diversity?

[allstate1]

Originally Posted by proudfather

Regarding the tongues in 1 Cor. 14, I cannot find where Paul says this. He says so in chapter 12, but as I pointed out in my 2nd post, he was referring to a different type of tongue; one that must be interpreted.

Read Acts 10 and 19. The new converts spoke in tongues, but no interpretation was given. Acts 8 cannot be explained unless you believe that the new converts spoke in tongues. If they didn't react when they received the Holy Ghost...what did Simon see?

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

[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?

[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?

[proudfather]

Originally Posted by allstate1

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?

1. First, I'm not UPC. Second, you should read Acts 10 again. Acts 10 actually says, "45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

How did they know that they had received the Holy Ghost? Verse 46 reveals the answer. "For they heard them speaking in tongues."

2. Paul wrote that tongues was a sign to unbelievers. "Tongues" was the sign that God was in that place. The average unbeliever probably came into the church doubting, well everything. Tongues was A sign, not the only sign. The believers good conduct and the preaching of the word of God was also a sign. Combine all of these elements, and the result is beautiful.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by proudfather

1. First, I'm not UPC. Second, you should read Acts 10 again. Acts 10 actually says, "45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

How did they know that they had received the Holy Ghost? Verse 46 reveals the answer. "For they heard them speaking in tongues."

2. Paul wrote that tongues was a sign to unbelievers. "Tongues" was the sign that God was in that place. The average unbeliever probably came into the church doubting, well everything. Tongues was A sign, not the only sign. The believers good conduct and the preaching of the word of God was also a sign. Combine all of these elements, and the result is beautiful.

How can we know that this "speaking in tongues" phenomena that we witness in our churches is the same thing as that recorded in Acts 2 (and probably Acts 10)?

They don't really line up.

[proudfather]

Originally Posted by pelathais

How can we know that this "speaking in tongues" phenomena that we witness in our churches is the same thing as that recorded in Acts 2 (and probably Acts 10)?

They don't really line up.

Now you're just grasping at straws. Howdo you know the experience is any different than it was in the book of Acts? Were you in the upper room?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by proudfather

Now you're just grasping at straws. Howdo you know the experience is any different than it was in the book of Acts? Were you in the upper room?

Pel, here is where you pull out the young earth quote from Ken Ham and lob it back like the R2 button tosses the thrown grenade back on COD: Modern Warfare.

(In my best Australian accent, which is not so good) No, I wasn't there but I know someone who was and he told me about it.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by proudfather

Now you're just grasping at straws. Howdo you know the experience is any different than it was in the book of Acts? Were you in the upper room?

You are reeling and punch drunk and all I did was ask one of the most obvious questions asked of Pentecostals.

How do I know? Because the Bible records these events from Acts 2:

Acts 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
Acts 2:7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
Acts 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Acts 2:9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
Acts 2:10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
Acts 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

No event like this has ever even been claimed to have happened in any 20th Century nor 21st Century Pentecostal service. Ever.

Your attempt to gloss over this reality is actually quite disingenuous.