Originally posted by MEE:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
Interesting. So how does this prove that some are faking it?
And in any case, does the reference you cite make it OK to mock Pentecostals,w hich is the point of the originating post of this thread?
TP, it doesn't prove anything. People can always find someone or a website to tell them what they want to hear.
Something to think about: TP, wouldn't you think that the person speaking in tongues, as the Spirit of God gives the utterance, would know if they were faking it?
When I spoke for the first time, I know that it was not me because I wouldn't have known how to fake something that wonderful.
I know that as soon as this post goes in someone will start bashing and badgering, as usual, but who cares? They nailed Jesus to a cross...didn't make them right, did it?
MEE
</font>[/QUOTE]If you think of the purpose of tongues (the Biblical purpose), you will have no problem in discerning whether or not your speaking in tongues experience is of the flesh, the devil, or of God. I can tell you right now it is not of God.
However, let us go through the different questions?
1. When you speak in a tongue (which must be a known language to someone in your congregation, unknown to yourself, but known to others, so that others will be edified, what language are you speaking? In fact, Biblically you yourself would know immediately what language you are speaking. If you don't know the language you are speaking it is not of God.
2. If you don't know the words you are saying it is not of God. You could be praising Satan. Can you offer evidence to the contrary that you are not praisinng Satan.
3. Tongues (according to 1Cor.14:21,22--unless you have snipped those verses out of your Bible--are a sign given to the unbelieving Jew. Even if you believe they are still present for today you run into two problems:
a. Are there unbelieving Jews present in your meetings for that is the primary purpose of tongues.
b. Biblical tongues operated in this way. The person who spoke in tongues actually knew what they were saying. They spoke in a tongue unknown to their mother tongue, and unknown to them by natural means. It was given to them by supernatural means, but they did know what they were saying. They really didn't need an interpreter to understand. If the gift of tongues was given to a Gentile believer in Corinth who only knew Greek in order that he would speak fluent Italian (Latin), then he would understand the Latin he would be speaking. There would be no need for an interpreter. Why should there be. If God gave me the gift of tongues, why would I need to learn the language of the people that I go to as a missionary? But Paul insists on having an interpreter. I need an interpreter only when I am not fluent with the language, not when I am fluent with the foreign language. Something is not making sense. Do you follow my point here. A person with a knowledge of a foreign language (the gift of tongues does not need an interpreter.
Why then does Paul insist on interpretation, and put the restriction on the Corinthians that they could not speak in tongues in the Church without an interpreter. The obvious reason is that tongues were for a sign to the unbelieving Jew. The tongues (foreign languages) were interpreted back into Hebrew for the benefit of the Jews. By this sign they would know that the message was from God, and they had better listen and obey it. That is what the interpretation for--for the unbelieving Jew and for their benefit.
Some would object that the church at Corinth was a Gentile church. That is a false assumption. The church at Corinth had many believers in it with Gentile backgrounds but it also had many believers in it from Jewish backgrounds. Go back and read in Acts 18 the history of the Church in Corinth. He was in Corinth a year and a half. When he arrived in Corinth he went to the synagogue (the worship place of the Jews) and reasoned with them every day. Here is what verse four says:
Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
Notice that many Jews were persuaded. And this was at the beginning of his ministry. How many more were one to Christ it does not say. I would venture say to a great number more Jews were won to the Lord. One cannot assume it was "a gentile church." It wasn't. It had believers that had both Jewish and Gentile bacgrounds in it.
Tongues was a sign for the Jews. The interpretation of tongues was a sign for the Jews. Some object that Hebrew was no longer used. This also is a false assumption. When Hebrew was used it commanded great respect among the Jews, and they listened all the more.
Acts 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence,
he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,
Acts 22:2 (And
when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
The Hebrew language they had respect for. The foreign language was the gift of tongues. The interpretation was back into Hebrew--a sign for the unbelieving Jews.
Now MEE, do you understand the language you speak in? If so which language do you speak in? Is it interpreted back into Hebrew for the unbelieving Jews that are present. Are their unbelieving Jews present? Do the women in your church keep silent in your church when speaking in tongues, another stipulation Paul set forth in 1Cor.34,35.
If your church (and yourself) do not keep all these stipulations when speaking in tongues your tongues is either of the flesh or of the devil. The latter is very possible. In any case it is not of God. It is a false doctrine.
DHK