The Administration Of Tongues

Hillsage said:

I know what you mean, I've never been able to tell the difference between a Spirit baptized Methodist tongue from a Spirit baptized Catholic tongue when they were praying with the phone of 'their spirit'.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree, though I frequently struggle to understand the tongues of the hard-core cessationist.

Imagican said:

Yet there is no such offering in the Bible. Unknown Tongues are a GIFT of The Spirit, (capital S).

Click to expand...

Only known tongues unknown to the person uttering are the gift of the Holy Spirit as observed on the day of Pentecost.

Corinthians were only mimicking such a gift to claim spirituality!

Our spirit is incapable of speaking or understanding Unknown Tongues that exist in the Bible.

Click to expand...

The Bible does not recognize unknown tongue.

As a matter of FACT, the Charismatic Churches that supposedly speak in 'unknown tongues', ALL insist that such behavior is a SIGN that one is Spirit FILLED. Insist that it IS a 'sign' of the presence of the Holy Ghost.

Click to expand...

That is delusion and false claim!

There is NOTHING that a person can DO of their OWN accord that is HOLY. The only means of doing ANYTHING Holy is THROUGH The Spirit.

Click to expand...

Speaking gibberish by emotional person's spirit is not holy!

Paul plainly points out that we are NOT to seek personal edification. That ALL we DO is to be DONE with the BODY as the focus. Over and over he exemplifies the USELESSNESS of doing that which brings ONLY self edification and INSISTS that such 'childish ways' be 'put away'.

Click to expand...

I do think that way.

So you can SAY that a person can speak unknown tongues, (a gift of The Spirit), through their own spirit without intercession of the Holy Spirit, but that is NOT what we are offered in the Bible.

Click to expand...

I reiterate that unknown tongue is not that of the Holy Spirit; it is of the person's spirit.

Just a MAN MADE means of trying to justify going AGAINST the instructions Paul offered. ALL things are to be done DECENTLY and IN ORDER. That means AS instructed.

Click to expand...

Decency and order demand speaking in a known language.

And the clincher is Paul's offering that he had rather speak five words of understanding than 10000 words in an unknown tongue. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understanding the MEANING behind his words. He is offering that unknown tongues is USELESS without MEANING. 1/200th the significance of speaking that which is understood. And then he says to covet the most IMPORTANT gifts. Obviously pointing out that something 1/200th the significance of another is of LEAST important compared to the MOST important.

Click to expand...

In agreement.

So, instead of following the teachings of men in THEIR churches, wouldn't it be more proper to follow the teachings of Paul? For it is 'man made Churches' that teach that gibberish is tongues. If you read the entire Bible, every usage of the term 'tongues' is in reference to LANGUAGES. Men came along later and tried to indicate that speaking gibberish is some sort of 'language'. But it is obvious that it is NOT since neither SPEAKER or HEARER understand it.

Click to expand...

Keeping in mind that Paul was especially writing that to Corinthians who had gone wrong with their false methods and behavior.

I read your words. I understand EXACTLY what they were intended to relay. But the TRUTH is, they are just YOUR words that have absolutely NO Biblical reference whatsoever. So what do you think I place my faith in. Your words offered in an attempt at justification? Or the words of the Bible that refute any such offering?

Click to expand...

Bible was not for meant mimicking unknown entities with wild imaginations.



MEC[/QUOTE]

Hillsage said:

Whereas YLT says;

1 Timothy 3:16 and, confessedly, great is the secret of piety - God was manifested in flesh, declared righteous in spirit, seen by messengers, preached among nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory!

So, while 'many' translations agree s is S, Young's doesn't...and neither do I.

Click to expand...

Over the past week I've been reading Frank D. Macchia's book Justified in the Spirit (2010) where his notoriously difficult reading style is discussing the current trends within the field of soteriology where Pentecostal perspectives have apparently taken a few steps forward when it comes to the Reformations "justified by faith".

What Macchia points out is that even though the Reformation made great inroads with regard to our understandiing of justification, he points out that from a Pentecostal perspective that they still virtually omitted the Holy Spirit. He pointed out that unless we have a proper understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit then we will always struggle to understand justification.

As with many other commentators, Macchia makes the point that even with the great strides that were made after the Reformation that most Protestant (and RC) theology is still Binitarian and not Trinitarian.

Justified in the Spirit,

p.4

p.5
p.6
p.11

Yet you and Hilsage have BOTH admitted that YOU believe that there are a 'sort of tongues' that is NOT guided nor inspired by the Holy Spirit.

So all this reading that you quote is pretty much MOOT so far as ANY tongues that are not inspired as the Holy Spirit give utterance.

Paul plainly defines PROPER tongues and the proper manner in which they can be defined. In other words, if the tongues that you choose to speak do NOT conform to the DEFINITION of tongues as laid out by Paul, they are NOT the 'tongues' of the Bible that can ONLY be spoken AS the Spirit gives utterance.

There is ONLY ONE 'gift of tongues' mentioned in the Bible. There are NOT two or three or four or any other number than ONE. And that "GIFT" is stated by Paul to be "FOR A SIGN, not to them that BELIEVE, but to them that BELIEVE NOT". The words couldn't have been offered more clearly. And that ONLY manner in which the NON believer could be offered a BENEFIT or SIGN from an 'unknown tongue', would be to be spoken to by someone that had NEVER learned their language, the wonderful news of God and His Son.

For Paul clarifies this to be true by offering that if a STRANGER were to attend a 'gathering' and people were speaking in GIBBERISH, that person would consider those he witnessed to be BARBARIANS. That instead of being able to influence the stranger to JOIN in the 'good news', they would instead be lead AWAY from a bunch of people ACTING like Barbarians.

He then states that ANY sound that does NOT signify MEANING is USELESS. Like using the WRONG sound to call an army to battle. How is one to KNOW what the signal is if the WRONG sound is used to call them to duty.

Plainly illustrating that speaking in gibberish is NOT the 'tongues' of the Bible and an act of self edification that is utterly useless to the Body or 'church'. And instead of DOING that which is USELESS or solely for the purpose of self edification, we are to FOCUS on that which brings edification to the BODY. And any act that presents evidence OTHERWISE is ''childish'' and to be PUT AWAY.

Now, it is MY curiosity that begs the question: If Paul's words are simple enough for a child to understand, how is it that instead of recognizing the rebuke Paul offered the Church at Corinth, those that insist upon making their SAME mistakes choose to find ENCOURAGEMENT to continue in false practice in Paul's words instead of his plea for them to STOP? And then use the EXCUSE that they are led by the Holy Spirit to do that which Paul called childish and then demanded that they PUT AWAY such CHILDISH THINGS.

And if you deny this, explain to us what 'childish things' Paul was referring to. For right in the MIDDLE of his instructions concerning TONGUES, he insists that they PUT AWAY SUCH CHILDISH THINGS. Obviously he wouldn't be RIGHT in the MIDDLE of a discussion about a SINGULAR topic and then make such a reference to 'something else'. The obviousness is, right in the middle of his discussion about the abuse or misuse of 'tongues', her REFERENCES them to 'childish things' and commands that such childish things be PUT AWAY: ceased, stopped, ended, DONE. Don't DO IT ANY MORE.

Every chapter of every epistle Paul wrote, started with a question of sorts, gave a small description of the problem, and then gave the solution to the problem in the end of the chapter. That is the STYLE of his writings and is the basic STYLE of the entire BIBLE. Most people never learn this and just READ WORDS. But the Bible is NOT just words. It is PRINCIPLES that have defined MEANING.

Paul was NOT writing words of encouragement to the Corinthians when he spoke of their BEHAVIOR or ACTIONS. He ENCOURAGED them to STOP doing that which was contrary to GROWTH in the Spirit. But DISCOURAGED the things that they were doing he had heard about by explaining to them in DETAIL exactly how and WHY they were WRONG.

And how the modern Charismatic Churches came along and started using words of REBUKE as encouragement to follow in the same path as those Paul wrote letters of REBUKE to is BEYOND my understanding.

But then the ENTIRE difference between the modern Charismatic Churches and other denominations from MY perspective is simply a matter of immaturity. The modern Charismatic movement seems to THRIVE upon SELF edification. Acting and behaving more like CHILDREN than adults. Insisting that such actions that more mimic CHILDREN are SIGNS of the presence of Holy Spirit. Yet the Bible tells us that GOD is NOT the author of confusion, but of PEACE as in ALL churches of the Saints. The modern Charismatic movements seems to find NO comfort in these words. For what I have personally witnessed is NOTHING but utter CONFUSION when witnessing people flopping around on the ground, falling over BACKWARDS and speaking gibberish and calling it 'the tongues of the Bible'. For if the person speaking gibberish, nor anyone else in the group UNDERSTANDS what they are SAYING, it is nothing BUT 'confusion'. The LACK of understanding or ORDER. And WHO but someone who has chosen to utterly BLIND themselves to the truth can deny these simple words of UNDERSTANDING?

Blessings,

MEC

Biblicist2 said:

Over the past week I've been reading Frank D. Macchia's book Justified in the Spirit (2010) where his notoriously difficult reading style is discussing the current trends within the field of soteriology where Pentecostal perspectives have apparently taken a few steps forward when it comes to the Reformations "justified by faith".

What Macchia points out is that even though the Reformation made great inroads with regard to our understandiing of justification, he points out that from a Pentecostal perspective that they still virtually omitted the Holy Spirit. He pointed out that unless we have a proper understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit then we will always struggle to understand justification.

As with many other commentators, Macchia makes the point that even with the great strides that were made after the Reformation that most Protestant (and RC) theology is still Binitarian and not Trinitarian.

Justified in the Spirit,

p.4

One might be said to rise from the dead in the fullness of the Spirit, for the resurrection is, according to Paul, the ultimate in pneumatic existence (1 Cor. 15:44-46), in which mortality is “swallowed up by life” (2 Cor. 5:4) or baptized in the Spirit.3 This connection between pneumatic and resurrected existence is why the indwelling of the Spirit in this age is the “down payment” and guarantee of the immortal existence of resurrection in the new age (Eph. 1:14; Rom. 8:11; 2 Cor. 5:5).​

p.5

It is interesting to read the history of justification theology in the light of the Spirit, since both Catholic and Protestant traditions have been ambivalent about the role of the Spirit in justification. . .

Many traditional Protestants describing justification, if they mention the Spirit at all, have the Spirit function from the outside, inspiring faith in the gospel but not at work as the very substance of justification itself. . .

Many traditional Protestants describing justification, if they mention the Spirit at all, have the Spirit function from the outside, inspiring faith in the gospel but not at work as the very substance of justification itself. . .
​

p.6

This subjective understanding of pneumatology, which identifies the Spirit with the enlightened religious consciousness or with moral progress, is precisely what is wrong with the Protestant soteriology that dominated the modern era prior to Barth and left an influence even beyond him. . .
​

p.11

What is not always entirely clear in this new ferment of theological reflection on justification is the role of pneumatology in its possible mediating between the classic Protestant concern for extrinsic or legal righteousness granted to us through faith and the Catholic concern for the impartation of righteousness through moral formation and the attainment of virtues. The Spirit as the link between the legal and the transformative is significant, since the Spirit functions as both advocate and vivifier. Arguably, a theology of justification that integrates various biblical accents is only possible through a Trinitarian framework that grants the Spirit proper emphasis. The idea that we partake of Christ through the indwelling Spirit is a valuable point of departure for discovering the relatively neglected pneumatological link.​

Click to expand...

Do you know what these words remind me of? Those offered by many of those the Catholic Church calls the FATHERS of Christianity. NO, not the apostles, but the philosophers that came a hundred years later in Greece and Rome. Men using men's words to define something SPIRITUAL and BEYOND their grasps. Being beyond their grasps, they were forced to create something of their OWN design that THEY could grasp. And, hence, the formation of the RCC. A NEW religion that ADDED Christ and God instead of starting OVER with God and Christ.

Practically NOTHING offered in the quotes you offered has ANY biblical backing whatsoever. It STARTS with an effort to DEFEND or justify behavior that is unbiblical to start with. And only becomes more and more inane the deeper the author gets. No different than L Ron Hubbard's dissertations on Scientology. Obviously his ROTE appealed to SOMEBODY or he would never have found any followers. But his own children admitted that it was SATANISM with absolutely NO affiliation with anything HOLY.

Words for the WEAK that have no true understanding of the BIBLE. For if one reading that 'stuff' DID have any sense of understanding of the BIBLE, they would clearly recognize that the words quoted from this 'book' are nothing other than "MAN MADE" Without any Biblical basis whatsoever. Just some words by some man that is attempting to justify something contrary to the Bible.

Blessings,

MEC

In my writings pertaining to 'religion' or 'faith', I often use a capital S or small s when using the word SPIRIT.
When I use the capital S is in reference to the HOLY Spirit or the Spirit that represents God or His Son. That means that they use to communicate to those capable of LISTENING.
When I use the small 's', it is in reference to the CARNAL spirit of man OR, in even more instances, the 'spirit of this world'. THE FLESHLY 'spirit'. OR, the 'spirit' that DOMINATES this WORLD. And that is EVIL or DARKNESS or SATAN or his minions.
Left to our own devices, this means SHORT of 'rebirth', a man has NO ability to follow anything BUT the 'spirit of this world'. No matter how NICE someone may appear on the OUTSIDE, INSIDE they are LOST and in DARKNESS if they have YET to experience REBIRTH.
The Bible explains this in DETAIL. It STATES that a man CANNOT enter the Kingdom of God SHORT of 'rebirth'. Christ INSISTS that one MUST, get it? MUST be REBORN in order for the Holy Spirit to guide them in conviction. And once REBORN, it is THEN that one can rely upon the HOLY Spirit to guide them in understanding.
So all this talk about one's PERSONAL 'spirit' points in only ONE direction: SELF edification: the WORLD, DARKNESS and an utter LACK of understanding when it comes to the TRUTH.
And here we have it: TRUTH. That is certainly something subjective to mankind. But the REAL truth is anything BUT subjective. It is as SOLID as a ROCK. But that doesn't alter the reality that ANY man can form HIS OWN TRUTH that is completely contrary to THE truth.
And here is something CRUCIAL in understanding: The Holy Spirit cannot "NOT recognize ITSELF". That means that ANY and EVERYONE that has experienced REBIRTH is going to be offered the SAME conviction of the Holy Spirit. Maybe not to the same DEGREE, but regardless of how MUCH or how LITTLE, the understanding or conviction is going to be the SAME regardless. Otherwise, there IS NO TRUTH. If what I have offered here is NOT true, then there are MANY truths according to whoever chooses to CREATE their OWN truth.
But followers of God through Christ are ONLY led by ONE truth: The Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit CANNOT contradict itself.

Blessings,

MEC

Imagican said:

Do you know what these words remind me of? Those offered by many of those the Catholic Church calls the FATHERS of Christianity. NO, not the apostles, but the philosophers that came a hundred years later in Greece and Rome. Men using men's words to define something SPIRITUAL and BEYOND their grasps. Being beyond their grasps, they were forced to create something of their OWN design that THEY could grasp. And, hence, the formation of the RCC. A NEW religion that ADDED Christ and God instead of starting OVER with God and Christ.

Practically NOTHING offered in the quotes you offered has ANY biblical backing whatsoever. It STARTS with an effort to DEFEND or justify behavior that is unbiblical to start with. And only becomes more and more inane the deeper the author gets. No different than L Ron Hubbard's dissertations on Scientology. Obviously his ROTE appealed to SOMEBODY or he would never have found any followers. But his own children admitted that it was SATANISM with absolutely NO affiliation with anything HOLY.

Words for the WEAK that have no true understanding of the BIBLE. For if one reading that 'stuff' DID have any sense of understanding of the BIBLE, they would clearly recognize that the words quoted from this 'book' are nothing other than "MAN MADE" Without any Biblical basis whatsoever. Just some words by some man that is attempting to justify something contrary to the Bible.

Blessings,

MEC

Click to expand...

As my post was directed to people such as Hillsage, then may I recommend that you leave the serious things of the Word to those who understand what is being discussed. As Macchia is one of the more renowned Pneumatological scholars where he is also well respected across all persuasions, then maybe you might need to brush up on your Pneumatology before you reply in the future.

You can always PM me is you wish where I can help you to get up to speed.

All I know is the text also seems a little funny for the theology of a capital S IMO. The Greek word en used for IN the Spirit, is the same Greek word used for IN the flesh, in the same verse. And if it was the spirit which was being justified a small s makes more sense grammatically to me, and Young's Literal Translation.

YLT 1TI 3:16 and, confessedly, great is the secret of piety - God was manifested in/en flesh, declared righteous in/en spirit, seen by messengers, preached among nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory!

So, if it was the Spirit who was doing the 'justifiying' then it should have said 'jusitifed BY the Spirit' IMO. And indeed that's what the Nearly Inspired Version does.

NIV 1TI 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in/en a body, was vindicated by/en the Spirit,

So NIV makes it sound grammatically correct, but does so at the expense of incorrect translation...I think.

Hillsage said:

All I know is the text also seems a little funny for the theology of a capital S IMO. The Greek word en used for IN the Spirit, is the same Greek word used for IN the flesh, in the same verse. And if it was the spirit which was being justified a small s makes more sense grammatically to me, and Young's Literal Translation.

YLT 1TI 3:16 and, confessedly, great is the secret of piety - God was manifested in/en flesh, declared righteous in/en spirit, seen by messengers, preached among nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory!

So, if it was the Spirit who was doing the 'justifiying' then it should have said 'jusitifed BY the Spirit' IMO. And indeed that's what the Nearly Inspired Version does.

NIV 1TI 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in/en a body, was vindicated by/en the Spirit,

So NIV makes it sound grammatically correct, but does so at the expense of incorrect translation...I think.

Click to expand...

With 1Tim 3:16, as the passage is speaking of Jesus where he was both empowered and justified through the indwelling filling of the Holy Spirit when he was baptised, then we would have to see ἐν πνεύματιas as being “in [through] the [Holy] Spirit”.

On its own it would be impossible to know what Paul meant which can be seen below (in red), but as the Holy Spirit was the one who enabled Jesus to minister then we are compelled to look at the passage not from a linguistic perspective but from with a theological perspective that is Christological-Pneumatological.



The Greek word ἐν can also be a bit problematic as it can be easy to see it as meaning “in” but Gingrich’s Lexicon below will show that we cannot always do this.

Gingrich Lexicon, (BibleWorks 9)




In God’s Empowering Presence (1994), pp.21-22 Gordon D. Fee says,

Hillsage,

Are you SERIOUS????????? All that garbage you posted concerning a SIMPLE word with SIMPLE understanding? Oh my. No wonder you guys are SO confused.
The Bible was WRITTEN in a manner that it's simple enough for CHILD to understand. But you would choose to take that simplicity AWAY from the Bible and direct it towards something so complex that even ADULTS can't understand it? Shame on you. Shame on ANYONE that attempt to confuse people rather than lead them to SIMPLE TRUTH.
If I were to listen to either of you guys for TWO SECONDS, you would have me believing that MY GOD is ineffectual. Weak and incapable.
For you BOTH indicate that UNTIL NOW, the message translated from Greek to English is completely WRONG. That God wasn't POWERFUL enough to have men accurately translate the Bible from Greek to English UNTIL YOU TWO came along. That's RIDICULOUS and utterly pompous. The SAME self seeking edification that you practice in your false use of tongues and other NON Biblical behavior.

And I for one will not hesitate to point out the TRUTH. I am NOT ashamed of the Gospel nor my faith in God through Christ.

Vanity, oh vanity. Blinded by ones desire to serve SELF rather than God through His Son. Choosing path of separation instead of unity. Patting yourselves on your own collective backs while choosing a path of blindness and darkness instead of LIGHT. PROUD of your FOOLISH PRIDE. Vanity, all is but vanity. Me, me, me. What's in it for ME? And if it doesn't FEEL GOOD then it's NOT ENOUGH. If I can't do it "MY WAY" then I'm certainly NOT going to be a FOLLOWER. Not when I can be a LEADER of my OWN faith and destiny.
Oh my, such VANITY.
But in the END, what have you gained? A whitewashed TOMB? Filled with nothing but dry bones? We are to SERVE, not create a God that SERVES US in the manner you consistently indicate.
Biblicist, this is an open forum. I suggest that if you for some reason find difficulty in my responses to your OPEN posts, that YOU offer private messages to others. But so long as you post OPENLY, I believe that it is only natural and to be expected that others have just as much RIGHT to respond as you do to post.
And if you would like to go down that path you are indicating you believe to be 'just', just remember, that path goes in TWO directions.
I have tried my best to be as diplomatic as I know how. I have tried my best to focus my responses to a GROUP and it' behavior instead of on individuals. But if you insist upon attacking me personally so far as intellect or understanding, understand that you open that can of worms and so far, it is FULL and ready to be exposed. That means that regardless of your feigned attempts at righteousness, the truth can easily be exposed.
I would rather that we discuss ISSUES rather than 'each other'. But I am fine either way. For I didn't come to this forum IGNORANT or unarmed I assure you.
Isn't it FUNNY how it always works this way. Those of the Charismatic Churches always START calm and collective. But the more they are exposed to the TRUTH, that outer appearance quickly disappears and their TRUE nature is revealed. Only takes a minute and then the TRUTH is revealed: We are the ONLY people on the EARTH that are TRULY saved for without the outward SIGNS that WE believe are capable of revealing the 'children of God'.
UTTER vanity. The same vanity that leads them to believe in gibberish being tongues and falling over backwards a sign of The Holy Spirit.
You know, men are capable of discussion without becoming caught up in nothing but EMOTION. It is children that have yet to GROW UP that are incapable of discussion WITHOUT emotion being their focus.
I choose to discuss this issue as an ADULT. Please don't try to force me to act like a child in response.
And you also KNOW that if you turn this into a forum of insult rather than discussion that the Mods will close it. I am well familiar with that tactic: If I can't have it MY WAY then I'll do whatever I need to to SHUT IT DOWN. Once gain, immature behavior. Let us discuss the issue as men rather than children. Please?
Blessings,

MEC

Hey, I've got an even BETTER idea: I can't really think of anything to offer that I haven't already. Except this: I would suggest to ANY and EVERYONE: Before simply accepting what men may try and TEACH YOU, turn instead of the Word of God: The Bible. BEFORE you get 'caught up' into behavior or belief introduced BY men, read the Word FIRST. That way you will eliminate much of the possibility of false teachings. It's easier to AVOID false teachings than it is to LET THEM GO once one has been falsely led.
So, with that, I'm through with this thread. I have done what I am able to try and introduce the TRUTH. If that's not enough, then there is nothing left for me to offer.
Blessings,
MEC

2 Thessalonians 2:

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

These are some pretty potent words of righteousness and understanding. Now, how about the words FIRST offered concerning this particular situation:

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

And this is what the enemy desires: to be worshiped AS God by any means he can introduce. And it is UP TO US to choose the proper path. And we can ONLY do this by seeking out and finding the TRUTH.

For to face judgement and have nothing other than: "Well, that's what he TOLD US to believe", is going to be a POOR excuse indeed.

Blessings,

MEC

Biblicist2 said:

On its own it would be impossible to know what Paul meant which can be seen below (in red), but as the Holy Spirit was the one who enabled Jesus to minister then we are compelled to look at the passage not from a linguistic perspective but from with a theological perspective that is Christological-Pneumatological.

Click to expand...

But this whole verse has nothing to do with Jesus being enabled to minister. It has everything to do with describing him as being "made like unto his brethren in every respect"...I think.

The Greek word ἐν can also be a bit problematic as it can be easy to see it as meaning “in” but Gingrich’s Lexicon below will show that we cannot always do this.

Click to expand...

I do agree with it being 'problematic'. I just don't agree with Gingrich's problem solving skills on this point. Maybe if he was 'Pentecostal/Charismatic.

Gingrich Lexicon, (BibleWorks 9)

Click to expand...

ἐν preposition dative from ἐν
[GING] ἐν

ἐν prep. w. dat., most common prep. in N.T., used with greatest variety of meanings, of which the following are typical:—I. of place: in Mt 3:1; Lk 2:49; Ac 5:42; 1 Ti 3:15. On Mt 5:25; 6:5; J 4:20f; 2 Cor 3:3. At, near Lk 13:4; J 8:20; Eph 1:20. In the case of, to Mt 17:12; Mk 14:6; 1 Cor 4:2, 6; 9:15. In the presence of, before 1 Cor 2:6; in the judgment of 14:11. Among, in Mt 2:6; Mk 8:38; Gal 1:14. With (denoting accompaniment or association, merging into instrument) Mt 16:28; Lk 14:31; 1 Cor 4:21; 2 Cor 10:14; Hb 9:25; in the power of, under the influence of Mk 1:23; 12:36; 1 J 5:19. The sense into, where εἰς would be expected, is rare, but see Lk 9:46; Rv 11:11. In of interrelationship, esp. involving either Jesus or God or both J 10:38; 14:20; Ro 6:11, 23; 16:11; 1 Cor 1:30; 3:1; 4:15; Gal 2:20; Phil 3:1; 4:1f.—II. of time—1. of a period of time in the course of, within Mt 2:1; 3:1; 27:40; J 2:19f. ἐν τῷ μεταξύ meanwhile J 4:31.—2. denoting a point of time when something occurs in, at Mt 8:13; Mk 12:23; J 11:9, 10, 24; 1 Cor 15:23, 52.—3. when, while, during Mt 13:4, 25; 21:22; Mk 15:7; 12:38; Eph 6:20.—III. causal—1. expressing means or instrument with, in, by Mt 5:13; 26:52; Lk 1:51; Ro 5:9; Rv 17:16; with the help of Mt 9:34; Ac 17:31. ἐν τῷ ἐλαύνειν as they rowed (temporal) or because of the rowing (instrumental) Mk 6:48.—2. kind and manner ἐν δυνάμει with power, powerfully Mk 9:1; Col 1:29. ἐν ἐκτενείᾳ earnestly Ac 26:7. ἐν παρρησίᾳ freely, openly J 7:4.—3. cause or reason because of, on account of Mt 6:7; J 16:30; Ac 24:16; Ro 1:24.—IV. various other uses: amounting to Ac 7:14. Consisting in Eph 2:15. ἐν w. dat. stands for the ordinary dative Lk 2:14; Ro 1:19; Gal 1:16; very rarely for the genitive Ro 5:15. With ὄμνυμι by Mt 5:34ff; Rv 10:6; with ὁμολογεῖν omit ἐν in translation Lk 12:8. ἐν ᾧ may mean wherein Ro 14:22; while, as long as Mk 2:19; Lk 5:34; whereby Ro 14:21; because 8:3; under which circumstance 1 Pt 3:19. [pg 64]​

In God’s Empowering Presence (1994), pp.21-22 Gordon D. Fee says,

5. πνεύμα with the Dative. Most of the difficulties in Pauline usage have emerged here, especially with the formula έν πνεύματι and πνεύ- ματι.20 W h a t is of p a r t i c u l a r i n te r e s t is t h a t m o st of th e d a ta n o te d in th e other three cases are now reversed. Thus, there are 37 occurrences where the Holy Spirit is either directly or indirectly in view; 32 are anarthrous and 5 arthrous:​

32 are anarthrous
Rom 2:29; 8:9; 8:13; 8:14; 9:1; 14:17; 15:16
1 Cor 4:21; 12:3; 12:3; 12:13; 14:2; 14:16
2 Cor 3:3; 6:6
Gal 5:16; 5:18; 5:25; 5:25; 6:1
Eph 2:18; 2:22; 3:5; 5:18; 6:18
Phil 1:27; 3:3; 1:8
Col 1:8
1 Thes 1:5
1 Tim 3:16

5 arthrous
1 Cor 6:11; 12:9; 12:9
2 Cor 12:18
Eph 1:13​

Click to expand...

I notice 1Tim 3:16 is in regard to ANARTHROUS or having no joints/limbs, which is 'more' descriptive IMO of 'the spirit' of Jesus IMO. I know that's not really backed by scripture.

1CO 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Since I believe it is our spirit which is justified by the Spirit of God. I still think "in the spirit" should be lower case in 1Tim 3:16.

Imagican said:

Hillsage,

Are you SERIOUS?????????

Click to expand...

Is your discernment really that bad? No wonder you don't understand so much of what WE say here.

All that garbage you posted

Click to expand...

concerning a SIMPLE word with SIMPLE understanding? Oh my. No wonder you guys are SO confused.

Click to expand...

No, I don't think I've posted anything 'that' simple and never said it was simple. Quite the opposite. I think that SIMPLE is for the SIMPLE minded in the faith. I believe scripture also understands these 'babes'.

~Foundations for Living 1CO 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

I love simple minded babies in Christ, but it is difficult to dialogue at a level beyond the maturity that they have spiritually speaking. So we offer them the baptism that they are lacking to help them with more "mature wisdom".

1CO 2:5 that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. 6 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away.

So it does not surprise me that you are overwhelmed by my "SERIOUS" words here. But the things we are talking about are required "elementary teachings" according to scripture to bring maturity.
The mature, simply require more baptisms, one of which is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which you fight so hard trying to lead people away from believing.

HEB 6:1 Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God,2 instruction about baptisms,

I read/answer no further in your post, because you have proven over and over that it is simply OVER your head...spiritually speaking. And, therefore it is pointless to do so anymore. So HOPEFULLY you can understand what I am simply saying.

emekrus said:

I got a message from the Apostle Paul in 11 Corinthians (Can't search for the chapter and verse now bcos of time), He said, "though it be the covenant of men, but if it be confirmed, no man dissanulleth it"

Click to expand...

Paul likes the King James Version, apparently.

emekrus said:

It depends on what you mean...

Click to expand...

I understood what you meant, for what it's worth. You meant 'the verse' not the translation...right? But I must admit, that quote didn't ring a bell for me in any translation let alone KJV. But upon looking further, I found it and here's the correct address for any interested; Gal 3:17.

GAL 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

I did like your Smith Wigglesworth quote too.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm often surprised at how little sense of humor people online exhibit.

Albion said:

Maybe it's just me, but I'm often surprised at how little sense of humor people online exhibit.

Click to expand...

The medium does not help many times. Which often leaves one to go on 'topic' and 'poster' alone. Generally makes for a pretty good assumption IMO.