My pastor told us at bible study last night that to him "praying in the spirit" means not "regarding sin in your heart" and although I agree that if we do, the Bible says that the Lord will not hear us, to me this is not what it means to pray in the spirit.
Would you please give me your definition of what it means to pray in the spirit?
"Praying in the Spirit" doesn't have anything to do with whether there is sin in one's heart or not. Praying in the Spirit is simply praying according to the prompting & leading of the Holy Spirit, allowing Him to direct you in how to pray, and what to pray for. You can see such talked about in Romans 8, where Paul talks about the intercessory role the Holy Spirit can play in our prayer lives.
KingJimmy wrote:
"Praying in the Spirit" doesn't have anything to do with whether there is sin in one's heart or not. Praying in the Spirit is simply praying according to the prompting & leading of the Holy Spirit, allowing Him to direct you in how to pray, and what to pray for. You can see such talked about in Romans 8, where Paul talks about the intercessory role the Holy Spirit can play in our prayer lives.
Perhaps your pastor meant that the Spirit is unable to move in us if we don't give way to the Spirit, like when we pray with an attitude of self-pride. When we are filled with ourselves, there is no room in our hearts for the Spirit to move.
If we have sinned and we pray in full submission, sincerely seeking God, we can pray in the Spirit, and He will help us regain the path of righteousness. If we pray with an attitude of pride and sinfulness, not seeking God but seeking gain for ourselves through prayer, then the Spirit cannot move in us.
I think the best way to think of "praying in the Spirit" is to be "praying prohpetically."
Hi Choo,
1Co 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.
1Co 14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the mind; I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the mind.
In these particular passages it seems that praying in or praying with the spirit refers to praying in tongues..........Frank
Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 27 And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because [6] the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
Rom 8:26,27
But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit Jude 20
Praying in the Spirit i believe is possible when you are in the Spirit and walk in the Spirit.If you confess your sins and walk in the light the blood of Jesus will cleans us of all sin, but still you are weak even though you have peace with God. The gentle Spirit as a divine Person comes to your help and support to lead you in prayer according to the will of God.
He gives your burdens and compassion for the lost to pray for their salvation and as you believe the promises of God, the Holy Ghost brings an insurance to you before hand that this people will be saved and you have the assurance that its a matter of time before these persons believe Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Praying in the Spirit it means you are an intercessor with God for the saved and unsaved and you have the spiritual stength to fight against the devil and overcome sin by the grace of God. God can give you a burden for a believer that is goin thru some tough time and as you fight your spiritual battle with confidence that the victory is won already on the cross, God comes to the assistance of that brother wherever he is. You are not aware of the difficulties and hard circumstances your brother is going thru but the Spirit gives you the revelation about him.
For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the mind; I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the mind. 1Cor 14:14,15
As for this text in 1corinthians 14 paul is talking about the gift of the Holy Spirit, and there a big difference between praying in the Spirit and praying in tongues.Not every believer has the gift of tongues but every believer if is in Christ has the Holy Spirit and can pray in the Spirit.
"Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words", because of our weakness the Spirit comes to our help to pray to God for our spiritual condition. What a great mystery and privilege, we have two divine persons praying for us, Christ as our advocate intercedes for the elect of God in heaven and the Spirit thru us intercedes to the Father for us.
"Praying in your most holy faith", we need also to pray in faith and to aproach the throne of grace with confidence and holy boldness beacause Jesus has opened the way to the Father.
Blessings,
Redi
P. S. This post is edited and corrected
Thank you for your responses.
What appolus [sp?], kingjimmy and leo_grace said.
I see praying in the Spirit as "praying with the Spirit' i.e. praying what the Holy Spirit desires you to say to the Father to cause His purposes to be accomplished in your life or others.
I believe if we're yielded, the Spirit of God gives us words to pray to the Father since He knows the mind of the Father.
We all probably know someone whose prayers always seem to be answered with a 'yea'...i believe this is the secret; praying what the Spirit desires. This could be in our understanding or in a 'prayer language'/tongue.
Grace.
It is praying as one is led by the Spirit. It is focusing my heart upon His and letting Him come forth and flow through. It can go from sorrow, to joy, to tears and then singing. There is often a very heavy burden that actually makes my heart hurt and then sometimes He comes forth with the sweetest singing that I have ever heard. It is His Spirit touching mine.
Would you please give me your definition of what it means to pray in the spirit?
Depending on which type of fellowship you attend, the interpretation of "praying in the Spirit" will vary.
For example, many teach that praying in the spirit equates to praying in tongues. This is because they have been taught this by another man, who was taught this by another, and on and on it goes...all the way back to the turn of the last century when the fascination and manifestation of glossalalia initially began.
But after removing charismatic lenses, and reading the Word of God in its contextual entirety, you can't help but wonder if anyone prior to the 1901 Topeka Kanasas phenomenon actually prayed in the spirit.
Other denominations have their own theological interpretations on this verse. It sounds to me that the one you bring here also had a similar genesis - albeit, a very strange one. I've never heard it explained that way, and, like the classical pentecostal interpretation, it falters when brought up to the full light of the Word of God in all of its healthy contextuality.
When we [i]walk[i]pray
It is irrelevent whether the outward manifestation during this is tongues, tears, or prostrated silence. All these are viable; but none are exclusive or required. As far as inward experiences and/or methods, I have found that any conscious effort on my part to either try to ignore or improve the condition of my heart will actually work to [i]impede
Praying in the spirit is speaking in tongues. The best book that I have read on how to receive and all the details with scripture is, "Seven Vital steps to receiving the Holy Spirit" by Kenneth Hagin. Very simple and easy to understand.
To me it is a vital communication with the Lord thru the Holy Spirit. It puts you on his main line. It allows you to become intercessor for prayers for others. If god gives you a desire to pray...you pray until you feel a release in the spirit. Now sins are another thing, God knows how to stop you. He will tell you you need to forgive or do this and then continue. The Lord is all knowing and he does communicate.
All have sinned and come short of the glory. Jesus is on the Throne and he is in total control in the Spirit and prayers to him in the spirit. You can pray in the spirit and sing in the spirit. I Corinth 14:15
But after removing charismatic lenses, and reading the Word of God in its contextual entirety, you can't help but wonder if anyone prior to the 1901 Topeka Kanasas phenomenon actually prayed in the spirit. Other denominations have their own theological interpretations on this verse.
I think I could read every post on this thread and say, "Yes, that is what praying in the Spirit is". It is both praying in tongues and also praying divinely inspired prayers as the Holy Spirit directs you. It is simply coming into agreement with the Holy Spirit of God in prayer. It is when what we are interceding for is also what Jesus is interceding for. Perhaps one speaks in tongues, perhaps one speaks in his own tongue, or perhaps one does both.
I quoted Paul West to say this. So often the issue of speaking in tongues is divided along denominational lines. It seems odd to me that this is the case. Why would one single out the manifest presence of the Holy Spirit as the thing to either vehemently accept or reject. The Holy Spirit is the power source for our lives and ministry. Jesus said it was so needful for Him to go away so He could send the comforter.
Topeka was not simply a one time phenomenon that was so different from anything else that had been happening ever since the day of pentecost. If one wants to dig hard enough, one can find many times when manifestation of the Holy Spirit are mentioned in the writings of men of God of old. The only thing phenomenal about Topeka was that it was so widely publicized and had such a far reaching effect on North America and the church here. There were other "outpourings" happening all over the world at the same time. Remember, Smith Wigglesworth and John Lake were contemporaries of Parham, but independent of Parhams work and Topeka.
I have read of the Cane Ridge Revival in Kentucky in 1801 and there were many physical manifestations of the Holy Spirit involved with that meeting.
Justin Martyr "If you want proof that the Spirit of God, who was with your people and left you to come to us, come into our assemblies and there you will see Him cast out demons, heal the sick, and hear Him speak in tongues and prophesy."
A.D. 115-202 - Irenaeus:
Irenaeus "In like manner do we also hear many brethren in the church who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light, for the general benefit, the hidden things of men and declare the mysteries of God, who also the apostles term spiritual."
Now I know the issue that divides is not the Holy Spirit Himself, but tongues or other manifestation such as the nine gifts, etc. But, with the New Testament as well as church history so full of these instances, I am not sure we can call it a phenomenon, but rather typical of the work of the Holy Spirit among the church. After all, it is what marked day one of church history.
That being said, I really think the schisms that have come over speaking in tongues are the work of the enemy to try disconnect the church from the very source of power that Jesus sent to her. I believe speaking in tongues to be something God desires for His church, and I speak in tongues often. But I cannot forget that tongues are not the point. It is communion with the Holy Spirit that is needed. In prayer, that may be in tongues, and it may not, but it always must be in the Spirit or it will be unfruitful.
Topeka was not simply a one time phenomenon that was so different from anything else that had been happening ever since the day of pentecost.
I also speak in tongues, and I thank God for the gift. But I've been around long enough to see them greviously abused and a lot of "junk theology" (to coin Leonard Ravenhill's assessment of glassalalic dogma). On the same token, however, we need to beware of allowing such extremes to effect our own convictions of the role of the Holy Spirit. It's easy to become a reactionary - to one extreme or the other. To my knowledge, both Wigglesworth and Lake, though independant, adhered to and taught Parham's intitial uniform evidence theology. But in the middle we find another man named FF Bosworth who held that tongues may be present, but were not obligatory for any experience.
My point was that after Topeka, theological assertions concerning glossalalia were for the first time laid down; regarding the frameworks of Baptism in the Holy Spirit, and Praying in the Spirit.
Unfortunately, many Pentecostals (of which mold I am cut from) have such a unhealthy estimation of tongues that they start seeing tongues mentioned in Scriptures where tongues are not mentioned. I'll never forget when I sat and listened to a sermon by Loran Livingston, who is one of the major Pentecostal pastors in America today, and he was utterly convinced Jesus spoke in tongues at various points of his life. Thankfully, most of the congregation didn't seem to buy into this strand of his teaching, as he quoted an Aramaic recording in the gospels of what Jesus said in one instance, and insisted that was Jesus speaking in tongues, and that an interpretation of that was provided by the gospel writer. Livingston is generally a pretty good student of the Word, and pretty insightful guy, but, I only mention this to show an example of how sometimes Pentecostals can look for tongues where tongues are not mentioned.
God bless my well meaning brothers just the same though :-)
By the way, if you have chance to, you might want to study Gordon Fee's commentary on this subject matter in the tomb he wrote in the Holy Spirit. He's a great scholar that is classical Pentecostal in his leanings, though oddly enough, denies the doctrine of subsequence in regard to the baptism of the Holy Spirit (how the Assemblies of God has let him keep his credentials after that I'll never understand). But he makes a pretty good case that Romans 8 and other passages that talk about such things as "praying in the spirit" is tongues. I disagree with Dr. Fee on this, but well, he does make an interesting argument just the same.
after Topeka, theological assertions concerning glossalalia were for the first time laid down; regarding the frameworks of Baptism in the Holy Spirit, and Praying in the Spirit.
I am not so sure the theological assertions had their beginnings here. In 400 AD it seems Augustine of Hippo was among a group of people who also held this doctrinal stance. He said, "We still do what the apostles did when they laid hands on the Samaritans and called down the Holy Spirit on them in the laying-on of hands. It is expected that converts should speak with new tongues." I tend to think this teaching has been around for a while. I would say though that these doctrines became widely known at the time of the Topeka event. I find it interesting that three men independently come to the same conclusion doctrinally at about the same time. These men did come to know one another quite well throughout their ministries, and interestingly enough it seems Bosworth was often the catalyst for these meetings.
When John Alexander Dowie got off, Bosworth was the only one who would open a place for Parham to minister in Zion City. They would have home meetings in his home there. When Dowie's successor Voliva began spreading rumors about Parham, Bosworth spoke against them. I recall a story that John Lake told about speaking with a woman by the name of Lilian Thistlewait in Bosworth's home about the importance of a sanctified and holy life. He said this woman impacted him greatly. I have known several people who were will acquainted with Ms. Thistlewait and spoke well of her. I know Bosworth's book on healing is very powerful. I did not know that Bosworth saw speaking in tongues as nonobligatory. I know Parham did see it as the initial evidence. I tend to look at it like this. One does not have to speak in tongues to be baptized in the Holy Spirit, but one will probably not be baptized int he Holy Spirit long before he will speak with tongues and realize the importance that this has in the life of a believer.
I agree with you that there is a lot of "junk theology". I guess that people come to believe the wrong things most likely because they are not firmly grounding what they believe in the Word.
I just wondered what you meant by phenomenon as it is usually used to indicate an unusual event that is unexplainable and usually singular.
It seems you have studied the lives of these men quite a bit.
Good morning brother. I dont wan't to initiate a debate over the validity of tongues here, but I fear your reference to Augustine of Hippo might be slightly incomplete. While it is true that he witessed glossalalia when certain people received the Holy Spirit, he was very prudent to also notice it was not always the same with his contemporary brethren. Augustine did not entrentch glossalalia as a theological - and subsequently denominational - concept as Parham would do some 1500 years later. Here is his (Augustine of Hippo's) own words on the topic:
[i]"...that thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away. In the laying on of hands now, that persons may receive the Holy Ghost, do we look that they should speak with tongues? Or when he laid the hand on infants, did each one of you look to see whether they would speak with tongues, and, when he saw that they did not speak with tongues, was any of you so strong-minded as to say, These have not received the Holy Ghost; for, had they received, they would speak with tongues as was the case in those times? If then the witness of the presence of the Holy Ghost be not given through these miracles, by what is it given, by what does one get to know that he has received the Holy Ghost? Let him question his own heart. If he love his brother, the Spirit of God dwelleth in him."
And although there were instances since the first century of infrequent glossalalia (including within the walls of some Roman Catholic parishes), never to my knowledge was a doctrinal fundamental laid in place to make tongues [i]obligatory[i]may
What I mean to say was there was a burning motive, a desire in Parham's school to establish a predictability whereby apostolic faith may be confirmed. I'm simply contending that nowhere in the annals of church history do we see this prior to 1901.
Don't misunderstand, I am in no way seeking a debate, and I hope no one reading the thread is of that mind. Just found what you said interesting.
I stand corrected on Augustine. I guess I did not have the full quotation.
I know Parham set his students to the task of Biblically ascertaining what happened to people in the New Testament when filled with the Holy Spirit, and left on a trip. When he returned, the students all agreed that while there were numerous manifestations in scripture, the only one that seemed common among them was speaking with other tongues. One student expressed a desire to have Parham lay hands on her and pray as in the book of acts that she receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Not having the experience himself, he reluctantly agreed, and she did, speaking in a Chinese language for three days. Linguists came in and documented known languages, and I am sure experienced unknown languages. The doctrine was established, as far I can tell, from experience as well as study of the Word. I am not sure one can say this doctrine holds totally true as there are two instances in scripture where the Holy Spirit is received, but tongues are not explicitly mentioned.
Having some personal history with this event (My great grandparents were personal friends of Charles and Sarah Parham and frequented their home)I have often heard stories about Parhams ministry as many of my friends and relatives are descendants of those who knew them or were born again in their meetings. They were very adamant that tongues were the initial evidence, but I never heard it said that tongues were required. It is a bit like saying smoke is a requirement for fire to exist. They were also very adamant that tongues not be coerced in any way. The idea that someone repeat after someone else or say some phrase over and over or having someone move the mouth of another, or etc. were found revolting and not of God by these people. They believed as a person was filled and naturally praised God with their mouth that they would find it in their minds impossible to adequately express themselves and tongues would naturally follow. This was my own experience.
Parham's churches, if you can call them that, were and are a very loosely held association scattered all over the US. Their doctrinal beliefs on the baptism of the Holy Spirit are remarkably diverse. Parham was very much against denominationalism, and never intended for his work to establish some new denomination, and accordingly there is an association of churches that calls itself the Apostolic Faith Movement, but has no centralized government. Only a Bible College for which the churches elect a board. I would say the most commonly held belief among those of the movement on the subject is that tongues are the scriptural evidence, but are not initially mandatory. i.e., it is possible to be filled with the Holy Spirit and not manifest what is seen as the Biblical evidence of being filled at the time of being filled, but the evidence will eventually come.
PaulWest wrote:
When we walk in the Spirit, we are not necessarily speaking in other tongues, are we? We must apply the same principle when we pray in the Spirit, for the Bible itself makes no distinction as to "how" one must do this.
Praying in the Spirit is basically prayer that is lead and inspired by The Holy Ghost,which is basically what it is.
Let me say this in a kind and charitable,fashion I believe in the validity of Spiritual gifts for today.
Certainly I do feel that one can pray in tongues in their prayer closet,and that can be considered prayer in the Spirit,but prayer in the Spirit can be in english as well. Terms like praying in the Spirit can have more than one application.
I am not to here to cause confusion,everything I post I desire to post in a charitable fashion.
This discussion is locked.
