Seeking truth about "tongues"...

I have explained my position over and over! We will just have to agree to disagree on most points concerning tongues!

To answer your question..I will answer with a question! Do you see anywhere in scripture where "praying in the spirit" is explained any different than what Paul explained it in 1 Cor. 14? Tongues=praying in the spirit=speaking to God=blessing with the spirit. I do believe we can pray in both "praying in the spirit" and "understanding." BUT in the church we should not pray in the spirit without the interpretation!

 

Interesting read!!!

 

Nope, sorry ... but I realize remembering everything involved and covering all of the bases is difficult.

In church meetings there are some uses for tongues, which need not be interpreted:
-- someone praying or singing in tongues during praise and worship
-- someone praying in tongues any time during the service ... quietly
-- someone praying in tongues when ministering to anyone for any reason ... not necessarily quietly

"But, what does this have to do with Baptists?", I heard someone ask.
.

 

Here is something for you to consider. And if you don't agree a Biblical refutation would be appreciated.
Here is what Paul says at the beginning of the chapter:

1 Corinthians 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

According to 1:7a, the Corinthians had all the gifts. But Paul writes to them and says at the beginning of this section that he "does not want them to be ignorant," that is about their use. They were abusing the spiritual gifts. They were especially abusing the gift of tongues which takes up the entire chapter, chapter 14.

What did Paul say in chapter 14?
1 Corinthians 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

Now this section, chapters 12-14, comes after he rebukes them about their abuse of the Lord's Table.
Suppose we take this church and transpose it into a modern day setting. You are visiting Corinth and have no place better to go to so you decide to visit the Church of Corinth of the 21st century. Things have not changed much. They have just finished their "love feast," or pot luck supper. Over in one corner there are some over weight folks that have obviously had too much to drink (and too much to eat) and are "sleeping it off." In another corner there are some poor folk who may have had a crust of bread, but not much at all. Right now their thankful for a cup of tea.
You think to yourself that this is strangely odd. After about an hour these rich folk begin to come to their senses and then they want to observe the Lord's Supper. But they are in no shape to do so. Paul hears later about what has happened. Someone has written him a letter, and in so doing he had replied:

1 Corinthians 11:17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
--To assemble together was good; but to assemble in this manner was not good at all.

The Lord's Table is celebrated. Sin is not confessed. There has been judgment in the church, but they are to blind to see it.
Regardless, they come to an end of the Lord's Supper, and then suddenly there is chaos.
Many stand up claiming to be giving divine utterances. One is speaking in another language. He wants the floor. Another is giving an ecstatic utterance, as if in a trance. Another is uttering a prophecy, and another a word of knowledge. One wants to sing and another wants to read a psalm. There is mass confusion.
You walk in with an unbelieving friend, and what will that unbelieving friend think? "Are you not all mad?"
This is crazy! I don't want any part of this!
But this is what was happening, and this happens in many Charismatic churches today.

In 1Cor.12:2 Paul reminds them of their pagan past:
1 Corinthians 12:2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
In the paganism they came out of the "spoke in tongues," not Biblical languages, but ecstatic utterances, what we call gibberish. Most of the time they were demon possessed. But they didn't have to be. They just had to put themselves in a trance-like state much like Hindus and Buddhists do. Sit cross-legged, meditate on something, concentrate, and let your mind drift off. Allow your mind to go. Eventually your subconscious will take over your conscious and you will be able to utter "another language" or speak in tongues." This is paganism. It is ecstatic utterances that they practiced in their pagan past.
Paul says "You were Gentiles carried away unto these dumb idols as you were led."
You spoke in these counterfeit tongues then, and you are doing it now, pretending to speak by the Holy Spirit when you are not.
John in 1John 4, tells us to test the spirits to see whether they are of God.
Not every spirit is of God.

Therefore Paul writes in verse 3:
1 Corinthians 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
--One part of this verse at a time:
The second part says: "No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."
Now Scripture does not contradict Scripture.

Here is what Jesus said:
Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Many will call Jesus Lord. And to those many Jesus will say: "Depart from me ye that work iniquity, I never knew you."
Evidently many can call Jesus Lord, and do so without the help of the Holy Spirit. They will still end up going to hell.

So what does the verse mean?
There were three things happening in respect to tongues.
1. Some were speaking ecstatically (gibberish) out of emotion, enthusiasm, and their carnal nature.
2. Some where possessed (if unsaved) or oppressed (if saved), highly influenced by demons, and actually speaking in another language through the help of demon activity.
3. Some had the actual gift, but probably not many.

The verse says:
1 Corinthians 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
--"No man speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed."
Apparently there were some that were calling Christ accursed and they didn't know it. They were speaking in another language, a language they didn't know, and in that language they were cursing Christ. But someone recognized the language and understood it. They were shocked that a person would actually curse God in this "gift" that was supposedly given to them by God--a spiritual gift.
Obviously it wasn't given by God. It was from demons. Satan was using this to curse God.
We are to test the spirits to see if they are from God.

I believe there are cases where the same thing happens today.
People speak under the influence of demons and curse God without knowing it. If you don't know what you are saying how would you know if you are praising God or cursing God. You don't have the Biblical gift where the speaker knew what he was saying.

The Holy Spirit gave the gift of languages with understanding so that all would be edified. The interpretation was for the sake of the unbelieving Jews.
The type of tongues you speak in is nothing more than ecstatic utterances (gibberish) that has its origins in paganism, something that Paul has condemned from the very beginning.

 

Just so we all understand correctly what you just wrote: so if we pray without speaking in an unknown language, we're not praying in the Spirit?

 

I see in vs. 28 that it would cover your 2cd point. But where do you see the others backed up by scripture?

 

I agree up to this point!

Well, I have never been to a Charismatic church other than ours (Baptist that believe in the manifestation of the Holy Spirit). So I could not comment on what goes on. But the example you have given above I could see the chaos and see where there is no order!

But 1 Cor. 12 says that you are speaking BY THE SPIRIT. So if we take what Paul says in 1 Cor. 14 we know that speaking by the Spirit is tongues. "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful." We could also say that those that Jesus says Depart does not have the Holy Spirit!

I do not see where gibberish is claimed! Yes, the ones listening would assume it was gibberish, but Paul says that they gave thanks well. They were praying in the spirit without the interpretation!

THis you added to what is not there! So this is all assumption!

Again, assumption! I believe Paul would have been plainer if that was the case.

Again, this is assumption! Boy! You go way out to believe the way you do! Why don't you let scripture interpret scripture? WHere are demons mentioned in those chapters?

The Biblical gift does not claim to know what they were saying. Because vs. 13 tells us to pray for interpretation. If they knew what they were saying then why would he have to pray for the interpretation?

Again, you have to twist it around to fit your theory. Nowhere does it say that the speaker knows what he is saying, NOWHERE! It says just the opposite!

Your opinion of how I manifest the Holy Spirit is irrevelant to me!
Paul did not condemn tongues...he condemned tongues without the interpretation! Paul was putting in order what they had out of order!

 

WHat does Paul say? He says he speaks in tongue (praying with the spirit) BUT in the church he speaks with HIS understanding. Do you see the comparison? As I stated before, I do believe that the Holy Spirit will lead us to pray in our understanding. But "praying in the spirit" according to Paul is tongues!

 

You're not answering my question. If we pray without speaking in an unknown language, are we praying in the Spirit or not?

 

Paul says it is praying with your understanding, doesn't he?

 

Here again in 1Cor.12:2,3
1 Corinthians 12:2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

First there is a reason that Paul refers to their pagan past. In the worship of pagan idols there is the worship of idolatrous spirits, demons. He is not just speaking of the Holy Spirit. He is speaking of false or demonic spirits as well.

Secondly, in verse 3, the only "spirit" that would call Jesus accursed is a demonic spirit. "No man speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed. Then by what spirit does he call Jesus accursed? His own human spirit? I hope not! Would you do that? No. But under the influence of a demonic spirit a person would.
That is in contrast to the testimony given under the power of the Holy Spirit that Jesus is Lord. It is The Spirit vs. a false spirit.
The context here is clear.

I wasn't referring to that verse. You also refuse to interpret that passage in it context. He was using an example, an illustration. He never condones praying in tongues, never! He uses a public prayer as an illustration to show how speaking in a foreign language without interpretation is simple confusion to all present--so much so that even at the end of an orderly prayer people would not know when to say Amen. It is an illustration. He is not condoning prayer, but using prayer as an illustration.

Your definition of "praying in the spirit" is suspect. We all pray in the spirit, and in the power of the Spirit, and through the Spirit, etc. A small "s" means the human spirit, the emotions. Not any of these phrases refers to speaking in tongues and you would have a hard time proving that if you objectively exegete and expound the Scriptures. But you don't do that.

Paul was speaking for the good of the Corinthians, not for his own good.
Why do you think he mentions verse two, their background, hedonism, paganism, being led astray by idols. That is what was happening in the church.
Here is what I said:

2. Some where possessed (if unsaved) or oppressed (if saved), highly influenced by demons, and actually speaking in another language through the help of demon activity.

Demonic activity comes from worshiping idols, "as they were led to do."
1 Corinthians 12:2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
--This paganism they brought into the church.
Should this be unbelievable to you?
In chapter one it was divisions.
In chapter two, it was philosophy.
In chapter three, it was carnality.
In chapter four, it is false teachers.
In chapter five, it is gross immorality.
In chapter six, it is taking one another to court.
In chapter seven, it is marital problems.
In chapters eight to ten it is Christian liberty.
In chapter eleven it is an abuse of the Lord's Table.
In chapters twelve to fourteen it is an abuse of the spiritual gifts.
In chapter fifteen there is even a denial of the resurrection.

These were not spiritual Christians. They were highly influenced by their pagan past, and the pagan culture in which they lived.
What do pagan religions do? Plato documents this, as is documented today in the pagan religions of this day, such as Hinduism, Voodooism, etc.
They sit, put themselves in a trance-like state, allow their subconscious to rule over their conscious and then begin to speak in "tongues" or gibberish. This is done is Hinduism, Buddhism, religions trying to reach a state of "nirvana," the New Age movement, etc. Its root is in paganism, not in Christianity.
Paul mentions paganism for a reason. What happens in paganism? That is what happens in paganism.

That is not an assumption. That is what the Bible said. Some of them did have the actual gift, but not many. Study chapter 12. The gift was not given to all. It was only given to a few. It was the least important of all the gifts and was not to be sought after. There is no assumption here.

Behind every idol is a demon. Always remember that. When a devotee worships an "idol" they are not simply worshiping wood and stone, but the spirit for which the wood and stone stand for (the demon). That is what Paul refers to in 12:2. He makes plenty of reference to it in chapter 10.
He makes other reference to it in 10:21
1 Corinthians 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils (demons).
--Their paganism had affected their worship.

The Biblical gift was a gift. It was the gift of languages. That means they understood what they were saying. You don't get that. The interpretation was either for the Jews or for a second language group present. They were at Corinth, a port city. Many different ethnic groups passed through there.

Nowhere does it say it doesn't. That is just your opinion. It is what you have been brainwashed into thinking. A gift of languages is a gift. If Paul is going from place to place on his missionary journeys and using foreign languages, how is he going to know what to say unless he knows how to speak in the language that the Lord has given him to speak in? When God gives the language he gives the ability to speak in it. That is one way that you know that what you have is not of God. If it were of God you would know the language you were speaking. But you don't.

It is relevant. If you are not speaking a known language; if you don't know what it is; then it is not of God, is it? Furthermore if it is a language unknown to you, you could be praising the devil in another language. That would be worse than the gibberish that you probably are speaking. But since you don't know what you are speaking the only conclusion one can draw is, it is not of God.

 

Paul never states tongues in connection with demons!

But you are saying tongues is demonic...Paul is not saying that! Nowhere in those chapters does he state they are!

I am interpreting it in context! I am not ignoring ALL the scriptures that point to "tongues" is speaking to God not man! He that speaks in tongues..his spirit prays! Blessing with the spirit..giving thanks well! Speaking to yourself AND God! You can not throw all those scriptures out the window...it is plain that tongues is prayer...because talking to God is prayer!

It is our soul that holds our emotions...I believe we are spirit, soul and body! "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful" It is in our spirit that the Holy Spirit speaks to us isn't it?

I agree that 1 Cor. is written to carnal christians and they had many problems! But the chapters on spiritual gifts are to correct order! There is nothing about demonic tongues! He explains and puts in order the real purpose for the gifts and especially correcting tongues in the church service. To add to that is adding your own interpretation and assumptions!

Acts 2:39 " For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call" All that have the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit will manifest His Spirit!

You added tongues as a worship to the demons! He did not say that!

The promise was the Holy Spirit. Tongues is one of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit! Paul said for the person speaking in tongues to pray for the interpretation! Therefore that person did not know what the interpretation was!

Again, you conclusion is irrevelant to me!

 

1 Corinthians 12:2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
--Two questions. Please answer.
1. Why does Paul say what he says in verse two about "carried away unto dumb idols"?
2. If you were a member of the church in Corinth, what would cause you to "call Jesus acccursed"? If not you, then who? Some of the people were. They brought it to Paul's attention. What caused people to say that Christ was accursed. Did they just come right out and blurt it out? Did they run around the house and yell our Christ is accursed...Christ is accursed...etc. How was this done? What happened?

Now I have given you a rational explanation. But, as expected, you have rejected it. You explain the verse. You explain what happened. Why did Paul say the things he said?

What do verses 2 and 3 of 1Cor.12 mean? They are not put there in isolation meaning nothing. They do have meaning. You can't ignore them. "I would not have you ignorant brethren..." But you choose to remain ignorant in spite of his warning.

No Scripture says that tongues is speaking to God.
In order to come to that conclusion you must twist scripture and take it out of context.

The human spirit. The verse starts out by saying "speaking in other languages" which immediately are in the context of speaking to others. That is the only purpose they have--to speak before others, and never to God. As in Pentecost--they spoke of the wonderful works of God--testified of them, before 100,000 people. It was to them, like preaching is, not to God.

That is not speaking in tongues.

Talk to God in prayer, but that is not speaking in tongues. I talk to God every day, but I don't speak in tongues. The two are very different. And they were very different in the Bible. Speaking in tongues has nothing to do with prayer; was always public; always for the benefit and edification of the church; was for a sign for the Jew; a sign for the apostle--never private.

Sometimes the Bible uses the words "spirit" and "soul" interchangeably, as they do with mind, heart, and other words. Here the word "spirit" obviously refers to the human spirit, and context reveals to us that it is indeed referring to the human emotions.

Yes, and one must study the chapters carefully and see what the cause of the disorder was. I gave you some of those reasons. You would be wise to search it out carefully.

These are not simple assumptions. 1Cor.12:2,3 have meaning.

The promise does not refer to tongues.
The promise does not refer to the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
The promise does not refer to cloven tongues of fire.
The promise does not refer to a sound like a rushing mighty wind.

The promise is a promise of salvation.

I simply told you the meaning of 1Cor.12:2,3. You reject it.

The promise is salvation. 3,000 got saved that day.

But not one of those 3,000 spoke in tongues were they? Not one.
Tongues was not relevant to their salvation or their spiritual life.

That is only your assumption.
If you took that literally you would never speak in tongues again.
You don't have an interpreter; you don't speak in an actual language that can be interpreted into another actual language. You are out of order even in your prayer life. So you don't really believe what you are posting.

 

This is a simple "yes" or "no" question. If you want to explain why it's "yes" or why it's "no", that's fine; but please make it clear which one.

 

Paul was speaking of dead idols! He contrast between the dead idols and the living God. Their idols never spoke to them, but God spoke to them through the Spirit. Now the Spirit of God lived in them and directed them.

It does not say they were calling God accursed!
As a sinner we may mouth the words "Jesus is Lord"...but that is not making God Lord!
Again...In verse 3 he is not saying that they called God accursed. He is saying that BY THE SPIRIT of God..the Holy Spirit! We can not call God accursed! THen he goes on to explain the Spirit Working or manifesting through believers/ church!

Again the contrast is between a living God and a dumb idol. A dumb idol could not speak, see or hear. To me it is simply saying that no one speaking under the power and influence of the Holy Spirit can EVER say Jesus is cursed. You do not have to add to what is said to understand that!

No, it is in line with the whole chapter 14! Over and over he explains tongues is speaking to God (vs.2). He says it is his spirit that is praying (vs.14). He said praying with the spirit Again in vs. 15. Blessing with the spirit in vs. 16. Speaking to God again in vs. 28. So you are the one that is not keeping it in context!

I do not see them speaking to the people! Yes! The people heard them speaking. When Peter stood up and spoke the scriptures say that he SAID UNTO THEM. It does not say when they spoke in tongues they said UNTO the people. It simply says they spoke in tongues as the Holy Spirit gave the utterance. It was not until "this was noised abroad" that the people gathered. They were speaking in tongues BEFORE the gathered together!

Paul says that if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant concerning those things he spoke of! How much plainer does he have to get when he says tongues is speaking to God/blessing with the spirit/praying in the spirit.

Again...show me where you can not speak to God in private in ANY language! How much plainer does he have to get....tongues is PRAYING IN THE SPIRIT (VS. 14).

No, in context it is showing the difference in the spirit and mind (understanding). It is the Holy Spirit that gives the utterance to your spirit (Acts 2:4).

I agree with Pauls order in the service! I also agree with him when he says "forbid not tongues"... THe order was speaking in tongues without the interpretation! He was correcting the use in church!

Yes! they do! They mean what they say! NO MAN CAN SPEAK BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD AND SAY THAT JESUS IS ACCURSED: AND THAT NO MAN CAN SAY THAT JESUS IS THE LORD, BUT BY THE SPIRIT.

"...but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me"
"For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."
THe promise is the Holy Spirit...with the baptism in the Holy Spirit comes the manifestation of tongues in Acts. 2.
"Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having RECEIVED OF THE FATHER THE PROMISE OF THE HOLY GHOST, he had shed forth this, WHICH YE NOW SEE AND HEAR"
He goes on to say that they themselves can receive the promise (Holy Spirit baptism as Jesus called it in 1:5).

No, you added to it! I will agree that dumb idols are not of God! But DUMB is more of saying those idols can not speak to you! But God can speak to us through the Holy Ghost! AND....the Holy Spirit will not call God accursed...and only by the Holy Spirit can we say that Jesus is Lord. In Matt. 16:17 who revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Christ?

I agree that tongues does not save a person! You can be saved and never speak in tongues! But either Peter lied to them or they did speak in tongues! Peter said in verse 33 the promise of the Holy Ghost was SEEN AND HEARD/manifested. So now you are saying that they did not receive the same way? Why wouldn't they?

WHAT???? the Holy Spirit is the interpreter! Why would he ask us to pray for the interpretation if the Holy Spirt was not going to give it to us! No assumption on my part!

And you have no idea what you are saying????
So now you are telling me that the tongues that the Holy Spirit manifested through me...the Holy Spirit can not interpret for me????

 

Paul answered your question in verse ...
"Then what am I to do? I will pray with my spirit - by the Holy Spirit that is within me; but I will also pray intelligently - with my mind and understanding" (1 Corinthians 14:15, AMP)
I see this as two ways of praying...sometimes he prayed with his mind, and sometimes he prayed with his spirit. 1 Corinthians 14:14 explains that when Paul prayed with his spirit he was praying in tongues in the Holy Spirit. So "praying with my spirit" and "praying in the Spirit" and "praying in tongues" are all the same thing, right?

I have said over and over that the Holy Spirit can lead us to pray in our understanding...but Paul calls that "praying with understanding"...but "praying in the spirit" he calls tongues!

 

Since you won't answer a simple yes or no - so what you're saying is that if we're praying with the understanding, we're not praying with the Spirit. If we don't pray in an unknown language, we aren't praying in the Spirit. Correct?

But that leads me to ask: who should be praying in the Spirit?

 

Jude answers that question..."But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost"

You have yet to answer my question of where else in the Bible do we have a definition of "praying in the spirit?"

You want a "yes" or "no" answer to a question that I have given over and over. I believe that we can pray in our understanding (not tongues) and be led by the Holy Spirit to pray! BUT Paul says that "praying in the spirit" is tongues. So if you can show me another scripture that speaks of "praying in the spirit" other than tongues.

I have studied this out and have come to the conclusion that I have posted.
Now, is "praying with the spirit" the same as "praying in the spirit?" Have you studied this out? Am I missing something?

 

Every single passage found in the New Testament translated "with the Spirit" is the Greek Dative which can be translated "with" "by" or "in". In other cases the exact same word in the exact same Greek case is translated "in the Spirit"

For example, here are all the references of "with the Spirt"

1Co 14:15 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.

1Co 14:16 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?

2Co 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

In each case above the very same exact single Greek term "pneumati" is translated "with the Spirit"


The very same exact Greek term is translated "in the Spirit" in the following verses:

Ac 18:5 And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.
Ac 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
Ac 20:22 And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:
Ro 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
1Co 4:21 What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?
1Co 14:2 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.
Ga 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Ga 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

As you can see, if you compare them, then one cannot be saved without being "pneumati". To be "filled with the Spirit" is one and the same as "walking in the Spirit"

It appears that "with" refers to means whereas "in" refers to the sphere. "With [means of] the Spirit we "walk in [sphere of] the Spirit" making them inseparable whenever the means in view as one cannot exist without the other. One cannot walk pneumati without being pnuemati. However, one can be pnuemati and not walk pneumati.

This disproves Awaken's position entirely. Everything done to please God must be done pneumati and not just praying. Everything not done "with" the Spirit is done with the flesh. Whether it is praying, worshipping, speaking, witnessing, preaching, etc. To "walk in the Spirit" means everything you are saying and doing is done "with" the Spirit. Hence, Awaken's theory is completely disproven by the use of this term and its translation. According to Awaken the phrase "with the Spirit" associated with prayer must be different than praying "in" the Spirit when in fact there is no other kind of prayer acceptable to God as all prayer must be "with" by means of the Spirit and that is what is meant by praying "in" the sphere of the Spirit. Biblical tongues must exercised by means of "with" the Spirit" and when it is, then it is performed "in" the sphere of the Spirit - but God commmands everything to be done this way also not just tongues.

 

So How is it used in Revelation? When John was "in the spirit?"

If you will go back and read..I also said that we are to be led by the Spirit in our prayers of understanding! So I have never said we are to pray without the Spirit/spirit!

Paul shows us over and over what "praying in the spirit"is! Tongues!

Tongues is the Holy Spirit manifested through us! It is the Holy Spirit that gives the utterance in a language we did not learn of know!