According to the Wikipedia article on [Territorial spirit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_spirit) : > **Territorial spirits** are national angels, or demons, who rule over certain geographical areas in the world, a concept accepted within the Charismatic movement, Pentecostal traditions, and Kingdom Now theology. This belief has been popularized by the novel, *This Present Darkness* by Frank Peretti, as well as by the ministry of Peter Wagner. The existence of territorial spirits is viewed as significant in spiritual warfare within these Christian groups. > Peter Wagner promotes **"Strategic-Level Spiritual Warfare"** (SLSW) which involves the practice of learning the names and assignments of demonic spirits as the first step to effective spiritual warfare. Opponents of this theological construct, and associated beliefs in "spiritual warfare", point out that while the Bible may describe some form of demonic control over geography, it does not prescribe many of the behaviors and teachings that proponents advocate in response. There is no mention in either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament of believers banding together and praying a form of "spiritual warfare" against particular territorial demons. The battles occurring in the spiritual realms (as described in Daniel 10) have no Biblically identified link to the actions and prayers of God's people in the physical world. Are the belief in "territorial spirits" and the practice of "Strategic-Level Spiritual Warfare" innovations of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement? Did they borrow these ideas from prior sources? Can we find evidence of similar beliefs being held in other periods of church history? _____ **Note**: an interesting book that reports the alleged application of these ideas in the context of the Argentine Pentecostal Revival is [*Listen to Me, Satan!*](https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Me-Satan-Carlos-Annacondia/dp/1599792346) by Carlos Annacondia (an interview is available at [Carlos Annacondia: The evangelist at the forefront of revival](https://www.premierchristianity.com/home/carlos-annacondia-the-evangelist-at-the-forefront-of-revival/2092.article) , and a YouTube documentary called [Carlos Annacondia - "Listen to Me Satan"](https://youtu.be/gaK67UFQ6kI)) .

In some Christian traditions—such as Pentecostal or Charismatic churches—the Holy Spirit is often said to manifest through spiritual gifts like prophecy, tongues, or healing. In contrast, many other churches (such as Reformed, Baptist, or Anglican traditions) do not report such manifestations, or they interpret them differently. From a theological perspective within Christianity, how is this difference explained? Is it a matter of doctrine, spiritual openness, ecclesiology, or something else? I'm not asking which tradition is “right,” but rather how various denominations explain the differing levels of apparent Holy Spirit activity in worship or community life.

According to this post  it claims that Bob Jones predicted the 1985 Kansas City Royals win and how they won. It says > “I heard it! I heard it out loud. I heard it in my dream. I heard the > voice of the Lord. It spoke resounding. I heard it very clear. The > Lord said, ‘Eleven is the number because it’s the 11th hour victory. > It’s the 11th hour victory he’s going to give Kansas City.” Then, in 1985 in the last game the royals won 11-0. You can read more about this prophecy here . People also say he predicted an Earthquake will start the healing revival . Then, another prophet by the name of Paul Cain predicted many other things you can find some of his prophecies here . He was also part of the CIA division of paranormal, met with Saddam Hussein, and was a presidential consultant for three presidents. You can find a joint prophecy by both of them in this video  about the arrowhead stadium . **So my question is are these examples of prophecy by Christian prophets and is there any evidence to believe that Bob Jones posted this prophecy before the Kansas City Royals win? And is there any evidence or counter evidence that debunks Paul Cain's and Bob Jones' prophetic powers?**

This question regards those who support and participate in the modern 'speaking in tongues' and asks what their answer would be regarding the emphasis of scripture. Note that it is not a matter of 'cessation' (or not). It is a matter of *emphasis.* ----------------------------------------------- There is but one mention of tongues in the four gospel accounts, namely in Mark 16:17. Although I do not, many do dispute the acceptance of the last sixteen verses of Mark into the canon of scripture so I will pass over that single text as I assume so few would bring it up in answer to my question, that it would be regarded as moot. **Acts** There are two mentions in Acts which specifically refer to the apostles speaking in known foreign languages such that persons from other nations, attending the event, were able to understand those foreign languages. Then there are two mentions more, both of specific and special occasions, one being the matter of gentiles receiving the gospel, 10:46, and then the matter of twelve receiving the gospel who had not (yet) heard of the Holy Spirit, 19:6. In neither case is it stated what, exactly, the 'tongues' were. These four occasions are the only documented record we have of people actually speaking in tongues and they are all special and specific occurrences upon which the tongues were a sign - a signification. **1 Corinthians** Paul mentions tongues twenty one times in first Corinthians (never in second Corinthians) and his quest is to regulate the matter, as it appears to have got out of hand and to have become disorderly, so he corrects the situation and applies rules. Only if an interpreter is present can anyone speak in an unknown tongue. Paul does not comment on the *origin or the kind of the tongue* in question. He simply regulates all future utterances - of any kind - in the assembly, in such a way that all hearers, on every occasion, must be informed, intelligently - in their own mother tongue - of what is uttered at the gathering, so that all may be edified in an understandable way. **Elsewhere** There is no other mention that I can find of such occurrences in the Greek scriptures. Paul does not mention the subject again to the Corinthians in his second epistle and he never mentions it in any other epistle to any other group or church. (From a purely forensic point of view, this would be circumstancial evidence that only the Corinthians were practising the procedure.) Paul fails to mention the subject in his epistles, shortly before his death, when he instructs the younger ministers, Timothy and Titus, regarding ministerial conduct, teaching of doctrine, and matters of church government. John fails to mention tongues in any of his four books. These books are clearly written at a later stage, clearly complete the canon of scripture and clearly contain all that is relevant to the remainder of the Church Age, prior to the Lord's return. Peter never makes mention of tongues. James never refers to them. Jude, likewise. Nor does the writer to the Hebrews, whoever that author may be. Matthew makes no historical record in his gospel account. Luke, likewise, in his gospel account. ----------------------------------------- If tongues were as central (1) a feature of church activity as some suggest, if tongues are an indication of the presence of the Holy Spirit on every occasion, if tongues are essential to the life of the church, if tongues are also essential to the edification and sound spiritual health of every single believer in the body of Christ . . . . . . . . then why do we see just four mentions in Acts on special occasions when a sign was necessary to mark a particular event, and why do we see just a chapter, or so, and that only when Paul regulates a matter that had got out of hand ? Why is there silence *from every other book and from every other author* ? Leaving aside the matter of 'cessation' that one might therefore expect that tongues - being a sign, given at a specific juncture in the inauguration of the New Testament - had ceased altogether, is it not questionable that there is a matter of emphasis to be considered ? To be even more plain, is there not a *justifiable question of imbalance* with regard to the modern emphasis on the speaking of tongues ? What is the response of those who participate in the speaking in tongues ? --------------------------- Please note that I wish to read responses from persons who actively do speak in tongues, as to their thinking regarding the subject ; or to read references to those persons. I am not looking to read theoretical assumptions from persons who do not actively practice the technique. --------------------------- Please further note that my research was from Young's Analytical Concordance and covered every occurrence of the word tongue/tongues. It could be that this subject is alluded to in different words which I have not listed. Also, I have deliberately not referred to the Old Testament and particularly not to prophetic passages, which require specific interpretations, e.g. Isaiah 28:11. I am interested in keeping the inquiry (and the response) within the compass of that outlined above. -------------------------- (1) This word added as an edit after the comment (below).

Building upon my previous question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101680/61679 and the excellent [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/101815/61679) by GratefulDisciple, I would like to delve deeper into how Reformed Protestants understand and respond to the concept of [Christian mysticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism) . This concept has a long Patristic and Medieval tradition present in both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, and is also evident in more recent movements such as [Pentecostalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism) and the [Charismatic movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_movement) . To keep the scope narrow, I would like this question to focus solely on **Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement**, leaving the discussion of Christian mysticism as traditionally understood by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches to a [separate question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101844/61679) . In addition, I think in this context it is worth mentioning Daniel Castelo's insightful book, [Pentecostalism as a Christian Mystical Tradition](https://www.amazon.com/Pentecostalism-as-Christian-Mystical-Tradition/dp/0802869564) , which GratefulDisciple's answer also references. Castelo's book argues for reinterpreting Pentecostalism as a mystical tradition within the broader historical framework of Christian mysticism. The book's synopsis states: > *Informed reassessment of Pentecostalism as a mystical tradition of the* > *church universal* > > Pentecostalism, says Daniel Castelo, is commonly framed as > "evangelicalism with tongues" or dismissed as simply a revivalist > movement. In this book Castelo argues that Pentecostalism is actually > best understood as a Christian mystical tradition. > > Taking a theological approach to Pentecostalism, Castelo looks > particularly at the movement's methodology and epistemology as he > carefully distinguishes it from American evangelicalism. Castelo > displays the continuity between Pentecostalism and ancient church > tradition, creating a unified narrative of Pentecostalism and the > mystical tradition of Christianity throughout history and today. > Finally, he uses a test case to press the question of what the > interactions between mystical theology and dogmatics could look like. With all that said, what are the views of Reformed Protestants on Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement?

[Steven J. Lawson](https://www.gracechurch.org/leader/lawson/steven%20j) speaking at the 2013 *Strange Fire* conference in a lecture titled [The Puritan Commitment to *Sola Scriptura*](https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/TM13-12/the-puritan-commitment-to-sola-scriptura-steve-lawson) ([video here](https://www.watchagtv.com/videos/tm13-12-dvd-edit-720p-updated-graphics-2021-youtube-2160p-4k-ultra-hd) , transcribed by [Mike Riccardi writing at the Cripplegate blog](https://thecripplegate.com/strange-fire-the-puritan-commitment-to-sola-scriptura-steve-lawson/)) seems to express antagonism and criticism toward both concepts: > They claimed to be receiving new revelations, prophecies. And with that they were being led astray into **hyper-emotionalism and mysticism**. > And out of this commitment to be “open and uncautious” to continuing revelation by the Spirit, they were led into all kinds of **mystical experiences and bizarre patterns**, not the least of which was going naked as a sign. > “All of these ways”—referring to the abuses of the Quakers with the inner light, new revelation, **mystical**, intuitive, subjective impulses—“are uncertain, dangerous, useless, and totally unnecessary. … They must be rejected and shunned.” > What is more bizarre than running around half naked is the outlandish claims and freakish actions of so many in today’s **Charismatic movement**. What we saw during the Q&A today is more bizarre than these women who walked around naked. > He was the personal chaplain to Oliver Cromwell. John Owen Addressed Parliament. This brilliant man gave himself to combat **this Charismatic emotional departure from *sola Scriptura* with its new revelations**. And Owen affirmed the deeper issue, which was *sola Scriptura*. > It would be in 1659 that Owen responded by writing one of his most important works: *A Defense of Sacred Scripture against the Fanatics*. I want to zone in on chapter 3, entitled, “On the Perfection of Scripture.” And Owen will state his case for **the lunacy of the charismatic excesses** based upon the sure foundation of the perfection of the Word of God. > It leaves no room for any new revelations. If you are seeking any of **these Charismatic new-revelations**, it is because you have no understanding of the perfection of the written Word of God. Is Steve Lawson using the concepts of *(Christian) mysticism* and the *charismatic movement* almost interchangeably, or at least with enough overlap between the two to be regarded as equally dangerous to the doctrine of *Sola scriptura* as he understands it? More generally, how much overlap is there between [*Christian mysticism*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism) and the [*charismatic movement*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_movement) ? Does a Charismatic Christian necessarily, by definition, believe in the possibility of mystical experiences? Is a Christian mystic necessarily, by definition, open to the possibility of the [*charismata*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_gift) ? Are there any nuances between the two concepts, making them, at least in certain contexts, non-interchangeable?

So I have visited various churches of various denominations throughout my life. There was always a somewhat a "They are wrong"-mentality towards other churches/denominations on a theological level. Aka. baptism means this for us and for these reasons, we think baptism is not what X, Y says it is. This is still fine because it just means that there are differences and that people agree to disagree. But when dealing with charismatic or people in "similar" denominations I face more and more what I call flat-out hostility towards the catholic church in particular but it also is directed towards traditional churches like the protestants. I faced statements like: - The pope is a false prophet/teacher - Rome/The Vatican is the whore of Babylon (referring to Revelation 17:1-6) - Priests do the forgiving during the confessions - Catholics are not really Christians (or at least the faith of many is empty) - and a lot more than I care to remember As you can see these kinds of statements are more than just differences in theology where you can say you simply disagree but still can love each other. Now chances are that this kind of thing happens in every denomination towards any other one, but anecdotally speaking, I found the attacks from charismatics (or similar) towards the Catholic church in particular but also other traditional churches are rising and are particularly underhanded. Of course, the Catholic Church is not without criticism and I am not in this church for my own good reasons, but I still respect them and see Catholics as Christians, Brothers and Sisters in Christ. Hence the question(s): - Is that only my own experience or is there more to it? - If this hostility is prevalent and rising, what are the reasons for it? - (Optional since that might blow up the scope): What strategy do you propose to remedy it on an individual level?

**Background**: I had a discussion with my church leadership and their position is that without the Holy Spirit there can be no repentance. **The issue in more detail**: My proposal was to do a service where a big chunk of the service is dedicated to writing down your sins, asking God for forgiveness, and throwing that paper in the fire afterwards. I know it's a bit confrontational but I thought, given how important repentance is for the relationship with God, I thought dedicating a service with a special event might be a good idea. - Their objection was that repentance is something that cannot be planned in a service, because to do repentance you need the Holy Spirit, which you cannot control. - My position is that repentance is an act that you as a person do by confessing your sins and asking God for forgiveness. If the Holy Spirit is active and convicts one of sin, then that is nice but it still starts with oneself. I would even go so far as to say that for a full repentance you *do* need the Holy Spirit because one is blind to one's own sin, but I don't think you need the Holy Spirit to start repenting. **Biblical examples**: - In the story of the prodigal son I don't see a passage where the Holy Spirit convicted the son. He found himself in the dirt, went back to his father and showed remorse, and asked for forgiveness. (Luke 15:14-21) - David, when confronted by the prophet Nathan, asked for forgiveness for killing Uriah, which he did without the Holy Spirit. (2 Samuel 12:13) - The Parable of the Tax Collector does not mention the Holy Spirit or anything similar. The important part here is having a remorseful and a humble heart. (Luke 18:9-14) - The guy next to Jesus at the cross also only asked to think of him when Jesus goes to heaven. (Luke 23:40-42) To repeat: I am not saying that the Holy Spirit does not convict people of sin but I do not think He is necessary for repentance. Hence my question: **Is the Holy Spirit necessary for starting repentance?** ----- Edit (since I was asked about the denomination for this question): We are a small church that would classify as Charismatic. However, I am open to and I value the opinions of all denominations, since I think that is one good way to find the actual truth. Furthermore, I think this topic should be basic enough that we can find a consensus beyond a single denomination.

Cessationism is the belief held by some protestants that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as prophecy, do not occur in present day. The general thinking is that these gifts "ceased" at the completion of the canon, closing any new revelation. What is the basis for this belief? I'm interested in Biblical, logical, empirical and historical arguments.

I'm interested in understanding the specific ways in which God's presence and intervention are consciously experienced by Christians in their daily lives. In this question, I'm narrowing the scope to **Pentecostalism/Charismatics**. Do Pentecostal/Charismatic teachings provide specific guidelines for how Christians should or could experience/encounter God in everyday life? Moreover, are there particular types of divine experiences accepted by Pentecostal/Charismatic churches that other denominations would be more reluctant to accept or actively promote? For context, I'm asking this as a follow-up to my previous question, *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/97604/61679*

Scripturally speaking, we know that apostleship was one of the most important offices in the early Church: > 28 And **God has appointed in the church first apostles**, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues [1 Cor 12:28 ESV] > > 11 And **he gave the apostles**, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, [Ephesians 4:11-12 ESV] > > 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 **built on the foundation of the apostles** and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [Ephesians 2:19-20 ESV] > > 11 I have been a fool! You forced me to it, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I was not at all inferior to these super-apostles, even though I am nothing. 12 The signs of **a true apostle** were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works. [2 Cor 12:11-12 ESV] However, the term "missionary" is not strictly speaking a Biblical term (as far as I'm aware), and it typically denotes someone who is sent somewhere (usually an unevangelized area) to carry out some specific service(s) related to the expansion of God's kingdom. However, the concept of apostle is also sometimes more loosely understood as "sent one", which to my ears sounds pretty much the same as a missionary, so the distinction between the two terms becomes a bit blurry. What is the difference between an *apostle* (as understood by the early Church, and as recorded in Scripture) and a *missionary* according to Pentecostal & Charismatic Christianity? ____ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/48591/50422

I'm interested in learning about the origins and evolution throughout Church history of manifestations such as shaking, trembling, jerking, contorting, collapsing or fainting attributed to the Holy Spirit (i.e., not due to a diagnosed medical condition). For further context, I posted a related question asking for the neurological and psychological causes of these manifestations on [Psychology.SE](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/25631/is-there-a-scientific-explanation-for-dramatic-body-shaking-and-trembling-in-rel) . Feel free to check it out. For illustrative purposes, here are two testimonials about these manifestations that were recorded in 1995 during the first few months after the beginning of the [Brownsville Revival](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownsville_Revival) : - Brownsville Revival - Alison Ward Testimony - August 18, 1995 - Amy Elizabeth Ward Mercy Seat Alison Ward Brownsville Revival Pensacola FL I understand that events such as the [Toronto Blessing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Blessing) (1994) and the [Brownsville Revival](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownsville_Revival) (1995) have played a very influential role in promoting these manifestations the last two or three decades, but, what about the past? Were these relatively recent events pioneer regarding these manifestations or can we find older records of similar manifestations in Church history? What are the oldest records? ______ Update: according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slain_in_the_Spirit) the oldest records of these manifestations in Protestantism would pertain to the [First Great Awakening](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Great_Awakening) that took place in the 18th century. However, it would seem very strange to me if there were no records prior to that. Is it truly the case that there are no records of these manifestations during the first 17 centuries of Christianity and that they suddenly began to take place from the 18th century onward? If so, why?

- To the half-billion plus Charismatic Christians in the world, what message does this “term” send? - What is the Biblical basis for the calling of the Charismatic movement as Strange Fire? (Audio/transcript Strange Fire by John MacArthur) The first "**Strange fire Conference**" launched in October 2013 with stated purpose: to evaluates the doctrines, claims, and practices of the modern charismatic movement, and affirms the true Person and ministry of the Holy Spirit. This conference was coincided with the release of the "**STRANGE FIRE**, **The Danger of Offending The Holy Spirit with Counterfeit Worship**" by the best selling author, John MacArthur. It is obvious that **the choice of the term** - "**Strange Fire**" for the conference and book was **by design** out of his conviction about Charismatic movement is "Strange Fire" (Leviticus 10:1).

From [Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Part 5): The Baptism In the Holy Spirit](https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-the-holy-spirit/doctrine-of-the-holy-spirit-part-5) : > #### Baptism and Fullness of the Holy Spirit > > Today we want to look at the baptism and fullness of the Holy Spirit. **There’s a great deal of confusion in Protestant circles concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit because certain Pentecostal and charismatic Christians claim that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a second work of grace in the life of the believer which brings one into a fuller and deeper experience of the Holy Spirit**. They believe that when a person becomes a Christian he is indwelt by the Spirit but he is not baptized in the Holy Spirit. In order to come into this deeper walk with God you need to have a second work of grace – a second experience of the Holy Spirit – called the baptism of the Holy Spirit often accompanied by speaking in tongues which will initiate you into this deeper walk in the Spirit. > > **I think this view is completely wrong. It seems to me that the Scripture is relatively clear that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not a second work of grace, but it is an initiatory work of the Spirit by means of which we are placed into the body of Christ**. It is through the baptism of the Holy Spirit that we are indwelt by the Spirit and made to be members of the body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 12:13 seems to make that clear: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.” Here the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the universal experience of the church, the initiating act by means of which we are placed into the body of Christ. > > **Charismatics will usually appeal to the stories in the book of Acts to show that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not an initiatory act but is a second work of grace. But, in fact, a close examination of those stories in the book of Acts reveals that in every single case it is clearly an initial experience of the Holy Spirit that is being described and not a second experience**. For example, in Acts 2 you have the story of Pentecost where the gift of the Holy Spirit is given to the church in Jerusalem and Judea. This is an initial baptism in the Holy Spirit that they were to wait for. They were not to leave Jerusalem until they received this baptism in the Holy Spirit. Then in Acts 8 you have the story of how the Holy Spirit is given to the Samaritan believers. Again, a close reading of chapter 8 indicates that they did not have the Holy Spirit until they were baptized in the Holy Spirit. Then in Acts 10 and 11 you have the story of Cornelius and his household in which the Holy Spirit now is given to the Gentiles. And once again this is clearly an initial act of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Cornelius and his household. Peter says that the Holy Spirit fell upon them in the same way that he did upon us at Pentecost in the beginning. Then in Acts 19 you have this very strange story of the Ephesian disciples of John the Baptist whom Paul runs into and who says we haven't even heard that there is a Holy Spirit. Paul then baptizes them into the Holy Spirit and they likewise become Christians. > > So, although the baptism of the Holy Spirit in these acts is differently related to water baptism (sometimes preceding it; sometimes actually coming after water baptism), nevertheless it is clear that in every case the persons who experience a baptism of the Holy Spirit are experiencing an initial act of the Holy Spirit and not some sort of secondary act of grace which puts them into a deeper walk with Christ. From [Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Part 6): The Filling of the Holy Spirit](https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-the-holy-spirit/doctrine-of-the-holy-spirit-part-6) : > #### Why Are So Many Christians Not Filled With the Holy Spirit? > > Last time we saw that there is a difference in the New Testament drawn between Christians who are indwelt with the Holy Spirit and Christians who are filled with the Holy Spirit. All Christians have been baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ and are therefore indwelt by the Holy Spirit. But as we saw in 1 Corinthians chapter 2 and the first part of chapter 3, Paul says that although all Christians are indwelt with the Holy Spirit some Christians still are living under the domination and influence of the flesh, that is to say the fallen human nature, and therefore do not produce the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Instead these Christians exhibit the works of the flesh that Paul talks about in Galatians chapter 5. > > **We saw that the signs of the Spirit-filled life are not charismatic gifts like speaking in tongues or prophetic utterance or working of healing miracles. The church in Corinth exhibited all sorts of charismatic gifts and yet was one of the most carnal churches in the New Testament. Rather, the evidence of the Spirit-filled life is the fruit of the Spirit that Paul talks about in Galatians chapter 5. Those who are walking in the Holy Spirit, who are filled with the Spirit, produce the fruit of the Holy Spirit in their lives rather than the works of the flesh.** > > The question that I left us with is this: why is it that so many Christians are not filled with the Holy Spirit? Why is it that so many Christians seem to fall into that category of carnal Christians – Christians who are still living under the domination and influence of the fallen human nature? Why do so few seem to enjoy the fullness of the Holy Spirit? Let me suggest two reasons as to why so many Christians are not filled with the Holy Spirit. > > [...] **Question**: How do Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians rebut William Lane Craig's objections against their views on *the Baptism of the Holy Spirit* and *the Filling of the Holy Spirit*? ___ **Related**: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/92043/50422

I keep coming upon the phrase **"in the Spirit"** in the NT. One search result of that phrase is here: https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=%22in+the+spirit%22&t=NKJV#s=s_primary_0_1 A few examples are (NKJV): - Acts 19:21, **"Paul purposed in the Spirit"** - Romans 2:29, **"circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter"** - Romans 8:9, **"But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit"** - Galatians 5:16, **"I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh"** It's possible that the phrase has different shades of meaning depending on the verse context. How are we to understand this phrase in a believer's life? I am asking for an answer from the Christian community that conforms to the Nicene Creed of 381 AD. A Pentecostal/charismatic viewpoint is welcome. Also, the tenor of some of these verses indicate that one is in the Spirit or in the flesh, so answers which adhere to this duality are preferred (answers that reflect grace under law to Christ rather than adherence to OT laws for righteousness).

It's good that God has blessed us with towering intellectual pastors/Christian writers like D. A. Carson, John Piper, John F. MacArthur, etc. Many of the aforementioned people belong to Baptist, Reformed Baptist, Presbyterian or Cessationist, etc. church/ministry backgrounds, and some cases even the typical Catholic church/ministry background. They generally teach The Bible in a relatively more erudite/academic manner than pastors in the Charismatic/Pentecostal Christian churches or ministries. However, what are the drawbacks of studying the Bible in an overly erudite (overly academic) manner?

This question was originally inspired by a "Buddhist to Christian" [testimony](https://christian-faith.com/buddhist-monk-turns-to-jesus/) (courtesy of [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/88869/50422)) . Specifically, this part of the testimony: > [...] > I met her while visiting my best friend, Zlatko. She listened sympathetically to the problems and struggles in my life, emphasising that ONLY GOD could help remove the burdens from my shoulders. I could not work for my “”Salvation””. As I listened I felt different, warmth had crept into my heart, and finally I said a short prayer to welcome the LORD Jesus Christ into my heart as my Saviour. **I didn’t know it then, but found out later, that Jovanka my friend’s wife had prayed intensely in “”tongues”” while I was being witnessed to. God later told her the following: “”Marlies, you think it was your good witnessing skills that led Souk to Jesus! No, when Jovanka prayed in tongues she bound the demon sitting on his head that had stopped him from turning to the Lord Jesus Christ.””** > > When the prayer was over I felt totally at peace and relieved. I was not even afraid of what my parents might say that one of their children had changed from a religion that had been in the family for centuries. In fact, within a few weeks I told them that no longer did I follow the Buddhist religion, but had become a Christian. It turns out this is not an isolated case. After some searching I was able to confirm that other Christians share similar beliefs regarding the usefulness of tongues in the context of spiritual warfare and deliverance/exorcism. For example: From https://godencounters.com/praying-gift-tounges/ : > Tongues of war – There is a place where **the Holy Spirit goes on the offensive. He battles through us**. Sometimes there is a coupling together of the gift of faith with tongues. **A rising within occurs and a push or urge to launch out against the demonic forces happens. Sometimes it is the wedding between discerning of spirits and tongues. You combat or attack the dark force, commanding it to flee**. From http://www.demonbuster.com/tongues.html : > **During some of our DELIVERANCE sessions when the demon is being stubborn, we pray out loud in TONGUES. Usually, the person immediately covers their ears with their hands because the demons apparently can understand. The demons absolutely hate for you to pray in TONGUES at any time**. > > By the way, the demons can also speak in TONGUES, but it is coming from the spirit of the devil. You almost cannot tell the difference, which is why we have cast OUT many demons of FALSE TONGUES. Even [Tim Conway](https://illbehonest.com/author/tim-conway) , from *I'll Be Honest* (same ministry as [Paul Washer](https://illbehonest.com/author/paul-washer)) , in the video [Has the gift of speaking in tongues ceased? - Tim Conway](https://youtu.be/YMkpn0iZonA?t=1269) , referenced an anecdote from the book *From Witchcraft to Christ* ([link](https://www.amazon.com/Witchcraft-Christ-Doreen-Irvine/dp/1842912593)) that involved tongue-speaking for deliverance. At 21:09 Tim said: > But the fact is, the gift of tongues was a legitimate, and I believe, is a legitimate spiritual gift, and if somebody has an ability - look, **I read a book not too long ago, called 'From Witchcraft to Christ'**, **and the man who was heavily involved in delivering this woman from all these demons that were in her** --she was involved in witchcraft, she was involved in Satan's worship--- and a friend of Martyn Lloyd-Jones, **he believed he had the gift of tongues of angels**, **and you know what the woman said, who had been delivered of all these demons? She said**, whether he did or not, I can't say but she said **"I know this, when he would talk in that language, the demons inside me were terrified and they understood him"**. So, again, I'm not going to say what God can or can't do. And this was a very godly man, and like I said, he was a friend of Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and it seemed like God had given him special and unique gifts to be able to deal ... Is it possible man can speak in the tongues of angels? Hey, I haven't had it, I'm not going to say first hand. Paul definitely alludes to things like that [...] **Question**: What is the biblical basis for speaking in tongues for deliverance and spiritual warfare?

It has been many years since I've experienced this gift. The first time I didn't actually know what was happening. I was getting what I was going to say about a split second before I said it. It was me speaking, but I wasn't the author of it. I was trying to explain to a group at a Bible study that salvation was not by works when the Holy Spirit spoke through me explaining that. Does anyone else relate to my experiences? Are there published testimonies from Christians about their own personal experiences with the gift of prophecy?

The concept of "being filled" with the Holy Spirit is mentioned multiple times in the New Testament, and according to the book of Acts it appears to have been a crucial aspect of the early Christian life. According to **Pentecostals and Charismatics**: - What does it mean to be "filled" with the Holy Spirit? - What are concrete and practical ways by which Christians can be filled (and stay filled) with the Holy Spirit? _____ Other perspectives: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86596/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86595/50422

How do the eschatological doctrines of Charismatic or Pentecostal groups that hold to dominion theology differ from other Charismatic or Pentecostal groups (e.g. Assemblies of God) that do not?