Has God ever told any tongues-speaking believer that they are speaking gibberish

[swordsman1]

It is interesting that uses Gordon Fee as one of his authorities for this, but rejects Fee's support of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit, including tongues, is for the Church today. O Consistency, thou art a jewel!!

I quoted Fee so you didn't think I was being biased. Even Pentecostalism's most respected theologian rejects the old school Pentecostal view of the baptism of the Spirit. I don't agree with much of Fees teaching, but on this issue he is dead right.

As for today's 'tongues' he isn't so sure. He refuses to affirm that today's tongues is the same as the NT gift of tongues. The most he is prepared to say is that it is something 'analogous' to the NT gift. That is surprising coming from him, but an inevitable conclusion for anyone who has studied the evidence.

Gordon Fee - God’s Empowering Presence
The question as to whether the “speaking in tongues” in contemporary Pentecostal and charismatic communities is the same in kind as that in the Pauline churches is moot – and probably somewhat irrelevant. There is simply no way to know. As an experienced phenomenon, it is analogous to theirs, meaning that it is understood to be a supernatural activity of the Spirit, which function in many of the same ways, and for many of its practitioners has similar value to that described by Paul.​

 

[Neogaia777]

1 Corinthians 14

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You think Fee and Grudem (the most respected theologians from your side of the fence) got it wrong? Not to mention the vast majority of other theologians?

Which of the church fathers took the old school Pentecostal view of the baptism of the Spirit? I know the Orthodox/Catholic church adopted the view that Spirit baptism occurred at water baptism/confirmation, but as far as I am aware the old Pentecostal view of it being a subsequent experience evidenced by tongues is unique to the 20th century.

The interesting fact that I have recently learned is that many things that Jesus did were unprecedented in that no actual mention of such deeds were written in the Jewish Scriptures. Yet nothing that Jesus did were actually condemned by the written Scriptures. I found that interesting. So what He did must have been in harmony with the Scriptures even though no one previously had taught or acted in the same way as He did. Otherwise He could have been rightly seen as a false prophet and teacher. But we know that He wasn't, although if He were subjected to the same test as some to modern Pentecostals, they would have to label Jesus as a false teacher, because as He did, much of early and modern Pentecostalism has no precedent in Scripture, yet there is nothing actually written that condemns these acts. So if the Scripture does not condemn the modern speaking in tongues and modern critics do, then those critics don't have any basis in Scripture to criticise so they could be seen as false teachers on the basis of their own measure of judgment.

O Consistency, thou art a jewel!!

 

[swordsman1]

The interesting fact that I have recently learned is that many things that Jesus did were unprecedented in that no actual mention of such deeds were written in the Jewish Scriptures. Yet nothing that Jesus did were actually condemned by the written Scriptures. I found that interesting. So what He did must have been in harmony with the Scriptures even though no one previously had taught or acted in the same way as He did. Otherwise He could have been rightly seen as a false prophet and teacher. But we know that He wasn't, although if He were subjected to the same test as some to modern Pentecostals, they would have to label Jesus as a false teacher, because as He did, much of early and modern Pentecostalism has no precedent in Scripture, yet there is nothing actually written that condemns these acts. So if the Scripture does not condemn the modern speaking in tongues and modern critics do, then those critics don't have any basis in Scripture to criticise so they could be seen as false teachers on the basis of their own measure of judgment.

O Consistency, thou art a jewel!!

So you can make up as many absurd doctrines and practices as you like, and as long they are not contradicted by scripture they are automatically deemed to be in harmony with scripture? And the people that promote them are not the false teachers, but the ones who challenge them are? Yeah, right. The problem with your argument is that Jesus is the sinless Son of God and so is absolutely entitled to introduce new doctrines, whereas Pentecostal and charismatic false teachers are simply sinners.

The fact is many Pentecostal doctrines and practices are proved to be contrary to scripture. Their view of baptism of the Holy Spirit being one, as even their own theologians now have to acknowledge. But I'm glad to see that you at least admit that many Pentecostal doctrines and practices are simply absent from scripture. Now there is one thing we do agree on.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So you can make up as many absurd doctrines and practices as you like, and as long they are not contradicted by scripture they are automatically deemed to be in harmony with scripture? And the people that promote them are not the false teachers, but the ones who challenge them are? Yeah, right. The problem with your argument is that Jesus is the sinless Son of God and so is absolutely entitled to introduce new doctrines, whereas Pentecostal and charismatic false teachers are simply sinners.

The fact is many Pentecostal doctrines and practices are proved to be contrary to scripture. Their view of baptism of the Holy Spirit being one, as even their own theologians now have to acknowledge. But I'm glad to see that you at least admit that many Pentecostal doctrines and practices are simply absent from scripture. Now there is one thing we do agree on.

The central components of the Pentecostal movement are winning people to Christ, repentance, praise and worship, a love for the Word of God, importance of the fruit of the Spirit, the necessity of a holy life, and an expectant looking forward to the Second Coming of Christ. All those are in complete harmony with Scripture. Just because there are manifestations which have happened all through Scripture and history, it doesn't mean that the movement is not involved with the Holy Spirit. And if the movement is involved with the Holy Spirit and not another spirit, is your criticism of it in harmony with Scripture?

 

[swordsman1]

The central components of the Pentecostal movement are winning people to Christ, repentance, praise and worship, a love for the Word of God, importance of the fruit of the Spirit, the necessity of a holy life, and an expectant looking forward to the Second Coming of Christ. All those are in complete harmony with Scripture. Just because there are manifestations which have happened all through Scripture and history, it doesn't mean that the movement is not involved with the Holy Spirit. And if the movement is involved with the Holy Spirit and not another spirit, is your criticism of it in harmony with Scripture?

Just because there are some things in the movement that are biblical doesn't mean that their other, controversial doctrines and practices must automatically be accepted as being from God. No doubt people are saved in the Catholic church also, but that doesn't mean that everything they teach must be considered correct doctrine.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Just because there are some things in the movement that are biblical doesn't mean that their other, controversial doctrines and practices must automatically be accepted as being from God. No doubt people are saved in the Catholic church also, but that doesn't mean that everything they teach must be considered correct doctrine.

No one is saying that everything said and done in Pentecostal churches is correct. There is the lunatic fringe in every church, even in the ones you support.

In actual fact, shaking and falling down is totally supported by many references in the Old and New Testaments. Speaking in tongues is totally supported by Luke and Paul, and there are absolutely no direct statements that they were meant to cease. Also where tongues have been recorded in different movements and groups throughout Church history, the description of them is no different to what most Pentecostals practice today.

Just imagine if you were a passionate believer at the time of Jesus in Israel and you consulted the Jewish Scriptures to validate Jesus as a true or false prophet. Now let's see...
Oh, He was born in Bethlehem, so that's a possibility.
He was born in a stable through a 15 year old mother who was found pregnant before she was married! Whoops! That doesn't sound kosher! We'll have to investigate that further!
He turned the water into wine at a wedding! Yikes! He is supporting boozing! That's suspicious!
What did you say? He spat on a bit of dirt and rubbed into a blind guy's eyes for healing? Don't see that in Scripture!
Again? He was in a boat in the middle of a storm and he commanded it to be still? Never heard of anything like that in Scripture!
What? Demons were talking to Jesus and He was talking back to them?
Well! That's enough for me. Jesus is a false prophet and teacher!

Actually, I was testing Jesus by the same measure that you are testing Pentecostals.

 

[swordsman1]

No one is saying that everything said and done in Pentecostal churches is correct. There is the lunatic fringe in every church, even in the ones you support.

But it is not just the lunatic fringe of the pentecostal movement that has false doctrines. Their teaching on the baptism of the Holy Spirit and many other erroneous doctrines are mainstream.

 

[swordsman1]

In actual fact, shaking and falling down is totally supported by many references in the Old and New Testaments.

No it's not. Nowhere in scripture does anybody get touched by another person and cause them to fall down.

Speaking in tongues is totally supported by Luke and Paul, and there are absolutely no direct statements that they were meant to cease.

Not of the type practiced today, which most Pentecostals/charismatic consider to a non-human/heavenly language. And no claim of foreign languages spoken has ever been proven. As to whether they were meant to cease you might want to look up 1 Cor 13:8.

Also where tongues have been recorded in different movements and groups throughout Church history, the description of them is no different to what most Pentecostals practice today.

I'd agree with that, but then most of those utterances were reported in heretical or unorthodox groups such as the Montanists.

He was born in a stable through a 15 year old mother who was found pregnant before she was married! Whoops! That doesn't sound kosher! We'll have to investigate that further!

But if they had they would have discovered that Mary was a virgin. And would have recounted Isaiah 7:14!

He turned the water into wine at a wedding! Yikes! He is supporting boozing! That's suspicious!

But nobody observing it thought he was supporting boozing. Rather they believed in Him as a result!

What did you say? He spat on a bit of dirt and rubbed into a blind guy's eyes for healing? Don't see that in Scripture!
Again? He was in a boat in the middle of a storm and he commanded it to be still? Never heard of anything like that in Scripture!
What? Demons were talking to Jesus and He was talking back to them?
Well! That's enough for me. Jesus is a false prophet and teacher!

Why would performing miracles make Jesus a false teacher? People performed miracles in the OT and it proved to the people they were from God. The same happened with Jesus.

Actually, I was testing Jesus by the same measure that you are testing Pentecostals.

But it doesn't work though.

 

[1stcenturylady]

But it is not just the lunatic fringe of the pentecostal movement that has false doctrines. Their teaching on the baptism of the Holy Spirit and many other erroneous doctrines are mainstream.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the baptism of the Holy Spirit being an erroneous doctrine. There IS something that happens to a person changing their life and causing them to have righteous desires, and they are no longer bound to sin. For me that is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, where the fire of the Spirit burns up the old man and we are new creatures in Christ. What we may differ on is what that is called. Baptized, filled, received, outpouring, anointed, whatever. It's real, but what's more is that it is scriptural, and multiple.

Gifts are extra.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

No it's not. Nowhere in scripture does anybody get touched by another person and cause them to fall down.

But it is not condemned in Scripture either, so you can't really say whether it is right or wrong. If it happened and the person's change of life and enhanced faith in Christ as the result of it, showed that it was the Holy Spirit that did it, then any criticism of it has to be a criticism of the Holy Spirit. From my observation there is a marked difference between a person falling backward as the result of someone putting his hands on his head, and someone's knees buckling under him as the result of a light touch on his shoulder. I have seen both. I have actually seen people being rocked backwards until they overbalanced backward, and I have seen someone being prayed for with just a light touch on the wrist and they have slowly sunk down to the floor. I have been associated with Pentecostal churches and organisations for the last 50 years and I couldn't tell you which ones were false and which were true. So it would be just pure presumption for you, having been to one or two Pentecostal meetings, to definitely say that those manifestations are actual false.

Not of the type practiced today, which most Pentecostals/charismatic consider to a non-human/heavenly language. And no claim of foreign languages spoken has ever been proven. As to whether they were meant to cease you might want to look up 1 Cor 13:8.

You have decided not to believe that tongues can be foreign language in spite of the multitude of testimony right through Church history and around the modern world of people who heard tongues in their own language from people who had no knowledge of the language. You will not believe my own testimony of the same thing happening. Prejudice can totally blind people that way. It is not that it cannot be proved. You have totally decided it cannot be proved, and even if it happened right in front of you with people that you personally know, you wouldn't believe it. Even if you heard an African whom you absolutely knew that the man would not know a word of English speaking in tongues which came out a pure English, in your hearing, praising and glorifying God without a trace of an African accent, you would still say it was fake and inspired by a wrong spirit.

most of those utterances were reported in heretical or unorthodox groups such as the Montanists.

Modern historical research has proved that the Montanists were not heretical at all. They preached salvation through Christ, a love of the Word of God, holiness, and repentance, as a reaction to the apostacy and lack of holiness in the established Church. The problem is that the established Church destroyed their literature, and so the only written accounts were criticisms of it by their enemies. It is significant that Tertullian, one of the great Church fathers embraced Monanism. It was only after Montanus died that his followers started going off the rails into extreme Last Days doctrines. It is true that Augustine had problems with Montanism but then he was a bishop in the established church so he would have been biased.

But if they had they would have discovered that Mary was a virgin. And would have recounted Isaiah 7:14!
But nobody observing it thought he was supporting boozing. Rather they believed in Him as a result!
Why would performing miracles make Jesus a false teacher? People performed miracles in the OT and it proved to the people they were from God. The same happened with Jesus.

You are looking back in hindsight from what you believe today. You would not have known that Mary was a virgin. Joseph kept the first stages or her pregnancy a secret and married her before she started to show. Therefore everyone would think that Jesus was Joseph's child. Mary's pregnancy before her marriage to Joseph was a secret between them, it was not common knowledge at the time. In Jewish times a woman accused of fornication would have been severely punished, even stoned to death. She would have been cast out of polite society. But she wasn't, because no one knew about it. No point quoting Isaiah to try and prove your point if no one knew that Mary was a virgin when she got pregnant. Nice try,but Pffffsssst! Your balloon has a hole in it!

Concerning the wedding at Cana, no one knew that the water had been turned into wine except Jesus' mother and the servants. Jesus wanted to keep it a secret because it wasn't His time yet, and the servants would not have gone around gossiping about it. No one would have believed that the guy who made their chairs, tables and dining room dressers could have done such a thing. People drink a lot at weddings. The host of the wedding commented that when people drank a lot of wine, and the lower quality wine was brought out, the drinkers wouldn't know because they would have been half shikkered. That is why the host was surprised at the quality of the wine that appeared. But a strict Pharisee would have gone "tut, tut" at Jesus if he knew that Jesus had turned the water into wine and had encouraged half cut folk to get further on the way, because there were Scriptures that definitely taught against drunkemess. Don't tell me that guys didn't get drunk at that wedding and needed sober drivers to drive their horses and carts back home for them! Human nature is the same everywhere, even back then!

It was the nature of the miracles that were without precedent. The strict Pharisees, who knew the Scriptures more than anyone accused Jesus of being a magician and operating through a demon spirit. They would have accused Jesus like that because they would have gone back into the Scriptures and seen no actual passages of Scripture that would have described the types of miracles that He performed.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

most of those utterances were reported in heretical or unorthodox groups such as the Montanists.

Let's see a bit further into this. The Moravians were reported to have been speaking in tongues; John Wesley reports tongues in several places in his journal when the Holy Spirit has fallen on people he has preached to. So they had to be heretical in your opinion.
So were the Quakers, they shook under the power of the Holy Spirit. That's why they were called Quakers. And they spoke in tongues at times. They must have been heretical.
People reported to have been speaking in strange languages in the Hebrides and Welsh Revivals, so Duncan Campbell and Evan Roberts were preaching heresy.
Or were they?
That is to name just a few.[/QUOTE]

 

[Neogaia777]

Let's see a bit further into this. The Moravians were reported to have been speaking in tongues; John Wesley reports tongues in several places in his journal when the Holy Spirit has fallen on people he has preached to. So they had to be heretical in your opinion.
So were the Quakers, they shook under the power of the Holy Spirit. That's why they were called Quakers. And they spoke in tongues at times. They must have been heretical.
People reported to have been speaking in strange languages in the Hebrides and Welsh Revivals, so Duncan Campbell and Evan Roberts were preaching heresy.
Or were they?
That is to name just a few.

[/QUOTE]
The Holy Spirit no longer wants us to fear him, it interferes with intimacy...

God Bless!

 

[1stcenturylady]

But it is not condemned in Scripture either, so you can't really say whether it is right or wrong. If it happened and the person's change of life and enhanced faith in Christ as the result of it, showed that it was the Holy Spirit that did it, then any criticism of it has to be a criticism of the Holy Spirit. From my observation there is a marked difference between a person falling backward as the result of someone putting his hands on his head, and someone's knees buckling under him as the result of a light touch on his shoulder. I have seen both. I have actually seen people being rocked backwards until they overbalanced backward, and I have seen someone being prayed for with just a light touch on the wrist and they have slowly sunk down to the floor. I have been associated with Pentecostal churches and organisations for the last 50 years and I couldn't tell you which ones were false and which were true. So it would be just pure presumption for you, having been to one or two Pentecostal meetings, to definitely say that those manifestations are actual false.


You have decided not to believe that tongues can be foreign language in spite of the multitude of testimony right through Church history and around the modern world of people who heard tongues in their own language from people who had no knowledge of the language. You will not believe my own testimony of the same thing happening. Prejudice can totally blind people that way. It is not that it cannot be proved. You have totally decided it cannot be proved, and even if it happened right in front of you with people that you personally know, you wouldn't believe it. Even if you heard an African whom you absolutely knew that the man would not know a word of English speaking in tongues which came out a pure English, in your hearing, praising and glorifying God without a trace of an African accent, you would still say it was fake and inspired by a wrong spirit.


Modern historical research has proved that the Montanists were not heretical at all. They preached salvation through Christ, a love of the Word of God, holiness, and repentance, as a reaction to the apostacy and lack of holiness in the established Church. The problem is that the established Church destroyed their literature, and so the only written accounts were criticisms of it by their enemies. It is significant that Tertullian, one of the great Church fathers embraced Monanism. It was only after Montanus died that his followers started going off the rails into extreme Last Days doctrines. It is true that Augustine had problems with Montanism but then he was a bishop in the established church so he would have been biased.

You are looking back in hindsight from what you believe today. You would not have known that Mary was a virgin. Joseph kept the first stages or her pregnancy a secret and married her before she started to show. Therefore everyone would think that Jesus was Joseph's child. Mary's pregnancy before her marriage to Joseph was a secret between them, it was not common knowledge at the time. In Jewish times a woman accused of fornication would have been severely punished, even stoned to death. She would have been cast out of polite society. But she wasn't, because no one knew about it. No point quoting Isaiah to try and prove your point if no one knew that Mary was a virgin when she got pregnant. Nice try,but Pffffsssst! Your balloon has a hole in it!

Concerning the wedding at Cana, no one knew that the water had been turned into wine except Jesus' mother and the servants. Jesus wanted to keep it a secret because it wasn't His time yet, and the servants would not have gone around gossiping about it. No one would have believed that the guy who made their chairs, tables and dining room dressers could have done such a thing. People drink a lot at weddings. The host of the wedding commented that when people drank a lot of wine, and the lower quality wine was brought out, the drinkers wouldn't know because they would have been half shikkered. That is why the host was surprised at the quality of the wine that appeared. But a strict Pharisee would have gone "tut, tut" at Jesus if he knew that Jesus had turned the water into wine and had encouraged half cut folk to get further on the way, because there were Scriptures that definitely taught against drunkemess. Don't tell me that guys didn't get drunk at that wedding and needed sober drivers to drive their horses and carts back home for them! Human nature is the same everywhere, even back then!

It was the nature of the miracles that were without precedent. The strict Pharisees, who knew the Scriptures more than anyone accused Jesus of being a magician and operating through a demon spirit. They would have accused Jesus like that because they would have gone back into the Scriptures and seen no actual passages of Scripture that would have described the types of miracles that He performed.

Oscarr, Talking of Jesus changing water into wine, I think I told you of when the Holy Spirit changed an old brass screw into a diamond ring. I told a pastor about it, and he said it was the devil.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Oscarr, Talking of Jesus changing water into wine, I think I told you of when the Holy Spirit changed an old brass screw into a diamond ring. I told a pastor about it, and he said it was the devil.

Although that would be a quite unusual miracle, although there is nothing in Scripture where a miracle has happened like that and nothing in Scripture that condemns a miracle like that, doesn't mean that it has to be of the devil. The pastor is just giving his opinion because miracles like that don't fit into his frame of reference, just like the ministry of Jesus didn't fit into the Pharisee's frame of reference. The fact that it happened in front of witnesses is the reality of it. Whether it was of the Holy Spirit or not, the jury would be out in the minds of many. But if there is a definite reason for it that goes toward strengthening a believer's faith in Christ, then that should silence the critics.

However, John says that Jesus did so many other miracles (not mentioned in the Gospels) that if they were written down there would not be enough books in the world to contain them. And Luke says that Paul did many "extraordinary" miracles during his missionary journeys, that are also not mentioned in detail.

And, why should a miracle such as you have described necessarily be false, unless it was accompanied by teaching that it is okay to live a lawless and godless life, running after idols? Because that is the description of the intention of the false prophets and miracle workers who are and will be active in the Last days. But if a miracle causes people to praise and worship God, unless Satan is converted to Christ, then it cannot be of him.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Although that would be a quite unusual miracle, although there is nothing in Scripture where a miracle has happened like that and nothing in Scripture that condemns a miracle like that, doesn't mean that it has to be of the devil. The pastor is just giving his opinion because miracles like that don't fit into his frame of reference, just like the ministry of Jesus didn't fit into the Pharisee's frame of reference. The fact that it happened in front of witnesses is the reality of it. Whether it was of the Holy Spirit or not, the jury would be out in the minds of many. But if there is a definite reason for it that goes toward strengthening a believer's faith in Christ, then that should silence the critics.

However, John says that Jesus did so many other miracles (not mentioned in the Gospels) that if they were written down there would not be enough books in the world to contain them. And Luke says that Paul did many "extraordinary" miracles during his missionary journeys, that are also not mentioned in detail.

And, why should a miracle such as you have described necessarily be false, unless it was accompanied by teaching that it is okay to live a lawless and godless life, running after idols? Because that is the description of the intention of the false prophets and miracle workers who are and will be active in the Last days. But if a miracle causes people to praise and worship God, unless Satan is converted to Christ, then it cannot be of him.

What I learned was more about His voice, and that the truth is in the details. As to not "cast pearls before swine," I'll send you the testimony I've already prepared for my next book. What for the conversation.

 

[Antig]

As i have said before, for me personally, i am very wary of tongues. I cannot see tongues being used for any other reason than preaching to others the word of God in their own native language.

I find it very hard to believe that God uses, or wants us to use, another language to converse / honour / pray to him when the 'babbler', for want of a better word, has no understanding of what is being uttered!

Jesus taught us the most important prayer ever. The Our Father. Surely He would have taught a lot on tongues if it were that important?

 

[1stcenturylady]

As i have said before, for me personally, i am very wary of tongues. I cannot see tongues being used for any other reason than preaching to others the word of God in their own native language.

I find it very hard to believe that God uses, or wants us to use, another language to converse / honour / pray to him when the 'babbler', for want of a better word, has no understanding of what is being uttered!

Jesus taught us the most important prayer ever. The Our Father. Surely He would have taught a lot on tongues if it were that important?

Yes, though humanly speaking we cannot understand tongues, nor anyone that may be listening, Paul wants us to be able to understand and tells us to pray for the partnering gift, the gift of interpretation of tongues.

13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.

It is only natural that some believe tongues must be for preaching to foreigners, but the most common use of tongues is for perfect prayer, and perfect praise which is given to all who believe, Mark 16:16-17. Romans 8 says that we, as humans with limited knowledge, don't know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit knows. His groanings, I believe, are the quiet and sometimes urgent unctions to pray that knowledge into existence through supernatural prayer that we pray out loud to God. Those unctions can also be given by someone gifted in the gift of diverse kinds of tongues in church, 1 Corinthians 12:10, for the profit of all, but we must wait to give the message in tongues so as to not interrupt someone else, then wait for the one we know to have the gift of interpretation of tongues to interpret. (Or we ourselves if our prayer is answered and God gives us the gift of interpretation as well.) Even though every believer may pray in tongues TO God, not all believers receive the ability to receive unctions in church to deliver messages in tongues FROM God. That is why at the end of 1 Corinthians 12 it asks "Do all speak in tongues, do all interpret?" The answer to those gifts is no.

Remember prophecy is also mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14. That gift is for preaching correct doctrine, and even future events. Dreams and visions are not mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12, but are in Joel 2. Those come under prophecy as well, and is usually how we see future events.

It would not be necessary for tongues to be used to preach to foreigners as many know more than one language, and can naturally interpret the preaching of the missionary to the people. Then as the gospel spreads, others with more than one language can reach others, local to them. Here in America with Mexico close by know both English and Spanish. And so on.

What is interesting to me, is that it is the skeptics who are now claiming that speaking in tongues was the most important gift as it spread the gospel all over the world to foreigners. And then out of the other side of their mouths say that tongues was the least gift. They need to make up their mind. LOL

Don't forget, tongues being a sign to an unbeliever, is not a positive sign. Read Luke 2:34 to understand what type of sign it is. Jesus, Himself, was the same type of sign, and to an unbeliever, not open to Jesus, will speak against Him. And an unbeliever, without the understanding of what tongues is for, will speak against it. But both Jesus and tongues is a great blessing to those who believe.

I pray that you receive all that God has for you, Antig.

 

[swordsman1]

But it is not condemned in Scripture either, so you can't really say whether it is right or wrong.

Not only is being 'slain in the Spirit' unbiblical, it is anti-biblical:

• The Holy Spirit would not cause anyone to lose control of themselves, when one of the fruits of the Spirit is self control.
  
  
• Paul commanded our services to be decent and in order. Is it really "decent and in order" to have people strewn all over the floor in church.
  
  
• Then there is the obvious risk of injury. Many people have been injured in these church antics. Churches have even been sued and ordered to pay compensation. How could it ever be the will of God that a believer can possibly be hurt in a worship service as a result of His activity?
  
  
• Seeing as there is no scriptural justification for this activity, the church will inevitably be divided. Yet according to scripture division is exactly what God seeks to avoid, so it is hard to believe that He would now introduce such a divisive manifestation without Scriptures to clearly support it.

You have decided not to believe that tongues can be foreign language in spite of the multitude of testimony right through Church history and around the modern world of people who heard tongues in their own language from people who had no knowledge of the language.

Pentecostal hearsay is not proof. If hearsay is not good enough for the courts to be accepted as evidence then why should it good enough for me? What is acceptable evidence would be peer-reviewed independent studies by well-respected experts. And those experts say it is not a language of any kind.

As to tongues appearing "right throughout Church history"? Who are you trying to kid. Church history demonstrates that tongues ceased.

Modern historical research has proved that the Montanists were not heretical at all. They preached salvation through Christ, a love of the Word of God, holiness, and repentance, as a reaction to the apostacy and lack of holiness in the established Church. The problem is that the established Church destroyed their literature, and so the only written accounts were criticisms of it by their enemies. It is significant that Tertullian, one of the great Church fathers embraced Monanism. It was only after Montanus died that his followers started going off the rails into extreme Last Days doctrines. It is true that Augustine had problems with Montanism but then he was a bishop in the established church so he would have been biased.

The Montanists were declared heretics and expelled from the church because they were false teachers and false prophets. They taught the heresy of modalism, and made bizarre claims such as Christ was sleeping with the women, and there were eight heavens, etc. And they made false prophecies and their prophets were known for sinful behavior (one of the tests of a false prophet).

You would not have known that Mary was a virgin. Joseph kept the first stages or her pregnancy a secret and married her before she started to show. Therefore everyone would think that Jesus was Joseph's child. Mary's pregnancy before her marriage to Joseph was a secret between them, it was not common knowledge at the time. In Jewish times a woman accused of fornication would have been severely punished, even stoned to death. She would have been cast out of polite society. But she wasn't, because no one knew about it. No point quoting Isaiah to try and prove your point if no one knew that Mary was a virgin when she got pregnant. Nice try,but Pffffsssst! Your balloon has a hole in it!

In that case your original argument is moot. Observers would also have never known she was pregnant before they married to start with, so would never have made the accusation.

Concerning the wedding at Cana, no one knew that the water had been turned into wine except Jesus' mother and the servants. Jesus wanted to keep it a secret because it wasn't His time yet, and the servants would not have gone around gossiping about it.

Then your argument is again moot. If nobody knew Jesus performed the miracle then how could a Pharisee accuse Jesus of bringing in wine and so accuse him of encouraging drunkenness. Not that there was any evidence of drunkenness anyway, certainly no more than any other wedding. Drinking wine is what people do at the wedding meal.

It was the nature of the miracles that were without precedent. The strict Pharisees, who knew the Scriptures more than anyone accused Jesus of being a magician and operating through a demon spirit.

So did they also accuse Moses of being a magician for parting the Red Sea, and Isaiah of operating through a demon because he raised the widow's son?

 

[swordsman1]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the baptism of the Holy Spirit being an erroneous doctrine. There IS something that happens to a person changing their life and causing them to have righteous desires, and they are no longer bound to sin. For me that is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, where the fire of the Spirit burns up the old man and we are new creatures in Christ. What we may differ on is what that is called. Baptized, filled, received, outpouring, anointed, whatever. It's real, but what's more is that it is scriptural, and multiple.

Gifts are extra.

I said THEIR TEACHING on the baptism of the Holy Spirit is wrong.