Do Pentecostals really speak in Languages? The Research

[swordsman1]

it is written those that believe (and prove they do by acting as if what they believe is true (ie have AND exercise FAITH) will have these signs that shall follow them ..they shall heal the sick they will drive our devils they will speak in other tongues .

You missed a bit out: "they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; "

Have you tried doing that recently? Such things happened in the apostolic age (Acts 28:3-6) but they don't happen now.

 

[Postvieww]

Paul's teaching subsequent to those unique historical events of Acts says otherwise:

Rom 8:9 And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.​

If you have not received the Spirit you are not a Christian.

1 Cor 12:13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.​

All believers are Spirit baptized so as to form the body of Christ (from the moment of salvation). If you are not baptized in the Spirit you are not part of the body of Christ.

Swordsman1 said;

Paul's teaching subsequent to those unique historical events of Acts says otherwise:

After the day of Pentecost and the church received it’s anointing of power as Jesus promised in Acts 1:8, what was unique about what happened in the book of Acts after that? They went about preaching the gospel in the power of the Spirit, healing the sick, raising the dead, performing miracles. Is that not the pattern for the church?

Rom 8:9 And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.

I totally agree with that statement. As I have pointed out in other posts I believe the disciples were born again and had received the “Spirit” or the Holy Ghost as Jesus said in John 20:22-23. Many would argue nothing actually happened when Jesus said “receive ye the Holy Ghost” but we will just have to disagree on that point. When Jesus spoke things happened.

If you have not received the Spirit you are not a Christian.

I agree totally. Paul said to the believers in Ephesians 5:18 to be “filled with the Spirit” . There were born again and had the spirit of Christ in them and yet Paul admonished them to be filled.

1 Cor 12:13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Agree totally.

All believers are Spirit baptized so as to form the body of Christ (from the moment of salvation). If you are not baptized in the Spirit you are not part of the body of Christ.

I believe our disagreement is one of semantics. I do not believe being baptized by one Spirit into the body of Christ is the same thing as being filled with the Spirit as Paul admonished believers to do, or as happened in the book of Acts.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

I believe these people were saved and I believe Philip believe they were saved.

13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

I believe Simon was saved and I believe Philip believed he was saved.

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

I believe the apostles believed they were saved.

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

Please explain why people who have “believed in the name of Christ” people who have “been baptized” need to have hands laid on them to receive the Holy Ghost? Nowhere in scripture do we find the laying on of hands to be born again.

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Would you argue these men of God baptized unsaved men and women? Would you argue the Holy Spirit allowed a misrepresentation of what happened here to be included in scripture?

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

This does not say or imply they were born again at this point, all evidence in this passage says they were born again when they believed, which lines up with other passages about being born again.


No one I know of is claiming a truly born again person does not have the Spirit of Christ within if they do not speak in tongues and that really is the point of this thread.

 

[swordsman1]

Please explain why people who have “believed in the name of Christ” people who have “been baptized” need to have hands laid on them to receive the Holy Ghost? Nowhere in scripture do we find the laying on of hands to be born again.

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Would you argue these men of God baptized unsaved men and women? Would you argue the Holy Spirit allowed a misrepresentation of what happened here to be included in scripture?

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

This does not say or imply they were born again at this point, all evidence in this passage says they were born again when they believed, which lines up with other passages about being born again.


No one I know of is claiming a truly born again person does not have the Spirit of Christ within if they do not speak in tongues and that really is the point of this thread.

The reason is because Acts 8 is a unique historical event, not the pattern for Christians today. The Apostles had to be convinced that the hated Samaritans were really Christians, otherwise they would never have been accepted into the Church. So the giving of the Spirit to them was delayed until Peter & John arrived.

The same is true of the Gentiles at Cornelius's house. The apostles had to be convinced that the gospel was for the Gentiles, otherwise they would never have been accepted. So God gave them a 'mini-Pentecost' and caused them to speak in tongues just as the disciples did at Pentecost. This was the only reason they were accepted into the Church - see Acts 11:15-18.

If you think Acts 8 is the normal pattern for today are you saying that everyone has to have the laying on of hands in order to receive the Holy Spirit?

Either Acts 8 was a unique historical event or Paul was lying in Rom 8:9, 1 Cor 12:13, Gal 3:2, etc, etc.

There is huge danger in looking at the events in Acts and assuming them to be the normative pattern we follow today. Should we expect to see tongues of fire on our heads? Should we expect our shadows to heal people? Should we expect to see a blinding light at our conversion as Paul did? Should we expect to be bitten by poisonous snakes and survive?

 

[Postvieww]

QUOTE="swordsman1, post: 70518422, member: 376452"]The reason is because Acts 8 is a unique historical event, not the pattern for Christians today. The Apostles had to be convinced that the hated Samaritans were really Christians, otherwise they would never have been accepted into the Church. So the giving of the Spirit to them was delayed until Peter & John arrived.

The same is true of the Gentiles at Cornelius's house. The apostles had to be convinced that the gospel was for the Gentiles, otherwise they would never have been accepted. So God gave them a 'mini-Pentecost' and caused them to speak in tongues just as the disciples did at Pentecost. This was the only reason they were accepted into the Church - see Acts 11:15-18.

If you think Acts 8 is the normal pattern for today are you saying that everyone has to have the laying on of hands in order to receive the Holy Spirit?

Either Acts 8 was a unique historical event or Paul was lying in Rom 8:9, 1 Cor 12:13, Gal 3:2, etc, etc.

There is huge danger in looking at the events in Acts and assuming them to be the normative pattern we follow today. Should we expect to see tongues of fire on our heads? Should we expect our shadows to heal people? Should we expect to see a blinding light at our conversion as Paul did? Should we expect to be bitten by poisonous snakes and survive?[/QUOTE]


Swordsman1 said:

The reason is because Acts 8 is a unique historical event, not the pattern for Christians today. The Apostles had to be convinced that the hated Samaritans were really Christians, otherwise they would never have been accepted into the Church. So the giving of the Spirit to them was delayed until Peter & John arrived.

That is a theory, what scripture backs up your reasoning? Tell me if Philip had the attitude you have described why did he even go to Samaria? Nothing in the text backs up your theory.


Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:


This just says they heard they received the word of God and sent Peter and John the rest appears to be your commentary.

The same is true of the Gentiles at Cornelius's house. The apostles had to be convinced that the gospel was for the Gentiles, otherwise they would never have been accepted.

God dealt with Peter on this before he went.

So God gave them a 'mini-Pentecost' and caused them to speak in tongues just as the disciples did at Pentecost. This was the only reason they were accepted into the Church - see Acts 11:15-18.

That is opinion and commentary.

If you think Acts 8 is the normal pattern for today are you saying that everyone has to have the laying on of hands in order to receive the Holy Spirit?

Do you really think I implied that in my post? That was but one example I used from Acts 8. No it does not have to always be through the laying on of hands, but that is how it happened in that case.

Either Acts 8 was a unique historical event or Paul was lying in Rom 8:9, 1 Cor 12:13, Gal 3:2, etc, etc.

Disagree, Paul did not lie.


Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.


1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.


Galatians 3:22 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?


Did I not already agree every born again believer has the Spirit of Christ within?

There is huge danger in looking at the events in Acts and assuming them to be the normative pattern we follow today.

The danger is not believing the promises of God.

Have you considered the fact that the church today by and large may have thru faith destroying doctrines and the teaching of man no longer see many miraculous events God intended to be a regular part of our lives just as it was in the book of Acts? There are many testimonies of great miracles in our day and they have they been available throughout church history for those would dare believe in them.


A former pastors wife of mine was born without eyes, yes no eye ball in the socket and her Godly mother was not taught those things had passed away and she just believed God for a miracle and she got one. Her deformed baby daughter received a creative miracle and was given new eyes. That was not just the inflated claim of my pastors wife it was the testimony of her mother and brother, of which I have met both.


I gave my personal testimony of healing on this thread and here is the response I got.


“Miracles aren’t necessarily evidence of divine approval or source”

Which technically is a true statement, but whose faith does talk like that build?


Luke 11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.


10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.


11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?


12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?


13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Should we expect to see tongues of fire on our heads?

Not necessarily but don’t rule it out, God really does not always conform to our imposed limitations.

Should we expect our shadows to heal people?

I don’t know what do you have faith for? Don’t rule it out.

Should we expect to see a blinding light at our conversion as Paul did?

Maybe not, unless you are called to be an apostle to the gentiles, but then, if God so chooses it could happen.

Should we expect to be bitten by poisonous snakes and survive?

Some have not, but some have where is your faith?





It seems far too many people spend far too much time explaining away scripture rather than believing what is written and exercising faith for the promises of God to work on their behalf.

 

[swordsman1]

Did I not already agree every born again believer has the Spirit of Christ within?

Your originally said:

The book of Acts has much evidence that the receiving, being filled, the Holy Spirit coming upon or being baptized with the Holy Ghost is subsequent to salvation​

So we are now agree that Christians nowadays receive the Holy Spirit at conversion.

And presumably we now agree that Spirit baptism occurs at conversion?

So the only thing to clear up is the 'filling' of the Holy Spirit. So let's focus on that. There are several verses that talk about that aspect. Acts 8, 10, & 19 are not among them. What is your understanding of being 'filled' with the Holy Spirit? How do we become filled with the Spirit? Is it a one-off event? What is the evidence of being filled in the Spirit? Is it speaking in tongues?

 

[Alithis]

You missed a bit out: "they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; "

Have you tried doing that recently? Such things happened in the apostolic age (Acts 28:3-6) but they don't happen now.

yes it did happen in the book of acts a serpent came out of a fire and bit paul .. and it didn't harm him . the point is - protection from God .! and yes it happens to day .i recently was attacked from behind by a dog ..it closed its mouth on the back of my leg .. but could not actually bite me . a ,most astounding experience . As Jesus said i send you out as sheep among wolves .. but i am with you and nothing shall by any means harm you .he says "and i will be with you until the end of the age ' .. and to whom does he says this ? to those he sends out and to those who GO . for they Both believe him and then prove they do by their obedience . and all those other signs follow whom ? - those that believe . and how do we know if a person truly believes .. they act in faith as though that which they claim to believe is true .
This is why we see many who "claim" , with mere words that they believe,not display such signs and not get protected . simply because they only claim with their lips to believe ,but in their hearts there is no Faith .no outworking of that belief to prove it is genuine .and so in their unbelief they do not see the signs that follow those who DO believe .Unbelief is Sin .. no mater what form it takes about what topic .

 

[Alithis]

Your originally said:

The book of Acts has much evidence that the receiving, being filled, the Holy Spirit coming upon or being baptized with the Holy Ghost is subsequent to salvation​

So we are now agree that Christians nowadays receive the Holy Spirit at conversion.

And presumably we now agree that Spirit baptism occurs at conversion?

So the only thing to clear up is the 'filling' of the Holy Spirit. So let's focus on that. There are several verses that talk about that aspect. Acts 8, 10, & 19 are not among them. What is your understanding of being 'filled' with the Holy Spirit? How do we become filled with the Spirit? Is it a one-off event? What is the evidence of being filled in the Spirit? Is it speaking in tongues?

have you recived the "baptism of the Holy Spirit ?

 

[FredVB]

If other languages were really being spoken with what is accepted as a gift of tongues, it would be from Yahweh God and it would be miraculous, that any could see, and there wouldn't be the controversy with it questioned, as opposed to the ecstatic speech that happens in various religions that would pass for such which is being accepted

 

[swordsman1]

yes it did happen in the book of acts a serpent came out of a fire and bit paul .. and it didn't harm him . the point is - protection from God .! and yes it happens to day .i recently was attacked from behind by a dog ..it closed its mouth on the back of my leg .. but could not actually bite me . a ,most astounding experience . As Jesus said i send you out as sheep among wolves .. but i am with you and nothing shall by any means harm you .he says "and i will be with you until the end of the age ' .. and to whom does he says this ? to those he sends out and to those who GO . for they Both believe him and then prove they do by their obedience . and all those other signs follow whom ? - those that believe . and how do we know if a person truly believes .. they act in faith as though that which they claim to believe is true .
This is why we see many who "claim" , with mere words that they believe,not display such signs and not get protected . simply because they only claim with their lips to believe ,but in their hearts there is no Faith .no outworking of that belief to prove it is genuine .and so in their unbelief they do not see the signs that follow those who DO believe .Unbelief is Sin .. no mater what form it takes about what topic .

They are not metaphors in Mark 16. People were literally bitten by deadly snakes, they literally cast out demons, they literally spoke in tongues etc.

Have you been bitten by a deadly snake and lived? Want to try it to see if it still happens today?

 

[swordsman1]

have you recived the "baptism of the Holy Spirit ?

Yes I have. All believers have. 1 Cor 12:13 says so. Otherwise you are not part of the body of Christ.

 

[Hillsage]

Applying the laws of language governing 'men', in "syntax, rhythm, meter", are probably as useful in 'angelic spirit language' as they are to linguistic gurus who'd judge 'computer language'. A language which is 'binary' consisting of nothing but +o+o. A language which may even have 'syntax', but guess what?; "any, syntax is usually highly specific, related to the target processor". And in our case, GOD is our target processor of a language from our spirit praying to God which; "NO MAN UNDERSTANDETH..." 1Co 14:2.

And when those who are "outsiders/unlearned/ungifted" 14:24; enter our Charismatic church, according to scripture, we can most assuredly expect them to still say "these are drunk" "will they not say you are mad"? Yes, they will and do, say such things. And they also say we are speaking "BABBLE", not having even enough of a carnal minded understanding of scriptures, to realize that "BABBLE" is the language that sprung from 'The Tower of Babel'...and is 'the languages of men'. Languages which, YOU who 'have not', don't even recognize that you are speaking....with every posted word, meter, syntax, rhythm.

 

[Alithis]

They are not metaphors in Mark 16. People were literally bitten by deadly snakes, they literally cast out demons, they literally spoke in tongues etc.

Have you been bitten by a deadly snake and lived? Want to try it to see if it still happens today?

if i went out and found a snake and made it bite me i would sin .your using the same argument satant used with JEsus when he told him to cast himself down to the rocks to test gods word ..you shall Not tempt god .
it is also extremely difficult being that there are none in NZ .

Yes I have. All believers have. 1 Cor 12:13 says so. Otherwise you are not part of the body of Christ.

how do you know ?

 

[Alithis]

They are not metaphors in Mark 16. People were literally bitten by deadly snakes, they literally cast out demons, they literally spoke in tongues etc.

Have you been bitten by a deadly snake and lived? Want to try it to see if it still happens today?

one .. if you are baptised in the holy spirit then by what spirit do you speak when you use the same argument satan used when he literally told Jesus to throw himself down to "test god " ..?

People get literally bitten by snakes today .. and are healed . cancel that off your list .
we literally cast out demons today . so cancel that off your list.
we speak in Tongues today ..so cancel that off your list .

and you've proved a point i made earlier. people who constantly oppose tongues .. do not Do any of the other aspects of the gospel either ,as all these abilities given by the holy Spirit are abilities and tools for the worK of the kingdom of God and the gospel . and you've just stated that you don't believe healings and casting out of demons .. are done any more . i KNOW that is untrue having been involved in ALL of these things .

 

[swordsman1]

one .. if you are baptised in the holy spirit then by what spirit do you speak when you use the same argument satan used when he literally told Jesus to throw himself down to "test god " ..?

People get literally bitten by snakes today .. and are healed . cancel that off your list .
we literally cast out demons today . so cancel that off your list.
we speak in Tongues today ..so cancel that off your list .

and you've proved a point i made earlier. people who constantly oppose tongues .. do not Do any of the other aspects of the gospel either ,as all these abilities given by the holy Spirit are abilities and tools for the worK of the kingdom of God and the gospel . and you've just stated that you don't believe healings and casting out of demons .. are done any more . i KNOW that is untrue having been involved in ALL of these things .

If, by your interpretation of Mark 16, it is normal and expected for believers to speak in tongues today, then it must be normal and expected for them also to be bitten by deadly snakes, and drink poison, and live. Are believers are immune from snake bites and poison?

 

[Hillsage]

Yes I have. All believers have. 1 Cor 12:13 says so. Otherwise you are not part of the body of Christ.

Then who are the "outsiders, unlearned, ungifted" ones spoken of in 1Cor who may come in with those who aren't even saved, but are "unbelievers"?

1CO 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned/idiotes, or unbelievers/apistos, 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:

2399 idiotes: a private person, i.e. (by impl.) an ignoramus (comp. "idiot")
0571 apistos:(act.) disbelieving, i.e. without Chr. faith (spec. a heathen); (pass.) untrustworthy (person), or incredible (thing)

Which of the three are you? A Charismatic, a Fundamentalist/Cessasionist, or an unsaved heathen? Those are your scriptural choices.

 

[swordsman1]

Then who are the "outsiders, unlearned, ungifted" ones spoken of in 1Cor who may come in with those who aren't even saved, but are "unbelievers"?

1CO 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned/idiotes, or unbelievers/apistos, 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:

2399 idiotes: a private person, i.e. (by impl.) an ignoramus (comp. "idiot")
0571 apistos:(act.) disbelieving, i.e. without Chr. faith (spec. a heathen); (pass.) untrustworthy (person), or incredible (thing)

Which of the three are you? A Charismatic, a Fundamentalist/Cessasionist, or an unsaved heathen? Those are your scriptural choices.

It is someone who doesn't know what the true gift of tongues is. That makes you the idióté, not me.

 

[Jezmeyah]

In this response post I endeavor to follow a theme rather than continue with the previous way of posting back and forth.

You see the word 'unknown' is not found in Greek texts. Are you going to reject it? In fact, I am adhering to Peter's verse by showing the pitfall in Pentecostal theology.

I am aware that the translators of the KJV of the Bible had added the word 'unknown'. The general populace of Chrisendom, uses the word 'unknown' to refer to speaking in tongues, even as you have done throughout our discussion up to this point, and continued to do so throughout your post. Which belies your challenge to me that I reject it.

I, most often do not use the phrase, simply because my version of the Bible doesn't have the word, so I've been using it for the general reason.

For those reasons, the use of the word 'unknown' is not, as you say, 'a pitfall in Pentecostal theology'. Neither is it a matter of being a 'private interpretation' as Peter writes in his verse,

2 Pet.1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

An example however of 'private interpretation' would be what you said in the following..

Where does Paul says that the unknown tongue through the utterance of the Holy Spirit?

You will notice that you have used the word 'unknown' here. Which in the sequence of your post to me was before you pointed out that the word is not in the original Greek writing.

You are in this response implying that Paul's teachings concerning how the church service of Christians is to function regarding speaking in tongues, if I understand your meaning, are not according to the Holy Spirit but rather, by your estimation: default, the wisdom of men because there is no use of the phrase 'through utterance of the Holy Spirit' when he used the words 'speaking in tongues'.

Is that a correct reading of what you said?

Which brings me to the first part of your post.

That precisely is my point. The Holy Spirit gave utterance in all the contexts recorded in Acts. That is why no interpreter was required. It was not the case in Corinthian church where emotional people spoke with their spirits. Show me in Paul's letters where people spoke unknown tongue prompted directly by the Holy Spirit.

Here, you definitely imply that because the apostle Paul didn't say that the speaking in tongues was by utterance of the Holy Spirit, then his teachings are not inspired by God.

However, to Timothy the apostle Paul wrote in 2 Tim.3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

But, due to your frame of mind on the matter, there is no need for me to comply with your challenge to show you anything. To comply, would be to adhere to your judgement. Or, as the saying goes, I will not dignify that with an answer.

Your sentence continues,

What is unknown to the Holy Spirit?

Your question implies that you think I use the word 'unknown' for Pentecostal reasons. However, if that were the case then I wonder why you have continued to use it when refering to speaking in tongues, throughout the remainder of your post to me.

That is your claim against the claim of Paul.

You have in your sentence used your theological reasoning to make a claim against me, not only in this sentence but throughout our entire discussions. I on the other hand have been using the new testament to show my adherence to Paul's teachings concerning speaking in tongues.

Due to this post of yours to me, I hereby state that I will no longer be replying to you. I think that the reasons are clearly evident.

 

[Righttruth]

In this response post I endeavor to follow a theme rather than continue with the previous way of posting back and forth.
I am aware that the translators of the KJV of the Bible had added the word 'unknown'. The general populace of Chrisendom, uses the word 'unknown' to refer to speaking in tongues, even as you have done throughout our discussion up to this point, and continued to do so throughout your post. Which belies your challenge to me that I reject it.
I, most often do not use the phrase, simply because my version of the Bible doesn't have the word, so I've been using it for the general reason.

You may want to understand the wisdom of using the word 'unknown' by KJV. It refers to the situation wherein an interpreter is required to act on behalf of the person speaking unknown tongue whereas when the Holy Spirit utters through a person such a strange arrangement is not required. That is the case in the entire book of Acts, not so in immature and notorious Corinth.

For those reasons, the use of the word 'unknown' is not, as you say, 'a pitfall in Pentecostal theology'. Neither is it a matter of being a 'private interpretation' as Peter writes in his verse,

Indeed it is the pitfall of Pentecostal theology because 'unknown' word speaking is being treated on par with known foreign language.

2 Pet.1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

True. All kinds of Tom, Dick and Harry are giving their versions without any emptying of themselves and sacrifice. It has become a livelihood.

You are in this response implying that Paul's teachings concerning how the church service of Christians is to function regarding speaking in tongues, if I understand your meaning, are not according to the Holy Spirit but rather, by your estimation: default, the wisdom of men because there is no use of the phrase 'through utterance of the Holy Spirit' when he used the words 'speaking in tongues'.

Paul never equated spirit filled utterances through the help of the Holy Spirit with unknown tongue. I have started a new thread separately in controversial section titled "Skewed and distracting theology on unknown tongues." You are welcome to join there.

Here, you definitely imply that because the apostle Paul didn't say that the speaking in tongues was by utterance of the Holy Spirit, then his teachings are not inspired by God.

You are connecting two different issues. Inspired Paul did not include unknown tongue as inspired by the Holy Spirit. Instead, he said it is person's spirit that utters.

But, due to your frame of mind on the matter, there is no need for me to comply with your challenge to show you anything. To comply, would be to adhere to your judgement. Or, as the saying goes, I will not dignify that with an answer.

May I take that as a good excuse to escape reply since you don't have valid reasons to answer my query?

Your sentence continues,
Your question implies that you think I use the word 'unknown' for Pentecostal reasons. However, if that were the case then I wonder why you have continued to use it when refering to speaking in tongues, throughout the remainder of your post to me.
You have in your sentence used your theological reasoning to make a claim against me, not only in this sentence but throughout our entire discussions. I on the other hand have been using the new testament to show my adherence to Paul's teachings concerning speaking in tongues.

Unknown signifies the involvement of person's spirit, not that of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Hillsage]

It is someone who doesn't know what the true gift of tongues is. That makes you the idióté, not me.

The 'goad you are kicking against' doesn't need sharpening. Your sword on the other hand.......

 

[Uber Genius]

In almost all instances, linguists are confident that the samples of T-speech represent no known natural language an

1984 I brought some leaders from a ceasationist church I attended to a charismatic church I used to attend.

It was to familiarize them with charismatic practice and ecclesiology.

They too had a strawman representation of these practices. And often mocked charismatics by faking tongues. They were in for more of a surprise than I knew at the time.

After worship a person stood up and shared a tongue for 45 seconds to a minute. A few seconds past and a second person got up and shared a message (interpretation) in English.

One of the leaders turned to me and said why are people speaking and interpreting Greek? That's right it turned out to be greek. Not only that bit perfect greek, intonation and all. This leader approached both after the service introducing herself in Greek. Both were unaware the tongue had been in Greek. The woman who originally gave the obfuscation was so elated to find out she started shouting for her husband to come and meet us and explained that her tongue was in Greek.

Also in the 1980s a woman approached me after a service for prayer (I was up front on the prayer team). She told me her request and I started praying in english. After a few minutes I prayed quietly in tongues. Her eyes popped open, and she said where did you learn to speak that dialect? It is East African. I told her about tongues and she said it was close to some of the languages where she was a missionary for a few years in the early 1980s

You will not find a single person who gets the interpretation correct.

Entertaining.

Interpretation is NOT the ability to read other languages LOL!

It is interpreting the language someone spoke through the power of the spirit.

A speaks in tongues no one can understand revealed by the HS. B speaks in english of whatever language audience speaks by receiving native language understanding when they hear the foreign tongue.

Finally, you find yourself in the unenviable position of defending non-existence. This requires quite a bit of knowledge of what does exist, and an epistemic certainty that hasn't been valid since Descartes.