Why can’t i speak in tongues as a Christian
- Thread starter Elo
- Start date
-
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.
you must keep the context of healing and the empowering of the Holy Spirit.
Both Peter and Paul had to wait until Jesus left to receive the Holy Spirit, which both spoke in tongues when that happened, Peter on the Day of Pentacost and Paul when Ananias laid hands on him as a Disciple of the Lord.
Healing was used to confirm that Jesus was alive because that is who Peter healed in the name of. We know that Peter was used in many of the gifts of the Holy Spirit that are listed in 1corthains chapter `12, yet Peter was used in them Before they were even in the letter from Paul to Corinthians. Paul was a teacher. Therefore, he was used by the Holy Spirit to bring the understanding of these operations of the gifts of the Holy Spirit well after many people were already using them.
Generally true, although #2 should also contain "Rebuke" and "Correct".
IN SOME CASES, the Prophetic word can also come from a "non spiritual" person, and be recognized by the HEARER as "God's word to them" - often in cases of CORRECTION. Remember that OLD TESTAMENT people spoke prophesy and WERE NOT indwelled by the Holy Spirit. the same occurs today.
P
Polar
Guest
One has to invite God for the healing to happen through the laying on of hands.
Something to the effect of “Dear God my Father, (explain the situation) please help if it be Your will because You can use me as a vessel (or use my hands). Thank You. In the name of Jesus amen.”
This is just my experience. I’ve seen it confirmed by someone else so far.
I think I have had this happen, but for comfort. Also, I think I've heard someone prophesy over me without really realizing he'd done it.
I mean if you got a word of knowledge for someone, shared with it with that person, and that person says, "That is not confirmation. I did not know that already." does that prove that the word of knowledge is false?
P
Polar
Guest
I see you still do not know the difference between prophecy and a word of knowledge
you just want to bicker because I disagree with your use of personal prophecy
smh
I suspect you do not know the difference. I have a new post 'in the hopper', waiting for approval that discusses the difference, right in the OP, the start of a new thread, if you are interested. Why interpret things negatively.... bicker. My question is a valid one based on past conversation.
There isn't that much to go on for what 'word of knowledge' means other than the meaning of the words that make it up, and how they are used elsewhere in scripture, since that combination of words shows up once in scripture.
P
Polar
Guest
sorry mr presidente, but you are not my presidente
I do know the difference which is why I can see that you do notI am not interested in having a conversation with you as I do not need another fruitless conversation to know we do not agree
but I will say that nowhere in scripture do we see people lined up for words from a prophet or seer. your examples from the OT still do not give credence to your practice as prophets were either sent or called for and no one stood in prophecy lines then either and they should certainly NOT be doing so now and should not be attending schools for prophets as some churches have
your question is only valid to you and if you think the Bible is not clear on the concept of word of knowledge, then perhaps you are blurring the lines...but I already said that
continue as you will but you are teaching folks to be dependent on people rather than God
my last word to you on the subject.
people love having their ears tickled but give a word of rebuke or correction and see what happens. there would not be any mega churches if the word were actually given or if an actual prophet stood up and asked why they preferred people over God
you have the last word but thankfully, God has me covered on that as well. prophesy away...falls on the ground and is not from God
P
Polar
Guest
as it is, president again centers in on his favorite topic...his penchant for personal prophecy
this thread is not about that at all but he has no problem hijacking it.
on ignore you are
this thread is not about that at all but he has no problem hijacking it.
on ignore you are
To get back more specifically to the OP, Paul asks 'Do all speak with tongues?' Literally, that would be rendered 'not all speak in tongues speak'. (I Corinthians 12:30.)
There are those who say stuff like, "He's talking about giving a message in tongues in the congregation, not tongues as a prayer language' or 'not tongues as initial evidence.' Some Pentecostals treat 'initial evidence' tongues as the same thing as tongues as a 'prayer language' and some do not.
But verses from which we get the whole idea about praying in tongues in the first place treat speaking in tongues in the congregation as the same kind of thing as speaking in tongues. For example from I Corinthians 14,
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
Here we see that one speaking in tongues edifies himself. But Paul treats that as the same thing as the kind of tongue that is interpreted in verse 5.
Or what about these verses:
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
So what is the evidence that everyone can speak in tongues? In Acts 2, it says of the disciples that 'they began to speak with tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.' A more natural reading is that this refers to the 120. Some insist it refers only to the 12 apostles. Be that as it may, in Acts 10, when the Spirit fell on the Gentiles in Cornelius house.
Acts 10
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Does 'they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God' prove that each individual there spoke with tongues? That seems rather inconclusive. In one Gospel, the disciples ask why the ointment wasn't sold and given to the poor. In John, we discover it was Judas Iscariot who said it. Sometimes when 'they' do something in the Bible, a representative of a group do it, or some in a group do it. Also, if half the people there magnified God in Greek or Aramaic and the other half spoke with tongues, wouldn't the wording of the passage be true.
There is also this passage in Acts 19,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
So if some of them spoke in tongues and prophesied, or half spoke in tongues and half prophesied, wouldn't these verses fit that situation?
Experientially, a lot of people do experience speaking in tongues along with an experience of Spirit-empowerment. But some Pentecostal churches that emphasize speaking in tongues as 'initial evidence' have those people who keep coming up at altar calls, hoping to speak in tongues, for years. I have also seen, mainly Charismatics, trying to coax or almost coach some sort of utterance out of people to get them to make some noise as if that is going to necessarily be speaking in tongues. Not all do that, but I've seen that sort of thing. I don't believe the Holy Spirit needs that kind of 'help.'
The initial evidence doctrine brought a bit of division with it. It split the Pentecostal Holiness church. FF Bosworth left the Assemblies of God over it and went back to the CMA and had a great healing ministry after that from what I've read. He wrote a tract, "Do all speak with tongues?' about the issue back then.
Experientially, I know a brother who goes to an A/G and interprets tongues. There is another interpreter, and the other guy sometimes beats him to the punch and gives the same interpretation he was going to. (That sort of thing happens, where someone else gets the same interpretation of tongues, which is pretty cool.) But this man has never spoken in tongues himself. He's prophesied and interpreted tongues.
I think we have to be careful not to make up really clear doctrines where the Bible doesn't, and not people into bondage into our own traditions and mindset. We shouldn't promise God will work in a very specific way when the Bible doesn't not clearly teach that He must.
I see a better case in scripture that anyone in the church could potentially prophesy than for everyone being able to speak with tongues. If you look up the word 'dunast'e' in I Corinthians 14:31, it means 'to be able to'. "For ye may all prophesy" it says in the KJV. It makes sense that 'ye' means the congregation.
There are those who say stuff like, "He's talking about giving a message in tongues in the congregation, not tongues as a prayer language' or 'not tongues as initial evidence.' Some Pentecostals treat 'initial evidence' tongues as the same thing as tongues as a 'prayer language' and some do not.
But verses from which we get the whole idea about praying in tongues in the first place treat speaking in tongues in the congregation as the same kind of thing as speaking in tongues. For example from I Corinthians 14,
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
Here we see that one speaking in tongues edifies himself. But Paul treats that as the same thing as the kind of tongue that is interpreted in verse 5.
Or what about these verses:
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
So what is the evidence that everyone can speak in tongues? In Acts 2, it says of the disciples that 'they began to speak with tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.' A more natural reading is that this refers to the 120. Some insist it refers only to the 12 apostles. Be that as it may, in Acts 10, when the Spirit fell on the Gentiles in Cornelius house.
Acts 10
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Does 'they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God' prove that each individual there spoke with tongues? That seems rather inconclusive. In one Gospel, the disciples ask why the ointment wasn't sold and given to the poor. In John, we discover it was Judas Iscariot who said it. Sometimes when 'they' do something in the Bible, a representative of a group do it, or some in a group do it. Also, if half the people there magnified God in Greek or Aramaic and the other half spoke with tongues, wouldn't the wording of the passage be true.
There is also this passage in Acts 19,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
So if some of them spoke in tongues and prophesied, or half spoke in tongues and half prophesied, wouldn't these verses fit that situation?
Experientially, a lot of people do experience speaking in tongues along with an experience of Spirit-empowerment. But some Pentecostal churches that emphasize speaking in tongues as 'initial evidence' have those people who keep coming up at altar calls, hoping to speak in tongues, for years. I have also seen, mainly Charismatics, trying to coax or almost coach some sort of utterance out of people to get them to make some noise as if that is going to necessarily be speaking in tongues. Not all do that, but I've seen that sort of thing. I don't believe the Holy Spirit needs that kind of 'help.'
The initial evidence doctrine brought a bit of division with it. It split the Pentecostal Holiness church. FF Bosworth left the Assemblies of God over it and went back to the CMA and had a great healing ministry after that from what I've read. He wrote a tract, "Do all speak with tongues?' about the issue back then.
Experientially, I know a brother who goes to an A/G and interprets tongues. There is another interpreter, and the other guy sometimes beats him to the punch and gives the same interpretation he was going to. (That sort of thing happens, where someone else gets the same interpretation of tongues, which is pretty cool.) But this man has never spoken in tongues himself. He's prophesied and interpreted tongues.
I think we have to be careful not to make up really clear doctrines where the Bible doesn't, and not people into bondage into our own traditions and mindset. We shouldn't promise God will work in a very specific way when the Bible doesn't not clearly teach that He must.
I see a better case in scripture that anyone in the church could potentially prophesy than for everyone being able to speak with tongues. If you look up the word 'dunast'e' in I Corinthians 14:31, it means 'to be able to'. "For ye may all prophesy" it says in the KJV. It makes sense that 'ye' means the congregation.
It's hard to call our interactions a 'conversation.' I disprove what you argue with scripture, and you ignore it and make passive-aggressive comments, at least for part of it.
Straw man. Quote where I said people should line up for prophecies. I have said you don't have any scripture to justify condemning someone asking someone else if they have a word, wanting to consult with someone with the gift of prophecy, or to oppose personal prophecies given in church. 'Personal prophecies' can be edifying to the congregation, and I've seen personal prophecies given in a congregational setting, quite a number of them.
False dichotomy. We depend on God. God works through circumstances and other people if He so chooses.
That's a foolish judgment, maybe even a curse-- not appropriate for a conversation like this. Especially since you obviously know so little about me, or whatever gifts I operate on.
I consider why I have operated in to fall in the word of knowledge category, btw. You shouldn't try to make enemies or oppose people the way you do.... me at least, with your writing style, which can be kind of passive-aggressive. Though it's a fuzzy area, and some might consider some of it to be a kind of prophetic prayer.
That's what you said last time.
I like many, many topics. Prophecy, personal or otherwise, is one of many topics. I wouldn't call it my favorite, or say I operate in it. If you want to pass judgments about others, you should get your facts straight...for someone who claims to have operated in the word of knowledge.... if someone doesn't have the facts right when they make judgments about me and share them publicly, that' s a hint to take it with a grain of salt.
When the scriptures are read in there entirety the message is clear. Peter confirmed that the Gentiles received the Holy Ghost just as those did on the Day of Pentecost; they were filled with the Holy Ghost
The Holy Spirit doesn't force one to speak in tongues, pray, lay hands, or be used in healing. All actions are done by Yeilding vessels.
Of course, not all are used in the "gifts of the Holy Spirit", but it is seen in the word of God at the time in every recorded instance.
Those who were empowered with the Holy Spirit for other first time 1. spoke in tongues or two Propheised or three did both.
There is no scripture to say those like Cornilous Household spoke in tongues more than what is given. That is the same for the disciples Paul laid hands on.
"..in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. (2 Cor. 13:1)