Pentecostal view of the holy spirit.

[Nehemiah6]

Paul said they finish when [τὸ τέλειον] happens. When we see God (the Perfect) face to face.
The Bible has NEVER ever been called the FACE of God, only called the Word of God.

No, but there are TWO thoughts here side by side. One is about the Bible, and the other is about the perfection of Christians.

A. THE PERFECTION AND COMPLETION OF THE BIBLE
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect [complete] is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. [Notice: NOT "He who is perfect" but "that which is perfect". Big difference]
"In part" is another clue. At the time Paul was writing (50-58 AD) many books had not been written. The Bible was completed around 95-96 AD.

B. THE PERFECTION OF THE CHRISTIAN
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

In Scripture, different thoughts and subjects are shown together many times/

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

No, but there are TWO thoughts here side by side. One is about the Bible, and the other is about the perfection of Christians.

A. THE PERFECTION AND COMPLETION OF THE BIBLE
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect [complete] is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. [Notice: NOT "He who is perfect" but "that which is perfect". Big difference]
"In part" is another clue. At the time Paul was writing (50-58 AD) many books had not been written. The Bible was completed around 95-96 AD.

B. THE PERFECTION OF THE CHRISTIAN
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

In Scripture, different thoughts and subjects are shown together many times/

Personal interpretation. Paul says nothing about it being the Bible. You say that not Paul.

Hey, Satan has personal interpretation as well. Don't fret, I don't buy his baloney either.

And, you are falsely adding [complete] to the Perfect has Come [10 but when that which is perfect has come]

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Consensus agrrement among Theologians:

That will change one day. When the perfect comes, Paul writes, the partial will pass away. We will no longer need to work to understand and wonder over the bit of knowledge we have about God and His ways. The perfect, which is Jesus Christ, will bring about the day when all is revealed to God's children. When Christ returns, we will "know fully"

 

[ResidentAlien]

There's are two very simply reason why "the perfect" can't be the completed canon of scripture. So simple in fact most people completely miss it.

"For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known." 1 Corinthians 13:9-12

1. Everyone except those who have convinced themselves that there is one perfect translation of the Bible know that the Bible is far from perfect; errors can be found in every translation. Besides, if the Bible were perfect, the body of Christ would've attained unity and the full stature of Christ a long time ago. What the Bible has actually done, unfortunately, is create factions and divisions beyond number. I'm not blaming God's word for this; but if the Bible is what is supposed to perfect and unify us, it has failed miserably.

2. Paul said "then I shall know just as I am known." The canon wasn't completed in Paul's lifetime. So how could it help him see Christ clearly face to face?

 

[NightTwister]

Possibly. That's their own decision and none of my business

It's an old joke.
Q. Why do you not invite only one baptist to go fishing with you?
A. He'll drink all of your beer.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

There's are two very simply reason why "the perfect" can't be the completed canon of scripture. So simple in fact most people completely miss it.

"For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known." 1 Corinthians 13:9-12

1. Everyone except those who have convinced themselves that there is one perfect translation of the Bible know that the Bible is far from perfect; errors can be found in every translation. Besides, if the Bible were perfect, the body of Christ would've attained unity and the full stature of Christ a long time ago. What the Bible has actually done, unfortunately, is create factions and divisions beyond number. I'm not blaming God's word for this; but if the Bible is what is supposed to perfect and unify us, it has failed miserably.

2. Paul said "then I shall know just as I am known." The canon wasn't completed in Paul's lifetime. So how could it help him see Christ clearly face to face?

Yep, if we want to get technical about it Paul was dead before 70 AD Destruction and John didn't write Revelation until 95 AD some 25 years+ later. And Paul made it personal like you have mentioned that he would see the [Perfection] to come. The only way Paul could see it is by [face to face] meaning what the Church Fathers claim it means, when we see JESUS.

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

Been doing some reading lately on the whole tongues thing. Coming from a baptist background much of this philosophy is new to me, hopefully actual Pentecostals will reply. As I understand it most mainstream Pentecostals seem to believe there's two forms of the holy spirit. One that occurs at salvation and the other an occur at any time, and is supposed to manifest itself as tongue speaking to empower the individual. If I were to paraphrase, is it like being registered with the holy spirit at first and the recieving of actual power comes later as a sign you move on to ministry?

Seems there's a common view amongst baptists thinking pentacostals make tongues vital to salvation, but from what I've dug up, only a small handful of sub-categories seem to believe this and few of them seem to come out and say it. Closest I can find appear to say "Speaking in tongues is the only way to be absolutely sure you're saved." which I don't agree with. Though the notion of two different aspects of the holy spirit would explain some things in book of acts. So I'm guessing the attitude of Pentecostals claiming your only saved if you speak in tongues is a false stereotype?

I also started my Christian walk in '63 as a Southern Baptist, where I got my initial indoctrination in "New Converts class' But then started attending a "Pentecostal" Church, of the Assemblies of God denomination, where I've been for most of the last 50 years up to the present in 5 different States. I was "Baptized in the Holy Spirit" (to use AG Vernacular), tongues and all in 1973. At Present, I go to "Crossroads of Life AG" in DeSoto, TX.

There's only ONE Holy Spirit, of course BUT His dealing with humans isn't monolithic. In the OLD TESTAMENT, He CAME UPON individuals (samson, Isaiah etc.) and endued them with power to perform miraculous actions raising the dead, miraculous strength, Prophetic revelations etc.

In the NEW TESTAMENT a NEW function was added as Jesus said He's been WITH YOU, and He WILL BE IN YOU (John 14:17). That occurred at John 20-22 when Jesus "breathed on them" and imparted the Holy Spirit - which is what made them, (and makes us) Christians. The Holy Spirit joins with our spirit and bears witness to us that we're "Children of God". The OLD testament was in effect up until the Ressurection, and the NEW Testament began then, and extends to the present.

OLD Testament folks were endued with power by the Holy Spirit BUT NOT INDWELLED BY HIM.

NOW - in addition to being indwelled by the Holy Spirit, we're also Endued (Externally clothed) with power by Him in the same fashion as Old Testament saints were, enabling us to operate with supernatural abilities. WE DON'T OWN the gifts. They are given to us according to HIS WILL whenever they're required.

A partial list of specific/general empowerments is found at 1 Cor 12. ONE of which is "tongues".

The presence of "tongues" is Biblically cited as evidence of the Enduement of power (Baptized in the Holy SPirit in AG vernacular) as in Acts 19:6.

The AG, and other Pentecostals regard "Tongues" in the same manner - i.e. "A Sign" but not the Only sign that the "enduement of power" has occurred. "Sign Gifts" is an artificial classification with no real biblical basis in terms of it being a specific genre.

NO MAJOR PENTECOSTAL DENOMINATION ties "Tongues to "Salvation". A minor exception would be the "Oneness Pentecostals" (UPCI - United Pentecostal Church International denomination) who have other issues as well, among them, denying the Trinity.

Your "paraphrase" is essentially accurate.

"Pentehostiles" (Cessationists) typically base their rejection on 1 Con 13:10 - "that Perfect" which is believed to be the canon of Scripture which supposedly eliminates the need for the Holy Spirit to intervene/inspire/prophesy/give knowledge / give wisdom etc.

This essentially leaves it all to be figured out by "Theologians" based on the Scriptures. There's some evidence about how well THAT has worked over the centuries. The Holy SPirit will clarify, give wisdom, apply correction, etc. But He WILL NEVER CONTRADICT the Written Word. He will often contradict "theological interpretations" of the Word when they're dead wrong.

Personally, I received the ability to speak in a "tongue" back in '73, but the REAL EVIDENCE that something had changed was being immediately propelled into an intence period of Bible teaching in Churches (including Catholic) and Home groups, which wouldn't have been possible for me before.

 

[Lamar]

Regardless of what the "perfect" may be, it is a rather moot discussion if the events we are discussing are not happening.

We are not living in a continuation of the 1st century.

When did the physical supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit end?

Was it when the last of the first disciples died?
Was it 100AD, 200AD, 300AD etc. ?
Was it when the Bible came together?

We just don't no.

But what we do know is this. It has ended.

Using the Bible to support the existence of modern day physical supernatural events is childish.

If these events are happening there would be no debate of their presence, just their origin.

Are claims of modern day physical supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit from God or the Devil?

Neither. They are just not happening, they are just claims void of evidence.

False claims of supernatural Holy Spirit events is sin.

There are no scriptures that prove these modern day claims are real.

 

[Wansvic]

Did you notice that in the KJV the word "unknown" is in italics. So then you should look up the verses in Greek, and you will not find any such word there. The KJV translators thought they were being helpful, but they simply caused confusion. Once you omit reading the word "unknown", and substitute - correctly -- "language" for glossa or glossais, the excuse to talk about unknow tongues disappears. These are actual foreign languages. But do you think I will get anyone to investigate this carefully?

Check these out since they omit the words unknown and tongue:
New International Version
For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.
English Standard Version
For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
For the person who speaks in another language is not speaking to men but to God, since no one understands him; however, he speaks mysteries in the Spirit.
Literal Standard Version
for he who is speaking in an [unknown] tongue—he does not speak to men, but to God, for no one listens, and he speaks secrets in spirit;
....All the gifts are for the edification of others, not self-edification. That's where "charity" come in.

Your objection to the label "unknown" is confusing since the scripture makes the point NO man understands what is being said. Again, NO man understands...

You are mistaken that all speaking in tongues is for edification of others. Scripture reveals there are different kinds of tongues. (1 Cor. 12:4-6, 10) There are unknown tongues directed to God that result in one's personal edification. (1 Cor. 14:2-4) As well as the Spiritual gift of tongues and interpretation initiated by God for edification of the church body. If there is none who operate in the gift of interpretation then as Paul says a person can quietly speak (tongues implied) to himself and to God. (1 Cor. 14:26-28)

1 Cor 12:4-6
Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

1 Cor 12:10
To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

1 Cor 14:2-4
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.


1 Cor 14:26-28
How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

 

[presidente]

I grew up Pentecostal but whether I'm Pentecostal now would be debatable since I do not rigidly hold to the 'tongues as initial evidence' doctrine.

I think the general gist of what you wrote was true for the most part but I would disagree with the wording that there are different 'forms' of the Holy Spirit...

Derek Prince was saved in the Pentecostal movement and became the leader in the charismatic movement and the way he described it was that a new believer has the Seal of the spirit but may later be empowered by the Holy Spirit.

The general belief among Pentecostals is that if one is baptized by the Holy Spirit subsequent to Salvation that he will speak in tongues or will be able to. But I think almost all Pentecostals who have read acts would allow for the idea that someone could come to faith and be baptized with the Holy Spirit at the same moment as in Acts 10, but that others could receive the Holy Spirit after they are saved as in Acts 8.

Oneness Pentecostalism is an offshoot of Pentecostalism that started within the first decade or so of Azusa Street. they tend to believe that in order to be saved one has to be baptized in the name of Jesus as opposed to with the trinitarian baptism, and also that if one is saved he will speak in tongues. I'm not sure if the original Oneness movement was so rigid about these things being necessary for salvation or if the whole movement teaches that but it seems to be the stereotypical beliefs within that movement.

I don't know the stats now but when I read before one does Pentecostals were about 5% of Pentecostals. and there are a lot of charismatics that also believe in tongues as evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I think a lot of Baptist equate being baptized with the holy spirit with salvation and so when they hear Pentecostals talk about tongues as evidence of baptism of the Holy Spirit they think that Pentecostal are saying that you have to speak in tongues to be saved, when in reality there is only a tiny sliver of people who call themselves Pentecostals who believe that. And those who believe that tend to have some unusual beliefs about the Godhead and salvation that other Pentecostals do not agree with and other evangelicals do not agree with.

You can search on YouTube for a Craig Keener video where he explains the rationale behind the different interpretations of what is meant by baptism with the Holy Spirit. from what I gather Craig Keener was in the Assemblies of God I think when he was a new believer but was ordained Baptist I think and then he also teaches at a Wesleyan-type Seminary Asbury. He writes Bible commentaries and I found his explanation of different views on baptism of the Holy Spirit helpful and understanding what different groups think

 

[presidente]

Regardless of what the "perfect" may be, it is a rather moot discussion if the events we are discussing are not happening.

We are not living in a continuation of the 1st century.

When did the physical supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit end?

Was it when the last of the first disciples died?
Was it 100AD, 200AD, 300AD etc. ?
Was it when the Bible came together?

We just don't no.

But what we do know is this. It has ended.

Using the Bible to support the existence of modern day physical supernatural events is childish.

If these events are happening there would be no debate of their presence, just their origin.

Are claims of modern day physical supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit from God or the Devil?

Neither. They are just not happening, they are just claims void of evidence.

False claims of supernatural Holy Spirit events is sin.

There are no scriptures that prove these modern day claims are real.

I find your reasoning here childish.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Your objection to the label "unknown" is confusing since the scripture makes the point NO man understands what is being said.

And that would be true if you are solely an English speaker and someone spoke to you in Spanish or Arabic. No English speaker would have a clue. Kindly go back to Acts 2, there are NO unknown languages there, but a lot of ancient Greek dialects:

Parthians, (ancient Iranian or Persian dialect)
and Medes, ( another ancient Persian language)
and Elamites, (a region of Mesopotamia)
and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, (Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian)
and in Judaea, (Aramaic)
and Cappadocia, (Cappadocian Greek)
in Pontus, (Pontic Greek or Romeika)
and Asia, (Turkish)
Phrygia, (Ancient Indo-European language)
and Pamphylia, (Pamphylian Greek)
in Egypt, (Egyptian, Afro-Asiatic language)
and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, (another ancient Greek lanuage)
and strangers of Rome, (Latin)
Jews and proselytes, (Greek or Latin)
Cretes (Cretan Greek dialect)
and Arabians, (Arabic)

 

[montana123]

Been doing some reading lately on the whole tongues thing. Coming from a baptist background much of this philosophy is new to me, hopefully actual Pentecostals will reply. As I understand it most mainstream Pentecostals seem to believe there's two forms of the holy spirit. One that occurs at salvation and the other an occur at any time, and is supposed to manifest itself as tongue speaking to empower the individual. If I were to paraphrase, is it like being registered with the holy spirit at first and the recieving of actual power comes later as a sign you move on to ministry?

Seems there's a common view amongst baptists thinking pentacostals make tongues vital to salvation, but from what I've dug up, only a small handful of sub-categories seem to believe this and few of them seem to come out and say it. Closest I can find appear to say "Speaking in tongues is the only way to be absolutely sure you're saved." which I don't agree with. Though the notion of two different aspects of the holy spirit would explain some things in book of acts. So I'm guessing the attitude of Pentecostals claiming your only saved if you speak in tongues is a false stereotype?

Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
Isa 28:12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

Act 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
Act 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Rom 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
Rom 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

1Co 12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues.

I will not say we are saved if we speak in tongues but people do speak in tongues.

1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

I do not want to debate these things anymore, but the book of Acts seems to say they all spoke with tongues which none of them was saved until that time.

Which Jesus told Peter when you are converted strengthen thy brethren.

Which Jesus said the kingdom of God comes without observation for the kingdom of God within you.

Which when they were at Pentecost and received the Spirit the kingdom of God has come.

Men should not have a covering, long hair, for they are in the image of God, and Christ came in the image of God so why do they portray Him with long hair.

They might say but Samson had long hair, but Samson was not in the image of God for it is an innocent nature in flesh which after Adam and Eve sinned no one was in the image of God until Christ came.

1Co 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
1Co 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
1Co 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

1Co 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Some people will say but tongues ceased but this is speaking when we get to heaven.

Which is why it says charity, love in action, is greater than faith, and hope, for faith, and hope are only needed on earth for they are not needed in heaven.

The operation of the Church is the operation of the Church if they did it back then it is for today.

But there are many hypocrites today which the Bible says there would be so they did not speak in tongues so they say we do not speak in tongues today, and their Church teaches that so they do not bother.

Also the Bible says some have a form of godliness, but deny the Spirit leading them, and they are lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God, ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth, from such turn away.

So there is denominations where what they believe does not even get them saved when they confess Christ for they have the improper respective of repenting of their sins never coming to the truth to be led of the Spirit and act Christlike, but believe they are alright despite enjoying sins.

So they will not speak in tongues and then they will say it is not for today because they do not want to appear as if something is wrong why they do not.

So many things they debate about that the Bible clearly states what it means.

Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

Peter knew the Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Ghost for he heard them speak with tongues.

Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

 

[BillG]

I was once told because I did not speak in tongues that was evidence that I was not saved.

Boy did that mess with my head ad faith.

I was even asked if I wanted to and that gave me a phrase to say and speed it up end eventually I would speak in tongues.

Shocking.

 

[ResidentAlien]

I was even asked if I wanted to and that gave me a phrase to say and speed it up end eventually I would speak in tongues.

Same thing happened to me when I was younger in a small AOG church. They said to just repeat what I heard others doing and eventually the Spirit would take over.

 

[BillG]

Same thing happened to me when I was younger in a small AOG church. They said to just repeat what I heard others doing and eventually the Spirit would take over.

It’s abhorrent

 

[Nehemiah6]

I was even asked if I wanted to and that gave me a phrase to say and speed it up end eventually I would speak in tongues.

You are not the only one who has been asked to get involved with bogus "tongues". But the tongues-speakers refuse to be honest and say "This cannot be from the Holy Spirit, who gave distinct human languages as a supernatural gift in the apostolic churches. No one had to be coached."

This gift was given as a "sign" to unbelieving Jews as prophesied by Isaiah, and confirmed by Paul in 1 Cor 14:21,22. In the Law (the OT) it is written, With men of other tongues [languages] and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

It was to prove that the Gospel is of divine origin. Yet all the Jews in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost did not respond and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Shortly thereafter there was great opposition and persecution by the Jewish religious leaders.

 

[Wansvic]

And that would be true if you are solely an English speaker and someone spoke to you in Spanish or Arabic. No English speaker would have a clue. Kindly go back to Acts 2, there are NO unknown languages there, but a lot of ancient Greek dialects:

Parthians, (ancient Iranian or Persian dialect)
and Medes, ( another ancient Persian language)
and Elamites, (a region of Mesopotamia)
and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, (Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian)
and in Judaea, (Aramaic)
and Cappadocia, (Cappadocian Greek)
in Pontus, (Pontic Greek or Romeika)
and Asia, (Turkish)
Phrygia, (Ancient Indo-European language)
and Pamphylia, (Pamphylian Greek)
in Egypt, (Egyptian, Afro-Asiatic language)
and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, (another ancient Greek lanuage)
and strangers of Rome, (Latin)
Jews and proselytes, (Greek or Latin)
Cretes (Cretan Greek dialect)
and Arabians, (Arabic)

I'm aware of this information. However, scripture also reveals there are diversities of tongues and they manifest for various purposes. This could very well have been the case at Pentecost. Consider the fact that evangelism played no role in the experience relative to the Gentiles, Samaritans, and Ephesus disciples. (Acts 8, 10, 19) In each of those cases the experience confirmed the individuals received the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. In addition, Paul pointed out he prayed and sang in a language unknown to him.

 

[timemeddler]

wow, thanks for all the information everyone.

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

The AG, and other Pentecostals regard "Tongues" in the same manner - i.e. "A Sign" but not the Only sign that the "enduement of power" has occurred.

With all due respect for my elder -

So, us "Pentehostiles" who study our Bibles, have a question:

"Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe,​

but to them that believe not:..." (1 Corinthians 14:22 AV)​

​

So, those who "believe not" will then "believe when they 'see' the sign"? Or:

"If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and​

all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned,​

or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?" (vs 23)​

[ as a "babe In Christ," got invited to an assembly that did this = Never returned! ]

[ another time, a TV "tongues" speaker said "put my hand on the TV, and God will
give me the sign" = Nothing happened!! What do 'babies' know anyway? ]

Is "tongues"(?) "The Power Of God Unto Salvation," Or:

"For the preaching of The Cross is to them that perish foolishness; but ​

unto us which are Saved It Is The Power Of God. " (1 Corinthians 1:18 AV)​

​

Thus, if Unbelievers don't want The Cross, then why would they believe the
power of the "sign of tongues"?

Well, time for me to be a continuationist Of "tongues silence" as I have done
for 45 years, eh?

Thanks Be Unto God He Hears my prayers to Him In "my own language," eh?

'See' you here, there, or in the air! ♫

↑

Amen.

Grace, Peace, Mercy, Love, and Power!