Getting drunk in the spirit "Biblically"

[DuckieLady]

I want to present that being in the spirit biblically is not what some folks make it out to be. Particularly that it's not losing control and writhing on the floor.

The very passage people quote to defend losing control does not say anything of the nature. In context Ephesians 5:18-19 says to speak psalms and sing hymns in the description.

And Acts 2, mentions speaking in tounges. Neither passage describes losing control.

Also, we need to take what the rest of scripture has to say about the Holy Spirit because scripture does not contradict itself. Galations 5:22 lists the Spirit's attributes and among those is self control.

I agree. I don't like the term "drunk in the spirit."


Acts 2:15 says they are not drunk.

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."

I grew up going to a LOT of "revivals" with the throwing and thrashing down.

They always pushed me back. And then you just sort of lay there on the floor because you feel like you have to, in order to appease them.

But like you said where are the psalms and hymns? And most importantly, where is the fruit of the spirit? Where is the love and the peace and the goodwill towards others?

What does falling on the floor have to do with Jesus or anything that he commanded?

If you read Corinthians, Paul taught about self-control and an order to the church, so that they could prophesy. There was even an order of authority. It was organized.

It wasn't a mess.

Sometimes when I feel like I am experiencing too much, I go back to John MacArthur to balance things out a little bit and spend a lot of time doing normal things.

I don't always agree with him 100%, but I need that clarity and theological soundness to set my feet on level ground. Stability!

Boots of peace, there you go. Gonna put them on right now.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Sometimes when I feel like I am experiencing too much, I go back to John MacArthur to balance things out a little bit and spend a lot of time doing normal things.

As commentators go, MacArthur is relatively solid in some of his interpretations. He's just too conservative theologically for my tastes when it comes to the gifts (for one thing), but then everyone has something wrong with their teaching.

As a rule, take the good, leave the bad.

 

[DuckieLady]

As commentators go, MacArthur is relatively solid in some of his interpretations. He's just too conservative theologically for my tastes when it comes to the gifts (for one thing), but then everyone has something wrong with their teaching.

As a rule, take the good, leave the bad.

Yes exactly. That's my view, too, but it helps set the path to be a little straight. I think if we're in the middle of a spiritual battle, one of the best ways to stop that is to be in obedience to 2 Corinthians 10:5 is to step away from the mess, trust God's authority, and get off of the shakey ground, and run to level ground.

Satan has no authority. And reading all over the Bible, what I see most is that God's hand is on the righteous and the soundness of mind is something we need to be seeking also.

 

[TEXBOW]

As commentators go, MacArthur is relatively solid in some of his interpretations. He's just too conservative theologically for my tastes when it comes to the gifts (for one thing), but then everyone has something wrong with their teaching.

As a rule, take the good, leave the bad.

The only issue I have with John is his Calvinistic beliefs. I do not agree with his understanding of predestination, election, and free will.

 

[Hidden In Him]

The only issue I have with John is his Calvinistic beliefs. I do not agree with his understanding of predestination, election, and free will.

Yes. I don't actually read him a ton myself. I just remember skimming through commentaries at the bookstores on several occasions, and as far as what is sold over the counter, most of it was highly superficial. MacArther's by comparison were at least somewhat substantive much of the time.

But again, that's comparatively speaking. I'm no Calvinist either.

 

[amadeus]

Mmm... no, the original move in the modern era is generally attributed to the Azusa St. Revival in 1906 (though many would dispute this, claiming that it was actually earlier than that), but if so those people experienced the gifts because they were completely sold out to fasting and prayer, and for months and years before the outpouring finally came. And when it came, they were still so devoted to prayer that this is what you would see when you walked into a service. No one spoke except by the leading of the Holy Spirit, and until He did, they just persisted continually in prayer. Preachers who tried to enter the services and take over by just starting to preach slowly started coming under intense conviction to sit back down and be quiet, because they were out of line and in disobedience to God. No one had to say a word to them. They just came under conviction, stopped preaching and went quiet.


Actually, I'd have to go look, but I believe the original early name was simply "Pentecostal," but the name "Charismatic" was adopted by the Catholics who got baptized in the Holy Spirit, to identify themselves as Pentecostals while yet distance themselves from the Pentecostals on doctrines. But I'd have to go back and check. It later simply came to be adopted as a blanket term for all who believed the gifts were still for today.

Yes, within a couple of years after I received the gift of tongues [1976], I met on my job a Catholic who spoke in tongues. We used to meet together daily at lunch time with a few others to pray and talk about God together. Our group consisted of believers from across the denominational spectrum. One of my friends from that time was an Anglican who was a Russian interpreter. He bought me my first German and Spanish Bibles. He had one in Russian. The word, Charismatic came up for some of those others. but for me, I was simply a Pentecostal!

 

[Ezra]

When the Spirit leads us to dance before God and man, should we quench the Spirit?

no but some of the things that goes on is questionable , this slain in the spirit i have to question i just dont find it in the Bible man can work himself up. then claim it is of the spirit . i dont run tongues down while i dont understand it. i figure if i was supposed to doit. God would give it to me. it turns me off to hear a preacher bring a message the rattle off something i have no idea what he said .

 

[amadeus]

no but some of the things that goes on is questionable , this slain in the spirit i have to question i just dont find it in the Bible man can work himself up. then claim it is of the spirit . i dont run tongues down while i dont understand it. i figure if i was supposed to doit. God would give it to me. it turns me off to hear a preacher bring a message the rattle off something i have no idea what he said .

Of course, there are people who try play games with God as well as with other people. There are also wolves in sheep's clothing.

Be careful not to presume that every time you see wool it must involve a disguised wolf! God knows.

Who among us is able to understand clearly the heart of every other man? Until we know, rather than not fully understand or doubt, would not the best course to control our tongue about the other guy? God knows.

Be sure about what God is directing you to do before jumping in with both feet and an open mouth trying to direct and/or interpret things, which do not directly concern us.

How much help does God require from us to accomplish His purposes?

 

[Ezra]

Be careful not to presume that every time you see wool it must involve a disguised wolf! God knows.

not presuming any thing the Bible says to try the spirits if its confusing its not of God

 

[amigo de christo]

not presuming any thing the Bible says to try the spirits if its confusing its not of God

Here is an example of confusion . Folks getting caught up with things they think are of the Spirit
and yet it ties together a relationship that in UNEQUALLY YOKED . GOD WOULD NEVER DO THAT .
SO why on earth do we . WHY would i be unequally yoked with one of another religion or doctrine that is dangerous
just cause they might have what seems to be something of the Spirit . YOU SEE we have many spirits indeed these days
and through a false unity and a false love they are connecting us to come together in relationships that are UNEQUALLY YOKED .
And yet , GOD WOULD never do that . CONFUSION indeed .
GOD dont draw us to a relationship that actually makes VOID HIS WORD or WORDS . And folks had better learn this very fast indeed .
TEST those spirits . For many and i do mean MANY decievers abound even all over the churches and they are NOT from GOD .
We are being led right into a we are one for a we are one world that is gonna be seated right under the very beast spoken of in revelation .

 

[Ezra]

there is parts of the charismatic movement . gets carried away

 

[amadeus]

not presuming any thing the Bible says to try the spirits if its confusing its not of God

Certainly, the Holy Spirit is not confusing to the Holy Spirit! Only by the Holy Spirit may a person know for certain if a spirit is of God... or not. Good reason to never quench the Spirit! How many of us are doing that?

Anyone, I believe, who sins against God [does anything displeasing to God, whether they want to call it sin or not] after receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit must quench the Spirit to do so...

 

[teamventure]

TV,

Are you speaking of being "drunk in the Spirit" as equal to crawling around the floor like an ape or barking as a dog?

Oz

Hello Oz, We established in this thread that being drunk in the spirit is not biblical in the way it has been adapted by some.

 

[teamventure]

As commentators go, MacArthur is relatively solid in some of his interpretations. He's just too conservative theologically for my tastes when it comes to the gifts (for one thing), but then everyone has something wrong with their teaching

First of all, It is not a matter of taste.
But that asside, what is MacArthur too conservative on for you and how?

 

[Hidden In Him]

First of all, It is not a matter of taste.
But that asside, what is MacArthur too conservative on for you and how?

Posts #42 and #45. I haven't read or watched a ton of MacArthur, but those are the things that stuck out.

What denomination does he belong to, btw? Do you know?

 

[Lambano]

But like you said where are the psalms and hymns? And most importantly, where is the fruit of the spirit? Where is the love and the peace and the goodwill towards others?

Can I get an "AMEN!" from the congregation?

That's a sound, biblical way to discern what's real and what's showtime. 1 Corinthians 13, right in the middle of Paul's discussion about the gifts:

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give away all my possessions, and if I surrender my body so that I may glory, but do not have love, it does me no good.

Sorry; I'm kinda big on the "faith working through love" thing (Galatians 5:6) myself. I can't speak in tongues or prophesy, my discernment doesn't exactly have the best track record, nor can I express some of the other charismata (and I might confess to the sin of envying those who can), but one night in prayer, God promised that if I would make my hands available to Him when He needed them, it would be sufficient. (They say that when your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, you know.)

Faith, hope, and love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

 

[Lambano]

The only issue I have with John is his Calvinistic beliefs. I do not agree with his understanding of predestination, election, and free will.

I hear you there, brother.

Actually, I used to listen to MacArthur's radio program and follow his website. I remember he used to have a heart for reaching the lost. Somewhere along the road he lost that, and something inside of him died.

 

[Waiting on him]

A Person led by the Spirit is not in control of what He is doing but is submitted to the Spirit. As An example of this a person led by the Spirit may speak to a Brother or sister in Christ and not know what they are saying but the Words are coming directly from the Holy Spirit to that person... That is God with us Speaking through us to that person. In Fundamentalist circles this is known as unction or the anointing that is imparted to elders of the church called to Preach or teach. Often times you will hear a Pastor pray for the unction to Speak and preach. In other words it is not so much about lack of self control, but rather increasing in Holy Spirit control, that we are used as vessels of Honor for God. Self control hinders this from occurring.

Isn’t part of the fruit of the Spirit self control?

 

[TEXBOW]

I hear you there, brother.

Actually, I used to listen to MacArthur's radio program and follow his website. I remember he used to have a heart for reaching the lost. Somewhere along the road, he lost that, and something inside of him died.

I think John is a good man and concerning the Gospel, I think he is faithful but I do not agree with some of his doctrines. In some cases, he cannot explain his position on certain Calvinistic beliefs fully and admits so. I do not think our differences regarding things like predestination, election, and free will are disqualifications for salvation. Many a Saint died without understanding any of those things.

 

[Lambano]

I think John is a good man and concerning the Gospel, I think he is faithful but I do not agree with some of his doctrines. In some cases, he cannot explain his position on certain Calvinistic beliefs fully and admits so.

I actually respect someone who can admit publicly he doesn’t know something. (I have in mind his comment on John 6:44 in the MacArthur Study Bible. Yes, I bought that too.)