1 Corinthians 14 and Pentecostalism

[slightlypuzzled]

When anyone in the church wants to put James 5:14 into action... do they do this during the service as an altar call period is done? Or do they contact the elders privately and when the elders do pray over them in a private setting, should God heal the person... the testimony is given during #2 during your service? Based on what you wrote, do people do this at any time during the service?

Should any of the elders be prompted BY the Holy Spirit to anoint and layon of hands during the service... do they do this during any random portion of the service? Or is there a period of time like an altar call given to the elders and ministers of the church for such prayer and laying on of hands?

Some very good questions. I have always interpreted it as a blanket command, it applies wherever it is needed. The Elders, as church leaders, should be able to do what is needed and prayed for...

[BroRog]

When anyone in the church wants to put James 5:14 into action... do they do this during the service as an altar call period is done? Or do they contact the elders privately and when the elders do pray over them in a private setting, should God heal the person... the testimony is given during #2 during your service? Based on what you wrote in the quoted portion, can people do this at any time during the service?

James is not talking about physical healing. He is talking about praying for those who are struggling and seeking encouragement during a hard test of faith. In our church service, we pray for those weak in faith when they ask for it, and we council them privately also.

Should any of the elders be prompted BY the Holy Spirit to anoint and layon of hands during the service... do they do this during any random portion of the service? Or is there a period of time like an altar call given to the elders and ministers of the church for such prayer and laying on of hands?

We do not have an alter call. We do not lay hands on anyone or anoint with oil. We are not a religious group and have little need or desire for ritual. We don't baptize or have communion, except once at Easter, and we don't recite the Lord's prayer. We have nothing anyone would recognize as a religious praxis except the three hymns we sing at the beginning.

When there is an altar call... can it be at ANY moment/during the service period when the Holy Spirit prompts the pastor that it is time?

No. As I say, we never have an alter call. We simply teach from the scriptures. If anyone should hear the truth, and come to the faith as a result, we welcome them as a brother or sister. But we do not believe that an alter call is necessary or even desirable.

I ask this because from experience, when the Holy Spirit does begin to move the pastor/elders/ministers to begin praying over people, it's been at the beginning of a service, during worship, before the sermon, after the sermon, while the sermon is given... the Holy Spirit moves as God wills and has not been restricted to a set time during service. Due to this... some services are 2 hours, or 3, 4, BASED on how the Holy Spirit is moving.

For us, the Holy Spirit is always moving and therefore, he never causes disorder in our service. When we sing our hymns, the Holy Spirit is in it. When we open the time up for announcements and prayer, the Holy Spirit is in it. When our teacher explains the scriptures to us, the Holy Spirit is in that too. And the Holy Spirit is in the hundreds of conversations we have in the parking lot after the service, the Bible studies and men's group meetings we have during the week, the dorm and dining hall of our college, and around the dinner tables of those who invite us over for dinner. We educate each other in the ways of the Lord; we encourage each other to keep believing and practicing the faith during the week; and we meet privately with folks who want special care and attention for whatever reason. They might need financial help; they might need council; they might need prayer; they might need help around the house.

We try to speak the word in love; and we try to love in truth. And to the degree we do this, the Holy Spirit is in it.

But as for spontaneous outbursts during a church service, this does not take place. I always assumed the reason was clear from 1Cor 14:32, "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets."

[Watchman]

James is not talking about physical healing. He is talking about praying for those who are struggling and seeking encouragement during a hard test of faith. In our church service, we pray for those weak in faith when they ask for it, and we council them privately also.

James 5:14-15 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven.

BroRog,

It is very difficult to make the argument you just made. It flies directly in the face of the text.

blessings,

Watchman

[BroRog]

James 5:14-15 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven.

BroRog,

It is very difficult to make the argument you just made. It flies directly in the face of the text.

blessings,

Watchman

The difference is due to the fact that the Greek word "hasthenew" (vs. 14) can denote sickness or weakness; and the Greek word . for "sick" is also the Greek word for "weak", which is understandable since often times when we get sick we also become weak. And the Greek word "kamnw" can either denote being sick or being discouraged. Those who created your translation assumed that James was talking about sick people, and structured the translation to read that way.

However, what if James wasn't talking about sick people, but discouraged people? In that case, the translation should have and could have easily read, "Is any among you weak? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is discouraged, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him." Either translation works and for this reason we make the determination as to what James actually meant by looking at the surrounding verses. What was the topic, sickness, or weakness?

In verse 11, James reminds his readers of Job, who had patience and his faith endured during his illness. Job is an example of a faith that endured, even when every circumstance suggested that Job would never get better. And the central question for Job was: will I continue to maintain my integrity and trust in God even when he causes me to suffer for such an extended period of time? James reminds us that Job was right to wait for God because the Lord is full of compassion and mercy.

In verse 13, James asks if anyone is suffering; if so, the man himself, or the woman herself, should pray. But then he asks whether someone is "sick/weak"; if so, he should call the elders to pray. Take note of the difference in approach. In the first instance the person will pray for himself or herself. If a man is suffering, like Job for instance, he should pray. But, BUT, if a man is "sick/weak" he should seek someone else to pray for him. Why the difference? My contention is that we seek others to pray for us because we feel weak and we think our prayers are ineffectual. We want a righteous man to pray for us, not because we are sick, but because we are feeling discouraged and helpless. Why would God answer the prayer of a sinner? Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. But a sinner can seek a righteous man to pray for him and James promises that the prayers of a righteous man ARE effectual.

In verse 16 we have another Greek word "hiaomai", which also denotes two different ideas. The word literally refers to "healing" and if James is talking about physical sickness, then "healing" is a good translation. But the word is also used to denote "restoration", which applies to spiritual restoration as well as physical restoration. And it also applies to being restored to a good relationship with someone.

And so we have "Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.", which is a good translation if the topic is physical healing. But if the topic concerns itself with a sinner who is discouraged and needs prayer, then the word should be translated "restored".

Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be restored. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.

My contention is that James is talking about restoration, not physical healing, because of verse 19.

19 My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, 20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

James ends his exhortation with a promise that if I stray from the truth, and someone turns me back from my error, this will save my soul from death. And here we have the idea of restoration again. If an elder in my church turns me back to the truth and away from my error, my elder has restored me and saved my soul from death. James is speaking into a situation in which I believe that my sin is so great that God will not listen to my prayers. And given my discouragement, I decide to seek the elders of my church, who are righteous, to pray for me (or with me as the case may be) and if during that prayer time my elder corrects me and turns me from error back to the truth, he has saved my soul from death, even if no physical healing has taken place.

[Slug1]

The difference is due to the fact that the Greek word "hasthenew" (vs. 14) can denote sickness or weakness; and the Greek word . for "sick" is also the Greek word for "weak", which is understandable since often times when we get sick we also become weak. And the Greek word "kamnw" can either denote being sick or being discouraged. Those who created your translation assumed that James was talking about sick people, and structured the translation to read that way.

However, what if James wasn't talking about sick people, but discouraged people? In that case, the translation should have and could have easily read, "Is any among you weak? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is discouraged, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him." Either translation works and for this reason we make the determination as to what James actually meant by looking at the surrounding verses. What was the topic, sickness, or weakness?

In verse 11, James reminds his readers of Job, who had patience and his faith endured during his illness. Job is an example of a faith that endured, even when every circumstance suggested that Job would never get better. And the central question for Job was: will I continue to maintain my integrity and trust in God even when he causes me to suffer for such an extended period of time? James reminds us that Job was right to wait for God because the Lord is full of compassion and mercy.

In verse 13, James asks if anyone is suffering; if so, the man himself, or the woman herself, should pray. But then he asks whether someone is "sick/weak"; if so, he should call the elders to pray. Take note of the difference in approach. In the first instance the person will pray for himself or herself. If a man is suffering, like Job for instance, he should pray. But, BUT, if a man is "sick/weak" he should seek someone else to pray for him. Why the difference? My contention is that we seek others to pray for us because we feel weak and we think our prayers are ineffectual. We want a righteous man to pray for us, not because we are sick, but because we are feeling discouraged and helpless. Why would God answer the prayer of a sinner? Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. But a sinner can seek a righteous man to pray for him and James promises that the prayers of a righteous man ARE effectual.

In verse 16 we have another Greek word "hiaomai", which also denotes two different ideas. The word literally refers to "healing" and if James is talking about physical sickness, then "healing" is a good translation. But the word is also used to denote "restoration", which applies to spiritual restoration as well as physical restoration. And it also applies to being restored to a good relationship with someone.

And so we have "Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.", which is a good translation if the topic is physical healing. But if the topic concerns itself with a sinner who is discouraged and needs prayer, then the word should be translated "restored".

Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be restored. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.

My contention is that James is talking about restoration, not physical healing, because of verse 19.

19 My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, 20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

James ends his exhortation with a promise that if I stray from the truth, and someone turns me back from my error, this will save my soul from death. And here we have the idea of restoration again. If an elder in my church turns me back to the truth and away from my error, my elder has restored me and saved my soul from death. James is speaking into a situation in which I believe that my sin is so great that God will not listen to my prayers. And given my discouragement, I decide to seek the elders of my church, who are righteous, to pray for me (or with me as the case may be) and if during that prayer time my elder corrects me and turns me from error back to the truth, he has saved my soul from death, even if no physical healing has taken place.

I've lost count of all those who have been anointed and layed on of hands during alter calls and God healed them of physical sickness/disease/injuries... over the past few years while doing what this scripture says to do.

[Slug1]

We do not have an alter call. We do not lay hands on anyone or anoint with oil. We are not a religious group and have little need or desire for ritual. We don't baptize or have communion, except once at Easter, and we don't recite the Lord's prayer. We have nothing anyone would recognize as a religious praxis except the three hymns we sing at the beginning.

Question then... should Communion be done more often, would people in your church feel such following of this Biblical doctrine was "religion" instead? Should a person accept Christ and desire to be baptized like the eunuch when Phillip was speaking with him, would your church force the person to wait till Easter?

Also... all you do is no more or no less than three hymns?

Not knocking this structured service, I grew up this way and if this structure was deviated from... well, I don't know, there was NO deviation. We could set our watches to what was happening in church during a service

[BroRog]

I've lost count of all those who have been anointed and layed on of hands during alter calls and God healed them of physical sickness/disease/injuries... over the past few years while doing what this scripture says to do.

Praise God. But this doesn't mean that James was talking about physical healing.

[BroRog]

Question then... should Communion be done more often, would people in your church feel such following of this Biblical doctrine was "religion" instead?

The New Testament seems to indicate that folks in the first century broke bread together, but I don't think this was "communion" as we know it today. To "break bread", in those days, amounted to having a meal together. If I invite you over for dinner, and we eat a meal together, this is called "breaking bread."

What we know as "communion" seems to be a reenactment of the Jewish Passover meal in which the congregation partakes of the bread (matzo) and the wine while reciting Jesus' mid-rash of the symbols. "This is my body" . . . "This is my blood" and etc. Paul seems to have started a practice in Corinth, where believers would recount the night that Jesus was crucified through the giving of communion, which took place during a "love feast". And I have no idea how often such a love feast took place. Only later in church history, I think, did communion become a religious ritual.

The people in my church are a-religious and have no desire for religious ritual. The outline I described previously is about as close to an organized framework as we could achieve. We added the three hymns at the beginning not long after we left our house church, but the only reason we have the hymns, I think, is that our eldest couple is blessed each week. I led the hymns for about 20 years or so.

Should a person accept Christ and desire to be baptized like the eunuch when Phillip was speaking with him, would your church force the person to wait till Easter?

Our church does not believe in baptism anymore, not because water baptism isn't Biblical. Because it is. But because it has lost it's original meaning and intent in our moder times. So we don't water baptize anyone. If someone desired baptism, he or she would probably find a church with a baptismal or perhaps we would all go down to the river. But I have not witnessed a baptism since I was baptized in about 1972, not solely because our church doesn't do it, but baptism has been a rare occasion for many of the churches I have visited. But I can't be dogmatic about it. Perhaps there are millions of baptisms a week and I just aren't around when they take place.

Also... all you do is no more or no less than three hymns?

Yep. Only three. And I love the hymns. So if we did more I would like it.

Not knocking this structured service, I grew up this way and if this structure was deviated from... well, I don't know, there was NO deviation. We could set our watches to what was happening in church during a service

Well, as I say, the framework of our structure is uncomplicated and practical. And as I say, if anyone wanted to heal someone or give a word of knowledge or whatever, that person is free to do so. Speaking of time, let me say this so you don't get the wrong impression.

Our prayer time has no time limit. We wait until everyone says what they want to say. And we continue and wait patiently until all who want to speak have spoken. If a child wants to announce that her brother just had a birthday, the child is allowed to speak and if a person has organic eggs for sale in the next room, that person is allowed to offer them. The time has no prescribed end and anybody is allowed to say anything they want -- all the way from requests for prayer to requests for petitioners to sign a petition for a ballot initiative against abortion.

We have complete freedom and room to be ourselves. The time is ours and we use it as we want to minister to each other in any way that we deem necessary or desirable. If you attended our church, you would be allowed to heal someone as the Holy Spirit led. No restrictions. Just wait until the microphone gets to you and have at it. We are free in Christ to be ourselves. If a prophet were to enter our midst, he or she would be allowed to speak after raising his or her hands and waiting for the microphone. I see no reason why anyone would not feel free to speak in tongues, give a prophecy, speak a word of encouragement from the Lord or whatever manifestation of the Spirit the Holy Spirit wanted to manifest. It's wide open and no time limit is put on the prayer time. Just say what you want, pray for whomever you want, or heal whomever you want. The only requirement is that you wait your turn and wait for the microphone.

The only time limit, which amounts to about 45 minutes, is for the teaching. And the ONLY reason for the time limit is due to the fact that the children are dismissed during the teaching time. The prayer time is unlimited because the children are involved in the prayer time and remain with their parents during that time. (A child would be allowed to pray if he or she wanted.) But once the children are put under the care of those responsible for childcare, we limit the time for the sake of the childcare people. Out of love and respect for them, we limit their service to about 45 minutes, which is just about enough time to cover a paragraph of Biblical text.

By the way, I hope the Lord does send us prophets because things seem to be heating up on the world scene and it would be a blessing if God would help us get through it.

[Boo]

I agree much of what is attributed to the Holy Spirit is solely the expression of human emotion and is prompted by self. I also know that emotion is how we express our feelings. How does one tell the difference between emotional expression prompted by the Holy Spirit and emotional expression prompted by ourselves alone?

W

That is really difficult to discern because a person's emotional reaction can be accused of being led by "the Spirit." People are seldom, if ever, going to say "I just felt like it." It is always because the Spirit led them to do it. I don't think anyone will ever say "Well, I just wanted to join in and display my spirituality."

I think that is what was happening in Corinth as well, and the Apostle Paul had no good way to squelch that behavior among that group, so he gave them some rules to settle them down. EVERYONE wanted to be a part of the "Spirit's workings" - and it appears that it is difficult to deal with people who feel as if they are "led by the spirit" to create an uproar.

If the behavior causes an uproar - disorderly worship - one might think that it conflicts with Paul's statement that God is not a God of confusion.

For me, I get a sense of an event and what is causing it. I can perceive the source of some behavior I see. There is no ironclad method of discernment that can be given to all.

I fear that we have become the new Corinth - and we don't have an Apostle Paul to help us.

[Colight]

That is really difficult to discern because a person's emotional reaction can be accused of being led by "the Spirit." People are seldom, if ever, going to say "I just felt like it." It is always because the Spirit led them to do it. I don't think anyone will ever say "Well, I just wanted to join in and display my spirituality."

I think that is what was happening in Corinth as well, and the Apostle Paul had no good way to squelch that behavior among that group, so he gave them some rules to settle them down. EVERYONE wanted to be a part of the "Spirit's workings" - and it appears that it is difficult to deal with people who feel as if they are "led by the spirit" to create an uproar.

If the behavior causes an uproar - disorderly worship - one might think that it conflicts with Paul's statement that God is not a God of confusion.

For me, I get a sense of an event and what is causing it. I can perceive the source of some behavior I see. There is no ironclad method of discernment that can be given to all.

I fear that we have become the new Corinth - and we don't have an Apostle Paul to help us.

Well something is going on..
we have a church on every street corner, yet Gods judgment is upon the USA.
Some thing is messed up that we are getting judgement on the nation rather than his blessings.

My belief it is because Christians are following their emotion rather than doctrine..
There is not any way God can bless that, so the hammer of judgement is out.

[Slug1]

By the way, I hope the Lord does send us prophets because things seem to be heating up on the world scene and it would be a blessing if God would help us get through it.

He is... they are being quenched.

"For the churches" <<Click