Have the gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased?

[4sightsounds]

What Paul is saying here is clearly that he will do both, pray in the spirit (in tongues) and pray in his own understanding. Paul says in the preceding verse that when he prays in an unknown tongue, his spirit prays, but his understanding is unfruitful. So how did you come up with the conclusion that he fully understood what he was saying?

Greetings, Tawhano... Hope you don't mind me addressing your questions a little at a time.

Here's the previous verse:

1st Cor. 14:14

KJV - "For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful."

NASB - "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful."

Now, where does it say that Paul prayed in the manner that you state? You see, God does not abuse, misuse or misplace words. Thank God for that. The passage says IF I was to behave in this manner, it would be void of the use of my mind....please pause and think about this. Then re-read verse 15 and tell me CONTEXTUALLY what Paul was saying. Without the influence of our paradigm, but based on what the words in the passages say. Then go onto verse 16. You will not be able to put 15 and 16 in proper context without understanding that Paul did not speak in an unknown tongue.

Where is babbling mentioned anywhere in Corinthians? Paul clearly says that a person speaking in tongues is speaking to God not babbling as you misinterpret. Speaking mysteries in HIS OWN spirit but not the Holy Spirit? Where did you pluck that from?

Well, if you're speaking unintelligable words that cannot be understood by the listener, without understanding of what you're saying yourself, wouldn't that be babbling?

Take a look at the following verses: 1st Cor 14:2,4,13,14,19,26,and 27. Notice that the word used in these passages is a singular noun (tongue) as opposed to the plural usage in 1st Cor 12:28 (various types of tongues), Acts 2:4 (other tongues) and the like.

Mostly everyone freely admits that these are two different types of occurences. One meaning various languages (hence, the plural designation), the other being an unknown language (singular). The problem comes in when we try to make sense of what Paul is saying about the unknown language.

The unknown tongue that is referred to by Paul is more accurately referred to as ecstatic utterences. Any good commentary worth its salt will describe this unknown language this way. ...and here is where it is an absolute must to put this letter in its proper context.

Once again, pagan worship was dragged into the Corinthian assembly. Paul referred to it in the beginning of Chapter 12. In Chapter 13:1 Paul refers to these utterences as the noise of gongs and cymbals. (???) Now, immediately upon reading this I thought to myself, there has to be something significant behind his use of words...and indeed there is.

Sounding brass and tinkling cymbals were instruments used in pagan rituals in Corinth. Don't take my word for it. You could probably do a search and pull up a ton of info on it. Paul knew ehat he was doing when he referred to these instruments becasue what they were engaging in was their old pagan rituals which included speaking in unknown tongues.

I must stop here for now.

I'll be back tomorrow

 

[Tawhano]

4sightsounds said:
Now, where does it say that Paul prayed in the manner that you state?

I already pointed that out to you in my previous post. You keep talking about reading things in context but then ignore the context of the passage. Paul is speaking about the spiritual gifts (1Cor 12:1) in this part of the letter to the Corinthians and how to conduct themselves with the gifts when they come together. This is the whole crux of the letter to the Corinthians. In verse 2 of chapter 14 Paul clearly states that he is addressing the tongues that was given as a gift by the power of the Holy Spirit. A person speaking in tongues is speaking to God.

Compare these two verses:

1 Corinthians 14:2
For he that speaketh in an tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

1 Corinthians 14:14
For if I pray in an tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

Paul connects the tongues he is speaking of, in this letter, to God. In both instances man cannot understand what is being said. Nowhere in-between verse 2 and 14 does Paul shift his focus on tongues to anything different, he is speaking of the same tongue throughout this letter. The gift of the Holy Spirit; which he began this discussion back in chapter 12:

1 Corinthians 12:1
Now concerning spiritual [gifts], brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

4sightsounds said:
Well, if you're speaking unintelligable words that cannot be understood by the listener, without understanding of what you're saying yourself, wouldn't that be babbling?

If the words were unintelligible yes but that isn’t what is being said in Corinthians. There is a difference between unintelligible and un-understandable. If a person who spoke a different language than you understood were to try and converse with you would you say they were babbling? Your use of the word ‘babbling’ here is just that; your use and not inferred by the scriptures at all.

4sightsounds said:
Take a look at the following verses: 1st Cor 14:2,4,13,14,19,26,and 27. Notice that the word used in these passages is a singular noun (tongue) as opposed to the plural usage in 1st Cor 12:28 (various types of tongues), Acts 2:4 (other tongues) and the like.

It is plural when used to describe a group of people speaking in tongues as oppose to the singular Paul uses when he is addressing one person speaking in tongues. When one person is speaking in tongues they are speaking in one language, one tongue. When a group of people are speaking in tongues they are speaking in many different languages, different tongues. There is nothing more implied by using tongues in singular or plural form than grammatical reasons.

4sightsounds said:
The unknown tongue that is referred to by Paul is more accurately referred to as ecstatic utterences. Any good commentary worth its salt will describe this unknown language this way. ...and here is where it is an absolute must to put this letter in its proper context.

There is no scriptural evidence to support your statement. I would class a commentary that made such a statement as purely religious and not a reflection of the word of God.

4sightsounds said:
Once again, pagan worship was dragged into the Corinthian assembly. Paul referred to it in the beginning of Chapter 12.

1 Corinthians 12:2-3
Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

There is no indication that Paul was rebuking the Corinthians for ‘dragging pagan worship’ into the assembly in this verse (or any other) at all. Paul was clearly telling them that the pagan idols they worshipped in the past were dumb; they couldn’t speak back to them. He goes on to point out that God does speak back to them through the gifts.

4sightsounds said:
Sounding brass and tinkling cymbals were instruments used in pagan rituals in Corinth. Don't take my word for it. You could probably do a search and pull up a ton of info on it. Paul knew ehat he was doing when he referred to these instruments becasue what they were engaging in was their old pagan rituals which included speaking in unknown tongues.

How do you get that from this verse?

1 Corinthians 13:1
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become [as] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

Again this is another verse that says something very clearly and you manage to miss the point of again. This verse isn’t saying speaking in tongues is a pagan ritual at all, it says, again quite clearly, that without charity it becomes nothing but noise. Look up the words ‘sounding’ and ‘tinkling’ in the Greek. You will be surprised that it denotes a loud sound, such as used in battle. A blast of the trumpet and the clashing of cymbals the armies used as they marched into battle. Speaking in tongues is speaking to God and without love you are doing nothing but making noise.

 

[Tawhano]

4sightsounds,

Something came to mind while reading your last post that I need clarification for if it okay with you? Is your stand on this issue that there are no Spiritual Gifts at all and that the gifts recorded in Corinthians are pagan rituals that Paul was rebuking them for or that the gifts in chapter 14 only were pagan rituals?

 

[4sightsounds]

4sightsounds,

Something came to mind while reading your last post that I need clarification for if it okay with you? Is your stand on this issue that there are no Spiritual Gifts at all and that the gifts recorded in Corinthians are pagan rituals that Paul was rebuking them for or that the gifts in chapter 14 only were pagan rituals?

What I'm saying is that the gifts did exist....all of them. However, the Corinthians were engaging in something of another spirit.

With that thought in mind, will you consider taking another look at my post?

Also, please do not miss the references to "dumb idols", "gongs and cymbals", and "mysteries". Please do not assume that they are just words that Paul used in a general state. It is common knowledge that Corinth was steeped in pagan tradition and to ignore that basic truth in interpreting 1st Cor 12, 13 and 14 will undoubtedly effect the outcome. I know there's a lot of questions regarding other passages, and if we can continue to reason together openly and honestly, I think it will be helpful. I'm willing to own it all as my opinion as long as we deal with the opinion without allowing our presuppositions to rule....fair enough?

 

[Tawhano]

4sightsounds said:

I'm willing to own it all as my opinion as long as we deal with the opinion without allowing our presuppositions to rule....fair enough?

Yes it sounds fair to me; in fact I would have it no other way. However, from what you said in the post above I can’t see you as following your own suggestion. You ask that I not miss your references to "dumb idols", "gongs and cymbals", and "mysteries" which I have commented on in my other posts. You lead me to believe that you are not reading my post carefully and are just debating the issues you think everyone believes in and ignoring my view. I’ve debated several people on this forum who have done the same. They have a preconceived idea of what everyone believes on a certain topic and debate that regardless of what is being said.

If I am in error on my assessment then please except my apology. I came by this assessment because you have proposed certain ideas that I have addressed and then you apparently ignored my replies.

I assure you that I have no other intention than to be opened and honest in all my debates. This forum is my study tool to better understand the scriptures. I have been convinced to rethink my stand on two issues since coming here. I have no affiliations with any religious organization to defend so I am fairly certain I have an open mind.

 

[Andrew]

You will not be able to put 15 and 16 in proper context without understanding that Paul did not speak in an unknown tongue.

If Paul did not speak in an unknown tongue, then he spoke in a known tongue. But if he spoke in a tongue he knew, how is it his mind was unfruitful? ie not comprehending what he was praying?

13 wherefore he who is speaking in an unknown tongue--let him pray that he may interpret;
14 for if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit doth pray, and my understanding is unfruitful.

I know "unknown" is italicised, meaning it was added by translators. But if the tongue was "known" why the need to pray for interpretation in v13?

 

[4sightsounds]

The reason why I keep mentioning the issue of Pagan culture in Corinth is because without considering this, one has no choice but to read straight through verses like 12:1, 13:1, and 14:2. That's why I have yet to address your conclusions about these verses. I have read them. But I believe it's a mistake to come to any conclusion without considering the cultural and religious background of this group of people. Does that seem reasonable to you?

It was not my intent to ignore your responses. I didn't think I was doing so, and I will address them....but not without closing the gap of the religious and cultural climate in Corinth.

So, would you agree that Corinth's pagan culture is an important area to consider before trying to come to a conclusion about the text?

 

[look]

4sightsounds, which baptist pastor do you prefer?
Dr. Ron Phillips or John MacArthur?

 

[4sightsounds]

4sightsounds, which baptist pastor do you prefer?
Dr. Ron Phillips or John MacArthur?

I prefer the dead ol' guys myself (Spurgeon, Ryle, etc). But between the 2, I'd have to say MacArthur. I'm not familiar with Phillips. Maybe I should check him out.

Why do you ask?

 

[look]

Because I think Dr. Phillips is one of Baptistdom's cutting edge pastors. I recommend reading some of these articles, just click on each...

article 1

article 2

Here is a book he wrote that I highly recomend to you, it is available from http://crosswalk.oneplace.com/ministries/centerpoint/
Here is the picture, it is titled "Awakened by the Spirit"
[c]

[/c]

Here are some real audio archives, check it out! real audio archives there's thirty messages stored there...

Blessings, brother...

 

[4sightsounds]

If Paul did not speak in an unknown tongue, then he spoke in a known tongue. But if he spoke in a tongue he knew, how is it his mind was unfruitful? ie not comprehending what he was praying?

13 wherefore he who is speaking in an unknown tongue--let him pray that he may interpret;
14 for if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit doth pray, and my understanding is unfruitful.

I know "unknown" is italicised, meaning it was added by translators. But if the tongue was "known" why the need to pray for interpretation in v13?

Let me clarify:

The word "if" implies that the act stated (unknown tongue) was not something he actually did, but was writing of it hypothetically. For example:

"If I punch my friend in the mouth, he will probably bleed." Now, I didn't actually punch him, but if I did, the result would cause him to bleed...probably.

Paul says in essence, "If I engage in this act, MY (don't miss that) spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful."

Now there's a ton of things that can be extracted from the word "unfruitful" alone.....and none of them are good.

 

[Andrew]

That is a really weird reasoning, saying that if Paul used "if" in his writing it means he didnt do it and is speaking hypothetically only.

Did you even read the next verse?

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.

So are you then going to say that when Paul says "I will" 4 times here, he doesnt really mean that he will, but is only speaking "hypothetically"???

Now, still in the same context Paul then says

18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

Now is he being hypothetical here?

----
19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

Here Paul contrasts speaking in tongues publicly in church to speaking or praying in tongues privately. The fact that he contrasts the two obviously tells us that he does indeed speak in tongues whether privately or publicly.

And it doesnt matter whether he spoke an "unknown tongue" or just "tongue", the fact is that he spoke in tongues and encourage us all to do it, but in an orderly manner if it is done in church.

 

[Andrew]

1 Cor 9:16
For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!

Is Paul speaking hypothetically here also? ie he didnt really preach the gospel?

Paul was explaining what goes on between spirit and mind when one prays in tongues. The spirit does the praying so the mind is not engaged. Anyone who speaks in tongues will understnd what this means. When you speak in tongues, the words are not formed in your head. You dont have to think of what to say. You just open your mouth and speak, and the words come from your spirit and bypasses the mind.

Now, obviously, for Paul to be able to explain what goes on means that he practised it, otherwise, how can he comment or teach on something he cannot even do, which is what those against tongues and who dont speak in tongues are doing.

1Co 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.

Now, I did not understnd what this meant until I spoke in tongues. And you will not, until you submit to the Spirit and speak in tongues.

 

[4sightsounds]

That is a really weird reasoning, saying that if Paul used "if" in his writing it means he didnt do it and is speaking hypothetically only.

Why is that wierd? Take a quick look at 1st Cor. 13:1-3. Here you will find 3 hypothetical statements made by Paul to drive his point home. In fact, this is a classic case of exaggeration to make a point (hyperbole).

If Paul intended to insinuate that he involves himself in this practice (speaking in unknown tongues) he would've said "when" not "if". Now we may have grown accustomed to interpreting it as "when", but in actuality, if we are to hold true to God's Word as infallible, we would do well to interpret it as "if", which is clearly the greek meaning of the word.

Did you even read the next verse? 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. So are you then going to say that when Paul says "I will" 4 times here, he doesnt really mean that he will, but is only speaking "hypothetically"???

What he is doing here is in CONTRAST to the previous verse. "In other Words, I will pray with the spirit and understanding."

unknown tongue = a language that cannot be understood.
tongues = can be understood

I'm not disputing whether Paul spoke in tongues, which is language that can be translated by someone with the gift of translation (interpretation is used, but the greek meaning is translation....once again, very important). I'm saying that he did not engage in the activity of unknown tongues, which is what the Corinthians were doing.

You do know that unknown tongues, or ecstatic utterence has been around since the tower of Babel?

There's a contrast that Paul is making throughout chapter 14 between Holy Spirit inspired languages that can be translated, and the pagan ritual of unknown languages....unless we are willing to at least examine this much, we can never hope to get at the truth.

Now, still in the same context Paul then says 18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: Now is he being hypothetical here? 19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.Here Paul contrasts speaking in tongues publicly in church to speaking or praying in tongues privately. The fact that he contrasts the two obviously tells us that he does indeed speak in tongues whether privately or publicly.

v18 he says he speaks in tongues, ie. with understanding, as opposed to unknown, more than all of the Corinthians, because the Corinthians were phony , speaking unknown language that could not be translated, because it was not a language at all.
v19 is a contrast between speaking nonsense and speaking words that are edifying to the body....don't miss this. Remember when Paul said that those that speak in a tongue (singular) edifies himself? Well, he was not condoning it. The gift was meant to edify the body not self. No gift is intended for self-edification. How we miss this is beyond me. In chapter 12 it clearly states that ALL gifts are for the body and to be MANIFESTED (displayed) in their midst.

It probably would've been clearer if Paul would've written which acts were correct and which ones were not, but he didn't. we are left to figure it out. However, the Corinthians knew exactly what Paul was talking about, because their paganism was not far removed from them.

For example; I just got back from Camaroon a couple weeks ago, where paganism (witchcraft) is alive and well. We did not have to define what paganism is amongst ourselves in discussion, because they already knew what it was.

So was the case with Corinth, so if I've seemingly dodged anyone's comments, it's because the proper understanding of Paul's letter can only come after a proper understanding of the city of Corinth.

And it doesnt matter whether he spoke an "unknown tongue" or just "tongue", the fact is that he spoke in tongues and encourage us all to do it, but in an orderly manner if it is done in church.

Once again, we must maintain the distinction between a tongue (unknown) and tongues (various languages). Someone stated earlier that the singular and plural are used to identify the number of individuals engaged in the activity. However, that logic breaks down in 14:6 when Paul, 1 person, talks about speaking in tongues (various languages).

So, yes it does matter, because were talking about 2 different actions. One of which is profitable, the other is not.

1 Cor 9:16 For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! Is Paul speaking hypothetically here also? ie he didnt really preach the gospel?

Let me make an alarming statement to make a point. If 1st Cor 9:16 was our only evidence of Paul preaching the Gospel (ponder this carefully), we would have to conclude that he had not done it, at least not at that point in his writing. But we know better than that because we have the rest of the Word of God to support it.

Now, please find, in proper context, another account of Paul speaking in UNKNOWN tongues....

I'll respond to the rest later. I appreciate everyone's willingness to discuss this, and if any of my words seem harsh, please forgive me. It's not my intention. Face to face is my preferred means of communication.

God bless,
B

 

[Tawhano]

4sightsounds said:
But I believe it's a mistake to come to any conclusion without considering the cultural and religious background of this group of people. Does that seem reasonable to you?

Only if their cultural and religious background was in question here but that is not the case. In the start of the message (1Cor 12:1) Paul makes it clear that he is addressing the use of the Spiritual Gifts not pagan rituals.

1 Corinthians 12:1-3
Now concerning spiritual [gifts], brethren, I would not have you ignorant. Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Paul mentions the dumb idols here as past tense, they were worshiping the idols when they were Gentiles. They are not Gentiles anymore they are heirs of the promise through Jesus Christ. He then goes on to describe the gifts and emphasizes that one is as important as the other but that when they gather together they should be seeking the ones that edify the church. You make a point of saying that Paul was rebuking them for following pagan practices of speaking in tongues where they don’t understand what is being said but Paul makes it quite clear that anyone speaking in tongues is talking to God even though they don’t understand what is being said.

1 Corinthians 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.

I seriously doubt that anyone practicing pagan rituals can be communicating to God. Paul teaches us that anyone speaking in tongues without love is making a bunch of noise, so imagine the unfruitfulness of a pagan trying to talk to God.

4sightsounds said:
Now there's a ton of things that can be extracted from the word "unfruitful" alone.....and none of them are good.

1 Corinthians 14:14
For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

Regardless of what you extract from the word this verse is not saying that praying in tongues is unfruitful but that the mind or intellect does not benefit from it. We do not need to know what our spirit praying through the Holy Spirit is saying to God for it to be fruitful to ourselves.

Romans 8:26-27
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to [the will of] God.

 

[Tawhano]

4sightsounds said:
If Paul intended to insinuate that he involves himself in this practice (speaking in unknown tongues) he would've said "when" not "if".

This is pure speculation on your part and not supported by scripture. If Paul did not speak in tongues then why write to the Corinthians and lay out the proper matter in which to conduct this gift in the church? Paul did speak in tongues as I demonstrate later in this post.

4sightsounds said:
Once again, we must maintain the distinction between a tongue (unknown) and tongues (various languages). Someone stated earlier that the singular and plural are used to identify the number of individuals engaged in the activity. However, that logic breaks down in 14:6 when Paul, 1 person, talks about speaking in tongues (various languages).

There is no distinction in the Bible between unknown and know tongues. As you yourself mentioned ‘unknown’ was added by the translators and is not contained or implied in the original text. I remarked that the use of singular or plural form of glocesah (tongue) was a grammar distinction only and used the example of when one or more were speaking. I did not wish imply that that was the only instance it was used so I want to make that clear here. Look the word up and you will see that the same Greek word is used in both the plural and singular form. The plural was used in the English text purely for grammatical reasons. There is no plural in the original text. Read 14:6 with that in mind and try it without the ‘s’ and you will see what I mean.

In context with the passage of 1 Corinthians 12 through 14, Paul is addressing Spiritual Gifts. Nowhere does he digress and talks about speaking a learned language. Look carefully at the scripture below:

1 Corinthians 14:18-19
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that [by my voice] I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an [unknown] tongue.

Where is the distinction made here that the first tongue Paul mentions is a learned language? Nowhere. In fact he clearly identifies the tongue as one not able to be understood when he says in church he will speak words understood to teach others. The confusion comes when you let the chapter and verse numbers separate the thought of the text. Paul quite clearly says he thanks God he speaks in tongues more than them but in church he would rather speak in his own words to teach others. If the tongues he speaks more than them was meant as understandable language then why say I speak in tongues more but in church I will speak my own words so you can understand?

4sightsounds said:
So, yes it does matter, because were talking about 2 different actions. One of which is profitable, the other is not.

Again I point out to you that the verse is not saying that praying in tongues is unfruitful but that the mind or intellect does not benefit from it. We do not need to know what our spirit praying through the Holy Spirit is saying to God for it to be fruitful to ourselves.

Romans 8:26-27
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to [the will of] God.

 

[Andrew]

test

 

[look]

You do know that unknown tongues, or ecstatic utterence has been around since the tower of Babel?

Really? Says who?

I'm saying that he did not engage in the activity of unknown tongues, which is what the Corinthians were doing.

Come now, let us reason together...Where do you get your information from? You need to stop and look at what you are saying.

If you exercise that kind of thinking in the real world, they will look at you as somebody who is intellectually challenged. I wonder if you are, because you sound just like John MacArthur. It would be better if you came to this conclusion on your own, instead of blindly accepting whatever John the heretic says. He has recanted on one of his doctrines, but he hasn't come out of the pig pen yet... One thing is for sure, you won't get any raises...

You need to quit assisting the devil, he doesn't want the church to be able to be edified or to be able to pray in the spirit!

I don't mean to laugh at your expense, but it's pretty hard...forgive me...

 

[4sightsounds]

Comedy.....

This is quickly degenerating into a struggle of influences, which I do not have time for.

Have any of you even attempted to look into the background of Corinth?

...to say that the historical background is irrelevent because of their new position in Christ is just wrong. I don't know any other way to say it.

The Corinthian church was carnal and wordly, unable to digest meat, still sucking on milk. If they are worldly, I wonder what influences from the world effected their behavior?? Could it be their former religion? Nahhh....

Grace and Peace,
B

 

[4sightsounds]

lol....may the Lord have mercy....

You need to quit assisting the devil, he doesn't want the church to be able to be edified or to be able to pray in the spirit!

What other way IS there to pray, but in the spirit? ....lol.

I've never heard, read or studied any material from John MacArthur on this subject.
If you notice, I never resort to putting the reputation of ministers on blast. Childish.

You have my beliefs, based on my studies. Let's deal with my words and leave our personal biases for another thread or whatever.

As for assisting the devil...... all I can say is don't forget the great commission amidst your pursuit of the next great experience. The world needs to hear from us.

Carry on, gentlemen...