Gift of Tongues

[psalms 91]

The point Paul is trying to get across to the church of Corinth is that for the purpose of drawing in inquires, praising God in the spirit/speaking tongues in the church will have them think they you are "crazy", therefore for THEIR sake they may be saved through prophesy.
Praising God on your own in tongues is fine and encouraged because you are in the spirit, but to build up the church its is also a way God uses it to benefit the church.

You are asking one thing and just because the word "interpret" was not mentioned in that passage (because the full commentary mentions it over and over again) you instead divert from the fact that he just said that praising God IS praying in the spirit and that praying in the spirit IS speaking in tongues because the inquire WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE HE IS SPEAKING.



Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

Ready to start a thread only for those who believe in it? Beating a dead horse is so frustrating:smashfreakb:

 

[Albion]

Imalive,

The point is that if the prayer is in an unknown language or no language at all, this passage says it won't help anyone if the message can't be comprehended. As noted, the one doing the praying ought to be able to explain (yes, that's the word used in some Bible translations) what he was saying.

Of course, this goes against the protestations of people today who insist that uttering unrecognizable sounds is what the gift is all about (and most often, doing it in the company of other Christians who hold the same view of the matter, which is in defiance of Paul's claim here in this passage that praying in the spirit is for unbelievers, not believers).

 

[Albion]

The point Paul is trying to get across to the church of Corinth is that for the purpose of drawing in inquires, praising God in the spirit/speaking tongues in the church will have them think they you are "crazy", therefore for THEIR sake they may be saved through prophesy.
Praising God on your own in tongues is fine and encouraged because you are in the spirit, but to build up the church its is also a way God uses it to benefit the church.

You are asking one thing and just because the word "interpret" was not mentioned in that passage (because the full commentary mentions it over and over again) you instead divert from the fact that he just said that praising God IS praying in the spirit and that praying in the spirit IS speaking in tongues because the inquire WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE HE IS SPEAKING.

No, the purpose is clearly stated--it's for unbelievers, not just something done for one's own benefit. And the passage clearly states that the one doing the speaking ought to be translating it. To speak unrecognizable sounds and calling it a form of prayer is not supported by the passage in Corinthians.

 

[Andrew]

No, the purpose is clearly stated--it's for unbelievers, not just something done for one's own benefit. And the passage clearly states that the one doing the speaking ought to be translating it. To speak unrecognizable sounds and calling it a form of prayer is not supported by the passage in Corinthians.

If speaking in tongues is for unbelievers then that makes Paul an unbeliever for he Thanks God that he speaks in tongues.
Its a SIGN for unbelievers! Not the one speaking tongues obviously for an unbeliever is an outsider, those not in the church.
Praising God in the Spirit is not to be discouraged but rather desired.
One can know it but one can never prove it to a nonbeliever, i dont have to prove to you that God exist because you already know it.
But on a side note, science does conclude that speaking in tongues frees up the area in your brain that controls language, just as Paul described it 2000 years ago as having no mind in it, hence praying in the spirit. This does not go against praying naturally, but Paul prayed in the spirit quite often. Its a form of praise and worship, but in the Church it should be used to edify.
I hope you aren't insinuating im attacking you, I mean no offense, Im only trying to clarify that Praying in the Spirit as Paul describes, was never to be discouraged as many claim it to be.



Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew]

Ready to start a thread only for those who believe in it? Beating a dead horse is so frustrating:smashfreakb:

Amen to that

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

The point Paul is trying to get across to the church of Corinth is that for the purpose of drawing in inquires, praising God in the spirit/speaking tongues in the church will have them think they you are "crazy", therefore for THEIR sake they may be saved through prophesy.
Praising God on your own in tongues is fine and encouraged because you are in the spirit, but to build up the church its is also a way God uses it to benefit the church.

You are asking one thing and just because the word "interpret" was not mentioned in that passage (because the full commentary mentions it over and over again) you instead divert from the fact that he just said that praising God IS praying in the spirit and that praying in the spirit IS speaking in tongues because the inquire WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE HE IS SPEAKING.



Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

Saint Paul's rationale for writing First Corinthians is to correct disorderly conduct in the congregation in Corinth. The Christians in Corinth were

• divided and disorderly in their meetings - Now in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, to begin with, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and to some extent I believe it. 1 Corinthians 11:17-18
• disorderly when sharing the communion meal - When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord's supper. For when the time comes to eat, each of you goes ahead with your own supper, and one goes hungry and another becomes drunk. 1 Corinthians 11:20-21
• disorderly about the use of God's graces and gifts - Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed. You know that when you were pagans, you were enticed and led astray to idols that could not speak. Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says 'Let Jesus be cursed!' and no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:1-3
• competing and disorderly about their role in church - Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 1 Corinthians 12:29-30
• disorderly about love towards one another - If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love. 1 Corinthians 13:1-13
• disorderly about tongues and prophecy - So with yourselves; if in a tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is being said? For you will be speaking into the air. There are doubtless many different kinds of sounds in the world, and nothing is without sound. If then I do not know the meaning of a sound, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. So with yourselves; since you are eager for spiritual gifts, strive to excel in them for building up the church. 1 Corinthians 14:9-12

Saint Paul had many lessons to teach the Corinthian congregation because they had become dysfunctional as a church. He corrects their misunderstanding about each of the items mentioned above and First Corinthians chapters twelve through fourteen is saint Paul's set of lessons for correcting their abuse of one another in a spirit of competition. The Corinthian Christians wanted to be famous so they all wanted to be apostles or teachers or prophets or whatever they fancied as the most important and glamorous role in church and they all wanted to speak so they wanted to be prophets and speak in tongues and draw attention to themselves. Saint Paul had to teach them basic lessons about love for one another and service towards one another. They were not to seek fame and glamour. They were not to become the centre of attention in church. God does not give any gifts so that individuals can become self-important centres of attention in church. Thus if any lessons is to be taken from saint Paul's first letter to the Corinthians it is that love and humble service are Christian and godly goals but fame and self-importance are worldly and unchristian goals to be avoided.

With the above lessons taken to heart one can read saint Paul's instructions with benefit and know that the goal is not to obtain tongues or to lead the church as apostle or prophet so that everybody will respect you and you will be famous for your gifts. In short, don't go seeking tongues and don't try to be a prophet or an apostle or something to draw attention to yourself because if that is your goal then you don't have a clue about being in Christ and you're heading back into the world of paganism.

 

[Andrew]

Saint Paul's rationale for writing First Corinthians is to correct disorderly conduct in the congregation in Corinth. The Christians in Corinth were

• divided and disorderly in their meetings - Now in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, to begin with, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and to some extent I believe it. 1 Corinthians 11:17-18
• disorderly when sharing the communion meal - When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord's supper. For when the time comes to eat, each of you goes ahead with your own supper, and one goes hungry and another becomes drunk. 1 Corinthians 11:20-21
• disorderly about the use of God's graces and gifts - Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed. You know that when you were pagans, you were enticed and led astray to idols that could not speak. Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says 'Let Jesus be cursed!' and no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:1-3
• competing and disorderly about their role in church - Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 1 Corinthians 12:29-30
• disorderly about love towards one another - If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love. 1 Corinthians 13:1-13
• disorderly about tongues and prophecy - So with yourselves; if in a tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is being said? For you will be speaking into the air. There are doubtless many different kinds of sounds in the world, and nothing is without sound. If then I do not know the meaning of a sound, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. So with yourselves; since you are eager for spiritual gifts, strive to excel in them for building up the church. 1 Corinthians 14:9-12

Saint Paul had many lessons to teach the Corinthian congregation because they had become dysfunctional as a church. He corrects their misunderstanding about each of the items mentioned above and First Corinthians chapters twelve through fourteen is saint Paul's set of lessons for correcting their abuse of one another in a spirit of competition. The Corinthian Christians wanted to be famous so they all wanted to be apostles or teachers or prophets or whatever they fancied as the most important and glamorous role in church and they all wanted to speak so they wanted to be prophets and speak in tongues and draw attention to themselves. Saint Paul had to teach them basic lessons about love for one another and service towards one another. They were not to seek fame and glamour. They were not to become the centre of attention in church. God does not give any gifts so that individuals can become self-important centres of attention in church. Thus if any lessons is to be taken from saint Paul's first letter to the Corinthians it is that love and humble service are Christian and godly goals but fame and self-importance are worldly and unchristian goals to be avoided.

With the above lessons taken to heart one can read saint Paul's instructions with benefit and know that the goal is not to obtain tongues or to lead the church as apostle or prophet so that everybody will respect you and you will be famous for your gifts. In short, don't go seeking tongues and don't try to be a prophet or an apostle or something to draw attention to yourself because if that is your goal then you don't have a clue about being in Christ and you're heading back into the world of paganism.

Very well put!

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Imalive]

Imalive,

The point is that if the prayer is in an unknown language or no language at all, this passage says it won't help anyone if the message can't be comprehended. As noted, the one doing the praying ought to be able to explain (yes, that's the word used in some Bible translations) what he was saying.

Of course, this goes against the protestations of people today who insist that uttering unrecognizable sounds is what the gift is all about (and most often, doing it in the company of other Christians who hold the same view of the matter, which is in defiance of Paul's claim here in this passage that praying in the spirit is for unbelievers, not believers).

Yes if we pray in tongues in church it's in a prayer meeting and you get translation of course, well at least what the subject you're praying for is, otherwise it's no use. One gets a prayer. The others pray in tongues, not loud or you can't hear the one praying in Dutch. Then another gets the translation of their tongues and prays it in Dutch, rest joins in and so forth. You're not just all gonna pray in tongues and not get any translation.
And Paul spoke about an open church meeting where visitors can come. If visitors come we don't pray in tongues.
When he prayed for ppl to receive the Holy Spirit though they just all started to speak in tongues.

 

[Josiah]

Ready to start a thread only for those who believe in it? Beating a dead horse is so frustrating:smashfreakb:

Bill, I haven't seen anyone who denies "it." Only noting that none have yet defined "it" from Scripture and shown that what they regard as "it" is exactly what the Bible regards as "it." It is not possible to deny something unless that something is a known thing. We could have a thread about "WHATCHAMACALLIT" but IMO it would be fruitless and impossible to discuss until we all know exactly what whatchamacallit is. And impossible to claim "this is what the Bible calls X" especially if the Bible never defines or describes "X." See the point, friend? THAT'S what some have noted. Not a disbelief or a denial.

 

[Josiah]

If speaking in tongues is for unbelievers then that makes Paul an unbeliever for he Thanks God that he speaks in tongues.

MUCH of what Paul did was for unbelievers. He was an evangelist.

Of course, while Paul suggests that he does "it" he never tells anyone what "it" was. No descriptions, no definition, nothing.

But on a side note, science does conclude that speaking in tongues frees up the area in your brain that controls language

As a scientist, I'm interested in reading those papers. Could you provide a link to them? I'm especially interested in how the scientist defined "tongues" and if they did so from Scripture or just ASSUMED that the person is correct in what they are doing is "tongues." If you can, provide the link the the paper. And I wonder what the control factor was. Did they compare this to one just babling nonsense or actually speaking something, what, I wonder, was the control? Anyway, if you could please provide a link to those papers. Thanks.



Pax



- Josiah

 

[Andrew]

MUCH of what Paul did was for unbelievers. He was an evangelist.

Of course, while Paul suggests that he does "it" he never tells anyone what "it" was. No descriptions, no definition, nothing.






As a scientist, I'm interested in reading those papers. Could you provide a link to them? I'm especially interested in how the scientist defined "tongues" and if they did so from Scripture or just ASSUMED that the person is correct in what they are doing is "tongues." If you can, provide the link the the paper. And I wonder what the control factor was. Did they compare this to one just babling nonsense or actually speaking something, what, I wonder, was the control? Anyway, if you could please provide a link to those papers. Thanks.



Pax



- Josiah

The second video I posted explains a little on it, i would have to find the article
Also, after one experiences it one can see that Paul describes it dead on. Believe i would have been a skeptic but it caught me off guard, i can say that I defiantly feel the presence of the Holy Spirit dwelling inside of me.
You will never know what IT is unless you seeks ITS experience, know one other than yourself can prove IT.
Perhaps ill go into a lutheran church to find out what they are teaching, you sound neither hot nor cold,
Im sorry but im done with this conversation its impossible to prove something spiritual to a scientist. I pray that you may know, God bless
Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

You will never know what IT is unless you seeks ITS experience, know one other than yourself can prove IT.

Well, at least you should be able to understand the issue without becoming impatient with us. You don't know what "it" is, but you just have a positive sense about your feelings. Jillions of people have had the same experience. It's emotional and physical. I know Christians who were deeply moved by the feeling they got when entering a Catholic cathedral with the high altar, stained glass windows and so on. They felt the presence of God, they told me. And I recall that George Fox, the founder of the Quakers, witnessed a ray of sunshine breaking through the clouds and--as he famously said--felt his heart strangely moved by the sight. I do not doubt that all of them did have some sort of experience and that it was meaningful to them.

All of these people might have said, "Say...this is reminiscent of that situation that's recorded in the Bible, so.....it must be the same exact thing!" No, not unless it actually IS the exact same thing. That's why we've been asking what "it" is, or which "it" of the many different theories held by Pentecostal Christians is supposed to be the real "it."

If you are leaving the discussion now, please do know that I appreciate your willingness to discuss the matter, regardless of whether or not we've settled anything.

 

[Imalive]

MUCH of what Paul did was for unbelievers. He was an evangelist.

Of course, while Paul suggests that he does "it" he never tells anyone what "it" was. No descriptions, no definition, nothing.





Pax



- Josiah

Nothing? He says he prays in the Spirit. He prays with his spirit. The mind doesn't understand it. He says he speaks in tongues, not with his understanding. He says don't do it in church unless you also pray you interpret it so others can understand it.
Now what would he be talking about?
Just look up the texts, ask God to show you.

For with stammering lips and another tongue
He will speak to this people,
12 To whom He said, “This is the rest with which
You may cause the weary to rest,”
And, “This is the refreshing”

 

[MoreCoffee]

I've had Seventh Day Adventists explain to me why eating pork is bad and their stated reasons mainly go to alleged diseases carried by pigs and transferred to people by eating pig flesh. They also mention God's commandments to Israel about clean and unclean foods. And they also argue from the creation story and the story of the flood that human beings were intended by God to be vegetarians. That's all very interesting but it does not go to the heart of the matter which is this "are Christians commanded to keep kosher?". The answer to that question is no but Seventh Day Adventists persist with their line of argument as part of their method of converting Christians to their denomination. You may be wondering why I bring that example up in a discussion about speaking in tongues, well, here is the reason. It does not matter what people allege about brain areas or brain chemistry changes brought about by people using "free vocalisation" since that is not speaking in tongues and it does not matter what people allege about "speaking in tongues" and it's alleged health benefits because speaking in tongues as it happens on the video tapes we see on youtube or that we hear in meetings is never said in holy scripture to be for health - either mental or physical. The one book in the holy scriptures that gives some explanation of what speaking in tongues means is the Acts of the Apostles and it points to speaking in human languages that are heard and understood by those who know those languages.

'Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs--in our own languages we hear them speaking about God's deeds of power.' Acts 2:7-11​

So the crucial question to ask about those who say they either speak in tongues themselves or say that they hear others speaking in tongues is this "what languages do they speak and can we have that verified?".

 

[Andrew]

I've had Seventh Day Adventists explain to me why eating pork is bad and their stated reasons mainly go to alleged diseases carried by pigs and transferred to people by eating pig flesh. They also mention God's commandments to Israel about clean and unclean foods. And they also argue from the creation story and the story of the flood that human beings were intended by God to be vegetarians. That's all very interesting but it does not go to the heart of the matter which is this "are Christians commanded to keep kosher?". The answer to that question is no but Seventh Day Adventists persist with their line of argument as part of their method of converting Christians to their denomination. You may be wondering why I bring that example up in a discussion about speaking in tongues, well, here is the reason. It does not matter what people allege about brain areas or brain chemistry changes brought about by people using "free vocalisation" since that is not speaking in tongues and it does not matter what people allege about "speaking in tongues" and it's alleged health benefits because speaking in tongues as it happens on the video tapes we see on youtube or that we hear in meetings is never said in holy scripture to be for health - either mental or physical. The one book in the holy scriptures that gives some explanation of what speaking in tongues means is the Acts of the Apostles and it points to speaking in human languages that are heard and understood by those who know those languages.

'Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs--in our own languages we hear them speaking about God's deeds of power.' Acts 2:7-11​

So the crucial question to ask about those who say they either speak in tongues themselves or say that they hear others speaking in tongues is this "what languages do they speak and can we have that verified?".

Paul describes two types of tongues, foreign tongues and unknown tongues, of angels and of men.
Also
Isaiah 28:11. Nay, but by [men of] strange lips and with another tongue will he speak to this people;

Albion I thank you for that comment, I agree that this is a healthy conversation but i do find myself repeated things over and over, example, this is not just as feeling that one gets in awe of a church, because this feeling never ceases and enrichs me everyday, thats different. Another is what I just said about two types of tongues in regards to coffees post, i must have said that a dozen times already lol

But as for non scriptural evidence or science based attitudes I will refrain from answering.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Imalive]

I've had Seventh Day Adventists explain to me why eating pork is bad and their stated reasons mainly go to alleged diseases carried by pigs and transferred to people by eating pig flesh. They also mention God's commandments to Israel about clean and unclean foods. And they also argue from the creation story and the story of the flood that human beings were intended by God to be vegetarians. That's all very interesting but it does not go to the heart of the matter which is this "are Christians commanded to keep kosher?". The answer to that question is no but Seventh Day Adventists persist with their line of argument as part of their method of converting Christians to their denomination. You may be wondering why I bring that example up in a discussion about speaking in tongues, well, here is the reason. It does not matter what people allege about brain areas or brain chemistry changes brought about by people using "free vocalisation" since that is not speaking in tongues and it does not matter what people allege about "speaking in tongues" and it's alleged health benefits because speaking in tongues as it happens on the video tapes we see on youtube or that we hear in meetings is never said in holy scripture to be for health - either mental or physical. The one book in the holy scriptures that gives some explanation of what speaking in tongues means is the Acts of the Apostles and it points to speaking in human languages that are heard and understood by those who know those languages.

'Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs--in our own languages we hear them speaking about God's deeds of power.' Acts 2:7-11​

So the crucial question to ask about those who say they either speak in tongues themselves or say that they hear others speaking in tongues is this "what languages do they speak and can we have that verified?".

I speak Egyptian, Australian English, Chinese, Hebrew, Polish, Russian and it's scientifically proven by 20 people.
Oh I may not lie oops sorry LOL.
Hey didn't Bill say he or someone else spoke old Hebrew?

 

[tango]

Well, there is pretty good evidence that they are gibberish, and many of us know Pentecostal or Charismatic Christians who will agree to that assessment by saying that they are still uplifting or else are some sort of prayer or angelic language that we aren't supposed to understand or translate.

Doesn't that view require that there be some reason to think these methods or tools actually ARE from God as opposed to something we'd like to believe are from Him?

This seems to be another case where a sense of balance is needed. I don't see any problem with the gift of tongues being active today - the fact something may not have occurred for a significant period of time doesn't in and of itself mean it must have stopped (after all it was some considerable time between the OT prophets speaking of the coming Messiah, and the Messiah actually showing up). Typically problems arise when an either-or stance is taken, where some insist that tongues have ceased (either using an extrapolation of silence, or what I would regard as a misreading of the tail end of 1Co 13) while others insist that any time someone utters something unintelligible it must be an expression of tongues and therefore must be a manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

Since tongues could be one of four things:
1. Divine gift
2. Demonic copy of divine gift
3. Naturally known language
4. Made up gibberish

the chances are in most situations we can't be entirely sure which is the case. We could hopefully have a good chance of determine a divine tongue from a demonic tongue but unless we personally know the speaker it's hard to know whether they are speaking a divinely inspired thing, speaking in a language they know naturally, or just making something up. Where some of the excesses within the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements suggest that tongues are the only valid sign that someone has the Spirit (I read one author go as far as to say you cannot operate in any of the gifts unless you first speak in tongues), it's easy to see how people feel pressured to just make something up in order to fit in.

I think of a man I know at a previous church who every once in a while would pray quite loudly and very enthusiastically in another tongue. There was never an interpreter, and yet he was never asked to keep quiet. The reason was simple - he was praying in his native Portuguese. Very few of us present could understand it (I could pick out a few words at best), but he wasn't speaking in tongues - he was speaking in his native tongue that just happened to be a foreign tongue to the rest of us.

Since the best answer to the question of whether a described event represented a divine or demonic manifestation is usually "I don't know", and the false dichotomy presented typically demands a decision one side or the other (and typically also excludes options like "gibberish"), and the fact that Scriptural support for something happening doesn't mean everything even remotely like it is therefore of divine origin (hence the warnings about false prophets and lying signs and wonders), I honestly don't think there's any way for us to conclusively determine whether something specific is of God or not. Hence my view is that the best we can do is look for possible warning signs, and urge appropriate caution and testing.

 

[Imalive]

This seems to be another case where a sense of balance is needed. I don't see any problem with the gift of tongues being active today - the fact something may not have occurred for a significant period of time doesn't in and of itself mean it must have stopped (after all it was some considerable time between the OT prophets speaking of the coming Messiah, and the Messiah actually showing up). Typically problems arise when an either-or stance is taken, where some insist that tongues have ceased (either using an extrapolation of silence, or what I would regard as a misreading of the tail end of 1Co 13) while others insist that any time someone utters something unintelligible it must be an expression of tongues and therefore must be a manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

Since tongues could be one of four things:
1. Divine gift
2. Demonic copy of divine gift
3. Naturally known language
4. Made up gibberish

the chances are in most situations we can't be entirely sure which is the case. We could hopefully have a good chance of determine a divine tongue from a demonic tongue but unless we personally know the speaker it's hard to know whether they are speaking a divinely inspired thing, speaking in a language they know naturally, or just making something up. Where some of the excesses within the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements suggest that tongues are the only valid sign that someone has the Spirit (I read one author go as far as to say you cannot operate in any of the gifts unless you first speak in tongues), it's easy to see how people feel pressured to just make something up in order to fit in.

I think of a man I know at a previous church who every once in a while would pray quite loudly and very enthusiastically in another tongue. There was never an interpreter, and yet he was never asked to keep quiet. The reason was simple - he was praying in his native Portuguese. Very few of us present could understand it (I could pick out a few words at best), but he wasn't speaking in tongues - he was speaking in his native tongue that just happened to be a foreign tongue to the rest of us.

Since the best answer to the question of whether a described event represented a divine or demonic manifestation is usually "I don't know", and the false dichotomy presented typically demands a decision one side or the other (and typically also excludes options like "gibberish"), and the fact that Scriptural support for something happening doesn't mean everything even remotely like it is therefore of divine origin (hence the warnings about false prophets and lying signs and wonders), I honestly don't think there's any way for us to conclusively determine whether something specific is of God or not. Hence my view is that the best we can do is look for possible warning signs, and urge appropriate caution and testing.

You can test it. I saw a guy on internet who tested it. Just ask the Spirit or spirit that makes em pray in tongues if He or he confesses Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
I tested it when I read that. He said: yes I do my daughter.
And made up nonsense, you can ask others, God or use your brain. When I was just saved a girl next to me in churchh supposedly spoke in tongues saying lalalalalalala. So I wanted that too and I went like lalalalalalala. That ain't tongues. There was a woman who spoke on the subject. A sunday school teacher said to her when she was 3: repeat after me: abba abba abba. Kid already spoke in tongues and said: that ain't tongues LOL.

 

[tango]

Well, that's a critical issue with this issue and one that I have been somewhat surprised to see sidestepped so far.

If tongues have ceased for all intents and purposes--or been interrupted--then it's quite reasonable to see the recent revival of interest in them in a few denominations to be artificial. If, on the other hand, they never ceased to be an important part of church life from the beginning until now, then your POV is probably correct. From my knowledge of history, however, I'd have to conclude that there is no doubt about the first of these views being the correct one.

I'm not sure that's entirely fair. If God is wanting to give gifts to people but those people, for whatever reason, are declining to accept them then it's not accurate to say that the gifts have ceased. If some time later people start to accept the gifts (whatever prompts the change of heart is irrelevant) then the issue with the extended break is with man rather than with God.

I suspect also that in this day and age everything is beamed around the world in an instant. If someone were speaking in tongues during a church service in, say, a sleepy farming community in the year 1284, would there necessarily be any record of it? These days it seems you can barely visit the bathroom without a permanent record being made of it but in an age where recording things took a significant amount of effort it's unlikely that "Brother Mark prayed in tongues again this week" would feature on the church diary.

I'm not a historian by any means but can easily see how if a ruling class imposed their view of what was "correct" and any deviation resulted in being burned at the stake or similar, it's not har to understand why people might have been very reserved about having a difference of opinion. In that situation you'd be looking at something similar to the persecuted church of today but lacking the means to broadcast their situation.

 

[tango]

You can test it. I saw a guy on internet who tested it. Just ask the Spirit or spirit that makes em pray in tongues if He or he confesses Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
I tested it when I read that. He said: yes I do my daughter.

You can test up to a point but only if you're there. There's no way I can test based on an account of something that happened in another church a few weeks ago, at least not in a sense that can be defined and other people can be expected to follow.