Pentecostalism's sketchy origins

[CS1]

I would reply to the OP, but replying here would have the same effect.

IMO the one thing that distinguishes the P/C (Pentecostal/Charismatic) movement is tongues. I realize the debate rages on, and very little is accomplished by it. I read MacArthur's Strange Fire and Brown's Authentic Fire, in which the debate centers around cessationism vs continuationism. Both sides have valid points to make. But overall that debate goes nowhere, because it beats around the bush, and is full of misunderstandings on both sides (as I have seen in various forums as well as those books).

IMO the crux of the matter is, what is tongues, and is what they practice today the same thing described in the NT, or did the nature of tongues change from Acts 2 to 1 Cor. 14? IMO those two questions are a "no," whereas those who practice it claim "yes" to one or the other. But if modern tongues is not the same as practiced in the NT, then there is something wrong with the P/C picture we have today.

I have a list of "then"s to this one "if": IF tongues today is not what happened in the NT times, THEN:
1. It's not of God
2. It's not a gift or manifestation of the Holy Spirit
3. It's a human ability, so it's of the flesh (not a miraculous gift of God)
4. People who practice it are deceived
5. It's the same thing as practiced in other religions since B.C.
6. The practice of it in church, and so-called interpretations are pretention, since they are from peoples' imaginations
7. By their actions they are claiming "thus saith the Lord," so they are taking the Lord's name in vain
8. If their practice is examined, questioned, and denied as authentic, and they get upset or accuse of blasphemy, then it shows that what they have is a sacred cow (idolatry).
9. It's not language, so it's meaningless babble
10. The only meaning in it is to get people to believe in it
11. It doesn't edify anyone
12. If someone feels they are edified by speaking it, that edification is not spiritual, it's fleshly, limited to the realm of feelings

There may be other conclusions that could be added to this list. But it seems to me that if the tongues debate was resolved, then there might be little difference between P/C'ism and other branches of Christianity. Certainly that's not the only issue, and there will always be differences of opinion on other matters. However, I do think this debate is important, because it provides the opportunity for people to realize how little they really understand the scriptures, so it can prompt people for deeper study. This is why I participate in these debates.

I spent my first 25 years of Christian life among the P/Cs. I once believed in the modern tongues movement. But after hearing God tell me that what I was practicing wasn't of Him, and after many years of research, study, reading, and debating, I'm a firm believer that modern tongues is merely a human ability that anyone can do if they try hard enough. And even Pentecostal dogma implies it, since they claim that everyone who receives the Spirit speaks (or should speak) in tongues. In fact, speaking in tongues is the litmus test from their POV, which they call "initial evidence."

So then, let's go the other way (from their POV): IF modern tongues IS the same as what happened in NT times, THEN: we who oppose it are blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, and will go to hell because our sin can't be forgiven. And if you believe this, I reviewed some property in the Mohave Desert for sale that has a lake and is ripe for building a resort with a thousand other investors. And 3 prophets told me that this will be my year of prosperity. Would you like to buy into it?

I've no doubt that if any P/Cs read this post they won't agree, nor will they ask any questions as to where I get my information or how I come to my conclusions. Instead, they will only click the "disagree" icon, or make more assertions that can't be supported by careful examination of scripture. It's because they have a vested interest in suppressing the truth about it (that is, the information I base my conclusions on). I say this as a general statement, not saying that someone won't change their mind about it.

The bottom line is, what Paul describes in 1 Cor. 14 can easily fit into the miraculous framework of real human languages in Acts 2. On the other hand, what is done today cannot fit into the framework of Acts 2. And it is unfortunate that the several stories about people speaking languages they didn't learn cannot be examined or evaluated, so it remains in the realm of urban legend.

You have said much which I disagree with much I will highlight the areas.


First off to not believe the tongues spoken today is Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is not what Jesus said Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is.
As a pentecostal minister, there are many saved brothers & sisters who do not or have spoken in Tongues. They are just as saved as I.

Tongues do not save. Those who are Pentecostals that say that is wrong. Also, your conclusion comes from much human reasoning and opinion as you said, however, your acceptance or disbelief doesn't make the word of God to no effect. The term "Modern Tongues"
Is a created term that is unbiblical. Language has always been modern.

 

[ChristianTonyB]

Paul would disagree with you.
Philippians 1:
15It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16The latter do so in love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel.c 17The former, however, preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can add to the distress of my chains. 18What then is the issue?d Just this: that in every way, whether by false motives or true, Christ is preached. And in this I rejoice.

That's true G, but tossing barbs backwards and forwards across the room is not exactly edifying to the listeners, and can end up putting a cover over the truth. We have to learn not to be so thin skinned, and allow people freedom to choose their own opinion, even though that opinion might irk us personally.

Satan delights in seeing Christians at each other's throats. Surely we all, which obviously includes RA and myself, need to do our best to guard against that, and keep our emotions in check and yet still profess what we believe to be the truth. Otherwise we might end up finding out that we are not only doing a disservice to ourselves and the church, but also to the very Lord, Himself!

 

[Amanuensis]

I would reply to the OP, but replying here would have the same effect.

IMO the one thing that distinguishes the P/C (Pentecostal/Charismatic) movement is tongues. I realize the debate rages on, and very little is accomplished by it. I read MacArthur's Strange Fire and Brown's Authentic Fire, in which the debate centers around cessationism vs continuationism. Both sides have valid points to make. But overall that debate goes nowhere, because it beats around the bush, and is full of misunderstandings on both sides (as I have seen in various forums as well as those books)...

The bottom line is, what Paul describes in 1 Cor. 14 can easily fit into the miraculous framework of real human languages in Acts 2. On the other hand, what is done today cannot fit into the framework of Acts 2. And it is unfortunate that the several stories about people speaking languages they didn't learn cannot be examined or evaluated, so it remains in the realm of urban legend.

I do appreciate your contribution to the discussion and your honest effort to identify the truth in the controversy. I am very impressed to find someone who has read those two books by MacArthur and Brown. I plan to hear Dr. Brown in person later this month.

I always tell people that they should study all of the scriptures on the subject and using the rules of interpretation come to an intellectually honest decision without being pressured by anyone but a sincere desire to please God.

I can gladly discuss the scriptures on tongues with people who are not convinced that what is going on today is the same, as long as they are wanting to determine what the scriptures actually mean because they love God and want to please Him. That is the heart God is pleased with and even if we don't agree with the interpretation of a scripture we are discussing, if I sense that sincere heart to know the meaning God intended, I find that person a refreshing true brother or sister in the Lord and we would definitely hang out together in real life more than one who agrees with my interpretation but for all the wrong reasons. The heart is everything in the Kingdom of God.

I can't take the time to address every one of your points today. I have to study for another message about Mary sitting at Jesus feet and hearing His Word. My only concern when discussing these things, is what does the scripture say about it and are we interpreting it correctly. To do so requires addressing one point at a time. Below I am simply using an example of looking at the scriptures to answer the question, "are modern tongues the same as what we see in the bible?"

As to why the gift of tongues seen today can match what is in the bible here are a few things to consider.

1) Acts 2 says that they each heard them speak in their own language. They marveled at this because they did not understand how this could be. If it were just a matter of Galileans learning another language that would not be so amazing. But if you analyze the text it really seems to suggest that they noticed that each person heard them speaking in their own language and this did not make sense to them because how could two different people who spoke different languages understand the same person speaking in tongues.

That would explain why they were so amazed. There is every reason to think it was miraculous manifestation beyond someone listening to someone speak in their own language. It was the fact that the guy next to you who speaks another language understood him also.

11both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” 12And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?”

2) Others, (who did not hear them speak in their own language) did not understand them, thought they were just speaking nonsense sounds, and accused them of being drunk with wine. That is what I understand "Others mocking them, said they were drunk with wine" would mean in this scenario. It is not possible that someone who could suddenly speak a new language would be associated with drunk people. You would think he was brilliant, not drunk. But if you thought he was making "baby sounds, or nonsense sylables" you would think he was drunk or nuts.

13But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”

Therefore it if this is so, it does indeed closely match the kind of speaking and praying in tongues that we see today.
People who don't understand mock them and think they are crazy.


3) Paul told the Corinthians he spoke in tongues more than them all. But not in church. He had been speaking in tongues for over 20 years when he said this, (it can be calculated fairly easily based on when Anais laid hands on him to receive the Holy Ghost and when he wrote 1 Cor. 14 He said that when he prayed in an unknown tongue (which he had been doing for 20 years more than them all, but not in church) his understanding was unfruitful but that his spirit prayed. And then he said he would keep doing it anyway. And not only that but that he would keep singing in tongues as well. 1 Cor 14:14

Paul is saying that after 20 years of praying in tongues more than them all but not in church he still had no idea what language he was speaking, had never had anyone recognize it and therefore able to translate it to him so that his understanding could be fruitful.
Therefore it if this is so, it does indeed closely match the kind of speaking and praying in tongues that we see today.

So some of the reasons that people have laid as a foundation to use to measure modern tongues might be an error in their interpretation and a false measurement. Must all tongues be a known language on earth that can be identified? If so why did Paul never identify the language he spoke when he spoke in tongues after 20 years of praying in tongues more than them all?

So with that fact we are able change our view that the tongue must be an identifiable language because Paul's was not. And our entire theory used to judge modern tongues as unscriptural because we can't identify the language is destroyed.

4) If someone coming into the church hears it and there is no one with the gift of interpretation (not translation) they will think you are crazy.

Therefore it if this is so, it does indeed closely match the kind of speaking and praying in tongues that we see today.

Therefore if one says that what happens today is not the same, they have to explain why and the argument that it must be a known language has, at the very least, just been shown to be a doubtful argument. Otherwise how could Paul not have had it identified after 20 years. For all practical purposes if one heard Paul they would say it was fake, or he was drunk, or he was crazy because they could not identify a known language.

A new measurement must be constructed to judge modern tongues besides "it must be a known language" because that one is no longer valid after just these three reasons I have presented.

I have presented scriptural evidence to support that some heard nonsense syllables on the day of Pentecost (others mocking), Paul never understood what he was praying, and that would mean, he never identified the language or had someone translate it for him, after 20 years, and that if people came into the church in Corinth when they were speaking in tongues and there was no one with the supernatural Holy Spirit gift of interpretation, they would think they were all crazy. That these all support the idea that what you would have seen and heard in these cases would sound similar to what you see today from those who speak in tongues.

Now you can dismiss this out of hand, but you cannot say that there is reason in the scriptures for someone to take this stand.

 

[Amanuensis]

Note your statement highlighted. The vast majority of commentators deem it means silent. Note John Gill's comment at https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-corinthians-14-28.html
Even when he says to "speak in a low voice," he concedes at the end that they should be silent.

And this begs the question, if tongues is a speaking gift designed to edify the church, then it should not be used at all in a church setting, even to "edify oneself," if it can't be interpreted or translated. The nature of Paul's rebuke is that people in church are trying to edify themselves rather than others (even if their edification is really an inflated ego - 1 Cor. 8:1).

My point is that trying to distinguish between "silent" and "quiet" is straining at a gnat, usually to justify current practice. I regularly fellowship in a group where one person speaks his prayer loudly while another is praying, which I find distracting and annoying. But I do realize that some people are extreme extroverts who need to be loud and boisterous to feel they are noticed by others, because it's how they get their self-esteem.

I am glad that you have joined the discussion. I can appreciate your opinion on the topic. So far, you seem to have the right approach even if you have already decided and are not planning on changing your mind. We can still discuss it for the benefit of those who enjoy reading all sides of the issue.

The discussion on the Greek meaning of sigatō σιγάτω has a long history and as I stated on a previous post there are many scholarly papers one can find with a Google search "does sigato mean silent or quiet" or does 1 Cor 14:28 mean silent of quiet" Or any number of search criteria as you dive deeper into the discussion. I don't consider John Gill to be the best authority on this discussion and I don't believe that it is true at all that the vast majority of commentators will say that it means literally no sound. First of all, we have learned a lot since the 1700s and 1800s, and I mean A LOT!!! There is great value in reading many of the old commentaries in the public domain but there is even GREATER VALUE in reading modern discussions and modern commentaries on this topic.

You may understandably be suspicious of anyone on a CC chat suggesting that it did not mean literally no sound, that they are willing to find a way around something to prove their own bias.

But once you realize that many experts in Greek and the original manuscripts have written about this, then we know that it is not straining at a gnat but actually an honest effort to ascertain the intended meaning of the original author. What did Paul mean? If we could ask him, "Paul what did you mean by that?" Did you mean that he could speak softly to himself and to God in a public prayer meeting? or Did you mean he was to just "think it" in his head and not make any sounds at all?"

Asking this question is how we go about finding correct interpretation of scripture as you very well know. Sometimes just asking the question and we start to see things clearly. We begin to anticipate Paul's answer. One who is well read might realize that Paul would say, "we always pray out loud to ourselves in corporate public prayer meetings, so why would I mean total silence? Of course I meant softly to yourself and to God just like you do when not praying in tongues" That would be a reasonable assumption and not trying to force an idea that did not fit the time and culture of first century prayer meetings which "thinking to your self and to God in total silence" was not a first century public prayer meeting scenario, therefore it is not likely that Paul would say that in answer to such a quesiton and if we try to imagine Paul instructing them to be totally without sound then we must imagine that the first century church in Corinth started a new way of corportate praying that was not as we read about it in other documents.

In such a case, who would be forcing their own idea, the one who imagines them all be totally silent without a sound, and thinking prayers, or the one who imagines them speaking softly to themselves and to God with a certain level of noise in the corporate prayer meeting as they did so?

If it can be proven that praying to themselves individually out loud, but in a hushed tone when "praying to themselves and to God" was the normal corporate prayer meeting of the first century church then it would be dishonest for us to teach that they were to be absolutely literally silent without sound when they prayed to themselves and to God in a corporate prayer meeting.

What is the truth? What did they do? We have plenty of reasons to believe they followed a previous pattern of the Jews and prayed with some sound, and did not just think to themselves.

If we can prove that prayer to them meant speaking not just thinking we would be dishonest to force an interpretation of total silence because we don't like their 1st century church method because it seems weird to us.

Those that are familiar with silent praying and no sound in a church prayer meeting are not matching the first century model, instead they have adopted a different culture and it is a violation of the cultural context rule of hermeneutics to apply their modern church culture to the first century church culture.

Now, the other way of interpreting it, is that they should wait and speak in tongues to themselves and to God when they are not in the assembly. If one chooses this interpretation then they have conceded to a form of speaking in tongues between oneself and God that would have nothing to do with others hearing them as a sign, or nothing to do with needing an interpretation, and nothing to do with identifying a known language. Therefore this would be another example of what they did then (when they spoke in tongues to themselves and to God without an interpreter) being the same as what people do today who pray in tongues out loud between themselves and God in their prayer room. This is biblical.

 

[Amanuensis]

I am glad that you have joined the discussion. I can appreciate your opinion on the topic. So far, you seem to have the right approach even if you have already decided and are not planning on changing your mind. We can still discuss it for the benefit of those who enjoy reading all sides of the issue.

The discussion on the Greek meaning of sigatō σιγάτω has a long history and as I stated on a previous post there are many scholarly papers one can find with a Google search "does sigato mean silent or quiet" or does 1 Cor 14:28 mean silent of quiet" Or any number of search criteria as you dive deeper into the discussion. I don't consider John Gill to be the best authority on this discussion and I don't believe that it is true at all that the vast majority of commentators will say that it means literally no sound. First of all, we have learned a lot since the 1700s and 1800s, and I mean A LOT!!! There is great value in reading many of the old commentaries in the public domain but there is even GREATER VALUE in reading modern discussions and modern commentaries on this topic.

You may understandably be suspicious of anyone on a CC chat suggesting that it did not mean literally no sound, that they are willing to find a way around something to prove their own bias.

But once you realize that many experts in Greek and the original manuscripts have written about this, then we know that it is not straining at a gnat but actually an honest effort to ascertain the intended meaning of the original author. What did Paul mean? If we could ask him, "Paul what did you mean by that?" Did you mean that he could speak softly to himself and to God in a public prayer meeting? or Did you mean he was to just "think it" in his head and not make any sounds at all?"

Asking this question is how we go about finding correct interpretation of scripture as you very well know. Sometimes just asking the question and we start to see things clearly. We begin to anticipate Paul's answer. One who is well read might realize that Paul would say, "we always pray out loud to ourselves in corporate public prayer meetings, so why would I mean total silence? Of course I meant softly to yourself and to God just like you do when not praying in tongues" That would be a reasonable assumption and not trying to force an idea that did not fit the time and culture of first century prayer meetings which "thinking to your self and to God in total silence" was not a first century public prayer meeting scenario, therefore it is not likely that Paul would say that in answer to such a quesiton and if we try to imagine Paul instructing them to be totally without sound then we must imagine that the first century church in Corinth started a new way of corportate praying that was not as we read about it in other documents.

In such a case, who would be forcing their own idea, the one who imagines them all be totally silent without a sound, and thinking prayers, or the one who imagines them speaking softly to themselves and to God with a certain level of noise in the corporate prayer meeting as they did so?

If it can be proven that praying to themselves individually out loud, but in a hushed tone when "praying to themselves and to God" was the normal corporate prayer meeting of the first century church then it would be dishonest for us to teach that they were to be absolutely literally silent without sound when they prayed to themselves and to God in a corporate prayer meeting.

What is the truth? What did they do? We have plenty of reasons to believe they followed a previous pattern of the Jews and prayed with some sound, and did not just think to themselves.

If we can prove that prayer to them meant speaking not just thinking we would be dishonest to force an interpretation of total silence because we don't like their 1st century church method because it seems weird to us.

Those that are familiar with silent praying and no sound in a church prayer meeting are not matching the first century model, instead they have adopted a different culture and it is a violation of the cultural context rule of hermeneutics to apply their modern church culture to the first century church culture.

Now, the other way of interpreting it, is that they should wait and speak in tongues to themselves and to God when they are not in the assembly. If one chooses this interpretation then they have conceded to a form of speaking in tongues between oneself and God that would have nothing to do with others hearing them as a sign, or nothing to do with needing an interpretation, and nothing to do with identifying a known language. Therefore this would be another example of what they did then (when they spoke in tongues to themselves and to God without an interpreter) being the same as what people do today who pray in tongues out loud between themselves and God in their prayer room. This is biblical.

As a follow up we should also consider that Paul was giving instructions on how to use the gift of tongues so as not to be disorderly.
They considered praying out loud all at the same time in a corporate prayer meeting to be orderly. We must not interject our ideas about orderly into their culture. Speaking in tongues loudly so that people think you have something from God to share, and then without an interpreter was disorderly. Speaking in tongues to yourself was not. Getting the main point is important.

If we get super critical and become fault finders looking to see if we can find some legal basis to point to a believer having broken one of the speaking in tongues rules then we have missed Paul's point. He wasn't creating a list of Laws to use when speaking in tongues. He was just telling them how to focus on edifying one another in love. Keep it real people.

 

[kaylagrl]

Are you then accusing me of doing the devil's work? You are acting as if your belief in this issue cannot be examined or evaluated. You are acting as if the movement you subscribe to is your "door" to God. Is this so? My answer to your question "isn't this the devil's work" is NO. But for you to suggest it, implies that what you have is a sacred cow.

So thank you for proving my point and continuing the argument without taking a breath. Could you go out into ministry and travel in all churches and bring them the Gospel no matter what is over the door? Did you not even get a hint from the song I posted. Did you read one line from it? Apparently not.

But great strategy to divert the issue and claim that I'm trying to bash you and the movement you subscribe to, and then claim that I'm not supporting the gospel or trying to convert people. It's fairly obvious to me that you are upset by one single statement I made, which, by the way, is a true statement which I observed in my 25 years experience in the movement. And I still observe it in P/Cs whom I remain friends with.

I grew up AofG, Canada. I ministered in almost every denomination of church you can name. Fellowshipped with all, have friends of all denominations. Attend a non denominational church with a Pentecostal pastor, a congregation of mixed denominations and have no issues. So believe tongues, some don't. Pastor does but doesn't push on those who don't. You won't find a more loving church, or more giving.

It appears to me that you are nitpicking what I wrote, because you are looking for something to argue about.

Yes, clearly that was the point of my post.

I'll present a challenge to you: if you think that modern glossolalia is the same thing as what was done in Acts 2, then why don't you prove it so? But if you can't prove it, and you excuse yourself by saying you don't have to prove anything, then why are you so upset? My opinion on the matter is just as good as yours, and I can present evidence that makes my opinion better than yours concerning this issue (this is my claim). Care to spar?

" why don't you prove it so? But if you can't prove it, and you excuse yourself by saying you don't have to prove anything"

"which I observed in my 25 years experience in the movement" "I can present evidence that makes my opinion better than yours concerning this issue

Any proof I have or could give, people like you and the OP will dismiss it out of hand saying "that's only your experience". Then turn right around and say " In my experience" and I know better. So again, we go back to my post. Tearing down brothers and sisters in Christ because their denomination is different then yours. Congrats, from top to bottom you proved exactly what I was talking about. smh

 

[TDidymas]

Of course not, that was a really dumb statement.
Faith is not competition, it is cooperation to find and share His truth.
Your statement is not from Him, as there are only 2 kingdoms, most likely the other side.

My how defensive you are.
I shared what Jesus instructed.
you have my sympathy

I'm going on your statement: "regardless of the mere mortal commentators who believe themselves to be wise"

Your post is directly after mine. If you are claiming you weren't talking about me and the OP, then I'd say you're dishonest, because your judgment is obvious. Whenever people cannot answer the issue with facts, they usually resort to personal affronts.

 

[TDidymas]

You have said much which I disagree with much I will highlight the areas.


First off to not believe the tongues spoken today is Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is not what Jesus said Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is.
As a pentecostal minister, there are many saved brothers & sisters who do not or have spoken in Tongues. They are just as saved as I.

Tongues do not save. Those who are Pentecostals that say that is wrong. Also, your conclusion comes from much human reasoning and opinion as you said, however, your acceptance or disbelief doesn't make the word of God to no effect. The term "Modern Tongues"
Is a created term that is unbiblical. Language has always been modern.

You missed the point, taken your response. Jesus said that what the pharisees said about His works was blasphemy, did He not? So if you think that modern tongues is a miraculous work of the Spirit, then how can you say that someone saying it's not of God is not blasphemy? Can you please explain that?

But what I said earlier is not merely my opinion, since modern tongues has been well-analyzed, and it does not have enough vocabulary and structure to convey meaning. That's why it's called pseudo-language, because it sounds like language but isn't. Linguists and psychologists studying this phenomenon have agreed that it is a psychosomatic human ability that anyone can do if practiced. People have, in fact, done it in a laboratory setting, having nothing to do with God.

In contrast, Biblical tongues are languages that convey meaning, as we can clearly see in Acts 2. Further, the apostle Peter understood that the house of Cornelius did the same thing as what the apostles did, since he said "they received the Spirit as we did," because the tongues they spoke were languages that conveyed meaning.

This is why I say that so-called tongues and interpretation that is practiced today is a pretense. It is an attempt to copy what was done in the 1st Century. The Montanists in the 4th Century did the same thing. Their "prophecies" were deemed false by the council of the day, because they were saying "thus saith the Lord..." concerning things God did not say. They were pulling their prophecies and tongues out of their imaginations.

If I said "thus saith the Lord, I will cleanse your heart and put a new spirit within you, and you shall obey My voice," does that make me a prophet? Did I actually hear God say that, or am I pulling that message from scripture? And if I pulled it from scripture, then why am I pretending to be a prophet by saying "thus saith the Lord"?

If I said "thus saith the Lord, this is the year of your prosperity; therefore, be not afraid, for I will bless you" - this would be a false prophecy, wouldn't it? Rather, wouldn't I be trying to "build you up" by saying something you want to hear? And in that case, I would be taking the Lord's name in vain, because the Lord didn't say that.

In the same way, If I say "haikido lashonda koneesi taloosa, glory hallelujah!" (expecting someone to "interpret" that), then would I not also be taking the Lord's name in vain, since the action of doing that is a claim that the Holy Spirit spoke through me? Of course it would be! It's the same thing as saying "thus saith the Lord..." when the Lord isn't speaking.

The reason why I use the term "modern tongues" is because it is NOT the same thing as what they did in Acts 2. Many tongue-talkers acknowledge it by claiming that the nature of tongues changed between Acts 2 and 1 Cor. 14. In effect, by implication, they are acknowledging that modern tongues is not language, or at least it cannot be translated. Therefore, my usage of the term "modern" is valid, because it distinguishes it from the true miraculous gift in Acts 2.

So don't just assert that what I say is opinion. Start a dialog by saying exactly what you object to, and why you object to it. Let's get into scripture and see exactly what it says, extracting the meaning from the context of it. Can you see how I present tongues as language that can be understood or interpreted (because it conveys meaning) beyond Acts 2? It's called "Biblical precedent," which means that something first described carries to later mentions of it.

So, tongues later mentioned in Acts and in 1 Cor. 12-14 are the same kind as what is described in Acts 2. Put yourself in the shoes of the apostles. If I talk about something happening, I'm assuming that everyone understands that it's the same thing as was first described. Much of the Bible is conversation, not scientific text. Much of the NT is written with the assumption that readers know OT scripture, so this is where they are coming from. It's the nature of conversation, and everyone does it.

But I do agree with you, that not believing in modern tongues is not blaspheming the Spirit. I only said that because I've had that response from some people. And I do agree with you that tongues has nothing to do with salvation. I simply go further by saying that tongues spoken today isn't even Christian, because it's not languages like they spoke in Acts. I've invited people to prove me wrong, but so far none have. I've invited people to show evidence (beyond anecdotes) that anyone within the past 100 years have spoken a miraculous language, but so far none have. All I've heard are stories that are likely embellished.

 

[TDidymas]

1) Acts 2 says that they each heard them speak in their own language. They marveled at this because they did not understand how this could be. If it were just a matter of Galileans learning another language that would not be so amazing. But if you analyze the text it really seems to suggest that they noticed that each person heard them speaking in their own language and this did not make sense to them because how could two different people who spoke different languages understand the same person speaking in tongues.

That would explain why they were so amazed. There is every reason to think it was miraculous manifestation beyond someone listening to someone speak in their own language. It was the fact that the guy next to you who speaks another language understood him also.

11both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” 12And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?”

2) Others, (who did not hear them speak in their own language) did not understand them, thought they were just speaking nonsense sounds, and accused them of being drunk with wine. That is what I understand "Others mocking them, said they were drunk with wine" would mean in this scenario. It is not possible that someone who could suddenly speak a new language would be associated with drunk people. You would think he was brilliant, not drunk. But if you thought he was making "baby sounds, or nonsense sylables" you would think he was drunk or nuts.

13But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”

Therefore it if this is so, it does indeed closely match the kind of speaking and praying in tongues that we see today.
People who don't understand mock them and think they are crazy.


3) Paul told the Corinthians he spoke in tongues more than them all. But not in church. He had been speaking in tongues for over 20 years when he said this, (it can be calculated fairly easily based on when Anais laid hands on him to receive the Holy Ghost and when he wrote 1 Cor. 14 He said that when he prayed in an unknown tongue (which he had been doing for 20 years more than them all, but not in church) his understanding was unfruitful but that his spirit prayed. And then he said he would keep doing it anyway. And not only that but that he would keep singing in tongues as well. 1 Cor 14:14

Paul is saying that after 20 years of praying in tongues more than them all but not in church he still had no idea what language he was speaking, had never had anyone recognize it and therefore able to translate it to him so that his understanding could be fruitful.
Therefore it if this is so, it does indeed closely match the kind of speaking and praying in tongues that we see today.

So some of the reasons that people have laid as a foundation to use to measure modern tongues might be an error in their interpretation and a false measurement. Must all tongues be a known language on earth that can be identified? If so why did Paul never identify the language he spoke when he spoke in tongues after 20 years of praying in tongues more than them all?

So with that fact we are able change our view that the tongue must be an identifiable language because Paul's was not. And our entire theory used to judge modern tongues as unscriptural because we can't identify the language is destroyed.

4) If someone coming into the church hears it and there is no one with the gift of interpretation (not translation) they will think you are crazy.

Therefore it if this is so, it does indeed closely match the kind of speaking and praying in tongues that we see today.

Therefore if one says that what happens today is not the same, they have to explain why and the argument that it must be a known language has, at the very least, just been shown to be a doubtful argument. Otherwise how could Paul not have had it identified after 20 years. For all practical purposes if one heard Paul they would say it was fake, or he was drunk, or he was crazy because they could not identify a known language.

A new measurement must be constructed to judge modern tongues besides "it must be a known language" because that one is no longer valid after just these three reasons I have presented.

I have presented scriptural evidence to support that some heard nonsense syllables on the day of Pentecost (others mocking), Paul never understood what he was praying, and that would mean, he never identified the language or had someone translate it for him, after 20 years, and that if people came into the church in Corinth when they were speaking in tongues and there was no one with the supernatural Holy Spirit gift of interpretation, they would think they were all crazy. That these all support the idea that what you would have seen and heard in these cases would sound similar to what you see today from those who speak in tongues.

Now you can dismiss this out of hand, but you cannot say that there is reason in the scriptures for someone to take this stand.

I disagree with your assessment of scripture on all 4 points:
1. It was a speaking miracle, not a hearing miracle. Various apostles spoke various languages, although it doesn't say whether they spoke at the same time or sequentially - it just says "they began to speak..." And it says the apostles spoke those languages. To claim it was a hearing miracle does not fit the context. Therefore, it takes an unbiblical bias and agenda to claim what you claim.
2. It may be that those who mocked didn't understand the languages, but it could also be that they just didn't care to listen to it. Such speculation doesn't justify the claim that modern glossolalia (which really is gibberish) is what the apostles spoke. It doesn't fit the context. The apostles spoke those languages listed.
3. Your idea "but not in church" is a biased interpretation. He did not say he spoke it "not in church." He was simply making a point that he spoke tongues more than they did. But when he is in church, he only speaks it when there is an interpreter. He is simply continuing his rebuke that the Corinthians were speaking it without an interpreter. He could easily have meant that he does speak tongues in church more than they do, but with an interpreter. But even if he did mean "not in church," it doesn't justify the claim that modern tongues is Biblical. We have decades of research done by linguists and psychologists on the subject who have presented evidence that modern tongues is a human phenomenon and not miraculous. Even Pentecostal dogma implies that by the fact they claim and expect everyone who receives the Spirit will speak in tongues, which is contrary to scripture.
4. The claim that a foreign language sounds like gibberish, and therefore modern tongues is similar cannot be supported. There is a difference between a real language and modern tongues. Have you ever examined them side-by-side? If you did, you would see the difference. It might even persuade you that linguists and psychologists have a valid point.

Therefore, I disagree with you on these points, and I venture to say that your assertions are not scriptural evidence as you claim.

 

[TDidymas]

I am glad that you have joined the discussion. I can appreciate your opinion on the topic. So far, you seem to have the right approach even if you have already decided and are not planning on changing your mind. We can still discuss it for the benefit of those who enjoy reading all sides of the issue.

The discussion on the Greek meaning of sigatō σιγάτω has a long history and as I stated on a previous post there are many scholarly papers one can find with a Google search "does sigato mean silent or quiet" or does 1 Cor 14:28 mean silent of quiet" Or any number of search criteria as you dive deeper into the discussion. I don't consider John Gill to be the best authority on this discussion and I don't believe that it is true at all that the vast majority of commentators will say that it means literally no sound. First of all, we have learned a lot since the 1700s and 1800s, and I mean A LOT!!! There is great value in reading many of the old commentaries in the public domain but there is even GREATER VALUE in reading modern discussions and modern commentaries on this topic.

You may understandably be suspicious of anyone on a CC chat suggesting that it did not mean literally no sound, that they are willing to find a way around something to prove their own bias.

But once you realize that many experts in Greek and the original manuscripts have written about this, then we know that it is not straining at a gnat but actually an honest effort to ascertain the intended meaning of the original author. What did Paul mean? If we could ask him, "Paul what did you mean by that?" Did you mean that he could speak softly to himself and to God in a public prayer meeting? or Did you mean he was to just "think it" in his head and not make any sounds at all?"

Asking this question is how we go about finding correct interpretation of scripture as you very well know. Sometimes just asking the question and we start to see things clearly. We begin to anticipate Paul's answer. One who is well read might realize that Paul would say, "we always pray out loud to ourselves in corporate public prayer meetings, so why would I mean total silence? Of course I meant softly to yourself and to God just like you do when not praying in tongues" That would be a reasonable assumption and not trying to force an idea that did not fit the time and culture of first century prayer meetings which "thinking to your self and to God in total silence" was not a first century public prayer meeting scenario, therefore it is not likely that Paul would say that in answer to such a quesiton and if we try to imagine Paul instructing them to be totally without sound then we must imagine that the first century church in Corinth started a new way of corportate praying that was not as we read about it in other documents.

In such a case, who would be forcing their own idea, the one who imagines them all be totally silent without a sound, and thinking prayers, or the one who imagines them speaking softly to themselves and to God with a certain level of noise in the corporate prayer meeting as they did so?

If it can be proven that praying to themselves individually out loud, but in a hushed tone when "praying to themselves and to God" was the normal corporate prayer meeting of the first century church then it would be dishonest for us to teach that they were to be absolutely literally silent without sound when they prayed to themselves and to God in a corporate prayer meeting.

What is the truth? What did they do? We have plenty of reasons to believe they followed a previous pattern of the Jews and prayed with some sound, and did not just think to themselves.

If we can prove that prayer to them meant speaking not just thinking we would be dishonest to force an interpretation of total silence because we don't like their 1st century church method because it seems weird to us.

Those that are familiar with silent praying and no sound in a church prayer meeting are not matching the first century model, instead they have adopted a different culture and it is a violation of the cultural context rule of hermeneutics to apply their modern church culture to the first century church culture.

Now, the other way of interpreting it, is that they should wait and speak in tongues to themselves and to God when they are not in the assembly. If one chooses this interpretation then they have conceded to a form of speaking in tongues between oneself and God that would have nothing to do with others hearing them as a sign, or nothing to do with needing an interpretation, and nothing to do with identifying a known language. Therefore this would be another example of what they did then (when they spoke in tongues to themselves and to God without an interpreter) being the same as what people do today who pray in tongues out loud between themselves and God in their prayer room. This is biblical.

I understand what you're saying, which might be some solution to the tongues problem. Unfortunately, it remains theoretical since it is not practiced that way (in my experience). There is always someone who pays no attention to being quiet, and since there are no rebukes or corrections coming from the leadership, the disturbance continues. It's why I say it's straining at a gnat. It doesn't solve the problem.

 

[TDidymas]

So thank you for proving my point and continuing the argument without taking a breath. Could you go out into ministry and travel in all churches and bring them the Gospel no matter what is over the door? Did you not even get a hint from the song I posted. Did you read one line from it? Apparently not.

You still don't get the point. You think (as the song says) it's about condemnation, but it's really about correction.

I grew up AofG, Canada. I ministered in almost every denomination of church you can name. Fellowshipped with all, have friends of all denominations. Attend a non denominational church with a Pentecostal pastor, a congregation of mixed denominations and have no issues. So believe tongues, some don't. Pastor does but doesn't push on those who don't. You won't find a more loving church, or more giving.

So what? I also go to a loving church. It's not about judgments, it's about correcting the errors of the P/Cs.

Yes, clearly that was the point of my post.

At least you're honest in saying you intended to nitpick and start an argument. I get it.

Any proof I have or could give, people like you and the OP will dismiss it out of hand saying "that's only your experience". Then turn right around and say " In my experience" and I know better. So again, we go back to my post. Tearing down brothers and sisters in Christ because their denomination is different then yours. Congrats, from top to bottom you proved exactly what I was talking about. smh

And your response is proof of what I said, when I said people in your camp won't engage in a Biblical discussion, or even ask a question about how I come to my conclusions. The fact is, you don't have proof (or evidence beyond your claims), or you would have presented it a long time ago.

 

[Amanuensis]

I disagree with your assessment of scripture on all 4 points:
1. It was a speaking miracle, not a hearing miracle. Various apostles spoke various languages, although it doesn't say whether they spoke at the same time or sequentially - it just says "they began to speak..." And it says the apostles spoke those languages. To claim it was a hearing miracle does not fit the context. Therefore, it takes an unbiblical bias and agenda to claim what you claim.
2. It may be that those who mocked didn't understand the languages, but it could also be that they just didn't care to listen to it. Such speculation doesn't justify the claim that modern glossolalia (which really is gibberish) is what the apostles spoke. It doesn't fit the context. The apostles spoke those languages listed.
3. Your idea "but not in church" is a biased interpretation. He did not say he spoke it "not in church." He was simply making a point that he spoke tongues more than they did. But when he is in church, he only speaks it when there is an interpreter. He is simply continuing his rebuke that the Corinthians were speaking it without an interpreter. He could easily have meant that he does speak tongues in church more than they do, but with an interpreter. But even if he did mean "not in church," it doesn't justify the claim that modern tongues is Biblical. We have decades of research done by linguists and psychologists on the subject who have presented evidence that modern tongues is a human phenomenon and not miraculous. Even Pentecostal dogma implies that by the fact they claim and expect everyone who receives the Spirit will speak in tongues, which is contrary to scripture.
4. The claim that a foreign language sounds like gibberish, and therefore modern tongues is similar cannot be supported. There is a difference between a real language and modern tongues. Have you ever examined them side-by-side? If you did, you would see the difference. It might even persuade you that linguists and psychologists have a valid point.

Therefore, I disagree with you on these points, and I venture to say that your assertions are not scriptural evidence as you claim.

It was all 120 who spoke. If it were only the apostles then your theory would have to concede that it must have been a miracle of hearing as well as speaking since there were 15 languages mentioned and only 12 apostles creating a scenario whereby at least one or more apostle shifted from one language to another during the event. Such a theory is not necessary to imagine if one understands that all 120 spoke in tongues. Including the women. (handmaidens, daughters mentioned by Peter)

Also if you are suggesting that Paul did all that praying in tongues in the church over the past 20 years and his mind was unfruitful because as of yet no one had identified his language or been able to translate it for him so that his mind could understand it, then this would underscore the probability that it could not be a linguistic language since no one had identified it and translated, or Paul had not become familiar with at least some of the words that would have been translated through the years. Putting the action in the church where people were witnesses rather being something he did between himself and God makes it even more probable that it was not a known language since after 20 years someone would have identified the language and Paul would have become familiar with at least some of the words.

They remained unknown after 20 years. That was not a linguistic language that anyone could identify. Just like those linguists you suggest are trying to identify todays' tongue speakers. They are doing no better than those in Paul's lifetime that were not able to identify his. His understanding remained unfruitful, and the words he prayed were mysteries prayed directly to God.

I am sure plenty accused him of speaking gibberish because they could not identify the language. The same thing people do today.

 

[Amanuensis]

I understand what you're saying, which might be some solution to the tongues problem. Unfortunately, it remains theoretical since it is not practiced that way (in my experience). There is always someone who pays no attention to being quiet, and since there are no rebukes or corrections coming from the leadership, the disturbance continues. It's why I say it's straining at a gnat. It doesn't solve the problem.

On the contrary, there is no problem in the churches that I have been a part of most of my life. They all practice a very orderly demonstration of tongues with interpretation usually no more than one or two or at the most three and always there is an interpretation that is spot on. Spot on, because often I have had the interpretation given to me, and was about to give it and someone else did instead and it was exactly what I had received. These are specific things that demonstrate the supernatural aspect of the gift and we are not just faking it.

You see, there is NO PROBLEM in my real church examples. If a church does have a problem with orderliness and unbiblical manifestations of tongues with no interpreter or prophesies that are not right, a healthy church will direct the members in the proper use using these chapters in the bible to teach how to do it in order and to edify and these instructions will be taken to heart such that the other leaders in the body and just those who are gifted with these gifts help others learn how to operate in them correctly and a momentum of doing it in order will take place such that there is NO PROBLEM in their use in that church.

It is not true that most Pentecostal Churches and Charismatic churches are not doing it correctly. Most of them are doing just fine.

There will always be extremes and flaky people that pop up but that is why these chapters were included not to quench the Spirit or to despise prophesying but to lead the people into edifying usage of the gifts.

If someone came into my church and was able to tell that someone was praying in tongues between themselves and God while on their knees and used that to say that we were not following the scriptural order they would be wrong and nothing more than a fault finder. There would be no problem even if they went forth saying that there was. The problem would be in their own individual interpretation of things.

 

[shittim]

I'm going on your statement: "regardless of the mere mortal commentators who believe themselves to be wise"

Your post is directly after mine. If you are claiming you weren't talking about me and the OP, then I'd say you're dishonest, because your judgment is obvious. Whenever people cannot answer the issue with facts, they usually resort to personal affronts.

Which is what you did with your leading question.

 

[EyeWitness]

The word "Pentecostalism" is not in the Bible. It is a recent history word referring to the acts of the Holy Spirit in the Church on the day of the first Pentecost after the crucifixion. It also refers to certain works of the Holy Spirit within the Church thereafter. Some teachers claim that those gifts are no longer available to the Church. That is not true.

 

[TDidymas]

It was all 120 who spoke. If it were only the apostles then your theory would have to concede that it must have been a miracle of hearing as well as speaking since there were 15 languages mentioned and only 12 apostles creating a scenario whereby at least one or more apostle shifted from one language to another during the event. Such a theory is not necessary to imagine if one understands that all 120 spoke in tongues. Including the women. (handmaidens, daughters mentioned by Peter)

I wasn't born yesterday, so please don't assume that I don't know what I'm talking about. I didn't say it was ONLY the 12 apostles, you assumed that.
Acts 2:4 "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. "
Notice it says "they were all... and began..."
One might safely surmise that there were many more than 15 languages spoken that day. But Luke wrote that years after it happened. He was acting as an investigative journalist. He talked to many people about what happened, and the 15 prominent languages that he listed were ones he heard about. Don't assume exact numbers, or that it's an exhaustive list. It's not exact, and it's not exhaustive. I said "the apostles" because I'm assuming that all 120 people became such, since they all were with Jesus at His ascension. I do understand that "the 12" are prominent because they were His closest disciples. Yet, James was not and still considered an apostle. Mark was not and is still considered an apostle since he wrote his gospel. Perhaps not an apostle of the caliber of Peter, Paul, or James, but his writing was accepted as canon in the churches.

Also if you are suggesting that Paul did all that praying in tongues in the church over the past 20 years and his mind was unfruitful because as of yet no one had identified his language or been able to translate it for him so that his mind could understand it, then this would underscore the probability that it could not be a linguistic language since no one had identified it and translated, or Paul had not become familiar with at least some of the words that would have been translated through the years. Putting the action in the church where people were witnesses rather being something he did between himself and God makes it even more probable that it was not a known language since after 20 years someone would have identified the language and Paul would have become familiar with at least some of the words.

No, I disagree. In the first place, he said "he who speaks in tongues [that is, in the church] is speaking to God, not to men" - and that is prayer. The context of Paul's whole argument is tongues in the church, not out of it. "Church" means assembly, so the Acts 2 event was in church, since it was the assembly of the 120 disciples. It can be safely surmised that during the miraculous event, many of them immediately went out of doors, being driven by the Holy Spirit, to speak (to God) among the crowds, speaking about God's mighty works. This was their prayers, and people heard what they spoke and understood it.

Now in the case of Paul speaking in tongues in the churches, he never spoke anything that wasn't either translated or interpreted. The point is that his tongues was a real language that was miraculously given to him. And in the context of 1 Cor, "interpretation" means that someone (either him or someone else) also miraculously got the translation of the message. Such things came from God, not from the imaginations of people as it is done today. And we should not assume that Paul spoke one and only one tongue for 20 years. Since the Holy Spirit gifted various languages (and Paul was an authority to teach that), we can safely surmise that he spoke various tongues, meaning many different languages, according to how the Holy Spirit moved in whatever assembly he was in.

So, regardless of whether he spoke in tongues inside or outside the church, he spoke real languages which were miraculously given to him by God. It was not the kind of pseudo-language that people commonly speak today. Modern tongues do not fit in the framework of NT tongues. And besides all that, "tongues" is a religious term taken from the KJV and other early English translations. They used that term to distinguish it from the common term "languages." It was to indicate that those languages were actual languages not understood by the speaker, but given to people by God, for the hearing of unbelievers who understood them. But the misuse of it by the Corinthians made it a caricature, and so Paul had to rebuke them about it in his epistle.

They remained unknown after 20 years. That was not a linguistic language that anyone could identify. Just like those linguists you suggest are trying to identify todays' tongue speakers. They are doing no better than those in Paul's lifetime that were not able to identify his. His understanding remained unfruitful, and the words he prayed were mysteries prayed directly to God.

I disagree with you. Although Paul admitted that speaking in tongues edified himself, he was rebuking the Corinthians for failing to obtain interpretation. That means Paul never spoke it with other people around without knowing it was going to be interpreted (or translated). It means that in addition to the particular tongue he was given by the Holy Spirit, he was also given the direction to interpret it himself, or the knowledge that someone else was going to interpret it. All of that came from God, not from peoples' imaginations.

I am sure plenty accused him of speaking gibberish because they could not identify the language. The same thing people do today.

Your speculation is not convincing. I don't believe any Christian ever accused him of that. Perhaps unbelievers did who might have said "he's crazy" if there was no interpreter. But that would have been highly unlikely, given that he never spoke it in public without an interpreter.

 

[TDidymas]

On the contrary, there is no problem in the churches that I have been a part of most of my life. They all practice a very orderly demonstration of tongues with interpretation usually no more than one or two or at the most three and always there is an interpretation that is spot on. Spot on, because often I have had the interpretation given to me, and was about to give it and someone else did instead and it was exactly what I had received. These are specific things that demonstrate the supernatural aspect of the gift and we are not just faking it.

I'm not saying it's "just being faked." There is a difference between doing something wrong when you know it's wrong, and doing something wrong because you believe it to be right. What I'm saying is that people really believe what they are doing is of God, but it's not in reality. And just because you had a coincidence once or twice where someone else piped in with the same idea, doesn't prove anything.

Now, what I might accept is that the tongues venue gives opportunity for people other than leadership to speak. But God uses anything, even what's wrong, to glorify Himself. So it doesn't justify the claim that modern tongues is the same miraculous gift that the apostles received in Acts 2.

You see, there is NO PROBLEM in my real church examples. If a church does have a problem with orderliness and unbiblical manifestations of tongues with no interpreter or prophesies that are not right, a healthy church will direct the members in the proper use using these chapters in the bible to teach how to do it in order and to edify and these instructions will be taken to heart such that the other leaders in the body and just those who are gifted with these gifts help others learn how to operate in them correctly and a momentum of doing it in order will take place such that there is NO PROBLEM in their use in that church.

It is not true that most Pentecostal Churches and Charismatic churches are not doing it correctly. Most of them are doing just fine.

We all have different experiences.

There will always be extremes and flaky people that pop up but that is why these chapters were included not to quench the Spirit or to despise prophesying but to lead the people into edifying usage of the gifts.

If someone came into my church and was able to tell that someone was praying in tongues between themselves and God while on their knees and used that to say that we were not following the scriptural order they would be wrong and nothing more than a fault finder. There would be no problem even if they went forth saying that there was. The problem would be in their own individual interpretation of things.

I get it, and would never try to rebuke someone in a congregation unless they were actually disorderly. But it doesn't justify the claim that modern tongues is the miraculous gift that the apostles received in Acts 2.

 

[TDidymas]

Which is what you did with your leading question.

Do you mean this question: "So do you think of yourself as higher and holier than us? "
If so, then how is it the same as what you did? Can you please explain?

 

[kaylagrl]

You still don't get the point. You think (as the song says) it's about condemnation, but it's really about correction.

Sure it is. Pentecostals don't know the Bible like you do. smh

So what? I also go to a loving church. It's not about judgments, it's about correcting the errors of the P/Cs.

How about you leave that up to God, it's a little bit above your pay grade.

At least you're honest in saying you intended to nitpick and start an argument. I get it.

Oh, I'm sorry, you don't understand sarcasm. I thought you knew so much more than the rest of us.

And your response is proof of what I said, when I said people in your camp won't engage in a Biblical discussion,

When you turn on the tv each day and watch the news, would you say the perfect has come? When you see that women have been raped and murdered in the streets, has the perfect come? When you see drugs are killing people daily, when you see abortion has taken the lives of 60 million children, does it seem like the perfect has come to you?!

"For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes the partial will pass away."

or even ask a question about how I come to my conclusions.

We know how cessationists came to their "conclusion". You use one single verse of the Bible and determine for yourself that the perfect has come. And you'd swallow your tongue before you'd admit that looking around the world, the perfect hasn't come and maybe, just maybe you're wrong. Maybe there is another way to look at that verse. At the very least you all could admit that there could be another view, since it's only one verse in the entire Bible you've latched on to.

The fact is, you don't have proof (or evidence beyond your claims), or you would have presented it a long time ago.

The fact is I don't believe the perfect has come. The fact is I don't believe it's Biblically sound to base a believe or doctrine on one verse in the entire Bible. You have no "proof" that the perfect has come. You're speculating as much as anyone taking the opposite view. If you were the least bit mature you'd admit that.

I've told a story before about a pastor I know who came to the Lord through tongues and interpretation. He has a church, which I have attended, with over a thousand people. Is he demon possessed, as some claim? Did satan do that? Is your experience right and mine is wrong?? I don't have the proof you need? If someone says they are healed is that the devil? Or it's just some mental delusion? God can't perform miracles today. Tongues can't possibly be true. smh A thousand people are just deluded by satan to serve the Lord. Yep, no proof there. Only your experience is right. Seems like some spiritual pride there, if you ask me.

 

[kaylagrl]

We all have different experiences.

And you've deemed only your experience is right. And only your POV is correct.