Daily Inspirations

  Good morning. Back to the “let two or three prophets speak“: but if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. Now if it were talking about them prophesying, we would have the following scenario: One of them would be standing up saying something like this, “Thus saith the Lord…“ Right in the middle of him/her prophesying, another prophet would stand up, interrupting the prophecy because he/she had been given a revelation. That would be total chaos like Paul has been speaking against in a church service. I can think of a couple of other possibilities. The prophet is giving a “three point sermon“, while the other prophets are passing judgment on his/her message. (We forget that everything was new to them. They did not have the New Testament. They were getting OJT). In the middle of the message (some of which may be just the person’s opinion), God reveals something about the topic to another prophet seated which needs to be shared with the people....

  Good morning. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. This has been used to say that like the “messages in tongues“ you should have at most two or three prophecies in the service. There are a couple of things to note. First of all, it says prophets. Just because you give a prophecy, does not mean that you are a prophet. You are just operating in that gift. If I remember correctly, Kenneth Hagan used to say that to be a prophet you had to operate in two or three other gifts of the Spirit also. I personally do not know what differentiates between someone who regularly operates in the gift of prophecy and one who is a prophet. What I do know is that like I’ve said before, too many people are going around proclaiming that they are a prophet. The second thing is that it says to let them speak; it does not say to let them prophesy. They are two different Greek words. In the book of Acts it talks about Judas and Silas, also being prophets encouraged and streng...

  Good morning. If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. Not long after I began participating in a Friday night Bible study, which later turned into that house church l spoke of before, I began giving the tongues part of “tongues with interpretation” (we call it a “message in tongues”, but that term does not occur in the Bible, merely tongues). I had no teaching or training on how to do it. My heart would begin racing for no apparent reason, and I would get the impression to speak out loud in tongues; so I just “let her fly“. For me the next step was not interpretation of tongues but prophecy. I did not give an interpretation of tongues until years later after I moved here. Notice that it says by two or at the most three, and not at the same time, which would produce confusion. One reason would be that th...

  Good morning. Last time it was about someone entering a church, and everyone speaking in tongues. But if all prophesy (it doesn’t say whether everyone was prophesying at the same time, or one by one. Because of what follows, I assume the latter), and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he’s convicted by all, he’s called to account to by all; the secrets of his heart are disclosed (if it were all at the same time, it would be hard for him to hear what was directed at himself); and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you. So what should a church service be like? When you assemble, each one has a Psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. It sounds like Paul was expecting participation by everyone - maybe not all in one service, but over time they would. That is totally unlike today’s church services. Nowadays almost no one in the congregation participates l...

  Good morning. Do not be children in your thinking (remember last chapter: “when I was a child …”); yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature. So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers (seems to imply that speaking in tongues was a natural outcome of being a believer); but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe. Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and  ungifted men (not exactly sure what is meant here, whether it means those who are saved but have not received the baptism in the Holy Spirit, or those do not operate in the gifts of the Spirit - specifically interpretation of tongues) or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? That would be a reasonable assumption and may be why Pentecostals get a bad reputation. Father make this a special weekend for the reader. Open his/her eyes to the future as to what he/she should do for his/her family.

  Good morning. Continuing with the thought of only praying with the spirit: “otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the “amen“ at you giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified”. Remember the goal of a church service is the building up of the body, not just yourself. OK Paul, so do you refrain from speaking in tongues? I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all (Southern translation - y’all); however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than 10,000 words in a tongue. This does not mean that you do not ever speak in your “prayer language“ in a church service. It does mean that it should not draw attention to yourself like the example I gave when I visited my friend’s Pentecostal church. Father thank You that if we follow the leading of Your Holy Spirit in a chu...