diversity?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

Please stop with Simon....that is so old...lol I get so tired of hearing that excuse...We don't know what Simon saw..It does not say.. to me he saw someone speaking in a known language that they did not know already..why because in Acts 2 thats what happened..to you it will be uninteligible gibberish...where you get that from I don't know I have yet to find these "Unknown" tongues in the bible..

Have you ever eaten blowfish? Can you tell me what it tastes like?

[proudfather]

Originally Posted by allstate1

So the tongues you speak as initial evidence is actually a language but the unknown tongue is not??!

Now I would suggest that you read 1 Cor. 14 in it's entirety.

20 Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature.
21 In the law it is written:


“ With men of other tongues and other lips
I will speak to this people;
And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,”[b]

says the Lord.
22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe.

Now, go back to verse 14.

14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.

18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

If tongues are merely a sign to the unbeliever, then why would Paul want to pray "in the spirit" in private?

[proudfather]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

Please stop with Simon....that is so old...lol I get so tired of hearing that excuse...We don't know what Simon saw..It does not say.. to me he saw someone speaking in a known language that they did not know already..why because in Acts 2 thats what happened..to you it will be uninteligible gibberish...where you get that from I don't know I have yet to find these "Unknown" tongues in the bible..

Talk about getting defensive. It's sounds like you're getting angry for some reason. If you can't debate without getting angry, then I will ignore your post. Man, what do people on this forum eat? I've been attacked like crazy and I've only been on here two days.

[allstate1]

Originally Posted by proudfather

Now I would suggest that you read 1 Cor. 14 in it's entirety.

20 Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature.
21 In the law it is written:


“ With men of other tongues and other lips
I will speak to this people;
And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,”[b]

says the Lord.
22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe.

Now, go back to verse 14.

14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.

18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

If tongues are merely a sign to the unbeliever, then why would Paul want to pray "in the spirit" in private?

2 questions on this post! If tongues are the evidence of the Holy Ghost and the sign of salvation in the UPC why would Paul rather do it in private?? Who would know he is saved? Also what does the unbeliever here not believe in? Tongues or does he not believe the person speaking in tongues is saved?

[KWSS1976]

Believe me proudfather I am not angry...lol I really thing the whole tongues thing is funny...especially when you have those in church that speak out in Tongues and there is no interpretion..and in Corthians it tells you clearly how to use tongues..O and go visit Holyghosttees.com..I have heard some of those "tongues" also...so yea I am not a believer of the tongues I hear in church...granted it was done in the bible..it is not being used today in the church as the bible instructs...

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by proudfather

Did you read the article? it deals with this issue and answers all of your questions. Please read the article and then respond to it. Thanks.

The article deals with the question of "unlearned languages" versus "learned languages." That doesn't really appear to be the point here. allstate's question seems to be about "known languages" versus "unknown and mysterious utterances" sometimes called "gibberish" by critics.

[proudfather]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

Believe me proudfather I am not angry...lol I really thing the whole tongues thing is funny...especially when you have those in church that speak out in Tongues and there is no interpretion..and in Corthians it tells you clearly how to use tongues..O and go visit Holyghosttees.com..I have heard some of those "tongues" also...so yea I am not a believer of the tongues I hear in church...granted it was done in the bible..it is not being used today in the church as the bible instructs...

Okay, I misunderstood your tone. Sorry. Would you say that the tongues in Acts 2 were done "decently" and in "good order"? It probably sounded like mass chaos to some. In fact, some poeple mocked and said, "These men are full of new wine."

[Jeffrey]

Were tongues a sign to unbelieving Israel? A foundational truth about biblical tongues is that it was chiefly a sign to Israel that God was extending the gospel to all nations. 1 Cor 14:20-22 w/references to Isa 28:11.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by proudfather

The tongues in Acts 2 were a sign to the unbelievers. They heard them speaking in their own tongue...therefore, they marvelled. Paul spoke of a different type of tongue in 1 Cor. 12:

1 Corinthians 12:10 (New King James Version)
10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.

So according to Paul, there is a kind of tongue that must be interpreted. However, this does not imply that all tongues should be interpreted.

1 Corinthians 14:2 (New King James Version)
2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

He speaks to God, not to man and is speaking mysteries, but no man can understand him. Hope this helps.

Sorry if I sounded defensive. Just making a point.

It seems to mean that the confusion arises when we as Pentecostals extol our "Pentecostal experience" as being "just like the apostles in Acts 2..."

It is this claim that allstate's question appears to address.

PF has pointed out the distinction between the events of Acts 2, and the circumstances Paul was speaking to in 1 Corinthians 12 and 1 Corinthians 14.

Perhaps we should describe our churches as a "Corinthian experience" rather than a Book of Acts experience?"

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by proudfather

Talk about getting defensive. It's sounds like you're getting angry for some reason. If you can't debate without getting angry, then I will ignore your post. Man, what do people on this forum eat? I've been attacked like crazy and I've only been on here two days.

Nah... no anger... that's just KWSS.