Originally posted by Link:
DHK wrote,
**The gift of tongues was given to the whole church, not to just
**individual members for their own private (selfish) use. Yes,
**it should be forbidden for such purposes. Actually the modern
**day practice of tongues should be forbidden completely because
**it is not a Biblical gift, and ceased by the end of the first
**century. What goes on today is not of the Holy Spirit at all.
**Jesus taught to "pray in secret." He never taught to pray in
**tongues in secret.
[QB]The Bible does teach that tongues have ceased. The Bible does teach that Christ arose from the dead. Many atheists don't believe that Christ arose from the dead. When given all the evidence that Christ arose from the dead, they simply answer, "That's your opinion." And that is precisely the attitude that you have taken.1. The Bible doesn't teach the gift ceased.
As per 1Cor.13:8-13, go back and read the posts, not only by myself, but by Dr. Bob, Walguy, Brian, and others. Walguy has given you excellent information. He has given you Greek exegesis showing you how it is impossible for the gift of tongues to have continued past the first century just from the construction of the Greek itself. But like a deaf man you refuse the evidence. Your stock answer, "That's your opinion," without providing any answer to any of the evidence given to you.
The argument from 1Cor.14:21,22, that tongues is a sign to the unbelieving Jew, is irrefutable. But your answer: "That is your opinion," just doesn't do, Link. You can't answer the argument so you resort, like the atheist does, to a "that's your opinion" argument. You can't give a Scriptural refutation, only an opinion that has no Scriptural basis. Thus you charge us as having only an opinion, when we have presented, not opinion to you, but rather Scripture which cannot be refuted.
Yes, the Bible says to "forbid not to speak in tongues. But tongues is not for today. It was restricted to the Apostolic Age. So the verse obviously (written to the church at Corinth), means "Forbid not to speak in tongues (in the first century). Everything must be taken in its context.2. The Bible commands 'Forbid not to speak with tongues.'
I explained this already. Did you not pay attention? If you pray in an unknown tongue, you have no understanding. You don't know what you are saying. You could be praying to Satan. How would you know? Praying is for communication with God. God expects you to pray to Him so that He can understand whay your petitions are, what you are saying. Understanding is key here.3. If the reasons praying in tongues in private was forbidden (in your opinion) is because it was 'selfish', then why isn't all private prayer forbidden.
There you go with "That's your opinion" defence again. You forget that tongues in the Bible were almost always real languages. Thus, if someone was praising Satan in another language someone was bound to hear them if they understood that language. People were intelligent, and knew more than one language. They didn't sit around all day watching TV; they spent time studying. I suppose many here can't relate to the concept of study.In your response to Tamborine Lady, you say,
**Keeping in the context of tongues, I believe that many were
**not saying Jesus is the Lord, and couldn't say that Jesus is
**the Lord, for they were speaking in another tongue--a tongue
**from the devil. They were demon possessed. They were, no doubt
**praising Satan and not God. They could not say Jesus is the
**Lord, because the demon dwelling within wouuld not allow them
**to. They were speaking by another spirit.
This is just your opinion. The verse about not cursing the Lord Jesus doesn't specify tongues. In fact, if someone cursed Christ in tongues, it is unlikely that others would understand if it were spoken in tongues. Paul might have true and false prophecy in mind here rather than tongues. The Matthew 7 passage does not mention workers of iniquity speaking in tongues. It mentions them claiming to prophesy and cast out devils in Christ's name. Christ sent out true prophets and true men who prophesied in his name, and then there were false prophets and unrighteous men who did the same. Neither passage is a reason to reject the gifts of the Spirit today.
I gave you an exposition of 1Cor.12:1-3. I believe it was valid. If you have anything better to offer Tam, then do so. I didn't say that the passage in Mat. 7 said anything about people speaking in tongues. You misunderstood my point. The point of referring to Mat.7, was to show how easy it is for anyone to call Jesus Lord, and not to be a true believer. Anyone can say that Jesus is the Lord. So what does the verse mean, "No one can say that Jesus is the Lord, except by the Holy Spirit?" I gave you my understanding through an exposition of that passage. You have nothing to offer.
You comparison is ridiculous. The statements in 1Cor.13:1-3 were all hypothetical and conditional. They were all preceded by "though" or "if." What Paul describes in 1Cor.12:1-3 actually happened. He doesn't say these things for the good of his own health. These things were actually happening in the Corinthian church.But I believe the verse from Corinthians is enough to cause us to accept the possibility that there might be some demonic tongue. But honestly, your case that this actually happened in Corinth is about as strong as the case that Paul spoke in tongues of angels. Common sense is enough. From the New Testament, there is enough evidence to conclude that demons spoke Greek or at least Hebrew or Aramaic through the people they demonized. It is conceivable that some demonized people in then US and spoke in Greek and pretended to be 'speaking in tongues'.
Perhaps Amen's post is just beginning to sink in, along with my reference to the event that happened in Vancouver. Yes, there are people who speak in an actual tongue in the U.S. that are demonized. That was what Amen was saying. Certainly you don't believe that the Taoist would be speaking in tongues by the Holy Spirit, would you? Satan works miracles too.
We are in basic agreement on this. Almost in every case, where tongues are used, it refers to a language, a language that is known at that time. If you read enough about tongues and study enough material, you come across the real possibility that through the abuse of tongues in Corinth there may have been some of what is going on today: "ecstatic tongues," especially taking into consideration what the teaching is in 1Cor.12:1-3. Many believe this way because in verse 2 Paul refers back to their pagan background. That is what they used to do in their paganism before they were saved. So I leave the door open to that possibility.**At other times, they were just speaking "senseless drivel, or
**gibberish, which also was not giving God the glory. They were
**not saying that "Jesus is the Lord," for they were not
**speaking a real language. This is what Paul was saying.
No it is not. You are saying this. Paul says nothing in this passage about 'senseless drivel.' Foreign languages are barbarian language to those who do not understand. If you try to speak English to a Chinese mountain man who doesn't understand it, you are just 'beating into the air.' But Paul never mentions speaking gibberish that had no meaning anywhere. I thought we were in agreement on this.
**27. If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two,
**or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one
**interpret.
**28. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in
**the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.There is little progress because usually your questions have been answered, and you haven't read the answer. Or, you just give your stock: "that's your opinion" defensive answer, without responding to the answer given.It is hard to have a discussion if you do keep repeating your original points without responding to other people's responses to your original points. That is one reason why there is so much repetition in this thread and so little progress.
You must take the fourteenth chapter of ICorinthians as a whole. Paul sets down restrictions for the Corinthians to keep when they speak in tongues. It is not a pick and choose situation. Either they keep them all or they don't speak in tongues at all. That is the situation. One of the stipulations was that women could not speak in tongues. Another was that they had to have an interpreter at all times. Both had to be kept. It wasn't as if Paul was saying: "If the women keep quiet, then we don't have to have an interpreter." ALL conditions had to be met, and that included the presence of unbelieving Jews. For tongues was a sign to the unbelieving Jew, just as verse 21 emphasis. There was no "bargaining" about this point. Sure it was for edification for the whole church. But it was also a sign for the unbelieving Jew. It had both purposes, and both purposes had to be met at the same time. If they weren't the gift was unbiblical.On the issue of tongues as a sign, I would like you to respond to the point I have made repeatedly in the thread several months ago and in this thread.
There are a few purposes for tongues in I Corinthians 14. Why would tongues cease if only one purpose was fulfilled? If tongues were a sign for the Jews, why would tongues cease? There are still Jews.
The first time the prophecy Paul quoted was fulfilled, the Jews captors kept speaking to them in a non-Hebrew language for centuries. The Jews themselves were speaking the word of God in non-Hebrew languages until the time of Christ, and are continuing to do so to this day whenever they read the scriptures out loud in a non-Hebrew tongue.
The 'tongues for a sign' passage doesn't say anything about tongues ceasing. It is about tongues being a sign, not about tongues ceasing. You haven't even made a case for tongues ceasing from this passage in this thread. You haven't explained the connection between a sign and ceasing. My dictionary has two definitions for these two words.
Your assertion that the Jews spoke in a non-Hebrew tongue is totally wrong. At the time of Christ the Jews knew Hebrew, Chaldee, Latin, and Greek. Greek was the universal language, but that doesn't mean that they spoke it among themselves, and it certainly doesn't mean that they spoke it in the synagogues. When Jesus picked up the Hebrew scrolls and read from the Book of Isaiah, he obviously read from Hebrew, and they understood the Hebrew. Every Jew studied Hebrew from their childhood. It was their national language.
Acts 22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
--They knew and respected Hebrew.
It was a quote from Isaiah 28:11,12. If they did not hear them, or obey the gospel as a result of the sign of the tongues (at Pentecost, and during the Apostolic age), then judgement would come. That was the prophecy given. Judgement did come. The prophecy was directed at the first century Jews. We don't have first century Jews among us today. Tongues have ceased. Judgement did come with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D. It in no way is a continuing sign. Signs in that respect don't continue. It was a sign for a specific time. It was directed at the Jews of Jesus time, of Peter's time. Context is everything.
I didn't bother answering that. It was an insult to Amen's intelligence, and the equivalent of calling him ignorant. You should apologize to him.If you will look through the thread, you will see that I have answered the issue he raised at least twice. This is the third time I'm addressing it.
If someone speaks in Lithuanian and curses God, and someone else speaks in Lithuanian and blesses God, you are not going to be able to distinguish which one is which unless you know some Lithuanian or a similar language, or you have some kind of revelation, or some kind of other cue that gives you a hint as to who said what. Foreign languages sound foreign, so if a poster on this forum who is probably not a linguist, who has no special training, cannot tell the difference between a pagan 'tongue' and Christians speaking in tongues, what does that prove? Taoist tongues no more disprove modern tongues than they disprove Acts 2 tongues.
Did you bother to read that Amen is familiar with a number of foreign languages himself? Did you bother to read that none of the "tongues" spoken sounded like Mandarin? Do you think he has enough intelligence to be able to distinguish whether or not it is a valid language or not? Why are you so condescending to others? It is not difficult to distinguish between gibberish and a structured language, as I have already testified to you. You don't have to out of your way to insult others, just because you "think" you know more than they. The opposite just may be true.
Look at your insulting assumption:
Just maybe he has more training than you. Have you ever thought of that possibility??a poster on this forum who is probably not a linguist, who has no special training,
"Taosit tongues don't disprove modern tongues." So you are admitting then that modern tongues are inspired of the devil. I am glad I have this admission from you.
You are right. I don't put much stock in the writings of the church fathers. They have been translated. The expressions referred to are often taken out of context. I would rather go by the Word of God, and compare it with what goes on today in the name of tongues. That is what the subject is about. I do not believe the church fathers is a reliable source for the reasons I pointed out to you. If you don't want to accept my reasons, then that is up to you.As for questioning your integrity, I recall saying it was disingenuous to claim that no early church writings indicated that tongues continued after the apostles, when you haven't bothered to research early church writings, and such writings do exist. I posted a quote from one such writing, and I didn't see you refute it except to downlplay the importance of patristic writings.
See above concerning your treatment of Amen's postings.At one point
**either you or Atestring (I believe you) in so many words
**called him ignorant, and didn't know what he was talking
**about. How arrogant!!
Please point out where I said this. If you think I have mistreated you in some way, please feel free to contact me and discuss it. A private conversation would have the benefit of not clogging up a website or leading the conversation off track. I do not recall call calling Atestring or anyone 'ignorant' in this thread. It would not be too much to ask for you to look up who said what before you insinuate that I was the one who said it.
DHK
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Bible Tongues is not what being done today
- Thread starter John3v36
- Start date
A Chinese laundryman visited a charismatic church in which the members were speaking in tongues. One of the elders of the church recognized the Chinese man and visited his laundry business the following week. When he asked the Chinese man how he liked the church service, the man shook his head in disapproval.
The elder said, "What was wrong? I thought I heard a lady speak in tongues that sounded like Chinese."
The Chinese man said, "She did speak in Chinese, and she was cursing God the whole time."
This is just one of many such examples, of which have been heard, of individuals who believed that they were praising God, but who were in fact cursing Him.
How could this be? Certainly the Holy Spirit would not lead someone to curse God. Could the devil have a counterfeit of the Biblical speaking in tongues?
For those of you who have never heard of this phenomenon of people speaking in an ecstatic tongue, let me take a brief moment to explain. Today between 7% and 20% of all Christians "speak in tongues" from time to time in a language that is not their mother tongue. The example above, of the lady who spoke in Chinese, is exceptional because usually those who speak in "tongues," speak in a language that linguists say has no systematic resemblance to any human language that is spoken today. It is this most common form of "speaking in tongues" (the nonhuman, nonintelligible language) upon which we will focus.
This phenomenon of spontaneously speaking in a language that is generally strange to humanity is of recent origin. While there were several incidents of tongue speaking during the 1800s, the first wave of it occurred at the beginning of the twentieth century.
It began on December 31, 1900, at Bethel College in Topeka, Kansas. When Pastor Charles Parham laid his hands upon some of the students, they began to speak in a form of speech that was not recognizable to anyone. One of those young students was Miss Agnes Ozman.
Six years later, in 1906, Ozman and several other students, who had received this experience, moved to Los Angeles and held meetings which started the "first Pentecostal effusion."
Since then, this tongue-speaking experience has taken in over 300 million Christians. What phenomenal growth! However, why is it happening now?
Some say it is a sign of the soon coming of Christ, and perhaps it is. Yet, that alone does not explain or prove that it is of God, or of Satan.
We do know that this form of ecstatic speech in an unknown language is not peculiar to Christianity--or even to religious people. This same phenomenon of speech is found among non-Christian religions, especially in Asia and Africa. This ecstatic speech is also found among atheists and agnostics.
Certainly it is not the Holy Spirit who is performing this phenomenon in religions that reject Jesus as the Saviour, and through others who even deny the existence of God, but it is happening. Research has shown that all of these forms of ecstatic speech in Christian and non-Christian communities is identically the same "cross-linguistically" and "cross-culturally."
Along with this gift to speak in an unknown tongue has come the gift to interpret these ecstatic utterances. Are these interpreters accurate?
An experiment was performed in which someone speaking in an ecstatic tongue was recorded on tape. They then replayed the tape to several different people who claimed to have the gift to interpret these utterances. However, there was no similarity in the several interpretations. They ranged in their interpretation from saying that the utterances referred to a prayer for the health of someone's children--to praising God for a recent and successful church, fund-raising effort. It is evident from this example that the interpreters were not accurate. So where are they getting their gift to interpret?
Of course, this phenomenon raises some very serious questions. If it is of the Holy Spirit, why do people misinterpret what is said? After all, the Bible says that the Holy Spirit will teach us all things. See John 14:26. If this is of the Holy Spirit, then why is He manifesting the same gift through different religions that teach contradictory beliefs. After all, the Bible says that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. See John 16:13.
It is easy enough to see that Satan would want to join the world's religions together through some spiritual manifestation. However, what does the Bible say concerning the speaking in tongues or in a different language?
Mark 16
First of all, Jesus foretold that His disciples would speak with "new tongues," "And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Mark 16:17-18.
The context of Jesus' words is His commission for His disciples to evangelize the world. The speaking with "new tongues" was to enable the disciples to speak with people who spoke other languages. The disciples would speak in a language that was "new" to them but understood by their audience.
When Jesus trained His disciples during His three-and-one-half-year ministry, He limited their training to reach out to the Jews living in Israel and Samaria. However, after Jesus ascended into heaven, He desired to send His disciples to every nation, tongue, and people. Consequently, He gifted them to speak in "new tongues" or languages.
Acts 2
In Acts 2:1-13 we have recorded the fulfillment of Jesus' prediction. The disciples and other fellow believers, 120 in number, gathered together for prayer and consecration in preparation to receive the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
When the day of Pentecost had come, the Holy Spirit came upon every individual, and they "began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Verse 4.
The speaking in an "other tongue" did not come by man's own efforts, but it was a gift the Holy Spirit bestowed upon the followers of Christ when they were gathered together. "Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. . . . And they were all amazed and marvelled . . . because that every man heard them speak in his own language." Verses 5, 7, 6.
Notice that the gift of the Holy Spirit to speak in a foreign and known human language was bestowed upon believers--not upon unbelievers. The purpose of the gift was to give unbelievers an opportunity to hear the gospel in their own language. Consequently, the gift itself would serve as a sign to unbelievers that the message they heard was from Heaven.
The result of Jesus' followers receiving the gift to speak in a different language was the conversion of "three thousand" precious souls to Christ in one day. Verse 41.
There were also present those who scoffed and mocked the disciples by suggesting that the disciples were drunk. See verse 13. They heard the gospel in their own language, thereby signifying that the gift bestowed upon the disciples was a definite sign that the message had the signet of Heaven. Yet, they rejected the message and the messengers.
Acts 10
The next example of "speaking in tongues" is found in Acts chapter 10. In this passage, the apostle Peter has an opportunity to teach Gentile believers in Caesarea. The Holy Spirit "fell on all them which heard the word. . . . For they heard them speak with tongues." Verse 44, 46.
On this occasion as well, the Holy Spirit came upon the believers--both Jew and Gentile Christians. The Holy Spirit "fell" upon them suddenly, representing that it was a special endowment from Heaven and not from man. The purpose of the gift was the communication of what God had accomplished through His Son Jesus.
Again we find this gift employed in a large metropolis where many different peoples and languages were represented. When Peter gave his report on the events of Caesarea, he said, "The Holy Ghost fell on them [in Caesarea], as on us at the beginning [in Jerusalem at Pentecost]." Acts 11:15. Of course, what happened in Jerusalem was that every man heard the gospel in his mother language.
It is important to note that Luke, the writer of the book of Acts, did not need to explain the manifestation of "speaking in tongues" in Caesarea. Why? Because he, the author, had already defined the gift in Acts chapter 2. Peter himself confirms that it was the identical manifestation of the Holy Spirit as experienced at Pentecost.
Acts 19
In Acts chapter 19 we see this gift exercised in another major city--Ephesus. Here the apostle Paul met with some believers who had no knowledge of the work of the Holy Spirit. Because these disciples in Ephesus were baptized with John's baptism, Paul instructed them about the true baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus." Verse 5.
Paul then baptized them in the name of Jesus and laid his hands upon them, and "the Holy Ghost came on them." Verse 6.
This practice of the laying on of hands is often represented with the reception of the Holy Spirit, and as a sign that those involved were called to evangelize the world. Of course, the laying on of hands is not necessary for someone to receive the Holy Spirit. See Acts 2:1-4; 9:10-18; 10:46-48. Nor does everyone "speak in tongues" because he received the laying on of hands. See Acts 2:41; 8:38-39; 9:18; 16:15, 33. It was simply a practice in those days as they dedicated themselves to receive God's Spirit, to accept Jesus as Lord, and to fulfill the gospel commission.
Greek scholars tell us that the Greek form of the verb "to speak" in this passage is in the imperfect tense, indicating that the gift was bestowed for continuous and prolonged use. The believers in Jerusalem and Caesarea also received the same permanent gift to proclaim the gospel far and near.
1 Corinthians 12-14
Now the passages that have generated the greatest amount of confusion and controversy are those found in 1 Corinthians chapters 12 through 14. Some have suggested that Acts chapters 2, 10, and 19 do indeed describe speaking in a foreign language known to man, but that the gift represented in Corinthians is different. They argue that this form of ecstatic tongues is an angelic language used for personal prayer and the edification of the church.
However, when we study the terminology found in all of these passages from Mark 16:17 to Acts chapters 2, 10, and 19, we find that the Greek word for "tongue" is the same. In fact, the verb "to speak" in tongues is the same in all of these accounts. Consequently, there is only one gift of tongues.
Because the gift of tongues had become a permanent gift for those who received it, Paul gave some rules for the exercising of the gift during church. Apparently, many of the Corinthian believers were (1) causing commotion because several were speaking in tongues at the same time, (2) there was no one present who understood what they were saying, and (3) to the nonbelievers, who were watching, it seemed awkward, disorderly, and confusing. See 1 Corinthians 14:23.
When one considers that the purpose of "speaking in tongues" was to reach unbelievers, it was disastrous when many of the Corinthian believers were misappropriating the gift. The gift was to be a sign to unbelievers that God had a message of salvation for them personally. See 1 Corinthians 14:21-22.
First, Paul counsels them to speak in order, and then let only one interpret. See 1 Corinthians 14:27. The word for "interpret" means to "translate"--as from one known language to another. Consequently, one man would speak in an intelligible foreign language and then another man would translate it into the local language.
Second, if there is no one to interpret, let the one who speaks in tongues keep silent. See 1 Corinthians 14:28. The gift of tongues was given to communicate truth. If a believer speaks in German, but there are no unbelievers who understand German, then another believer who understands German should translate the message in a language that the others can understand, otherwise, the message is aimless and unintelligible to all. Paul testified that he would rather speak five words that people could understand than ten thousand words that no one could understand. See 1 Corinthians 14:18-19.
However, some have misunderstood the words of Paul when he said, "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." 1 Corinthians 13:1. The Greek conditional clause used in this passage indicates that Paul is speaking hypothetically. In other words, we know that man does not speak in the language of angels, but even if he could, it would profit him nothing if he had not the love of God in his heart.
Then in another place Paul says, "For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries." 1 Corinthians 14:2. The believer who speaks "in the spirit" is speaking by the Holy Spirit. What is he speaking? He "speaketh mysteries"? Does God inspire men to speak about odd and secret things? No. Believers are the "stewards of the mysteries of God." 1 Corinthians 4:1. His servants speak about the "mystery of godliness." 1 Timothy 3:16. We are to make known the mystery of God. We are to declare the truth about God that has been previously misunderstood. This truth is revealed by the power of the Holy Spirit. As Paul said, "And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel." Ephesians 6:19.
But why does it say that "no man understandeth him"? The problem in Corinth was that nobody present could understand him. He spoke in an intelligible language, but there was no one present who could understand that particular language. Consequently, he was not speaking unto men. As Paul said, "So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air." 1 Corinthians 14:9.
In summary, let it be understood that (1) Jesus predicted the need and the endowment of this special gift to speak in a foreign and "new tongue," so that the gospel could be preached throughout the world. (2) The very manifestation of this gift was to be a "sign" to unbelievers that the message they were hearing was from Heaven. (3) The gift of tongues is not some ecstatic and unintelligible tongue, but it is indeed a known human language. The purpose of the gift was to communicate the gospel to the world's billions who have spoken thousands of different languages and dialects. (4) There is indeed a counterfeit to the Biblical speaking in tongues. It has taken the world by storm. Satan will use this counterfeit manifestation to communicate error. He endeavors to work upon the senses and the lower nature of man, namely, man's appetite, passions, and desires. This is to keep man from settling into the truth with his higher nature, namely, man's intellect, reason, and conscience.
So often Satan has found success by playing upon the emotions of man and his senses, thereby bypassing his intellect, reason, and conscience. However, God's people must be intelligent upon that which is written in the Word of God. They must choose to do right, because it is right and because right doing is pleasing to God. They must allow their conscience to be wooed only by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4. Yet, so many are unsatisfied with the plain words of Scripture. They have a false salvational security because of this spiritual manifestation of tongues. Yet, those who shall make up the kingdom of God must live by faith. Day by day, moment by moment, they must walk with their Lord and Saviour. They must hunger and thirst for righteousness. See Matthew 5:6.
In summary, none of us are saved because we speak in tongues. Speaking in tongues is not even evidence that someone is saved. Many non-Christians and atheists speak in the same ecstatic and unintelligible tongue. Jesus warned the religious world, "Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe." John 4:48. We are not to put our faith in the signs and wonders. They will increase as time draws to a close. We are to trust in the promises of God and prepare to live with our Maker and Redeemer forever and ever.
-----------
http://www.countrymanordesigns.com
http://www.christiangraphics.org
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org
The elder said, "What was wrong? I thought I heard a lady speak in tongues that sounded like Chinese."
The Chinese man said, "She did speak in Chinese, and she was cursing God the whole time."
This is just one of many such examples, of which have been heard, of individuals who believed that they were praising God, but who were in fact cursing Him.
How could this be? Certainly the Holy Spirit would not lead someone to curse God. Could the devil have a counterfeit of the Biblical speaking in tongues?
For those of you who have never heard of this phenomenon of people speaking in an ecstatic tongue, let me take a brief moment to explain. Today between 7% and 20% of all Christians "speak in tongues" from time to time in a language that is not their mother tongue. The example above, of the lady who spoke in Chinese, is exceptional because usually those who speak in "tongues," speak in a language that linguists say has no systematic resemblance to any human language that is spoken today. It is this most common form of "speaking in tongues" (the nonhuman, nonintelligible language) upon which we will focus.
This phenomenon of spontaneously speaking in a language that is generally strange to humanity is of recent origin. While there were several incidents of tongue speaking during the 1800s, the first wave of it occurred at the beginning of the twentieth century.
It began on December 31, 1900, at Bethel College in Topeka, Kansas. When Pastor Charles Parham laid his hands upon some of the students, they began to speak in a form of speech that was not recognizable to anyone. One of those young students was Miss Agnes Ozman.
Six years later, in 1906, Ozman and several other students, who had received this experience, moved to Los Angeles and held meetings which started the "first Pentecostal effusion."
Since then, this tongue-speaking experience has taken in over 300 million Christians. What phenomenal growth! However, why is it happening now?
Some say it is a sign of the soon coming of Christ, and perhaps it is. Yet, that alone does not explain or prove that it is of God, or of Satan.
We do know that this form of ecstatic speech in an unknown language is not peculiar to Christianity--or even to religious people. This same phenomenon of speech is found among non-Christian religions, especially in Asia and Africa. This ecstatic speech is also found among atheists and agnostics.
Certainly it is not the Holy Spirit who is performing this phenomenon in religions that reject Jesus as the Saviour, and through others who even deny the existence of God, but it is happening. Research has shown that all of these forms of ecstatic speech in Christian and non-Christian communities is identically the same "cross-linguistically" and "cross-culturally."
Along with this gift to speak in an unknown tongue has come the gift to interpret these ecstatic utterances. Are these interpreters accurate?
An experiment was performed in which someone speaking in an ecstatic tongue was recorded on tape. They then replayed the tape to several different people who claimed to have the gift to interpret these utterances. However, there was no similarity in the several interpretations. They ranged in their interpretation from saying that the utterances referred to a prayer for the health of someone's children--to praising God for a recent and successful church, fund-raising effort. It is evident from this example that the interpreters were not accurate. So where are they getting their gift to interpret?
Of course, this phenomenon raises some very serious questions. If it is of the Holy Spirit, why do people misinterpret what is said? After all, the Bible says that the Holy Spirit will teach us all things. See John 14:26. If this is of the Holy Spirit, then why is He manifesting the same gift through different religions that teach contradictory beliefs. After all, the Bible says that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. See John 16:13.
It is easy enough to see that Satan would want to join the world's religions together through some spiritual manifestation. However, what does the Bible say concerning the speaking in tongues or in a different language?
Mark 16
First of all, Jesus foretold that His disciples would speak with "new tongues," "And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Mark 16:17-18.
The context of Jesus' words is His commission for His disciples to evangelize the world. The speaking with "new tongues" was to enable the disciples to speak with people who spoke other languages. The disciples would speak in a language that was "new" to them but understood by their audience.
When Jesus trained His disciples during His three-and-one-half-year ministry, He limited their training to reach out to the Jews living in Israel and Samaria. However, after Jesus ascended into heaven, He desired to send His disciples to every nation, tongue, and people. Consequently, He gifted them to speak in "new tongues" or languages.
Acts 2
In Acts 2:1-13 we have recorded the fulfillment of Jesus' prediction. The disciples and other fellow believers, 120 in number, gathered together for prayer and consecration in preparation to receive the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
When the day of Pentecost had come, the Holy Spirit came upon every individual, and they "began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Verse 4.
The speaking in an "other tongue" did not come by man's own efforts, but it was a gift the Holy Spirit bestowed upon the followers of Christ when they were gathered together. "Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. . . . And they were all amazed and marvelled . . . because that every man heard them speak in his own language." Verses 5, 7, 6.
Notice that the gift of the Holy Spirit to speak in a foreign and known human language was bestowed upon believers--not upon unbelievers. The purpose of the gift was to give unbelievers an opportunity to hear the gospel in their own language. Consequently, the gift itself would serve as a sign to unbelievers that the message they heard was from Heaven.
The result of Jesus' followers receiving the gift to speak in a different language was the conversion of "three thousand" precious souls to Christ in one day. Verse 41.
There were also present those who scoffed and mocked the disciples by suggesting that the disciples were drunk. See verse 13. They heard the gospel in their own language, thereby signifying that the gift bestowed upon the disciples was a definite sign that the message had the signet of Heaven. Yet, they rejected the message and the messengers.
Acts 10
The next example of "speaking in tongues" is found in Acts chapter 10. In this passage, the apostle Peter has an opportunity to teach Gentile believers in Caesarea. The Holy Spirit "fell on all them which heard the word. . . . For they heard them speak with tongues." Verse 44, 46.
On this occasion as well, the Holy Spirit came upon the believers--both Jew and Gentile Christians. The Holy Spirit "fell" upon them suddenly, representing that it was a special endowment from Heaven and not from man. The purpose of the gift was the communication of what God had accomplished through His Son Jesus.
Again we find this gift employed in a large metropolis where many different peoples and languages were represented. When Peter gave his report on the events of Caesarea, he said, "The Holy Ghost fell on them [in Caesarea], as on us at the beginning [in Jerusalem at Pentecost]." Acts 11:15. Of course, what happened in Jerusalem was that every man heard the gospel in his mother language.
It is important to note that Luke, the writer of the book of Acts, did not need to explain the manifestation of "speaking in tongues" in Caesarea. Why? Because he, the author, had already defined the gift in Acts chapter 2. Peter himself confirms that it was the identical manifestation of the Holy Spirit as experienced at Pentecost.
Acts 19
In Acts chapter 19 we see this gift exercised in another major city--Ephesus. Here the apostle Paul met with some believers who had no knowledge of the work of the Holy Spirit. Because these disciples in Ephesus were baptized with John's baptism, Paul instructed them about the true baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus." Verse 5.
Paul then baptized them in the name of Jesus and laid his hands upon them, and "the Holy Ghost came on them." Verse 6.
This practice of the laying on of hands is often represented with the reception of the Holy Spirit, and as a sign that those involved were called to evangelize the world. Of course, the laying on of hands is not necessary for someone to receive the Holy Spirit. See Acts 2:1-4; 9:10-18; 10:46-48. Nor does everyone "speak in tongues" because he received the laying on of hands. See Acts 2:41; 8:38-39; 9:18; 16:15, 33. It was simply a practice in those days as they dedicated themselves to receive God's Spirit, to accept Jesus as Lord, and to fulfill the gospel commission.
Greek scholars tell us that the Greek form of the verb "to speak" in this passage is in the imperfect tense, indicating that the gift was bestowed for continuous and prolonged use. The believers in Jerusalem and Caesarea also received the same permanent gift to proclaim the gospel far and near.
1 Corinthians 12-14
Now the passages that have generated the greatest amount of confusion and controversy are those found in 1 Corinthians chapters 12 through 14. Some have suggested that Acts chapters 2, 10, and 19 do indeed describe speaking in a foreign language known to man, but that the gift represented in Corinthians is different. They argue that this form of ecstatic tongues is an angelic language used for personal prayer and the edification of the church.
However, when we study the terminology found in all of these passages from Mark 16:17 to Acts chapters 2, 10, and 19, we find that the Greek word for "tongue" is the same. In fact, the verb "to speak" in tongues is the same in all of these accounts. Consequently, there is only one gift of tongues.
Because the gift of tongues had become a permanent gift for those who received it, Paul gave some rules for the exercising of the gift during church. Apparently, many of the Corinthian believers were (1) causing commotion because several were speaking in tongues at the same time, (2) there was no one present who understood what they were saying, and (3) to the nonbelievers, who were watching, it seemed awkward, disorderly, and confusing. See 1 Corinthians 14:23.
When one considers that the purpose of "speaking in tongues" was to reach unbelievers, it was disastrous when many of the Corinthian believers were misappropriating the gift. The gift was to be a sign to unbelievers that God had a message of salvation for them personally. See 1 Corinthians 14:21-22.
First, Paul counsels them to speak in order, and then let only one interpret. See 1 Corinthians 14:27. The word for "interpret" means to "translate"--as from one known language to another. Consequently, one man would speak in an intelligible foreign language and then another man would translate it into the local language.
Second, if there is no one to interpret, let the one who speaks in tongues keep silent. See 1 Corinthians 14:28. The gift of tongues was given to communicate truth. If a believer speaks in German, but there are no unbelievers who understand German, then another believer who understands German should translate the message in a language that the others can understand, otherwise, the message is aimless and unintelligible to all. Paul testified that he would rather speak five words that people could understand than ten thousand words that no one could understand. See 1 Corinthians 14:18-19.
However, some have misunderstood the words of Paul when he said, "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." 1 Corinthians 13:1. The Greek conditional clause used in this passage indicates that Paul is speaking hypothetically. In other words, we know that man does not speak in the language of angels, but even if he could, it would profit him nothing if he had not the love of God in his heart.
Then in another place Paul says, "For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries." 1 Corinthians 14:2. The believer who speaks "in the spirit" is speaking by the Holy Spirit. What is he speaking? He "speaketh mysteries"? Does God inspire men to speak about odd and secret things? No. Believers are the "stewards of the mysteries of God." 1 Corinthians 4:1. His servants speak about the "mystery of godliness." 1 Timothy 3:16. We are to make known the mystery of God. We are to declare the truth about God that has been previously misunderstood. This truth is revealed by the power of the Holy Spirit. As Paul said, "And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel." Ephesians 6:19.
But why does it say that "no man understandeth him"? The problem in Corinth was that nobody present could understand him. He spoke in an intelligible language, but there was no one present who could understand that particular language. Consequently, he was not speaking unto men. As Paul said, "So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air." 1 Corinthians 14:9.
In summary, let it be understood that (1) Jesus predicted the need and the endowment of this special gift to speak in a foreign and "new tongue," so that the gospel could be preached throughout the world. (2) The very manifestation of this gift was to be a "sign" to unbelievers that the message they were hearing was from Heaven. (3) The gift of tongues is not some ecstatic and unintelligible tongue, but it is indeed a known human language. The purpose of the gift was to communicate the gospel to the world's billions who have spoken thousands of different languages and dialects. (4) There is indeed a counterfeit to the Biblical speaking in tongues. It has taken the world by storm. Satan will use this counterfeit manifestation to communicate error. He endeavors to work upon the senses and the lower nature of man, namely, man's appetite, passions, and desires. This is to keep man from settling into the truth with his higher nature, namely, man's intellect, reason, and conscience.
So often Satan has found success by playing upon the emotions of man and his senses, thereby bypassing his intellect, reason, and conscience. However, God's people must be intelligent upon that which is written in the Word of God. They must choose to do right, because it is right and because right doing is pleasing to God. They must allow their conscience to be wooed only by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4. Yet, so many are unsatisfied with the plain words of Scripture. They have a false salvational security because of this spiritual manifestation of tongues. Yet, those who shall make up the kingdom of God must live by faith. Day by day, moment by moment, they must walk with their Lord and Saviour. They must hunger and thirst for righteousness. See Matthew 5:6.
In summary, none of us are saved because we speak in tongues. Speaking in tongues is not even evidence that someone is saved. Many non-Christians and atheists speak in the same ecstatic and unintelligible tongue. Jesus warned the religious world, "Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe." John 4:48. We are not to put our faith in the signs and wonders. They will increase as time draws to a close. We are to trust in the promises of God and prepare to live with our Maker and Redeemer forever and ever.
-----------
http://www.countrymanordesigns.com
http://www.christiangraphics.org
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org
I would like to know why Atestring, or Link, or any of the other pro-tongues people have not responded to this post yet.Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Amen:
Hi, I would like to chip in my 2 cents worth. My family is Buddhist/Taoist and I've had my share of visiting these Chinese temples, seen Hindus in trance and consulted mediums. The thing I noticed after I became a Christian and attended a few Charismatic churches is that there is really no difference in the tongues spoken by the Taoist mediums, Hindu trance and the Charismatic Christians. They usually sounds the same. One difference I noticed though is that the Taoist medium actually follows the Bible closer than alot of Charismatics I know. Only 1 spoke in tongues and there is always an interpreter while the churches I attended, tongues were a "free for all" kinda thing where everyone spoke at the same time sometimes without anyone interpreting.
I personally know quite a few languages myself but have never ever understood any languages spoken by the Charismatics. I'm always told the languages spoken are from some remote tribes in Africa and etc but it does make me wonder why does God only give these people the gift of tribal tongues? How about the uneducated Chinese old folks who can only understand Chinese dialects (not even mandarin)? It is strange that God would give people a language not used nor understood by anybody in the congregation and not one that is practical for evangelism work. How edifying is that?
In Acts, we are told that the tongues spoken were languages understood by the different people from different nations. It is also always a sign of impending judgement to the Jews and not for those that believed. Now how can a unbeliever believe or marvel when he does not understand the gibberish tongue spoken? Wouldn't he think the church is full of barbarians?
My 2 cents
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]DKH before i give my response I will remind you that you have ask for my opinion. Please do not accuse me of harrassment if my opinion does not agree with yours. Now my response:
I have never been to a buddhist temple and have no reason to go. How can I respond to a post about buddhist. btw do you go to buddhist temples?
Well Claudia,
i will ask you the same thing that I have ask others about the Chineese Laundryman:
1. Were you there when this happened or is this story hearsay>
2. Where did this happen?
3. When did this happen?
4. What were the chineese words that were said?
5. What were the words if translated?
6.do you really believe this story?
These are fair questions to serious accusations.
Here we go again. You are so complimentary to Amen's intelligence. It is just so overwhelming.
What did he tell you his background was before he was saved? Did you read his post? It is based on his own first hand experience. I used to be a Roman Catholic. I can speak with some authority on the Roman Catholic Church. I was there. Back to Amen's post. Understand what he is saying. Biblical tongues have ceased. What he hears in Charismatic meetings are NOT Biblical tongues. They are not real languages. They are the same ecstatic tongues, the gibberish that are spoken by Taoist mediums, Hindus that have gone off in trances, and spirit mediums. What do they all have in common? Two things: gibberish, and Satanic origin.
BTW, do you speak Lithuanian?
So your conclusion is that Paul and Peter were demon possessed like Taoist and Hindu mediums were? Or is your conclusion that Taoist and Hindu mediums are filled with the Holy Spirit? Which is true? You can't have it both ways. It is either one or the other. We are not talking about coffee here.
If we look in the Bible we find people speaking real languages with real people translating real languages into other real languages so that other real people can really understand these real languages. It was a real event: really!
Today we have fake Christians speaking fake languages to other fake Christians, sometimes with a fake interpretation, but usually with no interpretation at all, which just makes it all the more fake. Fake languages, fake Christians at a fake event. Satan really knows his work doesn't he?
More insults to Amen's intelligence. We know that the gifts have ceased. Why would a person pray for something that doesn't exist? Now who's thinking straight? You haven't answered his post because you haven't been able to. I haven't seen a logical Scriptural, intelligent answer to Amen's post from you. From first hand evidence he gives you similarity to the speaking in tongues of Charismatics, Taoists, and Hindus. Are all three from God? Perhaps you need to pray about this. Why would God give the gift of tongues to Taoists??
Because if I have you in agreement that there are false tongues, then how do you personally know when they are false and when they are not? Do you speak in tongues personally? Do you know what you are saying when you do? I ask others (like MEE) the same questions. They don't know what they are saying when they are speaking in tongues. If they don't know what they are saying, and there is no one to give an interpretation, then how is it that they know it is from God or the devil? How can one be sure? You can't can you? You don't have that discernment, primarily because you don't have the gift. You don't have the gift because the gifts have ceased. This is really a no-brainer.
"This people" of verse 21 refers specifically to the Jewish nation. It is a quote from Isaiah referring directly to the nation of Israel. There is no other people that it could refer to. It is not simply unbelievers that are referred to in verse 21. You are clutching at straws. It directly refers to the nation of Israel.
Isaiah 28:11-12 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said,
12 This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
Isaiah 28:14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
--Context is everything. "This people" of Isaiah was referring to the Jews, the Jews of Jerusalem, the Jews that Peter had preached to on the Day of Pentecost, the Jews that had crucified the Lord, the Jews that had rejected the gospel, the Jews of the first century.
You're contradicting yourself. Because tongues always had to have an interpreter, those who wanted to speak in tongues and did not have an interpreter were instructed to keep quiet, and not speak at all. The instruction was a rebuke to those who were speaking out of order, and without an interpreter.
In Biblical times some were given both gifts: the gift of speaking in tongues, and the gift of interpreting their own tongues. But that was as close as it got to Pentecost as we know it. Why? First, because that's what Scripture records. Second, because we don't second guess God. Third, God is not limited but often limits Himself in the way that he does things. He has limited himself in the way that he communicates to mankind. He has explained that in Heb.1:1,2.
DHK
There you go again with "That's your opinion" defence again, because you can't offer something Scriptural instead. Look at the rambling answer that you gave above. Whenever you mention "your opinion," you have nothing of substance to offer. Coincidence? I don't think so.
The onus is not on me; but on you to show where historical events are repeated over and over again. God created the universe in six days. He only had to do it once. It was a one time event. Jonah got swallowed by a whale--once; not twice. It was a one time event. The sun stood still for Joshua. It only happened once in history. There was only one exodus out of Egypt. There was only one time that the walls of Jericho fell. And there was only one Day of Pentecost.
"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
I asked you to re-read Walguy's posts. Did you? Are you able to refute the Greek evidence he gives for the cessation of tongues, and the exegesis of 1Cor.13:8-13? Walguy in many of his posts has posed the same question again and again, and then has asked why does it go unanswered. He claims that you or any other tongues speaker cannot answer his one question. As far as he is concerned it is game, set, and match. Why not read his posts and answer his question. His posts still stand. His position on tongues ceasing is a very strong one. Can you refute it? Read his posts. Answer his question(s) (if you can).
I have explained to you once again how 1Cor.14:21 refers to the nation of Israel, and not just to unbelievers in general. It was thus a sign to the unbelieving Jew. But even if I could give you irrefutable evidence, would you accept it? I think I already know that answer.
The Charismatic movement is identified by those that speak in tongues, so how do you want to be identified? The Bible teaches that tongues have ceased, so you have something other than one of the Biblical gifts described in the Bible, maybe some kind of emotional experience that gives you a psychological "high" of somekind. You just want to blame it on the Holy Spirit.
You can have all the evidence you want. You can come and visit me and observe first hand how I worship God. You can see me pray and sing. You can also come to our services and observe how we worship on a collective basis. That may be difficult for you to do since I live in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and you live in Indonesia.
On the other hand I have witnessed Charismatic meetings where people have spoken in tongues. As I have mentioned to you now many times--they don't know what they are saying when speaking in tongues, and you probably don't either. Thus the probability is quite high that you may be praying to "another spirit," and not to God.
But I know to whom I pray, and so does all who hear me, because they understand the language in which I speak. That is the difference. And that is the major point that Paul was making in 1Cor.14. Understanding was crucial. If there was no understanding, don't speak.
I have evidence that it is not of God. It may be a psychological phenomena in most cases. In some it may be demonic. Either way it is not of God. We have hard evidence of that. The tongues that are spoken do not follow the guidelines that Paul set forth in 1Cor.14. That in itself shows that it is not of God. Tongues have ceased.
1 Corinthians 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
--The emphasis is on the BUT. The gift of tongues was given to the entire church, and for the edification of the entire church, as this verse is teaching. If it doesn't edify the entire church (as prophecy does), then don't speak in tongues. The gifts were all for more than just one person. The first part of the verse is meant as a rebuke, not an encouragement to speak in tongues. So, yes, I would rather believe Paul than you. Especially when you take the verses in context.
Correct. Tongues (actual Biblical languages) when properly interpreted, became like prophecy, and edified the whole church. Throughout the entire chapter Paul seeks to show the Corinthians that prophecy is the better gift because understanding came with prophecy whereas there was no understanding with tongues w/o interpretation.
Actually I do know what I am talking about. I don't have to be a former drug addict (or a present one) in order to be a good counsellor for drug addicts. Perhaps you are a babe in Christ and need something tangible to hang on to. When one of my children was about 6 mo. old his pacifier made him happy. So if tongues pacifies you or makes you happy, (builds you up, or whatever term you label it), then so be it. You can use a pacifier for the same purpose. It doesn't make it a Biblical experience. We can see from Scripture that this "Biblical" experience isn't "Biblical" at all.
I have already addressed this. It is evident that if tongues are a sign for the unbelieving Jews of the first century, then tongues have ceased. There are no first century Jews alive today, are there? I explained the rest of this above.
As I explained before, the conditions that Paul set in place in First Corinthians 14 were not smorgasboard conditions. You can't pick and choose which ones you want to obey and/or disobey. They were all to be kept--every one of them--including 1Cor.14:21,22. It was both a gift to the entire church, and a sign to the unbelieving Jew at the same time.
DHK
Fair??
Did you even understand Claudia's post, or bother to read it, instead of just re-posting the whole thing to take up valuable space on the board?
Here is what she said:
Note: This is just one of many such examples of which have been heard
It is an example. She is using it as an example. We all have heard such stories. There is nothing to verify here. The question you need to answer is why do these stories keep arising? Do you think that it is a big conspiracy of all denominations against the Charismatics and its affiliates like yourself. It just might be that way, because Claudia is SDA, and I am IFB. We have very little in common. AAAhh yes, the Great Conspiracy against the tongues conspiracy. I can see it coming now!!
Why not just answer the major part of her post?
DHK
DHK wrote,
** The argument from 1Cor.14:21,22, that tongues is a sign to the unbelieving Jew, is irrefutable. But your answer: "That is your opinion," just doesn't do, Link. You can't answer the argument so you resort, like the atheist does, to a "that's your opinion" argument. You can't give a Scriptural refutation, only an opinion that has no Scriptural basis. Thus you charge us as having only an opinion, when we have presented, not opinion to you, but rather Scripture which cannot be refuted. **
I do not recall saying 'That is your opinion' to your assertion that I Cor 14:21 and 22 supposedly proved tongues had ceased. I DID point out that sign does not mean ceased, and I gave a lot of commentary on the issue.
****It was a quote from Isaiah 28:11,12. If they did not hear them, or obey the gospel as a result of the sign of the tongues (at Pentecost, and during the Apostolic age), then judgement would come. That was the prophecy given. Judgement did come. The prophecy was directed at the first century Jews. We don't have first century Jews among us today. Tongues have ceased. Judgement did come with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D. It in no way is a continuing sign. Signs in that respect don't continue. It was a sign for a specific time. It was directed at the Jews of Jesus time, of Peter's time. Context is everything.
****
Let's deal with this bit by bit in small quotes, posted below. You make a lot of assertions here and I see no scripture either in your post, in Isaiah 28, or in I Corinthians 14 to back up your assertions. It is not enough to quote a verse and make assertions about what the verse means. The content of the verse and the surrounding passage has to support the assertions you make. You have referred to a verse here, but you have not truly supported your case from scripture, because your assertions are not based on things found in the verse.
*****
****It was a quote from Isaiah 28:11,12. If they did not hear them, or obey the gospel as a result of the sign of the tongues (at Pentecost, and during the Apostolic age), then judgement would come. That was the prophecy given. Judgement did come. ****
First of all, the 'judgement' this verse speaks of is that God would speak with stammering lips and another tongue to this people, and that they would not hear him. My Bible doesn't say anything about the judgement coming 'at Pentecost, and during the Apostoli age.' That time frame is not in Isaiah 28 or I Corinthians 14. It is not enough that you assert that this is the time frame. You need to make your case from scripture, which you have yet to do.
***The prophecy was directed at the first century Jews. We don't have first century Jews among us today. ***
You assert that the prophecy was directed at first century Jews. The first recipients of the prophecy lived in the time of Isaiah. Paul repeated the prophecy in the first century. Neither passage limits this passage to the first century Jew. What is your authority for claiming that this prophecy is limited to first century Jews and not Jews that live at other time periods?
***Tongues have ceased. Judgement did come with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D. ***
There are a few things here that you have not shown from the passage. First, you haven't shown where the passage speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem, or even another 'judgement' besides the fact that God would speak through stammering lips and another tongue, and that the people would not hear Him.
There is nothing in either the Isaiah 28 or I Corinthians 14 passage about tongues ceasing.
If tongues DID serve as a sign of the destruction of the temple-- something you have yet to show any evidence for-- then it does not follow that tongues would cease in 70 AD. I Corinthians 14 shows that there was another purpose for tongues-- edifying. Show me chapter and verse from scripture where it says that if one purpose of a gift is no longer needed, that the gift will cease altogether. Logic and reason will not lead us to conclude that if one purpose of something is fulfilled, and that thing has other uses, that that thing will always cease to exist. Saws can be used to cut asbestos roofing material. If all the asbestos roofing in the world were destroyed and there were no more asbestos left, that does not mean that saws would cease to exist. Saws have other uses.
So you have presented scripture, and you have made assertions, but the scriptures you quote do not support your assertion. You have not demonstrated that either Isaiah 28 nor I Corinthians 14 connects this prophesy to the destruction of the temple, or to the first century. And even if you did, this still does not prove that tongues would have ceased in 70 AD. And you have not presented a case explaining why tongues would cease in 70 AD. You have presented scripture, and you have presented your views, but you have not made your case from scripture.
What if someone quotes, "...she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate." and then argues "Therefore Adam gave all the rights to the earth away to Satan, and God couldn't do anything on earth except going through a man." I have heard arguments that made just about as much sense as this. The problem is that the scripture quoted does not support the assertion made. This is the same as the situation with your 'tongues ceased' argument. The passages you quote do not say anything about tongues ceasing. You cited a passage, and made assertions, but you didn't even make an attempt to explain how you think the verses support your assertion. Please make your case from scripture or stop asserting that tongues ceased.
***Isaiah 28:14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
--Context is everything. "This people" of Isaiah was referring to the Jews, the Jews of Jerusalem, the Jews that Peter had preached to on the Day of Pentecost, the Jews that had crucified the Lord, the Jews that had rejected the gospel, the Jews of the first century. ***
I agree with you that 'this people' in Isaiah 28 14 refers to the people of Judah. (The pasage starts out talking about Ephraim, but, so that needs to be considered as well.)
But what we need to look at is the point PAUL makes about this passage, since we are talking about I Corinthians 14.
21. In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 22. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
23. If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
24. But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
Paul takes this principle from verse 21 and makes an application from it. The principle he gets is that tongues are for 'them that believe not.' Notice he does not say 'Jews.' The unlearned or unbelievers who come in in verse 23 are not specified as either Jews or Gentiles. The unbelieving Jews responded to the 'tongues' of verse 21 with unbelief. The unbelievers of Paul's day responded to tongues with unbelief. In verse 24 we see that the unbeliever who comes in and hears prophesy in Paul's example believes. I have a question for you. would the Jews, in general, Isaiah spoke of in
28:11 respond to prophecies with faith? Did they believe the word of God that they could understand, or did they respond in unbelief?
We have to see the point that PAUL is making from this verse. To do that, we look at the surrounding passage in I Corinthians 14, which, btw, says nothing about the destruction of the temple or the ceasing of tongues. It is just not in there.
If you want to see some kind of 'hidden message' in here by Paul alluding to Isaiah, or see a second interpretation to Isaiah 12, that refers to 70 AD, there is still nothing in the passage that would lead to the logical conclusion that tongues would cease.
___ Tongues and Interpretation ___
I wrote,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If tongues _always _ had an interpreter, Paul would not have had to instruct the man speaking in tongues to remain silent in the church, but to speak to himself and to God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You wrote,
***You're contradicting yourself. Because tongues always had to have an interpreter, those who wanted to speak in tongues and did not have an interpreter were instructed to keep quiet, and not speak at all. The instruction was a rebuke to those who were speaking out of order, and without an interpreter. ***
No, you were the one who said that tongues always had an interpreter. I pointed out that if it were not possible for there NOT to be an interpreter of tongues, there would have been no reason for Paul saying 'but if there be no interpreter....' Tongues did not always have an interpreter, and that is why Paul had to state that if there were no interpreter, that the speaker in tongues be silent. You are the one contradicting yourself, actually. I see now it was just a case of sloppy wording on your part in the earlier post.
____ Must tongues be interpreted _________
You argue that tongues _always _ had to be interpreted. I disagree. The Bible teaches that tongues had to be interpreted IN THE CHURCH.
If you will notice, the passage that REQUIRES that tongues be interpreted adds the stipulation 'in the church.'
I Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
Notice the tongues speaker who has no interpreter is required to keep silent in the church. He is not required to keep silent in tongues, period. He is required to keep silent specifically in the church.
Now notice the use of the phrase 'in the church' in the following passage.
I Corinthians 14:18-19
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
Notice the contrast with the word yet. Verse 18 is very positive about tongues. You Corinthians speak in tongues? Well, Paul says "I speak in tongues more than ye all"! Paul outdid the Corinthians when it came to speaking in tongues.
But he was different from them when it came to church meetings. Why? Because speaking in tongues in church without interpretation does not edify the church (assembly). So therefore, he says "Yet IN THE CHURCH I had rather speak five words with my understandingg that I might TEACH OTHERS..."
We see in verse 26 that a rule for church meetings is 'Let all things be done unto edifying." So uninterpreted tongues, which only edified the speaker, was not to be used IN THE CHURCH, but with interpretation, tongues were allowed.
So Paul's rule (which he got from the Lord) is that there should be no tongues without interpretation IN THE CHURCH.
DHK's rule for the first century is that there be no tongues without interpretation.
The problem with your rule, DHK, is that it contradicts another commandment of Paul's. Paul's commandment is:
'forbid not to speak with tongues'.... You are not allowed to put further restrictions on tongues beyond what the Lord already put son it in the passage.
Look at these two verses:
*** 4. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5. I would that ye all spake with tongues; but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.***
In verse 4, Paul is contrasting what uninterpret tongues does with what prophecy does. One edifies the speaker. The other edifies the church.
Edification is a good thing. You, on the other hand, argue that there is no edification when one speaks in tongues without interpretation, because there is no understanding. You disagree with Paul. Paul says that the speaker edifies himself, and it is clear from later on in the passage that this is the case even if the speaker's understanding is 'unfruitful.'
** The argument from 1Cor.14:21,22, that tongues is a sign to the unbelieving Jew, is irrefutable. But your answer: "That is your opinion," just doesn't do, Link. You can't answer the argument so you resort, like the atheist does, to a "that's your opinion" argument. You can't give a Scriptural refutation, only an opinion that has no Scriptural basis. Thus you charge us as having only an opinion, when we have presented, not opinion to you, but rather Scripture which cannot be refuted. **
I do not recall saying 'That is your opinion' to your assertion that I Cor 14:21 and 22 supposedly proved tongues had ceased. I DID point out that sign does not mean ceased, and I gave a lot of commentary on the issue.
****It was a quote from Isaiah 28:11,12. If they did not hear them, or obey the gospel as a result of the sign of the tongues (at Pentecost, and during the Apostolic age), then judgement would come. That was the prophecy given. Judgement did come. The prophecy was directed at the first century Jews. We don't have first century Jews among us today. Tongues have ceased. Judgement did come with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D. It in no way is a continuing sign. Signs in that respect don't continue. It was a sign for a specific time. It was directed at the Jews of Jesus time, of Peter's time. Context is everything.
****
Let's deal with this bit by bit in small quotes, posted below. You make a lot of assertions here and I see no scripture either in your post, in Isaiah 28, or in I Corinthians 14 to back up your assertions. It is not enough to quote a verse and make assertions about what the verse means. The content of the verse and the surrounding passage has to support the assertions you make. You have referred to a verse here, but you have not truly supported your case from scripture, because your assertions are not based on things found in the verse.
*****
****It was a quote from Isaiah 28:11,12. If they did not hear them, or obey the gospel as a result of the sign of the tongues (at Pentecost, and during the Apostolic age), then judgement would come. That was the prophecy given. Judgement did come. ****
First of all, the 'judgement' this verse speaks of is that God would speak with stammering lips and another tongue to this people, and that they would not hear him. My Bible doesn't say anything about the judgement coming 'at Pentecost, and during the Apostoli age.' That time frame is not in Isaiah 28 or I Corinthians 14. It is not enough that you assert that this is the time frame. You need to make your case from scripture, which you have yet to do.
***The prophecy was directed at the first century Jews. We don't have first century Jews among us today. ***
You assert that the prophecy was directed at first century Jews. The first recipients of the prophecy lived in the time of Isaiah. Paul repeated the prophecy in the first century. Neither passage limits this passage to the first century Jew. What is your authority for claiming that this prophecy is limited to first century Jews and not Jews that live at other time periods?
***Tongues have ceased. Judgement did come with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D. ***
There are a few things here that you have not shown from the passage. First, you haven't shown where the passage speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem, or even another 'judgement' besides the fact that God would speak through stammering lips and another tongue, and that the people would not hear Him.
There is nothing in either the Isaiah 28 or I Corinthians 14 passage about tongues ceasing.
If tongues DID serve as a sign of the destruction of the temple-- something you have yet to show any evidence for-- then it does not follow that tongues would cease in 70 AD. I Corinthians 14 shows that there was another purpose for tongues-- edifying. Show me chapter and verse from scripture where it says that if one purpose of a gift is no longer needed, that the gift will cease altogether. Logic and reason will not lead us to conclude that if one purpose of something is fulfilled, and that thing has other uses, that that thing will always cease to exist. Saws can be used to cut asbestos roofing material. If all the asbestos roofing in the world were destroyed and there were no more asbestos left, that does not mean that saws would cease to exist. Saws have other uses.
So you have presented scripture, and you have made assertions, but the scriptures you quote do not support your assertion. You have not demonstrated that either Isaiah 28 nor I Corinthians 14 connects this prophesy to the destruction of the temple, or to the first century. And even if you did, this still does not prove that tongues would have ceased in 70 AD. And you have not presented a case explaining why tongues would cease in 70 AD. You have presented scripture, and you have presented your views, but you have not made your case from scripture.
What if someone quotes, "...she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate." and then argues "Therefore Adam gave all the rights to the earth away to Satan, and God couldn't do anything on earth except going through a man." I have heard arguments that made just about as much sense as this. The problem is that the scripture quoted does not support the assertion made. This is the same as the situation with your 'tongues ceased' argument. The passages you quote do not say anything about tongues ceasing. You cited a passage, and made assertions, but you didn't even make an attempt to explain how you think the verses support your assertion. Please make your case from scripture or stop asserting that tongues ceased.
***Isaiah 28:14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
--Context is everything. "This people" of Isaiah was referring to the Jews, the Jews of Jerusalem, the Jews that Peter had preached to on the Day of Pentecost, the Jews that had crucified the Lord, the Jews that had rejected the gospel, the Jews of the first century. ***
I agree with you that 'this people' in Isaiah 28 14 refers to the people of Judah. (The pasage starts out talking about Ephraim, but, so that needs to be considered as well.)
But what we need to look at is the point PAUL makes about this passage, since we are talking about I Corinthians 14.
21. In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 22. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
23. If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
24. But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
Paul takes this principle from verse 21 and makes an application from it. The principle he gets is that tongues are for 'them that believe not.' Notice he does not say 'Jews.' The unlearned or unbelievers who come in in verse 23 are not specified as either Jews or Gentiles. The unbelieving Jews responded to the 'tongues' of verse 21 with unbelief. The unbelievers of Paul's day responded to tongues with unbelief. In verse 24 we see that the unbeliever who comes in and hears prophesy in Paul's example believes. I have a question for you. would the Jews, in general, Isaiah spoke of in
28:11 respond to prophecies with faith? Did they believe the word of God that they could understand, or did they respond in unbelief?
We have to see the point that PAUL is making from this verse. To do that, we look at the surrounding passage in I Corinthians 14, which, btw, says nothing about the destruction of the temple or the ceasing of tongues. It is just not in there.
If you want to see some kind of 'hidden message' in here by Paul alluding to Isaiah, or see a second interpretation to Isaiah 12, that refers to 70 AD, there is still nothing in the passage that would lead to the logical conclusion that tongues would cease.
___ Tongues and Interpretation ___
I wrote,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If tongues _always _ had an interpreter, Paul would not have had to instruct the man speaking in tongues to remain silent in the church, but to speak to himself and to God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You wrote,
***You're contradicting yourself. Because tongues always had to have an interpreter, those who wanted to speak in tongues and did not have an interpreter were instructed to keep quiet, and not speak at all. The instruction was a rebuke to those who were speaking out of order, and without an interpreter. ***
No, you were the one who said that tongues always had an interpreter. I pointed out that if it were not possible for there NOT to be an interpreter of tongues, there would have been no reason for Paul saying 'but if there be no interpreter....' Tongues did not always have an interpreter, and that is why Paul had to state that if there were no interpreter, that the speaker in tongues be silent. You are the one contradicting yourself, actually. I see now it was just a case of sloppy wording on your part in the earlier post.
____ Must tongues be interpreted _________
You argue that tongues _always _ had to be interpreted. I disagree. The Bible teaches that tongues had to be interpreted IN THE CHURCH.
If you will notice, the passage that REQUIRES that tongues be interpreted adds the stipulation 'in the church.'
I Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
Notice the tongues speaker who has no interpreter is required to keep silent in the church. He is not required to keep silent in tongues, period. He is required to keep silent specifically in the church.
Now notice the use of the phrase 'in the church' in the following passage.
I Corinthians 14:18-19
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
Notice the contrast with the word yet. Verse 18 is very positive about tongues. You Corinthians speak in tongues? Well, Paul says "I speak in tongues more than ye all"! Paul outdid the Corinthians when it came to speaking in tongues.
But he was different from them when it came to church meetings. Why? Because speaking in tongues in church without interpretation does not edify the church (assembly). So therefore, he says "Yet IN THE CHURCH I had rather speak five words with my understandingg that I might TEACH OTHERS..."
We see in verse 26 that a rule for church meetings is 'Let all things be done unto edifying." So uninterpreted tongues, which only edified the speaker, was not to be used IN THE CHURCH, but with interpretation, tongues were allowed.
So Paul's rule (which he got from the Lord) is that there should be no tongues without interpretation IN THE CHURCH.
DHK's rule for the first century is that there be no tongues without interpretation.
The problem with your rule, DHK, is that it contradicts another commandment of Paul's. Paul's commandment is:
'forbid not to speak with tongues'.... You are not allowed to put further restrictions on tongues beyond what the Lord already put son it in the passage.
Look at these two verses:
*** 4. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5. I would that ye all spake with tongues; but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.***
In verse 4, Paul is contrasting what uninterpret tongues does with what prophecy does. One edifies the speaker. The other edifies the church.
Edification is a good thing. You, on the other hand, argue that there is no edification when one speaks in tongues without interpretation, because there is no understanding. You disagree with Paul. Paul says that the speaker edifies himself, and it is clear from later on in the passage that this is the case even if the speaker's understanding is 'unfruitful.'
DHK quoted me,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Hindus go into trances. Peter fell into a trance once on a housetop. Paul fell into a trance in the temple once. The
fact that some Hindus fall into trances do not make the apostles trances wrong. If witches drink coffee, that doesn't mean
Christians can't drink coffee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHK responded,
***So your conclusion is that Paul and Peter were demon possessed like Taoist and Hindu mediums were? Or is your conclusion
that Taoist and Hindu mediums are filled with the Holy Spirit? Which is true? You can't have it both ways. It is either one
or the other. We are not talking about coffee here. ***
Really think about what you write before you write it. Your line of reasoning is
If
a) Hindus go into trances
b) Peter went into a trance
c) Paul went into a trance
Therefore, either
a) Peter and Paul were demon possessed
OR
b) Taoists and Hindu mediums are filled with....I dare not finish this sentence.
Then you act as if there are no other logical conclusions. You say, "You can't have it both ways."
I can't have it either way. I am NOT arguing that Taoists or Hindu 'tongues' speakers are filled with the Spirit. Of course
not. This is your assertion. I am NOT arguing that Peter or Paul were demonized. This idea came from you. If you really
believe this way, your theology is really messed up. I don't see how you can argue with points a, b, or c.
The point of the quote is that trances can be good or bad. Godly men in the Bible sometimes fell into Spirit-induced
trances. Peter fell into one on a housetop. Paul fell into one in the temple praying. Both had visionary type experiences.
There are pagans who have demonic trances. (I include Hindu in my definition of pagan, btw.)
Notice the comments about coffee. There is good coffee and there is bad coffee. If some coffee is bad, that doesn't mean
all coffee is bad.
The point of my analogy? If someone sees some bad, demonic tongues, that doesn't make the true tongues bad. It is said that
the oracle of Dephi used to mumble things that other people could not understand. A Corinthian, speaking in a genuine
tongue, said things that others could not understand if he spoke wihtout an interpreter. Both probably might have the same
to a bi-stander who had no gift of discernment. So what if they did look the same outwardly? This would not prove that the
genuine gift of tongues was a bad thing. In the same way, Taoist tongues do not prove that genuine tongues are false.
Btw, this whole line of reasoning smacks of basing doctrine on experience. If someone has a bad experience with something
similar to 'tongues', and he rejects tongues on emotional reasons, he is just basing his doctrinal beliefs on experience.
All of your arguments about hearing about strange things in the Charismatic movement also reak of this line of reasoning.
Hypothetically, even if you did research and found 10,000 cases of demonic tongues, and only a couple of cases of genuine
tongues, then there are still genuine tongues.
I do not see where I insulted 'Amen's intelligence. If he thinks I insulted him, then he can tell me himself. If Amen has
no special linguistic training to identify that a language he does not know is a language, then what can he say? Even if
someone does have such training, with a lot of messages in tongues that do not sound like languages, the objective observer
would have inconclusive findings. A repeated utterances could be a word repeated over and over again. In Mandarin, 'Mother
is scolding the horse, isn't she' sounds like 'ma ma ma ma ma.' It is just 'ma' repeated over and over again-- unless you
are able to pick up on the differientiation in tongues, something English speakers unfamiliar with tongues would not pick up
on. A man fluent in Chinese and English might consider hotentot to sound like gibberish. Amen may be a rocket scientist for
all I know. I didn't say he was not intelligent, but if a man cannot tell the difference between a pagan tongue and
Christian tongues, it doesn't prove anything about the tongues, or about his intelligence. It just shows he can't tell the
difference. If he wants to be able to differentiate when he doesn't know the languages, then he should pray for the gift of
discernment of spirits.
It is ironic that you lambast brethren in Christ who disagree with your own opinions so easily, and reject so much of the work of the Holy Spirit with such brazen language, and then accuse others of being insulting.
You (DHK) assert that the gift of discernment of spirits cannot be given today. You are presuming to say what God will and
will not do without any scripture to support your assertions. You do this quite a lot actually. I do not recall your ever
showing any scriptural evidence that this gift of discernment, miracles, healing, etc. passed away. Could you show me a
verse that you believe supports this conclusion? Or do you just believe it, even though you have no scriptural evidence.
Btw, I may reply to some more points later. I have some responsibilities to take care of.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Hindus go into trances. Peter fell into a trance once on a housetop. Paul fell into a trance in the temple once. The
fact that some Hindus fall into trances do not make the apostles trances wrong. If witches drink coffee, that doesn't mean
Christians can't drink coffee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHK responded,
***So your conclusion is that Paul and Peter were demon possessed like Taoist and Hindu mediums were? Or is your conclusion
that Taoist and Hindu mediums are filled with the Holy Spirit? Which is true? You can't have it both ways. It is either one
or the other. We are not talking about coffee here. ***
Really think about what you write before you write it. Your line of reasoning is
If
a) Hindus go into trances
b) Peter went into a trance
c) Paul went into a trance
Therefore, either
a) Peter and Paul were demon possessed
OR
b) Taoists and Hindu mediums are filled with....I dare not finish this sentence.
Then you act as if there are no other logical conclusions. You say, "You can't have it both ways."
I can't have it either way. I am NOT arguing that Taoists or Hindu 'tongues' speakers are filled with the Spirit. Of course
not. This is your assertion. I am NOT arguing that Peter or Paul were demonized. This idea came from you. If you really
believe this way, your theology is really messed up. I don't see how you can argue with points a, b, or c.
The point of the quote is that trances can be good or bad. Godly men in the Bible sometimes fell into Spirit-induced
trances. Peter fell into one on a housetop. Paul fell into one in the temple praying. Both had visionary type experiences.
There are pagans who have demonic trances. (I include Hindu in my definition of pagan, btw.)
Notice the comments about coffee. There is good coffee and there is bad coffee. If some coffee is bad, that doesn't mean
all coffee is bad.
The point of my analogy? If someone sees some bad, demonic tongues, that doesn't make the true tongues bad. It is said that
the oracle of Dephi used to mumble things that other people could not understand. A Corinthian, speaking in a genuine
tongue, said things that others could not understand if he spoke wihtout an interpreter. Both probably might have the same
to a bi-stander who had no gift of discernment. So what if they did look the same outwardly? This would not prove that the
genuine gift of tongues was a bad thing. In the same way, Taoist tongues do not prove that genuine tongues are false.
Btw, this whole line of reasoning smacks of basing doctrine on experience. If someone has a bad experience with something
similar to 'tongues', and he rejects tongues on emotional reasons, he is just basing his doctrinal beliefs on experience.
All of your arguments about hearing about strange things in the Charismatic movement also reak of this line of reasoning.
Hypothetically, even if you did research and found 10,000 cases of demonic tongues, and only a couple of cases of genuine
tongues, then there are still genuine tongues.
I do not see where I insulted 'Amen's intelligence. If he thinks I insulted him, then he can tell me himself. If Amen has
no special linguistic training to identify that a language he does not know is a language, then what can he say? Even if
someone does have such training, with a lot of messages in tongues that do not sound like languages, the objective observer
would have inconclusive findings. A repeated utterances could be a word repeated over and over again. In Mandarin, 'Mother
is scolding the horse, isn't she' sounds like 'ma ma ma ma ma.' It is just 'ma' repeated over and over again-- unless you
are able to pick up on the differientiation in tongues, something English speakers unfamiliar with tongues would not pick up
on. A man fluent in Chinese and English might consider hotentot to sound like gibberish. Amen may be a rocket scientist for
all I know. I didn't say he was not intelligent, but if a man cannot tell the difference between a pagan tongue and
Christian tongues, it doesn't prove anything about the tongues, or about his intelligence. It just shows he can't tell the
difference. If he wants to be able to differentiate when he doesn't know the languages, then he should pray for the gift of
discernment of spirits.
It is ironic that you lambast brethren in Christ who disagree with your own opinions so easily, and reject so much of the work of the Holy Spirit with such brazen language, and then accuse others of being insulting.
You (DHK) assert that the gift of discernment of spirits cannot be given today. You are presuming to say what God will and
will not do without any scripture to support your assertions. You do this quite a lot actually. I do not recall your ever
showing any scriptural evidence that this gift of discernment, miracles, healing, etc. passed away. Could you show me a
verse that you believe supports this conclusion? Or do you just believe it, even though you have no scriptural evidence.
Btw, I may reply to some more points later. I have some responsibilities to take care of.
___ Walguy's Post on 'the Perfect'____
DHK wrote,
***And that is precisely the attitude that you have taken.
As per 1Cor.13:8-13, go back and read the posts, not only by myself, but by Dr. Bob, Walguy, Brian, and others. Walguy has given you excellent information. He has given you Greek exegesis showing you how it is impossible for the gift of tongues to have continued past the first century just from the construction of the Greek itself. But like a deaf man you refuse the evidence. Your stock answer, "That's your opinion," without providing any answer to any of the evidence given to you.****
You say Walguy gave some excellent information on the issue of I Corinthians 13. While I do not agree with everything that Walguy write,s I agree that he did an excellent job on this. He thoroughly disproved your position on the issue. If you are not deaf, maybe you will be able to hear his argument. If you have reason to disagree, prove it by disproving his argument. But do not ignore the argument and go on as if your false interpretation of I Corinthians 13 were correct.
Walguy wrote,
***The only thing clear is that it is NOT referring to Jesus Christ Himself. There are other things besides the Bible that the words could be referring to.
It seems to be time to go back into my archives and pull out the analysis of this passage that I have posted before:***
qwerty and Charles Meadows on page 4 gave sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the idea that the 'perfect' of I Corinthians 13 is not the completed canon. Walguy absolutely debunked the theory in his November 30th post on page 5 in which he wrote,
**Paul's whole point is that when the perfect came, every believer would see God's truth clearly, and understand the humanly knowable portion of God's truth as fully as we ourselves are understood by God. Clearly, this has NOT happened yet! The completed Bible is perfect in itself, but the 'perfect' Paul was referring to included not only perfect access to God's truth, but perfect UNDERSTANDING of that truth by ALL believers. He was saying that the ENTIRE SITUATION would be perfect: ALL believers knowing ALL of the humanly knowable portion of God's truth, and perfectly understanding ALL of it. No sane person could seriously look even at this one little message board and suggest that the kind of situation Paul was describing in verses 11-12 has been brought to pass by access of believers to God's perfect Word.
So the context of I Cor 13:9-12 actually completely precludes the idea that the 'perfect' means the completion of the Bible.
If all that is not enough for you, remember that in Paul's final illustration he spoke in the FIRST PERSON. He said that at that time he knew in part, but 'then' (when the 'perfect' comes) he would know fully. Now then, where was Paul when the Bible was completed? With the Lord! He was killed many years before the Canon of Scripture was finalized. That event did not effect Paul in the least. He was clearly referring to something with much broader implications.
What is the 'perfect?' If we take Paul's illustrations at face value (as well we should), there is only one point in time when ALL believers will know ALL of the humanly knowable portion of God's truth, and understand ALL of it: following the final resurrection and judgment of all people, when the New Heaven and New Earth replace the old, and all the residents of it are Glorified believers. In context, that is the only logical conclusion, the only situation that satisfies the criteria Paul laid out in verses 11-12. Limiting the 'perfect' solely to the completion of Scripture, on the other hand, fails that test miserably. It makes no sense whatsoever.
**
I find myself agreeing with Walguy on this point. So I did not post at length against your interpretation of I Corinthians 13 in this thread, because Walguy already thoroughly debunked it much more succinctly than I could have done. If I had made the same argument, as I did on a previous thread, it would have taken up at last twice as much space.
My view is similar to Walguy's, though I tend to view the coming of the perfect spoken of here to coincide with the resurrection mentioned in chapter 15 when the corruptable will take on incorruptable. He seems to have a bit later time in mind. I believe it to refer to what occurs in the resurrection because of the layout of the book, and because John says that we will be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. I consider his treatment of how the passage could not refer to Paul to be excellent.
_ IF _ we agree that Walguy made an excellent response on this issue, then please be humble enough to admit that you are wrong and do not continue to argue that I Corinthians 13 proves that tongues ceased at the completion of the canon. And since I showed you that Ireneas told of tongues occuring in his day, please be humble enough to admit that you were wrong in asserting that none of the 'church fathers' mentioned that tongues continued, and refrain from repeating this error in future conversations. You seem to repeat the same errors over and over even when demonstrated to be wrong.
______ So-called _Church Father's_ Writings _________
Also, I can understand a number of your objections to the so-called 'church father's' writings. Your argument that they are translated sounds pretty weak however. There are numerous translations available for different perspectives on them. What you did not really deal with, though, is the fact that we have a WITNESS of events going on at that time, that you reject. Even if you think Ireneaus was wrong and repeated bogus hearsay when he reported that there was a tradition of Christ being crucified at 80 years old, that does not mean he is not a reliable witness of things going on around him in his own day. If you took the time to read a few of his writings, you might come to the conclusion that he was a sincere Christian preacher who was serious about truth and doctrinal integrity. He did a lot of labor for the Lord in his day, preaching the Gospel in unreached areas. He may have sacrificed a lot more for the Lord in his life than either you or me. You should at least take his witness into account when you consider what happened in history. There are so many references from church history from the period after the apostles that show that other gifts of the Spirit were still occuring and accepted in the church. Jesus indicates that casting out demons is a miracle. Tertullian used the fact that Christians were casting supposed 'gods' out of people in his _Apology_ around 200. Justin Martyr used the fact that prophets were ministering among Christians as an apologetic argument with a Jew. He said that the Jews no longer had prophets, but the Christians did. There are many other such examples. Justin was a man who spent time in evangelistic work using his educated, sharp mind to argue a case for Christianity. He wrote public letters to rulers arguing for Christians and why they should be well-treated in the empire. Eventually, he gave up his life as a martyr for the faith. What reason is there to doubt the honesty of a brother in Christ like this? If he testified that prophesy was going on in his day, what reason is there to reject his testimony?
_________________ 'That is your opinion' attack __________________
As for your 'that is your opinion' attack-- I use that line of reasoning whenever you present arguments that have no basis in scripture. You repeatedly make unscripturally supported assertions with great confidence. I pointed out that you made arguments that were not backed up by scripture (or contradicted scripture) and you went off on a tangent trying to compare me to atheists who say 'that is your opinion.' Show that your ideas are backed up by scripture, and stop presenting ideas that contradict scripture, and I will stop pointing out that you are spreading your own opinions.
It seems to me that instead of backing up your assertions with scripture when I point out that you are presenting unscripturally-supported opinion, you should be showing the scriptures you think support your opinon. Maybe you cannot do that. Maybe that is why you resort to unedifying derrogatory rhetoric.
DHK wrote,
***And that is precisely the attitude that you have taken.
As per 1Cor.13:8-13, go back and read the posts, not only by myself, but by Dr. Bob, Walguy, Brian, and others. Walguy has given you excellent information. He has given you Greek exegesis showing you how it is impossible for the gift of tongues to have continued past the first century just from the construction of the Greek itself. But like a deaf man you refuse the evidence. Your stock answer, "That's your opinion," without providing any answer to any of the evidence given to you.****
You say Walguy gave some excellent information on the issue of I Corinthians 13. While I do not agree with everything that Walguy write,s I agree that he did an excellent job on this. He thoroughly disproved your position on the issue. If you are not deaf, maybe you will be able to hear his argument. If you have reason to disagree, prove it by disproving his argument. But do not ignore the argument and go on as if your false interpretation of I Corinthians 13 were correct.
Walguy wrote,
***The only thing clear is that it is NOT referring to Jesus Christ Himself. There are other things besides the Bible that the words could be referring to.
It seems to be time to go back into my archives and pull out the analysis of this passage that I have posted before:***
qwerty and Charles Meadows on page 4 gave sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the idea that the 'perfect' of I Corinthians 13 is not the completed canon. Walguy absolutely debunked the theory in his November 30th post on page 5 in which he wrote,
**Paul's whole point is that when the perfect came, every believer would see God's truth clearly, and understand the humanly knowable portion of God's truth as fully as we ourselves are understood by God. Clearly, this has NOT happened yet! The completed Bible is perfect in itself, but the 'perfect' Paul was referring to included not only perfect access to God's truth, but perfect UNDERSTANDING of that truth by ALL believers. He was saying that the ENTIRE SITUATION would be perfect: ALL believers knowing ALL of the humanly knowable portion of God's truth, and perfectly understanding ALL of it. No sane person could seriously look even at this one little message board and suggest that the kind of situation Paul was describing in verses 11-12 has been brought to pass by access of believers to God's perfect Word.
So the context of I Cor 13:9-12 actually completely precludes the idea that the 'perfect' means the completion of the Bible.
If all that is not enough for you, remember that in Paul's final illustration he spoke in the FIRST PERSON. He said that at that time he knew in part, but 'then' (when the 'perfect' comes) he would know fully. Now then, where was Paul when the Bible was completed? With the Lord! He was killed many years before the Canon of Scripture was finalized. That event did not effect Paul in the least. He was clearly referring to something with much broader implications.
What is the 'perfect?' If we take Paul's illustrations at face value (as well we should), there is only one point in time when ALL believers will know ALL of the humanly knowable portion of God's truth, and understand ALL of it: following the final resurrection and judgment of all people, when the New Heaven and New Earth replace the old, and all the residents of it are Glorified believers. In context, that is the only logical conclusion, the only situation that satisfies the criteria Paul laid out in verses 11-12. Limiting the 'perfect' solely to the completion of Scripture, on the other hand, fails that test miserably. It makes no sense whatsoever.
**
I find myself agreeing with Walguy on this point. So I did not post at length against your interpretation of I Corinthians 13 in this thread, because Walguy already thoroughly debunked it much more succinctly than I could have done. If I had made the same argument, as I did on a previous thread, it would have taken up at last twice as much space.
My view is similar to Walguy's, though I tend to view the coming of the perfect spoken of here to coincide with the resurrection mentioned in chapter 15 when the corruptable will take on incorruptable. He seems to have a bit later time in mind. I believe it to refer to what occurs in the resurrection because of the layout of the book, and because John says that we will be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. I consider his treatment of how the passage could not refer to Paul to be excellent.
_ IF _ we agree that Walguy made an excellent response on this issue, then please be humble enough to admit that you are wrong and do not continue to argue that I Corinthians 13 proves that tongues ceased at the completion of the canon. And since I showed you that Ireneas told of tongues occuring in his day, please be humble enough to admit that you were wrong in asserting that none of the 'church fathers' mentioned that tongues continued, and refrain from repeating this error in future conversations. You seem to repeat the same errors over and over even when demonstrated to be wrong.
______ So-called _Church Father's_ Writings _________
Also, I can understand a number of your objections to the so-called 'church father's' writings. Your argument that they are translated sounds pretty weak however. There are numerous translations available for different perspectives on them. What you did not really deal with, though, is the fact that we have a WITNESS of events going on at that time, that you reject. Even if you think Ireneaus was wrong and repeated bogus hearsay when he reported that there was a tradition of Christ being crucified at 80 years old, that does not mean he is not a reliable witness of things going on around him in his own day. If you took the time to read a few of his writings, you might come to the conclusion that he was a sincere Christian preacher who was serious about truth and doctrinal integrity. He did a lot of labor for the Lord in his day, preaching the Gospel in unreached areas. He may have sacrificed a lot more for the Lord in his life than either you or me. You should at least take his witness into account when you consider what happened in history. There are so many references from church history from the period after the apostles that show that other gifts of the Spirit were still occuring and accepted in the church. Jesus indicates that casting out demons is a miracle. Tertullian used the fact that Christians were casting supposed 'gods' out of people in his _Apology_ around 200. Justin Martyr used the fact that prophets were ministering among Christians as an apologetic argument with a Jew. He said that the Jews no longer had prophets, but the Christians did. There are many other such examples. Justin was a man who spent time in evangelistic work using his educated, sharp mind to argue a case for Christianity. He wrote public letters to rulers arguing for Christians and why they should be well-treated in the empire. Eventually, he gave up his life as a martyr for the faith. What reason is there to doubt the honesty of a brother in Christ like this? If he testified that prophesy was going on in his day, what reason is there to reject his testimony?
_________________ 'That is your opinion' attack __________________
As for your 'that is your opinion' attack-- I use that line of reasoning whenever you present arguments that have no basis in scripture. You repeatedly make unscripturally supported assertions with great confidence. I pointed out that you made arguments that were not backed up by scripture (or contradicted scripture) and you went off on a tangent trying to compare me to atheists who say 'that is your opinion.' Show that your ideas are backed up by scripture, and stop presenting ideas that contradict scripture, and I will stop pointing out that you are spreading your own opinions.
It seems to me that instead of backing up your assertions with scripture when I point out that you are presenting unscripturally-supported opinion, you should be showing the scriptures you think support your opinon. Maybe you cannot do that. Maybe that is why you resort to unedifying derrogatory rhetoric.
Claudia_T
The Bible never says anything about evangelizing per se in tongues. In Acts 2, what the apostles were saying in tongues attracted attention, and then Peter _preached _ to them. There is no reason to think he spoke in tongues when he preached to them. He was probably speaking Greek or some other commonly understood language.
Btw, I know of two people who had the experience where they were in a church meeting and someone spoke in tongues and they got the interpretation. Someone else in the church got the interpretation to, and gave it before they got the chance. the interpretation was the same. I know someone else who often had a similar experience with prophecy in church. How do you think that happens? Why do multiple people get the same interpretation of the same tongue?
To DHK,
From what I've read, a lot of the Jews were speaking Aramaic in Jesus' day. The higher classes had come back from the captivity speaking Aramaic. Some of the lower classes, the 'people of the land' probably spoke Hebrew.
The Bible never says anything about evangelizing per se in tongues. In Acts 2, what the apostles were saying in tongues attracted attention, and then Peter _preached _ to them. There is no reason to think he spoke in tongues when he preached to them. He was probably speaking Greek or some other commonly understood language.
Btw, I know of two people who had the experience where they were in a church meeting and someone spoke in tongues and they got the interpretation. Someone else in the church got the interpretation to, and gave it before they got the chance. the interpretation was the same. I know someone else who often had a similar experience with prophecy in church. How do you think that happens? Why do multiple people get the same interpretation of the same tongue?
To DHK,
From what I've read, a lot of the Jews were speaking Aramaic in Jesus' day. The higher classes had come back from the captivity speaking Aramaic. Some of the lower classes, the 'people of the land' probably spoke Hebrew.
Fair??
Did you even understand Claudia's post, or bother to read it, instead of just re-posting the whole thing to take up valuable space on the board?
Here is what she said:
Note: This is just one of many such examples of which have been heard
It is an example. She is using it as an example. We all have heard such stories. There is nothing to verify here. The question you need to answer is why do these stories keep arising? Do you think that it is a big conspiracy of all denominations against the Charismatics and its affiliates like yourself. It just might be that way, because Claudia is SDA, and I am IFB. We have very little in common. AAAhh yes, the Great Conspiracy against the tongues conspiracy. I can see it coming now!!
Why not just answer the major part of her post?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]An error repeated a thousand times is still an error. I don't care how many times it was repeated. If it cannot be verified, then we have no business repeating it as truth. atestring's questions are fair.
Claudia also said this:
I also would like to see the sources for this.
I don't have the documentation for such things either. I have heard the same stories, the same type of thing happening on several occasions. Because I don't have precise documentation does that mean it doesn't happen? One person that has documented such occurences is John MacArthur. Read his book Charismatic Chaos. You can down-load it free from:
http://www.biblebb.com/mac-a-g.htm
DHK
Your assumption that it is an error is wrong. You have no right to declare it an error, and in essene call Claudia a liar.
I have traveled through the Rocky Mountains several times. Many times I have seen the Big Horn Sheep that are indigenous to that area. I have first hand knowledge. I have seen them many times. If you ask me to verify it I can't. I don't write down the times, the exact places from the highway, even the very days and months that I have seen these animals.
There are many such incidents that Claudia refers to that happen. We don't always take the time to go and ask peoples' names. If we have read about it, we don't always remember where we have read it. Give people credit where credit is due. Don't assume people to be liars just because they can't document (to your standards) incidents that they have observed.
DHK
Actually, I meant story - I just type to fast sometimes. However, the point remains. Making accusations against other Christians that has gone on in this thread is serious business. Therefore, we should not post this kind of stuff without documentation. I don't care how many sheep you or anyone else sees along the highway - it is not being used to accuse anyone else of wrong. However, these Chinese laundryman and other such stories are being used to attack and accuse other Christians of evil. Therefore, the stories sources and details had better be made known for others to verify.
BTW. Thanks for the link to MacArthur's book, I will check it out.
BTW. Thanks for the link to MacArthur's book, I will check it out.
Let me clarify once again.
If I mention a name, such as Jack Hayford, then I am obligated to provide a source of some kind where I get the information from (documentation). BTW, I mentioned that Hayford believed in Replacement Theology. I was wrong, and for that I apologize. I must have read the article too quickly.
However, when we use general examples without any names involved there is no need for documentation, especially in the way that Claudia used. She said "several examples." She was not speaking out against any one person. There is no way that anyone could accuse her of libel or slander. She was speaking against a movement not a person. There is a big difference. To name someone's name is one thing. To speak in general terms of a movement is quite another.
DHK
DHK wrote,
***Your assumption that it is an error is wrong. You have no right to declare it an error, and in essene call Claudia a liar.***
There is a difference between pointing out that someone is repeating baseless hearsay, and calling someone a liar.
There have been posts here reporting positive accounts people who had heard tongues and understood them. You reject these stories, which had more documentation than Claudia's rumors. I quoted Ireneaus in the second century about tongues, and referred to plenty other writings about the continuation of the gift of prophecy and other spiritual manifestations. You reject them. Are you calling Ireneaus a liar?
**There are many such incidents that Claudia refers to that happen. We don't always take the time to go and ask peoples' names. If we have read about it, we don't always remember where we have read it. Give people credit where credit is due. Don't assume people to be liars just because they can't document (to your standards) incidents that they have observed.
***
The point is if Claudia heard them as rumors, they are still just rumors. Pointing out that Claudia is repeating rumors is not the same thing as calling her a liar. You say these rumors 'happened' when no details have been given. If someone suggests something negative about tongues happened, you believe it. When people give real testimony to real tongues happening, you reject it. You are accepting or rejecting testimony based on your own preconcieved ideas. I hope you never get jury duty.
Honestly, I'd never heard a lot of accounts like this, maybe one or two, in my life. I think i have heard of and read of more positive accounts of people who have understood speaking in tongues over the years. Claudia makes it sound like such reports are common. I suppose they could be. It could be that the Chinese laundryman report is like urban legend. In one city it is a Chinese laundryman, and in another city it is someone else.
And to all this I say, so what? It doesn't prove that real tongues do not happen today. If there are false tongues, as some of these unsubstantiated rumors report, and real tongues, as many people testify to, then lo, and behold, it is just as we should suspect. The universe operates as it did in the first century. God still gives gifts. Satan still sends counterfeits. This is the situation we should expect based on the Bible. It is the way things worked in the first century, and the way things worked today.
I do not believe God's method interaction with His creation suddenly changed in after the 1st century. The Bible shows us that gifts are available to the body of Christ at the Spirit's discretion, and it is still the case today. There were counterfeits back then, and there are today. This is just what we should expect, according to the Bible.
***Your assumption that it is an error is wrong. You have no right to declare it an error, and in essene call Claudia a liar.***
There is a difference between pointing out that someone is repeating baseless hearsay, and calling someone a liar.
There have been posts here reporting positive accounts people who had heard tongues and understood them. You reject these stories, which had more documentation than Claudia's rumors. I quoted Ireneaus in the second century about tongues, and referred to plenty other writings about the continuation of the gift of prophecy and other spiritual manifestations. You reject them. Are you calling Ireneaus a liar?
**There are many such incidents that Claudia refers to that happen. We don't always take the time to go and ask peoples' names. If we have read about it, we don't always remember where we have read it. Give people credit where credit is due. Don't assume people to be liars just because they can't document (to your standards) incidents that they have observed.
***
The point is if Claudia heard them as rumors, they are still just rumors. Pointing out that Claudia is repeating rumors is not the same thing as calling her a liar. You say these rumors 'happened' when no details have been given. If someone suggests something negative about tongues happened, you believe it. When people give real testimony to real tongues happening, you reject it. You are accepting or rejecting testimony based on your own preconcieved ideas. I hope you never get jury duty.
Honestly, I'd never heard a lot of accounts like this, maybe one or two, in my life. I think i have heard of and read of more positive accounts of people who have understood speaking in tongues over the years. Claudia makes it sound like such reports are common. I suppose they could be. It could be that the Chinese laundryman report is like urban legend. In one city it is a Chinese laundryman, and in another city it is someone else.
And to all this I say, so what? It doesn't prove that real tongues do not happen today. If there are false tongues, as some of these unsubstantiated rumors report, and real tongues, as many people testify to, then lo, and behold, it is just as we should suspect. The universe operates as it did in the first century. God still gives gifts. Satan still sends counterfeits. This is the situation we should expect based on the Bible. It is the way things worked in the first century, and the way things worked today.
I do not believe God's method interaction with His creation suddenly changed in after the 1st century. The Bible shows us that gifts are available to the body of Christ at the Spirit's discretion, and it is still the case today. There were counterfeits back then, and there are today. This is just what we should expect, according to the Bible.
Your point is taken.
I am biased for a reason. I don't base my theology on experience. I allow other people's examples and experiences give credence to my theology. But in the end, it is not the experience that matters. It is the Word of God. My faith is based entirely on the Word of God. The Word of God teaches that tongues have ceased. So naturally I reject these other non-documented experiences that you give. I don't believe they happen, because the Bible teaches that tongues have ceased. God does not go against his Word. The modern day phenomena that we see today only started at the beginning of the 20th century. This is well documented. I think you know this as well. We don't find any evidence of this in 1800 previous years. Was God dead? If tongues was so prevalent why didn't all the great men of God throughout history speak in tongues: Luther, Calvin, Wycliffe, John Huss, John Bunyan, John and Charles Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, etc., etc. History is rampant with great men of God, all of whom never spoke in tongues. We have their biographies. Why is history so silent concerning this phenomena only up until the 20th century? The obvious answer is because tongues have ceased. What is passed off as tongues today is not the genuine Biblical gift.
You can quote all the examples you want. But I will reject them, because I stand on the Word of God. It is because I dare not call God a liar, not call into question any man or woman's integrity. That is not the question for me. I won't accept your examples, because God doesn't lie.
I looked at a link that MEE once gave concerning the history of tongues. There were some references from the church fathers. They were all bogus. That is another reason that I have not pursued that avenue any further. Perhaps sometime I will take the time to study more of the church fathers carefully for myself, but right now I consider it a waste of time. The great chasm of history between the end of the first century and now is void of the Biblical gift of speaking in tongues, except among the heathen and heretical sects.
DHK