I was looking at this question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16918/is-there-any-protestant-method-how-to-deal-spiritual-dryness . In it, the OP describes "spiritual dryness" as when a person doesn't feel the 'presence of God'. Let's pause and think about this. Feeling something entails perception—sensing something. In other words, it involves the senses: mechanisms that take in signals and convert them into conscious experience. But if we are talking about "feeling the presence of God," and if God is supposed to be a spiritual being, then unless God chooses to perform a miracle by intervening in the physical world and making his presence physically evident—by impacting our senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell, or taste—the only other alternatives I can think of are: 1. God making his presence known through emotions (which makes me wonder: do we perceive emotions through our five senses—although [some estimate up to 33 senses!](https://www.senseationalspaces.com/blogs-1/re7az3aj7icnauvk324h5l5o0du6vz)—or are emotions perceived through a different sense in the brain?). 2. God making his presence known through our thoughts (perhaps by implanting spontaneous thoughts in our minds?). 3. We actually have a spiritual sense or senses, but these are dormant in most people. For example, an atheist, naturalist, or physicalist who denies the existence of the spiritual might be "spiritually blind" because their spiritual senses are inactive. However, if their spiritual senses were activated, they would be able to have spiritual experiences, just as most people are able to have auditory, visual, tactile, mental, or emotional experiences through the conventional senses. A whole new category of experience would be unlocked through the activation of spiritual senses. The third option reminds me a bit of the concept of the [third eye](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_eye) , though that's an Eastern religious concept rather than a strictly Christian idea. Still, I wonder if Christianity teaches—perhaps with different terminology and nuances—about the existence of some kind of spiritual sense or senses, whether these can be activated (and if so, how), and whether, through them, we can perceive the presence of God (as a spiritual being), or even the presence of angels, demons, or the spiritual world in general. Given these considerations, I’m interested in how different Christian denominations and traditions address the idea of "spiritual senses." Do various branches of Christianity teach that humans have spiritual senses through which they can perceive God or spiritual realities? If so, how are these senses understood, and how do they relate to experiences like "spiritual dryness," the "dark night of the soul," or "feeling the presence of God"? I would appreciate an overview of how major Christian traditions—such as Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism—approach this concept.

In the Bible, certain individuals are described as having exceptional skill in craftsmanship. For example, **Noah** was able to construct the ark with precise dimensions and structural complexity (Genesis 6:14–16). Later in the Old Testament, **Bezalel** and **Oholiab** are said to have been "filled with the Spirit of God" and given wisdom, understanding, knowledge, and skill in all kinds of craftsmanship to construct the tabernacle and its furnishings (Exodus 31:1–6). This raises an important theological and interpretive question: **Were these abilities supernaturally imparted by God at the moment of calling, or were they natural talents that God chose to use and bless for His purposes?** Additionally, how should we understand the language of "filled with the Spirit of God" in this context—does it imply sudden divine empowerment, or a sanctified use of already existing skills? I'm interested in how various Christian traditions and biblical interpretations understand this dynamic between divine inspiration and human ability.

Some Christians hold the view that Jesus was the final prophet in a unique or ultimate sense. However, passages like 1 Corinthians 12:10 mention that the Holy Spirit gives some believers the gift of prophecy: >"to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues..." (NIV) If Jesus is considered the last prophet, how do those who hold that view understand the ongoing operation of prophecy in the Church? What terminology is used for individuals who exhibit this spiritual gift, if not “prophet”?

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.

The gift of interpretation of tongues is mentioned in chapters 12 and 14 of the apostle Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians: > 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, **to another the interpretation of tongues**. [1 Cor 12:10, ESV] > > 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? **Do all interpret?** 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts. [1 Cor 12:29-31, ESV] > > 5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, **unless someone interprets**, so that the church may be built up. [1 Cor 14:5, ESV] > > 13 Therefore, **one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret**. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also. [1 Cor 14:13-15, ESV] > > 26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, **or an interpretation**. Let all things be done for building up. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, **and let someone interpret**. 28 **But if there is no one to interpret**, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. [1 Cor 14:26-28, ESV] Besides these two biblical chapters, are there any other extra-biblical documented occurrences of the gift of interpretation of tongues in the history of the Church?

In Acts 2, we read of how the apostles received the gift of tongues so that people heard the gospel in their own languages. Is the gift of tongues, then, specifically evangelistic or does it have a purpose in a congregation where there are only believers? I was under the impression that only Charismatics currently practice this gift. What do they consider the purpose to be and are there others who actually practice the gift that consider the purpose to be different? How are these purposes defended using either Old or New Testaments?

> **1 Corinthians 14:39 (NIV)** > > Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not > forbid speaking in tongues. In the early church, the gift of tongues was a common gift which almost everyone received, as we see in the church in Corinth as an example. Paul had to give advice on how to utilize their spiritual gifts in an orderly manner in the church. However, I can't find any specific method/instruction given in the New Testament on how to receive the gift of tongues. If I want to receive the gift of tongues, what must I do? Is there any **instructions** given by the early **church fathers** on how to receive the gift of tongues? Since the New Testament doesn't give any specific instructions on how to receive the gift of tongues, there must be some writings from the church fathers on this issue.

Is there any method/instruction given by prominent preachers recently on how to receive the gift of tongues? Some specific way of prayer, some specific steps to follow, what kind of attitude is required and so forth?

We see in 1 Corinthians 14:22 that tongues are a sign for unbelievers and prophesy is a sign for believers, yet in the latter verses it appears to indicate the opposite, that tongues are sign for believers and prophesy a sign for unbelievers. What did Paul mean when he said this? I included verse 21 because it seems to indicate that the speaking in foreign tongues like what we see happen at Pentecost is descriptive of how tongues are a sign to unbelievers, naturally a foreigner speaking your tongue will serve as a sign from God. I've heard the interpretation that tongues means two different things in this passage but I don't see that as justifiable since it talking about tongues in such a close proximity without any distinction. > ## 1 Corinthians 14:21-25 ## >21 In the Law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” 22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.

One of the arguments made by those who believe that the gift of speaking in tongues has ceased (cessationists) is that the "tongues" spoken of in both Acts and 1 Corinthians 12–14 are "real" human languages. For example, C. Norman Sellers, in *Biblical Tongues*, writes: > The New Testament references to tongues require that we understand them as referring to real languages [...] There is sufficient scriptural evidence to prove that the tongues in 1 Corinthians are the same as those in Acts chapter 2 and refer to real languages. Charismatics will generally reject this analysis; J. Rodman Williams, for example, argues that "it would have been pointless to speak foreign languages" at Caesarea ([Acts 10:45–46](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+10%3A45-46&version=ESV)) and Ephesus ([Acts 19:6](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+19%3A6&version=ESV)) in *Renewal Theology* (II, p214). In light of this disagreement, I wonder – **did any church fathers clearly and specifically indicate that the "speaking in tongues" of either Acts or 1 Corinthians was *not* a "real" human language?** Here are some clarifying parameters: - I'm interested in church fathers as typically defined – those who followed the apostles up to John of Damascus. I'm fine with including Tertullian and Origen in this group. - From my reading I don't think any pre-Augustine authors clearly make this connection, so I'm asking about church fathers more broadly. But writings of the early fathers would be particularly interesting. - By "clearly and specifically," I mean that the writer *goes beyond* the biblical text and indicates that the "tongues" were not human languages. - Charismatics might argue that the biblical text itself is clear on this point, and that therefore if a church father merely quotes the biblical text, it indicates that he believes that "tongues" were not exclusively human language. I want more than that.

This is not a question whether tongues exist, yesterday or today, but I'm looking for extra-biblical writings on the existence thereof. Is there any documentation outside of the Bible, either from Christian or secular sources, specifically during the first or even second century, discussing speaking in tongues?

Were any of the saints in the Eastern Orthodox Churches gifted with the supernatural ability of invisibility from time to time?

Jesus was God's fullness as far as God can be expressed bodily (Col 2:9). > Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. As such, it is evident that He possessed every Spiritual Gift. He could speak in "Tongues" and "Interpret" the Messages. While He was physically on earth He humbled Himself and demonstrated the "fullness" of God while in a physical Body. > Jn 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. The Father is greater than Jesus, Jn 14:28. The "Word" was with the Father (John 1:1) before being "Incarnate" as Jesus. He returned to that state of existence after His earthly life (John 17:3). Christians are told to walk as Jesus walked in 1 Jn 2:6. > 1 John 2:6 KJV — He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked. As the "Model" of Christian Living, Jesus demonstrated the Spiritual gifts and their use.

Dreams & visions - how do Christians discern between genuine dreams & visions from God and false dreams & visions from a different source (flesh, enemy)? Are there any denominations that teach how to tell the difference between the two? ___ Relevant passages: > 16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: > > 17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, **and your young men shall see visions**, **and your old men shall dream dreams**; 18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. 19 And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; 20 the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. 21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’ > > (Acts 2:16-21 ESV)​ > 45 just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be after this. **The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure**.” (Daniel 2:45 ESV) > 10 **And when Paul had seen the vision**, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them. (Acts 16:10 ESV)

How does the Catholic, Baptist and Pentecostal denominations justify the practice of following teachers given this in scripture? > "But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and > you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing > teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and > just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.", 1 Jn 2:27 and, this > "No longer will each one teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, > ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know Me, from the least of them > to the greatest.", Heb 8:11 Obviously, they are appointed in the Church: > "And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second > prophets, **third teachers**, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of > helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues.", 1 Cor 12:28 Then, apparently "you" should be teachers at some point, > "by this time you ought to be teachers", Heb 5:12 Then, there's 1 Jn 2:27 and Heb 8:11 . If you back up to Heb 8:10, this is largely acknowledged as the New Covenant where the Holy Spirit is given to dwell within believers transforming their nature to keep God's ways: > "This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after > that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and > write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my > people.", Heb 8:10 That appears to be the anointing in v11. And, that anointing says you have no need of a teacher. So, why do the denominations justify their followers remaining under teachers, most their entire lives in the church? Here's a New Testament example of how to conduct "When you come together": 1 Cor 14:26-39, and some points: > "**everyone has** a psalm or **a teaching**, **a revelation**, a tongue, **or an interpretation**.", v26 > "Two or three prophets should speak the others should weigh carefully > what is said. **And if a revelation comes** to someone who is seated, the > first speaker should stop", v29-30 >**For you can all prophesy** in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged", v31 > "If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, let him > acknowledge that **what I am writing you is the Lord’s command**.", v37 The above is quite different from conventional church services.

Found on p. vii. in [*The Spiritual Man; or, the Spiritual Life Reduced to Its First Principles*](https://archive.org/details/thespiritualman00sainuoft/page/n5/mode/2up) , is the indication that this 384 page book is "VOLUME I"---suggesting, it would seem, that there is at least one additional volume somewhere. In fact, according to [*Post-Reformation Digital Library*](https://www.prdl.org/author_view.php?a_id=4332) , there is one in French published in 1646. QUESTION: Does the associated Volume II of this work exist in English; and if so, where may I find it? Thank you.

Why do cessationalists seem to especially target prophecy, tongues, and apostleship, as the manifestations of the Spirit that have ceased? Scripture states the manifestation of the Spirit comes in different forms: workings, gifts, services. This includes the 5-fold ministries, plus healing, administration, serving, leadership, words of knowledge, giving, etc. as well as prophecy and tongues, and nowhere does it say that any of them would or have ceased before our individual or unified perfection and fullness has been obtained, which has not occurred, and probably cannot happen in this age. On the contrary, the apostle Paul especially encourages prophecy and writes not to disallow even tongues. Why not claim all the manifestations of the Spirit have ceased including pastors and teachers vs. just the ones they are theologically or experientially biased against? Why not just say everyone can just read their Bibles for themselves and that is enough? I have yet to hear real Biblical evidence that the spiritual gifts have ceased or had a time-stamp on them in this age. Bible-believing Christians who take that position seem to selectively ignore verses that speak of spiritual gifts' ongoing importance, such as 1 Cor 12:4-7, 1 Cor 14:1,5,12,39-40, Ephesians 4:11-16 (with special emphasis on verse 13 word "UNTIL").

[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?

Ephesians 4:11ff reads: >And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. (Ephesians 4:11–13, American Standard Version ) I have been attempting to view the NT early church as an expression of the DNA of Christ instead of a clear blueprint of what the church should look like today. This is one example of the kind of passage that I have been struggling to understand correctly. Is there an author anyone knows of that might give me this perspective or can anyone tell me from this passage and the context if there does seem to be a very specific blueprint?

What is the difference between the two? What scriptures are used to best explain the differences? How does one receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?