I don't judge as you do. Only God can know for sure, since there are false prophets in the church. To say that tongues is a test for salvation is to not look at church history and the reality of all the ways the Holy Spirit works. Paul clearly says that not all people have all the gifts of the Spirit (notice that Paul never says that tongues is the sign of salvation). There are other Pentacostels that disagree with you, just as I quoted Chuck Smith. They do not believe it is the sign of salvation - it is a gift. They believe that the Holy Spirit indwells people and that there will be a born again experience, but it does not have to be tongues.TallMan wrote:How do you judge people to be "Christian"?cslewislover wrote: I would have no reason to doubt his integrity, and it doesn't serve your position well to impugn another Christian that way.
Regarding false prophets, there are also those who fake it, to fit in. I know someone who did that, and the rest of the people there thought it was real tongues. So you tell me how you judge. Lol. To judge in this manner, then, is man-based and fallible.
cslewislover wrote:And I actually don't see your point. The article describes the tongues at Pentecost . . . so? They were in the languages of men. The tongues Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians were not.
I already quoted what Paul said in the previous entries. The tongues of men, and the tongues of Angels. The tongues of men did not need interpreters, at Pentecost. The tongues of angels need interpreters. Maybe I'm not reading carefully enough, but you seem to go back and forth on this. Something is weird about it. In any case, this is incredibly clear in the bible.really? Where does scripture say that?
His and your whole argument is based on fallacy.
At Pentecost there were bi-lingual people from many countries.
The fact that they recognised real language shows that tongues is real language, that's all.
It dosn't show that there is another type of tongues when there are only non-bilingual people present.
Please answer the questions in my previous post instead of another copy-and-paste job for me to read through that doesn't . . this is not discussion.
The reason why it may not appear to be more of a discussion to you, I guess, is because of what was already posted. Orthodox (conservative) Christianity does not agree with your interpretation of scripture. I was going to post some more on the issue of salvation and how it is carried out by the Trinity, and how we are to view it, but it would take some time. Besides that, I don't see that you want a discussion. You seem to be set in your interpretation and only want to make others believe it. I'm guessing that's why you started another thread.