Speaking in tongues

[1stcenturylady]

The fear of demons speaking through believers with tongues is absurd. Perhaps a demon will speak in tongues through a satanist who does not know Jesus, but a believer is idiocy.

.

I totally agree. I've heard many cessationists warn their congregation not to speak in tongues for fear it might be a demon. Ridiculous. There are false tongues, mimicking what they hear, but it is just "human" babbling, not demonic. Real tongues is by those who believe, not only in Jesus but in the sign of tongues.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Good morning Ken and AlexDTX.


If you have any interest in putting a face to a name or viewing any of our other short videos on various subjects, please go to our YouTube channel here.
diane.

I've tried twice and can't get it to play, so any comments you read of mine are not based on the recording, just commenting to responders

 

[1stcenturylady]

Interesting that historically some of the most Godly, influential people never spoke in tongues. Luther, Calvin, the Puritans, Spurgeon, Wesley, Whitfield, Edwards, Lloyd Jones ....... if you look at some of the most famous leaders of the mega churches where they claim to speak in tongues, their messages and lives are not in line with the word of God, many have made allot of money doing so and still do!. I would be interested to see historically if anyone can source any Godly men who have spoken in tougues before 1900 and if the message was of God?

Probably not seeing as the latter rain fell in 1906 and is still going strong.

 

[mark kennedy]

I've long believed that glossolalia isn't New Testament tongues but that Pentecostals are New Testament Christians. A good friend on mine I made on here was Pentecostal and we even debated the subject formally, for all the good it did. No matter how many expositions of Acts 2 or I Cor. 14 I did he just dismissed my view in a kindly, good natured way. They have a very interesting theology not that most of them have any real use for a systematic theology. I fit pretty neatly into the category of 'cessationist' I suppose but it's really just a doctrinal issue that causes to great concern for me.

 

[1stcenturylady]

You cannot be sure that these ones did not speak in tongues even if they didn't make mention of it in their literature. But there were many movements throughout the centuries, that were outlawed by the Catholic Church that had the experience of tongues. Although most church historians say they were heretical, the only evidence of that were comments made by the Catholics themselves, but when other researchers read between the lines of the court transcriptions of the leaders and members of these "outlaw" movements, they realised that these movements were more consistent with Scripture than the Catholic Church itself. So, tongues, along with other gifts of the Spirit did occur as a thread throughout the centuries.

There is a good book called "2000 Years of Charismatic Christianity" By Eddie L. Hyatt. If you can get hold of it, you will find it interesting reading. I did.

Right, the Jansenites is one group called heretical by the RC in the 1700's because they believed the Bible should be allowed to be read by everyone, not just priests. They spoke in tongues. Also, St. Francis of Assisi and Martin Luther. John Calvin spoke against any gifts of the Spirit. Don't know about John Wesley.

 

[Jezmeyah]

I listened to the video of the woman's recording as she spoke in tongues (as far as I listened). I distinctly heard the word "hosanna" which is a word of praise. From that I understood that what she was speaking was words of praise unto God, and not the content of a private prayer topic.

Years ago when my family heard that I had come into this experience, they wanted to hear me speak in tongues. At the time I didn't know the proper protocol concerning such a request so I politely declined.
But then I read in Acts where the crowds of people out in the streets were filled with the Spirit and spoke in tongues. And I noticed that anytime that the text gives indication what is being said, it's always words of praise unto God.

So, this woman's utterance on the tape was guided by the Holy Spirit to be the appropriate utterance for a public hearing.

 

[Ken Behrens]

It's me again, I noticed that my "faith" on my description is Word of Faith. I put charismatic - that is NOT word of faith, and do not belong to any word of faith denomination, nor do I adhere to name it and claim it personal gain theology. Maybe I should put Pentecostal, though I find this umbrella very large too and for the most part doesn't describe me fully either.

I have the same problem. I would have preferred "follower of Jesus" but it's not there to choose.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It's me again, I noticed that my "faith" on my description is Word of Faith. I put charismatic - that is NOT word of faith, and do not belong to any word of faith denomination, nor do I adhere to name it and claim it personal gain theology. Maybe I should put Pentecostal, though I find this umbrella very large too and for the most part doesn't describe me fully either.

You can change it in your profile. I am Pentecostal in my profile even though I am an elder in the Presbyterian Church, but I strictly adhere to Pentecostal theology and teach it in my church (they haven't kicked me out yet!) It is best to get rid of the Word of Faith ID if you think that people are discriminating against you because of it. Actually, the Word of Faith movement has some good principles to it as long as people keep to the Scriptural definition of faith. But when people start having "faith" for getting their fleshly desires, or to try to force God into doing things just because they have "faith" to believe for it, then it tends toward existentialism, which is faith in faith.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I totally agree. I've heard many cessationists warn their congregation not to speak in tongues for fear it might be a demon. Ridiculous. There are false tongues, mimicking what they hear, but it is just "human" babbling, not demonic. Real tongues is by those who believe, not only in Jesus but in the sign of tongues.

I must say that in all my years in and associated with Pentecostal churches, I never heard anything but real tongues spoken in those environments. I think that the false tongues come within the occult environment when they are chanted as part of their ritual. There is quite a difference between the chanted tongues of demon or pagan worshipers and true saints of God who worship Jesus through the language.

For some to say that Pentecostals and Charismatics speak in false tongues at any time is sheer, unadulterated nonsense spoken by ignorant people who know nothing about the gift and how it is received and used in prayer, praise and worship.

 

[1stcenturylady]

You can change it in your profile. I am Pentecostal in my profile even though I am an elder in the Presbyterian Church, but I strictly adhere to Pentecostal theology and teach it in my church (they haven't kicked me out yet!) It is best to get rid of the Word of Faith ID if you think that people are discriminating against you because of it. Actually, the Word of Faith movement has some good principles to it as long as people keep to the Scriptural definition of faith. But when people start having "faith" for getting their fleshly desires, or to try to force God into doing things just because they have "faith" to believe for it, then it tends toward existentialism, which is faith in faith.

I absolutely agree with you. Until God allowed word of faith, the emphasis in Christianity was righteousness is poverty. The pendulum swung way to the other side, but in the time since, many of the word of faith ministries are becoming more balanced.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I absolutely agree with you. Until God allowed word of faith, the emphasis in Christianity was righteousness is poverty. The pendulum swung way to the other side, but in the time since, many of the word of faith ministries are becoming more balanced.

The Word of Faith movement was a genuine revival that brought an important truth to the Church. But history repeated itself with all revivals that happened. The established churches opposed it and did all they could to discredit it. All you had to do is to read posts on this forum to see that happening.

When Martin Luther started a revival which brought justification by faith back into the Church, the established church opposed him.

Charles Finney's revivals were opposed by many in the established Presbyterian Church to the point where he left that church and joined another one so he could continue his continuous revivals.

The Welsh revival was opposed by the established churches in Wales which concentrated on the unusual manifestations which were happening, instead of rejoicing over the thousands of souls who came to Christ.

The Pentecostal revival was fiercely opposed and its members were persecuted and thrown out of their churches because they followed the Scripture concerning the gifts of the Spirit.

The Charismatic revival was opposed by the old time Pentecostals plus many of the established churches because it showed that the Holy Spirit can fall on members of traditional churches.

The Charismatic revival in the Roman Catholic church was opposed by Protestant churches because they could not believe that Catholics could be saved and filled with the Spirit.

The Brownsville and Pensacola revivals were opposed by Pentecostal and Charismatic churches because they could not accept that a revival with supernatural manifestations could occur outside of their churches. They blamed members of barking like dogs when it wasn't the members at all but demons manifesting as they were cast out.

A A Allen's tent revivals were opposed by his own church because he had miracles which made the leaders of his denomination jealous because they weren't getting the healings and deliverances in their churches. They tried to make out that he died of alcoholism when in fact he was in serious pain due to a knee replacement and decided to try and dull the pain through alcohol. The autopsy report stated acute rather than chronic alcohol intake that caused his death. His opposers tried to discredit his ministry because of a mistake Allen might have made by using alcohol instead of the painkillers he was given.

The Word of Faith revival was opposed by Pentecostal and Charismatic churches because it was showing up the deadness of their churches in that the Word of Faith preachers were winning many more people to Christ than they were. It was sheer jealousy. Granted that some went too far with the Word of Faith doctrine, but then there has always been the lunatic fringe in any revival that has ever taken place.

I will bet my bottom dollar that any future revival will be opposed by even the Word of Faith churches as they start losing their edge and God has to bring something fresh and new to the Church.

I am not saying that we all should agree theologically to all these movements, but we should know that these movements were started by the Holy Spirit to bring important truths back to the Church. When we put these truths together in the right balance, then we get a more realistic picture of what God is trying to do with the Church.

So, when a new revival happens, instead of getting on our high horses and branding it as false because new and unusual things happen, and branding the preachers as false teachers, we should be asking ourselves, "What is the new truth that God is wanting to bring back to the Church?"

 

[1stcenturylady]

The Brownsville and Pensacola revivals were opposed by Pentecostal and Charismatic churches because they could not accept that a revival with supernatural manifestations could occur outside of their churches. They blamed members of barking like dogs when it wasn't the members at all but demons manifesting as they were cast out.

I agree with you accept on what I'm responding to above. There were no demons involved. You have to know the whole story to have context. God had given one a dream that she told them about. It was basically a test like when Abraham was told to sacrifice Isaac. In the dream God said, "If I were to ask you to howl at the moon like a dog, would you do it?" They were just displaying their answer to God as, "Yes, Lord." Granted, afterwards, it became a bit of a fad, but that's what the basis for it was.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I agree with you accept on what I'm responding to above. There were no demons involved. You have to know the whole story to have context. God had given one a dream that she told them about. It was basically a test like when Abraham was told to sacrifice Isaac. In the dream God said, "If I were to ask you to howl at the moon like a dog, would you do it?" They were just displaying their answer to God as, "Yes, Lord." Granted, afterwards, it became a bit of a fad, but that's what the basis for it was.

I can't comment on that other than to say that there is no equivalent in the New Testament. Dreams are unreliable and I wouldn't put my trust in them to do things that might bring the church into disrepute.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I can't comment on that other than to say that there is no equivalent in the New Testament. Dreams are unreliable and I wouldn't put my trust in them to do things that might bring the church into disrepute.

So then it was just human exuberance, but it was to the glory of God, certainly not demonic. As for examples, I gave you one. God asked Isaac to commit MURDER. Now if that happened today, are we going to jump to the conclusion that it was demonic like unbelieving uninformed cessationists do about tongues? What about God asking Naaman to dunk 7 times in the Jordan to be healed. All of these things represent God asking us to simply trust Him and obey. At Brownsville they trusted that God had spoken. Who are we to say otherwise. Many were saved at Brownsville.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So then it was just human exuberance, but it was to the glory of God, certainly not demonic. As for examples, I gave you one. God asked Isaac to commit MURDER. Now if that happened today, are we going to jump to the conclusion that it was demonic like unbelieving uninformed cessationists do about tongues? What about God asking Naaman to dunk 7 times in the Jordan to be healed. All of these things represent God asking us to simply trust Him and obey. At Brownsville they trusted that God had spoken. Who are we to say otherwise. Many were saved at Brownsville.

I have no doubt that the Brownsville revival was of God, because I read the books written by the leaders of that revival and found them absolutely sound. I also noted in the account of the revival that they had responsible ushers standing by to deal with unusual manifestations in the services and to guide the people who were doing them out of the public service into an adjoining room where they would not spook visitors who did not know what was going on. I am sure though listening to the sermons that the leaders were not advocating or encouraging people to howl and bark like dogs in the services.

I think you are mistaken about Isaac being told to murder anyone. Maybe you need to read the account of Abraham and Isaac more closely.

There is a major difference between Namaan being told to wash in the Jordan river, and people doing crazy things in services and attributing them to God. One of the fruit of the Spirit is self control, and when people get out of control and start manifesting stuff that is not consistent with the New Testament then it is understandable to doubt that those manifestations actually come from the Holy Spirit.

I believe that manifestations that come from the Holy Spirit are consistent with the fruit of the Spirit. Usually it involves laughter, tears, increased faith and love, kindness, gentleness, divine healing, and self control.

You cannot use the attitude of Cessationists to tongues to support your stance on unusual and doubtful manifestations during highly charged revival services. I am not a Cessationist so I fully support the supernatural gifts of the Spirit, including tongues.

But when there are manifestations that spook people and cause people to think that Christians are loopy, then one must question those manifestations. Anything done in the Holy Spirit does not make people feel spooked or weird.

I was in a Pentecostal service where a woman was writhing around the floor like a snake. They seemed to believe that this was a manifestation of the Spirit, where I knew full well it was a demon and I told the pastor that the woman needs deliverance.

The manifestation of the Holy Spirit involves people getting healed and set free from demons. That's what happened in the book of Acts and afterwards while the Church was moving in power.

I am sure that if Paul or Peter saw people barking and howling like dogs, they would be more likely to cast demons out of them than accept those manifestations as the work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I have no doubt that the Brownsville revival was of God, because I read the books written by the leaders of that revival and found them absolutely sound. I also noted in the account of the revival that they had responsible ushers standing by to deal with unusual manifestations in the services and to guide the people who were doing them out of the public service into an adjoining room where they would not spook visitors who did not know what was going on. I am sure though listening to the sermons that the leaders were not advocating or encouraging people to howl and bark like dogs in the services.

I think you are mistaken about Isaac being told to murder anyone. Maybe you need to read the account of Abraham and Isaac more closely.

There is a major difference between Namaan being told to wash in the Jordan river, and people doing crazy things in services and attributing them to God. One of the fruit of the Spirit is self control, and when people get out of control and start manifesting stuff that is not consistent with the New Testament then it is understandable to doubt that those manifestations actually come from the Holy Spirit.

I believe that manifestations that come from the Holy Spirit are consistent with the fruit of the Spirit. Usually it involves laughter, tears, increased faith and love, kindness, gentleness, divine healing, and self control.

You cannot use the attitude of Cessationists to tongues to support your stance on unusual and doubtful manifestations during highly charged revival services. I am not a Cessationist so I fully support the supernatural gifts of the Spirit, including tongues.

But when there are manifestations that spook people and cause people to think that Christians are loopy, then one must question those manifestations. Anything done in the Holy Spirit does not make people feel spooked or weird.

I was in a Pentecostal service where a woman was writhing around the floor like a snake. They seemed to believe that this was a manifestation of the Spirit, where I knew full well it was a demon and I told the pastor that the woman needs deliverance.

The manifestation of the Holy Spirit involves people getting healed and set free from demons. That's what happened in the book of Acts and afterwards while the Church was moving in power.

I am sure that if Paul or Peter saw people barking and howling like dogs, they would be more likely to cast demons out of them than accept those manifestations as the work of the Holy Spirit.

You are right, I was quite mistaken when I said, Isaac. It was his father being told to murder Isaac.

It was right that the ushers removed those to another room where visitors couldn't misjudge what was happening. But, there again, that is what Paul was talking about in verse 23 of 1 Cor. 14. Does that make tongues of the Holy Spirit, of the devil? No, so I REFUSE to make the mistake of the Pharisees and mistake something of God, and determine it to be of Satan. Whether it is or not, I wasn't there.

By the way, what kind of sign was tongues to an unbeliever in verse 22? Positive or negative? Most of the church believes and preaches - positive. Are you better at rightly dividing this scripture?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You are right, I was quite mistaken when I said, Isaac. It was his father being told to murder Isaac.

It was right that the ushers removed those to another room where visitors couldn't misjudge what was happening. But, there again, that is what Paul was talking about in verse 23 of 1 Cor. 14. Does that make tongues of the Holy Spirit, of the devil? No, so I REFUSE to make the mistake of the Pharisees and mistake something of God, and determine it to be of Satan. Whether it is or not, I wasn't there.

By the way, what kind of sign was tongues to an unbeliever in verse 22? Positive or negative? Most of the church believes and preaches - positive. Are you better at rightly dividing this scripture?

Firstly, I am no better at dividing Scripture than anyone else. I just give my views and allow people to take them or leave them.

In all revivals there have been manifestations. The Quaker revival had people shaking, and this was ridiculed by the established church of the time. It is interesting that the old time Pentecostals had the same experience. The Methodists of the 18th Century in America had people falling off their chairs and fainting. The Presbyterians ridiculed that until in a combined meeting it were the Presbyterians who got slain in the Spirit instead of the Methodists! The reason why old time Pentecostals were called holy rollers was that they got so drunk in the Spirit they would roll around the floor. Then in the Vineyard revival, the characteristic was spontaneous laughter. I have been in a service where we all started laughing and did not want to stop and so the preacher couldn't preach because he was laughing too! It was a wonderful service in the presence of God. I have been in other services where the glory of God came down and people started weeping, and some of the most hardened sinners broke down, wept, and got right with God. When you have been in services like that, it spoils you for anything else.

In the Argentine revival, the preacher would come against the devil and his demons in his opening prayer, and demons would manifest all over the meeting, and ushers would take them out to the "deliverance" tent. I actually heard that on a recording of a meeting where the Argentinian preacher led the prayer.

So, I am not going to pass judgment on what happened in the Brownsville services. I was not there to witness these things first hand, and so I have to give them the benefit of the doubt.

The best interpretation of tongues being a sign for unbelievers goes back to Isaiah, I think, (I think the quote about it came from Isaiah.) where he relates that the disobedient Jews knew that judgment had come upon them when they heard the stammering foreign language of the Assyrians as they invaded Israel and Judah. What is meant is that when unbelievers hear the gift of tongues being used, it is the sign of God's impending judgment on them because of their rejection of Christ. Through that, the Holy Spirit works to convict them of sin, righteousness, and judgment to come.

This does not mean that the languages can be usually understood by unbelievers. The Jews did not understand the Assyrian language when they were invaded, but they knew that when they heard the language, that the invasion of foreigners to take over the Promised Land was a sign that God was judging them.

At the Day of Pentecost, where pilgrims from all over the regions heard the languages in their own dialects, they did not hear words of judgment, but praises to God. That drew their attention and opened them up to what Peter preached. Witnessing the miracle through tongues and the force of Peter's message, caused conviction and that's when they cried out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

I am beginning to think that many churches that believe in and practice tongues do not realise the power of it when the Holy Spirit is fully involved. I wonder if those churches practice the gift because it is part of their doctrine, and is not fully merged with the mighty power of the Holy Spirit whose ministry is to get souls saved for Christ? I am starting to believe that even Pentecostal and Charismatic churches are starting to become Christian "clubs", which are inward looking, ministering only to themselves, instead of having a real passion for souls. If that is the case, it is no wonder that the tongues that are spoken do not act as a powerful sign to unbelievers as they once did.

Just food for thought...

 

[1stcenturylady]

Firstly, I am no better at dividing Scripture than anyone else. I just give my views and allow people to take them or leave them.

In all revivals there have been manifestations. The Quaker revival had people shaking, and this was ridiculed by the established church of the time. It is interesting that the old time Pentecostals had the same experience. The Methodists of the 18th Century in America had people falling off their chairs and fainting. The Presbyterians ridiculed that until in a combined meeting it were the Presbyterians who got slain in the Spirit instead of the Methodists! The reason why old time Pentecostals were called holy rollers was that they got so drunk in the Spirit they would roll around the floor. Then in the Vineyard revival, the characteristic was spontaneous laughter. I have been in a service where we all started laughing and did not want to stop and so the preacher couldn't preach because he was laughing too! It was a wonderful service in the presence of God. I have been in other services where the glory of God came down and people started weeping, and some of the most hardened sinners broke down, wept, and got right with God. When you have been in services like that, it spoils you for anything else.

In the Argentine revival, the preacher would come against the devil and his demons in his opening prayer, and demons would manifest all over the meeting, and ushers would take them out to the "deliverance" tent. I actually heard that on a recording of a meeting where the Argentinian preacher led the prayer.

So, I am not going to pass judgment on what happened in the Brownsville services. I was not there to witness these things first hand, and so I have to give them the benefit of the doubt.

The best interpretation of tongues being a sign for unbelievers goes back to Isaiah, I think, (I think the quote about it came from Isaiah.) where he relates that the disobedient Jews knew that judgment had come upon them when they heard the stammering foreign language of the Assyrians as they invaded Israel and Judah. What is meant is that when unbelievers hear the gift of tongues being used, it is the sign of God's impending judgment on them because of their rejection of Christ. Through that, the Holy Spirit works to convict them of sin, righteousness, and judgment to come.

This does not mean that the languages can be usually understood by unbelievers. The Jews did not understand the Assyrian language when they were invaded, but they knew that when they heard the language, that the invasion of foreigners to take over the Promised Land was a sign that God was judging them.

At the Day of Pentecost, where pilgrims from all over the regions heard the languages in their own dialects, they did not hear words of judgment, but praises to God. That drew their attention and opened them up to what Peter preached. Witnessing the miracle through tongues and the force of Peter's message, caused conviction and that's when they cried out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

I am beginning to think that many churches that believe in and practice tongues do not realise the power of it when the Holy Spirit is fully involved. I wonder if those churches practice the gift because it is part of their doctrine, and is not fully merged with the mighty power of the Holy Spirit whose ministry is to get souls saved for Christ? I am starting to believe that even Pentecostal and Charismatic churches are starting to become Christian "clubs", which are inward looking, ministering only to themselves, instead of having a real passion for souls. If that is the case, it is no wonder that the tongues that are spoken do not act as a powerful sign to unbelievers as they once did.

Just food for thought...

So you believe that the disciples on the Day of Pentecost were speaking the languages of the devout Jews from different provinces and they understood those languages naturally? Impossible. That completely contradicts 1 Cor. 14:2 which must be taken into consideration if the Day of Pentecost is to be discerned correctly, rightly dividing the Word of God. So then remembering that no man understands tongues, those Jews couldn't have understood them. I'm not going to give you the answer just yet, I want you to think what was actually happening if 1 Corinthian 14:2 can be believed. It would help you if you studied verses 22 and 23 together to figure out what TYPE of sign tongues was to the unbeliever. One clue - there were two types of people on the day of Pentecost who heard the tongues - devout Jews and the mockers. Which are considered "unbelievers."

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So you believe that the disciples on the Day of Pentecost were speaking the languages of the devout Jews from different provinces and they understood those languages naturally? Impossible. That completely contradicts 1 Cor. 14:2 which must be taken into consideration if the Day of Pentecost is to be discerned correctly, rightly dividing the Word of God. So then remembering that no man understands tongues, those Jews couldn't have understood them. I'm not going to give you the answer just yet, I want you to think what was actually happening if 1 Corinthian 14:2 can be believed. It would help you if you studied verses 22 and 23 together to figure out what TYPE of sign tongues was to the unbeliever. One clue - there were two types of people on the day of Pentecost who heard the tongues - devout Jews and the mockers. Which are considered "unbelievers."

Acts 2 is clear about the fact that the Jews from the different regions heard their own dialects. I believe that it was a one-off miraculous event for a particular purpose. There are no references to the same rushing mighty wind and the tongues of fire with the filling with the Holy Spirit in the subsequent accounts of people being filled with the Spirit and speaking in tongues. So I believe that because this was the very first time believers received the Holy Spirit, the understanding of the languages by the crowd who heard the disciples praising God in tongues was a miracle for a particular purpose, and not meant to be repeated in the same extensive way.

Paul quotes Isaiah when he talks about tongues being a sign. I mentioned that in a post, maybe on another thread. It was a sign for unbelievers that the judgment of God was impending for them because of their rejection of Christ, in the same way that when the Jews heard the language of invading Assyrians, they knew that the judgment of God for their disobedience had caught up with them. That is why Paul quoted Isaiah when he mentioned that tongues were a sign to the unbeliever.

The tongues on the Day of Pentecost was the first sign and wonder that accompanied the preaching of the gospel. And the miracle of the tongues on that day, plus Peter's preaching, brought 3000 into conviction and the acceptance that Jesus was really alive and the gospel was really the truth.

The arrival of tongues to Cornelius' household was the proof that the Holy Spirit had indeed fallen on Gentiles as well as on the Jewish believers. This was the evidence that Peter brought before the Jewish Christian leaders.

I have already given two reliable proofs that there are times in our day when someone has spoken in tongues in a language that was understood, once which happened to a close friend, and another which happened with me. If you are saying that present day tongues can never be understood by anyone, then what happened with my friend and me, disproves what you are saying, regardless of your interpretation of the verse in 1 Corinthians.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Acts 2 is clear about the fact that the Jews from the different regions heard their own dialects. I believe that it was a one-off miraculous event for a particular purpose. There are no references to the same rushing mighty wind and the tongues of fire with the filling with the Holy Spirit in the subsequent accounts of people being filled with the Spirit and speaking in tongues. So I believe that because this was the very first time believers received the Holy Spirit, the understanding of the languages by the crowd who heard the disciples praising God in tongues was a miracle for a particular purpose, and not meant to be repeated in the same extensive way.

Paul quotes Isaiah when he talks about tongues being a sign. I mentioned that in a post, maybe on another thread. It was a sign for unbelievers that the judgment of God was impending for them because of their rejection of Christ, in the same way that when the Jews heard the language of invading Assyrians, they knew that the judgment of God for their disobedience had caught up with them. That is why Paul quoted Isaiah when he mentioned that tongues were a sign to the unbeliever.

The tongues on the Day of Pentecost was the first sign and wonder that accompanied the preaching of the gospel. And the miracle of the tongues on that day, plus Peter's preaching, brought 3000 into conviction and the acceptance that Jesus was really alive and the gospel was really the truth.

The arrival of tongues to Cornelius' household was the proof that the Holy Spirit had indeed fallen on Gentiles as well as on the Jewish believers. This was the evidence that Peter brought before the Jewish Christian leaders.

I have already given two reliable proofs that there are times in our day when someone has spoken in tongues in a language that was understood, once which happened to a close friend, and another which happened with me. If you are saying that present day tongues can never be understood by anyone, then what happened with my friend and me, disproves what you are saying, regardless of your interpretation of the verse in 1 Corinthians.

You are correct in that the devout Jews HEARD their own languages. You are also correct that the preceding verse 21 speaks of judgment of the Jews not accepting Christ. But as far as this being a "one-off" I don't agree. I doubt very much that God would go against His own Word. So when he says no man understands, then no man understands. If you believe God lies, or Paul did, I just don't agree and I'll tell you what I have discovered which also explains your experience.

First off, on the Day of Pentecost each heard them speak in his own language. In other words it was not a cacophony of 120 different languages. No, each one heard all of them speaking their own language. How? They same way you did. The supernatural gift of interpretation of tongues. In Arizona I went to a church where this happened. A group of high school kids brought an unsaved female friend to church and at the end they and one of the leaders prayed for her. Part of the prayer was in tongues. At that point she started to cry. Everyone heard the tongues except her. She HEARD English.

As for tongues being a sign to the unbeliever...and when they hear it they will think you are crazy, was a judgment, confirming the unbeliever or uninformed in their lack of acceptance and knowledge. It is the same type of sign as Jesus. Read Luke 2:34. Jesus is a sign which will be spoken AGAINST. Thus He was a negative sign to the unbeliever such as the Pharisees. Today those religious mockers are cessationists. What confirmed the correlation for me is the comparison of Luke 2:35 and 1 Corinthians 14:25. Both say, "the secrets of the heart are revealed."

God demands obedience. That is why tongues is the most peculiar of all the gifts. But read what Isaiah said about Jesus in 53. " He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not."

I'm sure you've heard tell of someone coming into a church to check out tongues only to say that the interpretation from the pastor or whomever that had the gift of interpretation was wrong because they understood the language and it was blasphemy. They swore they understood naturally, however Satan can counterfeit any bona fide gift of God. Just like he counterfeits tongues among his own such as in Voo Doo, so he can manipulate the understanding to be blasphemy.

Praise God you and your friend experienced God's supernatural gift of interpretation of tongues. I asked my pastor what he experiences as I've never had that gift of interpretation. He said, it starts out in tongues, and then immediately all he hears is English. That is the same as the girl in Arizona, you and your friend, and the devout Jews on the Day of Pentecost. Remember the mockers did not receive the gift because of their hearts and only heard gibberish.

After seven years of questions on tongues, God taught me all I know. I would go to be with these same beliefs as you and asking how can 1 Cor. 14:2 be right in light of what happened on the Day of Pentecost. The next morning just as I was waking, before my eyes were open, God whispered the answer - gift of interpretation of tongues. Every question I had was answered in this way. So I wrote a book on it that is on Amazon called "The Hidden Mystery Behind Tongues." I'm in the middle of two more called "The Hidden Mystery Behind Grace" and "The Hidden Mystery Behind Faith." I'll tell you what those hidden mysteries are seeing as I respect you. Grace is God's power, and faith comes by rhemas. They are based on the Hebrew style of writing and the meaning behind Greek words.