Wes Woodell

6.6K posts

Wes Woodell banner
Wes Woodell

Wes Woodell

@WesWoodell

Husband, father, entrepreneur, disciple of Jesus. Owner and CEO of @DubyaDigital @Hackers4Jesus

TBD Katılım Haziran 2008
217 Takip Edilen6.1K Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Wes Woodell
Wes Woodell@WesWoodell·
Dream God-sized dreams. Pray God-sized prayers. A God-sized dream is a dream that’s so big, so HUGE, so incredibly massive it could ONLY come true if God is involved. We need dreamers and pray-ers- but most of all we need people with the love of Jesus in their heart and the fruit of the Spirit in their lives. #love #joy #peace #patience #kindness #goodness #faithfulness #gentleness #selfcontrol
English
0
0
2
338
Wes Woodell
Wes Woodell@WesWoodell·
@WesleyLHuff @MikhailaFuller You think Acts 2 records different people speaking different languages, or Peter speaking one language everyone (regardless of language) understood?
English
3
0
2
1.1K
Wes Huff
Wes Huff@WesleyLHuff·
Seeing some response to my statement on @MikhailaFuller's podcast about speaking in tongues. Some potentially helpful clarification: First, I am not a cessationist (though I see myself being accused of it). I state in the interview that I believe that the spiritual sign gifts (tongues, prophesy, healing) still take place today, just not normatively like they were in the Apostolic era. Nonetheless, I hold to the standard exegetical position that biblical tongues refer to known languages. In Acts 2, the foundational instance, foreign speakers understood the disciples in their own native languages, establishing the clearest precedent for interpreting the phenomenon throughout Scripture. Secondly, while bliblical specialists and theologians debate whether tongues encompass human languages alone or include angelic speech, the consensus recognizes that a tongue functions as a language -- either immediately intelligible to hearers or requiring interpretation. The requirement that Paul places on interpretation in 1 Corinthians 14 indicates that tongues contain objective, propositional meaning subject to translation, and his statement that “every valid instance of tongues contains intrinsic, propositional meaning" reinforces this understanding. A prominent scholarly argument identifies glossolalia as “the miraculous ability to speak unlearned human and (possibly) divine or angelic languages,” with the most common usage of “tongues” referring to ordinary human languages. The term γλῶσσα throughout the NT carries two primary meanings: the human organ or a human language, and careful word studies demonstrate that it never denotes non-cognitive utterance. However, scholarly consensus isn’t absolute the core agreement across interpretations centers on cognitive content: tongues communicate meaningful, intelligible information rather than incoherent utterance. Third, the early church evidence after the Apostolic era is virtually unanimous: the Early Church Fathers consistently interpreted the gift of tongues as the capacity to speak the many languages used across the earth. Their writings indicate the gift served an evangelistic purpose enabling communication with non-Christian populations. The Patristics universally understood “tongues” in Acts and 1 Corinthians to refer to human languages, and ancient Christians understood the biblical gift of tongues as a miracle involving intelligible human languages. When the fathers described the phenomenon, they used concrete language: John Chrysostom wrote that believers “would suddenly speak in Persian, another in Latin, another in the language of the Indians or of some other people” (Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily 35), and Augustine stated that disciples “spoke in the languages of all the nations” (Sermon 269, Sermo CCLXIX. The most significant, and almost exclusive, early figure associated with ecstatic speech for tongues was Montanus, a 2nd-century prophet whose followers emphasized speaking in tongues; he was actually excommunicated (not necessarily for his position on tongues) around AD 177. By the late 2nd century, ecstatic interpretations of tongues were present but only in context of ecclesiastical concern. One interesting nuance appears with Philastrius in the 4th century, who understood angels as capable of conversing in all languages and believed the apostles received this same ability at Pentecost. However, this doesn’t represent a departure from the “knowable language” framework rather, the Early Church Fathers understood the gift of tongues as the ability to speak all languages spoken by people. The Church Fathers agreed the gift was the ability to speak all languages known to humankind, an ability they ascribed to angels, suggesting the “languages of angels” would not refer to a distinct heavenly language but rather to the capacity to communicate with anyone encountered. The historical record shows no discussion among the fathers of ecstatic utterances, unknown languages, or supernatural unintelligible speech. The gift remained firmly anchored to practical, learnable human languages throughout Patristic interpretation. So if you've stuck around this long, I think my position is both exegetically and historically sound.
English
139
164
1.8K
86.4K
Wes Woodell
Wes Woodell@WesWoodell·
@edstetzer @OutreachMag With roots in the Cane Ridge Revival of 1801 - the birth of nondenominational Christianity in the USA.
English
0
0
0
72
Ed Stetzer
Ed Stetzer@edstetzer·
Working on our @OutreachMag list of the fastest growing churches in America. It's fascinating just how dominant non-denomational evangelicalism has become in the last 2 decades. More on this soon in an article.
Ed Stetzer tweet media
English
12
1
26
9.4K
Ed Stetzer
Ed Stetzer@edstetzer·
What large churches are doing discipleship well? There are unique challenges in the large church and I am looking for exemplars. Note: I love churches of all sizes. :-)
English
34
0
28
25.4K
Ed Stetzer
Ed Stetzer@edstetzer·
If you use AI to write me letters be sure to check it before you send your email....
Ed Stetzer tweet media
English
14
2
74
9K
Wes Woodell
Wes Woodell@WesWoodell·
@Wendys how dare you put pickles on the Spicy Chicken Sandwich! How DARE you!
English
0
0
0
65
Wes Woodell
Wes Woodell@WesWoodell·
Remember when @TheBabylonBee got banned from Twitter for posting satire? Genuinely glad Elon purchased. Can’t wait for the algorithm to be published and tweakable by users so other platforms will be forced to follow suit.
English
0
0
0
99
Brant Hansen
Brant Hansen@branthansen·
I buried my dad today. There was no funeral. It was just my brother and me, standing in windswept and freezing rural Illinois. He wanted to be cremated. I don't know why. So this is his box. My brother brought one thing to be buried with him: The sign that my dad would hang on the office doors of all of "his" churches: "Phil Hansen, Minister." Darin brought it, and I immediately knew why. "He should be buried with this, because it's what he cared about: Himself, and his title." And so we did. I cried, but not for him, honestly. I cried because I was so thankful to have a brother, who, like me, still loves the Lord in spite of it all. "Though He slay me," Job said, "Yet I will trust in him." We thanked God out loud for all that he has done in our lives to live out the antithesis of what we went through growing up: The terror, the trauma, the embarrassment. And what we've been dealing with as adults for so many years. We honestly wondered if it would end. Here we were, together, after all that. Some things only a sibling can understand. Please know that a life that's All About You may well conclude this way, even after decades of "ministry": Just two people, if they bother to show up, standing in the cold, praying blessings over each other's families, and thanking God that he rescued them from you.
Brant Hansen tweet media
English
305
90
2.3K
332K
T$
T$@travis_1558·
@5solas He's Christian Church/ Church of Christ
T$ tweet media
English
4
1
18
1K
Wes Woodell
Wes Woodell@WesWoodell·
@brycedecora ps - this is X. Work = make inflammatory posts, talk trash publicly to your enemies, be a complete tool. You will get follows 😂
English
1
0
0
7