You claim to have the gift of tongues and to have exercised that gift for many years. You have also accused myself and others of being hypocritical for saying anything concerning the legitimacy and exercise of that gift in the church or otherwise, despite any actual occurrences in your favor or to the contrary or any understanding that we have from the scriptures. If you are so experienced in that gift, maybe you can clear up some of the conflicts that are in people's minds and hearts about it. You also prefer to refute comments line for line, so maybe you can answer a question and consider the content below.
Well I try to explain as best I can. Most of my comments re: hypocrisy are directed towards the likes of BLU and others who not only disbelieve in tongues, but attribute it to satan. Ignorance is not as much a sin, I don't mind ignorance, but calling something of God satanic, is an affront. A hypocrite is a pretender. A hypocrite claims to be of God yet rejects the things of God such as spiritual gifts. If they were of God, they would know the gifts are not of satan as the Holy Spirit is our teacher.
Some consistency in the anti-tongues arguments would be good too. For example, on the one hand jgrig2 recommended D. Carson about tongues, who is a very emminent theologian, who despite his background and flavour of christianity he belongs so, he actually supports the view that according to the bible the gifts have
not ceased and that the verse used to support that they have ceased, does NOT refer to completion of the bible. It's a pity that jgrig and others don't actually believe in the theologians and teachers they recommend to others, such as D. Carson. But I recommend D. Carson's book "Showing the Spirit". On the other hand, the last link jgrig2 posted which is Reformed radio, is quite against the tongues and even associates it with satan. Go figure. Hey, I guess that's another sign of hypocrisy if not contradictions, in the anti-tongue camp.
And the link I posted in a previous post gives early church writings which are after the scripture was written, where the spiritual gifts are spoken of as being still in existance. Supposedly, after the bible was written they were supposed to have ceased. This is not the case. Do you believe we have the same Holy Spirit they had in the bible? If no, then you have an argument. If yes, those who say the gifts have ceased really have no argument at all - because you'd also have to conclude by logical extension that the Spirit has ceased.
When is comes to the gifts of the Spirit, God gives them severally as He wills (1Cor 12:11). According to (1Cor 4:1-10) He does not give all the gifts to every member just as the body is made up of many members and all the members are one body (Rom 12:3-8). He does give gifts to all men (Eph 4:8) and these good and perfect gifts come down from the Father (James 1:17).
Agreed.
In (Acts 2:1-8) we have the first demonstration of tongues in the NT and Luke recorded, as an eye witness, that the disciples were gathered in one place and in one accord and all of a sudden a sound from heaven, like a mighty rushing wind, filled the house where they were sitting. There appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire and it sat upon each of them (v/3). There was about (120) that were gathered (Acts 1:15).
Yes.
Q.
Without presuming anything about the gift of tongues, is this the manner in which you received the gift of tongues? Luke was a first hand witness of this happening. Did any witness this happen with you AND have you witnessed this happen to others as Luke did and testified? Luke is not a false witness of this and he continues.
In (v/4) they were filled with the Spirit (not because of the tongues but because of faith and the Holy Spirit that was in them), and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. This is taking place in Jerusalem, during the second of three feasts of the Jews, seven days after the Passover. There are devout Jews from every nation under heaven (v/6). They came together and were confounded because they heard these Galileans speak in their own language, their own tongue wherein they were born (v/6-8). Then Peter gets up to speak and being pricked in their hearts asked Peter what they must do. Three thousand (3,000) believed upon the name of Jesus Christ and were baptized There were many signs and wonders performed by the apostles but not one of them who were saved spoke in tongues or prophesied. Then the greatest demonstration of the body of Christ took place in (v/ 42-47).
There is no mention of Gentiles here or in (Acts 19:1-7) when Paul came to Ephesus and found twelve disciples that were baptized with John's baptism (most likely Jews, because the scriptures never mention any Gentiles being baptized unto John's baptism). Paul laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them and they spoke with tongues and prophesied (v/6). The tongues spoken were not prophesy, they were separate. There was no one around to hear them (as in Acts 2 when the disciples spoke) and their was no interpretation nor anyone to confirm or bear witness of the truth of the prophesy except Paul (1Jn 5:6-8, John 1:7,8)?
How did it profit them or Paul? The only conclusion is that the tongue was given to these Jews as a sign and the prophesy as edification with no evidence, reference or understanding in the scriptures. This probably came from God but it was an isolated indecent. You see this happening again in (Acts 10) with Cornelius, a Gentile centurion of the Italian band, who had a good reputation with the the nation of the Jews, who sent two men for Peter because an angel had appeared to him. Some of the brethren from Joppa, who were Jews, went with Peter to meet with Cornelius. Upon their return Cornelius has invited his friends and relatives, who were Gentiles, to his house. Peter found a large gathering of people in Cornelius' house and told them that it was against Jewish law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or to even visit him.
Peter then preached Christ and while he was preaching the word, the Holy Spirit came upon all that heard the message and the Jews that came with Peter were astonished that the Holy Spirit was also given and poured out unto the Gentiles, for they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. They were all baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. These Gentiles spoke in a tongue that was not their own as an isolated indecent to reveal to Peter and the Jews that were with him that God, was no respecter of persons and that the Gentiles should not be considered unclean and common.
All three isolated incidents (Acts 2, 10, 19) that happened were in the presence of Jews who needed a sign (1Cor 1:22, Mk 8:12, Lk 11:29) because of being an unbeliever or being in unbelief about God's impartiality with others including the Gentiles. Of all the churches in Macedonia and Asia, you will not find a single church, other than Corinth, that were involved in the gift of tongues. The scriptures provide no evidence that those who spoke in tongues, in those (3) incidents, were exercise in that manner again, nor was it being taught in any of those churches as it was in Corinth. A reasonable conclusion as to why tongues was an issue at Corinth (located in Greece) could be that it was needed as a sign for those that were in unbelief in that part of the world. The Greeks did not require a sign like the Jews but they sought after wisdom (1Cor 1:22). Paul had to deal with both issues in that church.
You are trying to argue against tongues based on what scripture doesn't detail. There are shortcomings with your approach. You know, that same approach could be taken to anything in the scripture. But what you can't deny, is that the gift of tongues was given and exercised by the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts. Its coming is even prophesied by Jesus at the end of Mark. That the apostle Paul encouraged its use further supports the use of tongues. What most anti-tongues people don't realise, is that while they think Paul was speaking against tongues and limiting their use, Paul was not. He was actually encouraging the use of spiritual gifts, but correcting them to use them in the right way. The issue was selfishness. It was not just about tongues, it was a whole range of things. Women speaking in the church, prophesying out of turn, etc. I fully agree that tongues need to be used in an orderly manner when it is the public assembly. But hey, the first instance of the use of tongues, was a public disorderly assembly. So there is no hard and fast rule that covers every situation. Perhaps those times you've heard everyone speaking in tongues in the church, is an Acts moment, where they appeared disorderly, ever thought about that? The corporate anointing of God is entirely scriptural.
I think your argument that tongues is needed for those in unbelief, is entirely valid. But who are unbelievers? Not just the Jews. The churches are full of unbelievers. I'd say you are an unbeliever, in that you don't believe in God's miraculous giftings. It's a pity though that despite you actually having observed the gift of tongues in use, you seem to remain an unbeliever as to such things of God.
My conclusion is this. God will give tongues only when it is needed as a sign for those in some form of unbelief. Believers have taken that gift and tried to make it into something that it was never intended for. When that happens Satan takes advantage of this and uses those that are weak in the faith and gets them involved with seeking that gift by convincing them it has something to do with being spiritual. So they substitute tongues for hearing the word of God and they never grow in grace and knowledge of Christ.
What you fail to realise is that tongues has many uses. With interpretation and for personal edification it is for believers, and I don't discount its use for unbelievers as you mentioned. Much like the Gospel. The Gospel saves on the one hand, on the other hand it can be a stumbling block for unbelievers. The stone which they reject, will crush them.
But let's get to the bottom of the real issue here. You aren't interested in facts and that the Spirit may gift a person with this gift. You are looking for whatever excuse you can to justify your rejection of the spiritual gifts. You like to tell God what He can and cannot do. You like to tell tongue speakers what they can or cannot do with God's gift. You attribute something of God to satan, and suggest it is not spiritual. That's the real issue here. I have no problem with tongue-speakers, even before I spoke in tongues myself. While any gift is open to misuse, God doesn't lie, and neither is the experience of those who truly speak in tongues, a lie.
I have been at meetings where the whole assembly was speaking in tongues and when I asked to have a seat the person never heard me, their eyes were rolled back in their head and they looked to be in a trance. There were other meetings that you couldn't understand anything that was being said. It reminded me of a Catholic mass I attended with a friend and the mass was in Latin and I understood not one word as a young believer and neither did my friend. I don't say these meetings characterize all but that do characterize those associated with the gift of tongue.
So the only reason you reject tongues is not because of a sound biblical basis , but due to your own bad experiences and hurt feelings and your own little sob story about not getting a seat? If you can't understand what's being said, then you are supposed to do what Paul said and pray for interpretation. I'm not ignorant to the fact that having the gifts means a person is not automatically a perfect and nice person. Look at the Corinthians, Paul wrote to them to encourage them to use the gifts in love. It shows that it is possible for a person to use the gifts, and not have love. But, rejection of spiritual gifts based on a few bad experiences, is not good either.
There are preachers on national television that in the middle of the sermon speak in tongues and I don't buy it. There was no interpretation or understanding given and you're to believe that he did it in the Spirit to edify who? Paul was against this in (1Cor 14:23). If you have that gift and you pray and speak with understanding and with discretion and you and others are edified by it, then by all means continue in it. Who can forbid you? But don't use it as a badge of spirituality and try to convince others that they need to speak in tongues to be filled with the Spirit and to have power with God. The word is not subject to the gifts but ALL gifts, including tongues, are subject to the authority of the word of God.
I'm curious, how many spiritual gifts do you have then , as subject to the authority of the word of God? Have you used the gifts to edify the body of Christ? It's one thing to encourage their use if you use them yourself. It's another thing, if you don't have a clue what you are talking about. It's equivalent to an unsaved person telling a saved person how to live as a Christian.
