One of the best videos on tongues I've seen

[Amanuensis]

That's if you assume non-mutually edifying prayer being spoken in the assembly is acceptable, in audible prayer is not, and Paul is not allowing for tongues outside of the assembly in that verse.

Do you have any verse in mind that indicates that tongues were being used with the wrong motive? I suppose one could try to make that case from chapter 13. Paul seems to blame their behavior or childish understanding in 14:20.

That they prayed audibly but softly to themselves in corporate prayer meetings I am sure of based on many references I have read through the years. I don't even have a question about that. You'll come across the proofs as you read books about the cultural contexts.

As to Paul correcting their motives. The whole letter to the Corinthians is full of this and so I see him still addressing similar issues with these same chapters.

One of my favorite commentaries I have discovered so far is Gordon Fees commentary on 1 Corinthians. It is 900 pages but very informative.

I think that one of the things about allowing people to operate in the gifts of the Spirit is that one must let the Spirit control this. It is not something you are supposed to have exact rules about nor are you to try and micro manage it. From time to time you may need to correct something but you are not supposed to tell people how to pray, how to worship, how to do everything. If someone were to try and control things, it quenches the Spirit. It's a balance of common sense and stepping out in faith and it's ok if you have to figure it out by experience.

 

[presidente]

That they prayed audibly but softly to themselves in corporate prayer meetings I am sure of based on many references I have read through the years. I don't even have a question about that. You'll come across the proofs as you read books about the cultural contexts.

Who is 'they'? Jews? Early Christians? I've heard all praying at the same time defended based on the prayer in Acts 4, but I've also seen a brother (who believed in the gifts btw) write an exegetical case against that based on the wording of the Greek. There was one coherent prayer that they all prayed, which doesn't really fit with the pray-at-the-same-time model for a church meeting.

I think that one of the things about allowing people to operate in the gifts of the Spirit is that one must let the Spirit control this. It is not something you are supposed to have exact rules about nor are you to try and micro manage it. From time to time you may need to correct something but you are not supposed to tell people how to pray, how to worship, how to do everything. If someone were to try and control things, it quenches the Spirit. It's a balance of common sense and stepping out in faith and it's ok if you have to figure it out by experience.

What is see with a lot of Charismatics, 'prophetic churches', 'signs and wonders' churches, and even Pentecostal churches is that there are many congregations where there is no interpretation of tongues and no prophecy 'from the floor.' Years ago, it bothered me to hear of some of the Charismatic or prophetic movement churches requiring someone to write down prophecies and pass them up through the church hierarchy, and maybe if the senior pastor liked it, they might be allowed to share it with the congregation. I've even met a Pentecostal pastor (Foursquare) who thought this was the best way to do it, citing Church on the Way as an example for this. I spoke to a COG pastor who wouldn't allow prophecies or tongues and interpretations from the congregation, he said. The church is over 100 years old, but he wasn't raised COG either.

Honestly, I don't think the Pentecostal movement as a whole went all the way back to the Bible to have meetings like I Corinthians 14 instructs (e.g. v. 26). There seems to have been a lot of this at Azusa Street based on Bartleman's works. But it didn't seem to take hold across the movement. The pulpit-pastor tradition was too strong. Some churches embraced body ministry, but it doesn't seem the dominant model. Pentecostal churches allowed a niche for tongues, interpretation, and prophesying, but even that niche is closing in a lot of churches.

The big problem I think is pastors who just grew up for a generation without seeing these things flow in the congregation. Some of them probably heard stories of false prophecies here and there, and don't consider that the pulpit-pastor tradition isn't commanded in scripture, but these gifts are. Some clergymen think they can set the rules, rather than being enforcers of the rules... and not just in the gray areas where scripture is silent.

Experientially, I think I've seen more prophecy, tongues, and interpretation in the churches that don't have everyone praying out loud at the same time, but I've seen it in both. One of the issues facing the A/G is a declining percent who speak in tongues or exercise other gifts, unless that trend has changed in the past several years since I read about it.

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

Just curious, did Jesus ever speak in tongues?

It's not recorded that He ever did.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Point 6: This will actually be two points with the first part being a continuation of the last.

"For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle? So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air." 1 Corinthians 14:8-9

This is self-explanatory. The purpose of tongues is not to speak into the air but to be interpreted so all can understand.

"Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say 'Amen' at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified." 1 Corinthians 14:13-17

This passage is one that those who say tongues is a private prayer language love to point to and say "See, it says it right there, 'if I pray in a tongue.' " But is that really what this passage is suggesting? No, not at all.

It says: "What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding." It's not teaching that tongues is a private prayer language; it's teaching that if someone prays in the spirit or in tongues they must also pray with the understanding. That is, they must be able to interpret or there must be someone present who can interpret.

Here again the scripture is very clear: The purpose of tongues is for the body so all may be built up, not a private prayer language.

 

[Amanuensis]

Point 6: This will actually be two points with the first part being a continuation of the last.

"For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle? So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air." 1 Corinthians 14:8-9

This is self-explanatory. The purpose of tongues is not to speak into the air but to be interpreted so all can understand.

"Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say 'Amen' at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified." 1 Corinthians 14:13-17

This passage is one that those who say tongues is a private prayer language love to point to and say "See, it says it right there, 'if I pray in a tongue.' " But is that really what this passage is suggesting? No, not at all.

It says: "What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding." It's not teaching that tongues is a private prayer language; it's teaching that if someone prays in the spirit or in tongues they must also pray with the understanding. That is, they must be able to interpret or there must be someone present who can interpret.

Here again the scripture is very clear: The purpose of tongues is for the body so all may be built up, not a private prayer language.

The speaker in the video specifically said that when Paul said he would pray with the spirit it was not tongues. Then he goes on to try and explain his own cloudy idea of praying with the spirit as an idea that is something other than tongues and then also praying with his intellect.

Therefore the speaker has lost credibility in his ability to exegete.

At least you were honest enough to know that Paul did mean tongues here when he said pray with the spirit.

However you have presented an idea here that Paul prayed in tongues and then interpreted it.
That would suggest a new line of reasoning that Paul had not presented before when he said "let another interpret".

Seems rather doubtful that Paul would expect the reader to think that he was telling them that they should pray in tongues and then interpret it with the gift of interpretation, and then sing with tongues and then interpret it with a song?

Praying with the understanding and singing with the understanding is just what it says.

It is not some new way of talking about the gift of interpretation.

Forcing an idea that Paul said he prayed in tongues, and then he interpreted it is a desperate attempt to deny the plain meaning of the text because it supports the idea that one can pray in tongues and be edified. And sing in tongues also.

You will rarely hear anyone mention the singing in tongues topic. It supports the idea of worship between the singer and God and this is too much like a prayer between them and God and so supports the idea of a praying in tongues which is what they want to deny. So they just act like it is not in the text. BUT IT IS.

 

[presidente]

Point 6: This will actually be two points with the first part being a continuation of the last.

"For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle? So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air." 1 Corinthians 14:8-9

This is self-explanatory. The purpose of tongues is not to speak into the air but to be interpreted so all can understand.

"Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say 'Amen' at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified." 1 Corinthians 14:13-17

This passage is one that those who say tongues is a private prayer language love to point to and say "See, it says it right there, 'if I pray in a tongue.' " But is that really what this passage is suggesting? No, not at all.

It says: "What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding." It's not teaching that tongues is a private prayer language; it's teaching that if someone prays in the spirit or in tongues they must also pray with the understanding. That is, they must be able to interpret or there must be someone present who can interpret.

Here again the scripture is very clear: The purpose of tongues is for the body so all may be built up, not a private prayer language.

I think it is feasible that Paul may have had in mind interpreting a prayer when he said, "pray with the spirit and with the understanding. Notice it says 'Otherwise' or 'Else' i the sentence followers. Otherwise others the uninformed does not understand.

But the context here is a scenario where there is supposed to be mutual edification-- a church meeting-- where another is present. Continue on reading to see another set of contrasting statements:


18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

I put yet in bold. Paul contrasts his speaking in tongues more than them all with behavior in the church. Outside of church, if you speak in tongues.... the immediate context prior is speaking ____ prayer___ in tongues, you edify yourself. Paul spoke in tongues more than all the Corinthians. ___Yet in the church___ five words with his understanding were preferable to 10,000 words in an unknown tongue. Words spoken with his mind could instruct others.

Notice Paul contrasts his great volume of speaking in tongues in verse 18 with his behavior in the church in verse 19. It seems likely that Paul did a great deal of speaking in tongues outside of church.

Also notice in the following verses that Paul wishes his readers would engage in the self-edifying behavior or speaking in tongues, but would rather that they prophecy to edify the church.

4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.


To back up a bit, this is the type of behavior he wished they all would do:
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Notice this is prayer-- speaking to God... and it is in tongues. Paul wished they would all do this. He would prefer they edified the church by prophesying or interpreting tongues.

 

[presidente]

The speaker in the video specifically said that when Paul said he would pray with the spirit it was not tongues. Then he goes on to try and explain his own cloudy idea of praying with the spirit as an idea that is something other than tongues and then also praying with his intellect.

Therefore the speaker has lost credibility in his ability to exegete.

At least you were honest enough to know that Paul did mean tongues here when he said pray with the spirit.

I noticed that also. The commentator quoted verses, but his own comments did not connect well with what he quoted.

However you have presented an idea here that Paul prayed in tongues and then interpreted it.
That would suggest a new line of reasoning that Paul had not presented before when he said "let another interpret".

What translation are you using? Verse 27 says in the KJV:

27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

Is there any reason to think that 'heis', translated 'one' here specifies that the interpreter may not be the speaker in tongues?

The idea of the speaker in tongues also interpreting tongues already shows up twice in the passage:

5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

and
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

Seems rather doubtful that Paul would expect the reader to think that he was telling them that they should pray in tongues and then interpret it with the gift of interpretation, and then sing with tongues and then interpret it with a song?

Praying with the understanding and singing with the understanding is just what it says.

Consider the flow of argument:

13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

Notice 'else' in these verses. Now switches between a scenario where "I" pray with the Spirit and the understanding versus just "thou" giving thanks in tongues. So the argument is not exactly parallel. He may be contrasting his orderly behavior with his readers less orderly behavior.

If you do it Paul's way, you pray with the Spirit and the understanding and others are edified. If you do it 'thou's way, then you just give thanks in tongues well, but the other is not edified. Notice the context from verse 13, for him that speaks in tongues to pray that HE may interpret. The speaker in tongues interpreting.... Then Paul's statements about praying with the spirit and with the understanding... and if you don't do it that way and just give thanks in tongues, you give thanks well but the other is not edified.

Given your own idea of order based on verse 28, you don't think someone should just stand up and give a prayer in tongues, intentionally, without interpretation, do you? Doesn't verse 16 and the verses that follow (like 19) imply that Paul is talking about praying in church in verse 15?

It is not some new way of talking about the gift of interpretation.

Forcing an idea that Paul said he prayed in tongues, and then he interpreted it is a desperate attempt to deny the plain meaning of the text because it supports the idea that one can pray in tongues and be edified. And sing in tongues also.

You will rarely hear anyone mention the singing in tongues topic. It supports the idea of worship between the singer and God and this is too much like a prayer between them and God and so supports the idea of a praying in tongues which is what they want to deny. So they just act like it is not in the text. BUT IT IS.

I suspect it would be rare that you would come across a person with this motivation for not mentioning singing in tongues. Have you ever heard an interpretation of singing in tongues?


Clare Lum wrote in the Apostolic Faith newsletter 'Sometimes one is singing in English, thus interpreting while the others are singing [in tongues[.

I've also heard an interpretation sung before.

 

[presidente]

Eusebius:
The apostle thought it necessary that the prophetic Gifts should continue in all the Church until the final Coming of Jesus

Eusebius was quoting a man named Miltiades from not too long after Montanus' coworkers passed.

Methodius:
the return of Christ and events associated with it

Was this Cyril's brother, known as 'apostles to the Slavs'?

 

[Amanuensis]

I noticed that also. The commentator quoted verses, but his own comments did not connect well with what he quoted.



What translation are you using? Verse 27 says in the KJV:

27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

Is there any reason to think that 'heis', translated 'one' here specifies that the interpreter may not be the speaker in tongues?

The idea of the speaker in tongues also interpreting tongues already shows up twice in the passage:

5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

and
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.



Consider the flow of argument:

13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

Notice 'else' in these verses. Now switches between a scenario where "I" pray with the Spirit and the understanding versus just "thou" giving thanks in tongues. So the argument is not exactly parallel. He may be contrasting his orderly behavior with his readers less orderly behavior.

If you do it Paul's way, you pray with the Spirit and the understanding and others are edified. If you do it 'thou's way, then you just give thanks in tongues well, but the other is not edified. Notice the context from verse 13, for him that speaks in tongues to pray that HE may interpret. The speaker in tongues interpreting.... Then Paul's statements about praying with the spirit and with the understanding... and if you don't do it that way and just give thanks in tongues, you give thanks well but the other is not edified.

Given your own idea of order based on verse 28, you don't think someone should just stand up and give a prayer in tongues, intentionally, without interpretation, do you? Doesn't verse 16 and the verses that follow (like 19) imply that Paul is talking about praying in church in verse 15?




I suspect it would be rare that you would come across a person with this motivation for not mentioning singing in tongues. Have you ever heard an interpretation of singing in tongues?


Clare Lum wrote in the Apostolic Faith newsletter 'Sometimes one is singing in English, thus interpreting while the others are singing [in tongues[.

I've also heard an interpretation sung before.

You have a reasonable presentation but you seem to not allow for the idea of speaking in tongues to oneself and to God as a valid use of the gift. We have to consider that as something Paul did.

Another reason to consider this private use of praying in tongues is that he said he spoke in tongues more than them all but not in the church. In the church he would rather use 5 words of understanding than ten thousand in tongues.

If that is so and he spoke in tongues more than them all but not in church, he was probably referring to his personal prayer life.

Consider the text from the NIV....

13So anyone who speaks in tongues should pray also for the ability to interpret what has been said. 14For if I pray in tongues, my spirit is praying, but I don’t understand what I am saying.

15Well then, what shall I do? I will pray in the spirit,e and I will also pray in words I understand. I will sing in the spirit, and I will also sing in words I understand. 16For if you praise God only in the spirit, how can those who don’t understand you praise God along with you? How can they join you in giving thanks when they don’t understand what you are saying? 17You will be giving thanks very well, but it won’t strengthen the people who hear you.

18I thank God that I speak in tongues more than any of you. 19But in a church meeting I would rather speak five understandable words to help others than ten thousand words in an unknown language.

Now I follow your reasoning (you did a great job of presenting a logical hermeneutic) up to the point of vs 18, 19 where he seems to make it clear that most of his speaking in tongues is not in church.

This supports the idea that he did indeed pray in tongues between himself and God most of the time.

But in the church he will not speak in tongues to others unless he interprets also. His spirit would be giving thanks well but the people won't understand. If there are no people around then that would not apply.

We know that interpretation was not involved in the house of Cornelius or other instances. This at the very least weakens any argument that would suggest that there are never cases where interpretation is not required. Like speaking in tongues to oneself and to God, praying with the spirit which is edifying and speaking mysteries directly to God.

By Paul saying he spoke in tongues more than them all but not in church I have to conclude that Paul is talking about a personal use of praying with the spirit where his understanding was unfruitful but he would do it anyway.

Of course having been praying in tongues, for decades and having operated in the assembly speaking in tongues and interpretation of tongues I am not speaking theories but realities. I know exactly what Paul is talking about and fully understand him from experience and not just guessing about it.

Trying to give reasons for the best hermeneutic and identify authorial intent is very useful. When it comes down to it, I figured it out the first time I read it and jumped on board by faith. I have learned by experience since then and even today I am still getting better at hearing the Spirit and knowing when to step out in faith and operate in the gifts. It's an exciting adventure and always edifying to all those who are present.

 

[JTB]

Point 6: This will actually be two points with the first part being a continuation of the last.

"For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle? So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air." 1 Corinthians 14:8-9

This is self-explanatory. The purpose of tongues is not to speak into the air but to be interpreted so all can understand.

"Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say 'Amen' at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified." 1 Corinthians 14:13-17

This passage is one that those who say tongues is a private prayer language love to point to and say "See, it says it right there, 'if I pray in a tongue.' " But is that really what this passage is suggesting? No, not at all.

It says: "What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding." It's not teaching that tongues is a private prayer language; it's teaching that if someone prays in the spirit or in tongues they must also pray with the understanding. That is, they must be able to interpret or there must be someone present who can interpret.

Here again the scripture is very clear: The purpose of tongues is for the body so all may be built up, not a private prayer language.

There are tongues for the body, there are tongues for in private. That's half the point of 1 Cor 14.

The other half is to put a leash on it. "Irrational exuberance" is part of the reason you are doubting now.

When I first started speaking it was kind of a mindless babbling, in that I had no clue what I was praying about. So I asked God to to tell me what I was praying about. He obliged and now as your verse says I pray/sing in the Spirit and with the understanding. I don't usually know the exact words are that are being said, but I do know the subject. And on a subject I will slip from english to tongues and back.

There is power in the spoken word, and I can only speak to what I know. By allowing the Spirit to speak thru me, I can speak to what He knows.

And that's the whole point of it all.

 

[presidente]

You have a reasonable presentation but you seem to not allow for the idea of speaking in tongues to oneself and to God as a valid use of the gift. We have to consider that as something Paul did.

I think you might be confusing me with another poster. I am pretty I posted a message directed to you earlier in the thread that included the fact that the passage allows for private prayer in tongues. I may have even suggested that it is reasonable to assume Paul's "I speak in tongues more than ye all" was done outside of the assembly, given the context, in a recent post.

We know that interpretation was not involved in the house of Cornelius or other instances. This at the very least weakens any argument that would suggest that there are never cases where interpretation is not required. Like speaking in tongues to oneself and to God, praying with the spirit which is edifying and speaking mysteries directly to God.

I believe Derek Prince taught that tongues in the assembly should be interpreted, unless it was a case where someone was experiencing an initial infilling like in Acts 2 or Acts 10. There is no evidence for the interpretation of tongues being in operation in these two passages. Both of those might be considered 'evangelistic situations' rather than regular church meetings, also.

By Paul saying he spoke in tongues more than them all but not in church I have to conclude that Paul is talking about a personal use of praying with the spirit where his understanding was unfruitful but he would do it anyway.

So why wouldn't we interpret keeping silence in the church and speaking to himself and to God as to refer to tongues outside of the assembly?

Of course having been praying in tongues, for decades and having operated in the assembly speaking in tongues and interpretation of tongues I am not speaking theories but realities. I know exactly what Paul is talking about and fully understand him from experience and not just guessing about it.

I've witnessed a lot of interpretation of tongues, but never interpreted in the assembly. I've gotten words of knowledge. I would like to interpret. These gifts do not flow in the assembly where I attend. It's a 100+ year old Pentecostal church, but the pastor isn't comfortable with these gifts flowing in the assembly. I don't know if that is exactly the reason why. Sometimes operation of the gifts falls out of the culture. He's open to small group meetings with this sort of thing, now.

 

[Amanuensis]

I think you might be confusing me with another poster. I am pretty I posted a message directed to you earlier in the thread that included the fact that the passage allows for private prayer in tongues. I may have even suggested that it is reasonable to assume Paul's "I speak in tongues more than ye all" was done outside of the assembly, given the context, in a recent post.



I believe Derek Prince taught that tongues in the assembly should be interpreted, unless it was a case where someone was experiencing an initial infilling like in Acts 2 or Acts 10. There is no evidence for the interpretation of tongues being in operation in these two passages. Both of those might be considered 'evangelistic situations' rather than regular church meetings, also.


So why wouldn't we interpret keeping silence in the church and speaking to himself and to God as to refer to tongues outside of the assembly?



I've witnessed a lot of interpretation of tongues, but never interpreted in the assembly. I've gotten words of knowledge. I would like to interpret. These gifts do not flow in the assembly where I attend. It's a 100+ year old Pentecostal church, but the pastor isn't comfortable with these gifts flowing in the assembly. I don't know if that is exactly the reason why. Sometimes operation of the gifts falls out of the culture. He's open to small group meetings with this sort of thing, now.

I have seen this trend of quenching the Spirit in Pentecostal churches today also. I think that while pastors are being afraid of scaring off visitors, they don't understand that if they allowed the Spirit to have control, their churches would be standing room only.

But of course a different approach is necessary for a larger congregation than what is done in a smaller group.

 

[presidente]

I have seen this trend of quenching the Spirit in Pentecostal churches today also. I think that while pastors are being afraid of scaring off visitors, they don't understand that if they allowed the Spirit to have control, their churches would be standing room only.

But of course a different approach is necessary for a larger congregation than what is done in a smaller group.

I've seen tongues and interpretation in a church of 3000. I've seen a very mutually-edification focused meeting where anyone could speak in a group of several hundred and they made that work.