SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Praying in the spirit?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 )
PosterThread
pende
Member



Joined: 2009/9/3
Posts: 15


 Re: Praying in the spirit?

Praying in the spirit is speaking in tongues. The best book that I have read on how to receive and all the details with scripture is, "Seven Vital steps to receiving the Holy Spirit" by Kenneth Hagin. Very simple and easy to understand.

To me it is a vital communication with the Lord thru the Holy Spirit. It puts you on his main line. It allows you to become intercessor for prayers for others. If god gives you a desire to pray...you pray until you feel a release in the spirit. Now sins are another thing, God knows how to stop you. He will tell you you need to forgive or do this and then continue. The Lord is all knowing and he does communicate.

All have sinned and come short of the glory. Jesus is on the Throne and he is in total control in the Spirit and prayers to him in the spirit. You can pray in the spirit and sing in the spirit. I Corinth 14:15

 2009/11/1 19:56Profile
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 2012
Joplin, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
But after removing charismatic lenses, and reading the Word of God in its contextual entirety, you can't help but wonder if anyone prior to the 1901 Topeka Kanasas phenomenon actually prayed in the spirit. Other denominations have their own theological interpretations on this verse.



I think I could read every post on this thread and say, "Yes, that is what praying in the Spirit is". It is both praying in tongues and also praying divinely inspired prayers as the Holy Spirit directs you. It is simply coming into agreement with the Holy Spirit of God in prayer. It is when what we are interceding for is also what Jesus is interceding for. Perhaps one speaks in tongues, perhaps one speaks in his own tongue, or perhaps one does both.

I quoted Paul West to say this. So often the issue of speaking in tongues is divided along denominational lines. It seems odd to me that this is the case. Why would one single out the manifest presence of the Holy Spirit as the thing to either vehemently accept or reject. The Holy Spirit is the power source for our lives and ministry. Jesus said it was so needful for Him to go away so He could send the comforter.

Topeka was not simply a one time phenomenon that was so different from anything else that had been happening ever since the day of pentecost. If one wants to dig hard enough, one can find many times when manifestation of the Holy Spirit are mentioned in the writings of men of God of old. The only thing phenomenal about Topeka was that it was so widely publicized and had such a far reaching effect on North America and the church here. There were other "outpourings" happening all over the world at the same time. Remember, Smith Wigglesworth and John Lake were contemporaries of Parham, but independent of Parhams work and Topeka.

I have read of the Cane Ridge Revival in Kentucky in 1801 and there were many physical manifestations of the Holy Spirit involved with that meeting.

Justin Martyr "If you want proof that the Spirit of God, who was with your people and left you to come to us, come into our assemblies and there you will see Him cast out demons, heal the sick, and hear Him speak in tongues and prophesy."
A.D. 115-202 - Irenaeus:

Irenaeus "In like manner do we also hear many brethren in the church who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light, for the general benefit, the hidden things of men and declare the mysteries of God, who also the apostles term spiritual."

Now I know the issue that divides is not the Holy Spirit Himself, but tongues or other manifestation such as the nine gifts, etc. But, with the New Testament as well as church history so full of these instances, I am not sure we can call it a phenomenon, but rather typical of the work of the Holy Spirit among the church. After all, it is what marked day one of church history.

That being said, I really think the schisms that have come over speaking in tongues are the work of the enemy to try disconnect the church from the very source of power that Jesus sent to her. I believe speaking in tongues to be something God desires for His church, and I speak in tongues often. But I cannot forget that tongues are not the point. It is communion with the Holy Spirit that is needed. In prayer, that may be in tongues, and it may not, but it always must be in the Spirit or it will be unfruitful.



_________________
Travis

 2009/11/1 20:58Profile
PaulWest
Member



Joined: 2006/6/28
Posts: 3405
Dallas, Texas

 Re:

Quote:
Topeka was not simply a one time phenomenon that was so different from anything else that had been happening ever since the day of pentecost.


My point was that after Topeka, theological assertions concerning glossalalia were for the first time laid down; regarding the frameworks of Baptism in the Holy Spirit, and Praying in the Spirit.

I also speak in tongues, and I thank God for the gift. But I've been around long enough to see them greviously abused and a lot of "junk theology" (to coin Leonard Ravenhill's assessment of glassalalic dogma). On the same token, however, we need to beware of allowing such extremes to effect our own convictions of the role of the Holy Spirit. It's easy to become a reactionary - to one extreme or the other. To my knowledge, both Wigglesworth and Lake, though independant, adhered to and taught Parham's intitial uniform evidence theology. But in the middle we find another man named FF Bosworth who held that tongues may be present, but were not obligatory for any experience.


_________________
Paul Frederick West

 2009/11/1 22:16Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

My point was that after Topeka, theological assertions concerning glossalalia were for the first time laid down; regarding the frameworks of Baptism in the Holy Spirit, and Praying in the Spirit.



Unfortunately, many Pentecostals (of which mold I am cut from) have such a unhealthy estimation of tongues that they start seeing tongues mentioned in Scriptures where tongues are not mentioned. I'll never forget when I sat and listened to a sermon by Loran Livingston, who is one of the major Pentecostal pastors in America today, and he was utterly convinced Jesus spoke in tongues at various points of his life. Thankfully, most of the congregation didn't seem to buy into this strand of his teaching, as he quoted an Aramaic recording in the gospels of what Jesus said in one instance, and insisted that was Jesus speaking in tongues, and that an interpretation of that was provided by the gospel writer. Livingston is generally a pretty good student of the Word, and pretty insightful guy, but, I only mention this to show an example of how sometimes Pentecostals can look for tongues where tongues are not mentioned.

God bless my well meaning brothers just the same though :-)


_________________
Jimmy H

 2009/11/1 22:22Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

By the way, if you have chance to, you might want to study Gordon Fee's commentary on this subject matter in the tomb he wrote in the Holy Spirit. He's a great scholar that is classical Pentecostal in his leanings, though oddly enough, denies the doctrine of subsequence in regard to the baptism of the Holy Spirit (how the Assemblies of God has let him keep his credentials after that I'll never understand). But he makes a pretty good case that Romans 8 and other passages that talk about such things as "praying in the spirit" is tongues. I disagree with Dr. Fee on this, but well, he does make an interesting argument just the same.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2009/11/1 22:27Profile
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 2012
Joplin, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
after Topeka, theological assertions concerning glossalalia were for the first time laid down; regarding the frameworks of Baptism in the Holy Spirit, and Praying in the Spirit.



I am not so sure the theological assertions had their beginnings here. In 400 AD it seems Augustine of Hippo was among a group of people who also held this doctrinal stance. He said, "We still do what the apostles did when they laid hands on the Samaritans and called down the Holy Spirit on them in the laying-on of hands. It is expected that converts should speak with new tongues." I tend to think this teaching has been around for a while. I would say though that these doctrines became widely known at the time of the Topeka event. I find it interesting that three men independently come to the same conclusion doctrinally at about the same time. These men did come to know one another quite well throughout their ministries, and interestingly enough it seems Bosworth was often the catalyst for these meetings.

When John Alexander Dowie got off, Bosworth was the only one who would open a place for Parham to minister in Zion City. They would have home meetings in his home there. When Dowie's successor Voliva began spreading rumors about Parham, Bosworth spoke against them. I recall a story that John Lake told about speaking with a woman by the name of Lilian Thistlewait in Bosworth's home about the importance of a sanctified and holy life. He said this woman impacted him greatly. I have known several people who were will acquainted with Ms. Thistlewait and spoke well of her. I know Bosworth's book on healing is very powerful. I did not know that Bosworth saw speaking in tongues as nonobligatory. I know Parham did see it as the initial evidence. I tend to look at it like this. One does not have to speak in tongues to be baptized in the Holy Spirit, but one will probably not be baptized int he Holy Spirit long before he will speak with tongues and realize the importance that this has in the life of a believer.

I agree with you that there is a lot of "junk theology". I guess that people come to believe the wrong things most likely because they are not firmly grounding what they believe in the Word.

I just wondered what you meant by phenomenon as it is usually used to indicate an unusual event that is unexplainable and usually singular.

It seems you have studied the lives of these men quite a bit.


_________________
Travis

 2009/11/2 8:08Profile
PaulWest
Member



Joined: 2006/6/28
Posts: 3405
Dallas, Texas

 Re:

Good morning brother. I dont wan't to initiate a debate over the validity of tongues here, but I fear your reference to Augustine of Hippo might be slightly incomplete. While it is true that he witessed glossalalia when certain people received the Holy Spirit, he was very prudent to also notice it was not always the same with his contemporary brethren. Augustine did not entrentch glossalalia as a theological - and subsequently denominational - concept as Parham would do some 1500 years later. Here is his (Augustine of Hippo's) own words on the topic:

[i]"...that thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away. In the laying on of hands now, that persons may receive the Holy Ghost, do we look that they should speak with tongues? Or when he laid the hand on infants, did each one of you look to see whether they would speak with tongues, and, when he saw that they did not speak with tongues, was any of you so strong-minded as to say, These have not received the Holy Ghost; for, had they received, they would speak with tongues as was the case in those times? If then the witness of the presence of the Holy Ghost be not given through these miracles, by what is it given, by what does one get to know that he has received the Holy Ghost? Let him question his own heart. If he love his brother, the Spirit of God dwelleth in him."[/i] (Augustine of Hippo, 354-430)[44]

And although there were instances since the first century of infrequent glossalalia (including within the walls of some Roman Catholic parishes), never to my knowledge was a doctrinal fundamental laid in place to make tongues [i]obligatory[/i] until 1901. We can now compare Augustine of Hippo with C.F. Parham. Unlike Augustine, Parham had a long fascination with the doctrine of the Holy Spirit - which eventually drove him to seek the Biblical evidence for the Baptism. He disagreed with guys like RA Torrey and Moody who stated that though tongues, in fact, [i]may[/i] be the evidence of Spirit Baptism, they should not be specifically held as the uniform token. This wasn't sufficient for Parham, who was actively seeking recovery of "apostolic faith".

What I mean to say was there was a burning motive, a desire in Parham's school to establish a predictability whereby apostolic faith may be confirmed. I'm simply contending that nowhere in the annals of church history do we see this prior to 1901.


_________________
Paul Frederick West

 2009/11/2 9:04Profile
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 2012
Joplin, Missouri

 Re:

Don't misunderstand, I am in no way seeking a debate, and I hope no one reading the thread is of that mind. Just found what you said interesting.

I stand corrected on Augustine. I guess I did not have the full quotation.

I know Parham set his students to the task of Biblically ascertaining what happened to people in the New Testament when filled with the Holy Spirit, and left on a trip. When he returned, the students all agreed that while there were numerous manifestations in scripture, the only one that seemed common among them was speaking with other tongues. One student expressed a desire to have Parham lay hands on her and pray as in the book of acts that she receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Not having the experience himself, he reluctantly agreed, and she did, speaking in a Chinese language for three days. Linguists came in and documented known languages, and I am sure experienced unknown languages. The doctrine was established, as far I can tell, from experience as well as study of the Word. I am not sure one can say this doctrine holds totally true as there are two instances in scripture where the Holy Spirit is received, but tongues are not explicitly mentioned.

Having some personal history with this event (My great grandparents were personal friends of Charles and Sarah Parham and frequented their home)I have often heard stories about Parhams ministry as many of my friends and relatives are descendants of those who knew them or were born again in their meetings. They were very adamant that tongues were the initial evidence, but I never heard it said that tongues were required. It is a bit like saying smoke is a requirement for fire to exist. They were also very adamant that tongues not be coerced in any way. The idea that someone repeat after someone else or say some phrase over and over or having someone move the mouth of another, or etc. were found revolting and not of God by these people. They believed as a person was filled and naturally praised God with their mouth that they would find it in their minds impossible to adequately express themselves and tongues would naturally follow. This was my own experience.

Parham's churches, if you can call them that, were and are a very loosely held association scattered all over the US. Their doctrinal beliefs on the baptism of the Holy Spirit are remarkably diverse. Parham was very much against denominationalism, and never intended for his work to establish some new denomination, and accordingly there is an association of churches that calls itself the Apostolic Faith Movement, but has no centralized government. Only a Bible College for which the churches elect a board. I would say the most commonly held belief among those of the movement on the subject is that tongues are the scriptural evidence, but are not initially mandatory. i.e., it is possible to be filled with the Holy Spirit and not manifest what is seen as the Biblical evidence of being filled at the time of being filled, but the evidence will eventually come.


_________________
Travis

 2009/11/2 10:11Profile
Lysa
Member



Joined: 2008/10/25
Posts: 3433
This world is not my home anymore.

 Re: Paul praying in the Spirit

Quote:
PaulWest wrote:
When we walk in the Spirit, we are not necessarily speaking in other tongues, are we? We must apply the same principle when we pray in the Spirit, for the Bible itself makes no distinction as to "how" one must do this.


This is very good, Paul; has the pentecostal movement tried to stone you yet? LOL
:-P


_________________
Lisa

 2009/11/2 15:43Profile
INGRACE
Member



Joined: 2009/11/6
Posts: 29
Jackson,AL.

 Re:

Praying in the Spirit is basically prayer that is lead and inspired by The Holy Ghost,which is basically what it is.
Let me say this in a kind and charitable,fashion I believe in the validity of Spiritual gifts for today.
Certainly I do feel that one can pray in tongues in their prayer closet,and that can be considered prayer in the Spirit,but prayer in the Spirit can be in english as well. Terms like praying in the Spirit can have more than one application.
I am not to here to cause confusion,everything I post I desire to post in a charitable fashion.


_________________
Scott Hutchinson

 2009/11/6 21:48Profile





©2002-2021 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy