So you don't believe that God orchestrates righteousness through secondary means (called the Providence of God)? I believe that God heals people through the actions of doctors and known medical procedures. I believe that God punishes evildoers through the actions of police, detectives, and court justice, and they need forensic evidence to do that, and I believe that God guides men to present and show that evidence. If you don't believe that, it's your prerogative. But I say you're wrong about that, God does work through forensic evidence, just as He does through historical evidence.
If I saw a clear miracle myself, such as Jesus raising the dead, I would be satisfied that it was a bonified miracle, since I saw what I considered forensic evidence, being an eyewitness of the event. However, if I didn't carry something from the scene to prove my words, then my testimony of what I saw would only be a story to someone else. They might believe or not. But if there were multiple witnesses saying the same thing about the same event (all being eyewitnesses), then the credibility of it would be much stronger. Then that would be called historical evidence. If I had something to carry from the scene that corroborated my testimony, it would be more credible because of the corroborating evidence, and that's called forensic evidence.
Just because I question the authenticity of modern tongues doesn't mean I'm mocking or anything like that. I think there is far too much assumption on this issue, and I also think that people have too much emotion invested in it to make any objective assessment.
Your idea that we have the Holy Spirit to lead us into all the truth is a nice theory, but doesn't work in real life. In the first place, Jesus said that to His disciples, not to you and me. This is why the apostle John wrote "he who is of the truth listens to us." The apostles are the ones who explained what Jesus taught. Secondly, the churches historically have disagreed and had controversies, all claiming to have Holy Spirit led doctrine. So church history shows that your idea is not true. Thirdly, God doesn't dictate to us everything He wants us to know. The Bible says "study to show yourself approved of God, a workman who does not need to be ashamed (of his ignorance), rightly interpreting the word of truth."
The real is described in Acts 2. The fake is shown prolifically in Charismatic churches everywhere (at least everywhere I went when I followed them for 25 years), in addition to TV and youtube. So I'm asking you now, since you cared enough to respond, are you willing to present evidence that there is even one real tongues event that can be examined for authenticity?
I agree that there are many errors among the P/Cs (Pentecostals and Charismatics). But I'm personally not addressing them right now, except that in my experience not only in media, but also in churches, that many P/Cs are known for exaggeration. To the degree that when someone says "I speak in tongues," it is not credible. They may sincerely believe that what they have is a gift of God, but the evidence shows on closer examination, what they have is not a language and not miraculous. I can give you details, if you need it.
I agree that the Bible doesn't say when the gifts will cease, except "when the perfect comes," which I take as the new heavens and new earth. There is only 1 verse I know of that has an implication of the ceasing of signs and wonders and gifts of the Spirit, and that is Heb. 2:4, since the writer of Hebrews excludes himself from it, and he said "those who heard" did those things. And I take "those who heard" refers to those people who were eyewitnesses to Jesus.
I think maybe the jury is still out on that issue, so debating it hasn't made much of a difference (at least in this forum after 62 pages of debating). This is why I believe that only solid evidence will tell us one way or another, that the gift of tongues hasn't ceased, if indeed there is just one person who has the authentic gift as described in Acts 2. If that's the case, then cessationists would have to reevaluate their position. Would you agree?