Archive for the ‘Charismatic’ Category

eph 5:18 NET bible note:
Many have taken ἐν πνεύματι(en pneumati) as indicating content, i.e., one is to be filled with the Spirit.ExSyn 375 states, “There are no other examples in biblical Greek in which ἐν + the dative after πληρόω indicates content. Further, the parallel with οἴνῳas well as the common grammatical category of means suggest that the idea intended is that believers are to be filled by means of the [Holy] Spirit. If so there seems to be an unnamed agent. The meaning of this text can only be fully appreciated in light of the πληρόωlanguage in Ephesians. Always the term is used in connection with a member of the Trinity. Three considerations seem to be key: (1) In Eph 3:19 the ‘hinge’ prayer introducing the last half of the letter makes a request that the believers ‘be filled with all the fullness of God’ (πληρωθῆτε εἰς πᾶν πλήρωμα τοῦ θεοῦ). The explicit content of πληρόω is thus God’s fullness (probably a reference to his moral attributes). (2) In 4:10 Christ is said to be the agent of filling (with v. 11 adding the specifics of his giving spiritual gifts). (3) The author then brings his argument to a crescendo in 5:18: Believers are to be filled by Christ by means of the Spirit with the content of the fullness of God.”

The more I study in regards to verses used to promote believers acting ‘drunk in the Spirit’ the more I see how utterly bankrupt of any biblical justification that position is….

Acts 2 in reference to ‘being drunk in the Spirit’ : The suggestion is that the text in V12&13 is proof that the believers were acting drunk, and is used as justification for people today acting in odd ways. First and foremost, let’s be clear, the text says nothing about laughing uncontrollably, roaring, acting stoned or under the influence of any other substance, rolling on the floor or anything else the like and attributing that to the work of the Holy Spirit – someone would have to read those experiences into the text (exactly what you *aren’t* supposed to do when interpret scripture) and have to beg the question (circular reasoning) to prove their point.

What does the text say?

Acts 2:12
12 And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13 But others were mocking and saying, “They are full of sweet wine.”

What does the ‘this’ in verse 12 refer to? The event that happened earlier on in chapter 2, which was?

Acts 2:6-7
“And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? ”

The issue was that they were speaking in different languages and some of the people who viewed this going on simply mocked the whole thing, using drunkenness as an excuse to dismiss the whole event.

To quote D A Carson on this passage:

Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians, 12-14 (D. A. Carson)
– Highlight on Page 139 | Loc. 2265-76

“What, then, of the charge of drunkenness (2:13)? Does this not suggest that many people heard only gibberish, and not real languages at all? Is this not an implicit support of glossolalia, not xenoglossia? Such a conclusion would be premature. After all, if three thousand people repented and were baptized after Peter’s sermon (2:41), presumably the crowd before which the believers were speaking in tongues was many times larger. No one could hear every tongue; presumably no single person was so incredibly well-educated as to have been able to identify every tongue, even if each tongue had been heard in turn. Some may not have heard their own tongue, but someone else‘s, and dismissed the entire episode without putting in the energy to walk around and see if there was a tongue that was recognizable. It has also been suggested, with some plausibility, that the charge of drunkenness may have emerged from the resident Aramaic-speaking Jews who did not recognize any of the languages being spoken and who thus found nothing intelligible in the utterances. Turner wisely comments, “Of course one should not try artificially to harmonize Luke’s details—but nor should one unnecessarily make a fool of him when one can plausibly explain how he may have viewed the scene.”

So, the two major verses used to support this kind of thing going on, do in fact, upon examination, not provide the basis for any such activity.


Found here, plus all the previous years i think!

Check it out above, or click here!