As I was re-reading this thread, as I often do re-read them.  One tought stuck out to me.

Everwhere God went, Jesus went, there was evidence of his being there.  There was immediate evidence of him being there. When Moses led Isreal across the Red Sea he left evidence with an alter.  When Isaac wrestled with God, he left him with a limp.  When Jesus came into the towns he healed their sick, delivered their possessed.  There was also immediate evidence that God had been there.

With that being said lets also look at another way God does things.  God loves to take the small things and do GREAT things with it.  Why is that do you suppose?  SO that man can not take credit for it.  It is so the testimony says for itself that was God.

I would htink something as personal to us and God as Salvation.  The very thing he robed himself in flesh and died for us to accomplish would be the same.  Man can say I have repented now take me to the water.  WHo knows his heart?  God does we have to take him at his word.  Now he goes through the water did he get wet or baptised?  I just can not believe that God would not show proof of his presence a testimony for all to see.  It is not us doing a work for we have not the control over the Holy Ghost but it is the testimony God leaves with us.  The footprint of his very presence. It is the proof that he has the final say so.  That he provides the proof, otherwise without the proof, man can take the credit or say it is when it is not.

I totally believe God will leave proof he is there.  I believe that the evidence that he REMAINS there is the fruit you bare as you grow.  I also agree that tongues alone doesnt save anyone.  I do understand what you meant when you said can the devil imulate this.  I am sure he can, he has tried to synthetically reproduce everthing else in the world.

Like trying to replace a woman with a man in the home.  Like trying to replace Love with lust, trying to introduce God with teh anti-christ.  He is the prince of darkenss but he appears as an angel of light.  He is the deciever, and waiting to devour those that he can.

However, God is God.  The proof will be in the lives one leads after God has put his name on that vessel. I just have a difficult time believeing that our God, the Almighty God, Jesus, would complete something in our lives without leaving evidence of his presence, immediate evidence.  He wants us to walk in confidence. When the evidence is posted, or presented itself then we can say to satan, looficer (mis-spelled on purpose) get the behind me I KNOW that I am saved.  How do I know because I have proof. 

Simple thoughts from a simple man.

Edit: Incase someone wishes to visit the original post here is the link

http://pentecostzone.com/forum/posts/id_508/

Nicely put LiL Bro.

What I find to be the problem with many "Christians" is that they simply can not understand that there is a "LAW, RULES, GUIDELINES, EXPECTED BEHAVIOR" by God for his Children.

King Daivid for example, when his children went out and played with some of the common folks, do you think they dressed diffrent, talked diffrent, do you think that the people knew who the Kings kids were?

I see so many people trying to put GOd in this box that says all we have to do is believe on him and that does it.  the Word says "Believe on him as the scripture says".  that means we are to adhere to the scripture.

Nicodemus was a Pharisee.  A religious ruler of the day, the very organization that killed Christ. Jesus tells him John 3:3 ....Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God"

So Nicodemus says that doesnt make sense, how do I return unto my mothers womb.  Jesus said John 3:5....."Except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit, he cannont enter the kingdom of God"

If man would seek for a relationship with him on Gods terms and not our own concepts or practices what a diffrence.  Show me 1 just one place where someone recieved the Holy Ghost and did not speak in tongues.

In the KJV Bible, show me 1 place where someone was baptized in any other name than Jesus.

So I will suffice to say this, you do not have to speak in tongues, but you get to.  You do not have to be Baptized in Jesus name, but you get to.  You do not have to go to Heaven but you will get to if you do the other two and keep yourself Holy before God.

Ask yourself this question.  If Loving, serving Jesus were a crime would there be enough evidence to convict you?

Simple thoughts from a simple man.

Firstly, let me say "thank you" for your interest. Now, let's get into the meat of the subject.

I Corinthians 12:28 says "not all speak in tongues." This vere has been misunderstood by many to mean that not every believer will speak in tongues, and thus tongues are not the initial evidence of having been filled with the Holy Spirit. This is understandable, because without a context the above verse does seem to back up such an idea. However Brandini, the Bible speaks of two different types of tongues. There are tongues that all receive when filled with the Holy Spirit and the gift of diverse kinds of tongues spoken of in I Corinthians 12 and 14. The kind I Corinthians 12:28 is speaking of is the gift of diverse kinds of tongues, and indeed not all will have this gift. It is distinct from the "normal" tongues one speaks in when having received the Holy Ghost.

The Bible does not blatantly declare that there is a distinction between a tongues that one speaks in upon receiving the Holy Ghost and a tongues for interpretation, but the two types can be easily distinguished by looking at the three accounts of tongues-speaking in Acts. If the process of tongues and interpretations occurs by two or three messages in tongues followed by interpretations, as the order laid out in I Corinthians 14:27-28, then one can see from Acts 2, 10, and 19 that there is a difference.

It is evident from the Acts 2 outpouring that all 120 were speaking in tongues at once. This can be seen by the fact that all were filled and spoke in tongues. If the tongues here is the gift of diverse kinds of tongues spoken of in I Corinthians 14:27-28 this would mean that 120 messages in tongues were being given at once and one person interpreted all 120 messages. This would not be in order according to I Corinthians 14:27, and we know that God is not the author of confusion (I Cor 14:33).

It can't be argued that Peter was giving an interpretation because Acts 2:5-11 tells us that the group of onlookers already understood what was being said in tongues. What was being spoken were "the wonderful works of God" (Acts 2:11). This was not the message that Peter spoke. I don't read of Peter speaking about God creating the mountains or seas, or any such thing. Instead Peter answered the three questions asked by the onlookers: 1.) And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 2.) What meaneth this? 3.) Men and brethren, what shall we do?

Acts 10 also shows that there are two types of tongues. First of all let it be noted that there is no mention of an interpretation. Secondly, from Acts 10:24 we can determine that there were at least five people that Peter preached to (kinsmen= at least two; near friends = at least two; Cornelius). This means that at least five people were giving messages in tongues if the only kind of tongues is the gift of diverse kinds of tongues. The Bible never says they were messages, but simply says they were tongues. If five people were truly giving messages in tongues, this would be going against the procedure laid out in I Corinthians 14:27. The same argument can be made for Acts 19:6-7 which shows that there were twelve people speaking in tongues. The Bible never explicitly states a difference between the tongues as evidence of having received the Holy Ghost and the gift of diverse kinds of tongues, but it is evident from these three passages alone (excluding passages in I Corinthians 14) that there is a difference. If the only kinds of tongues that are spoken are those that are to be interpreted, then what does diverse tongues mean (I Cor 12:10). This points to at least two types of tongues, whatever they are.

I Corinthians 14

Paul penned I Corinthians 14 because of the abuse and misunderstanding of tongues. It appears from I Corinthians 14:6-11, 16, 23 that the churches at Corinth were giving most of their meetings over to speaking in tongues. It also appears from I Corinthians 14:26-27 that there were many tongues and interpretations and these were being done out of order. Paul did put restrictions and guidelines upon tongues.

In this chapter there is no support to say that tongues are only for interpretation. Some point out I Corinthians 14:27-28, which I've talked about already, but this does not rule out any other type of tongues. Looking at other verses in this chapter, along with the three episodes of Acts mentioned above, will demonstrate that Paul has two types of tongues in mind.

In I Corinthians 14:18-19 Paul thanks the Lord that he speaks in tongues even more than the Corinthians do, but says that in the church meeting he would rather speak words of understanding in order to teach others. Notice that Paul did not have an understanding of the tongues that he spoke with more than any of the Corinthians. If he was able to understand them, he would have no need to desire to speak five words of understanding so that others might learn. From the interpretation-only view this would mean that Paul was speaking in tongues without any interpretations, and that in abundance. Was Paul, who spoke in uninterpreted-tongues even more than the Corinthians, rebuking them for doing the same? How could Paul, who through the Holy Spirit placed regulations on the operation of tongues and interpretations to only two or three per meeting, thank God that he was giving more tongues and interpretations than what God allowed? This would make the inspired Paul himself out of order and a hypocrite by putting regulations on tongues that he himself didn't keep.

Look also at I Corinthians 14:5. If the only purpose of tongues is for interpretation, then why does Paul acknowledge the fact that there are tongues apart from interpretation? It says that prophesy is greater than someone speaking in tongues, except he interpret. If he interpreted, then it would be equal to prophecy. The key word is except. Paul makes it very clear that it is not only possible, but that it is normative (at the very least for some believers) to be able to speak in tongues without an interpretation. One may contest saying, "Notice that Paul did say prophecy was better than this kind of tongues." I agree, because prophecy edifies the church as a whole because the words are intelligible to the hearers, while speaking in tongues without an interpretation only edifies the individual (I Cor 14:4-5). This is why Paul goes on to say that if one speak in tongues, they should pray that they may excel to the edifying of the church, i.e. interpretation (I Cor 14:12-13). It was perfectly fine to speak in uninterpreted-tongues for one's own edification, but they should seek to excel to the edifying of the whole church through prophecy, or by interpreting the tongues.

Paul made it clear that the gift of tongues were not for everybody (I Cor 12:7-10--notice the phrases "to one is given" and "to another"; I Cor 12:30). Yet in I Corinthians 14:5 Paul said he wanted all the Corinthians to speak in tongues. Why would Paul wish for something that could not be done? There seems to be a difference in the tongues he was talking about. In I Corinthians 12:30 he was talking about the gift of tongues for interpretation that only some could have, while in I Corinthians 14:5 he was talking about the tongues that everybody spoke in when they received the Holy Ghost. This is the only logical explanation. Otherwise the Scripture would be contradicting itself.

Now, let's take a closer look at I Corinthians 14, and break down the context.

Paul begins by beseeching the Corinthians to desire spiritual gifts, but especially the gift of prophecy (1). The reason for this was due to the fact that speaking in tongues is directed toward God, not men. Man does not understand their meaning, only God does as is evidenced by Paul's statement "in the spirit he speaketh mysteries" (2). On the other hand, the individual who prophesies speaks to men (in an understood language) and brings edification, exhortation, and comfort (3). The difference between the individual who speaks in tongues and the individual who prophesies is that the former only edifies himself while the latter edifies the church (4). For this reason Paul would rather have the church prophesy than speak in tongues. The only exception to this is if the tongues are interpreted. If tongues are interpreted, then the individual who speaks in tongues and the individual who prophesies are on the same level, because both are giving edification to the church (5). Paul tries to prove his point by using himself as the example. He asks what profit he would be to the church if he came speaking to them in an unknown language (6-8)? Unless what is spoken can be understood, Paul would be wasting his breath as far as teaching is concerned, and would be as a foreigner to the Corinthians (9-10). Believing that the church would understand his point, Paul urges the church to seek to excel to the edifying of the church, presumably excelling from tongues alone without interpretation (12). To do this, those who speak in tongues were to pray that they might interpret those tongues (13). Since when praying in tongues one's spirit prays even though his mind does not understand the words, Paul concluded that he would both pray and sing with the spirit (tongues) and with the understanding (his own language) (14-15).

Paul said that if one blesses God in spirit the congregation can not understand and agree with the blessing (16). He didn't want them to think this made tongues bad, so he was quick to say, "Thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified" (17). In further defense that he supported speaking in tongues he confesses that he thanks God that he speaks in tongues more than did any of the Corinthians (18), but to keep with his exaltation of the body's edification he adds that he would rather speak five words in his understood language than 10,000 words in tongues (19).

Paul exhorts them to be men of understanding, after the which he quoted Isaiah 28:11 to show them the purpose for tongues (20-21). Tongues are a sign for unbelievers, but prophecy is for those who are believers (22). Even though tongues are a sign for unbelievers, if the whole church is giving themselves over to tongues-speaking, unbelievers will think the people are crazy because they can not understand anything being said (23). On the other hand, if all are prophesying, the unbelievers will understand and will be convinced, worship God, and tell others that God is truly among the Corinthians (24-25).

If this is the case, Paul argues with the church as to why they are coming together with everyone having their own psalm, doctrine, interpretation, etc.? To bring edification to the body Paul restricted the gift of diverse kinds of tongues to two or three messages and interpretations per meeting, and regulated the speakers (27-28). He also limited the gift of prophecy in the same manner (29-32). The reason for this limiting is due to God's nature of peace instead of confusion (33). After commanding the women to silence (by commanding them to ask their questions to their man at home) (34-35), and warning of spiritual arrogance (36-38), Paul again encourages them to prophesy, and commands them not to forbid speaking in tongues, and that all these things be done decently and in order (39-40). Paul ends this section concerned about edification and order in the church.

I so love this topic