Singing in tongues en masse

[dayhiker]

I never had a problem with en mass speaking in tongues. I really miss it as its never done in the services that I go to.

To me its no different that a church that sets aside a few minutes for people to pray and they all pray out laugh for what's on their mind.

Both of those forms of communion with God are meaningful to me. To me they are both decently and in order. Yet some seem to think if more than one thing is going on at a time it can't be of God. But I suspect if we saw each persons heart in a church service from God's point of view there would be almost as many different things going on as there were people attending.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"If I were to speak in tongues with a group of others, I wouldn't get anything more out of it than doing it alone at home."

I'd disagree with that, since by empirical observation, God does tend to "Move" in the praises of His people. But let's say you're right about that, and it gives you no "More" than private practice. Obviously you wouldn't get any LESS out of it than doing it "alone" either.

Consequently, it's completely a "Non-Issue" - just another "Molehill" that you desire to build into a "Theological MOUNTAIN".

My suggestion is the STAY AWAY from Full Gospel churches (since they injure your theological mores with their freedom in worship), and make it a point avoid Full Gospel folks at all costs - since you might overhear them speak in tongues, and be offended by it.

That way you can hold and practice YOUR interpretation of 1 Cor 14, and we can hold, and practice ours and go about our business like we've been doing for the last 100 years.

Simple as that.

 

[Biblicist]

.... If we were to accept that corporate use of tongues was forbidden, we essentially say that only 3 people in one service have the right to pray and worship in the Spirit, while everyone else can only pray and worship in the understanding. This is certainly not what Paul meant.

No one to my knowledge, who holds to the Biblical injunction that the corporate use of tongues where the entire or large portions of the congregation sing in the Spirit at once, has ever suggested or even hinted that we are not to worship the Lord in the Spirit. To say that a born again believer who has the Spirit of God residing within them is unable to worship in the Spirit unless they sing in tongues is somewhat of a contradiction in terms.

In this day and age considering the wealth of substantial Biblical knowledge that has developed around the Pneumatic texts of especially 1 Corinthians 12, 13 & 14, I am completely perplexed as to how any questions or challenges are being made as to why the Spirit had Paul write down his detailed admonitions as to why congregations are not permitted to sing in the Spirit at once.

 

[Biblicist]

I guess we will never be in agreement. You seem to advocate a strict, pharisee-style version of interpretation. I prefer a Spirit-led interpretation. Jesus chose to teach the Spirit of scripture, rather than the stricter "By the book" interpretation.

I cannot argue with rigiditiy.

Your approach to Scripture is certainly not unique and I well recognise that there are many within both the Full Gospel and without who will heartily agree with your methodology.

You mentioned previously that your approach is one that is based on “what feels good” and this can be a hard one to address as it means that a persons beliefs are being controlled by emotions and feelings and not so much with God’s Word which was given to us by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

One factor on your side is that large sections of the Full Gospel Church have also adopted positions that they also feel very comfortable with and ones which tend to give them some temporary comfort. These groups are typified by the ‘latter-rain’, ‘word of faith’ and more recently with the so called ‘new apostolic renewal’; all are based on human precepts and understanding and most if not all of their distinctives are about as foreign to Gods Word as one could ask for.

When it comes to the people of Israel in the time of Jesus, we only have to take a brief look at their practices to see that they had also replaced the Word of God with their own regulations and precepts, to the point where the Word of God almost became unrecognisable within their midst.

 

[ltwin]

Your approach to Scripture is certainly not unique and I well recognise that there are many within both the Full Gospel and without who will heartily agree with your methodology.

You mentioned previously that your approach is one that is based on “what feels good” and this can be a hard one to address as it means that a persons beliefs are being controlled by emotions and feelings and not so much with God’s Word which was given to us by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

One factor on your side is that large sections of the Full Gospel Church have also adopted positions that they also feel very comfortable with and ones which tend to give them some temporary comfort. These groups are typified by the ‘latter-rain’, ‘word of faith’ and more recently with the so called ‘new apostolic renewal’; all are based on human precepts and understanding and most if not all of their distinctives are about as foreign to Gods Word as one could ask for.

When it comes to the people of Israel in the time of Jesus, we only have to take a brief look at their practices to see that they had also replaced the Word of God with their own regulations and precepts, to the point where the Word of God almost became unrecognisable within their midst.

I think this is a little arrogant, considering that there are many Pentecostal leaders, theologians, and scholars who would disagree with your interpretation of what Paul is saying. Pentecostalism was birthed in revivals where the "the heavenly choir" was a defining characteristic. Yes, some did say they were mad, but nothing they would have done short of ceasing to speak in tongues entirely would have satisfied the scoffers. Nevertheless, there were others who were drawn to the Azusa St. Mission precisely because they heard a most beautiful sound--a congregation singing in the Spirit. Wherever there has been a mighty outpouring of God's Spirit in the last century, there has been the phenomenon of singing in the Spirit.

I hear so many Pentecostals bemoan and lament the loss of the gifts and the unction in the Spirit filled churches. Yet, many of these same people have no problem hiding the gifts and the anointing away in some back room prayer meeting or once a decade revival. Our churches pack the Sunday morning schedules so full and tight that if the Spirit begins to move in a spontaneous way among the congregation they are ruled as being "out of order" and causing confusion in the body. As soon as they quiet down the service continues as programmed and the Spirit is grieved.

So many Pentecostals lament the fact that a whole generation is growing up with only stories of what God used to do, never having seen God move in a mighty and liberated way in their own life. They wonder why their churches aren't growing even though they are doing everything they can to make the services comfortable and entertaining for "seekers" and they have all the latest church growth books. Yet these same people never preach about the baptism in the Holy Spirit. They never teach about the gifts, and how they should operate in the body. They complain when people prophesy or speak in tongues in an abusive or incorrect way and people get offended and are ran off, yet they have never addressed the role of vocal gifts in the church. Even more they have never given practical teaching for how they should be done correctly.

So many Spirit filled people complain about dry MANufactured services where the music is so loud the congregation can't even be heard, where worship leaders jump around in the flesh trying to illicit some kind of response from the congregation that just stands there complacent and lazy. Yet these same people are the ones who say "God forbid that an entire congregation lift up their voice as one in the Spirit to make a pleasing sound to God."

I find the contradictions in the self described "Spirit filled" church in America utterly confusing. Why in God's name would we ever try to eject the gifts out of our church services? The Pentecostal church in America is in crisis. We claim the Pentecost name but we have rejected the Pentecost experience. The baton is being passed, but one generation is passing it off to a younger generation that does not know the power and the wonders of God. Meanwhile, we fight amongst ourselves over whether corporate singing in the Spirit is forbidden or permitted.

All I know is is that my generation desperately needs to know what it is to be Pentecostal and Spirit filled. We desperately need to return to a time when the Spirit had free rein to minister and touch hearts. We desperately need to see churches that instead of trying to manufacture some crisply produced worship experience would instead fall on their faces and their knees and wait on God. And yes, we need to hear the sound of a congregation with one voice singing in the Spirit.

 

[stormdancer0]

Your approach to Scripture is certainly not unique and I well recognise that there are many within both the Full Gospel and without who will heartily agree with your methodology.

You mentioned previously that your approach is one that is based on “what feels good” and this can be a hard one to address as it means that a persons beliefs are being controlled by emotions and feelings and not so much with God’s Word which was given to us by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

One factor on your side is that large sections of the Full Gospel Church have also adopted positions that they also feel very comfortable with and ones which tend to give them some temporary comfort. These groups are typified by the ‘latter-rain’, ‘word of faith’ and more recently with the so called ‘new apostolic renewal’; all are based on human precepts and understanding and most if not all of their distinctives are about as foreign to Gods Word as one could ask for.

When it comes to the people of Israel in the time of Jesus, we only have to take a brief look at their practices to see that they had also replaced the Word of God with their own regulations and precepts, to the point where the Word of God almost became unrecognisable within their midst.

I did not say that my approach is based on what feels good. It is based on my understanding of the Bible. I am well-educated. I do not believe in "word of faith" and am not familiar with "new apostolic renewal."

You are very arrogant in assuming that because someone disagrees with your interpretation of scripture, they are "based on human precepts" and "foreign to God's Word." You are judgmental and false in your views, in my opinion. And my opinion is just as valid as yours is.

Unfortunately, your views are NOT foreign to God's word. Jesus called such strict, judgmental people "hypocrites."

 

[tturt]

Stordancer, agree with your comment my approach is based ...on my understanding of the Bible. And my opinion is just as valid as yours is.

Itwin, well said!

 

[Biblicist]

I think this is a little arrogant, considering that there are many Pentecostal leaders, theologians, and scholars who would disagree with your interpretation of what Paul is saying.

Even though I have endeavoured for 38 years to gain a reasonable Biblical understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit within the life of the believer, my formal understanding which has certainly been conditioned by my experience within both the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements has been heavily adjusted by work of such scholars such as, Barnett, Carson, Fee, Garland, Grudem, Kistemaker, Prior, Thiselton, Winter and others; as such, my views regarding tongues and prophecy that I have posted on this forum have in addition been heavily conditioned by their work. This does not say that they are all in agreement on each and every point but when it comes to the nature of tongues and prophecy, then any view which portrays tongues as being a means whereby the Spirit speaks to an individual or a congregation is certainly somewhat dated and ordinary.

As for the Pentecostal leaders, this would also include the many popular eccentric tele-evangelists and with those self styled leaders from within the latter-rain, word of faith and new apostolic renewal movements? There are of course balanced leaders who would also disagree with me but they seem to be decreasing in number which may be due to them considering the wealth of incredible academic research that has become available in this field over the past 20 years.

Pentecostalism was birthed in revivals where the "the heavenly choir" was a defining characteristic.

It seems that maybe we are working from within different historical documents. Contrary to popular opinion that the Pentecostal movement began at Azusa Street, the contemporary Pentecostal movement actually had its beginnings in a somewhat nondescript Bible school that was located in the small town of Topeka Kansas. Some of the events that occurred at this Bible school seem to be somewhat sensationalised and it seems not all that much of any great substance occurred for at least a few years after this. As for their being a heavenly choir, it seems the best that we could claim is with a strong wind blowing across the fields of Kansas.

Yes, some did say they were mad, but nothing they would have done short of ceasing to speak in tongues entirely would have satisfied the scoffers. Nevertheless, there were others who were drawn to the Azusa St. Mission precisely because they heard a most beautiful sound--a congregation singing in the Spirit. Wherever there has been a mighty outpouring of God's Spirit in the last century, there has been the phenomenon of singing in the Spirit.

Even though I gain some satisfaction from knowing that the modern Pentecostal movement had its foundations within a Bible school, it would in my opinion have been advantageous if the students and their teachers were better grounded in the Word before all this happened; this undoubtedly would have stopped them from making various odd claims such as with how missionaries would not need to learn languages as all they would have to do is to speak in tongues – but of course we had to start somewhere. Sadly it took a few years before these primitive Pentecostals discarded this silly belief and hopefully we will also see the day when rank and file Full Gospel believers stop believing that the Spirit of God speaks to individuals through tongues!

I hear so many Pentecostals bemoan and lament the loss of the gifts and the unction in the Spirit filled churches. Yet, many of these same people have no problem hiding the gifts and the anointing away in some back room prayer meeting or once a decade revival. Our churches pack the Sunday morning schedules so full and tight that if the Spirit begins to move in a spontaneous way among the congregation they are ruled as being "out of order" and causing confusion in the body. As soon as they quiet down the service continues as programmed and the Spirit is grieved.

I suspect that if the Holy Spirit was allowed to minister within some Pentecostal congregational meetings that the senior staff of these congregations would hardly know what to do. I am of the strong view that one of the reasons that we are now seeing less and less of the power of the Spirit within our meetings is that many denominational and congregational leaders have simply decided to either actively or passively discourage individuals from allowing the Spirit to work through them in their meetings; to a large degree that has been due to the often failed practices and presumptions that many have had regarding how the Spirit ministers which has created so much carnality and frivolity within many supposedly Full Gospel congregations.

... Yet these same people never preach about the baptism in the Holy Spirit. They never teach about the gifts, and how they should operate in the body. They complain when people prophesy or speak in tongues in an abusive or incorrect way and people get offended and are ran off, yet they have never addressed the role of vocal gifts in the church. Even more they have never given practical teaching for how they should be done correctly.

Last Sunday my wife and I attended an AOG church where the senior minister spoke on the last of six meetings titled “The Gifts of the Spirit”. He was speaking on 1Co 14 and he mentioned that he addressing some sensitive issues and with some attempt to gain some credibility he had a copy of Garlands’ substantial work on 1Corinthians sitting on the lectern for all to see.

What annoyed me was that he not only incorrectly quoted Garland but he intentionally did not clarify his own opinions with that of Garlands. Even though I could not recall every position that Garland held on chapter 14, I knew full well that no academic worth his salt would support the positions that this pastor was trying to impose on the congregation which admittedly also reflected much of the opinion held by many other AOG pastors at least within our region which is the reason that I’m finding his views to be of some interest. At this point in time, I am going through some of his podcasts and I can certainly understand why there was no evidence of the Spirit working in the meeting that we were in. For all intents and purposes many so called AOG ministers may as well be cessationist for all their worth.
Correct doctrine is certainly no hard and fast recipe for instant spiritual activity but at least good doctrine won’t stand in the way of the Spirits’ activity in our midst.

I find the contradictions in the self described "Spirit filled" church in America utterly confusing. Why in God's name would we ever try to eject the gifts out of our church services? The Pentecostal church in America is in crisis. We claim the Pentecost name but we have rejected the Pentecost experience. The baton is being passed, but one generation is passing it off to a younger generation that does not know the power and the wonders of God. Meanwhile, we fight amongst ourselves over whether corporate singing in the Spirit is forbidden or permitted.

Well said.

I am in complete sympathy with many of your frustrations but sadly, until we return to a Biblical understanding of the Trinitarian nature of Body ministry, as with how especially the Spirit and the Father operate within both the life of the believer and the Church then we will keep on going from fad to fad to keep the masses entertained.

All I know is is that my generation desperately needs to know what it is to be Pentecostal and Spirit filled. We desperately need to return to a time when the Spirit had free rein to minister and touch hearts. We desperately need to see churches that instead of trying to manufacture some crisply produced worship experience would instead fall on their faces and their knees and wait on God. And yes, we need to hear the sound of a congregation with one voice singing in the Spirit.

Again I am in complete sympathy with your desire to see more of the Spirit in our midst, but if we are not prepared to seriously consider what the Spirit has already told us in his Word regarding how he will minister through us then we will always be accepting the morsels that fall off the table at best. Sadly our consumer based society of which we are apart seems to be more interested in what makes us feel good and there is also a strong tendency to reject authoritative sources particularly with the Words that the Spirit inspired Paul to write to us.

Am I arrogant, well I know that I am certainly frustrated with the woeful lack of knowledge that exists especially within the rank and file element of the Full Gospel Church; in some ways it’s like attending an architect’s conference on high rise buildings, but all they end up doing is sit around and build castles made of sand.

 

[Biblicist]

I did not say that my approach is based on what feels good. It is based on my understanding of the Bible...

You may need to take a look at your following post which made the following definitive statement that in my view leaves no room for any misunderstanding of your popularly held methodology:

Your post #27
I am not selfish. I don't have an attitude of "I don't care what you think, as I am doing what makes me feel good,"
​

All I can do is to simply believe what you have told me, and again, I fully recognise that your approach is probably much the same that as which many portions of the Full Gospel movement have happily adopted and even defended for decades.

You are very arrogant in assuming that because someone disagrees with your interpretation of scripture, they are "based on human precepts" and "foreign to God's Word." You are judgmental and false in your views, in my opinion. And my opinion is just as valid as yours is.

You may have noticed that I was not the one who used the inflammatory terms of being arrogant, a Pharisee, judgmental and hypocrite; they are the words that you have chosen to use against someone who is simply well able to present a particular point of view. If you disagree then that’s your prerogative but it really does not help any discussion when terms such as being judgmental, a hypocrite, a legalist and other similar terms are being carelessly thrown around as with;

Your post #25.
There's an awful lot of judgment going on here. A lot of Pharisee talk.
​

No matter how many academic books, articles and journals that I read, this type of terminology is never employed and it seems to be more the domain of the public forum.

I do not believe in "word of faith" and am not familiar with "new apostolic renewal."

It’s good to see that you are not a WoF proponent. When it comes to the new apostolic renewal or NARzies, this wide spread movement has in my view become a severe threat to the integrity of the Body of Christ where it could rightfully be said that at this moment of time that they comprise a sizable element of the Full Gospel movement.
In my more melancholy moments I can even ponder if the Church will be able to withstand this horrid development within our midst and I suspect that they will be a far greater threat than the WoF movement has been and even with its forerunner with that of the latter-rain movement. At least that I know that in spite of the terrible legacies of both the latter-rain and wof movements that the Lord will always prevail.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[stormdancer0]

The "Doing what feels good" is a response to someone saying I'm crazy for worshiping the way I do. It was not meant to indicate that this is WHY I worship the way I do. I'm sorry for the mix-up.

In my view, anyone who uses the Bible to correct someone without taking into account the Spiritual truths behind scripture has a Pharisee, arrogant attitude. I felt like this is what you were doing. This is what I was trying to bring out.

 

[ltwin]

It seems that maybe we are working from within different historical documents. Contrary to popular opinion that the Pentecostal movement began at Azusa Street, the contemporary Pentecostal movement actually had its beginnings in a somewhat nondescript Bible school that was located in the small town of Topeka Kansas. Some of the events that occurred at this Bible school seem to be somewhat sensationalised and it seems not all that much of any great substance occurred for at least a few years after this. As for their being a heavenly choir, it seems the best that we could claim is with a strong wind blowing across the fields of Kansas.

I am aware of the role that Parham played in formulating the doctrine of initial evidence, and I am aware that it was at Bethel Bible School that Agnes Ozman spoke in tongues. However, Azusa Street certainly had a far greater impact and really became the spark igniting Pentecostalism. Nevertheless, neither Parham nor Azusa can take all the credit. Scholars have noted for awhile now that in the same period of time their were outpourings in other places around the world, the Welsh Revival comes to mind (and many British and European writers will assign it the pivotal role of starting Pentecostalism) and even among Christian missions in India.

I suspect that if the Holy Spirit was allowed to minister within some Pentecostal congregational meetings that the senior staff of these congregations would hardly know what to do. I am of the strong view that one of the reasons that we are now seeing less and less of the power of the Spirit within our meetings is that many denominational and congregational leaders have simply decided to either actively or passively discourage individuals from allowing the Spirit to work through them in their meetings; to a large degree that has been due to the often failed practices and presumptions that many have had regarding how the Spirit ministers which has created so much carnality and frivolity within many supposedly Full Gospel congregations.

I agree with you. I have seen moves of God that were real and I have seen those that were false. I have experienced the worst abuses of both the Word of Faith and "prophetic" movements. The church I grew up in was torn apart when a self styled "prophet" came in and spiritually terrorized the people there. My family had enough discernment to get out, but it was a long time before the rest of the church came to its senses and kicked out both the "prophet" and the pastor who had enabled her to destroy the church.

So I know why pastors would be fearful. However, what it comes down to is do we really want a move of God or not? If the answer is yes then we have to obey God and let the Spirit have his way. There will probably be abuses and some people will probably get in the flesh, but that is why leaders must stay humble and in touch with God and knowledgeable of the word so abuses can be corrected.

Last Sunday my wife and I attended an AOG church where the senior minister spoke on the last of six meetings titled “The Gifts of the Spirit”. He was speaking on 1Co 14 and he mentioned that he addressing some sensitive issues and with some attempt to gain some credibility he had a copy of Garlands’ substantial work on 1Corinthians sitting on the lectern for all to see.

What annoyed me was that he not only incorrectly quoted Garland but he intentionally did not clarify his own opinions with that of Garlands. Even though I could not recall every position that Garland held on chapter 14, I knew full well that no academic worth his salt would support the positions that this pastor was trying to impose on the congregation which admittedly also reflected much of the opinion held by many other AOG pastors at least within our region which is the reason that I’m finding his views to be of some interest. At this point in time, I am going through some of his podcasts and I can certainly understand why there was no evidence of the Spirit working in the meeting that we were in. For all intents and purposes many so called AOG ministers may as well be cessationist for all their worth.
Correct doctrine is certainly no hard and fast recipe for instant spiritual activity but at least good doctrine won’t stand in the way of the Spirits’ activity in our midst.

Yes. I see two problems with current pastors. It seems that there are two extremes going on and very few in the middle ground. Either a pastor has a lot of zeal for God and a desire to see him move yet has very little theological or biblical education. This opens him up to a lot of odd and heretical teachers and teachings. Often they fail to measure their experience by biblical criteria.

Then there is another extreme. Pastors that have been baptized in the Spirit and speak in tongues, but for whatever reason have never been taught the meaning this experience has in their lives. They go off to seminary and are taught to be EVANGELICAL pastors. Now I consider myself an evangelical Christian, but I consider myself more than evangelical. I'm Pentecostal, and that is more than just evangelical plus tongues. I believe that Pentecostal ministry has been harmed by being turned into nothing more than a mirror image of evangelicalism.

So I think we need to address the fact that we are producing either poorly trained and prepared (many who are just plain flaky) Pentecostal pastors or evangelical control freak pastors. We need to restore balance.

Again I am in complete sympathy with your desire to see more of the Spirit in our midst, but if we are not prepared to seriously consider what the Spirit has already told us in his Word regarding how he will minister through us then we will always be accepting the morsels that fall off the table at best. Sadly our consumer based society of which we are apart seems to be more interested in what makes us feel good and there is also a strong tendency to reject authoritative sources particularly with the Words that the Spirit inspired Paul to write to us.

Am I arrogant, well I know that I am certainly frustrated with the woeful lack of knowledge that exists especially within the rank and file element of the Full Gospel Church; in some ways it’s like attending an architect’s conference on high rise buildings, but all they end up doing is sit around and build castles made of sand.

I agree with you. However, when it comes to corporate singing in tongues, we simply have two different views about what the word of God is saying about the Spirit's work.

 

[Biblicist]

...In my view, anyone who uses the Bible to correct someone without taking into account the Spiritual truths behind scripture has a Pharisee, arrogant attitude. I felt like this is what you were doing. This is what I was trying to bring out.

Thanks for your reply, now I better understand your methodology.

As may by now be able to better appreciate, from my perspective, when it comes to the view that there are hidden unseen spiritual truths behind many Scriptures that cannot be understood merely by their context, this tends to become the key that opens Pandora’s Box, in that you will never know what pops out when you open the lid.

When it comes to some texts, particularly within say 1Co 12, 13 & 14, I have had to wait years before I was able to gain a better understanding of what some passages meant. I knew that there were no hidden spiritual truths behind them but that for some reason no one seemed to be able to provide an explanation as to what Paul meant in some parts of these chapters.
Some good examples of this are with 1Co 12:2,3 regarding cursing; Bruce Winter was this first scholar who in 2001 provided a decent explanation for this text which is now being widely acknowledged as being the most probable solution.

With regard to 1Co 12:31 “But eagerly desire the greater gifts”, a number of academics and interestingly even the NIV1984 provided a great footnote to this verse which helped to make sense out of a very odd passage.

Grudem provided some great insight into 14:22,23 “ Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers.” This very troublesome passage frustrated every serious scholar and it was not until around 1985 when Grudem released his work did the penny finally drop.

There are many other passages which have become clearer due to the hard work of numerous individuals. Other than in Revelations and with some prophetic words within the Gospels and Epistles, whatever Paul (and the others) wrote was given to us for our understanding - though his writing style and the vast gap that exists between his time and ours certainly makes things a bit murky at times.

 

[Biblicist]

I agree with you. However, when it comes to corporate singing in tongues, we simply have two different views about what the word of God is saying about the Spirit's work.

I think that we can accept our differences on this issue and of course my perspective is certainly a minority opinion – well at least for now!
……………

When it comes to the use of the terms, Evangelical, Charismatic and Pentecostal, my own frustration with how I have used the term Pentecostal has seen me recently dropping its usage or at least with how I described my own position to where I now use the term Full Gospel.
This allows me to disassociate myself with what I perceive are the many errant understandings that exist within this movement. Hopefully my usage of Full Gospel will connect me more with Full Gospel theology than with the baggage that I see that accompanies the term Pentecostal- though there are still times when the context allows me to use the descriptor Pentecostal.
……………

With our contemporary church model of the pastor, this in my opinion has added to the general ineffective of our paid ministry in that this extra-biblical role has forced many individuals into roles that they were not designed for.

All too often we find individuals who may be pastoral in temperament who are pushed into leadership roles that are more suited to those with administrative abilities or who are maybe evangelists or teachers; as such we all too often try and force fit round pegs into square holes or even with the reverse.

Sadly, we often find men entering into paid ministry who have high ideals and strong character, but who in the end suffer due to them being placed within roles that they are not suited to - and we wonder why some many leave the ministry or are eventually forced out due to improper behaviour.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"God can speak in any way he chooses."

BINGO!!!

Theologians like to build their little doctrinal "Boxes" to capture God in. But He'll just "kick the ends out" every time, and do what He pleases.

 

[sharing101]

You got it right.

Christians must follow the instructions written in the Bible. However, there are some who call themselves Christians yet they reject Christ's teachings. They do what pleases them. They just pick commandments that are convenient to them, so they do not fully obey.

About the speaking in tongues, it is clearly written that if there is no interpreter, it is better to be silent in the church. There must be interpreters: two or not greater than three. That's the instruction of Paul, an apostle of Christ.

So don't be led astray, stick to what the Bible is teaching.

Ask Bro. Eli, and the Bible will answer.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"Christians must follow the instructions written in the Bible."

But NOT NECESSARILY the "interpreted instructions" that this or that religious paradigmatic generates, and tries to BIND people to.

"About the speaking in tongues, it is clearly written that if there is no interpreter, it is better to be silent in the church."

Much could be said about this, BUT

Since one CAN NOT deliver a legitimate message in a tongue to a congregation UNLESS He/She is specifically BURDENED by the Holy Spirit to do so, then IF the burden to Speak a message in tongues should occur, then one can know that the Holy Spirit knows whether or not there's one there to interpret, and will burden Him/Her also to give ministry. Whether or not the one burdened to interpret will be obedient is another question, but that's NOT the "Tongue Speaker's problem" The burden to speak in a tongue SHOULD BE obeyed when the opening for it occurs.

There would be NO WAY to actually KNOW in advance about the presence of an interpreter, since the gift exists in an individual ONLY when they are burdened to manifest the it. I personally HAVE interpreted, but that doesn't mean that I'll be burdened to do it the next time there's a message in a tongue.

"Ask Bro. Eli, and the Bible will answer."

The Holy Spirit I know, and the Bible I know, but who's this "Eli" character????.

 

[Biblicist]

But NOT NECESSARILY the "interpreted instructions" that this or that religious paradigmatic generates, and tries to BIND people to.

This can often be a fair comment and of course there are two widely differing views, but the ownus is now on individuals to demonstrate from within the Scriptures the following:

• where we are permitted to all speak in tongues in masse
• where tongues has ever been used to speak to a specific individual or group
• why someone needs to feel impressed or led to pray in tongues within a congregational setting
• where the Scriptures have ever equated tongues + interpretation = prophecy

"About the speaking in tongues, it is clearly written that if there is no interpreter, it is better to be silent in the church."

As we do not need to be lead or impressed to speak in tongues within a congregational meeting or to be more specific, that the Spirit does not lead us to do so, then there will never be any issue with the Spirit leading us to do so. Anyway, the Scriptures tell us to check (not the Spirit) to make sure that there is someone present who can interpret.

Bro Eli!

Good point, who is he exactly.

 

[awakeningekklesia]

I was in intercessory prayer once and it was Gods Spirit Doing the intercession. As the Spirit was praying I felt a release and after the release the Spirit began to sing and then an interpretation came next. I will never forget. It was just a course and it was beautiful. Let it be noted I have ZERO musical ability as well lol

Holy one of Israel
Zion crys out
Your a Holy warrior
Mighty King
Your the prince of peace
And the king of kings

 

[Biblicist]

Hi awakeningekklesia,

I was in intercessory prayer once and it was Gods Spirit Doing the intercession. As the Spirit was praying I felt a release and after the release the Spirit began to sing and then an interpretation came next. I will never forget...

These can certainly be great times; my question would be, how would you decide if it was the leading of the Holy Spirit or merely a conscious decision that you made to worship the Father in the Spirit?

 

[awakeningekklesia]

Hi awakeningekklesia,


These can certainly be great times; my question would be, how would you decide if it was the leading of the Holy Spirit or merely a conscious decision that you made to worship the Father in the Spirit?

Though question
Hard to answer
I don't like answering any question on these grounds without the word

I don't want to give my opinions but Gods word. After I givethe word I will break down my thoughts on this event

The Word teaches when we know not what we ought to pray the Spirit makes intercession through us. Praying in the Spirit is the Spirit making intercession through us, so as the Spirit pours out, it is the Spirit itself and not our leading. In this particular case at the release I felt the Spirit shift from a warring intercession to a worship. I took it as the what ever the need that the intercession was addressing God heard and God moved and in response the Spirit began to worship and sing and then the interpretation of the singing came.

I know the Spirit is always about edification and I can tell you this as well this was one of the most edifying and strengthening thigs iv ever experienced. I think back to this quite often and it always builds me and I find strength from it