<continued from previous post>

2. You said, "...Egypt, where our Lord was crucified" - I take it you are using Egypt as a metaphor for Jerusalem? Then, are you not doing the same thing you accuse me of by your rhetoric? I get that your bias is equally as strong as mine in this matter. Or are you claiming that you have an open mind that your 'gift' might not be from God? I've already stated that I am open to receiving your testimony that your 'gift' is of God, I'm simply stating that I need some Biblical evidence of it which you have not yet produced (except for a biased and out-of-context interpretation typical of Pentecostal teaching). So then, if you claim that I am saying "I disagree" with a dead-sea period, it appears to me from where I am looking that you are the one saying it.

Give you a reason? How about an impartial treatment of I Corinthians 12 and 14. If you find those chapters deceptive, I invite you to show me where.
I do not find the scriptures deceptive. But what I do find deceptive is the Pentecostal teaching about the gift of tongues. There are certain scriptures that are taken out of context and the meaning twisted out of shape just to support the modern practice of it among Pentecostals and Charismatics. And where I am trying to show you is in the simple question "how is it edifying others." If how you are interpreting 1 Cor. 14:4 is your strongest evidence that your 'gift' is from God, then my response is "you are treading on thin ice," since I do not see that the edification that Paul is talking about in that chapter is limited to a feeling of peace (or even is a feeling of peace), since such a thing is pretextual to that p***age. Saying that experiencing peace in the practice of it might (or might not) do yourself some real good, but it does absolutely nothing for someone else's good. The argument is extremely weak. When I compare your argument with that of the apostles in the NT, it falls far short.

Further, what was the purpose of all the flowery and vague language you originally responded with? I simply objected to it, at the time I did not accuse you of being deceptive. But if you weren't actually intending to be deceptive (to persuade me of the legitimacy of your practice), then why use flowery and vague language? Why not clearly lay out the evidence from a Biblical standpoint? Such a response only causes me to be suspicious of your practice. In fact, what it reminds me of is the cult of Simon the Sorcerer, who was called "the mighty power of God" by his followers because they figured that his mysterious ways were miraculous as opposed to deceptive. Here again, please don't ***ume that I am accusing you of it, I'm just saying what it looks like from my POV. It looks the same as the Mormon claim that they "know" the BoM is of God because they feel a "burning in the bosom" (and they invite you into their cult by saying "try it").

So then, if you want some substance ("show me where") that I believe Pentecostal teaching is deceptive, here are 7 points which is not an exhaustive list:

1. The Bible says "as the Spirit gave utterance" in which there was no teaching in the matter, no prepping, no command or coaxing or coaching for anyone to speak in tongues, they just did it "as the Spirit gave utterance." But Pentecostals and Charismatics to the contrary still teach people to speak in tongues, typically saying things like "speak, but not in English" and have taught so from the beginning of the movement in the early 20th century. In fact, some have taught how to talk tongues in a "priming the pump" fashion of parroting someone else's gibberish, to the extent that it actually became a joke among Charismatics about "kick starting" tongues with phrases like "retie my bowtie" and "sella my honda," which indicates the spiritual nonsense of people who prey on the ignorance of the untaught and unlearned.

2. Self-edification as a result of tongue-talking is cited as one of the strongest evidences that the practice is of God; but such edification is never explained in the context of serving others, which is the main thrust of Paul's instruction in 1 Cor. 12-14. At the very least, such self-edification is self-centered and self-focused. It appears to serve only the self. Any edification in the churches appears to be limited to supporting one's belief in the practice of tongues, as opposed to real edification in the faith once delivered to the saints.

3. The subject is extremely divisive. Those who practice the art claim that they have the Spirit, and have the audacity to claim that others don't. Although the Bible clearly states how to know someone has the Spirit - by the fruit of their lifestyle, and by what they teach - Pentecostals focus on their "initial evidence" theory, to the exclusion of real Biblical evidence. And when this theory is questioned, the at***ude of the tongue-talker becomes hostile and judgmental.

4. Statistically speaking, whenever there is an interpretation of the tongues spoken in a public setting, the two sound nothing alike. The unknown tongue is always repe***ive babbling. If the tongues was an actual language saying something intelligible, it would sound as such. Even when we don't understand a language, we can readily and easily determine that what is being said is intelligible to someone, since we hear the inflections, intonations, and other sounds of a real language. Modern tongues (statistically speaking, say 99% of it all) is repe***ive gibberish that not only sounds meaningless when spoken, but ends up being meaningless in reality as far as the universal church is concerned. The closest thing to babbling in the Bible is "mene mene tekel upharsin" which is a pronouncement of judgment. The prophecy about "strange tongues" does not mean "meaningless babbling." This prophecy clearly refers to known intelligible languages as the apostle Peter testified in Act 2.

5. The interpretation of a tongue in a public setting (among those normally acceptable to Christians, which excludes those 'interpretations' that are wildly beyond any semblance of truth) almost always is a quote from scripture, or a paraphrase of a scriptural truth. Here again, why is a tongue and interpretation needed, if the message is merely a quote from known scripture? Why not simply use the scripture to edify the church? Why does it have to come in the form of 'tongues and interpretation' unless the real agenda is to 'edify' the church in their belief in tongues? Strengthening a belief in the tongues practice is not real edification of the church, because the thrust of Paul's teaching about it in 1 Cor. 12-14 is all about edification in the knowledge of Christ and the love of the brethren. Pentecostals, in my experience, love only Pentecostals; they don't appear to love all the brethren, especially when their theory about "initial evidence" is questioned.

6. Narrow-mindedness: Pentecostals have the regular practice of using (misusing) scripture for the sole purpose of supporting their dogmas. Their personal experience with modern tongues is used as the ruler to measure how they interpret scripture. When an alternate interpretation to theirs is presented, it is immediately p***ed off as wrong without any consideration of what scripture's original meaning is. Such is typical practice of Pentecostal and Charismatic teaching. They seem to think that when they read scripture, just any idea that pops into their mind about it just has to be "the Holy Spirit." Paul calls this at***ude "heady, highminded" as something to be avoided (2 Tim. 3:4).

7. Typical modern practice of public speaking in tongues is often contrary to Paul's teaching about order of worship in 1 Cor. 12-14. The reason is because of the Pentecostal belief that the Holy Spirit is always sponteneous and unplanned - always a surprise. This belief peppers their teaching and language. They seem to be fixated on the idea that anything planned well in advance and choreographed cannot possibly be the leading of the Holy Spirit. In fact, they call it "dead" if they fail to be "inspired" (usually) by the free-style spontaneity of their loud, boistrous, and wild worship styles. Thus, they tend to disregard the order that Paul orders concerning worship practice.

Is this enough for you to see where I am coming from, that I ask a simple question that does not really require excessive thought (if you know the scripture and have the wisdom of God with you): how is your practice of tongues edifying others?
TD