Benefits of Speaking, Praying, and Singing in Tongues

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

BenFTW

Senior Member
Oct 7, 2012
4,834
981
113
33
What some of us may be failing to see is the contradiction between the tongues spoken at Pentecost and the gift of tongues spoken of in 1 Corinthians 14. Please understand the apparent contradiction of tongues that need no interpretation for the disciples were supernaturally gifted to speak in the language of those listening, and then in 1 Corinthians 14, the gift of tongues where people are still gifted with the ability to speak in languages they are not fluent and yet need interpretation for those listening. This interpretation, itself, also being a gift of the Spirit.

Tongues at Pentecost, no interpretation needed. Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14, interpretation needed (in public setting). One could argue that the disciples didn't receive the gift of tongues but simply a manifestation of them (a one time event). One could argue that the tongues spoken of in each passage is in reference to the gift of tongues, but sometimes it doesn't need an interpretation (as the passerby hears his/her own language) or the witnesses do not understand what is spoken (including the tongue speaker) and therefore the gift of interpretation needs to be operated (or prayer for understanding/an interpretation).

What we gather all together is that the gift of tongues is a multi-faceted gift, it isn't one dimensional and serves multiple purposes. Acts 2 is by no means the full picture of tongues, specifically the gift of tongues. This can easily be seen through the apostle Paul's dissertation of the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14. There is singing and praying in tongues, spoken of in such passages. It is clear that not at all times do people understand the tongues they speak, but they ought to pray that they interpret for the edification of those listening. This isn't some natural method by which a man supernaturally speaks German and then asks a German translator to interpret for the crowd. No, for why then does the tongue speaker get encouraged to pray that they may interpret?

So you see, the gift of tongues is multi-faceted and with it are directions on its use. We cannot bring it down from a gift of the Spirit to some natural understanding of the scripture by which the supernatural element of it all is dismissed. It is supernatural and it is from God. It is not to be forbidden and in fact is a blessing to those who operate in it and those who are ministered to by it.
 

Kavik

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2017
785
157
43
I may have posted this on another thread – I honestly do not remember, but it does not appear to be posted here. Apologies if it amounts to a ‘double post’ and apologies for a considerably long post here.


A question that is frequently asked is “How do you know that modern 'Tongues' are not a language; heavenly, angelic, or otherwise?”

Great question! But it’s one that definitely does not have a quick and easy answer.

I’ll try and sum it up as best and concisely as I can.

First, this may be kind of stating the obvious, but real languages, whether currently spoken or long dead, are immediately recognizable as such. By this I mean that it may take a bit to identify the actual specific language, but it will nonetheless be recognized as real language.

This simply does not happen with modern Pentecostal/Charismatic tongues. In fact, it does not happen with any type of glossolalia, whether spoken by a Christian here in the US or an Evenki shaman in Siberia,

Some people are quick to tell me that I am trying to ‘explain/understand the spiritual in earthly terms’, or something along those lines, or that there are thousands of languages in the word, how do you know tongues is not one of these (whether ancient or modern)??

There are indeed many intangible things in religion that that must be taken solely on faith alone; they cannot be proven, nor can they be disproven.

Tongues however are not one of these things – they are something very tangible, something very physical. Tongues can be and have been examined, analyzed and studied with all results yielding the same conclusions.

So how/why is modern tongues not language?

When discussing what makes up language, there are a number of factors one must consider. Let’s start with one of the easier ones; phonology. Phonology concerns itself with the sounds of a given language and how those sounds are put together such that the result is acceptable to all speakers of that language. Phonology also defines what is allowed and disallowed with respect to how these sounds are put together. In addition, suprasegmental elements, things like stress, accent/pitch/tone are also considered.

With tongues (hereafter T-speech), phonology is unique to the phenomenon; a speaker’s T-speech will only contain those sounds found in that speaker’s native language and any other language s/he may be familiar with (actively or passively). It’s important to keep in mind that the sounds may also contain those found in other languages the speaker is familiar with – this is something that’s frequently overlooked and leads people to think that because some sounds produced do not occur in the speaker’s native language, it must be legitimate “tongues”.

Further, even within that set of sounds (called a ‘phonemic inventory’) a ‘tongue’ will typically only contain a select smaller number (a subset) of those sounds. Typically, this subset consists of sounds that are easier to produce in the vocal tract than the ones excluded from the subset. For example, it’s much easier to produce a ‘sh’ sound than it is to produce a ‘j’ sound. The ‘sh’ does not require as great a deal of effort to produce.

What is also found in T-speech is that any disallowed combinations of sounds in the speaker’s native language (and those s/he is also familiar with) will also be disallowed in the speaker’s T-speech.

For the most part, accent, tone, word stress, etc. will also echo the speaker’s native language.

From the above, one can easily see that T-speech will never contain a different, unique phonemic inventory specific to that ‘tongue’ which totally differs from the speaker’s native language. We are simply dealing with a subset of the sounds found in the speaker’s native language typically containing the easiest sounds to produce (physiologically).

As a simple example, an American English speaker’s T-speech will never contain the click sounds found in some languages of southern Africa (unless, of course, that speaker has had contact in some way with those languages). One curious thing that American speakers tend to do concerns the ‘r’ sound. Rather than produce the usual American ‘r’ (as in “red”), they will either turn it into a single flap (like the ‘t’ in most people’s pronunciation of “water”), or they’ll produce a trilled ‘r’ as found in various European languages. Why is this done? It makes the T-speech sound less like American English and speakers tend to perceive what their producing as more “foreign sounding”.

The fact that ‘tongues’ do not contain any unique sounds not found in the speaker’s own language(s) however cannot be the sole defining factor of whether you have an actual language or not. Other factors also need to be considered.

Syllable structure may be taken into account, but really only marginally – typically the syllables of T-speech are simplifies to an all open pattern; that is, they consist of Consonant + Vowel (CV) despite the fact that the speaker’s native language can contain closed syllables (CVC). The fact that the syllable structure of T-speech is simplified from the speaker’s own, again, does not constitute ‘non-language’; there are plenty of languages in the word that have this type of syllable structure (Polynesian languages come immediately to mind)

The main defining factor for most Linguists with respect to T-speech is the ‘words’ themselves.

Every language contains something called ‘morphemes’. These are the smallest meaningful units in a given language. Morphemes come in two flavors; free and bound. As an example, take the word “players” – this word contains three morphemes; one free, two bound. ‘Play’ is a verb; it describes an action. It is also a free morpheme as it can stand alone as a word all by itself. The ‘–er’ is a morpheme of English that takes a verb and creates a noun out of it denoting the ‘doer’ of the action described in the verb. In this case the ‘–er’ indicates “(some)one who plays”. It is a bound morpheme since it cannot be used on its own. Finally, we have the ‘-s’. This is the plural marker in English and it is also a bound morpheme. So ‘players’ has three distinct morphemes which make up the word: “play +er +s”.

My point is that for something to be a language, regardless where or by whom the language is spoken, it must have morphemes; they are the bits and pieces that create language itself – sounds are put together in syllables and syllables are used to create morphemes. Without morphemes, you don’t have language. It’s just that simple. You may have something that is a façade of language, sounds like a legit language, but it is nonetheless not language.

Morphemes in turn are put together to make words, words are then put together to make phrases by means of a defined grammar. The phrases I’m referring to are linguistic phrases found in language; for example, a Noun-Phrase (NP). A noun-phrase contains an optional article (definite or indefinite, i.e. ‘the’ or’ a/an’) + a noun + an optional plural marker, so: NP= (article) NOUN (plural marker). Other examples of phrases include verb phrase, prepositional phrase, adverb phrase, etc.

All languages have some type of grammar – grammar being simply an agreed upon way in which these phrases are put together to make a cohesive, intelligible sentence to speakers of that language. Grammar also involves an agreed upon way in which to order these words/phrases. This is known as syntax.

Here’s the thing…..

T-speech does not contain any of the above features. You cannot write a ‘sentence’ down in T-speech and break it down into phrases and then break those phrases down into individual morphemes. T-speech does not contain morphemes and, as mentioned above, without morphemes, you don’t have language.

If you were to write down a ‘sentence’ of T-speech, there’s no way anyone can point to a given ‘word’ in that sentence and say, “this means ‘X’”, or “this little part on this word here denotes the plural.”

Further, a given morpheme in a language cannot have several different ‘interpretations/meanings’.

Let’s take a look at this....

In T-speech, if one were to record a sample and play it to several people who ‘interpret tongues,’ one would get several different interpretations; usually totally different and unrelated to each other. Occasionally, some similarities may be noted between interpretations, but given the religious context of interpretations, occasional similarity or overlap is to be expected.

Language simply does not work that way. You can’t have multiple meanings/interpretations for the same sentence; As someone once said, “Pentecostal Darwinism does not exist – you can’t have multiple meanings to justify an obvious discrepancy.” You can however certainly have subtleties that change the nuance of what’s being said, but “The brown dog is big.” can never be “The white cat is small.” which is what happens frequently with T-speech with respect to multiple interpretations for the same ‘sentence’.

Further, another complicating issue is that the ‘interpretation’ of any given utterance is typically inordinately longer than the actual glossic string. There are indeed languages in the world where one word can often translate into an entire sentence in English, but an entire paragraph or two simply does not happen in any language. Again, without getting into details here, many will argue that T-speech and its subsequent interpretation are totally different phenomenon not at all related to one another.

T-speech fails on even the simplest definition and criteria of what communication and language consists of.

In addition to the above, one other element must also be considered. Languages will contain a lexicon. A lexicon is simply a ‘dictionary’, if you will, of morphemes with their meanings. When one learns a language, one is learning a lexicon as well – all the meaningful particles of that language and their assigned meaning. T-speech does not have anything even remotely suggestive of a lexicon.

If one were to imagine a purely hypothetical situation just for the purpose of this exercise – an alien craft lands and beings emerge and begin speaking to humans in a language which no one on earth has ever heard before. That language will contain morphemes, a grammar, a lexicon, and although we may not have the physical ability to reproduce them, phonemes. The morphemes, grammar and lexicon may be completely alien (no pun intended) to our way of thinking, but they will be there nonetheless. These things are universal to language. Even the meowing patterns of cats, the songs of the humpback whale, and the ‘dancing patterns’ of honeybees, as ‘alien’ as they may seem to us, all conform to the criteria of ‘communication’ with respect to a single general meaning assigned to a specific pattern. T-speech just doesn’t have this – you can’t have several (often distinctly) different meanings for the same utterance; to do so negates the need T-speech in the first place.

Lastly, there are no two ‘tongues’ that are exactly alike. Each one is unique to the individual speaker. Oftentimes speakers report being able to produce several different ‘tongues’ – This is just the subconscious drawing upon a different subset set of phonemes – the same set isn’t always used every time a person speaks; for some speakers it’s a rather random thing and thus, it comes across as a totally different ‘tongue’.

That said, there’s definitely a lot of copying of particular ‘phrases’ or ‘words’ that well known pastors use that speakers will either consciously or unconsciously pick up on and copy. One that I hear frequently is “kishanda” (usually pronounced “kee-SHAHN-dah”) which I would argue it is simply derived from a corrupted pronunciation of the English word “Sunday”. This copying of certain words between speakers has become so common with the advent of the computer age and the internet that the words have almost become ‘standardized’. It is noted that these words typically are used to initiate a glossic string which begs the question of whether speakers are using this to, I’m not sure how to word it, “initiate a glossic utterance”, rather than coming up with their own way to initiate a glossic string.

Another rarer element of T-speech is the corrupting of actual words (in the speaker’s native language) to fit the syllable and sound structure of that speaker’s T-speech. One speaker from Australia (whose T-speech was studied and transcribed) used a lot of such words.

“Phrases” in T-speech are often inter-dispersed with praise phrases in the speaker’s native language. It’s not uncommon to hear a speaker say things like “Praise Jesus”, “Hallelujah”, “In Jesus’ name”, etc. while engaged in T-speech. Hebrew terms are also not uncommonly heard. These include words such as ‘meshiakh’,’Yeshu’a’, Yahweh, etc. This usage seems to lend to the ‘authenticity’ of the practice of T-speech.

Another characteristic of T-speech not found in language (unless children’s ‘play language’ is taken into consideration) is the repetition of the same syllable several times. This typically occurs at the end of a given glossic string. Some words in languages, particularly if that language has the syllable structure CV and contains a rather limited phonemic inventory (again, languages of Oceana come to mind here), they still will never contain the same syllable repeated multiple times at the end of a given word.

Given all the above factors, there is simply no way to argue for modern tongues as language.

There are, as many people point out, thousands of languages in the world, even ancient ones that are no longer spoken – how do we know tongues isn’t one of them? It’s rather straightforward: by the same criteria as described above. And, yes, there are indeed thousands of languages spoken in the world today – but not one of them is remotely close to what people are producing in their glossolalia/tongues.

On a more esoteric /new-agey note (and one can either take this or leave it), if tongues were a "universal heavenly language", there'd only be one; not one unique one for each individual speaker (i.e. countless thousands); that just doesn't stand to logical reasoning. Why would there ever be a need for more than one heavenly/angelic language?

One could also argue that tongues, being a ‘heavenly’ language does not need to have all these things described above. It’s a “heavenly language” after all, and does not need to be bound by any human definitions of language, thus you’re trying to analyze something spiritual/supernatural in earthly terms.

The constraints described further above however, are, as mentioned, universal – if you utter a string of sounds and call it language, those sounds must have some type of structure which defines it and assign it meaning (morphemic structure, grammar, syntax, etc.), otherwise it’s simply free vocalization produced by the subconscious; non-cognitive non-language utterances (NC-NLU’s) – the best working and most accurate description of modern T-speech.

What about the argument that there are “thousands of languages spoken in the world today, how can anyone know that ‘tongues’ are not one of them?” As previously mentioned, yes, there are indeed thousands of languages spoken in the world today – unfortunately not one of them is remotely close to what people are producing in their glossolalia/tongues.

As one Linguist puts it, “Among us (Linguists), we have heard many hundreds of languages. Furthermore, we have heard representative languages in virtually every group of related languages in the world and have studied at least one representative of related languages from every group of related languages in the ancient world. At worst we may have missed a few small groups in some of the more remote parts of the world. I would estimate that the chances are at least even that if a glossolalic utterance is in a known language, one of us would either recognize the language or recognize that it is similar to some language we are acquainted with, modern or ancient."

This same Linguist further makes this challenge: "Get two recordings, one of a glossolalic utterance and the other in a real language remote from anything I have ever heard. I'm confident that in just a few moments I could tell which is which and why I am sure of it."

As a linguist, I completely concur with his challenge - real language is unmistakable, as is glossolalia/T-speech.

Without getting into further lengthy discussions (already done on other posted topics regarding tongues), in all cases where the Bible talks about ‘tongues’ it is simply a reference to real language – there’s nothing in those passages that cannot be explained in the context of real language. I would even argue that in some cases, given the context of the situation, it’s much easier to understand the passage in terms of real language than it is in terms of ‘tongues’.

Modern tongues are simply not what those that ‘speak’ them perceive, want, or need them to be.

Are they a tool by which a person can establish a closer relationship with the divine and thus strengthen their spiritual path? Can their usage even aid in the physical/spiritual healing process? To both questions…Yes, absolutely! This is done in both Christian and non-Christian usage, I would argue, on a daily basis.

It must be noted however, that the use of this tool is highly dependent on one’s faith; the two go hand-in-hand. Tongues cannot correctly be used without faith, no matter what religious path that faith may encompass. For many, both Christians and non-Christians alike, tongues are in fact a very powerful tool.

Are they a heavenly/angelic language or a language spoken somewhere on earth? No, they are not. Tongues are completely self-created whether speakers are consciously aware of it or not. As such, they are neither supernatural, nor mysterious.
 

RickyZ

Senior Member
Sep 20, 2012
9,635
787
113
With respect to hyperbole used in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, there are a ton of sources on the internet that go into detail more than I ever could here – just do a search for ‘hyperbole in Paul’s epistles.’

I have to assume here that you know every language that has ever been spoken? tongues of men - wouldn't those be known languages? . . . On the day of Pentecost didn't people recognize their own language? . . . Did the apostles know those languages before they spoke?

As one Linguist puts it, “Among us (Linguists), we have heard many hundreds of languages. Furthermore, we have heard representative languages in virtually every group of related languages in the world and have studied at least one representative of related languages from every group of related languages in the ancient world. At worst we may have missed a few small groups in some of the more remote parts of the world. I would estimate that the chances are at least even that if a glossolalic utterance is in a known language, one of us would either recognize the language or recognize that it is similar to some language we are acquainted with, modern or ancient."

In almost 50 years of language study, I have become familiar with at least one language form almost every language family in the modern world as well as many in the ancient world. No I don’t know them all, but in this case, you don’t need to; to identify an unknown language, one looks for similarities to other languages – at the very least, the language family to which it belongs can and will be identified.

This same Linguist further makes this challenge: "Get two recordings, one of a glossolalic utterance and the other in a real language remote from anything I have ever heard. I'm confident that in just a few moments I could tell which is which and why I am sure of it."

As a linguist, I completely concur with his challenge - real language is unmistakable, as is glossolalia/T-speech.

Yes, people did recognize their own language – did the apostles know those languages before they spoke? Yes, since the languages were two they would have been fluent in; Greek and Aramaic.


There is no need to speculate that anything else happened except that which is written especially when it is so easy to understand as it is written.

My thoughts exactly.
Well, there ya go ... you can believe human linguists and your own mind or you can believe the word of God.

You'll forgive me if I believe God and not you, right?
 

RickyZ

Senior Member
Sep 20, 2012
9,635
787
113
What some of us may be failing to see is the contradiction between the tongues spoken at Pentecost and the gift of tongues spoken of in 1 Corinthians 14. Please understand the apparent contradiction of tongues that need no interpretation for the disciples were supernaturally gifted to speak in the language of those listening, and then in 1 Corinthians 14, the gift of tongues where people are still gifted with the ability to speak in languages they are not fluent and yet need interpretation for those listening. This interpretation, itself, also being a gift of the Spirit.

Tongues at Pentecost, no interpretation needed. Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14, interpretation needed (in public setting). One could argue that the disciples didn't receive the gift of tongues but simply a manifestation of them (a one time event). One could argue that the tongues spoken of in each passage is in reference to the gift of tongues, but sometimes it doesn't need an interpretation (as the passerby hears his/her own language) or the witnesses do not understand what is spoken (including the tongue speaker) and therefore the gift of interpretation needs to be operated (or prayer for understanding/an interpretation).

What we gather all together is that the gift of tongues is a multi-faceted gift, it isn't one dimensional and serves multiple purposes. Acts 2 is by no means the full picture of tongues, specifically the gift of tongues. This can easily be seen through the apostle Paul's dissertation of the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14. There is singing and praying in tongues, spoken of in such passages. It is clear that not at all times do people understand the tongues they speak, but they ought to pray that they interpret for the edification of those listening. This isn't some natural method by which a man supernaturally speaks German and then asks a German translator to interpret for the crowd. No, for why then does the tongue speaker get encouraged to pray that they may interpret?

So you see, the gift of tongues is multi-faceted and with it are directions on its use. We cannot bring it down from a gift of the Spirit to some natural understanding of the scripture by which the supernatural element of it all is dismissed. It is supernatural and it is from God. It is not to be forbidden and in fact is a blessing to those who operate in it and those who are ministered to by it.
That's the thing - people see a dozen talking points on a subject. Some think each point is exclusive of the others (example, points 4,5, and 6 prove points 1-3 and 6-10 false). Others of us see them all as complementary pieces of the bigger picture (all points prove the entirety of a truth). And we know that people today, in their polarized positions, have lost the ability to see the big picture.

I personally think that in the events of Acts 2, those hearing the words in their own language were serving as the interpreters of what the apostles were speaking in tongues. It doesn't say the apostles were speaking in their language, it just says those assembled heard them in their language. Kinda like Paul if spoke in Swahili and they heard it in Greek.
 

88

Senior Member
Nov 14, 2016
3,517
77
48
Praying in Tongues/Encouragement and Strength ***Allow the Spirit to pray through you to strengthen and encourage you...
 

shrume

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2017
2,193
463
83
I find this very a strange statement to make?

How can I just do something that is a gift of the Holy Spirit
That's a big part of the problem. The GIFT is the Holy Spirit. Every Christian has the gift of the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. That gift comes with the ability to operate the nine MANIFESTATIONS of the gift. Speaking in tongues is one of the manifestations.

Christians who want to speak in tongues are waiting for God to do something that He's already done.

It's up to you do do it. (of course, you first have to understand what tongues is, and that you can do it..)
 

RickyZ

Senior Member
Sep 20, 2012
9,635
787
113
I find this very a strange statement to make?

How can I just do something that is a gift of the Holy Spirit
It's a partnership. God doesn't want us to stand around and watch Him do things. What did Jesus say, these things He did and even more WE WILL DO. Not, we will watch God do, but WE will do. God has the power to heal but He wants one of us to step up in faith to deliver it. God has wisdom and knowledge to share but He wants one of us to step up in faith and share it. Same way with tongues, God has a heavenly language for us to speak but He wants us to step up in faith and move our lips. The Spirit of the prophets is under the control of the prophets, right? Not that that means we command the Holy Spirit and He does our bidding, no way. But the Holy Spirit may have something for you to move on, and if you don't, well then you've controlled it, haven't you?
 
U

UnderGrace

Guest
I do not know any scripture that tells me that all believers are given the gift of tongues?

I do know that scripture says God distributes the gifts according to His will...meaning not everyone gets the same gifts.


That's a big part of the problem. The GIFT is the Holy Spirit. Every Christian has the gift of the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. That gift comes with the ability to operate the nine MANIFESTATIONS of the gift. Speaking in tongues is one of the manifestations.

Christians who want to speak in tongues are waiting for God to do something that He's already done.

It's up to you do do it. (of course, you first have to understand what tongues is, and that you can do it..)
 
Feb 21, 2012
3,794
199
63
I do not know any scripture that tells me that all believers are given the gift of tongues?

I do know that scripture says God distributes the gifts according to His will...meaning not everyone gets the same gifts.
1 Cor. 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man [believer] for the common good. Then v8-10 list the manifestation. Every believer is filled with holy spirit, baptized with holy spirit, sealed with holy spirit and every believer can manifest that gift.
 

RickyZ

Senior Member
Sep 20, 2012
9,635
787
113
I do not know any scripture that tells me that all believers are given the gift of tongues?

I do know that scripture says God distributes the gifts according to His will...meaning not everyone gets the same gifts.
That is a curious juxtaposition... Paul called it the least of the gifts, yet it is the only one he wished we all would do. And yes he did say not all of us will.
 
Feb 21, 2012
3,794
199
63
That is a curious juxtaposition... Paul called it the least of the gifts, yet it is the only one he wished we all would do. And yes he did say not all of us will.
If the manifestation is given to every man for the common good and Paul wished we all spake in tongues . . . . Where did he say that "not all of us will"?
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
It's a partnership. God doesn't want us to stand around and watch Him do things. What did Jesus say, these things He did and even more WE WILL DO. Not, we will watch God do, but WE will do. God has the power to heal but He wants one of us to step up in faith to deliver it. God has wisdom and knowledge to share but He wants one of us to step up in faith and share it. Same way with tongues, God has a heavenly language for us to speak but He wants us to step up in faith and move our lips. The Spirit of the prophets is under the control of the prophets, right? Not that that means we command the Holy Spirit and He does our bidding, no way. But the Holy Spirit may have something for you to move on, and if you don't, well then you've controlled it, haven't you?
1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

God does not need your cooperation. How much you do is determined by how much you yield to His control. Anything done in the strength of the arm of flesh is not of God but man.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
Well, there ya go ... you can believe human linguists and your own mind or you can believe the word of God.

You'll forgive me if I believe God and not you, right?
The Holy Spirit is easily grieved by the imposition of mans will. You can believe the word of God or you can follow the ever changing landscape of the hottest ministry.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
Nov 23, 2016
510
37
0
Paul called it the least of the gifts, yet it is the only one he wished we all would do. And yes he did say not all of us will.
The more languages spoken, the greater the audience hearing God's majesty in Christ proclaimed. Of course it was Paul's desire that all would speak in tongues.
 
Nov 23, 2016
510
37
0
Same way with tongues, God has a heavenly language for us to speak but He wants us to step up in faith and move our lips.
Complete nonsense fabricated without scriptural support.
 

Kavik

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2017
785
157
43
The more languages spoken, the greater the audience hearing God's majesty in Christ proclaimed.

That’s it exactly – in order for the message to spread to new lands and various peoples, it had to be done in a language they could understand. Greek was great and it was the “English” of its day, but it only took you so far. Paul, being multi-lingual himself as a result of his travels, wished that others were familiar with as many languages as he was in order that the message might be more easily spread to new lands and new peoples. But it’s real language we’re talking about here, not free-vocalization of something that sounds like language. Mark 16:17 “they will speak in new languages” is a reference to this spreading the message in various ‘new’ languages. “New languages” simply meaning people will need to learn new languages in order to spread the message of Christianity to the world; i.e. if I decided to learn say Basque, it would be a ‘new’ language to me; I don’t know Basque, but it certainly wouldn’t be a ‘new language’ to Basques. The point being, I’m still talking about real language here, not modern ‘tongues’.
 
U

UnderGrace

Guest
Well this is not what scripture says. It does not say all.

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. [SUP]8 [/SUP]To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, [SUP]9 [/SUP]to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, [SUP]10 [/SUP]to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[SUP][a][/SUP] and to still another the interpretation of tongues.[SUP][b][/SUP] [SUP]11 [/SUP]All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.

1 Cor 8-11


1 Cor. 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man [believer] for the common good. Then v8-10 list the manifestation. Every believer is filled with holy spirit, baptized with holy spirit, sealed with holy spirit and every believer can manifest that gift.
 

RickyZ

Senior Member
Sep 20, 2012
9,635
787
113
If the manifestation is given to every man for the common good and Paul wished we all spake in tongues . . . . Where did he say that "not all of us will"?
1 Corinthians 12 in general, verse 30 in particular.