1Corinthians 14:22+

[Winnie]

So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and [k]ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an [l]ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.


Why is this passage sounding contradictory? 

[Tertullian]

So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and [k]ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an [l]ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.


Why is this passage sounding contradictory?

First, a declaration, Pentecostals and the Assemblies of God Church, turn First Corinthians upside down.  Paul is arguing against the use of unknown tongues.  At no point in this chapter does Paul support speaking to God in a language no man understands (the opinions of those with reading comprehension problems not withstanding).

Understand, Paul is not arguing against tongues, but against unknown tongues.  If someone speaks in tongues, there should be someone there who understands what's being said.  And, even then, it should be limited to no more than two or three people speaking in tongues, v27.

Now, look at verse 23a, "If the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues."  See there, it's not tongues per se, it's everyone is speaking in tongues.  It's charismatic chaos that Paul rightly and understandably says 23b "unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?"  DUH!!!! This is an objection to lots of people speaking in tongues, especially, presumably, if those tongues go untranslated.

If the service is orderly and an unbeliever sees someone really speaking in tongues (not gibberish) and that is interpreted, then the unbeliever will be impressed and see that God is at work.  Christians know God is at work and don't need signs to know it.  So then, tongues is a sign for unbelievers, not for believers. 

[NorrinRadd]

So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and [k]ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an [l]ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.


Why is this passage sounding contradictory?

From the IVP Bible Background Commentary on 14:21-25:


Effects on Visitors of Intelligible and Unintelligible Speech

14:21. Here Paul quotes Isaiah 28:11, which in context refers to a sign of judgment; because his people could hear nothing else, God would speak to them through the Assyrians (cf. 33:19; Deut 28:49). (Many Jewish teachers used “ law ” loosely to refer to anything in the Old Testament; later it was even applied to earlier Jewish traditions.)

14:22. On one view, Paul here refers to tongues as a sign of judgment that causes nonbelievers to stumble (cf. 14:21); on another, Paul quotes the Corinthians in 14:22 and refutes them in 14:23–25 (cf. 6:12–14).

14:23–25. Prophecy was a known phenomenon in the ancient world, whereas tongues was not (or at least, its parallels were extremely rare); ancients respected prophecy, but if they did not know beforehand to expect speaking in tongues, they would not know what was happening (cf. Acts 2:13). Perhaps Paul would not object to a whole group simultaneously worshiping charismatically under other circumstances (e.g., Acts 2:4–21), such as if they were by themselves (cf. 1 Sam 10:5; 19:20); but these are not the circumstances of the Corinthian house churches

[NorrinRadd]

So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and [k]ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an [l]ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.


Why is this passage sounding contradictory?

First, a declaration, Pentecostals and the Assemblies of God Church, turn First Corinthians upside down.  Paul is arguing against the use of unknown tongues.  At no point in this chapter does Paul support speaking to God in a language no man understands (the opinions of those with reading comprehension problems not withstanding).

  Always amusing when some pseudo-intellectual dismisses out of hand scholars such as Gordon Fee, Craig Keener, Wayne Grudem, Ben Witherington, NT Wright, Krister Stendahl, I.H. Marshall...

[Tertullian]

  Always amusing when some pseudo-intellectual dismisses out of hand scholars such as Gordon Fee, Craig Keener, Wayne Grudem, Ben Witherington, NT Wright, Krister Stendahl, I.H. Marshall...

My declaration that Paul objects to the use of unknown tongues is important to answer the question of the OP.  In short, the use of unknown tongues will make outsiders think you're crazy.  But, the use of known tongues will impress outsiders.

Why bother throwing names of alleged scholars at each other when we can read what Paul says ourselves, in a good English translation, and apply some honest reasoning to what he says?  The appeal to experts, when the evidence is available for us to examine ourselves, is a resort of someone in error.  You're in error, and you act like someone in error.

[NorrinRadd]

  Always amusing when some pseudo-intellectual dismisses out of hand scholars such as Gordon Fee, Craig Keener, Wayne Grudem, Ben Witherington, NT Wright, Krister Stendahl, I.H. Marshall...

My declaration that Paul objects to the use of unknown tongues is important to answer the question of the OP.  In short, the use of unknown tongues will make outsiders think you're crazy.  But, the use of known tongues will impress outsiders.

Why bother throwing names of alleged scholars at each other when we can read what Paul says ourselves, in a good English translation, and apply some honest reasoning to what he says?  The appeal to experts, when the evidence is available for us to examine ourselves, is a resort of someone in error.  You're in error, and you act like someone in error.

  Always amusing when some pseudo-intellectual considers any citation of those who are experts in a field under discussion as a fallacious appeal to authority.

Sadly, you are demonstrating the very thing you derided, viz., "reading comprehension problems."  As should be clear from the context, my citation of respected NT scholars of widely varied affiliation was meant as a push-back against that specific insult of yours.  I trust that even someone like you will be charitable enough to forgive me for not bothering to highlight that specific portion of your quote for added clarity.

As to the rest of your point, I agree that the text is understandable apart from the input of such experts as I cited.  I find it clearly supports the practice of praying and praising in unknown languages.  It places some limits on the practice, but given that such restrictions were of no concern elsewhere in the NT, those limits should be viewed as useful pragmatic suggestions for situations analogous to that at Corinth, not as universal rules.

[Tertullian]

Always amusing when some pseudo-intellectual considers any citation of those who are experts in a field under discussion as a fallacious appeal to authority.

What did I say that makes you think I think of myself as an intellectual?  You must think something I said is very smart.  Thank you. Did I accuse you of a "fallacious appeal to authority"?  If I had used such language, I would have really sounded like a pseudo-intellectual. 

Who's the first guy on your list?  Gordon Fee.  Wow, an Assemblies of God minister!   AoG puts the pseudo in pseudo-intellectual.  How about a relevant quote from him?  Maybe he agrees with me.  I don't expect him to agree with me because he's an AoG minister, his other credentials are irrelevant.

If you wish to make what you suppose is a non-fallacious appeal to authority, then provide their testimony here. All you've done is drop names without establishing their position and most importantl their explanations.  Then what happens if I provide counter list?  But, again, why should we engage in your pseudo-intellectual games when we can just read scripture for ourselves?  Do you concede to the need to appeal to the reading comprehension of another? Why don't you start a new thread to examine specially what you're disagreeing with me about, considering that's is only tangential to the topic here. 

As to the rest of your point, I agree that the text is understandable apart from the input of such experts as I cited.  I find it clearly supports the practice of praying and praising in unknown languages.  It places some limits on the practice, but given that such restrictions were of no concern elsewhere in the NT, those limits should be viewed as useful pragmatic suggestions for situations analogous to that at Corinth, not as universal rules.

You take verses out of context and then read into those verses what they don't say.

[ClicknClock]

Because none of God's prophets and saints spoke in tongues. That idea came from Satan and the Beast that influenced man to build false gods with their human hands. Pagan worshipers loved to chant in various tongues thinking they were speaking to their gods which were the star constellations they got their building shapes from according to the Beast.

[Winnie]

 Any aog attenders out there ? 

Seriously.  I believe prophecy and tongues are for today.  I occasionally pray in the spirit via tongues myself.   
So I am looking for somebody who believes that that can answer my question.   

[Winnie]

So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and [k]ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an [l]ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.


Why is this passage sounding contradictory?

First, a declaration, Pentecostals and the Assemblies of God Church, turn First Corinthians upside down.  Paul is arguing against the use of unknown tongues.  At no point in this chapter does Paul support speaking to God in a language no man understands (the opinions of those with reading comprehension problems not withstanding).

Understand, Paul is not arguing against tongues, but against unknown tongues.  If someone speaks in tongues, there should be someone there who understands what's being said.  And, even then, it should be limited to no more than two or three people speaking in tongues, v27.

Now, look at verse 23a, "If the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues."  See there, it's not tongues per se, it's everyone is speaking in tongues.  It's charismatic chaos that Paul rightly and understandably says 23b "unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?"  DUH!!!! This is an objection to lots of people speaking in tongues, especially, presumably, if those tongues go untranslated.

If the service is orderly and an unbeliever sees someone really speaking in tongues (not gibberish) and that is interpreted, then the unbeliever will be impressed and see that God is at work.  Christians know God is at work and don't need signs to know it.  So then, tongues is a sign for unbelievers, not for believers.

I will have to read this more carefully, it is too early to try to make heads or tails out of it.

[Link]

So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and [k]ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an [l]ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.

The word 'So' connects this to the quote from Isaiah in the previous verse. 

21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

One type of sign is a fulfilled prophecy.  There was a short-term fulfillment in the Assyrians dragging Israel into captivity, yelling at them in Aamaic and whatever other languages as they marched them away naked out of the land.

But this is also fulfilled in speaking in tongues when people with unbelieving hearts hear speaking in tongues and do not believe and say 'ye are mad', and so tongues is a sign to them. 

The passage confused me when I memorized the book as a teenager.  This was my conclusion after much quoting and meditation of the passage.  Many years later, I came across Chrysostom's sermon on it, and if I recall correctly it seemed to me that he had the same or similar interpretation

[Link]

First, a declaration, Pentecostals and the Assemblies of God Church, turn First Corinthians upside down.  Paul is arguing against the use of unknown tongues.  At no point in this chapter does Paul support speaking to God in a language no man understands (the opinions of those with reading comprehension problems not withstanding).

Understand, Paul is not arguing against tongues, but against unknown tongues.  If someone speaks in tongues, there should be someone there who understands what's being said.

You seem confused.  I Corinthians 13 opens up referring to tongues of men and of angels.  The A/G does not insist that tongues not be a human language.  I would imagine the A/G, which has a variety of views, would allow for both tongues of men and of angels.  There is a spiritual gift of interpretation, and Paul says nothing about the individual having to understand the language naturally with his mind to interpret it. It is possible for others present to understand as in Acts 2, though Paul does not address that issue in this chapter.

The A/G has had many people with testimonies throughout the years of understanding speaking in tongues in their own language.  There were a number of accounts of it at Azusa Street, and the A/G, with it's missionaries abroad, have had many experience hearing missions field languages while on furlough or other similar experiences.  Charlse Greenoway was missions director in the 1980's and he had a testimony along these lines which I know he shared at at least two churches and probably many, many others.  So you seem to be arguing for a straw man.

  And, even then, it should be limited to no more than two or three people speaking in tongues, v27.

The verse in question is about 'one' speaking two or three, and then one interpreting.  It does not say maximum of three people speaking in tongues per meeting.

[4WD]

Always amusing when some pseudo-intellectual dismisses out of hand scholars such as Gordon Fee, Craig Keener, Wayne Grudem, Ben Witherington, NT Wright, Krister Stendahl, I.H. Marshall...

To disagree with those scholars is not dismissing out of hand those same scholars. If those scholars are interpreting "tongues" to mean something other than the language of other peoples, tribes, countries or nations, then they are simply inserting there own beliefs into the discussion and are not simply expressing a "scholarly" interpretation of Scripture. I can read and agree with a great deal of what each of those scholars have to say; however, to disagree with their views that lean toward the Pentecostalist interpretation I am not dismissing that interpretation our of hand.

[NorrinRadd]

To disagree with those scholars is not dismissing out of hand those same scholars. If those scholars are interpreting "tongues" to mean something other than the language of other peoples, tribes, countries or nations, then they are simply inserting there own beliefs into the discussion and are not simply expressing a "scholarly" interpretation of Scripture. I can read and agree with a great deal of what each of those scholars have to say; however, to disagree with their views that lean toward the Pentecostalist interpretation I am not dismissing that interpretation our of hand.

My citation of those luminaries was primarily directed at this empty-headed statement by the asinine Tert:

"the opinions of those with reading comprehension problems not withstanding"

All of those scholars understand "speaking in tongues" to refer to speaking to God in one or more languages unknown to the speaker, and typically unknown to any humans present, except in cases where the parallel gift of interpreting tongues operates.  Most if not all of them at least accept the possibility that Paul was alluding to literal non-human celestial languages in 13:1.  One may disagree with their exegesis, but only an arrogant fool would claim they have "reading comprehension problems."  Frankly, I believe their view easily makes the best sense of the passage.

[4WD]

Personally, NorrinRadd, I think their view is utterly ridiculous.  How could unintelligible jibberish be a sign to an unbeliever?  The only thing that would convince the unbeliever of is that the one uttering such jibberish is nuttier than a fruit cake.

[Link]

To disagree with those scholars is not dismissing out of hand those same scholars. If those scholars are interpreting "tongues" to mean something other than the language of other peoples, tribes, countries or nations, then they are simply inserting there own beliefs into the discussion and are not simply expressing a "scholarly" interpretation of Scripture. I can read and agree with a great deal of what each of those scholars have to say; however, to disagree with their views that lean toward the Pentecostalist interpretation I am not dismissing that interpretation our of hand.

What do you mean 'lean toward the Pentecostalist interpretation.'  Do you mean Pentecostal?  The historical Pentecostal view is that tongues are languages.  There are a number of accounts of people hearing their own languages spoken at the Azusa Street revival and other accounts of it happening since in the Pentecostal movement.  I am aware of such testimonies in the Assemblies of God which has had a huge missions outreach. 

There was a liberal German theory from the 1800's that pagans spoke in a sort of gibberish, and that this was what was going on in Corinth.  John MacArthur had a sermon that argued for this liberal theory quite a while back that I heard posted on YouTube.  He didn't go 'verse by verse' on that one.  The theory was that the Oracle of Delphi spoke gibberish and that the Corinthians were doing something along this lines.  MacArthur described their tongues as 'pagan.'  This is a really sad, unbiblical approach to the subject, since I Corinthians 14 is about a spiritual gift, not a pagan practice. 

Plutarch lived in the first century and discussed the issue of the prophecies of the oracle of Delphi in his time.  Visitors were expecting prophecies to be given in high poetry and were disappointed when they were given in regular prose.  Clearly he was talking about intelligible words and not some sort of gibberish like the uninformed liberal German theologian of the 1800's supposed, the theory that John MacArthur repeated. 

I think we may have an issue of needing to define terms.  The KJV uses 'unknown tongues' to describe speaking in tongues.  Someone would speak in tongues, and others there did not know the language.  Hence it was unknown, and an 'unknown tongues.'  The KJV translators put in the word 'unknown.'  But other people are using 'unknown tongue' here to mean some kind of gibberish that is not a language.

[Link]

Personally, NorrinRadd, I think their view is utterly ridiculous.  How could unintelligible jibberish be a sign to an unbeliever?  The only thing that would convince the unbeliever of is that the one uttering such jibberish is nuttier than a fruit cake.

Mandarin Chinese and Vietnamese are unintelligible jibberish.  Spanish is about half gibberish.  Italian is about 70% gibberish.  English is not.  Indonesian is not.  Malaysian is about 10 or 20% gibberish.

Foreign languages are gibberish if you don't know them.

But tongues functioning as a sign in the context of I Corinthians is not to convince.  The unbeliever says 'ye are mad.'  The sign, 'and yet for all that, ye will not hear Me' is fulfilled in that unbeliever in that case.  It is a sign not for them the believe, but them that believe not. 

[Link]

Because none of God's prophets and saints spoke in tongues. That idea came from Satan and the Beast that influenced man to build false gods with their human hands. Pagan worshipers loved to chant in various tongues thinking they were speaking to their gods which were the star constellations they got their building shapes from according to the Beast.

Some of us believe the Bible.  Acts 2 shows that the disciples spoke in tongues.  I Corinthians 12 lists 'divers tongues' and interpretation of tongues among the gifts of the Spirit and chapter 14 indicates that tongues and interpretation should be used in church in a way that edifies the body. 

[4WD]

Mandarin Chinese and Vietnamese are unintelligible jibberish.

Not to anyone who understands the Mandarin Chinese language or Vietnamese language. Both are actual languages of people.  They can be learned and spoken either as native languages or as an additional language.  They can be taught by one speaking the language to another.  Not so the jibberish passed off as "divine" speaking.

[Link]

Not to anyone who understands the Mandarin Chinese language or Vietnamese language. Both are actual languages of people.  They can be learned and spoken either as native languages or as an additional language.  They can be taught by one speaking the language to another.  Not so the jibberish passed off as "divine" speaking.

But to those who do not know those languages, they may dismiss them as gibberish. 

[4WD]

But to those who do not know those languages, they may dismiss them as gibberish.

That may be so.  The point here is that when Paul speaks about "tongues" in his letters, specifically in 1 Corinthians, he is speaking of actual languages which would be known by some people somewhere.  The confusion seems to have arisen with his mention of "tongues of angels" in 1 Corinthians 13:1.  Any time we read in the Bible about angels tanking the form of human beings and speaking, it is always in a language that those being spoken to understand. There is no indication anywhere in the Bible that angels converse among themselves in an auditory manner as do human beings. They are after all spiritual beings and do not dwell in a physical world where sound waves are transmitted through physical material. Therefore "tongues of angels" doesn't refer to the gibberish that some allude to as speaking in tongues.

[Link]

That may be so.  The point here is that when Paul speaks about "tongues" in his letters, specifically in 1 Corinthians, he is speaking of actual languages which would be known by some people somewhere.

Paul did not expect people in the church there present to be able to understand.  He says '...no man understandeth him....' 

The confusion seems to have arisen with his mention of "tongues of angels" in 1 Corinthians 13:1.  Any time we read in the Bible about angels tanking the form of human beings and speaking, it is always in a language that those being spoken to understand. There is no indication anywhere in the Bible that angels converse among themselves in an auditory manner as do human beings.

There certainly is evidence that could lead one to this conclusion.  It is in I Corinthians 13:1.  Every time angels spoke to humans in the Bible, they were communicating to them.  There is no indication that they spoke angelic languages. We could go on and on about what is not said, for example, these passages do not specifically say that the prophets were not being enabled to understand angelic languages either.  Such observations prove nothing.  If the angels in the Old Testament always spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic in the passages described, that wouldn't prove they do not have 'tongues of angels' which Paul mentions in I Corinthians 13.

Some people say this is hyperbole, but some of the other examples he gives are extreme, but possible.  It is possible to give all ones possessions away to the poor or even to give one's body to be burned.  The poor are real.  Burning is a real thing.  They aren't fictional.

They are after all spiritual beings and do not dwell in a physical world where sound waves are transmitted through physical material.

And so if a prophet or revelator saw angels speaking in the heavens, what does that mean?  Why don't you tell me more about the spiritual realm in which angels dwell?  What does the sound travel through when an angel or spirit hears the voice of God and brings it down to earth?

I don't know if there are spiritual sound waves or not.  The fact that we learn in science class that sound passes through air, a feature of our material world does not tell us much about how angels communicate.  We do know that Paul mentions 'tongues of angels' in scripture.  We should allow for the idea they might exist. 

Therefore "tongues of angels" doesn't refer to the gibberish that some allude to as speaking in tongues.

If someone speaks in an angelic tongue that is not inflected for meaning the same way human languages are or in human languages we do not know, but sound like gibberish to those who do not know the language.  Paul describes it as being a barbarian to the other person.  It is believed that barbarian comes from imitating a non-Greek speaker saying 'bar bar bar', which may have been onomatooeia for what it sounds like when someone speaks in a language you do not know.

In the context of the assembly, these words would need to be interpreted if they are to edify others.

[NorrinRadd]

I will attempt to be polite, though honestly, after decades of dealing with John MacArthur-type cessationists, I often do not rise to the challenge of maintaining charity.

I went back and skimmed through the whole thread.  A few points:

-- It's obviously a "zombie thread," having been resuscitated after more than three years in the grave.  The thread starter and the initial responder have both been inactive more than two years.

-- I see I was pretty involved in the thread back when it walked the earth the first time.  I wonder what was going on in my life that I suddenly abandoned it.  Perhaps it was because in Reply #6, Turd proved himself to be a dishonest interlocutor by saying of Fee, "because he's an AoG minister, his other credentials are irrelevant."  (So, ok, yeah, I'm not going to make a *big* effort to be polite and charitable.)

-- Here and here one can find two versions of an essay Fee wrote about glossolalia.  The latter is a partial excerpt from his book, Listening to the Spirit in the Text.  Two points stand out as particularly relevant to the topic at hand:

(1)  Though an AG minister, Fee finds that the Bible does not give evidence for the common practice of "messages" in tongues (but also does not rule it out).  (I agree with this.)

(2)  Fee defends the notion that in Paul, "tongues" does NOT refer to human languages, but only to "angelic" ones.  I think his analysis does make sense of the Pauline context, but I think overall theology and practice should include Luke's contributions in Acts.  (Even though they were ministry partners and Luke probably sometimes served as Paul's amanuensis, I think there were some differences, or at least different emphases, in their respective theologies.)

-- In this short video, Keener takes the view that "tongues of angels" is probably, but not necessarily, rhetorical hyperbole, but that ultimately it does not matter, because whether the languages are extant human languages, extinct human languages, celestial languages, or whatever, God understands them, and their primary purpose is to facilitate prayer and praise to God.

-- As to the OP, I think my Reply #2, citing Keener via the IVP Bible Background Commentary, is at least a decent starting point.

[Link]

It does not make sense to me that if Paul described tongues as being 'of men and of angels' that all tongues he referred to were tongues of angels. 

[Cobalt1959]

Winnie asked a question, and, so far, no one has given her an answer.   All anyone who has replied in the thread have perpetuated are the standard Cessationism vs. Non-Cessationism arguments.  Useless for her.

I was a member of an AoG church in Kansas from 2003 to 2011.  I joined as a neophyte knowing nothing about Pentecostal theology and doctrine and left the church as an Associate Pastor realizing that the entire Pentecostal and Charismatic movement are mine fields of false doctrine and bad theology.

AoG doctrine revolves around tongues.  If you ain't speaking in tongues, you ain't got the Holy Spirit.  Even though Paul states plainly that not all will speak in tongues.  Tongues were given to the original Apostles as an instrument to prove their message was from God.  These men were directly related to Christ.  They were given gifts Paul plainly tells us will become less important over time, because the authority of the claims it's purveyors make cannot be verified.   Anyone can make up gobbledygook and say it's from God, but how can you check the message to see if it is authentic?  In the case of tongues, in AoG doctrine, you just believe a higher authority that tells you the message is authentic.  I heard plenty of grandiose messages in tongues in the 8 years I was in this church and none of those messages of growth and prosperity ever materialized.

God got it wrong?  No.  The people claiming to speak for God got it wrong.   

[NorrinRadd]

This is a zombie thread that began almost three and a half years ago, mercifully died, was raised as a shambling revenant a few months ago, returned to its slumber, and has now, alas, risen again just in time for Resurrection Weekend.

Winnie asked a question, and, so far, no one has given her an answer.   All anyone who has replied in the thread have perpetuated are the standard Cessationism vs. Non-Cessationism arguments.  Useless for her.

I gave a relevant response in Reply #2, but for whatever reason, it apparently did not suffice.

I have indeed participated in the "standard Cessationism vs. Non-Cessationism arguments," because cessationists can't bear to let "tongues" discussions go on without molesting them, and I generally will not allow "tongues depressors" to go unchallenged.

I was a member of an AoG church in Kansas from 2003 to 2011.  I joined as a neophyte knowing nothing about Pentecostal theology and doctrine and left the church as an Associate Pastor realizing that the entire Pentecostal and Charismatic movement are mine fields of false doctrine and bad theology.

AoG doctrine revolves around tongues.  If you ain't speaking in tongues, you ain't got the Holy Spirit.  Even though Paul states plainly that not all will speak in tongues.  Tongues were given to the original Apostles as an instrument to prove their message was from God.  These men were directly related to Christ.  They were given gifts Paul plainly tells us will become less important over time, because the authority of the claims it's purveyors make cannot be verified.   Anyone can make up gobbledygook and say it's from God, but how can you check the message to see if it is authentic?  In the case of tongues, in AoG doctrine, you just believe a higher authority that tells you the message is authentic.  I heard plenty of grandiose messages in tongues in the 8 years I was in this church and none of those messages of growth and prosperity ever materialized.

God got it wrong?  No.  The people claiming to speak for God got it wrong.

N.b., nothing you farted out there addressed Winnie's question at all.  You started your diatribe by complaining (falsely) that no one had addressed Winnie's question, and that the discussion was only about cessationism vs. continuationism, and then proceeded to launch into your own cessationist polemic.  If you're only going to be a complainer, and a dishonest one at that, just go back and thrash around in the SDA forum as is your usual wont.

If you do wish to continue this discussion, I challenge you to prove the following assertions you made:

1)  "AoG doctrine revolves around tongues.  If you ain't speaking in tongues, you ain't got the Holy Spirit."

2)  "Tongues were given to the original Apostles as an instrument to prove their message was from God."

3)  "These men were directly related to Christ."  (Here I mainly want you to prove that only "special" representatives of God were gifted.)

4)  "They were given gifts Paul plainly tells us will become less important over time"

5)  "...the authority of the claims it's purveyors make cannot be verified."  (Here I want a few specific documented citations of "purveyors" making authority claims.)

6)  "In the case of tongues, in AoG doctrine, you just believe a higher authority that tells you the message is authentic."  (Here I want specific reference to official AoG dogma, not just your experience.)