Evidence of the Spirit's Filling

“And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.” (Ephesians 5:18)

This classic verse on the filling of the Holy Spirit can be rendered as follows: “And don’t begin to be drunk with wine, which involves profligacy, but be continually being filled with the Spirit.” That is, one cannot be filled with the Holy Spirit (which implies complete control by the Holy Spirit) if he has come to even the slightest degree under the control of wine (or anything else, for that matter).

Being fully controlled and guided by the Spirit is not just a one-time experience. It should be a continual experience—a moment-by-moment control of one’s thoughts and actions by God. In practice, however, it is at best a repeated experience, whereas most Christians experience it quite rarely, if at all.

But how does one have such an experience, and what is the evidence that it is the real thing? To be controlled by the Spirit, one must yield control to Him and not let himself be controlled by anything or anyone else. In practice, this means believing and obeying the Word He inspired, consciously yielding one’s self as often as necessary. Jesus promised that “when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).

It should be noted that the filling of the Spirit is not necessarily marked by any particular feeling or ecstatic experience. The real proof is in the life, manifested by such characteristics as are described in the context of the passages referring to the Spirit’s filling. In our text, it is obvious that such a filling is accompanied by redeeming one’s time (v. 16), understanding God’s will (v. 17), a happy and Bible-centered conversation (v. 19), a continuously thankful heart (v. 20), and a right attitude and relationship with one’s spouse (vv. 22-25). It is also evidenced by boldness in witnessing and in standing up for God’s truth (Acts 4:31; 13:9-10). HMM

The self righteous accused Jesus of being a wine bibber because he had obviously drink a little wine.

Whoops! You did it agasin! Nowhere there does it say tha Jesus actualy was a winebibber, or that he even drank any intoxicating wine. He might even have been sitting in the company of boozers, but he certainly did not make them his "pals." Non-alcoholic wine was certainly available, had he wanted some, or had taught his disciples to use that. You don't know, and it is a pretty big error to assume that "he obviously drank a little weine. You are ready to put him in the seat of a drinker just the same as those who falsely accused him. You're doing the same thing here, without any authority to do so. You need to have a different approach to reading Scripture, IMHO.

I have never drink any new wine and I have never drink any wine while it was fermenting ( [when] it moveth itself aright.)

"New wine" takes two forms in the Bible. The first is freshly-pressed (non-alcoholic) grape juice, newly made juice. The second is gleucos, said by commentators to be alcoholic wine made from grapes that had a high sweetness, containing much sugar, and able to ferment to a higher ethanol content simiilar to our 12% wines of today. It is the second type that the onlookers accused the 120 newly Spirit-baptized believers of. But the significant point was that they were speaking known languages of Jews from all sections of the globe knew, those who had come to the Temple for Pentecost. They were NOT drunk with wine. In fact, we can safely assume fro verses like Eph. 5:18 that they were not drinking ANY intoxicants, or the Holy Ghost would have been prevented, and drunkeness would be blamed.

Furthermore, you do not know what this "moveth itself aright" means. It does not mean still fermenting. I means the behavior of red or white wines that exhibit differential evaporation of ethanol in the wine to cause "tears," to "get legs" when swirled around, as the film of fluid falls back down the container walls. Instead of evenly draining down, the liquid at the rim forms drops years, that fall down in streaks. Any wine tester will tell you that. It is a visual test for discerning whether the juice is intoxicating. It is a test instituted by Proverbs to indicae wine that the one who wishes to obey God will not drink.

I already stated that I would not drink any alcohol in front of you, as it may cause my weaker brother to stumble. But, I see nothing in Scripture which is interpreted to deny any moderate consumption of wine or other spirits.

How can I be offended when it is not me that would be being hypocritical? Don't claim that I am judging/condemning as you are implying. That's not my job. It's the Truth and the Holy Ghost and oneself under conviction that would do that. The Scriptures are perfectly clear about alcoholism, which is the irrepressible desire for consumption of intoxicants in spite of explicit cautions against it. I had that problem once, and by the influence of the Holy Ghost to eradicate that desire, I no longer have it. Believe me, I am not the "weaker" and maybe not even a brother in the spiritual sense (God knows).

How can I blame someone who hasn't trusted The God and His Scripture and Apostolic example to at least admit his weakness for wine/cigars/girls/boys/oxycodone/whatever? Why would it embarrass me, who has spent plenty of time on the old Mahogany Ridge, to be in the presence of someone else who has not yet given themselves over to filling to the brim of/by the Spirit?

Excess/Drunkenness is always a problem in itself! Scripture DOES warn against that very clearly!

It most certainly does, and the Spirit has shown that excess is that which goes beyond limits specified. When the limit is zero, any over is excess. Mere common sense says that ingesting any ethanol toxin is being intoxicated. So does the Spirit, in Eph. 5:18. The capacity of ethanol for the natural man, the psuchikos man, to whom the things of the Spirit of God are foolishness, is very elastic, and he cannot receive Scriptural instruction because it is spiritually discerned.

But the spiritual man, the pneumatikos, simply anticipates and obeys the Comforter's Scriptural counsel, and hence cannot be judged by mankind, because he is not in disobedience to God. By thus doing, he has the mind of Christ, which is death to self, to Sin as a master (of which recreational intoxicants are a part), and to the world system and its attractions. It's something which one would want to demonstrate, that is, the Spirit's control over one's behavior both public and private, toward making converts in a field of missional employment. Which I am doing, right where I am according to the greatest commission of all. The mission field is right outside my door, and I expect to see the same commitment in others with the same call.

Part of that call is teaching others, by word, work, walk, and witness, whatsoever He has commanded, not letting them slip. How can one preach conviction if one does not have one? Or reach the clerk in the liquor store if he makes his own judgment?

You don’t know, and it is a pretty big error to assume that “he obviously drank a little weine.

You are right, I don`t know and neither do you, I get the idea that wine was an alcoholic beverage, other wise why would Paul say that Bishops should not be given to it and Deacons should not be given to much wine, not to mention a dozen other verses that plainly show that very thing.

I have drink lots of grape juice and never even got a buss.

Would you care to comment on the above?

but he certainly did not make them his “pals.” >>>>

How do you know they were not Friends?

“he obviously drank a little weine.>>>>

Just like you said I don`t know, but I believe he did drink a little wine.

They were NOT drunk with wine. In fact, we can safely assume fro verses like Eph. 5:18 that they were not drinking ANY intoxicants, or the Holy Ghost would have been prevented, and drunkeness would be blamed.>>>>>

No one is arguing about that.

Acts 2
15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

It was but the third hour, peters only denial.

Furthermore, you do not know what this “moveth itself aright” means.>>>>

You may know more about making wine than I do but I have heard many times that wine does bubble and move around while fermenting, seems like some one told me they have to stir it to get the yeast working again if it does not move for the proper amount of time.

if this is not done and people start drinking it that would explain the verse about looking upon the wine while it was still moving about.

I have considered what you have told me if it comes from plain scripture, but I do not consider any thing that comes from half a scripture here and a half there and I do not consider a word in Greek or Latin or any other language that although may change the meaning of a word but in the process make the rest of the verse senseless.

The reason for that is that many people do not believe what the scripture say so they come up with a so called original Greek word to try to make the Bible say what they want it to, but it usually contradicts the rest of the scripture.

Like I have said before I do not drink and do not like to be around drunks but I see this wine in the scripture as wine, not grape juice.

Here are some verses I would like to get your idea on.

1 Timothy 3
1This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3Not given to wine,

8Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine,

Are they talking about grape juice? if so what is wrong with a Bishop drinking grape juice?

And why shouldn’t a Deacon drink much?

How much is much and what does ( not be given to ) mean to you.

“New wine” takes two forms in the Bible. The first is freshly-pressed (non-alcoholic) grape juice, newly made juice. The second is gleucos, said by commentators to be alcoholic wine made from grapes that had a high sweetness, containing much sugar>>>>>>>

Would you tell me where the scripture is so that I can read it for myself?
thanks.

Well, to help my memory, could you give me your estimate of how unlearned these apostles were?

13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

Perceived means to see, they knew that the apostles were not highly educated men such as you would expect to be giving speeches to a crowd of hundreds or maybe thousands.

It pretty much speaks for itself since the apostles were saw as unlearned and ignorant men, many people marveled at their words, how could men such as these speak in such a manner?

But they took into account that these apostles had been with Jesus.

We know that the apostles were filled with the holy spirit, but these people did not know that and it was cause for them to wonder and to give thought to.

And you might be willing to tell me where your estimate came from?>>>>

Yes I can tell you exactly where it came from,
I am about as unlearned and ignorant as you can get, seventh grade drop out and was very lucky at that.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.