Why would my comments be "obnoxious"? I think you need to get your own material - lol! And you say it only "seems" obvious to me? I am quoting scripture, for heaven's sake. The people heard the tongues speakers proclaiming the mighty deeds of God in their own language. What in the world are you arguing about?
They heard the people speak of the mighty deeds of God in their language. But they believed after hearing the gospel preached in the regular way, in a language the preacher understood.
I'm not saying God couldn't have someone actually explain the gospel 'in tongues.' We just don't have any clear example of it in the Bible. Assuming that was the case and having scripture that teaches it aren't the same thing.
This is getting a bit silly. You're going in circles and rebutting point-blank scripture and point-blank common sense. Why, for example, would the tongues-speakers have spoken of the "mighty deeds of God" but somehow managed to carefully steer clear of describing the Gospel? It's just nonsense.
You are the one being silly. You argue for something you don't have evidence for stating that it is 'common sense.' How long do you think they spoke in tongues? I imagine it happening for a short while, long enough to gather a crowd and get the people's attention, but not long enough to explain the Gospel. while Peter's sermon lasted longer. You may imagine lengthy speaking in tongues. And you know what? Neither of us know. I imagine they were saying the kind of stuff we read in the Psalms. Maybe you imagine a Billy Graham sermon, in tongues. You don't have any proof of your imaginings. I can't prove mine. We just know what is actually written down in the Bible. We don't know more. You should not base doctrine on ideas from your imagination that the scripture does not say,
But you have a dire need to dismiss the obvious evangelism that was going on by means of "tongues" because that obviously isn't going on today...but then that would mean there had been a 'cessation' of this gift...and that's unacceptable to Charismatics.
I wouldn't say evangelism can't or never has taken place in tongues. I would just say the fact that scripture doesn't show that it took place says something, that we shouldn't make doctrine out of the idea. Just like miracles, tongues got people's attention, and then they heard and believed the message. People didn't get saved just by seeing miracles without someone actually proclaiming the Gospel to them.
Jack Hayford, a pastor in California, had a testimony of sensing the Spirit direct him to speak in tongues to a man he was sitting next to on an airplane. The man was a native American from a certain tribe. Feeling a bit uncomfortable as to how to approach this, he said he was able to speak some words he thought might be in the man's language. He did so, and the man said he was speaking an older dialect about light coming down from above. He then explained to him what speaking in tongues was. He'd offered the man a Bible and some apologetics type literature before he spoke in tongues, but the man turned him down. Afterward, he said he changed his mind and would accept the literature (which was sent by mail.)
And so then you're trying to brush aside the seminal definitions for "tongues" in Acts 2 and then claim this is a different kind of tongues in 1Cor. 14.
No I'm not. But I would imagine your interpretation might lead to this. I suspect you haven't actually sat down and really thought through the argument in I Corinthians 14, based on your posts, and dealt with the verses at the nitty gritty level of detail. That is why I asked you to write up your commentary/interpretation of the verses about tongues as a sign.
It is quite amazing to watch you try to doggedly wrestle away from the simple statement in 1Cor. 14...that tongues are to be used as a tool to reach the unbeliever - "tongues are for a sign to unbelievers"...just as it was used in Acts 2.
You know, there are words before 'tongues are for a sign to unbelievers'. I interpret that phrase consistent with the verse it is in, the verse before it, and the verse after it. In context, it is about unbelievers not hearing God through speaking in tongues. Have you ever read the verse before it and the verse after it? Have you actually spent a few minutes thinking through Paul's argument? Why don't you pray for understanding, and then read through Paul's argument here, instead of ripping a verse totally out of context and giving it a meaning different from what Paul does, in context.
[quote[But let's cut to the chase. What is the bottom-line net effect of the Charismatic/Pentecostal (mis)interpretation of 1Cor.14? Well, because you're claiming this is a non-"earthly language" tongues (or if it
is an earthly language, no one in the congregation is understanding it)...this then is what happens in modern-day Pentecostal/Charismatic services:[/quote]
I pointed out the straw man in the last post. The Pentecostal position has been, historically, and I would assume still is in most cases, that tongues are real languages. Some tongues may be tongues of angels, or that is a possibility. But real languages none-the-less.
No one in the congregation understands and the tongue needs to be interpreted if it is to edify the church. Do you disagree with Paul on that? Have you actually sat down and read I Corinthians 14 carefully enough to realize that this is what it teaches on the subject? I quote verses to you, but if you don't read them carefully enough, you aren't going to get it. Pray for understanding as well.
If an unsaved individual or non-Charismatic believer sees this...how is it crediting in any way, shape or form? How is it a "sign" to them? It isn't. Not in the slightest. I know. I've sat in services like that. It's nonsense.
Did you say they were mad?
If the unbeliever responds to unbelief, that fits the 'tongues are for a sign' passage. If the unlearned person reacts with unbelief and says 'ye are mad' that fits the passage as well. It's the tongues to which many people respond with unbelief, rather than the interpretation.
Interpretations can be quite powerful. I think it was an interpretation. It could have been a prophecy. Back when I was a teenager, one answered what I had just been thinking. There are also cases where two people get the exact same interpretation. One person gives it first, and the other one had the same thing. The same sort of thing can happen with prophecy. Prophecies can also mention a word of knowledge someone else got before he could share it. I've experienced that. Prophecies can also mention details of an individual's life that the person prophesying could not naturally know. I've seen quite a bit of that.
This is how it has worked in my case when I have sat in a modern-day Charismatic service: Guy gets up and utters gibberish. Second guy gets up and dubiously claims to "interpret". I excuse myself to "use the facilities" and run for the parking lot. Moments later, the congregation hears tires squealing.
Then here comes the beating you get from the Charismatics/Pentecostals when you express befuddlement: "Oh you didn't get a blessing because you have little faith...because you're unbelieving...because you're unregenerate...because you have sin in your life...etc.".
I think if you drove off during the service, no one would say anything like that to you.
It is now dawning on me this may be the reason you are so doggedly arguing against the simple statement about tongues being a sign to unbelievers in 1Cor.14:22. You're saying it's becomes a 'sign' when they DON'T believe. Well, of course. That fits perfectly.
If you have a problem with what the passage actually says, then take that up with Paul and the Holy Spirit. I didn't write the passage. I wonder if you have actually read it before you posted. I'm asking you to write your interpretation verse by verse so you'll actually consider the flow of the argument and how one verse fits with another.
..when the unbeliever or non-Charismatic (such as myself) staggers out of your service in a state of befuddlement over the chaos that has transpired. Charismatics can then triumphantly announce; "Aha, see how the wicked have little faith!" If I'm understanding all of this accurately, that is extremely tragic and extremely unjust.
I've probably spent two years in churches that were called 'charismatic' other than guest ministry, and quite a bit more among Pentecostals and other evangelicals, but I've never heard a Charismatic say that quote.
And if you read the passage, Paul is arguing for the benefits of prophecy when compared to speaking in tongues.
Of course, ALL of Charismatic culture is riddled with self-manufactured guilt, self-loathing, depression, defeatism...over an inability to experience the "miracle gifts", the unintelligible "tongues", the special "visitations", the "anointings" etc, etc.
Maybe you could find a church like that if you looked around. I believe in these things, but I see no need to feel guilt over not having a particular gift. I should be thankful for the gifts I function in, but I pray for others as well.