Lisa, thanx for your input. Sincere analyzing (as opposed to in-sincere analyzing/questioning as was done by the pharisees) is ...... I would think .......... in order. You do say we should seek to understand, be educated, and basically "rightly divide" the word of God. Yes, there is always that final "leap" we (even in our initial salvation experience) need to make by faith. It can not be put into a test tube and analyzed. Or in the example you give: we are not "shown" angels, yet we believe in these things, etc...
So at what point do we abandon reason, biblical study, etc... and just adhere to whatever another person says is joyous, empowering, etc... I don't know. I guess, for me, it's when I can see a clear cut answer to my questions. To deny that to a searcher, would be like if I asked you to be baptized in molasses. And if you tried to object and say the Bible says water is sufficient, I could tell you the same things: "Lisa, you're over-analyzing this way too much, just like the pharisees, every jot and tittle, etc... Don't you want to have power, or do you?" At some point, you would continue to return to the scripture questioning baptism in mollasses, and each time, the proponents would tell you to "take it by faith, and not be so legalistic".
I hope you see the analogy, that I need to be able to ask through these matters. And it is very fruitful, as I have been given much to think about. Basically, so far, it's how the "seeming" statement that not all will speak in tongues, in I Cor 12:30, does not say what it appears to say. The reasons given for this take on the verse, are compelling.
A part of me wants to say this: That would be like: If someone said that even though the Bible says not to steal, yet it's ok to steal on Thursdays. Because even though the "don't steal" command, *appears* to be a blanket command, yet what it *means* is, not to steal on the other days of the week. Thursdays, of course, are the exception to this rule. Now of course this is silly. But a part of me wonders why this doesn't apply to I Cor. 12:30? But I can already (I think) forsee the answer: That there does indeed seem to be various USES of tongues, and not just one USE (or type, or whatever you want to call it). So basically, the person interpretting the verse in this way, just needs to say, that this only applies to one usage. As I said, I can not see where this interprettation is permitted, nor can I see where it is denied. I am still looking into this, and will get back to the forumites on this thought. If anyone has a take on this way I Cor 12:30 can seem to "not apply", let me know.
I guess I'm currently of the position that tongues is just one of the gifts, and that ANY of the gifts are evidence of the Holy Spirit. I realize the Acts passages that some will turn to, to show what seems to show otherwise. To which, as before, I have noted that there were also Acts passages where no such phenonemon was recorded during fillings, salvations, etc... Leaving me to wonder: "are the few (2 or 3?) instances where it was recorded as co-occuring with a filling of the spirit "DESCRIPTIVE" or "PRESCRIPTIVE"? And by that I mean, if you say it's "prescriptive", then why not go the next step, and say that we should also expect flames of fire to appears? (because, logically, that too must have happened later in Acts as well, but is simply implied to have happened, but just not recorded?)
Forgive me for asking questions, but I am trying to be logical about this, and I know no other way than by asking questions, and examining answers in the light of logic, cross-references, etc....