous this whole situation was. People speaking in tongues, which were not really tongues, and someone interpreting their babbling, but not really interpreting. And even worse, I'm quite sure the folks who were giving the messages really thought they were speaking in tongues and the interpreter probably thought he had some gift but was just saying what came to mind. (you know, like when someone gives a "prophecy")

The point of this is that there is no way these people can know whether what is happening among themselves is the "real thing" or not, without objective testing, like what happened, inadvertently, in the incident I related. They WANT to believe it is real, so they assume it is.

It's NOT, folks - time for us to take a big dang dose of reality.

 

[mutzrein]

Are tongues valid in the church of today? Yes

Is prophecy valid in the church of today? Yes

Are there false tongues? Yes

Are there false prophecies? Yes

How do you know the difference? Discernment.

 

[AVBunyan]

Question - What are tongues for?
Answer - Wherefore tongues are for a sign, - 1 Cor 14:22

Tongues are for a sign.

Question – Who required a sign?
Answer - For the Jews require a sign, 1 Cor 1:22

Question – Who were tongues for?
Answer – Tongues were for that believe not: 1 Cor 14:22

Question – Who ere tongues not for?
Answer – Tongues were not to them that believe, 1 Cor 14:22

Question – Who at that time did not believe Jesus was the Messiah?
Answer – Israel as a nation did not believe that Jesus was their Messiah. Acts 2

Su8mmary – So, putting I Cor. 1:22 together with 14:22 you get that the Jews believed not (1 Cor. 14:22) and they required a sign (tongues) which were a sign of judgment that they had rejected their Messiah. The Gentiles got in on the blessing as a sign of judgment to unbelieving Israel.

Rom 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

1 Cor 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not:

Alright folks - what was it that they didn't believe?

Were the Corinthians in the body of Christ? I believe they were a local body of Gentile/Jewish believers were believed that Christ was the Messiah for Israel and that he died for their sins. I believe it wasn’t until after Acts 28 that the fullness of the actual body of Christ was revealed. So, it was scriptural for them to speak in tongues for they were being made a sing to the unbelieving Jews at that time.

What the Corinthian church was doing was misusing the tongues given as a sign for unbelieving Israel and using them for their own edification – like today.

Now Free – do you speak in tongues? Do you speak them as a sign to unbelieving Israel like what when on in Acts? Do you speak them for yourself and other believers thus violating I Cor. 14:22?

Because tongues are in the Bible you figure they are for you. Do you still sacrifice lambs? That is in the bible also! Sacrifices went away and the signs have been put on the back burner until God again begins to resume his dealings with Israel during the latter part of the tribulation – and tongues will not be a part of the future dealings with Israel.

Paul shaved his head and kept vows during Acts – does this mean you should too?

Folks – you are rejecting I Cor. 1:22 and 14:22 – plain and simple.

Tongues were given as a sign to unbelieving Israel as a sign of judgment that they had rejected their Messiah and the Gentiles spoke in tongues as a sign to provoke Israel to jealousy because it showed God was bringing the Gentiles in on the blessings since Israel had rejected the blessings and their Messiah.

If you can't get the above then I'm sorry - ask God to open your eyes.

God bless

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Are tongues valid in the church of today? Yes

Is prophecy valid in the church of today? Yes

Are there false tongues? Yes

Are there false prophecies? Yes

How do you know the difference? Discernment.

And how do you know whether your or someone else's discernment is true? By discernment? :roll:

I'm not trying to be a "wise guy", I'm trying to make a point, a point that, incredibly, seems to elude everybody here. Because something (supposedly) happened in the bible, you guys think an impersonation of that manisfestation today must be considered real unless it is shown false - and the only way to show it false is by "discernment", which ITSELF is so subjective as to be worthless because different people's discernment will differ. The reasoning (or "lack of") you are caught in is like a revolving door. Are you afraid of stepping outside the situation and logically appraising it because to do so might reveal that the whole thing is a charade? :bday: Wouldn't you rather know the TRUTH about something, no matter what implications that truth came with?

 

[Solo]

Are tongues valid in the church of today? Yes

Is prophecy valid in the church of today? Yes

Are there false tongues? Yes

Are there false prophecies? Yes

How do you know the difference? Discernment.

And how do you know whether your or someone else's discernment is true? By discernment? :roll:

I'm not trying to be a "wise guy", I'm trying to make a point, a point that, incredibly, seems to elude everybody here. Because something (supposedly) happened in the bible, you guys think an impersonation of that manisfestation today must be considered real unless it is shown false - and the only way to show it false is by "discernment", which ITSELF is so subjective as to be worthless because different people's discernment will differ. The reasoning (or "lack of") you are caught in is like a revolving door. Are you afraid of stepping outside the situation and logically appraising it because to do so might reveal that the whole thing is a charade? :bday: Wouldn't you rather know the TRUTH about something, no matter what implications that truth came with?

I answered your questions, but you are not hearing the answers. In the church session where the lady spoke a Psalm in Hebrew did everyone speak English? If so then the tongues and interpretation was not the gift of the Spirit, and the lady speaking the Psalm in Hebrew proved it. I have had individuals doing what they called speaking in tongues, but it was not. I ask a friend who speaks in tongues whether she tested the spirits before giving herself over to speaking in "tongues" and she said that she hadn't, but that she knew that it was from God. I asked her how she knew, and she said that she knew by the feeling. I told her that feelings are not a very good way to indicate what spirit is leading her.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

I answered your questions, but you are not hearing the answers

Did I miss something? I thought you said (in effect) you can tell whether the person or false or true by whether what they say in english? I'm asking how you can tell whether the TONGUES they exhibit are supernatural or human gibberish?

In the church session where the lady spoke a Psalm in Hebrew did everyone speak English?

Yes.

If so then the tongues and interpretation was not the gift of the Spirit, and the lady speaking the Psalm in Hebrew proved it

Correct.

I have had individuals doing what they called speaking in tongues, but it was not. I ask a friend who speaks in tongues whether she tested the spirits before giving herself over to speaking in "tongues" and she said that she hadn't, but that she knew that it was from God. I asked her how she knew, and she said that she knew by the feeling. I told her that feelings are not a very good way to indicate what spirit is leading her.

We are in agreement there but you're not taking it through to it's logical conclusion. If you are convinced that some of these tongues are false, how do you know that any of it is real? And why do you assume (seemingly) that all of these tongues are from sort of "spirit"? What is the evidence that something supernatural (i.e. - from God or Satan) is ocurring at all when these tongues can so easily be duplicated on a human level?

 

[Solo]

I answered your questions, but you are not hearing the answers

Did I miss something? I thought you said (in effect) you can tell whether the person or false or true by whether what they say in english? I'm asking how you can tell whether the TONGUES they exhibit are supernatural or human gibberish?

[quote:bba74]In the church session where the lady spoke a Psalm in Hebrew did everyone speak English?

Yes.

If so then the tongues and interpretation was not the gift of the Spirit, and the lady speaking the Psalm in Hebrew proved it

Correct.

I have had individuals doing what they called speaking in tongues, but it was not. I ask a friend who speaks in tongues whether she tested the spirits before giving herself over to speaking in "tongues" and she said that she hadn't, but that she knew that it was from God. I asked her how she knew, and she said that she knew by the feeling. I told her that feelings are not a very good way to indicate what spirit is leading her.

We are in agreement there but you're not taking it through to it's logical conclusion. If you are convinced that some of these tongues are false, how do you know that any of it is real? And why do you assume (seemingly) that all of these tongues are from sort of "spirit"? What is the evidence that something supernatural (i.e. - from God or Satan) is ocurring at all when these tongues can so easily be duplicated on a human level?[/quote:bba74]
As I stated in an earlier post, You will know that the tongues are real when they proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, and it is done in the order outlined in scripture. Anything else is counterfeit. If tongues are interpreted and they proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, and there are those in the congregation that do not speak the same language as everyone else, then the tongues are unnecessary. The tongues were so that people could understand the gospel of Jesus Christ in their own language, therefore, any other proclamations that are interpreted counter to the gospel of Jesus Christ are counterfeit.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

As I stated in an earlier post, You will know that the tongues are real when they proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, and it is done in the order outlined in scripture. Anything else is counterfeit. If tongues are interpreted and they proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, and there are those in the congregation that do not speak the same language as everyone else, then the tongues are unnecessary. The tongues were so that people could understand the gospel of Jesus Christ in their own language, therefore, any other proclamations that are interpreted counter to the gospel of Jesus Christ are counterfeit.

Still missing the point. Let's go back to the example of the girl who visited the Pentecostal church and apply your formula for testing the genuiness of the situation...

You hear people speaking in unknown words and the interpreter gives the interpretation. Each and every interpretation proclaim the gospel or otherwise glorify God. You must assume it's genuine? Well, you'd be wrong wouldn't you? It was fake. And how do we know that? Only because someone there knew, in the natural, the foreign tongue she was speaking in and the correct translation. If the translation of the "tongue" in question cannot be verified by someone who knows the language (and knows that the person speaking does NOT know the language) then the tongues may be gibberish and the interpretations contrived and you'll never know the difference. According to Acts, on the day of Pentecost the crowd heard the 120 praising God in languages which the crowd understood. They also knew that the disciples were Galileans and should not have been able to speak those languages. Therefore they knew something supernatural was going on and Peter appealed to this sign as EVIDENCE that what he was to subsequently preach was from God. That's the situation that you need to prove that what goes on in Penrecostal/Charismatic circles is the "real thing". Anything less is childsplay to fake, and reason demands that, in the absence of the evidence of a miracle, it is foolishness to assume that something miraculous has transpired.

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that it's falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish" (David Hume)

 

[AVBunyan]

And how do you know whether your or someone else's discernment is true? By discernment? :roll:

Thanks for some common sense here Brad - tongue speakers go by experience as their authority - you can make the scriptures teach anything you want but you cannot make it say what it doesn't say.

Again.

1 Cor 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign,

not to them that believe,

but to them that believe not:

If you say tongues are for you then you are an unbeliever - did youi get that?

God bless

 

[D46]

The gift of tongues like all good and precious gifts of God, can be greatly misunderstood and misused-even abused. Paul in writing to the Corinthian church says...

1 Corinthians 12:1 (KJV) Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

This ignorance he refers to has to do with the availability as well as the proper administration of the gifts. Chapter 12 disclosed the "nine spiritual gifts" of God. Chapter 14, he is dealing mainly with the misuse of spiritual gifts whereby in verse 19 of I Corinthians 14 he says, "Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousands words in an unknown tongue." If you read verse 18 in which Paul says, "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all", it is easy to understand that he is not speaking against tongues. As a matter of fact in 1 Corinthians 14:39 he gives this admonition, "Wherefore, bretheren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues." In I Corinthians 14:2 he says...

1 Corinthians 14:2 (KJV) For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

So, surely we should not condemn anyone for speaking to God.

There are two distinct types of tongues in the Bible. One is the evidential tongues which is spoken when one received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. This tongue may be a language foreign to the person speaking but, could be understood by others native to that dialect. Such was the case on the Day of Pentacost when men of every nation heard the hundred and twenty Jews speak in the native language of every person present. This manifestation has led many to believe that this experience was for the express purpose of evangelizing foreign countries. However, the Bible does not record any such use of this gift for this purpose.

The next type of tongues the Bible teaches is a tongue of edification; no man understands this language (I Corinthians 14:2). This tongue, if spoken openly in a church service, must be interpreted. If there is no interpreter after such a message is given, the person is instructed to keep silent and speak to himself and to God. This means to not dominate a service with uninterpreted messages and such wass the problem in the Corinthian Church as people were expounding on an exalted position on their strength of being able to speak an unintelligible language. Paul condemned this attitude and gave guidelines requiring coherency in all public speaking. But, Paul concludes this matter..."Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophecy, and forbid not to speak with tongues." I Corinthians 14:39-40

Was/is tongues necessary or are they for us today?

Acts 8:14-19 (KJV) Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

Peter and John believed it was necessary or they wouldn't have traveled to Samaria. This was way after Pentacost and wasn't a sign for unbelievers or for evangelizing. I've heard people who refute tongues indicate that when they received Christ they "received the whole ball of wax". They may have received the whole ball of wax, but they didn't receive the Holy Ghost unless they spoke in tongues according to scripture. What did Simon see or hear that made him want to pay for what he had just witnessed? Must have been something to experience as he was well versed in trickery and sorcery. I submit, he heard these believers speak in a language no one knew and wanted this same "power" to the point of offering money for it.

And what of Peter and the Jews that went with him to the household of Cornelius...

Acts 10:44-48 (KJV) While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

How did they know Cornelius and his house received the Holy Ghost,..."for they heard them speak in tongues and magnify God." This wasn't a recognizable language but the "unknown tongue" Paul speaks of in I Corinthians and I suspect this is what Simon the Sorcerer heard when he offered to pay Peter for this gift.

And, what of Paul when he came to Ephesus...

Acts 19:2-6 (KJV) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Obviously, you could be a believer and NOT have the gift of the Holy Ghost. So, you don't get the "whole ball of wax" just because you believe or accept Christ as evidenced in the foregoing Scriptures. So, what is the evidence that one has received the Holy Ghost..."for they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God." Acts 10:46

 

[Solo]

As I stated in an earlier post, You will know that the tongues are real when they proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, and it is done in the order outlined in scripture. Anything else is counterfeit. If tongues are interpreted and they proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, and there are those in the congregation that do not speak the same language as everyone else, then the tongues are unnecessary. The tongues were so that people could understand the gospel of Jesus Christ in their own language, therefore, any other proclamations that are interpreted counter to the gospel of Jesus Christ are counterfeit.

Still missing the point. Let's go back to the example of the girl who visited the Pentecostal church and apply your formula for testing the genuiness of the situation...

You hear people speaking in unknown words and the interpreter gives the interpretation. Each and every interpretation proclaim the gospel or otherwise glorify God. You must assume it's genuine? Well, you'd be wrong wouldn't you? It was fake. And how do we know that? Only because someone there knew, in the natural, the foreign tongue she was speaking in and the correct translation. If the translation of the "tongue" in question cannot be verified by someone who knows the language (and knows that the person speaking does NOT know the language) then the tongues may be gibberish and the interpretations contrived and you'll never know the difference. According to Acts, on the day of Pentecost the crowd heard the 120 praising God in languages which the crowd understood. They also knew that the disciples were Galileans and should not have been able to speak those languages. Therefore they knew something supernatural was going on and Peter appealed to this sign as EVIDENCE that what he was to subsequently preach was from God. That's the situation that you need to prove that what goes on in Penrecostal/Charismatic circles is the "real thing". Anything less is childsplay to fake, and reason demands that, in the absence of the evidence of a miracle, it is foolishness to assume that something miraculous has transpired.

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that it's falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish" (David Hume)

I have never heard a tongue spoken with interpretation that was anything other than a non-gospel combination of meaningless jargon. I have never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ interpreted. If you would like to know what the gospel of Jesus Christ is, go to the book of Acts and read about those at Pentacost when tongues was spoken.

 

[AVBunyan]

Tongues are not for today in any shape or form for any reason whatsoever.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

And how do you know whether your or someone else's discernment is true? By discernment? :roll:

Thanks for some common sense here Brad - tongue speakers go by experience as their authority - you can make the scriptures teach anything you want but you cannot make it say what it doesn't say.

Again.

1 Cor 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign,

not to them that believe,

but to them that believe not:

If you say tongues are for you then you are an unbeliever - did youi get that?

God bless

Wow - talk about wrenching something out of context! Tongues are a sign for those "who believe not", but they are SPOKEN by those who believe. The very next verse talks about unbelievers coming into the church and hearing everyone (believers) speaking in tongues.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

The next type of tongues the Bible teaches is a tongue of edification; no man understands this language (I Corinthians 14:2). This tongue, if spoken openly in a church service, must be interpreted

How can it be interpreted if "no man understands this language"? And how do you know it's a real language?

So, what is the evidence that one has received the Holy Ghost..."for they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God." Acts 10:46

Then some or all of the hearers have to understand what is being said, for how else would they know the speakers were "magnifying God"? If this example is the evidence, then how many qualify today?

 

[Free]

Again.

1 Cor 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign,

not to them that believe,

but to them that believe not:

If you say tongues are for you then you are an unbeliever - did youi get that?

The surprising thing here is that even Brad understands what is being said (no offense Impaler ;) ). This is clearly a case of twisting Scripture. Regardless, your view of tongues is much narrower than a careful reading of 1 Cor. 14 indicates. You stick to one verse, taking it out of context and develop a whole, errant doctrine out of it.

Tongues are not for today in any shape or form for any reason whatsoever.

And you have given no reason whatsoever to believe that argument.

 

[AVBunyan]

And you have given no reason whatsoever to believe that argument.

I told you what tongues were for (sign) and who they were for (unbelievers) - I even quoted Romans 11 to show why tongues were given. What more do you want? Is your fleshly experience more authoritative than scripture? I've written whole posts on the subject in the past. If you can't get one verse then why write another article on this subject?

Why did tongues bypass the great writers, preachers, and missionaries of the 1600's thru the 1850's? I'll listen - why did those great saints not speak in tongues?

Were they not as spirituial as you folks? did God pick you over them. Did you study it out more than those folks?

Come on folks - I'd like to hear your take on this one? This should be interesting.

Don't tell me we are in the latter days and they were not. Do't yank Joel (tribulation) into the early 1900's. :o :o :o