But I'm not "asserting" anything. I'm quoting scripture!
I don't have any problems with your quoting scripture.
The issue I pointed out is that Acts 2 does not say what they said in tongues other than that they were talking about the wonderous works of God. You assume what they said in tongues. Then you have the idea that if people aren't going around saying the same things you assume were spoken in tongues in Acts 2, that the gift does not exist.
From scripture, we only know of one time someone spoke in tongues and others understood what was spoken. That was in Acts 2. We don't know if anyone understood the languages in Acts 10 or Acts 19. In I Corinthians 14, we know that other people did NOT understand speaking in tongues, because Paul wrote, 'no man understandeth him'.
Tongues needed to be interpreted by a gift of the Spirit. It was possible to pray for the ability to interpret the tongue (I Corinthians 14:!3.)
It's not a "premise". It's just a reasonable observation. It should be going on all over the world, every day of the week. Why wouldn't it?
Since the content of what is spoken in tongues comes 'as the Spirit' gives 'them utterance', you should take that issue up with God. I suspect God was also involved in having people present who could understand the specific languages spoken.
There is nothing in Acts that indicates this type of Acts 2 situation, where people are present who hear and understand speaking in tongues, is the norm. In fact, it was normal enough for those present not to understand for Paul to write that when any man speaks in tongues 'no man understandeth him'.
Those are two different contexts. One is what was going on in Acts 2, a prayer meeting that turned into an evangelistic opportunity, while I Corinthians 14 describes speaking in tongues a church meeting.
Since we don't see the Acts 2 situation where others present understand speaking in tongues, and rather Paul says 'no man understandeth him' it is not all that unreasonable to think that the Acts 2 type situation may not be all that common, just from interpreting scripture. Of course, it's up to God. He can arrange that if He wishes.
What is your basis for accepting Acts 2's description of how speaking in tongues worked then, but not accepting I Corinthians 14's description of speaking in tongues?
I want you to be honest with me. Have you actually sat down and studied I Corinthians before arguing for a point of view on a forum like this? Have you figured out why, at least in your own belief system, why Paul quotes a verse about the people not hearing God when He spoke by men of other tongues and other lips before he says that tongues are for a sign to them that believe not.
Have you figured out why Paul concludes that, since tongues are for a sign to them that believe not, if an unbeliever hears all speak in tongues in a church meeting, that he will say 'ye are mad'?
There is ENORMOUS ongoing pressure from the various pastors and leaders in Pentecostalism and the Charismatics...to believe and accept the phony miracles...to get your "anointing" (and which if you don't, you're second-class)...and to BELIEVE the gibberish-spouting to be authentic, biblical "tongues".
I'm wondering what kind of church you went to. 'Get your anointing'? Were you hanging out at Benny Hinn crusades?
And if one does NOT drink the Kool-Aid and does NOT believe in these pseudo-tongues, especially given your tremendous mishandling of Acts 2 and 1Cor.14.
What have I read into Acts 2 that isn't there? I don't insist I know what they said beyond the 'wonderous works of God.' I'm not insisting they said something in particular, then basing doctrine on my assumption>
I Corinthians 14? You seem to act as if that passage doesn't exist.
..many people like yourself are compelled to view someone like me...as an unbeliever.
No, I don't think that. Honestly, I haven't been around Charismatics or Pentecostals who think that like or talk like that. I've spent about 33 years around Pentecostals and Charismatics and various other groups, and I just haven't heard this kind of talk, that someone who professes to be a Christian but has some unbelief when it comes to spiritual gifts is 'an unbeliever.'
It seems like a lot of the cessationists on the forum seem to have some trouble with issues related to a Christian struggling with unbelief. The idea that a follower of Jesus could be limited by doubt is pretty clear in the Bible, especially the Gospels... you know, Peter sinking for example, or certain of the apostles not being able to cast the boy out of the demon. I wonder if it has to do with cessationism training people not to think that passages like that are directly applicable to their lives.
This isn't you, but there is also this idea that some people have that if someone believes God does miracles, he is refusing to believe in God unless He does a miracle. It makes no sense in light of the fact that Jesus and the apostles did miracles and believed that God did miracles. It's the cessationists on the forum who seems to struggle with these ideas. I think it has to do with cessationism teaching them not to think deeply about texts related to faith and miracles and things of that nature. Barna did a study a while back that, according to a website, indicated that Charismatics knew the Bible better than other evangelicals. So maybe that has something to do with it. I got a chance to look a bit more in detail at another of his studies that showed that Pentecostals were at the top of the survey for actually believing in basic evangelical doctrines. They were more likely to believe with statements about Biblical faith than other evangelicals according to the survey, with Assemblies of God ranking at the top and 'Pentecostal' as second. The A/G is Pentecostal, but it's a big group so he must have parced that out for some reason.
The equation is simple - "believers" believe in tongues...unbelievers do not believe in tongues. Just read 1Cor.14. It's right there in black and white. A non-Charismatic is an unbeliever, period. And where do unbelievers go when they die? They go to hell. These false doctrines are absolutely brutal.
You are the one making up the doctrine. I wonder if you have some kind of spiritual blinder on when it comes to I Corinthians 14. I sure don't see that in the passage. Not just the unbeliever but also the ininstructed says 'ye are mad' when he hears speaking in tongues.
There are a relatively small percent, but still large in number, of Pentecostals who split off from the rest of the movement around 1918, I think, who are Oneness Pentecostals. Many of them believe that if you are saved you will speak in tongues. The last I read, that was about 5% of the Pentecostal movement. I don't think I've heard of any Charismatics saying you had to speak in tongues to be saved.
That's not to mention the HUGE apostatizing effect created by the gibberish, the wailing, moaning, shrieking, shaking "Azusa Street"-style mayhem. You were saying you had never even heard of anyone going into apostasy as a result of these things.
Can you name someone who went into apostasy over such things? I grew up in the Assemblies of God, for part of my childhood in the US. I've been to Pentecostal/Charismatic churches in Indonesia, also. I know there is speaking in tongues in some churches. The A/Gs I went to believed in interpreting tongues if they were spoken out in the assembly. I was one teen corrected gently for a tongue that wasn't interpreted. For the most part, tongues were followed by interpretation. I've seen some Charismatics tell everyone to pray in tongues at the same time. I don't agree with that practice, of course. I didn't see lots of moaning, wailing, and jerking in these churches. I know they did that in the 'Toronto Blessing' and so some of that first-hand, outside of Toronto. But that church isn't Toronto wasn't Pentecostal, and it did not stay in the Vineyard movement that long either. Some of the Pentecostal churches in the Southeast emphasize exhuberant worship. The Psalms instruct the congregation to shout, and some of the churches are into shouting, and want people to shout Hallelujah and things like that. There are Psalms for shouting, though, so I don't condemn that.
The real issue, though, is what the Bible teaches, not what religious movements do. The Bible teaches that manifestations of the Spirit, like words of knowledge, words of wisdom, faith, prophecy, tongues, and interpretation of tongues, are given to members of the body of Christ for the common good. I believe that. Do you?