Drunk in the Spirit

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Off topic somewhat, but my pioneer preacher grandfather encountered two cases where people were speaking in false tongues.
Which he believed was under the influence of Satan.

And how was that known?

[good samaritan]

I believe it can be counterfeited, but I would have to know from God to call someone on it. I certainly have had my doubts about some before, but we should keep our assumptions to are self. Time will reveal things. I am not a police for the kingdom of God to arrest and condemn people. It is much better to lead them. Anointed Holy Ghost filled leaders should lead the flock in worship by teaching and example.

[votivesoul]

Brethren, the Greek word for "new wine" as seen in Acts 2:13, in the accusation made by those who mocked the disciples, is gleukos, hence our word "glucose", and it means UNFERMENTED grape juice, meaning incapable of causing drunkenness, that is to say, the sweet juice or must of a grape when it's first squeezed.

The only reason lexicons, commentators, or interpreters say otherwise is because they are guilty of eisogesis, assuming the accusation made against the disciples meant the people so accusing them thought they were under the influence of alcoholic wine (i.e acting as if drunk).

Let us rightly divide the Word of Truth, my friends.

The ministry is to be above reproach. The ministry is to not give offense in anything. God would not, and so, does not, inspire in His people an activity or response that would liken His people to those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

To say that God causes people to act as if they are drunk on alcohol during their worship would be like saying God causes people to act as if they are fornicating during their worship.

1 Corinthians 5:11,

11 But I now have written unto you not to keep company with any man who is called a brother if he is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner. With such a one you are not even to eat.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10,

9. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10. nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God.

Galatians 5:19-21,

19. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, and they are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20. idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, quarreling, rivalry, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21. envying, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like. About these things I tell you again, as I have also told you in times past, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Friends, God isn't inspiring reactions to His presence that would cause anyone to think they were anything but sober (be sober-minded, anyone???). To do so would besmirch Himself and make the unlearned think His people were actually drunk on literal alcohol. Such an accusation would bring a shame to Him and to His people.

It is clear from the Greek that the accusation of being drunk on new, or un-fermented wine had nothing to do with being drunk on alcohol, as if they were in an upper tavern instead of an upper room.

The accusation was simply regarding hearing these backwater Galileans speak languages that they obviously had never learned. Ever hear someone speak a new language for the first time? Anyone who has or is studying a second language will tell you their first attempts at speaking come off sounding childish (become like little children to inherit the Kingdom of God, which is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit???).

And guess what? Children in the old world were given the super sweet, un-fermented wine!

The accusation against the disciples was not that they were falling over each other singing rowdy ballads, stumbling into each other and falling down stairs. It was that they sounded like little children trying to speak a second language. And guess what? The new or sweet wine that children were allowed to drink was massively full of sugar (hence our word glucose) and kids and sugar make for some pretty hyperactive people, who talk fast.

Then Peter gets up and tells them that the disciples are not drunk, as they had supposed, meaning, they weren't full of sugary-sweet new wine, acting like children trying to speak a second language; rather this was the promise of God the Father through the prophet Joel, that He would pour out His Spirit upon all flesh.

Nowhere in the Joel prophecy does it state that God would cause anyone to act in a drunken manner. Therefore, in order for Acts 2:4 to be a fulfillment of Joel 2:28, acting as if drunken CANNOT be a part of the fulfillment of the prophecy.

[votivesoul]

Note, how, in Acts 2:14, Simon Peter quickly addresses the mockers who accused the disciples, and called them "men of Judea". These were fellow Jews who did not live abroad in the Roman Empire. Only those who heard the heterais glossais were amazed, for the disciples spoke in their, that is, the ex-pats, native tongue. But for the Jews from Judea, who were present, hearing these unlearned, backwater Galilean disciples speak new languages for the first time, languages that neither they or the disciples knew, would have sounded like childish nonsense.

Ever hear a child speak in "tongues", though not the tongues as the Spirit gives utterance, but the babbling fake languages some kids are wont to make up in their head? It sounds silly, and immature, and to hear an adult do something that seems like that, would indeed incite an accusation and a mockery.

The fact is, by the time of Pentecost, the harvest for grapes either being recently completed, or perhaps not even begun, depending on when Pentecost fell (and how good the year was), no wine would have been sufficiently alcoholic by that point to make a person drunk. Therefore, the accusation must have meant something else.

[Esaias]

1. All the commentaries, etc are wrong, and you are right with this rather novel interpretation? And they are wrong because they are guilty of eisogesis????

2. God supernaturally endows a gift of speaking a language but can't give a gift of fluency?

3. David acted "like one of the base fellows" in worship, and said he would do worse, even.

4. Jews thought people would get drunk on Welch's?

5. Nobody had alcoholic wine for Pentecost? Even though 51 days earlier they drank plenty of it for Passover?

6. Xenolalia disproved from the text itself (see earlier posts on the thread).

7. So they weren't acting drunk and disorderly, they were acting very orderly and soberly by acting like kids on a sugar high?

pfft.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

1. All the commentaries, etc are wrong, and you are right with this rather novel interpretation? And they are wrong because they are guilty of eisogesis????

The Greek word means what it means: unfermented grape juice. And besides, not all commentators, etc. see it the same way. Take Gill, for example.

2. God supernaturally endows a gift of speaking a language but can't give a gift of fluency?

Surely you witnessed some people speak in tongues for the first time? It often comes to them in stammering, disjointed sounding speech. Am I wrong, or the only one to have noticed this?

3. David acted "like one of the base fellows" in worship, and said he would do worse, even.

David's behavior was not the same as someone with half a bottle of JD in them. It was of a different sort. And besides, what was said of David was an accusation from an embittered source (i.e. Michal), because David took her back as a wife but wouldn't visit her, as it were.

4. Jews thought people would get drunk on Welch's?

The accusation in Acts 2:13, in Greek, simply means "to be full of", not intoxicated.

5. Nobody had alcoholic wine for Pentecost? Even though 51 days earlier they drank plenty of it for Passover?

The seasons and times of harvesting in ancient Israel were what they were. Grapes weren't harvested until summer, and sometimes, in late spring. Who said the wine at Passover was alcoholic, anyways?

6. Xenolalia disproved from the text itself (see earlier posts on the thread).

You're right. I meant heterais glossais. Amended above in post #84.

7. So they weren't acting drunk and disorderly, they were acting very orderly and soberly by acting like kids on a sugar high?

You've misread me. The speaking in tongues seemed like the speaking of a child trying to speak a second language. There is nothing in the text that speaks of the disciples being disorderly, out of control, or at a loss of their mental or physical faculties.

People see whatever they want in the Bible to justify whatever it is they think they need.

pfft.

Nice way to end a rejoinder. Not.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by mfblume

surely you know there's a difference between the gift of tongues and evidence of Spirit baptism. like the gift of faith and general faith.

That's an Apostolic construct to maintain the false doctrine of "initial evidence". Speaking in tongues is AN evidence of Spirit baptism but not exclusively. Tongues according to Paul are for personal edification, as a sign to unbelievers, and for the purpose of interpretation in a public gathering.

Many modern Apostolics/Pentecostals have made tongues into a sign to believers---a means of validating who has been baptized in the Spirit or who is truly saved, because you know, we have to play God and decide who is and who isn't going to heaven. We have to be in control and let everybody know "hey this guy is one of us now!" Now we can allow him/her to sing in the choir, teach Sunday School, be an usher, etc because we have witnesses to the fact that they spoke in tongues and we can all say of a certainty that they are one of us! They're in the exclusive club like we are! They are God's elite! I know how it goes. I watched it for years. Good, honest, God-loving, God-fearing folks denied involvement in the community of faith because no one could validate their salvation, i.e. no one could verify they spoke with tongues.

So then you get crazy activities like "tongues checkers" sticking up their thumbs to say "this one's got it" or someone blowing a whistle to let everyone know "this one is saved" and then we can get out our clipboards and ledgers and record and count and write down with tally marks how many "got it" so we can boast and brag what a move of God we had.

No I think God is perfectly fine being God, He knows His sheep and they know Him. Tongues was never given for the purpose of stroking our egos or to put us in the driver's seat.

No one can see the Spirit filling someone. It's spiritual. The evidence that someone is filled with the Spirit is the Fruit of the Spirit.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I agree that all believers do not speak with tongues. Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Church of Christ, etc.... As an apostolic I have received the Spirit baptism as prescribed by scripture and that is Biblical truth. I see no where in the scripture that tongues was optional at Spirit baptism.

So you believe someone can be baptized another way than speaking in tongues?

You have referred to seeking Biblical accuracy, so what other scripture gives another way for Holy Ghost baptism?

If you are truly Apostolic you can't believe those denominations you listed as "believers". They aren't saved because they didn't speak in tongues according to Apostolic theology.

There are plenty of instances where people were filled with the Spirit in Scripture and didn't speak in tongues. In fact Acts records 19 conversions. Only three mention speaking in tongues. ALL of them mention either faith/belief/repentance. 100% of the time when people were saved in Acts, people believed. "For by grace are you saved through faith..."

Paul wrote to the CHURCH of Corinth. He asked the CHURCH---Do all speak in tongues?"---the answer is NO, not everyone in the CHURCH speaks in tongues. But everyone who is in the CHURCH believes!

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Barb

So please, for the less enlightened among us, present detailed info re the order of public worship. Since you are so certain of what it isn't, perhaps you can explain just what it is.

It's not necessary to conclude I think I'm more enlightened and I look down on you just because I disagree with the interpretation of Scripture. I want to be right just as much as anyone else. However I am not going to believe in something just because I was told, or just because someone says "this is what the Bible says", or because I grew up in it and in order to be accepted by the subculture, I have to go along and say "yes I agree" to everything I saw and or learned by virtue of being enmeshed in that subculture.

If you believe something you're going to communicate that. We argue here and debate and analyze and discuss. Sometimes it gets heated. But how can anyone arrive at the truth without examination and healthy debate? The Bereans studied the scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Too many people just go along without thinking for themselves. If I'm wrong I want to know. If I'm in error I want to know.

My grandpa used to say "A wise man changes his mind, a fool never does."

What is order in public worship? I would say, based on the context of I Cor 14, Paul was addressing the chaos and abuse of the gifts of the Spirit, especially tongues in Corinth by saying essentially "we shouldn't be scaring off unbelievers among us causing them to leave our assemblies and say we are a bunch of mad, crazy weirdos". If an unbeliever attended a worship gathering and witnessed the things associated with "drunk in the Spirit" or people convulsing, or screaming, or going wild with flailing arms and herky-jerky movements, would they think "decent and in order" or would they be scared out of their minds?

How many of us brought friends to church from school or had relatives visit and the whole time we are praying "God PLEASE don't let Sister _______ or Brother _________ start _____________ and scaring my guests half to death"? There is worship that brings glory to God and attracts His Presence and is beautiful and is compelling to an unbeliever. There is another kind that glorifies the flesh and is rooted in self promotion and spiritual pride that brings zero glory to God. It's pretty easy to see the difference when it happens.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Brethren, the Greek word for "new wine" as seen in Acts 2:13, in the accusation made by those who mocked the disciples, is gleukos, hence our word "glucose", and it means UNFERMENTED grape juice, meaning incapable of causing drunkenness, that is to say, the sweet juice or must of a grape when it's first squeezed.

The only reason lexicons, commentators, or interpreters say otherwise is because they are guilty of eisogesis, assuming the accusation made against the disciples meant the people so accusing them thought they were under the influence of alcoholic wine (i.e acting as if drunk).

Let us rightly divide the Word of Truth, my friends.

The ministry is to be above reproach. The ministry is to not give offense in anything. God would not, and so, does not, inspire in His people an activity or response that would liken His people to those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

To say that God causes people to act as if they are drunk on alcohol during their worship would be like saying God causes people to act as if they are fornicating during their worship.

1 Corinthians 5:11,



1 Corinthians 6:9-10,



Galatians 5:19-21,



Friends, God isn't inspiring reactions to His presence that would cause anyone to think they were anything but sober (be sober-minded, anyone???). To do so would besmirch Himself and make the unlearned think His people were actually drunk on literal alcohol. Such an accusation would bring a shame to Him and to His people.

It is clear from the Greek that the accusation of being drunk on new, or un-fermented wine had nothing to do with being drunk on alcohol, as if they were in an upper tavern instead of an upper room.

The accusation was simply regarding hearing these backwater Galileans speak languages that they obviously had never learned. Ever hear someone speak a new language for the first time? Anyone who has or is studying a second language will tell you their first attempts at speaking come off sounding childish (become like little children to inherit the Kingdom of God, which is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit???).

And guess what? Children in the old world were given the super sweet, un-fermented wine!

The accusation against the disciples was not that they were falling over each other singing rowdy ballads, stumbling into each other and falling down stairs. It was that they sounded like little children trying to speak a second language. And guess what? The new or sweet wine that children were allowed to drink was massively full of sugar (hence our word glucose) and kids and sugar make for some pretty hyperactive people, who talk fast.

Then Peter gets up and tells them that the disciples are not drunk, as they had supposed, meaning, they weren't full of sugary-sweet new wine, acting like children trying to speak a second language; rather this was the promise of God the Father through the prophet Joel, that He would pour out His Spirit upon all flesh.

Nowhere in the Joel prophecy does it state that God would cause anyone to act in a drunken manner. Therefore, in order for Acts 2:4 to be a fulfillment of Joel 2:28, acting as if drunken CANNOT be a part of the fulfillment of the prophecy.

I never could understand how God gets glory from His children acting like folks who are sinning.