"Drunk in the Spirit"

[Ken]

EDIT: Oh, one other thing. Someone may have already mentioned this, but the language used in the passage that says "Do not be drunk with wine, but be filled with the Holy Spirit", implies a similarity between drunkenness and the Spirit-filled life, a sort of giving up one's own control to be "under the influence" of some other power.

I would argue the exact opposite. I don't think Paul is comparing drunkenness with being filled with the Holy Spirit or suggesting similarity between the two. He is CONTRASTING debauchery with a Godly life and suggesting they are opposites.

[Neto]

EDIT: Oh, one other thing. Someone may have already mentioned this, but the language used in the passage that says "Do not be drunk with wine, but be filled with the Holy Spirit", implies a similarity between drunkenness and the Spirit-filled life, a sort of giving up one's own control to be "under the influence" of some other power.

I would argue the exact opposite. I don't think Paul is comparing drunkenness with being filled with the Holy Spirit or suggesting similarity between the two. He is CONTRASTING debauchery with a Godly life and suggesting they are opposites.

That is certainly a possible interpretation, but it isn't really an exact opposite. The interpretation I suggest is, in one sense, more of an opposite, in that it reflects on being under the control of the Spirit, as opposed to being under the control (influence) of some intoxicant. He may also have been making an illusion to the accusation leveled against the followers of Jesus at Pentecost, when some people said "They're just drunk." Who knows, maybe Saul (Paul) was even there, and heard it all. There were also some "mystery cults" in vogue during that period that used drunkenness to achieve "spiritual ecstasy". (The traditional Banawa shamans used drugs to encourage interaction with spirits as well.) Some commentaries say that he introduces drunkenness "to form a parallel, both of similarity and contrast", that is, in the case of both drunkenness and Spirit filling the person "is under the control of, or 'filled' by an agent to which [he] yields himself". (Lowe & Nida, John Stott, Word Bible Commentary).

However, you have a point, and that is also an interpretation supported by some commentators.

[ken_sylvania]

I hesitated to post this here, because someone might jump on it to criticize the MB church, but one of my former pastors there had the gift of tongues. But the only reason I ever found out was because he told me this, during a time when he was counseling me about an issue related to this.

I'm just saying it now to indicate that this gift is sometimes used in such a manner that a casual observer will not know.

EDIT: Oh, one other thing. Someone may have already mentioned this, but the language used in the passage that says "Do not be drunk with wine, but be filled with the Holy Spirit", implies a similarity between drunkenness and the Spirit-filled life, a sort of giving up one's own control to be "under the influence" of some other power.

I think a more likely implication of that verse is that of contrast. Somewhat like "Let him that stole steal no more, but rather let him labor... that he may have to give."

ETA I see Ken mentioned this as well.

[Ken]

EDIT: Oh, one other thing. Someone may have already mentioned this, but the language used in the passage that says "Do not be drunk with wine, but be filled with the Holy Spirit", implies a similarity between drunkenness and the Spirit-filled life, a sort of giving up one's own control to be "under the influence" of some other power.

I would argue the exact opposite. I don't think Paul is comparing drunkenness with being filled with the Holy Spirit or suggesting similarity between the two. He is CONTRASTING debauchery with a Godly life and suggesting they are opposites.

That is certainly a possible interpretation, but it isn't really an exact opposite. The interpretation I suggest is, in one sense, more of an opposite, in that it reflects on being under the control of the Spirit, as opposed to being under the control (influence) of some intoxicant. He may also have been making an illusion to the accusation leveled against the followers of Jesus at Pentecost, when some people said "They're just drunk." Who knows, maybe Saul (Paul) was even there, and heard it all. There were also some "mystery cults" in vogue during that period that used drunkenness to achieve "spiritual ecstasy". (The traditional Banawa shamans used drugs to encourage interaction with spirits as well.) Some commentaries say that he introduces drunkenness "to form a parallel, both of similarity and contrast", that is, in the case of both drunkenness and Spirit filling the person "is under the control of, or 'filled' by an agent to which [he] yields himself". (Lowe & Nida, John Stott, Word Bible Commentary).

However, you have a point, and that is also an interpretation supported by some commentators.

Like many verses you can, of course, support different interpretations.

However if we take the thrust of Paul's writings as a whole it seems obvious to me that his constant theme is to draw contrasts between worldly life and a Godly life. Not to argue how they are somehow similar in form but different in emphasis or some such.

[Sudsy]

However, the "jibberish" part, I take issue with. "Of men and Angels" - Paul says. Just because it isn't a human language doesn't mean it's without meaning. Who knows what tongue the Disciples were speaking in on Pentecost, wherein every man who heard them heard them in their native tongue. I wouldn't be so quick to judge that...

There are plenty of videos on YouTube taken in churches where people are supposedly speaking in tongues. Should we watch some and see if we can come to any conclusions?

No. Rather find a church where speaking in tongues is used according to scripture and discern if this is of God or not. I don't suggest YouTube as a good resource to observe speaking in tongues as the Holy Spirit gives utterance.

[Ken]

However, the "jibberish" part, I take issue with. "Of men and Angels" - Paul says. Just because it isn't a human language doesn't mean it's without meaning. Who knows what tongue the Disciples were speaking in on Pentecost, wherein every man who heard them heard them in their native tongue. I wouldn't be so quick to judge that...

There are plenty of videos on YouTube taken in churches where people are supposedly speaking in tongues. Should we watch some and see if we can come to any conclusions?

No. Rather find a church where speaking in tongues is used according to scripture and discern if this is of God or not. I don't suggest YouTube as a good resource to observe speaking in tongues as the Holy Spirit gives utterance.

So all the YouTube ones are fakes and to actually see the real thing you have to go somewhere where no one has cell phones and no one uses video and watch it all happen live? Does the Holy Spirit only show up when there are no video cameras or cell phones around?

Seems implausible to me since there are actually millions of sermons and church services available online from every denomination on the planet, except perhaps the Amish and other ultra-conservative groups. But Pentecostals aren't anti-video like the Amish. There are hundreds of thousands of Pentecostal services available for streaming online (maybe millions if you look overseas too) and thousands of Pentecostal churches livestream their services online.

[Sudsy]

EDIT: Oh, one other thing. Someone may have already mentioned this, but the language used in the passage that says "Do not be drunk with wine, but be filled with the Holy Spirit", implies a similarity between drunkenness and the Spirit-filled life, a sort of giving up one's own control to be "under the influence" of some other power.

I would argue the exact opposite. I don't think Paul is comparing drunkenness with being filled with the Holy Spirit or suggesting similarity between the two. He is CONTRASTING debauchery with a Godly life and suggesting they are opposites.

That is certainly a possible interpretation, but it isn't really an exact opposite. The interpretation I suggest is, in one sense, more of an opposite, in that it reflects on being under the control of the Spirit, as opposed to being under the control (influence) of some intoxicant. He may also have been making an illusion to the accusation leveled against the followers of Jesus at Pentecost, when some people said "They're just drunk." Who knows, maybe Saul (Paul) was even there, and heard it all. There were also some "mystery cults" in vogue during that period that used drunkenness to achieve "spiritual ecstasy". (The traditional Banawa shamans used drugs to encourage interaction with spirits as well.) Some commentaries say that he introduces drunkenness "to form a parallel, both of similarity and contrast", that is, in the case of both drunkenness and Spirit filling the person "is under the control of, or 'filled' by an agent to which [he] yields himself". (Lowe & Nida, John Stott, Word Bible Commentary).

However, you have a point, and that is also an interpretation supported by some commentators.

I see it as both having similarities and contrasts. Being filled with wine and being filled with the Spirit means they are both a source of creating a response in us. But the wine filling produces something quite different than the Spirit filling and that is a contrast. One area, the wine filling, can produce a sense of joy. The Spirit filling also produces joy. However, the joy the Spirit gives is 'unspeakable joy' that is not the same kind of joy. It is a joy the world and the things in the world can never know without being born of the Spirit.

[Sudsy]

There are plenty of videos on YouTube taken in churches where people are supposedly speaking in tongues. Should we watch some and see if we can come to any conclusions?

No. Rather find a church where speaking in tongues is used according to scripture and discern if this is of God or not. I don't suggest YouTube as a good resource to observe speaking in tongues as the Holy Spirit gives utterance.

So all the YouTube ones are fakes and to actually see the real thing you have to go somewhere where no one has cell phones and no one uses video and watch it all happen live? Does the Holy Spirit only show up when there are no video cameras or cell phones around?

Seems implausible to me since there are actually millions of sermons and church services available online from every denomination on the planet, except perhaps the Amish and other ultra-conservative groups. But Pentecostals aren't anti-video like the Amish. There are hundreds of thousands of Pentecostal services available for streaming online (maybe millions if you look overseas too) and thousands of Pentecostal churches livestream their services online.

For instance, can you find a video where 1 Cor 14 is followed ? Here is a few verses - If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself.

I have been in various charismatic churches and only once heard a pastor correct someone from speaking in an unknown known tongue for all to hear and when asked for an interpreter there was none. He then reminded that person of the scripture instruction.

Now it does allow for speaking in an unknown tongue quietly to yourself in church and my previous MB pastor's wife did this often. But speaking so everyone can hear without an interpreter is against scriptural instruction. Many charismatic churches seem to disregard what 1 Cor 14 says, imo.

[Neto]

However, the "jibberish" part, I take issue with. "Of men and Angels" - Paul says. Just because it isn't a human language doesn't mean it's without meaning. Who knows what tongue the Disciples were speaking in on Pentecost, wherein every man who heard them heard them in their native tongue. I wouldn't be so quick to judge that...

There are plenty of videos on YouTube taken in churches where people are supposedly speaking in tongues. Should we watch some and see if we can come to any conclusions?

No. Rather find a church where speaking in tongues is used according to scripture and discern if this is of God or not. I don't suggest YouTube as a good resource to observe speaking in tongues as the Holy Spirit gives utterance.

I agree, however I didn't have success in that search. After I was not allowed to return to the anti-tongues Bible Institute where I attended my first year, I transferred to a C&MA Bible College, where it was allowed. A couple of friends from the Bible Institute also ended up at the same school, also not allowed to return to the first school. (Neither of us knew where the other was going to go. In fact, I went back to the Bible Institute for registration, and asked if I could return. The conditions they gave made it impossible, so my folks drove me on up north to the C&MA school, and they accepted me. Well, actually, I wasn't officially accepted in that school until after the second semester started. I hadn't applied before I showed up there for the Fall semester, because I thought I could get back in the first school by making some concessions. My pastor was on a Summer mission trip to the Old Colony folks in Mexico, so I hadn't been able to consult with him again before I headed off to college. Later he told me that it would not have been right to make the concessions I had in mind.)

But as to finding a congregation that openly uses tongues publicly in their services, I didn't find one that followed Scripture, and this other couple got tired of asking me to come with them, because on the drive back to the school I *always" pointed out something where they had not followed Scripture. Usually it was either one person interrupting another who was already speaking, or even interrupting the pastor during the sermon, or giving utterance when there was no interpretation.) So what I found is that the best course (as it seemed to me) was to find a congregation where it was neither misused, nor spoken against, as being "of the devil". The one I enjoyed the most was one called "The New Testament Church". When you walked in, there were not groups here and there talking about the weather, their jobs, or how busy they were, etc. There were instead little groups of people praying together, or jumping up and down, as a dance before the Lord. But there were other areas where I thought they went too far, like waiting for a prophetic utterance before they could decide on the color of carpet to have installed. The worst was a prayer group back home in Tulsa, where there was just this strong creepiness that I noticed immediately when I walked in. I never went back, although another member of our MB congregation encouraged me to go with him again.

To sum this up, what I found was that there tended to be an "exclusiveness" about the congregations that put an emphasis on this gift, and that those that were simply open to it, especially in private or corporate prayer times - those settings were more 'joyful', in some deeper sense. (And, there was no pressure to "make it or fake it" in those settings. If you had that gift, you used it, if you had a different one, you used that one.)

[Sudsy]

I ran across this Mennonite church article about speaking in tongues. It is fairly close to what I grew up in a Pentecostal church. However some of his explanations and coaching were interesting (couldn't think of another way to express it).

http://www.miracleoffaithchurch.com/rec ... pirit.html