Is it compulsory for a born again christian to speak in tongues? If yes, what can i do to speak in tongue, i've been praying for it but to no avail.

Insert Quote
Is it compulsory for a born again christian to speak in tongues? If yes, what can i do to speak in tongue, i've been praying for it but to no avail.

@napa,

Is it compulsory for a born again christian to speak in tongues? If yes, what can i do to speak in tongue, i've been praying for it but to no avail.

Like everything else in Christianity, the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the eveidence of speaking in tongues is a gift. Jesus said in Luke 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? What do you do when someone offers you a gift? you reach out and receive it. There is no need to be praying and praying and praying when the gift is already yours. Just as you never had to be praying, and praying and praying to get you salvation, same thing applies here.

Thank God for the gift, receive it by faith, then proceed to speak and you will be amazed how the Spirit of God will take over from there.

Re: Is It Compulsory For Born Agains To Speak In Tongue?

NO.


1Cor12:27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing[b]? Do all speak in tongues[/b]? Do all interpret?

  Speaking in tongues is a gift from God and not every christian has been given that gift.
If you desire to have it, pray to God for it and He will or will not give it to you, there's nothing you can do beyond that. Most definately do not try to force it or "claim it by faith" and start babbling like a lot of people do. If God has given it to you, it will be there.
  But you must also watch why you're asking for it, for the glorification of God and the edification of the body of Christ or just for show?

@Jesoul,

The scripture you refer to in 1 Corinthians 12 refers to divers kind of tongues. It is in a special class like the offices of a Prophet and Apsostles as the list indicates. Do you ask to become an Apostle? No it is a calling, same with the ability to speak in divers kind of tongues.

As to the gift of the holy Spirit with divers kind of tongues it is meant for every believer. the whole church is meant to speak in tongues. 1 Corinthians 14:23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues,

napa:

Is it compulsory for a born again christian to speak in tongues? If yes, what can i do to speak in tongue, i've been praying for it but to no avail.

Why do you ask people for answers that only God can provide you?? You know that even your own father and mother do not agree on basic things so why do you expect to get answers for your life from mere human beings?? Go Read your Bible and ask your God to tell you the answer and try to understand where and from whom the gift comes from to you.

Tayo-D:

@Jesoul,

The scripture you refer to in 1 Corinthians 12 refers to divers kind of tongues. It is in a special class like the offices of a Prophet and Apsostles as the list indicates. Do you ask to become an Apostle? No it is a calling, same with the ability to speak in divers kind of tongues.

  I have to disagree with you here Tayo. By saying in the preceding verses that not all are prophets, not all have the gift of healing, and logically following, not all have the gift of speaking in tongues, whether "diverse tongues" (as KJV translates) or not.

As to the gift of the holy Spirit with divers kind of tongues it is meant for every believer. the whole church is meant to speak in tongues. 1 Corinthians 14:23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues,

  "If" the whole church comes together and speaks in tongues. Not saying that the whole church should be speaking in tongues - two very different things.
  Oh and I have no problem with the church speaking in tongues, I just don't translate or understand any applicable scripture to mean all christians should be speaking in tongues.

Kai, some of these our arguments sha,

Tayo-D, I agree with you 100%. You must understand that people have been schooled in different teachings of the same doctrine. Just like some would say that women must cover their heads when they pray, whereas the this is not so.

Please I want to make it clear that this is a reply to the poster's post, and not an invitation to a theological debate with kobojunkie and his likes.


About speaking in tongues, first and foremost, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is a gift, a FREE gift. Jesus emphasized the importance of being baptized in the Holy Spirit.

"And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, "which, He said, "you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now" (Acts 1:4,5).

You will notice that the saints did not have to merit this gift by their works. It was given to them as long as they were in the upper room. Also, look at this scripture:
Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call" (Acts 2:38,39).

You see that? You are eligible to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit/speak in tongues after you get born again, I want to assume you know what that entails. If you read Acts 18:12-21, you'll see that the born-again and baptism experiences are two distinct and 'free-for-all-who-believe' things.

In 1 Corinthians 14:18 Paul says "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all." Do you think he was being proud or boastful? NO!!! He was telling them so as to provoke them to copy him, because he wanted the benefits he was experiencing to be thiers also. What are these benefits, you may ask? I'll try and break them down later BUT you must first beleive three basic things:
1. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit/speaking in tongues is a free gift.
2. You can receive it by virtue of the fact that you are born again.
3. All that you say after you receive it makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE to your ears but MEANS EVERYTHING in the realm of the spirit.


To receive it I'll suggest that you look for a good pastor or any beleiver who believes and knows more than I do to pray for and with you. I'll be awaiting YOUR feedback. Cheers bro.

I hate to turn this into a hot debate so I'll say this and leave it at that,

   

A_K_O:

You see that? You are eligible to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit/speak in tongues after you get born again,

AKO I like ur zeal. but I don't think any christian will disagree or diminish the importance of receiving/having the Holy Spirit BUT you are trying to equate having the Holy Spirit to speaking in tongues. The bible does not do that. The bible verses you quoted ALL speak on receving the Holy Spirit, and that tongues are frequently the manifestation of it.

BUT BUT BUT

  Speaking in tongues is not THE sign of salvation, but A sign. Speaking in tonues is a gift, we all agree on that.
Once you become saved you can or as you say "become eligible" to speak in tongues

BUT BUT BUT
  God gives this gift as He sees fit.

Again 1 Cor12:7-11, "But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues. But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will."
1 Cor12:29-30, "Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?"

  How can anyone possible read these verses and still arrive at the conclusion all believers must speak in tongues?

Jesoul you are right, you have made your point. Is either they take it or leave it. Their are so many false doctrines in the churches now. People translating the word of God to suit their own desire. I cry for today's churches so many things have gone wrong.

seems only Nigerian/African pastors speak in tongue

do Catholics speak in tongue as well?

Abeg just leave this topic out

@ Jesoul

Quote from: Tayo-D on December 20, 2007, 08:46 PM
@Jesoul,

The scripture you refer to in 1 Corinthians 12 refers to divers kind of tongues. It is in a special class like the offices of a Prophet and Apsostles as the list indicates. Do you ask to become an Apostle? No it is a calling, same with the ability to speak in divers kind of tongues.

I have to disagree with you here Tayo. By saying in the preceding verses that not all are prophets, not all have the gift of healing, and logically following, not all have the gift of speaking in tongues, whether "diverse tongues" (as KJV translates) or not.



Quote
As to the gift of the holy Spirit with divers kind of tongues it is meant for every believer. the whole church is meant to speak in tongues. 1 Corinthians 14:23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues,

"If" the whole church comes together and speaks in tongues. Not saying that the whole church should be speaking in tongues - two very different things.
Oh and I have no problem with the church speaking in tongues, I just don't translate or understand any applicable scripture to mean all christians should be speaking in tongues.

I agree with you on this. The gift of tongues like any other gift cannot be for everyone in the church. To speak of the gift of tongues as if it is special is going against what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14.

Each gift must be contextualised and understood for what purpose they serve. That is well done in Paul's letter to the Corinthian church as follows:

1 Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for[a] he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.

Like chapter 12 Paul prioritises the gifts though to a lesser extent. Obviously the most important gifts are those of love and prophesying.

Another point of note is the way Paul understood the gift to be back then as compared to how some christians seem to understand it today. Listen as he himself writes about it:

verse 6
But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching?

From this its clear what the purpose of tongues was. It was a horizontal communication method of expression. In other words my speaking in tongues (unless it was done to others), served no purpose. Worse yet it had to be understood by others, and if it couldn't then forget it. Think about it for awhile. If all of us use English to communicate what purpose would speaking with tongues serve?

If speaking in tongues was all about the individual and God then why would Paul be so concerned about it becoming a problem in the congregation? Why would he be putting some structure or organization to it, unless of course there was a reason for so doing? Listen as he puts things in perspective.

7 Even things without life, whether flute or harp, when they make a sound, unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played? 8 For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle? 9 So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. 11 Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me. 12 Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel.

Paul continues with an example that most have made into a rule,

13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding.

Paul says if you speak in a tongue within a congregation that don't understand pray that you can interpret. He uses praying in tongue as an example. The one praying will easily understand, but others won't. Same goes for those who sing in tongues.

Paul concludes,

18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

What did he mean by that? The fact that he kept using the phrase "in a tongue" or spoke with tongues" suggest something. It suggests that there was no special kind of tongue that somehow was designed to facilitate some mystical and rapturous bond between the individual and the Holy Spirit as some are making it out to be.

@ A K O

You see that? You are eligible to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit/speak in tongues after you get born again, I want to assume you know what that entails. If you read Acts 18:12-21, you'll see that the born-again and baptism experiences are two distinct and 'free-for-all-who-believe' things.

You're adding to the scriptures on this matter AKO. The gift that Peter spoke of was the Holy Spirit Himself and not tongues. If I say to you I will give you the gift of the house, isn't the house the same gift? The word gift in the sentence qualifies the object. Its not a possessive noun. Is not used to suggest that the Spirit has a gift in that context, but rather it is saying that the Spirit Himself is given to everyone who believes and is baptised.

The matter of accepting your version of understanding would then become contradictory if that were the case. It would mean, contrary to what Paul teaches, that everyone would naturally possess the gift of tongues, by merely believing and repenting, and being baptised.

Let me ask you a question. Did Jesus speak in tongues after He was baptised? Was He baptised by the same Holy Spirit? Why are you associating speaking in tongues with the recieving of the Holy Spirit? You have been taught that by your pastor, but that doesn't make it biblical.

In John 3 Jesus in His discourse with Nicademas never once introduced the topic of tongue speaking in association with the baptism of the Spirit. Why didn't He? Of all the persons with the authority to have done so didn't.

Your understanding completely contradicts Paul's letters to the Corinthian church as seen in 1 Cor. 12, 13, and 14.

From this its clear what the purpose of tongues was. It was a horizontal communication method of expression. In other words my speaking in tongues (unless it was done to others), served no purpose. Worse yet it had to be understood by others, and if it couldn't then forget it. Think about it for awhile. If all of us use English to communicate what purpose would speaking with tongues serve?

If speaking in tongues was all about the individual and God then why would Paul be so concerned about it becoming a problem in the congregation? Why would he be putting some structure or organization to it, unless of course there was a reason for so doing? Listen as he puts things in perspective.

Bobbyaf, excellent post! you make couple points that many don't pay attention to. Tongues is all too often a "personalized" thing, people want it for some sort of self gratification or glorification forgetting Paul stressed so much that it should be for the edification of the body. You also talked about interpretation which these days rarely follows speaking in tongues

1 Cor 14:26
What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.
If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret.
If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

on the contrary you walk into some churches and its a speaking in tongues galore with no interpretation going on and that is unscriptural.

@Bobbyaf,

Each gift must be contextualised and understood for what purpose they serve. That is well done in Paul's letter to the Corinthian church as follows:

The statement in bold is quite true. However, you have failed to indicate the diffferences between speaking in tongues and speaking in divers kind of tongues. I will explain the differences based on your statement that I have highlighted above i.e. the purpose that each serves.

Divers Kind of Tongues: The best example we find here is in Acts 2 during Pentecost. The main characteristic of divers kind of tongues is the fact that it is spoken in an ethnic language that can be understood by people who speak the language. That is why we find people of all nations understanding the disciples praise to God on Pentecost because it was done in their native language. This gift is meant to be a sign mainly to unbelievers as Paul indicated in1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. Can you imagine me praising God in Chines fluently in the presence of an unbelieving Chinese? He will either acknowledge that indeed, something supernatural just took place or get on a quest to confirm that I only pretended beforehand that I did not understood that language. Either way, I will get his attention. That is what divers kind of tongues are for.

Regular Prayer Tongues: Now this is meant for personal edification and is usually not understood by people around you. The purpose once again is for communication between a person and God, and also for personal spiritual development and edification. No one can understand this except such have the gift of interpretation or the person who spoke "keys" in and understand what he has said and provide the interpretation. This is why Paul siad this kind of tongues is not meant for congrgational worship because it is useless to others without interpretation.  So your statement: "From this its clear what the purpose of tongues was. It was a horizontal communication method of expression." is clearly negated by several scriptures such as: 1 Cor. 14:2  For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue s[b]peaketh not unto men, but unto God:[/b] for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries  28 - But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. ; So you see, tongues are for personal use and a vertical communication to God.

People are confused by this because they refuse to identify and separate the two different kinds of tongues indicated above. Now tell me, if tongues are mainly for horizontal communication alone, why would there be need to speak in the tongues of angels as Paul hinted?

@Bobbyaf,

You're adding to the scriptures on this matter AKO. The gift that Peter spoke of was the Holy Spirit Himself and not tongues.

Again you are right in the sense that the primary gift refered to is the Holy Spirit. Everyone born again has a deposit of the Spirit else, you cannot claim to be of God. However, the issue here is the infilling of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues.

Please go through the book of Acts and you will realise that the evidence to the infilling of the Holy Spirit is that people begin to speak in tongues. From Cornelius' household to the Ephesian disciples, they all spoke in tongues. Infact, I challenge you to find any case of anyone filled with the Holy spirit in the Book of Acts who didn't speak in tongues. 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 Did you notice the only way they could tell that they received the infilling was that they spoke in other tongues? 1 Corinthians 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. Agian, they spake in tongues as soon as they received the gift.

In John 3 Jesus in His discourse with Nicademas never once introduced the topic of tongue speaking in association with the baptism of the Spirit. Why didn't He? Of all the persons with the authority to have done so didn't.

Again the confusion arises when we don't really get the full gist of the matter. Jesus emphasis in John 3 was being born again. He mentions that everyone who believes will be baptized "with" the Holy Spirit. This is a separte event from being filled with the Holy Spirit, though both acts can happen at the same time as we see with the case of Cornelius and his Household. However, being filled with the Holy Spirit is usally a separate event which is why Paul said he wishes that every Christian will speak in tongues, in his epistle to the Corinthian church.
Getting born again through baptism into the Holy Spirit is a different thing entirely from being filled with the Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. We can talk more about this if you so wish, but for now I'll just keep it at that so we do not get pulled in differnet directions as we discuss this issue.

@ Tayod

Again you are right in the sense that the primary gift refered to is the Holy Spirit. Everyone born again has a deposit of the Spirit else, you cannot claim to be of God. However, the issue here is the infilling of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues.

I agree what the scriptures teach on the matter. However, if we look at the context then we can understand the central motif for such a gift. The infant church was commissioned to spread the gospel in certain places whose languages were different from that in Jerusalem. The jewish diaspora as you recall marvelled how Peter and the other disciples all spoke in their native language.

Please go through the book of Acts and you will realise that the evidence to the infilling of the Holy Spirit is that people begin to speak in tongues. From Cornelius' household to the Ephesian disciples, they all spoke in tongues. Infact, I challenge you to find any case of anyone filled with the Holy spirit in the Book of Acts who didn't speak in tongues.

I have done that quite a few times. I want you to notice how the expression "spoke in tongues" is used freely, and would still be understood as meaning "diverse kinds of tongues"

So Cornelius and other gentiles who became christians were subject to the same promise of recieving the gift of the Holy Spirit. They were also entitled to recieving the gift of tongues to facilitate their missionary efforts as well.

The real issue as we see it today is whether the tongues claimed by christians is what they say it is. Looking back at the early church's experience and comparing it with what occurs today smacks of something totally different.

----------------------------------------------------

Divers Kind of Tongues: The best example we find here is in Acts 2 during Pentecost. The main characteristic of divers kind of tongues is the fact that it is spoken in an ethnic language that can be understood by people who speak the language.

Understood by people who speak the language? Are you certain about that? Acts 2 says something totally different. In Acts 2 the diasporic jews who came from about 16 different nations, each having their unique tongue, marvelled when they heard the apostles speaking in their language. That was the initial purpose of the gift in breaking the language barrier so that the kingdom message could reach many with greater urgency.

That is why we find people of all nations understanding the disciples praise to God on Pentecost because it was done in their native language.

The gift being a miracle itself facilitated that process.

This gift is meant to be a sign mainly to unbelievers as Paul indicated in1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not:

Agreed! As was the case at Jerusalem.

Regular Prayer Tongues: Now this is meant for personal edification and is usually not understood by people around you.

I am not sure there is a thing called prayer tongue. The only scripture that alludes to it is that found in 1 Cor. 14, and this is how Paul puts it. Besides, if anything Paul is de-emphasising it.

13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. 16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? 17 For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified.

The purpose once again is for communication between a person and God, and also for personal spiritual development and edification.

Once again that concept isn't altogether true. One doesn't have to speak in tongues in order to communicate with God. Personal edification as used here by Paul is more negative than positive. The edifying here is seen as a selfish use of the gift in the light of it not being necessary in a congregational context. Paul prefers to see a corporate edification anytime over a personal one.

No one can understand this except such have the gift of interpretation or the person who spoke "keys" in and understand what he has said and provide the interpretation. This is why Paul siad this kind of tongues is not meant for congrgational worship because it is useless to others without interpretation.

It doesn't make sense at all. Why would I speak in tongues in a congregation that doesn't understand me, and expect to now come and have to interpret what was said on my part, whether by me or someone else, when I could have said all of that in the common language from day one? What is it that cannot be said in the common use of language as against what is deemed to be some special tongue? Paul made it clear that he would rather speak in easily-understood words than in an un-known tongue. Almost all of those congregations I have visited that believe in the free use of tongues have left me more baffled than blessed. I just can't seem to understand why is it that everyone desires to contravene what Paul clearly teaches. And you know whats funny, is that half of what is interpreted could have been expressed under easier circumstances.

So your statement: "From this its clear what the purpose of tongues was. It was a horizontal communication method of expression." is clearly negated by several scriptures such as: 1 Cor. 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries 28 - But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. ; So you see, tongues are for personal use and a vertical communication to God.

That text in no way supports the use of tongues for private communication with God. In fact the word unknown as used in the text is not even found in the original greek. In fact the text is saying what Paul has been saying throughtout the whole chapter 14. Note also that the word spirit is not describing the Holy Spirit, but rather the mental faculty of the listener who is not even able to understand what is being said, except the one who speaks. Paul wouldn't have to express a problem if everyone stayed by themselves in the first place praying to God. But the fact that Paul addressed it meant it was something being done in the congregation.

And this is the crux of the matter. Self-aggrandisment was the order of the day as against building the body with more practical gifts as teaching, prophesying, knowledge, etc. The Corinthian congregation was a problem one in more ways than one.

People are confused by this because they refuse to identify and separate the two different kinds of tongues indicated above. Now tell me, if tongues are mainly for horizontal communication alone, why would there be need to speak in the tongues of angels as Paul hinted?

Let me ask you a question. Was there ever a time when angels spoke to any human other than in their own language? Was there ever a time when a human spoke to an angel using their language other than human? Not that I can recall. One thing I will say is that for everyone who has ever heard an angel there can be no doubt it was one. So convincing are angels that Paul simply used that expression to bring home a crucial point, and that is "if I come with a convincing or persuasive speech like that of an angel, and have not love, then my speech is pure noise and means nothing"

I have to assume using your line of argument that all those people who have this special gift of being able to dialogue with God, must at least have love as the core of their spiritual gifts. Which begs the question. Is it possible for a person to have a gift without having love? Its possible based on Paul's letters. It could be that after awhile those who were once blessed to have recieved such gifts, started self-aggrandising with the same in order to build themselves up, rather than the entire body.

So if you read 1 Corinthians 13 in several languages you leave with the impression that Paul simply gave an analogy rather than reality. He created conditions for wanting to use such gifts.

@ JeSoul

on the contrary you walk into some churches and its a speaking in tongues galore with no interpretation going on and that is unscriptural.

LOL, Imagine if Paul were here? He'd have his work cut out for him.

@Bobbyaf,

You have missed Paul's gist to the Corinthians altogether. He was by no means de-emphasising the use of tongues in the local assembly, else why would he say in 1 Corinthians 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 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. If anything he is encouraging its use. That is why he mentioned that he wishes everyone could speak in tongues. The gist of 1 Corinthians 14 is order and not self-aggrandisement as you have said. 1 Cor. 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints Don't take the liberty to add to what is not expressed or even implied in the passage.

I have done that quite a few times. I want you to notice how the expression "spoke in tongues" is used freely, and would still be understood as meaning "diverse kinds of tongues"

Your conclusion isn't scriptural at all. Tongues do not necessarily imply divers kind of tongues. Divers kind of tongues means it is a language that man understands. That is diametrically opposed to Paul's statement that: 1 Cor.14: 2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; Men understood the Disciples on Pentecost and they required no interpretation of the tongue. These are two different things altogether.

So Cornelius and other gentiles who became christians were subject to the same promise of recieving the gift of the Holy Spirit. They were also entitled to recieving the gift of tongues to facilitate their missionary efforts as well.

My question is if Cornelius and the early Church needed the gift then, why should God deny us to whom He has promised the former and the latter rain together? Is their missionary work different than ours or we no longer have a language barrier as they did?

In Acts 2 the diasporic jews who came from about 16 different nations, each having their unique tongue, marvelled when they heard the apostles speaking in their language. That was the initial purpose of the gift in breaking the language barrier so that the kingdom message could reach many with greater urgency.

First I do not know where you came up with 16 nations, and secondly if we go by your logic that tongues are just to break down a language barrier, then  Paul must have been mistaken saying that  He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself! So who do we believe, you or Paul?

Further more, how do you reconcile that in one place Paul teaches that tongues are meant as a sign to unbelievers and in another case he says that tongues are for personal edification? Please explain that to us in clear terms. The answer is actually very simple. He was talking about two different kinds of tongues as I mentioned before.

The gift being a miracle itself facilitated that process.

The gift was nothing more than a sign. Pray tell, if the tongues was just to break down a language barrier, then why would Peter need to stand up and address the whole congregation in one language? The people who were at Pentecost understood Hebrew and so you cannot claim there was a language barrier. They all understood Peter when he spoke.

I am not sure there is a thing called prayer tongue. The only scripture that alludes to it is that found in 1 Cor. 14, and this is how Paul puts it. Besides, if anything Paul is de-emphasising it.

There are more scriptures that refer to the prayer tongue than 1 Cor 14. And again, Paul is not de-emphasising it at all. He said he will pray both in the  spirit and in the understanding, and he said he wishes everyone could speak in tongues. How can you interprete that to mean he was deemphasizing it? Like I said, the issue is a prayer tongue should not be used to address the congregation except an interpretation follows, else you will be a Babarian to others. And this should be done in decency and in order.

Once again that concept isn't altogether true. One doesn't have to speak in tongues in order to communicate with God.

You are so diametrically opposed to Paul its scary. Paul said he will pray in both understanding and the spirit (refering to tongues). He said a person praying in tongues speaks not to men but to God. What are you teaching here Bobbyaf?

Personal edification as used here by Paul is more negative than positive. The edifying here is seen as a selfish use of the gift in the light of it not being necessary in a congregational context. Paul prefers to see a corporate edification anytime over a personal one.

It is not used negatively, but rather that you cannot address a congregation in tongues. If you are praying in private or in church when everybody lift up their voice in prayer, you can use tongues because you are talking to God. When you are talking to men, then it is more edifying to speak to them in a language they understand. That is the essence of Paul's teaching.

Why would I speak in tongues in a congregation that doesn't understand me, and expect to now come and have to interpret what was said on my part, whether by me or someone else, when I could have said all of that in the common language from day one?

That you do not understand it does not make it less true. Paul said let one speak and another interprete. If there is no interpreter, then hold your tongue. Its very simple.

I just can't seem to understand why is it that everyone desires to contravene what Paul clearly teaches.

I wish you'd listen to yourself. You are the one contravening Paul by saying we should quit speaking in tongues. Paul said EVERYONE hath a tongue when we come together. he said one should speak and another should interprete. He wishes we all speak in tongues. How clear can that be?

And you know whats funny, is that half of what is interpreted could have been expressed under easier circumstances.

The operation of God is different from men. Following your argument, we can then say it wasn't necessary for the Disciples to speak in tongues on Pentecost. Afterall, Peter could have just stood up and spoke to them directly as he later did without the more difficult circumstances as you have implied.

And this is the crux of the matter. Self-aggrandisment was the order of the day as against building the body with more practical gifts as teaching, prophesying, knowledge, etc. The Corinthian congregation was a problem one in more ways than one.

Can you prove the statement in bold? I guess you will have to provide some extra-biblical proofs to prove yourself right in that case. The central theme of the passage was conducting the services in order and not self-aggrandisement. A tongue when interpreted as Paul says is just as important as Prophecy: 1 Cor. 14:5  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.

I have to assume using your line of argument that all those people who have this special gift of being able to dialogue with God, must at least have love as the core of their spiritual gifts.

Can you prove to us that Cornelius had love as his central gift at the time he and his family received the infilling of the Holy spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues? Don't add to scripture. It's a dangerous path, and I cannot wish you Godspeed when you do.

LOL, Imagine if Paul were here? He'd have his work cut out for him.

You think Paul will object when he said he wishes everyone will speak in tongues and that we should ALL have a tongue when we come together? I think not!!! Paul will only have issues if somone picks up the microphone to address the congregation and he blurts out in tongues without an interpretation. That is the crux of the whole mattter.

@ Tayod

You have missed Paul's gist to the Corinthians altogether. He was by no means de-emphasising the use of tongues in the local assembly, else why would he say in 1 Corinthians 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation.

Coming with a tongue is not the issue Tayod. I am not debating whether or not there is a gift of tongue. The expression "hath a tongue" means hath a language, but as to whether that language is some ecstatic or heavenly language is what I challenge. The tongue that Paul addresses in this chapter is certainly not such a language.

Let all things be done unto edifying. 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. If anything he is encouraging its use. That is why he mentioned that he wishes everyone could speak in tongues.

Paul wished for a lot of things. Notice the human control mechanisms involved when this tongue was in play. The operative word is "if". This was never a regular experience, but if and when somone spoke with tongues, he had to ensure that what he said was interpreted for the benefit of the congegration.

The fact is the kind of tongues that manifest in modern churches today are not the same ones that manifested back then. Today congregants are instructed to aspire to speak in tongues. Paul said strive for those gifts that edify the body which was quite the opposite.

The gist of 1 Corinthians 14 is order and not self-aggrandisement as you have said. 1 Cor. 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints Don't take the liberty to add to what is not expressed or even implied in the passage.

Well 1 Corinthians 13 was meant for the very same congregation wasn't it Tayod? Chapter 14 is merely an extension of 13. Using the gifts without love is a sure sign of self-aggrandisement. Any gift used outside of love is used for self interest. Paul saw the potential evil and saught to nip it in the bud.

Your conclusion isn't scriptural at all. Tongues do not necessarily imply divers kind of tongues. Divers kind of tongues means it is a language that man understands.

I am afraid they are the very same thing with varying circumstances.

That is diametrically opposed to Paul's statement that: 1 Cor.14: 2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; Men understood the Disciples on Pentecost and they required no interpretation of the tongue. These are two different things altogether.

The circumstances were different and had to be handled as such. Pentecost had bigger implications and became a launchpad for the last opportunity that was afforded Israel as a nation. Based on prophetic understanding the time for the ending of probation, that is, the 490 years or 70 symbolic weeks in Daniel 9 was fast coming to an end. The two great symbols of wind and fire were once again being used by God to make one final attempt to convince Israel that indeed Christ was His Son who died for Israel and was resurrected. So in essence the need to have understood the gift of tongues then by His own people the jews had far greater reasons, than they were having in Corinth.

My question is if Cornelius and the early Church needed the gift then, why should God deny us to whom He has promised the former and the latter rain together? Is their missionary work different than ours or we no longer have a language barrier as they did?

The urgency of evangelism and the infancy of the church called for a greater purpose of the gift then. As time progressed and congregations were established in asia minor, and on other continents by Paul and others the need and manner of use for the gift experienced a change. While the gift didn't die as such, it still lingered among those who had it, but unfortunately, some used it for self interest.

First I do not know where you came up with 16 nations, and secondly if we go by your logic that tongues are just to break down a language barrier, then Paul must have been mistaken saying that He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself! So who do we believe, you or Paul?

See my explanation above. A congregation is way different than a 3000 or more mass gathering.

Further more, how do you reconcile that in one place Paul teaches that tongues are meant as a sign to unbelievers and in another case he says that tongues are for personal edification?

See my response immediately above your question.

Please explain that to us in clear terms. The answer is actually very simple. He was talking about two different kinds of tongues as I mentioned before.

As far as the word is concerned the word tongue means one thing and that is language. You and I differ on how one sees the use of the word, and how it should be applied in any congregation of worship.

The gift was nothing more than a sign. Pray tell, if the tongues was just to break down a language barrier, then why would Peter need to stand up and address the whole congregation in one language? The people who were at Pentecost understood Hebrew and so you cannot claim there was a language barrier. They all understood Peter when he spoke.

They might have understood Hebrew no doubt, but when Peter spoke they heard their native language other than Hebrew. That was indeed what made them marvel. These were jewish people who lived outside of Jerusalem, and the bible says they came from 16 nations. In fact it named the region they came from.

There are more scriptures that refer to the prayer tongue than 1 Cor 14. And again, Paul is not de-emphasising it at all. He said he will pray both in the spirit and in the understanding, and he said he wishes everyone could speak in tongues.

As I said Paul wished for many things. Obviously christians today only desire to pray in the spirit but without understanding, , Ask anyone who speaks in tongues today if he or she understands what they are praying about, and majority of them will tell you no. So Paul if anything is agreeing with me,

How can you interprete that to mean he was deemphasizing it? Like I said, the issue is a prayer tongue should not be used to address the congregation except an interpretation follows, else you will be a Babarian to others. And this should be done in decency and in order.

Tell that to those congregations who make it look as if something is wrong with those who haven't yet spoken in tongues. Why keep telling people that the gift is a sign of being Holy-Spirit filled. What do you expect newly converts to do if they are constantly pressured into speaking in tongues?

You are so diametrically opposed to Paul its scary. Paul said he will pray in both understanding and the spirit (refering to tongues). He said a person praying in tongues speaks not to men but to God. What are you teaching here Bobbyaf?

Paul didn't say pray in tongues. He uses the word speak in verse 2. In verses 13-15 Paul said:, 13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.

In other words don't speak or pray in tongues since in all cases when someone speaks or prays in tongues no one but the person praying understands. This is further proof that the tongues that a person speaks is not the same as the ones spoken today. Those who speak today don't even understand what they're saying which all the more qualifies what Paul was saying all along that it is better to prophesy than to speak with tongues.

It is not used negatively, but rather that you cannot address a congregation in tongues. If you are praying in private or in church when everybody lift up their voice in prayer, you can use tongues because you are talking to God. When you are talking to men, then it is more edifying to speak to them in a language they understand. That is the essence of Paul's teaching.

So does it make sense to pray to God in tongues when not even you can understand? Isn't it said in almost every circle where this is practised that it isn't necessary to understand because the Holy Spirit will do the connection for you? Then how come Paul stresses the need to pray with understanding?

I mean if everyone is praying in tongues at the same time wouldn't that lead to confusion in the congregation? The very same argument Paul is using to discourage this sort of mad behaviour, you're now recommending. in other words if someone were to walk in a congregation and were to see the church praying in tongues wouldn't that lead them to believe that the church is confused? Very much so!


Quote
Why would I speak in tongues in a congregation that doesn't understand me, and expect to now come and have to interpret what was said on my part, whether by me or someone else, when I could have said all of that in the common language from day one?

That you do not understand it does not make it less true. Paul said let one speak and another interprete. If there is no interpreter, then hold your tongue. Its very simple.

Wouldn't the same rule apply for praying in tongues too? Obvioulsy there shouldn't be a need for anyone to interpret someone's prayer in tongues, since that form of prayer, was meant to be a personal connection correct? The fact that one's tongue has to be interpreted, which is a different thing form prayer now, suggests that:

1. the language is earhtly ( if it were heavenly then there wouldn't be a need for anyone to interpret it since its between me and my God, correct? )

2. there was something in the message that the congregation had to hear by reason of its importance and for the mere reason of wanting to share. I mean if I went to a foreign land and God gave me a message to share with the worshippers in a church's congregation I would certainly desire to do what Peter did. Just speak and leave the onus on God to let the people hear.

I wish you'd listen to yourself. You are the one contravening Paul by saying we should quit speaking in tongues. Paul said EVERYONE hath a tongue when we come together. he said one should speak and another should interprete. He wishes we all speak in tongues. How clear can that be?

Wrong Tayod! Paul was never encouraging anyone to speak in tongues unless the situation required it. Speaking in tongues was more an exception than a rule. That is why he used the word "if" Your use of word "should" is a far cry from "if", and is more bordering on something else.

The operation of God is different from men. Following your argument, we can then say it wasn't necessary for the Disciples to speak in tongues on Pentecost. Afterall, Peter could have just stood up and spoke to them directly as he later did without the more difficult circumstances as you have implied.

As I have alluded to before the circumstances were far different.

Can you prove the statement in bold? I guess you will have to provide some extra-biblical proofs to prove yourself right in that case. The central theme of the passage was conducting the services in order and not self-aggrandisement. A tongue when interpreted as Paul says is just as important as Prophecy: 1 Cor. 14:5 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.

Only if the circumstances were right. Its the circumstances that dictate the use of gifts like tongue. Paul once wished that we become like him vis a vis being celebate. Would you by virtue of Paul's ideals become celebate? I guess the catholics have a point heh!

Can you prove to us that Cornelius had love as his central gift at the time he and his family received the infilling of the Holy spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues? Don't add to scripture. It's a dangerous path, and I cannot wish you Godspeed when you do.

Go read Acts 10. The bible says he was a god-fearing man who led his household in like manner. Is that proof enough?

@Bobbyaf,

You have only repeated the sdame thing so far without a valid opoint.

Coming with a tongue is not the issue Tayod. I am not debating whether or not there is a gift of tongue. The expression "hath a tongue" means hath a language, but as to whether that language is some ecstatic or heavenly language is what I challenge. The tongue that Paul addresses in this chapter is certainly not such a language

You sure are very funny. If the tongue spoken of by Paul in 1 Cor. 14:6 is just a person's native language, how is it then different from a regular prophecy? Or why would Paul mention an interpretation within the same sentence if this isn't a language that requires a spiritual gift of interpretation to be understood? Your arguments are becoming very tedious at best.

Paul wished for a lot of things. Notice the human control mechanisms involved when this tongue was in play. The operative word is "if". This was never a regular experience, but if and when somone spoke with tongues, he had to ensure that what he said was interpreted for the benefit of the congegration

There is human control to every manifestation of the Spirit. How else then will Paul declare that the spirit of a Prophet is subject to the Prophet? God never forces anyone to do anything, and speaking in other tongues is not different. The operative word "if" does not mean it is meant not to happen but he describes how it should operate in the instance that tongues is operational in a service. This is turning to a case of "how readest thou".

The fact is the kind of tongues that manifest in modern churches today are not the same ones that manifested back then. Today congregants are instructed to aspire to speak in tongues. Paul said strive for those gifts that edify the body which was quite the opposite.

The truth is tongues is just as edifying to the body as prophecy is whenver there is an interpretation. This much I have made clear earlier from 1 Cor 14:5.

Well 1 Corinthians 13 was meant for the very same congregation wasn't it Tayod? Chapter 14 is merely an extension of 13. Using the gifts without love is a sure sign of self-aggrandisement. Any gift used outside of love is used for self interest. Paul saw the potential evil and saught to nip it in the bud

You are very funny. Love is needed irrespective of the manifestation of any gifts of the Spirit or otherwise. That love is essential does not diminish the importance of tongues. Simply put in the words of Jesus: "This you ought to do without leaving the other undone.

I am afraid they are the very same thing with varying circumstances

Tongues and divers kind of tongues are not the same. One is understood and the other is not understood unless there is the manifestation of the gift of interpretation.

The circumstances were different and had to be handled as such. Pentecost had bigger implications and became a launchpad for the last opportunity that was afforded Israel as a nation. Based on prophetic understanding the time for the ending of probation, that is, the 490 years or 70 symbolic weeks in Daniel 9 was fast coming to an end. The two great symbols of wind and fire were once again being used by God to make one final attempt to convince Israel that indeed Christ was His Son who died for Israel and was resurrected. So in essence the need to have understood the gift of tongues then by His own people the jews had far greater reasons, than they were having in Corinth

This is how people confuse others about the scriptures. See how you are just saying irrelevant things so as to suistain your unscriptural stance. What circumstances are you alluding to that makes tongues different then than it is today? What about other gifts of the Spirit? Are all those done away with too becuase of circumstances that exists only in your mind? The only time that the gifts of the Spirit will be done away with is when the perfect shall come, and all that remain is LOVE. Until then, every gift of the Spirit is as relevant then as it is today. and by the way, you commited some theological error with the 490 weeks. it wasn't fast coming to an end, but was already ended at Pentecost. So Pentecost was God's final attempt to convince Isreal that Christ is their Messiah? Men, we should all quit preaching to the Jews then since God has given up on them according to the "Gospel" of Bobbyaf.

The urgency of evangelism and the infancy of the church called for a greater purpose of the gift then. As time progressed and congregations were established in asia minor, and on other continents by Paul and others the need and manner of use for the gift experienced a change. While the gift didn't die as such, it still lingered among those who had it, but unfortunately, some used it for self interest

You are so funny. So evangelism is less urgent now than it was then? Please show us how people use the tongue for selfish interest. That it was being used disorderly does not mean it is used selfishly. Infact, the Corinthians were using it thinking of blessing the congregation, but Paul told them it wasn't right. Until there is interpretation, it doesn't benefit the Church bu only the individual. Their intentions were definitely noble though their actions were uninformed.

See my explanation above. A congregation is way different than a 3000 or more mass gathering.

How are they different? You are beginning to clutch on straws here.

See my response immediately above your question

You have not responded to this question at all. Here again is my question: how do you reconcile that in one place Paul teaches that tongues are meant as a sign to unbelievers and in another case he says that tongues are for personal edification?

As far as the word is concerned the word tongue means one thing and that is language. You and I differ on how one sees the use of the word, and how it should be applied in any congregation of worship

Of course the tongue is a language. The question differnece is that one language can only be understood by God, and the other can be understood by men. Is this too difficult to grasp? Our diffenreces is that while you say that tongues are irrelevant today, I take Paul's side when he said "everyone hath a tongue when we come together as a congregation," and that the purpose of tongues and interpretation and other manifestation of the Spirit is for everyone to be edified. The same Paul teaches that one to three people can speak in tongues in order while someone else interpretes. If tongues were that unimportant why is God grateful to God that he speaks in tongues more than anybody else?

They might have understood Hebrew no doubt, but when Peter spoke they heard their native language other than Hebrew. That was indeed what made them marvel. These were jewish people who lived outside of Jerusalem, and the bible says they came from 16 nations. In fact it named the region they came from.

Now you are begining to be ridiculous. You mean Peter was speaking in tongues when he addressed the 3,000? You are joking right? so tell me, when they responded to Peter that "what shall they do" were they also speaking in tongues? You need to go back and read Acts 2 again. I will not indulge your ignorance by recounting the story here.

As I said Paul wished for many things. Obviously christians today only desire to pray in the spirit but without understanding, , Ask anyone who speaks in tongues today if he or she understands what they are praying about, and majority of them will tell you no. So Paul if anything is agreeing with me

What you have failed to say is the fact that Paul said he would that they all prophesy in the same sentence. Are we to do away with prophesying too then? Thre is nothing wrong with praying in the Spirit as long as you do not address the congrgation without an interpretation. Do you realise that Prophecy is meant for edification and comfort while tongues is meant for edification. The tongues becomes prophecy when it is interpreted. I pray in tongues a lot and I'm edified. The time I've had to address a congregation in tongues, my friend interpreted my tongue. It was a prophecy concerning another one of our friends. I don't know if you've ever being in a believers' meeting, but there is none that I have attended where somone brought a message in tongues without an interpretation following.

Tell that to those congregations who make it look as if something is wrong with those who haven't yet spoken in tongues. Why keep telling people that the gift is a sign of being Holy-Spirit filled. What do you expect newly converts to do if they are constantly pressured into speaking in tongues

Like someone was said: the gift of the infilling with the evidence of speaking in tongues is a gift meant for everyone that our God has called. If that is not the case, Paul will not be wishing that we all speak in tongues contrary to God's will. I have asked you to go theough the book of acts and show u swhere anyone got filled with the Holy Spirit without the evidence of speaking in tongues. Please do that or hold your peace.

Paul didn't say pray in tongues. He uses the word speak in verse 2. In verses 13-15 Paul said:,

13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. Considering the statement in bold, I just wonder if you are reading what you are writing.

So does it make sense to pray to God in tongues when not even you can understand?

Like Paul said, it is a man's spirit that is praying when tongues is in use. Other than that, you are just praying with your mind. Tell me which one will be more effective, your regenerated spirit or your carnally-tainted mind?

Then how come Paul stresses the need to pray with understanding?

Paul did not put an emphasis on one over the other. Infact he stressed the importance of doing both. 15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

I mean if everyone is praying in tongues at the same time wouldn't that lead to confusion in the congregation

That is why Paul wrote: 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. It is all about order like I indicated before.

As I have alluded to before the circumstances were far different

What circumstances? You still haven't told us what they were.

Only if the circumstances were right. Its the circumstances that dictate the use of gifts like tongue. Paul once wished that we become like him vis a vis being celebate. Would you by virtue of Paul's ideals become celebate? I guess the catholics have a point heh!

The circumstance where Paul desires everyone be like him was due to the crisis of persecution and death where widows are becoming younger and younger by the day among the Christian folk. And you forgot to mention that Paul later said it was his opinion and not a directive from God. In this case, his wish was both for speaking in tongues and prophecy and he never claims it was his opinion.

Go read Acts 10. The bible says he was a god-fearing man who led his household in like manner. Is that proof enough?

I knew you'd fall for this. Cornelius wan't a Christian at the time period you want me to look into. So he couldn't have had Agape, which is the love refered to in 1 Cor 13. The best form of love he exhibited then weas at best Phileo. Unless you want to tell us that unbelievers too have the potential to express a nature inherent with godlikeness - AGAPE. Also, I never read that Paul asked or confirmed if the Ephesian Disciples walked in love before he laid hands on them to receive the infilling of the Holy spirit and the subsequent gift of speaking in tongues.

Mark 16:17

These signs will accompany those whohave believed: in My name they will castout demons, they will speak with new tongues