AZUZA STREET. REVIVAL OR NOT ?

BPPLEE · May 3, 2026

The Righterzpen said:
That is not "speaking in a tongue". The point of "speaking in a tongue" is to proclaim the gospel. One who is a recipient of that gospel need not to proclaim it to God.

I’m not going to argue with you. The scriptures speak for themselves

Aussie52 · May 3, 2026

The Righterzpen said:
I don't know how familiar you are with late 18th century history and where the "holiness movement" came from and what they believed? But what you are saying comes out of developments of 18th and 19th century post Wesleyan theology; and makes extrapolations upon Scripture that is not sound.

This all comes off of ideas that came out of the Great Awakening. (1740-1790)

The Wesleyan movement (1750 - 1800) believed that regeneration came before sanctification and that "the 2nd work of grace" was that "entire sanctification"; where one's heart was "cleansed from original sin" and the heart was "perfected in love" and thus enabled believers to live without the desire to sin.

This was still "technically" within the bounds of protestant Biblical orthodoxy; but was really close to stepping over the edge. Because stating that one can be cleansed from "original sin" negates the reality that "original sin" is the fallen nature that we all inherit from Adam. Thus why: "through one man sin entered...." Roman Catholicism has a similar belief that baptizing infants cleanses them from original sin. Of which the Reformation had a difficult time extracting themselves from that concept. Thus the development of the concept of "covenant theology".

Now I do agree with Wesley that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit does mean that believers can live without the desire to sin. Yet the desire to not sin and the sin nature are two different things. One of the consequences of regeneration is that sin bothers believers.

Out of Wesleyan theology came the holiness movement; which was about 100 years later.

The "holiness movement" started with Phoebe Palmer (1840 - 1870) who was the first to coin the term "baptism in the Spirit" and believed this enabled adherents to live without sin. (Which is heresy. It's not possible for Christians to not sin this side of the grave.) "For if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8)

Now I know a lot of Pentecostals say they can live without sin; and this is part of the problem. (Since I believe I have the power of the Holy Spirit and am without sin than what I'm doing can't be sin; = even though by all Scriptural definition the questioned behavior is sin.) And thus why there's so much abuse and adultery and fornication etc in pentecostalism. It's part of the heresy of the belief system. Not just "bad eggs" but bad theology leads to bad outcomes.

Now, I don't know if this is what you believe; but it's likely what you've been taught.

Now, what's the difference between the Apostles and Christians post closing of the canon of Scripture? Since revelation is no longer coming seeing how the entire salvation plan has been revealed; the sign gifts have ceased. And they've ceased because they were the evidence to the "Jew requires a sign" that the apostles were ordained by God to not just show forth the testimony of Christ; but to complete the penning of Scripture.

All the era that contained "the Jews" which was from Moses until the OT system was taken down and the entire canon of Scripture was complete. All of that consisted of that "age" or "eon" in the Greek.

So when Paul talks about "the sin that dwells within" him; he never states that that ever goes away. It will never go away this side of the grave because the world we live in is subject to corruption and has been since the fall. There's no way we can get around that. And this is why Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus wasn't just a sinless mortal. The SON (2nd person of the Trinity) took on human nature (the son) and these two natures are inseparably joined in one entity. And his death was the "tearing of the veil of the flesh". The human nature is limited by a temporal existence. The "son" is not from everlasting to everlasting, even though the SON is. The "son" is also mortal. (He can die.) The SON on the other hand can not die. (One of the definitions of being "immortal".

So, what is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit; particularly as that applies to us post closing of the canon?

Yes, the power of God to raise sinners from their dead state is still in action. We are given a new heart; but we still possess the old nature; which still sins. And this will remain the case until the bodily resurrection at the end of time. And thus a very important theological reason as to why Christ HAD to rise from the dead. The redemption plan does not exclude the material world. If it was simply "the saving of the soul" would there be a need for the incarnation even? Christ wasn't incarnated as only a human soul though. Thus the completed redemption includes the body.

Yes, I am a Wesleyan Arminian who believes in entire sanctification as John Wesley taught. I believe the crisis of sanctification cleanses one from indwelling sin and filling the heart with Perfect Love. I believe that sinning is not inevitable for the Christian, Rom 6. that by God's grace we can choose not to sin, not unable to sin. This is not only my theology but my daily experience as I live out the Spirit filled life.

Yes, I am familiar with the Holiness Movement of the 18th century, and I have been blessed reading many books by persons of that era.
I appreciate and respect your point of view but humbly disagree with it. As someone has said," He with an experience is not at the mercy of he with an argument".

God Bless you.

The Righterzpen · May 3, 2026

BPPLEE said:
I’m not going to argue with you. The scriptures speak for themselves

Yes, Scripture does speak for itself. Would you like to know what the Greek word "groaning" means there in Romans 8:26?

It's a compilation of a root verb which means "to stand strait" although is not from the same root that is translated "grieve the Holy Spirit" (Ephesians 4:30) which means "sorrow".
The implication from Romans 8:26 seems to be that what the believers know not to ask for; the Holy Spirit "straitens" them to..... pray to be in alignment with God's will?

Note too it says that the groanings "can't be uttered". Thus they are not "tongues".

The Righterzpen · May 3, 2026

Jeff Carr said:
Yes, I am a Wesleyan Arminian who believes in entire sanctification as John Wesley taught. I believe the crisis of sanctification cleanses one from indwelling sin and filling the heart with Perfect Love. I believe that sinning is not inevitable for the Christian, Rom 6. that by God's grace we can choose not to sin, not unable to sin. This is not only my theology but my daily experience as I live out the Spirit filled life.

Yes, I am familiar with the Holiness Movement of the 18th century, and I have been blessed reading many books by persons of that era.
I appreciate and respect your point of view but humbly disagree with it. As someone has said," He with an experience is not at the mercy of he with an argument".

God Bless you.

So allow me to request a clarification: You believe that you don't sin?

(And he with an "argument" is not at the mercy of someone else's said experience. I.E. if you believe you don't sin; you can't prove that by Scripture. Human experience is subjective. And a subjective experience does not stand on equal ground with what can be objectively proven.)

BPPLEE · May 3, 2026

The Righterzpen said:
Yes, Scripture does speak for itself. Would you like to know what the Greek word "groaning" means there in Romans 8:26?

It's a compilation of a root verb which means "to stand strait" although is not from the same root that is translated "grieve the Holy Spirit" (Ephesians 4:30) which means "sorrow".
The implication from Romans 8:26 seems to be that what the believers know not to ask for; the Holy Spirit "straitens" them to..... pray to be in alignment with God's will?

Note too it says that the groanings "can't be uttered". Thus they are not "tongues".

1Co 14:2 - 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.

That’s not a known language among men.

Aussie52 · May 3, 2026

The Righterzpen said:
So allow me to request a clarification: You believe that you don't sin?

(And he with an "argument" is not at the mercy of someone else's said experience. I.E. if you believe you don't sin; you can't prove that by Scripture. Human experience is subjective. And a subjective experience does not stand on equal ground with what can be objectively proven.)

It is like you were the first person to taste ice cream, and it was delicious. But someone comes along and says its unpalatable.

I sense that you do not want to discuss so much as to debate. I am happy to discuss entire sanctification but not get into fierce debate. The experience is too precious to sully with carnal argument.
Be blessed.

PS If you have a genuine interest in the place of sin in the Christians life, you might want to read "The Common Misuse of 1 John 1:8" Parts 1 & 2. In the Salvation section, General Theology of this forum.

NBB · May 3, 2026

Jeff Carr said:
It is like you were the first person to taste ice cream, and it was delicious. But someone comes along and says its unpalatable.

I sense that you do not want to discuss so much as to debate. I am happy to discuss entire sanctification but not get into fierce debate. The experience is too precious to sully with carnal argument.
Be blessed.

PS If you have a genuine interest in the place of sin in the Christians life, you might want to read "The Common Misuse of 1 John 1:8" Parts 1 & 2. In the Salvation section, General Theology of this forum.

I too feel like this, the first to taste ice cream (being filled of The Holy Spirit), and then you want to tell everyone about it, because is the greatest thing ever.
and someone comes along, and say "that doesn't exists" "or that is probably counterfeit". Makes you roll eyes in sadness.

BPPLEE · May 3, 2026

NBB said:
I too feel like this, the first to taste ice cream (being filled of The Holy Spirit), and then you want to tell everyone about it, because is the greatest thing ever.
and someone comes along, and say "that doesn't exists" "or that is probably counterfeit". Makes you roll eyes in sadness.

Phonies exist but that doesn’t take away your own experience

Aussie52 · May 4, 2026

The Righterzpen said:
So allow me to request a clarification: You believe that you don't sin?

(And he with an "argument" is not at the mercy of someone else's said experience. I.E. if you believe you don't sin; you can't prove that by Scripture. Human experience is subjective. And a subjective experience does not stand on equal ground with what can be objectively proven.)

How would you define 'sin'?
We as Christians so often use the same words but have different meanings behind them.
Much of the misunderstanding around the subject of holiness and sanctification stems from a different understanding of what sin is.
For example, the Calvinist usually defines sin as' any want against the perfect Law of God'. This to me sounds like, just being human is sinful,
because we fall short of God's perfection. I don't think this definition can be garnered from the Bible.
For me, I believe that inward sin or original sin, is self-idolatry, which shows itself in selfishness.
As for outward sin or sinful actions, I like John Wesley's definition,' sin is a willful transgression of a known Law.' These latter definitions reflect a more accurate view of what the Bible teaches.
Your thoughts if you like?

Aussie52 · May 4, 2026

The Righterzpen said:
So allow me to request a clarification: You believe that you don't sin?

(And he with an "argument" is not at the mercy of someone else's said experience. I.E. if you believe you don't sin; you can't prove that by Scripture. Human experience is subjective. And a subjective experience does not stand on equal ground with what can be objectively proven.)

'So, allow me to request a clarification: You believe you don't sin'?

This is a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation. If one refuses to give an answer to the above question, having professed entire sanctification, you become the target of all types of unwanted criticism.
If, on the other hand, one confesses humbly that by the grace of God they have been kept from sinning, they get hammered by criticism as well.
Paul testified to present victory over sin,' For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death' Rm 8:2.
So, along with Paul, I will also testify too. When I use the word sin, I mean 'a willful transgression of a known Law'. This and only this, is sin.
So, my answer is this, by the power & presence of the Holy Spirit, I have been kept from falling into sin, i.e. from willfully, transgressing the Law of God.
By the Law of God I mean, the Law of Love. Through God, I have loved the Lord with all my being and my neighbor as myself. To Him be the glory.
Now come the stones!

The Righterzpen · May 4, 2026

Jeff Carr said:
How would you define 'sin'?

This is a valid question in the context of how sin defines whether or not one knows if they've really obtained salvation. Such as in "examine yourselves whether or not you are in the faith". There are lists of sin lifestyles that if there's no evidence of the breaking of the chains of those sins; then the contrary evidence is unto condemnation.

Jeff Carr said:
For example, the Calvinist usually defines sin as' any want against the perfect Law of God'. This to me sounds like, just being human is sinful,
because we fall short of God's perfection. I don't think this definition can be garnered from the Bible.

And this is the definition of one being inherently corrupted by the fallen nature inherited from Adam. Which is by definition "original sin".

Which this brings into the picture the difference between the nature of the created thing as opposed to the nature of the Creator. And why Christ's human nature was conceived by the Holy Spirit. (I'll get to that in a minute.)

This mortal temporal material world God created; would ultimately fall into corruption because by nature it is inherently subject to that corruption because there is no way to prevent the knowledge of good and evil from infiltrating into this mortal temporal material world. In a world created with those limitations; the knowledge of good and evil can only produce the fall, because God did not incarnate the material world as an extension of His Divine SELF.

Adam was created in the image of God and Christ was incarnated in the likeness of Adam; yet Christ and Adam were profoundly different in total natures from each other. Adam could not prevent his own fall because he was not eternal. The only thing the knowledge of good and evil could do was corrupt him. Christ though being a single person composed of the union of Divine and human natures bore the capacity to not be corrupted by the knowledge of good and evil. And this is because the Divine nature that made up a component of his total nature; bore the attributes of God (omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, eternal and immortal = the inability to die) These attributes make it impossible for God to sin. For an entity that possess the knowledge of good and evil through His omniscience; His omnipotence, omnipresence, eternal and immortal attributes prevent that corruption. For all those attributes together make Him greater than the corruption that the knowledge of good an evil would bring otherwise.

And because of the difference in the natures of Adam and Christ; this is the reason Christ didn't sin of his humanity. The Divine nature had the capacity to "keep in check" the human nature's desire to remain pure. If Adam had had that capacity; he never would have sinned. But of course Adam did not have that capacity because he was created in the image of God. He was not the incarnation of God.

So, no; descendants of Adam do not bear the capacity to be totally pure in heart because the body is yet to be delivered from the corruption of sin. And thus is the necessity for the recreated cosmos. Corruption must put on incorruption and mortality must put on immortality. And this is how and why Christ in his glory reigns bodily in the recreated cosmos. Remember He told Moses "You can't see My face because no man can see My glory and live." And this is because corruption can not stand in the presence of God without the nature of the Entity that God is destroying that corruption. And this is also how we know there is no evil in God because good and evil are not compatible to stand together in the Divine "space" of the domain of God's glory.

Jeff Carr said:
For me, I believe that inward sin or original sin, is self-idolatry, which shows itself in selfishness.
As for outward sin or sinful actions, I like John Wesley's definition,' sin is a willful transgression of a known Law.' These latter definitions reflect a more accurate view of what the Bible teaches.

And I agree with this. Which is also why you will never be rid of original sin this side of the grave. You still live in a body that's subject to the corruption of the material world and the evidence there of is that you will still physically die if time continues long enough and Christ does not return before your natural "expiration date" would come to pass.

Again, the necessity for the recreation of the material cosmos; as well as the evidence of that necessity shown to us in the bodily resurrection of Christ. Our redemption is not of spirit only; because we are by nature both spirit and flesh.

And also why there is no redemption for fallen angels because Christ did not take on the nature of angels.

Yet the redemption plan also includes all other carbon based life which was made corrupted by Adam's transgression. So yes, we will see plants and animals in the new heavens and new earth. And considering God raises individual humans in the new earth; there's no reason to assume He wouldn't raise individual animals either. So thus it is plausible as well as probable that we will see animals we knew in this life.

The Righterzpen · May 4, 2026

Jeff Carr said:
Paul testified to present victory over sin,' For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death' Rm 8:2.

To be "free from the law of sin and death" means that Paul was not ultimately condemned for his sin, not that he was not still subject to the consequences of sin in this life. (I.E. Paul still died.)

Jeff Carr said:
This is a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation. If one refuses to give an answer to the above question, having professed entire sanctification, you become the target of all types of unwanted criticism.
If, on the other hand, one confesses humbly that by the grace of God they have been kept from sinning, they get hammered by criticism as well.

"Entire sanctification" as the "holiness movement" defines it here though, is a false doctrine. The grace of God does keep the redeemed from living lifestyles of sin; (i.e. believers are not "addicted to sin") but God does not make us sinless this side of the grave either. If we could be sinless in this life; there'd be no predicated reason for Christ to have risen from the dead. "And if Christ be not raised, you are yet in your sin and your faith is in vain."

And this is so because the regeneration of the indwelling of the Holy Sprit does not make us the incarnation of God. This is why Scripture describes those as "Christ like" but in this life, never bearing the sinless nature of Christ. The obvious evidence there of, being that we still die!

Christ though, if he wasn't the atoning sacrifice for sin; would have been bodily immortal. He only died because of the severance of His Divine nature from his human nature. And without the human nature, he could not have been the appropriate sacrifice and without the Divine nature, he would not have been sufficient to take on the wrath of God.

Jeff Carr said:
So, my answer is this, by the power & presence of the Holy Spirit, I have been kept from falling into sin, i.e. from willfully, transgressing the Law of God.

The law is the schoolmaster that points sinners to Christ. The only thing the Law of God can do is condemn you because that's what it was designed to do. Its purpose was to make sin definable. It gave definition to what corruption produced.

Scripture says that "out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, let all things be established". Well we have "witnesses" in this life.
1. Creation testifies to the attributes of God, including His eternal Godhead and power. Actually also conveying to us the redemption plan in parabolic form. Thus we are "without excuse"; although on the positive side of this; it also means that none of humanity has been left without a witness.
2. Human conscience testifies to the morally holy nature of God; because Adam and subsequently all of humanity is created in God's image.
3. Written revelation (Scripture) explains to humanity the redemption plan that's necessary, because of the moral holiness of God and the corruption the knowledge of good and evil has brought into this world.

Yet we all by nature still willfully transgress; even in the midst of the desire not to! This is why Scripture has statements like:

What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
Behold, he puts no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight.
How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinks iniquity like water?
Job 15:14-16

Jeff Carr said:
By the Law of God I mean, the Law of Love. Through God, I have loved the Lord with all my being and my neighbor as myself. To Him be the glory.
Now come the stones!

And the stones come from the fact that you know in your conscience that you are not sinless.

So thus the question really isn't about how righteous you perceive yourself to be; but whether or not sanctification has produced the fruit of security through faith. Do you trust that Christ's atonement is sufficient? For that is really the only place any of us find security.

And thus why the answer to Paul's prayer was: "My grace is sufficient for you."

Aussie52 · May 4, 2026

The Righterzpen said:
To be "free from the law of sin and death" means that Paul was not ultimately condemned for his sin, not that he was not still subject to the consequences of sin in this life. (I.E. Paul still died.)

"Entire sanctification" as the "holiness movement" defines it here though, is a false doctrine. The grace of God does keep the redeemed from living lifestyles of sin; (i.e. believers are not "addicted to sin") but God does not make us sinless this side of the grave either. If we could be sinless in this life; there'd be no predicated reason for Christ to have risen from the dead. "And if Christ be not raised, you are yet in your sin and your faith is in vain."

And this is so because the regeneration of the indwelling of the Holy Sprit does not make us the incarnation of God. This is why Scripture describes those as "Christ like" but in this life, never bearing the sinless nature of Christ. The obvious evidence there of, being that we still die!

Christ though, if he wasn't the atoning sacrifice for sin; would have been bodily immortal. He only died because of the severance of His Divine nature from his human nature. And without the human nature, he could not have been the appropriate sacrifice and without the Divine nature, he would not have been sufficient to take on the wrath of God.

The law is the schoolmaster that points sinners to Christ. The only thing the Law of God can do is condemn you because that's what it was designed to do. Its purpose was to make sin definable. It gave definition to what corruption produced.

Scripture says that "out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, let all things be established". Well we have "witnesses" in this life.
1. Creation testifies to the attributes of God, including His eternal Godhead and power. Actually also conveying to us the redemption plan in parabolic form. Thus we are "without excuse"; although on the positive side of this; it also means that none of humanity has been left without a witness.
2. Human conscience testifies to the morally holy nature of God; because Adam and subsequently all of humanity is created in God's image.
3. Written revelation (Scripture) explains to humanity the redemption plan that's necessary, because of the moral holiness of God and the corruption the knowledge of good and evil has brought into this world.

Yet we all by nature still willfully transgress; even in the midst of the desire not to! This is why Scripture has statements like:

What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
Behold, he puts no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight.
How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinks iniquity like water?
Job 15:14-16

And the stones come from the fact that you know in your conscience that you are not sinless.

So thus the question really isn't about how righteous you perceive yourself to be; but whether or not sanctification has produced the fruit of security through faith. Do you trust that Christ's atonement is sufficient? For that is really the only place any of us find security.

And thus why the answer to Paul's prayer was: "My grace is sufficient for you."

Yes, it certainly is those stones!

The Righterzpen · May 4, 2026

Jeff Carr said:
It is like you were the first person to taste ice cream, and it was delicious. But someone comes along and says its unpalatable.

NBB said:
I too feel like this, the first to taste ice cream (being filled of The Holy Spirit), and then you want to tell everyone about it, because is the greatest thing ever.
and someone comes along, and say "that doesn't exists" "or that is probably counterfeit". Makes you roll eyes in sadness.

Experience is subjective. Truth is not.

I've had experiences myself. My experiences though don't run my logic. You've probably heard "Facts don't care about your feelings." (Popular phrase coined by Ben Shapiro.) It's applicable across many domains. I grew up in a very dysfunctional household where I endured years of sexual abuse as well as neglect. My "feelings default" was "You're worthless." But just because I feel that way; doesn't make it so.

So why should I assume a positive feeling I may have would be telling me the truth either?

I've had "dreams" and I've had "visions" too; but when dreams about Jesus Christ tend to be sexual in nature; ya tend not to take much stock in your dreams!

Still! His grace is sufficient for me.

I'm also a veteran and I'm diagnosed with depression and dissociative PTSD. I've been in psych hospitals for suicide attempts. Closest thing I ever heard to the audible voice of God was: GET OFF THE BRIDGE!

OK... (I didn't question it; I obeyed.)

And I remember looking at the ground underneath me (I was up under the girding of a bridge that spanned a large bay) and I knew that if I fell; I wasn't going to survive. The fisherman standing on the pylon below me looked to be about the side of a plastic toy soldier. And I remember saying to God. "What if I fall?"

And the answer was: "My grace is sufficient for you."

(Of which this bridge event (experience) was rooted in Scriptural truth.) Is Christ's sacrifice sufficient to cover my sin?

Yes! It is.

Jeff Carr said:
I sense that you do not want to discuss so much as to debate. I am happy to discuss entire sanctification but not get into fierce debate. The experience is too precious to sully with carnal argument.
Be blessed.

So... given what I've written as responses; do you want to discuss with me; what my experience is with sanctification? Do you want to discuss these things with someone who knows they're a sinner?

Jeff Carr said:
PS If you have a genuine interest in the place of sin in the Christians life, you might want to read "The Common Misuse of 1 John 1:8" Parts 1 & 2. In the Salvation section, General Theology of this foru

How about we stick with Scripture.

The Righterzpen · May 4, 2026

Jeff Carr said:
Yes, it certainly is those stones!

Well, aint that sad! (Did you even read what I wrote?)

Aussie52 · May 4, 2026

The Righterzpen said:
Well, aint that sad! (Did you even read what I wrote?)

Now your being belligerent. We are done.

The Righterzpen · May 4, 2026

BPPLEE said:
1Co 14:2 - 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.

That’s not a known language among men.

Which again, you didn't read the rest of the verses in context. (Three verses down talks about having an interpreter.) In Acts when they spoke in tongues; what were they proclaiming? And if there's no one to interpret the message to them; then....

Yes, the Spirit of God utters mysteries. The natural man does not receive the things of God; even when God communicates in known language.

And no where does it say in Scripture that God communicated to people without their understanding; even when others don't understand. The message always gets to the intended recipient.

The Righterzpen · May 4, 2026

Jeff Carr said:
Now your being belligerent. We are done.

Well, I guess that answers my question. Doesn't seem you even read the response.

So what was the "Yes, it's certainly is those stones!" comment about?
(Truth still remains that you are not sinless.)

If you'd read carefully; nothing I said discounted your experience. I just put it in context of Scriptural truth.

Aussie52 · May 4, 2026

Let us get back to the subject of this thread, having wandered along bypass meadow.
I happened to be browsing in Amazon looking at books and came upon an interesting book. The title is ' The Azuza Revival was not what you think it was'. A coincidence: there are no coincidences with God!
Having a quick look at the promo, the book takes an unsanitised look at what happened at Azuza, how it affected the future Pentecostal Movement and lessons that we can learn from it today.
It arrives tomorrow and after I read it, I shall report in greater detail my findings and other things of interest to this thread.

BPPLEE · May 4, 2026

The Righterzpen said:
Which again, you didn't read the rest of the verses in context. (Three verses down talks about having an interpreter.) In Acts when they spoke in tongues; what were they proclaiming? And if there's no one to interpret the message to them; then....

Yes, the Spirit of God utters mysteries. The natural man does not receive the things of God; even when God communicates in known language.

And no where does it say in Scripture that God communicated to people without their understanding; even when others don't understand. The message always gets to the intended recipient.

Yes it speaks of interpretation
1Co 14:13 - Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.
1Co 14:14 - For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.

AZUZA STREET. REVIVAL OR NOT ?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Well-Known Member

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Well-Known Member

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads