Quote Originally Posted by tdidymas View Post
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.
Your evidence of it not being is where? Hey, I thought you were going to provide something challenging??

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.
Translated, disobedience on display by forbidding to speak with tongues (1 Corinthians 14:39)!

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.
When someone spends the overwhelming bulk of their time singling out “Pentecostals”, then they are the ones who express the true love for all the brethren?

Let’s see, you say almost always yet don’t cite the source? And how far do you think you have to travel to find error in two denominations? Three? Ten? A hundred? If your going after unity, better stop targeting people and begin work at the literal level, or support the best efforts of those who have. But that being treated as it is, carnally, would only incite more unfounded insult.

Take this position’s attempt to steer away from the simplicity of the statement of one’s own self-edification (I Cor 14:4):

“One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.”

Again, why does your pride prevent you from accepting the scripture on this? Shroud in continual exchanges of wanting “evidence”.

Paul saw that very as you say “evidence”, why would we allow our pride take control to conflict with God’s word?

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).
This is a serious warning for a laughable ***essment, yet largely inadmissible due to so many generalities, nor citations.

Watch this example to cross-over your impenetrable line; together, we could correct it, if need be rebuke it “before all”. Will you rise above the traditional bias, or even give hint to it being on your mind?

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.
I disagree with both this and whomever crafted this. Since the Holy Spirit is a living “Comforter”, but won’t, dare I say, can’t intrude on things being done “decently and in order”. His leading and that order must each have their place as the scriptures declare. God is able if only we are willing.

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?
Enough? Have I seen enough? Has the conduct of faith been belittled enough through your disgust?

You are one of the many prime examples of erecting doubt by this display of demanding proof from someone who has next to nothing to add to what it is God does:

“For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things.” (Romans 11:36) Not some cult-head figure.

Although I went out of my way to accommodate your request again, in the Spirit of brotherhood only to be rejected time and again makes this whole attempt to respond in vain which I use the liberty provided to once again accommodate.

If you don’t see me respond any further, please note my concern for what is beginning to show, and not what is being or ever will be corrected.

For you have proven nothing of this gift nor the others to be resisted till He returns. At best, it is carnal, at worst unforgivable as I have shown. Or do you need the instructions there as well?