Can anybody refer me to any studies on the internet about God's sparing use of miracles in history?

I am doing a study in which I commented....

that the "miracles" ended....

And yet I do not deny God working today (of His own free will) in the lives of His people in miraculous ways...

I just do not believe He imparts miraculous "gifts" to individuals empowering THEM to heal, etc.

Any thoughts from the peanut gallery?

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Answers

Michael Demastus....

I have a question.....

Why is it that when someone takes what I guess could be called, "the traditional view of those in the RM".....you call it "Parrot Theology?"

However, when you take the "traditional view of those in the charismatic churches".....you call that "scholarship?"

I also follow the "traditional RM" thinking on immersion for the remission of sins. Would you also define that as "parrot theology?"

Just needing some clarification here.

Yours in Christ,

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

In other words Michael.....

Your view seems to suggest that those who hold the "traditional RM view" on this subject, have not studied the subject in depth.

This is extremely faulty logic.

BTW.....I have no desire to get involved in this thread, other, than to point out what I perceive to be some false assumptions about other people's scholarship.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Michael......

My recollection is, I didn't shy away from the discussion.

If it makes you feel better to say that......fine.

But.....to hold to the view that I do (which just happens to be in line with the "trad RM" view).....and seeing the Holy Spirit as active today, at least in my mind, is not mutually exclusive.

The "air" you present, however, is that you are the only one who has done any scholarly researh on the subject.

I think you know well enough that Scott, for instance, doesn't "parrot" anything when it comes to Bible. I think it would be wrong for you to say, "Scott hasn't done the research."

You would be extremely out of line to say Roger Chambers had not done the research. He probably forgot more Greek than you and I can remember.

There are numerous reasons for me not wanting to discuss this issue. Some personal on my part.

But most importantly, I haven't seen anywhere where your Holy Spirit view does anything to taint your soteriology.

Personally, I think there are some valid points made on each side.

On this issue, I think there is room to learn from each other.

That's it for my contribution to this thread.

Carry on!!

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Why is it a necessity in your mind that in order for the Spirit to be active today......the miraculous gifts of the first century must be as well??

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2000

Sorry....

That last question was addressed to Michael Demastus??

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2000

Man.....can you tell I just woke up from a nap!!

Let's try that again.....

That last question was addressed to Michael Demastus.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2000

Brett....

I'm curious.....

What makes this esoteric power you claim you feel inside of you.....any different from the Mormon who relies on "the burning bosom" to convince them that Mormonism is true??

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2000

And.....some questions for Darrell Combs.....

So if I understand you correctly.....anyone who chooses not to raise hands during a service....is squelching the Spirit? And everyone who is raising their hands is being led by the Spirit?

One more....how does one determine whether or not they are being "led by the Spirit??"

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2000

Darrell....

Okay.....I just wanted to hear you say it.

Personally.....I weary of sitting in worship services being pounded by a "worship leader" who defines "spirituality" as making some kind of movement with my body or having a visible smile on my face....or worse yet, defining "Spirit led worship" as one which "Rocks for God."

I recently saw a post from a preacher which said, "God rocks!!!"

What does that mean??

In other words, I believe the Holy Spirit gets blamed for way too many things.

Also....it doesn't just begin....it also ends....with the Word of God.

You see, that's my point....it always comes back to the Word of God.

In essence what you are saying then is....the Spirit only acts in accordance with the boundries of Scripture??

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2000

Darrell.....

Can worship take place within the "old traditional styles??"

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2000

Uh....Duane....no....because it's related.

Therefore Darrell....

If true "Spirit led" worship can happen in either situation....then what it really boils down to is......taste....and very little with what is "Spirit inspired."

And....if the Holy Spirit is ultimately bound by the Word....as you rightly said.......what sense does it make for us to say we are "Spirit led"....or "led by the Spirit"....when in fact, it is the Word that ultimately guides us??

Can it not, then, be fully correct to simply say that we are guided by the Holy Spirit inspired word....as opposed to what I feel some people do by claiming greater spirituality by using the term "Spirit led??"

Duane,

Not to presume to answer for Michael....but my best recollection is....Michael would say that your Acts 6 reference is simply a deduction and not a "thus saith the Lord." In fact his exact words are, "Laying on of the Apostles hands does not equal cessation."

Also Duane....you seem to give the impression that anyone that believes "miracles" in the biblical sense do not occur today is a Diest. Am I reading that correctly??

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2000

Darrell....

Did you miss my question in all the "hub bub?"

I asked you...."if the Holy Spirit is ultimately bound by the Word....as you rightly said...what sense does it make for us to say we are "Spirit led"......or "led by the Spirit" when it fact it is the Word which ULTIMATELY guides us??"

Can it not, then, be fully correct to simply say we are guided by the Spirit inspired Word?

Your thoughts??

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2000

Darrell....or anyone else.....

Can you point out any Sciptures to the "general believer" that gives support to the idea that the Spirit leads us "other than through the word"....i.e., through other avenues??

Please.....do not point out any Sciptures that were given as a promise to the Apostles. I do not accept any of them as promises to the "general believer."

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2000

Mark....

Even at the remotest possibility....it's a strech to say that verse has anything to do with "being led by the Spirit."

My take on that verse is this......the same God that created the world with simply His Word in six days......the same God who came down on Mt. Sinai in dark clouds and thunder and freightened the people of that day....the same God who appeared as a cloud by day and fire by night....the same God who in His "Shekinah" glory descended on the temple......IS AT WORK IN US!!! What an awesome thought!! And why is He working with us?? As you rightly said, through our submission to mold us to conform to His image.

But no where have I even ever seen that verse used to suggest being led by the Spirit.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2000

Darrell.....

My guess is.....if you would have preached the sermon you prepared....you would have gotten the same response. That's the nature of the "Word"...i.e, "sharper than any two edged sword" and able to cut to the very heart of who we are and where we are at. Just an observation Darrell, but it seems you are trying very, very hard to justify a more "mystical" approach to the Holy Spirit when you know in your heart, because of your study, that the Scriptural support of such is not there. Again, show me one Scripture supporting a "Spirit led me" theology that was not a promise to an Apostle??

Mark....in answer to your question....what Scott said.

Scott....criticize you?? Shoot no, I'm impressed. You broke the "Sheridan Code of Honor!"

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2000

And....Scott's right.....Michael is a good scholar.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2000

Duane....

So in other words you have no Scripture, other than those promises made to the Apostles that specifically give us the promise that we are "led by the Spirit?"

In answer to what you asked.....

1) The Word accomplishes most of that.

2) God's providence is a far cry from a "feeling" that I get.

3) I simply strive to not use language that the Bible does not use in order to impress someone with my "God talk."

4) You know as well as I do, that the professor you referred to had what most on this forum would view as a rather narrow view of the Holy Spirit. In fact, some of his strongest "hate mail" if you will, was over this topic.

5) Walking in the Spirit does not, in my mind, equal being led by the Spirit. Walking in the Spirit means....walking in accordance with His Word.

6) BTW....I also do not believe that "Jesus lives in me." My understanding of Scripture is that Jesus is at the right hand of the Father. God's presence in me is the Holy Spirit.

The next obvious question is.....then Danny.....what purpose does the Spirit serve in your life??? Let me allow Scripture to answer that.....

a) Convicts of sin (John 16:8). The professor you speak of would have been quick to add......"He does this through the Word."

b) The Spirit is our seal. As those who belong to Satan have a seal (i.e., 666), those who are of God are sealed with the Spirit (Ephesians 1:13).

c) The Spirit is the "down payment" of the promise to come. (Ephesians 1:14). The Greek word there for "pledge" was a banking term indicating a "down payment that promised payment in the future." The Holy Spirit is our promise that God will deliver the rest of His reward, i.e., eternal life.

So to suggest that because someone believes the miraculous gifts of the Spirit have ceased is to suggest that one does not believe in the work of the Holy Spirit today, is simply, a misrepresentation.

I'm not suggesting that you said that Duane.....but others certainly have.

In my personal opinion.....I believe we are tempted towards this kind of "Spirit led" talk many times because of the "be like em's." We hear other religious groups talk like this and we don't want to be seen as less spiritual.....so.....

And if you will read earlier up in my post to Michael Demastus, I said, that there may be other ways in which the Holy Spirit directs our lives. HOWEVER, the key word there is MAY. I also pointed out, that I don't think we will know for sure whether something was "Spirit led".....or just the way it happened.....until we get to heaven. Until then, I refuse to equate "emotion" or a "feeling" with being, "Spirit led."

Now if a person when they say "Spirit led".....they mean "led by the Word of God".....more power to you.

Like you said Duane......"my God is bigger than that."

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2000

Darrell.....

My response about the "be like 'ems" stands. We in the RM have a habit of doing that.

You can believe what you want to about the mechanics of any given situation....but Scripturally.....you cannot assert it. You admitted that. Therefore, I think we ought to be very cautious about teaching anything we cannot assert Scripturally. You've called it your opinion. Fine...I accept that. Not a problem.

Like I said.....no one will KNOW.......until we go to be with the Lord.

I put this discussion in the same category as the ministry of angels.

Do I believe that angels are still at work in the lives of the elect? Most definitely.

When something happens in my life that seems out of the ordinary.....do I believe it could be due to the work of an angel?? Yes I do.

However, I will never know for sure until I get to heaven and angel #3426 comes up and says to me...."Remember when......."

By the way.....have you entertained the thought that an angel of the Lord put the thought in your head?? It is certainly.....a possibility.

But on this side of heaven.....we will never know will we Darrell??

Therefore, we keep walking by faith that God's purposes are accomplished through us.

Thanks for the discussion. It made me think.

Your brother,

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2000

Interesting Duane.....

You claim I have the case of the "Be Like him"...i.e., referring to Roger...and yet.......

I believe it was YOU who cited him first in defense of your position?? Hmmmmmmmm...

Show me one place, one quote, etc.......where I denied that God works in us??

THAT WAS NEVER THE QUESTION!! The question concerned the mechanics.

Your little story is one of the most elaborate "straw men" I have seen in a long time. You must have been tired when you wrote it.

You claim "Ataboy....now your on track." Duane, off track according to who?? Your interpretation of the mechanics?? I've never been "off track."

Words mean things. And in a non-argumentative way.....I simply asked some questions concerning the meaning of phrases.

I believe at times we develop a "religous talk" spurred on more by current religious trends, rather than, driven by Scriptural convictions.

One more thing.....I cannot so easily just "switch names" as you do (i.e., Jesus to God, God to the Holy Spirit, etc.) My understanding of the N.T. is that while the three are one.....they each have a specific role and function.

It was my understanding of the trend of this thread, that we were discussing the "role of the Holy Spirit." I must have been wrong. I apologize.

But the thing I am most disappointed in Duane is your absolute misrepresentation of what I said. The "be like him" remark was below you.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

And.....

Scott Sheridan is exactly right!!!!

Anyone with even a shred of Greek knows......

STAR TREK RULES!!!!

(What's Greek got to do with it?? I dunno......just seems to always add a sense of intelligence. LOL!)

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

Duane....another thought crossed my mind.

As you said...."Let's not quibble over words."

Alright.....

....next time you are offering an invitation and quote Acts 2:38, say this....."And Peter replied, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of your sins and you shall receive the gift of Jesus."

Or, better yet.....next time you are preaching......say....."Because of our sins, the Holy Spirit died on the cross for us."

Then, when someone confronts you about it....simply say...."Let's not quibble over words."

What do you think? Would it fly??

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

Sure D. Lee....

Let me preface my remarks by what Jesus said in John chapter 6 when He spoke these words, "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you."

Now it is clear that Jesus was not speaking of the Lord's Supper. It had not even been instituted yet.

So what does this mean? His point is that we must take His words, feed upon them, and then incorporate them into our life so that in essence Christ lives in us as we become Christ like in obeying His Word. (It's almost like the old addage...."You are what you eat.")

So in each of those verses (except one)that you quoted, I understand that Christ lives in me as I submit to His word and the words of Christ flesh themselves out through my actions.

Thus Paul says in the Gal. 3:20 passage that you quoted..."I have been crucified with Christ." Before the will of Christ can be accomplished in me, I have to crufify myself and submit to His will that I have learned through His word. It is the daily act of repentance.

Jesus also spoke to this when He said, "Any one who wishes to be my disciple must deny himself, take up his cross (i.e., crucify himself) and follow me."

Therefore, when I have denied myself (repentance), taken up my cross (killed self), and followed Him (His word)......then Christ can live in me...that is....be seen in me.

The one passage you quoted from John 14 was a promise only to the apostles and, therefore, not applicable.

Hope this helps to understand my position.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

Duane...

What do you think??

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

I asked you second!!

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

Duane....

I fully concur with everything you said. In fact, it was well said.

Thanks!

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

Duane....

I just realized.....my last post could be scary to you.

Maybe you should delete it. It could be a bad move for your ministry to have it known that "Danny Gabbard" agreed with you.

(I understand.....it will be our little secret.)

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

Scott,

I have to come to Nelta's defense on this one. It is wrong of you to say her feelings are involved. You should apologize.

What Connie knows, the Spirit told her.

Nelta....can I be your hero now??? Can I huh?? Can I??

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2000

Duane,

George Faull at Summit Theological Seminary publishes a class called "The Miracles of Jesus". The background material for the class covers much of what you ask. You might check with him on it as he may also have other materials, such as his "The Gospel Unashamed".

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

What is his web address?

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Duane,

It's www.summit1.edu

And the phone# is 765-472-4111

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Duane,

I have to admit [and I am going to try to be as civil as possible about views like this that make my blood boil] that I whole-heartedly disagree with you "assumption" (for that is completely what it is) that miracles have ceased.

When was the cessation listed for you and me in Scripture (book, chapter, verse please...as we tend to be so fond of)? Is it not entirely the epitome of arrogance on any man's part to think that God has made it clear to him when He will choose to perform the miraculous?

And I think the semantic gymnastics that we play over "providence" and "miracles" borders blasphemy...well, maybe not that far, but at least stupidity.

Your view is not one you hold from what the Bible says, but one of tradition that is wholly reactionary against "charismania" (it was from the foundational days of Stone at Cane Ridge). So we developed a Holy Spirit quenching view based on 1 Corinthians 13 that does violent eisegesis with that text and neatly put everything else into our "apostle's hands only transmission" view, but it doesn't cut it. It is not God honoring, nor is it Bible honoring.

In my experience, because of our fears, the area of pneumatology is one of the only areas where the RM allows for sloppy scholarship.

Now, don't take anything I said personally. Most of that was venting at the view...not you.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Mike:

You have begun this discussion in an extremely emotional manner as follows:

I have to admit [and I am going to try to be as civil as possible about views like this that make my blood boil] that I whole-heartedly disagree with you "assumption" (for that is completely what it is) that miracles have ceased.

Mike:

Instead of attempting the impossible task of affirming the negative proposition that miracles have not ceased, why do not you attempt to prove from the scriptures that miracles, including the miraculous gifts of the spirit, given by the laying on of the apostles hands (Acts 8: 18) continue today. Then give us the scriptural evidence that such is the case and let us just see how accurate your contention is according to the word of God. When you are finished with that I am willing to affirm that the special miracles and the gifts of the Holy Spirit given by the laying on of the apostles hands have ceased. Then you can judge whether I have established such from the scriptures.

Now this would take a lot of time and effort but it may be profitable. But without an orderly and organized discussion of the matter we will get nowhere. For thus far all you have done is assert that brother Duane is wrong without proving it to be the case and if the exchange of unsupported assertions continues this will be an absurd thread with no real result.

Now I am not trying to word the proposition for you nor am I claiming that mine requires no revision but I suggest that subjects of this magnitude be discussed by two capable opponents who have clearly stated and defined their propositions and are responding to each other according to a set of rules that allows for progress in the discussion that leads to a definite ending point with some measurable results. This discussion is one worthy of an organized debate not merely a composite of unproven assertions from every diverse field of thought that may be present in the forum.

I do not agree with your assertions that those who argue that such miraculous gifts have ceased are arguing from poor Scholarship as you maintain. Brother A. Campbell was not a poor Scholar and he did not agree with your contention that miracles continue today. But be all of that as it may, do not you think it would be better to discuss this issue in an orderly fashion?

You know that I respect you highly and that I am willing to hear your arguments. It appears that I differ with you though you have not clearly defined your position so that we can be certain that we differ. There are many words that must be clearly defined before entering such a discussion just to decide if we actually understand each other. If you would like to discuss this matter with me please contact me and we can work out the details of a formal discussion of it and set a time and date for the discussion to begin and end with moderators etc and the guidelines that we agree to follow then we can announce the discussion and meet on the days prescribed and discuss the propositions that you affirm and the ones that I affirm.

I say all of this with great respect for you and only the desire that we arrive at the truth concerning this subject whatever it may be.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Michael,

I believe what you are angry at, but also in danger of succumbing to, is what Jack Cottrell calls "that ubiquitous theological demon - the false choice." Let me address the issue of your "danger" before that of your "anger."

You said:

When was the cessation listed for you and me in Scripture (book, chapter, verse pleaseas we tend to be so fond of)?

The fact is, everyone agrees the NT teaches that the miraculous gifts will cease. (I don't know of anyone who thinks there will be healing in heaven.) 1 Corinthians 13:8 makes it clear:

LOVE NEVER FAILS; BUT IF THERE ARE GIFTS OF PROPHECY, THEY WILL BE DONE AWAY; IF THERE ARE TONGUES, THEY WILL CEASE; IF THERE IS KNOWLEDGE, IT WILL BE DONE AWAY.

The issue is not IF the gifts will cease, but WHEN. That shifts the focus to 1 Cor. 13:10

WHEN THE PERFECT COMES, THE PARTIAL WILL BE DONE AWAY.

The big question (as we all know): What is "the perfect"? The two chief contenders are the Parousia (the "perfect" cannot be Jesus, because it is neuter, but the Second Coming is grammatically possible) and the completed NT. (Most will also admit that "perfect" can be translated "complete" which avoids the superficial argument against the latter possibility: "The NT is not perfect." - i.e., because of the minor variants among manuscripts)

Let me share what I believe is the strongest argument in favor of the miraculous gifts ceasing with the completion of the NT. Remember the context: Paul is addressing a situation where gifts have become more important than traits (i.e., the miraculous gifts have become the focus instead of godly, Christian virtues.) And even amidst the focus on the gifts, there is a misplaced emphasis on tongues. Paul makes it clear in chapter 14 that prophecy is superior to tongues. (A whole 'nother thread.) He also addresses his main focus: Christian virtues are more important - and more permanent than either.

(Actually, than ALL. Again, another major issue. People today like to focus on the "gifts" of tongues and healing. The "gift" of "prophecy" is usually described as some type of divinely imparted exhortation. But the NT gift of prophecy was speaking Scripture itself - i.e., not just exhorting people to follow previous revelation, but adding to previous revelation. If the gifts continue, this gift continues and God is still adding to the Bible. A serious, but inescapable implication of the "continuing gifts" view.)

I was saying . . . Paul's foundational purpose is to show that Christian virtues are more important than the miraculous gifts. He does this by stating Christian virtues are more permanent than the miraculous gifts. He begins this argument in verse 8: "Love NEVER FAILS; but . . .(basically: the miraculous gifts will cease.)" I.e., Love will remain after the miraculous gifts have ceased. If that was all Paul said, it would not help to answer the question: When will the miraculous gifts cease? With the completion of NT revelation or at Jesus' Return?

But that is not the only such comment Paul makes. In verse 13 of that chapter he states:

BUT NOW ABIDE FAITH, HOPE, LOVE, THESE THREE; BUT THE GREATEST OF THESE IS LOVE.

Again, Paul is making the contrast: the miraculous gifts are going to cease, but Christian virtues are going to remain after they cease. His point is to show where the Corinthian's focus should be (i.e., which is most important: gifts or virtues). But, the verse also indicates when the gifts will cease. By adding "faith" and "hope" to "love" he gives us valuable insight.

All three (faith, hope & love) are going to "abide" after the miraculous gifts have ceased. This makes it clear that the miraculous gifts cannot continue until the parousia. If they did, Paul's statement would not be true. Faith and Hope would not abide any longer than the miraculous gifts. Because when Jesus returns, faith and hope will "cease." Faith will be made sight and hope will be realized. Love will continue for eternity, and thus outlast the miraculous gifts. But Paul stated that all three would "abide." In contrast to the miraculous gifts, which would "be done away"/"cease".

So, it seems, the answer to "when" will the miraculous gifts cease, must be sometime prior to Jesus' Return. That leaves the other chief contender: with the completion of the NT. (There is much more evidence I could give to support that side of the argument. For now I am going to leave things with: There are two options; One does not work; The other is the correct option.)

With that said, let me now address the "false choice" that (I perceive at least) you are angry at. I agree that the predominant practice of the RM has been to view (in practice, at least) the two options as: "Miraculous gifts" vs. "No miracles." (This is the "false choice.") We would never say that God does not have miraculous power, or even that God does not do powerful ("providential") things. But we are so determined to "avoid any appearance of . . . being charismatic" that we usually come across as not expecting God to do anything miraculous.

That is just as wrong as (and probably even more sad than) believing the miraculous gifts continue today. The Bible makes it clear, the miraculous gifts will cease. (I even believe it is clear regarding when.) NOWHERE, does the Bible say God's power will cease. This is one reason why, often in general conversation, I use the distinction: "miraculous" or even "miracles" vs. "miraculous gifts" instead of "miraculous"/"miracle" vs. "providential"/"providence." I know that opens the door to some confusion, but, as I said above, so does the other. I would rather people realize right away that I still believe God does powerful things, and then explain the difference between the NT miraculous gifts and God's current way of working powerfully. The other option is to have people tune me out right away when I say "providential," because they automatically think I do not believe God still does powerful things.

This issue always sparks discussion in our membership class. My experience has shown that the biggest reason people gravitate toward the view that the miraculous gifts continue is because they view the other option as miracles (i.e., powerful acts of God) no longer happen. If those were the two options, I would choose the former. But, those are not the only two options. The miraculous gifts have ceased. God's power (and desire) to do the miraculous, has not.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

I only have time to say AMEN STEVE! AMEN!

I still believe that an organized discussion of this issue could useful to cover the excellent arguments that you have presented in more intricate detail.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Excellent Job, Steve!

You smote that nail with exceeding power. (KJV)

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Steve, et al.

Understand, I am at this point just asking and trying to learn, so don't take questions as trying to refute you. Yet ;-)

From this argument, are you defining the miraculous gifts as prophesy and tongues? Those are the only ones mentioned in I Corinthians 13 -- are you lumping healing by touch or any other gifts mentioned in scripture into this category?

As for your conclusion that gifts will cease with the completion of the New Testament: Hebrews 2:1-4 seems to imply that gifts were a part of God's testimony about the great salvation He offers, the other part being Jesus and the witnesses of Jesus. Might not an alternative to the completion of the NT be when a sufficient portion of the world had heard the gospel message? In fact, some translations of Hebrews 2:4 speak in the past tense, as if to say at least some gifts had ceased before the writing of Hebrews -- Greek scholars, opinion please?

Were any gifts (as opposed to the gift of the Holy Spirit) non-miraculous, and if so, do they still exist?

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

An extension of Mark Win's questions is this: What exactly does it mean to say "when the New Testament was completed"? Does it mean when John put down the last period on the book of Revelation, then that's it for miracles? Does it mean when Paul was executed (if he was)? Does it mean when some church council officially stated that "the canon of Scripture consists of ..." Is this something we can nail down a little more specifically?

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Responding to Steve...

You said:

The big question (as we all know): What is "the perfect"? The two chief contenders are the Parousia (the "perfect" cannot be Jesus, because it is neuter, but the Second Coming is grammatically possible) and the completed NT. (Most will also admit that "perfect" can be translated "complete" which avoids the superficial argument against the latter possibility: "The NT is not perfect." - i.e., because of the minor variants among manuscripts.

For starters..."teleion" would then become by Paul a hapax legomena in this text as it would be applied in a way that runs in violent opposition to all other nine NT uses. Where, my friend, do you see "teleion" ever refering to a completed document? Where does it ever even get remotely close to that idea? The answer, no where.

You see, your RM goggles have tainted your approach. Please, please answer this question for me. Because this is one that has not been answered by anyone. If (and we are talking a huge "if" here) "teleion" refers to the "Bible", how is it that Paul knew that Scripture was going to be canonized? Your view of a "complete" Word of God [and as it was taught to me, this was the part where the preacher held up his Bible and thumped it for emphasis] necessitates then that Paul knew not only that what he was writing was the Word of God (and this is not something I disagree with, for he did indeed know that) but that Paul understood that Scripture would one day be canonized in the form we have it today. The proper term I have found that aptly describes this view...hogwash.

I do not presume to know what Paul had in his mind, as your view certainly does, but I go on the basis of what proper hermeneutics would tell me to do.

I look at the nine uses of teleion in the NT. I see how other authors used and applied this term in their particular context. Then I look at the suspect context in detail. I understand also...that two possibilities for teleion (as you limited it to) may not be all the possibilities that there are.

The main thrust of the Corinthian letter is one of maturity. Paul's desire for the maturation of the Corinthian Christians can be seen early on and carried through each issue he deals with them. The issue of gifts is no less different. You are wrong in your conclusions on 1 Corinthians 13, because your RM goggles guided your hermeneutic approach and not proper hermeneutics. Teleion certainly is applied to the idea of maturity and it certainly fits the bill with this chapter.

When the individual believer matures in Christ, seeking after infantile things of the Spirit doesn't make sense when the Spirit wants to grow us in love, and faith, and hope.

Paul even illustrates this emphasis with the man/child relationship. It makes sense in the idea of maturity (something he had been addressing from the beginning of this letter) and it is a stretch for it to be applied to the Word of God (something MOST RM preachers do because they were taught that at Bible College).

I am so tired of parrot theology. Why don't we take off our blinders and apply hermeneutics consistently without fear of where the conclusions take us if they are in consistency with God's Word?

No offense, Steve. But I have heard the same drivel sense I was a kid and I don't buy it. My Bible has shown me that the Holy Spirit is much larger than the RM likes to say He is and I'd rather opt for my Bible frankly. For me, He couldn't fit in the box anymore...and I hope that someday He breaks out of the box you have Him in too.

Towards the end of your remarks it seems that you make some concessions toward that end. But it is still no more than semantic gymnastics (which you yourself said also causes confusion). Think about it...We tell people. "God doesn't perform miracles today. But God will providentially heal a person of cancer." Oh, I see...it's all clear now!!!! Bunk. God does miracles today. We have no "Thus saith the Lord" on any cessation. Yet we feel the need in the RM to create one based on our fear of association with the charismania that exists today.

1 Corinthians 13...and the other good one, the laying on of the apostles hands, does not equal cessation. But for many they do, well, okay then. But I personally have too many unanswered questions. And hear this clearly...I have no agenda. I have no desire to go "charismatic." I don't "speak in tongues."

About the wildest we get in our worship services here on the South side of Des Moines are a few people that raise their hands during the singing of "I Love You Lord." We haven't exactly ordered Benny Hinn's latest sermon series yet. So don't think some charismatic extremist has infiltrated ranks and is touting his personal agenda.

This conclusion I came to through much personal study in the Greek. This is not what I was taught growing up. My Uncle, the Rev. Scott Sheridan, thinks that it was the Bible College I went to that "messed me up." But that isn't the case. I began to search the Scriptures for myself. And as a continuing student, this is where I am today.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Thanks Sam, I meant to ask a question much like yours.

Another one I meant to ask is how does the viewpoint presented by Steve reconcile the teaching that the Word of God is to test the validity of spirits? If the gifts of the Spirit are a stop-gap measure until the completion of the NT (whatever that meant), what is the point of passages telling us to test the spirits, like 1 John 4:1? If the Word is not the standard for testing spirits to see if they are the Spirit, what is? Maybe I am reading into your argument Steve, but many who make the argument you do for the perfection being the completed NT make the case that the Spirit validated the NT. If you make such an argument, how do you reconcile things with 1 John 4:1 et al?

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Mark & Sam,

(Mark: At EVERY point I am "asking and trying to learn" - you will never receive criticism from me for trying to do that.)

Mark, you asked two questions, one of which, Sam repeated. Let me answer your individual one first.

PARAPHRASE: Am I defining the miraculous gifts as prophecy and tongues only, or lumping the rest in with them?

I put them all together. 1 Cor. 13:8 actually mentions "knowledge" in addition to tongues and prophecy. I take those three to be representative of all of them. I realize there is not a lot of evidence solely from that passage. In doing so, I am basing my view on another aspect of the miraculous gifts discussion, one that Lee mentioned - the laying on of the Apostles' hands. I purposely chose to omit that aspect from my comments for two reasons. First, my post was already long. (Granted, not by Lee's standards.J) Second, and primarily, I believe the main focus of the discussion is just what I said: Not IF the gifts will cease, but WHEN. I see the 1 Cor. 13 passage as the foundational passage for the view I explained. Other aspects of the issue lend support and insight into the limited duration of the gifts. One of those (but not the only one), is the "Apostles' hands aspect. However, to support my position that 1 Cor. 13:8 is talking about all of the gifts, I would appeal to this aspect of the argument. It seems that all of the gifts were imparted solely through the hands of the Apostles. That method of impartation ties their cessation together as well.

As to the other question:

What is meant by "the completion of the NT"? . . . Good question!

I am interested to hear the opinions of others. If you view the purpose of the gifts as (primarily) imparting and credentialing (sp?) revelation (another aspect of the argument in support of their temporary nature), then when a sufficient portion was sufficiently circulated, the gifts would have ceased. Now, how much was a sufficient portion? I don't know. I believe this would have been long before official canonization. As for the Hebrews passage Mark, I too would be interested in the opinion of a Greek scholar. I'm not even a Greek "initiate." My major is theology. I operate on the "big picture" level. When I develop an interpretation, I contact a friend who is fluent and have him "troubleshoot" for any problems on the translation level.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Danny,

You asked:

Why is it that when someone takes what I guess could be called, "the traditional view of those in the RM".....you call it "Parrot Theology?"

I am not always opposed to the traditional view of those in the RM, only when it is wrong. And by and large the pneumatology of the RM is faulty and based on poor scholarship...pure and simple. (By the way, Jack Cottrell's view of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is completely in line with my view as well - he doesn't take the "traditional view" on that position either).

One could say that to hold the views of the founders of the RM would be to hold the "traditional view" of the RM, but I am not interested in this because one of the founders believed Jesus Christ was not God...and that is blasphemy (i.e., Barton Stone). I hold no allegiance to the RM, only to Jesus and His Word. A. Campbell was a good man but he got a lot of things wrong too.

When I refer to "parrot theology" I am referring to those institutions or people that have a tradition of passing along chunks of information but not really teaching people to think for themselves. I didn't take every book of the Bible when I was in Bible College, like some would have done...but I took three years of Greek and a year of Hebrew. I was taught the resources and investigative tools to find out for myself what those books of the Bible had to say and not have someone up front "parroting" the information to me.

What I am calling on the carpet here is the "poor scholarship" that people have adopted because they were taught it and not because they worked it out through sweat and prayer on their own.

I would be happy to have you answer any of my objections on the points of contention I have brought up Danny. But you said you don't want to. Back when you had your own forum you shyed away from this subject with me as well.

I explained before that I am not a charismatic. I don't ascribe to the modern "charismania" so prevalent in our society, but I do certainly question the hermeneutic that says that the Holy Spirit is largely inactive today.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Michael:

May I quote you?: [Today, March 25, 2000]

I am so tired of parrot theology. Why don't we take off our blinders and apply hermeneutics consistently without fear of where the conclusions take us if they are in consistency with God's Word?

May I say 'Amen' to that?

Alexander Campbell Jack Cottrell Somebody-or-other-Stone

Men.

Whom would you rather believe ~ the above three ~ or Paul, Peter, and John ~, whom we are also not to prefer over Christ.

Get into those Bibles, fellows, in whatever versions you prefer. You shouldn't be preaching without that training. Not the 'Masters of Theology' or the 'Phd's ~ the 'studying to show yourselves approved unto God, a workman who needeth not to be ashamed.'

'Perfect loves casts out fear.' He wants all of his people to be informed and equipped to take the Gospel into all the world, starting at Jerusalem ~ (home).

And Duane: My answer to your original question (Miracles vs, Providence)is: When he forgave me of my sins and was willing to let His own, Perfect Son die on the cross for me.

Are RM adherents Deists, by any chance?

May God be Glorified, and His Son!

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Michael,

Sorry it has taken me so long to reply (by popular standards). Let me deal with what I understand to be your key issues . . .

"How is it that Paul knew that Scripture was going to be canonized?"

I don't understand why this one is so difficult. I honestly believe a more realistic question would be, "Why WOULDN'T Paul expect NT Scripture to be canonized?" He certainly understood that a new covenant had been initiated. So his precedent was the old covenant. The old covenant had a definite "canon" (i.e., group of books recognized as authoritative and complete). Why would he NOT expect the same thing of the new covenant? I'm not saying he knew exactly when and how that process would take place, but it is not "presuming" too much to say he knew it would happen. In fact, we don't have to "presume to know what Paul had in mind" at all, he tells us elsewhere. In Ephesians 2:19ff., Paul compares the Church to a building. The cornerstone of that building is Jesus. The foundation is "the apostles and prophets" (2:20). So, Paul had in his mind that the apostles and prophets (i.e., non-apostles who wrote NT Scripture) would lay a foundation, which the later church would continue to build upon, not add to. One other thing, is the idea of God telling Paul that NT Scripture would one day be complete totally out of the question??

Next, you said: "'telion' would then become by Paul a hapax legomena in this text as it would be applied in a way that runs in violent opposition to all other nine NT uses."

Just so happens I am preaching on one of those nine other passages this week. As I understand "telion," it means having reached an expected end, stage, form. For example: An animal which has reached full grown; Scholars past their elementary stage of study; Men who are full grown. In other words, a level/stage which is rightfully anticipated and expected from the beginning. Assuming that the other nine uses do refer to a person's level of maturity, while this application is different than the other nine, I do not agree that it "runs in violent opposition" to them. To speak of a body of revelation that has reached its expected end, is totally in keeping with the meaning of the word - just a different application than the other passages.

Since such an application is possible, the test would be: Is it supported by the context? Guess what - I believe it is.

1 Cor. 13:9-10 NASB FOR WE KNOW IN PART, AND WE PROPHESY IN PART; BUT WHEN THE PERFECT COMES, THE PARTIAL WILL BE DONE AWAY.

By referring to knowledge and prophecy (and also tongues - v. 8), Paul is definitely focusing on the gifts that pertain to revelation of some sort. He makes a contrast between "in part" and "perfect" or better, "complete." (That is a legitimate translation of teleion, and Paul's use of "in part" makes it obvious that is his point - partial vs. complete, not partial vs. perfect.) Put those two ideas together: Paul is contrasting partial revelation with complete revelation. So, the general meaning of teleion makes the interpretation of 'a complete body of revelation' possible. The context of this specific use makes that particular interpretation here preferable.

Further, you said: "two possibilities for teleion (as you limited it to) may not be all the possibilities there are."

I am aware of that. I believe I said something to the effect of 'two chief contenders.' After considering your suggestion, I still believe there are only two chief contenders.

You said: "Teleion certainly is applied to the idea of maturity and it certainly fits the bill with this chapter. When the individual believer matures in Christ, seeking after the infantile things of the Spirit doesn't make sense when the Spirit wants to grow us in love, and faith, and hope."

Maybe I'm missing something, but this view doesn't make sense to me at all. (Let alone, fit the context of 'revealed knowledge,' indicated by Paul's use of "know" and "prophesy.") This view seems to be saying that the gifts continue today, but they are only practiced by immature Christians. Again, maybe I'm missing something. But you seem to be saying that the miraculous gifts are "infantile things of the Spirit." And that seeking after them "doesn't make sense" for a believer who has matured. So, are you saying that new believers exercise the miraculous gifts until they reach maturity, at which point they no longer exercise them because then they focus their attention on the Spirit's greater ministry of helping "grow us in love, and faith, and hope"? I honestly do not mean to misrepresent what you are saying. But that is how it came across to me, and it does not make sense.

Now, as I considered the idea of maturity (which I did do - those RM goggles begin to hurt my nose if I leave them on too long J), it would make sense IF you applied it to the Church as a whole vs. individual believers. (Again, I don't see how you deny the idea that "complete" is a natural translation, given the contrast with "in part.") Paul could be contrasting the Church as a whole in its immature stage vs. the Church at a point where it has reached a level of maturity. But if that is the case, what would mark the Church as a whole reaching this level of maturity? I think the most obvious answer (and certainly one which fits the rest of the immediate context - i.e., partial revelation vs. complete) is the presence of the complete NT revelation.

This fits with Paul's illustration of a man vs. a child. Childish speech, thought and reason are not necessarily wrong or bad, just not as structured and complete as the adult versions of each. The miraculous gifts were the means of revelation for the church in its infancy. With the arrival of the complete NT revelation, the church matured into an adult.

I believe this also fits the general context of Corinthians, which you focus on throughout your post. No one would deny that Paul's overall goal is to get the Corinthians to "grow up." In his attempt to get them to mature regarding their use of spiritual gifts, Paul is simply making the point that the mature view of such gifts recognizes that they are not as important as traits of the Spirit such as faith, hope and love. And, they are not a mark of the Church's maturity, but just the opposite, its infancy.

One last thing: "For me, He [i.e., the Holy Spirit] couldn't fit in the box anymoreand I hope that someday He breaks out of the box you have Him in too."

Let's set aside for a minute which view is right and which is wrong (i.e., do the gifts, in their NT form, continue or not). Why is it that I am the one who has the HS in box? (Or, as the accusation is often phrased, why am I the one who is "limiting" God?) Your view says God is still working miracles the way he has been doing since the days of the NT. I say God is still working POWERFULLY, but he is doing so in a different way than he did when the NT was being written. You say God is operating the exact same way he has for 2000 years. I say he is operating differently. Why am I the one who has put God/the HS "in a box"??? I understand "in a box" to mean not looking at new ways of doing things. That describes your view, not mine. I think it is "limiting" God to say he has to do things the way he did things when the Church was being formed.

Now, I realize your focus with your comments is on people who limit God's ability to work in powerful, even "miraculous" ways. I tried to make myself clear, that is not me!!! I have seen God do WONDERFUL things, and I expect to see him to even more. (My life verse is: "to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine" As Han Solo said in Star Wars: "I can imagine quite a lot!") I just do not believe (because of my understanding of Scripture) that he works in the exact same way he did during NT times. Like I said, that is the view that does not put God "in a box."

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Steve you said:

As Han Solo said in Star Wars: "I can imagine quite a lot!"

Now, I may disagree with you, but you are a man of high quality movie watching! Star Wars happens to be my favorite all-time movies! I can not wait for the release of Episode 1 on April 4. Okay, enough with that.

I do not agree Steve. Your answer never responded to a critical question I asked. The question was, Of any of the nine NT uses of "teleion" is there any that even remotely comes close to referring to a document? No. It is not possible in the Corinthian text to do this either. I see "maturity" in the individual believer as the best fit for teleion in Corinthian text.

And, as far as your question of spiritual gifts today (until maturity). Not all have them. Not all speak in tongues (but I'm not scared to think that some do). Not all heal, etc. God can, and does use spiritual gifts today for the same purpose He did back in those days when His Spirit was poured out on men and women alike. This is not a threat to my pneumatological system.

I do not accept the hermeneutic that says because the transmission we see in the book of Acts (Apostle's hands) constitutes a prohibition today. Why do we say that when the apostles died, so do the gifts? Who says that the ones upon whom the apostles laid their hands could not have the same "transmission" ability? I think to build a dogmatic didactic teaching from the pneuma activity of Luke's record is wrong. If anything the emphasis is on the Spirit-filled and directive of the church which Dr. Luke gives absolutely NO indication that cessation of such activity should be expected by the church.

I appreciate your response to me, but I have heard it before and the gong hasn't changed it's sound. Your hermeneutic to me is too presumptive. I, as I said before, don't presume to know what Paul thought or expected. I work with the words in the Greek. "Teleion" is absolutely NOT applicable to the canonized for of Scripture. It does violent interpolation in my opinion.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Danny,

Fair enough. Thanks.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Michael:

Are you willing to answer my question about the Amplified?

I can't seem to get an answer on that. Also, are any of the RMs Deists?

Concerning the gifts: the most excellent gift is the gift of prophecy, and I don't mean fortune-telling.

Prophecy, as you know, is the bearing of a message from God, whether about the past, present or future.

Just following that passage in I Corinthians 13, we come to I Corinthians 14: 1-5: [AMPLIFIED]

1. Eagerly pursue and seek to acquire this love -- make it your aim, your great spiritual quest; and earnestly desire and cultivate the spiritual endowments, ~ [NAV]: 'GIFTS'~ especially that you may prophesy -- that is, interpret the Divine will and purpose in inspired preaching and teaching.

2. For one who speaks in an [unknown] tongue speaks not to men but to God, for no one understands or catches his meaning , because the (Holy)Spirit utters secret truths and hidden things [not obvious to the understanding.]

{Connie's interpretation: This is not the same 'Speaking in Tongues' as at Pentecost where everyone heard in his/her own language. Those were different existing languages, each hearing in his/her own. My son and his wife are Charismatics and would not like the appellation 'charismaniacs; we are not, but these gifts are for the end times. [IMHO] Once when I was invited to a shower at their church ~ New Covenant Christian ~ I allowed them to pray for me, because I was having some trying times. (If they're not against us, they are FOR us ~ right?} Anyway, they call that kind of 'tongues' a spiritual 'prayer' language meant only for God's ears unless there is an interpreter. And that is what these verses here say. Let me say, also, that it was a very beautiful sound with a lyrical beauty. I had never heard it before, or since.

I was concerned when they were getting involved with this, but my son said: "Mom,~ it's a gift of God, not a ton of bricks!" I am waiting to hear more from God on this subject, but no dead gospel is going to convince me that it isn't for our time. (I don't use the term 'dispensation' ~ although I have.)

The verses right after the place where the tongues of fire are alighting on the heads of the believers, with the reference to Joel 8 (I think) I include the end times to mean up to the time of Christ's return.} [IMHO]

3. But [on the other hand], {Tevya in 'Fiddler on the Roof' ;-)} the one who prophesies -- who interprets the divine will and purpose in inspired preaching and teaching -- speaks to men for their upbuilding and constructive spiritual progress and encouragement and consolation.

4. He who speaks in a [strange] tongue edifies and improves himself, but he who prophesies -- interpreting the divine will and purpose and teaching with inspiration -- edifies and improves the church and promotes growth [in Christian wisdom, piety, holiness and happiness].

{And this is what I see in my son's and daughter-in-law's lives. They are not perfect, and their present situation is difficult, but God is getting them through it, because they are drwing on His power.}

5. Now I wish that you might all speak in [unknown]tongues, but more especially [I want you] to prophesy -- to be inspired to preach and interpret the Divine will and purpose. He who prophesies -- who is inspired to preach and teach -- is greater (more useful and more important) than he who speaks in [unknown] tongues, unless he should interpret [what he says], so that the church may be edified and get good out of it.

{They abide by that rule by having an interpreter.}

So you don't forget, Dear Michael:

Michael:

Are you willing to answer my question about the Amplified?

I can't seem to get an answer on that. Also, are any of the RMs Deists?

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Connie,

You asked:

Are you willing to answer my question about the Amplified?

I can't seem to get an answer on that. Also, are any of the RMs Deists?

Concerning the Amplified...I have never read one to be honest and I couldn't give an assessment on it.

Concerning deism and any RM'rs, well, I don't know any. I have never met a deist in the RM, but maybe there are. I don't know all the people in the RM.

As far as the rest of your post to me, don't take offense at this, but it was unintelligible to me.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Mark,

As I see it, the purpose of NT miraculous gifts was to deliver and credential revelation. I.e., someone supposedly delivering a revelation from God to the church would validated by God through either that person himself or someone else performing an obvious miracle or sign. As the NT books began to be written and circulated, they were validated in a similar way. I.e., the authors (either apostles or prophets, Eph. 2:20) were known to have performed miracles. Once that is done, that book is then accepted as Scripture and no longer needs to be validated by any witness of the Spirit. (Assuming you accept the canonical process, a person does not need new validation every time he opens his Bible.) So, validated Scripture then becomes the basis to "test the spirits" (1 John 4:1).

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Connie -- re: any RM's who are Diests.

I have never met anyone from the Restoration Movement who claimed to be a diest. But in all truthfullness, I have known many in the RM who, for all practicality, LIVED the life of a diest.

They would have claimed verbally that the God continues His work on this earth by various means, and they would include the Holy Spirit as one of the means by which He interacts with His creation. But push come to shove, they lived a life devoid of any contact with the Holy Spirit ... never relying on Him to assist them in any aspect of their Christian walk.

Again, truth be told, (and please, I pray the following doesn't offend anyone), most sermons you will hear in RM congregations on the subject of the Holy Spirit will be about as dry as a popcorn pumba (pumba is the term our family uses when refering to the passing of gas ... comes from the Lion King character Pumba the warthog, who had such a problem).

I think (my opinion only) the reason for this within the RM is that there has been a backlash against the charasmanic movement, and many people in the RM congregations are afraid of even mentioning the Holy Spirit, much less discussing or studying Him. Not so for everyone though. I teach on the Holy Spirit, I know Danny Gabbard has and most likely still does, as do a number of others on this forum.

I remember one time in a chapel service at my alma mater when some folks raised their hands during the song service. There was quite a stir, even within the faculty and staff, with a number of folks discounting the action as being too charasmanic. Just raising hands during the song service. That was back in 1985-1986. I have since been back to the school, and have seen that things are a bit more free when it comes to worship times, ptl. But I have seen the same reaction at a number of our congregations over the years, I'm sorry to report.

This is a backlash against the "overuse" of the Holy Spirit ... again IMHO. The same can be said about the way some preachers and others in the RM teach and preach about immersion. Sad to say, some will elevate it above any other part of the "salvation process." We preach and teach the need for belief in the Word, acceptance of that Word, confession of that belief, a repentant heart and attitude, and BAPTISM, BAPTISM, BATPSIM, as if baptism was any more important than any of the rest. In fact, many times you won't even hear about God's grace ... just the process. This because so many denom's and others have forgotten or choose to not teach on the purpose of immersion in the process.

Now understand, I believe it IS a process that all go through in accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and I agree that all of the above are a part of that process. We just need to preach the Word, so people will understand that it is ALL important, and equally so!

Wow .. enough of all that ... just wanted to get my 2c worth in!

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Darrell:

That was worth more than 2 cents. (I can't find that cent superscript.) I'd say that was worth at least a $10 gold piece!

Our church, also, sort of downplays too much expression of exuberance. But because we have dearly loved children (in their thirties and forties) who are Charismatic (charis ~'gift'~ right?) we have looked carefully at this phenomenon. The Scriptures say to lift 'Holy hands" in praise to God; The Scriptures say to 'greet one another with a Holy kiss'! We are not terribly demonstrative at our church, but I myself am kind of demonstrative.

This became obvious when a young man from mainland China was at our home for dinner at Christmas ~ he is a young man my son has befriended for Christ, an atheist ~. As he left, I gave him a hug, and he pulled back in surprise; I forgot that the Chinese are not as demonstrative as we are.

On this similar topic, there has been some concern about the music, (not whether to have ANY, but whether to have some of the more exuberant, as I see your movement has had. One funny fellow said that we should all notice that the Scriptures, when mentioning the various instruments in the O.T., made a point not to mention drums.

The reason I asked about Deism, is because many of the founders of our country (who had a hand in the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) were Deists. As you all probably know.

As I understand it, they believed in God as the Creator, but that we couldn't really communicate with Him through the Holy Spirit and prayer and that the world had been flung into space and was on its own after that.

Some of the people responding here SEEM to be of that persuasion. I am not saying that they are; it justs seems that way.

Concerning sermons which keep the congregation awake: I can honestly say that we always have very interesting messages, all from the Word of God.

In Him,

Thank you for your very fair response. I sincerely appreciate it.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Michael,

How is it you picked up on one fleeting reference to Han Solo and missed two entire paragraphs dealing with teleion? Say you did not agree with my answer to your question. Don't say I didn't answer your question. When you do that, I have to think either that: 1) You are the one wearing "goggles," and because of that refuse to see anything as an answer that is not your answer; or, 2) You are not as ready to debate the facts as you claim, so you avoid dealing with my answer by saying I did not give one.

Now, did I cite another place where teleion refers to a document? No. Did you deal with my point stating that does not matter? No. Let me restate, as well as add some things . . .

Though it would be great to have a clear occurrence where teleion referred to God's revelation, it is not necessary. The rules of hermeneutics say look to the word's general meaning first, then the immediate context, then the larger context, then broader usage.

First, we look to the general meaning of the word. I pointed out, and you did not dispute, the general meaning of teleion is: having reached an expected end, stage, form. For example: An animal which has reached full grown; Scholars past their elementary stage of study; Men who are full grown. In other words, a level/stage which is rightfully anticipated and expected from the beginning. Applying this meaning to the complete revelation of the new covenant is entirely appropriate.

Next, we look to the immediate context (not the broader usage - that is important, but the rules of hermeneutics say the immediate context takes precedence.) Paul cites three gifts in v. 8 that deal with revealed knowledge. He emphasizes that function again in verse 9:

FOR WE KNOW IN PART AND WE PROPHESY IN PART;

The clear focus of this immediate context is revelation. Since that is the context within which this instance of teleion occurs, it is not a "violent interpolation" to apply teleion in a way that fits its immediate context. It is following the rules of hermeneutics, in their proper order.

The same thing regarding a translation of "complete" vs. perfect (or mature). Within the immediate context of revelation, Paul is contrasting "in part" with "teleion." Given the three chief interpretations of teleion are: perfect; mature & complete - which one fits this immediate context? (Ask twenty people to name an antonym for "in part" or "partial." Tell me how many answer "perfect" or "mature.") Hermeneutics says to go with the most obvious meaning. In THIS context, it is "complete."

Following this, we move on to the larger context. You are right. That is certainly the maturity (or lack-there-of) of the Corinthian believers. But again, I showed how this does not do "violence" to the larger context either. Paul is indicating that the mature view of spiritual gifts is to realize their incomplete and temporary nature. (Versus the immature emphasis they were placing on the gifts.)

Last, look to broader usage. As I said, there is no definite reference to teleion being used in a similar way. But this is the last area to consider. The other areas, in order, have shown that "complete" (in reference to the NT revelation) is a perfectly acceptable (even preferable) translation in the specific context of 1 Corinthians 13:10. Also, the reason I say "definite" reference . . . James 1:25 refers to God's revelation and describes it as the "PERFECT law." What are your thoughts on that? Sounds like teleion (or teleios) being used to refer to God's revelation. Again, even if it is not, according to the rules of hermeneutics, that does not rule out such a reference in this instance.

OK, that was my "answer" to your question about teleion. Say you don't agree with it, if you must, but please do not deny I gave it. That serves no useful purpose. And it indicates that the time I spend in answering your questions serves no useful purpose. Which brings to mind another timeless truth: "Who is more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?" [I ask that as a fellow Star Wars fan you take no offense at "fool," but rather appreciate the point I am seeking to convey using Obi Wan's words.]

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Steve...

No..No...No. Who says complete is a good fit for the canonized Scripture? You?! Sorry, but I'll accept a better source. I don't deny that the idea of "complete" can cerainly be appropriate but we are talking a light year leap from the idea of complete (open-ended) to the specific canonized Scripture.

You say it fits the first two "rules" of hermeneutics. Excuse me, but this logic makes no sense, my friend. The James text does not use "teleion" by the way. So don't prooftext with me please.

You feel quite comfortable in your neatly-fit hermeneutic, but hear this clearly..it is wrong. You have no basis for applying "teleion" to the Word of God (canonized form). It is not done anywhere else and it is not appropriate in the Corinthian text.

And don't take a high-brow attitude with me about "not answering your questions". I have answered your questions friend, but your "theology" is not allowing you to do proper Greek (as you alluded to in an earlier post).

No sense in re-hashing already stated points. Until you show how one can warp time, you are not going to get me to cross the light year leap you have made from pinpointing complete (teleion) to the canonized Scripture. By the way, what does history say about this? Not that extra-biblical references are the "complete" answer, but the apostolic tradition supports my view by the way. You would think ones so close to the authoring of the text would have sensed what you espouse, but no, they weren't time warpers either.

Teleion does refer to completeness...a complete, end-stage, maturity. Not the canon.

If I wanted to follow your hermeneutics on this then the Spirit must of necessity be inactive. And frankly, "I'd rather kiss a wookie!"

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2000

I realize that I'm a bit late arriving to this thread, but I hope I catch some ears.

If anyone studies the ministries of 1st century Christians, it's quite obvious that they didn't rely on their words to convince people that Jesus Christ truly lives. Paul speaks in a couple of places that his ministry was not based upon words, but upon power. (I Cor 4:20, I Th 1:5). And it wasn't just apostolic power - Stephen worked in these ways as well. Did that power stop?

If we rely on our words (or reading) from canonized scripture alone, we become nothing more than those who read from the koran, the writing of Buddha, etc. Where's the dunamis? Our God has always been a demonstrative God - throughout the Old Testament He showed people that He was God, in the New Testament He showed that He was God in a very demonstrable way. Suddenly scripture becomes canonized and God changes? God doesn't change, people! He has always worked through men and to state that He would change today is a serious bending of 1 Cor 13.

Though brought up in this thread, I ask: did knowledge pass away? And this isn't just revelation knowledge. This is gnosis. Paul in 1 Cor 14:6 separates revelation from knowledge (and from teaching and prophesy) by stating, "But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching?"

Before anyone can convince me that miracles have ceased through canonizing scripture, they'll have to explain how knowledge has disappeared. Then they'll have to explain why canonizing would bring about a change in God of this magnitude and what benefit comes with today using "word" and not "power."

I think that those who walk away from God's still-present power (because He hasn't changed, praise God!) have no faith that Jesus may have been speaking to them when He told His disciples this:

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in My name, I will do it."

Notice that Jesus doesn't just limit this to "You (the disciples and future apostles) who believe in Me..." he says, "he who believes in Me." That's anyone. Personally, I believe.

Why settle for "wisdom of words" and "excellence of speech" when you can have God working through you to do His will? The church walked in power to show that indeed Jesus did ascend to the right hand of God and defeated death. So I ask: other than fancy words, how would you witness (a word that means to see with eyeballs and not hear with ears) to someone that Jesus is alive today if not through the power of God (dunamis) working through you? And before you answer that, why then did Paul and others not settle for less than what God was willing to give? Whether Elijah or Peter, Moses or Stephen, God has always been willing to demonstrate that God is in fact God and that we are His servants through power exhibited that can be seen. And frankly it is false doctrine to teach (and shame on anyone who attempts to do this) that God has stopped allowing His people to exemplify Him through their belief simply because scripture was canonized. That one act of men doesn't change God. Nor does the unbelief of those who wish to teach that God is all words today and not living in His temple: His people!

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2000

Brett -- If we rely on our words (or reading) from canonized scripture alone, we become nothing more than those who read from the koran, the writing of Buddha, etc.

Hard for me to believe a Christian would even begin to equate the Word of God with the Koran, Buddha's writing, etc. Wow! We must understand the difference between the Bible and any other writings, no matter who their author might be!

Danny ... apparently you don't understand me. I never said those things. I would never say those things. And I'm sure you know me better than that. I only suggested that it would be wrong to "look down" on someone who chooses to raise their hands during worship for fear of the "charasmania" thing. And you and I both know that there are folks in the RM who would do just that. Just the act of raising hands during worship makes some folks suspect to others in our movement. And not only in the RM, but within the denominational world as well. I have never, ever, suggested that it is a requirement for "spirituality." In fact, I have watched people who are more physical in their worship, and there are times I am of the opinion that it is more contrived that spontanious. Again, my opinion. As I have stated, we must rely on all that God has provided for us, starting with The Word. If I "feel" I am led by the Spirit, and it goes against the Bible, then I am wrong. Period. The Bible is our first rule of faith. It must begin there, and can never go against The Word. It is by The Word that we test the spirits. As far as the Mormons go, they may have the "buring in the bosom" but that burning is in support of things that go against the Word of God ... and therefore are not only suspect, but heretical. Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2000

Wow... this looks like another one of those threads that really "take off"

I just came back and read Michael Demastus' first response to my post... I have not read anything else yet... But let me first say what I said to my Bible Class this morning...

I am not a Deist.

I believe in miracles.

I believe God can do miracles today.

I believe God DOES do miracles today.

That is His perogative. He is God. I am not.

I do not believe that God imparts miraculous power on specific individuals today, as He did to the apostles. Those, I believe, were given to the apostles, and to those whom the apostles laid hands on.

That being said, I will now scroll up and read the posts which have appeared so far.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2000

Ha!

I wrote the "Deist" comment BEFORE I even knew that Connie brought it up!

(hmmmm.... was I led by the Holy Spirit?)

Nah.

Connie:

I didnt understand your response:

And Duane: My answer to your original question (Miracles vs, Providence)is: When he forgave me of my sins and was willing to let His own, Perfect Son die on the cross for me.

What was my original "question" to which you give this answer? Please advise.

Interesting comment:

Only those books written PRIOR to the destruction of Jerusalem mention miraculous gifts. The books written after AD 70 do not contain a hint of their existence. The earlier books suggest a greater manifestation of the gifts. The later books, even prior to AD 70, suggest a decline of spiritual gifts. After AD 70 NONE are recorded.

Next question (for anyone... Michael maybe?)

In Acts 6 Phillip was one of the 7 who had "miraculous" gifts imparted to him by the laying on of the apostles hands. He performed these in Samaria, and when the apostles heard of it, they sent Peter and John in order to deliver them "the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit."

Question: Why was this necessary? Could not Phillip have passed the power along?

To those of you who contend that miraculous power is imparted to individuals because "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever" let me ask you:

Is it necessary for Jesus to be born of a virgin AGAIN to convince you that He did?

Is it necessary for Him to walk on water AGAIN to convince you that He did?

Is it necessary for Him to die on the cross and rise AGAIN to convince you that He did?

Must the faith "once delivered" be delivered again?

Go ahead. Insist that God bring back the signs and wonders of the first century. Put Him in that box!

Not me. My God is bigger than that.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2000

How could the Spirit act any differently? He must act in accordance with the Word of God, lest the Word of God become, basically, worthless.

And any worship leader who tried to manipulate the congregation is dead wrong ... if they manipulate towards some "super spiritual" level, or do their best to try to keep the status quo in the worship service. I enjoy leading worship second only to preaching and teaching the Word. And yes, I will try to use the gifts that God has entrusted to me to help to bring the congregation as close as possible to the throne of God. But I understand that praise and worship, be it via contemporary songs or hymns, is only a portion of the process. It must also include a time in the Word. Is there any better way to get to know God, to know and understand (as much as we humanly can) His grace and mercy, than to do so by reading what He has written to us in His Word? I don't think so.

Yes, I think a lot of us can "loosen up" a bit, either in worship or in other areas of our Christian life. And yes, that can be accomplished within the bounds of the Word of God!

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2000

Danny -- of course it can. I have the opportunity to preach at a variety of congregations now ... while traveling around and sharing the work of the Christian Student Fellowship. In Southwest PA, most congregations have been worshipping in the same style now since the 1950's. And I have no problem in coming to the throne of grace any Sunday that I am in one of these congregations.

I prefer to worship in a more contemporary style, but I am mature enough in my Christianity to worship, and enjoy, any style.

There are those today of the "generation y" (next step after "x" -- what's gonna happen when we run out of letters) whose worship style is much more cutting edge than what most of us would deem contemporary. I have been in some sessions with that type of music and singing ... and while it's a bit out there for even me, I make the most of it, understanding that it is the style they enjoy. And if they can worship God through that, so be it.

The style of worship is not the issue ... it is the heart of the one worshipping. So, be it hymns, choruses, or ska, praise the Lord and enjoy the time spent with Him, with Jesus, and with the Spirit in heartfelt worship. Personally, I enjoy "loosening up a bit" in my time of praise and worship ... no pew-jumping or falling out here, mind you.

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2000

Uh...

you two wanna take this to another thread?

I'm waiting for someone to answer my last post...

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2000

Connie:

I didnt understand your response:

And Duane: My answer to your original question (Miracles vs, Providence)is: When he forgave me of my sins and was willing to let His own, Perfect Son die on the cross for me.

What was my original "question" to which you give this answer? Please advise.

Duane:

Please forgive my misunderstanding; I was reading too quickly and misunderstood; I was referring to your question which started this thread, but as I re-read it, it doesn't make sense.

Michael Demastus:

What did you not understand?

INRE: My first question and statement on March 25, right after yours; then my second (I think) posting on March 25, repeating my questions of the first posting.

I see where some could think I was referring to more than the two people I had in mind when I said: "Get into those Bibles, fellows, in whatever version you prefer." I can see where that might be resented by some or even many.

I think that almost all posters to this forum have a lot of Bible knowledge, (more than I have ~ that's why I'm asking questions ~ even though I disagree on one or two important doctrines.

I was playing my role as 'Tester of Fruit' when I made that comment.

I will TRY AGAIN to not make comments which are not edifying. (Criticizing those who have repeatedly criticized me ~ back to turning the other cheek!) It is difficult not to respond to repeated attacks, and I gave in.

But you answered my two questions and then said you didn't understand the rest.

The 'rest' was Scripture (I Corinthians 14:1-5, from the Amplified, concerning the gifts, which seemed to me to fit in with the original post; I suppose I think that perhaps the thread was addressing the on-going discussion (with mostly innuendo ~ from the same two aforementioned critics of me and my positions.)

They have been criticizing my saying I am being taught by the Holy Spirit, but of course, they cannot convince me I am not, because I have experienced it, and it agrees with Scripture. The problem is in the interpretation, and I see that all of you also have differing opinions.

Are you willing to go back and address those verses and give your interpretaion of them? This is mainly to find out your thoughts on the two different kinds of 'tongues', the manifestation at Pentecost, ~ people hearing the message, each in his/her own language ~ and the one spoken of here ~ the 'prayer language' for God's ears only, unless there is an interpreter.

It sounds as though you have aquaintances in the Charismatic movement, and quite a bit of Biblical knowledge, so that you can evaluate the meaning of this passage.

Also, I know I have been abrasive, but I am not accustomed to being raked over the coals as has happened on this forum, so I was in a kind of state of shock.

Thank you in advance if you have time to respond.

From one who has repented, believed, confessed and been baptized into Christ; but who has no claim to his forgiveness without His all- sufficient death and shedding of blood on the cross for my sins.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2000

I mean...

If I say that the miracles ended in the first century, some may think that I deny God's active involvement in our lives today, which is "Deism".

I therefore invoke a denial of Deism to make my point clear.

Here is an apt illustration:

Tom: I affirm that men no longer perform miracles today.

Joe: You affirm God no longer performs miracles today? You Deist!

Tom: No. Read my lips. Men no longer perform miracles.

But I digress.

Let me repeat:

Only those books written PRIOR to the destruction of Jerusalem mention miraculous gifts. The books written after AD 70 do not contain a hint of their existence. The earlier books suggest a greater manifestation of the gifts. The later books, even prior to AD 70, suggest a decline of spiritual gifts. After AD 70 NONE are recorded.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2000

Duane --

Interesting! Do you thing there is anything to the idea that none of the books written after the fall discuss or mention miracles performed by the hands of men?

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2000

I haven't checked this thread since Friday, so excuse me while I catch up in comments.

Steve,

If completion of the NT is a criteria for the cessessation of miraculous gifts, would this be worldwide or regional? What I mean is, would gifts still exist in a part of the world where no N.T. translation exists for the natives of that region? I have heard of miracles performed "way over there" still, which of course I take with a grain of salt.

Again, Steve,

As I see it, the purpose of NT miraculous gifts was to deliver and credential revelation. I.e., someone supposedly delivering a revelation from God to the church would validated by God through either that person himself or someone else performing an obvious miracle or sign. As the NT books began to be written and circulated, they were validated in a similar way. I.e., the authors (either apostles or prophets, Eph. 2:20) were known to have performed miracles. Once that is done, that book is then accepted as Scripture and no longer needs to be validated by any witness of the Spirit. (Assuming you accept the canonical process, a person does not need new validation every time he opens his Bible.) So, validated Scripture then becomes the basis to "test the spirits" (1 John 4:1).

First, isn't this a bit circular? the Spirit validates Scripture, which becomes the basis for validating spirits. We are to test the spirits (assuming the verse still applies today) to distinguish the Spirit from spirits.

Second, is that your definition of miraculous gifts, ones that deliver and credential revelation? Ephesians 4:7-12 has always suggested to me that one purpose of gifts of the Spirit is to equip the saints. Nothing in Ephesians 4 suggests to me that this is exclusively revelation -- it could be simply a gift to explain centuries old revelation. If that is your definition of miraculous gifts, then do other gifts, say equipping, non-revelation gifts, still exist? Now, I don't mean talents that we are born with (which also come from God), but something that comes after we put on Christ.

For example, many people have noted in me a talent for assessing a situation and seeing the consequences of that an action or combination of actions in the intermediate and long term. Usually, this is based on the scantest threads of evidence. In my last job, a friend of mine in management was practically accused of leaking information to me because of my dead-on "predictions" of reorganizations, promotions, leavings, special meetings agendas (ones without announced topics) etc. This ability of discernment has been spooky at times to many. Certainly one could see this ability have function in a church or a specific ministry, if used to head off problems. Is it a spiritual gift? I don't remember having this ability before college, which would be after I put on Christ.

To many re: spirit lead worship

I won't be able to remember the quote exactly, but I heard it on "Twenty the CountDown Magazine Remembers Rich Mullins". In that program, they play an audio clip of Rich saying something like "Many people leave a worship saying that 'the Spirit moved me today' or 'that was a really spiritual service'. The danger here is that they seem to be equating the 'spiritual' and the 'emotional'. Spiritual is raking leaves for an old widow who can't do it herself; it is helping a young child see God; it is feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned. One will feel emotion when being spiritual, but don't equate having an emotion with being spiritual." Just some more thoughts from the peanut gallery.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2000

I asked you...."if the Holy Spirit is ultimately bound by the Word....as you rightly said...what sense does it make for us to say we are "Spirit led"......or "led by the Spirit" when it fact it is the Word which ULTIMATELY guides us??" Can it not, then, be fully correct to simply say we are guided by the Spirit inspired Word?

Danny -- I certainly believe we are guided by the Spirit inspired Word ... though I believe God uses at least a few other "sources" to help guide us.

My primary guide is the Bible.

In addition, I know God guides us through the counsel of other Christians. And yes, their council must be based on the Word.

I also know from "experience" that our Lord can used the Spirit directly to guide us. Since He indwells us, He is there to help. This in no way goes against the Word. In fact, the Spirit must guide us within the bounds of the Word. As I have said before, if anyone thinks the Spirit would guide them in some way that does not coincide with God's Word, they are wrong ... period. Can't happen.

So yes, we are guided by the Spirit inspired Word of God ... and God does this through a miriad of avenues. Preaching, music, brothers and sisters in Christ, etc.

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2000

Hey, Mark Win: Your definiion of 'Spiritual' in your just-earlier post of March 27 is the same as mine.

But what is this fear of showing emotion? (Our church is very sedate, by the way, with an ocassional 'lifting of Holy hands' during a song of praise.)

But Jesus wept. Paul said something about being 'in tears'; there are others I've come across which I can't remember. I believe our present 'macho' behaviors among men are much more from European and other cultures than from what I see in the Scriptures.

David was very emotional ~ a man after God's own heart. You guys have built gigantic fortresses around your hearts. We are supposed to 'bear one another's burdens and so fulfil the Law of Christ'. Sometimes that involves tears. Now, keep in mind that I live among very stoic men. (A husband and four sons.) But I think they would be better off if they expressed their feelings a little more.

In 46 years I've seen my husband cry only twice; once early in our marriage when I said he was not demonstrative enough (that old Norwegian stiff upper lip) and hurt his feelings, and when his mother died. My dad, while super-macho, was VERY demonstrative, hugging and laughing and interacting with us whenever he was home. BUT, my mom said they held hands so they wouldn't hit each other.

Our best friends at church was 'husbanded' by a very 'male chauvinist pig' type ~ a Mechanical Engineer who writes and publishes books also ~ I guess his book on fluid mechanics is a classic in the engineering world (or was ~ he's retired now.) [Actually he wasn't as piggish as he wanted to pretend ~ he was a softie in mcp clothing]. Well, his initials are MCP (Merle Clarence Potter) and his wife came across a tie which had little pink pigs and the initials 'MCP' all over it. She exclaimed: "Why does this tie have Merle's initials all over it!?" Needless to say she bought it and he even wore it.

I am not saying I admire effeminate men ~ I do not. But a little tenderness, kindness and gentleness are things the Scriptures repeatedly encourage, and very manly.

Come out of the fortresses you have entrapped yourselves in. In Jesus' Name.

And Michael:

Can you help me with the question about I Corinthians 14: 1-5? From my March 26th post? Only if you have time.

Or any of you? What is your opinion of that passage?

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2000

Danny,

Philippians 2:12-13 (verse 13 is the passage you requested, verse 12 is there for context): Therefore, my friends, as you have always obeyed -- not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence -- continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to His good purpose.

Hmm, work IN you, sounds to me like more than just reading of the word going on here. Had I quoted starting in verse 5, you would see that the scripture talks about taking on Christ's attitude of humilty and service. I have concluded in my own study that the "fear and trembling" that we do to work out our salvation refers primarily to our submission, humilty and working to take the attitude of Christ, then we have the promise that God will use our humilty, attitude and submission for His purpose. Most of the rest I could come up off the top of my head could be interpretted to just be for the apostles, or are broad enough to be interpretted in such a way as to be not what you asked for.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2000

Ok Danny

That then raises multiple questions: "how is God at work in us?" and "by what mechanisms does the Holy Spirit lead, assuming it did lead non-apostles in a non-miraculous way?". If the Holy Spirit is not the mechanism which God uses to work in us, to mold us to the purposes He has for each of us, what is?

Or to approach if from another direction, there is the concept that God is three in one, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The way you word your latest contribution seems to me (emphasis on "seems to me") to say that you don't believe that it was God in the form of the Holy Spirit (or however you want to put that thought) that appeared or did the things you mention, that rather it was God in another form, probably as the Father (?).

So the God at work in us is not God in the form of the Holy Spirit, but another form.

And apologies ahead of time if I implying that you accept beliefs about the Trinity that you don't. I am just trying to use the concept of the Trinity to get you to clarify your response.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2000

I go away for a weekend and look what happens.

Michael,

You have consistently misrepresented the stand that I take on the Holy Spirit as well as others on this forum. We do not claim the Holy Spirit has ceased to exist or has no work that He does. To say that the miraculous gifts have ceased is not the same thing as saying that He has no work to do. That seems to be a pretty shallow view of the Holy Spirit if you ask me. His work is sanctification, which He accomplishes through His inspired Word. We choose to read and apply His Word and He works within us to make us into the image of Jesus Himself. It is the law of association.

I am glad to see that you are the only one alive that can do research and not be blinded by RM traditions. I did not know you were that high up on the spiritual totem pole and everyone else was so low. Do you have a ring for me to kiss?

I have looked at your arguments for teleion and, although I see your point, I do not think you can plant a flag in it. The word means "complete" and the context determines what kind of completeness is being refered to, whether it be spiritual completeness (maturity) or otherwise.

There are several other people, outside of the RM that have come to the same conclusions that you claim are "Traditional RM." I hate to affiliate myself with him, but Scofield is one of them. There are many others, so lose the "traditional RM view" stuff. It is a question of what is Bible, not tradition! I had never ever considered my position as a reaction against Cane Ridge until you brought it up. IMO, if there is anyone having an "anti" reaction, it is you! You did a study (good for you) and you think you are correct so everyone else that doesn't agree is a parrot scholar. Lose the ego. There are honest disageements here, not because of traditions but because of honest study.

Now, for anyone else reading this, there is no one, except for my wife and children, that is closer to me than my nephew Michael so I do not want to hear the "say it with love stuff." I love Michael dearly (and he knows it).

I respect greatly Michael's ability in the Greek, and I have said so in another thread, but I do not always agree with his conclusions. 99% of the time I do, but this is one subject I strongly believe he is in error.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2000

Brett,

Words accomplish quite a bit.

Acts 2:41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (NASB)

Acts 4:4 But many of those who had heard the message believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand. (NASB)

Acts 6:7 And the word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith. (NASB)

Acts 9:5, 6 And he said, "Who art Thou, Lord?" And He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, but rise, and enter the city, and it shall be told you what you must do. " (NASB)

Acts 11:14 and he shall speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.' (NASB)

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. (NASB)

Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. (NASB)

Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. (NASB)

II Timothy 3:16, 17 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (NASB)

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (NASB)

James 1:21 Therefore putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls. (NASB)

Notice these Parallel Passages:

Ephesians 5:18, 19 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; (NASB)

Colossians 3:16 And let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. (NASB)

Paul says the same thing in both verses. In one he says to be filled with the Spirit and the other says to let the Word of God dwell within you.

Words do quite a bit.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2000

Okay -- here's one that admitedly comes from the realm of experience.

Just this past weekend I had the opportunity to preach the Word at a congregation outside of Pittsburgh. I had a sermon subject picked, and even wrote the sermon, then "felt" (for lack of a better word) that there was something else I should be preaching about.

I spent quite a bit of time in prayer about it. I did not spend any additional time in the Word, outside of daily reading.

I have to say that the Lord layed on my heart the need to preach about leadership, and victory, and to use Joshua chapter one as the focus passage. No, I can't be any more specific about it than that. During prayer time, I had the idea (or God gave me the idea, or ???) that I should use Joshua 1 and preach on the above subject.

I did so, for both services. Following the service, the preacher and his wife had our family and the students from IUP who attended with me over for lunch. As we were eating, he mentioned to me how needed that sermon was, and how much it could go to help some real problems they are having with folks not following the leadership of the congregation.

How to explain this? Pure chance? Possible, but very unlikly, considering the miriad of passages I could have chosen.

If it wasn't pure chance, then what? I had no idea the congregation was having these problems. There was no reason for me to make the change to the preaching text by myself.

I firmly believe God took care of this, and through the Spirit led me to make that decision. Could it have been anything else? Possibly, but I have no clue what it would have been.

Yeah, I know, it's only an experiencial thing. But after talking with the preacher, I am certainly glad I was the one to experience it. And I certainly believe the preaching of the Word last Sunday will not go away void, but will have some impact on those who heard. And yes, I believe the Spirit will use the Word to help with the problems that congregation is experiencing.

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2000

Danny:

Does God work in your life?

Does He answer your prayers?

Do you ask Him for guidance?

Do you find His Providence evident in circumstances which seem to answer the very things you prayed about?

Does Jesus live inside of you?

I hope all or most of these questions got a "yes" from you.

If so, just replace "God" or "Jesus" with "The Holy Spirit".

In fact He is the Spirit of Christ. He is the Spirit of God.

One of your (and my) favorite Bible college professors taught me this well. I remember him saying, "We get the vapors whenever we hear someone talk about "being led" by the Spirit...but we are in fact "led" when we are walking in the Spirit, and I am not just talking about reading the words from Scripture...God often LEADS through His Providence those who are abiding in Him."

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2000

I simply strive to not use language that the Bible does not use in order to impress someone with my "God talk."

Danny ... you aren't trying to say that anytime anyone uses the term "led by the Spirit" they are trying to impress people, are you? I hope not. Such a generalization does nothing to move the discussion along in a possive manner. While there certainly are folks who like to impress people with their "spirituality" not everyone comes under that umbrella.

You do allow for God to POSSIBLY use other means in leading people, and as I mentioned in an early post, so do I.

I agree that, in the situation re: preaching last week, God certainly could have used another sermon to help the people out, but the subject matter of the sermon I was going to preach (Lord's Supper) would NOT have met the current need of that congregation. While I don't understand completly the mechanics of how I was "led" to change the subject matter and Scripture references to something that the congregation apparently needed to hear, I am convinced it came from God. And I haven't heard a better explanation of how it MIGHT have taken place.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2000

Michael,

We still agree to disagree, but we have hit on a great idea. From now on, every thread adopts a movie and each response has to incorporate a line from that movie. . . . And people say theology is boring!

I also hope we are still disagreeing agreeably. I did not mean to come across as "high brow." I was frustrated by your response, not because you did not "answer [my] questions", but because you claimed I did not answer yours. In your post I was responding to, you completely overlooked my two paragraphs dealing with "teleion." As I stated, say you disagree with my answer; don't say I did not give an answer.

I did not answer your question ['Is teleion used to refer to a document in any of its other nine occurrences'] with a "Yes" or "No" answer, because I believe that is the wrong question to ask in determining whether teleion refers to the complete NT revelation in 1 Cor. 13. Half of a debate is framing the proposition to be debated. You basically asserted: If teleion means personal maturity in its other nine occurrences, it must mean the same in 1 Cor. I disagree. And I explained why. My explanation was not "[my] neatly-fit hermeneutic." It was hermeneutics - period. Including, your hermeneutics.

Your main assertion has been that teleion means personal maturity in the other nine occurrences, so it must mean the same thing in 1 Cor. (or we have hapax legomena). I would ask, "How do you know it means maturity in the other nine occurrences?" Because you examined each of those immediate contexts and each immediate context showed maturity was the best meaning. This proves my point. You have to start with the immediate context, or you could never ascertain a broader usage. (I.e., If you went to each individual occurrence and first asked, "What is the words' broader usage, you would be caught in a circle and could never determine a broader usage.) So, as I claimed, according to the rules of hermeneutics, the immediate context takes precedence.

You have agreed that "the idea of 'complete' can certainly be appropriate" for teleion. You state it is "not appropriate in the Corinthian text." I explained why I believe it is. You did not say why you believe it is not. I would honestly like to know your reasons.

(BTW, I was not questioning your scholarship in my last post, as some seem to have inferred. I stated that when you overlook my response and claim I did not answer your question, one possible explanation I have is that you do not have the facts to back up your position. I did not say that was the case. Frankly, I was disappointed I did not get to interact with your scholarship. That is the main reason I entered this thread. I knew the chance of you having an "epiphany" as a result of my post was slim. My main objective was to sharpen my thinking. If my view cannot stand up to an opposing view represented with good scholarship, then I have no business holding my view.)

Back to reasons . . . the same thing regarding James 1:25. I was not trying to pull a fast one. I admitted that was teleios vs. teleion. I asked for your thoughts. I was hoping for more than, "don't prooftext with me please." Again, your position rests heavily on the broader usage of teleion. Here is a case where a related form clearly does not mean "personal maturity." As someone with Greek knowledge, I wanted your opinion.

BTW (again), I did not say my theology was not allowing me to do proper Greek. (If that was the case, do you think I would admit it???) I said (regarding a different strain of this thread) my lack of Greek prevents me from doing much "Greek." Our particular issue has not rested heavily on expertise with the Greek text. We both seem to agree on the basic meaning of teleion. Our main focus has been on subsequent hermeneutical rules. My major in Theology has equipped me for discussing things on that level.

As for your last statement: "If I wanted to follow your hermeneutics on this then the Spirit must of necessity be inactive." I opened this interaction with the assertion that you (and others) have created a "false choice." Specifically, that either the miraculous gifts must be continuing in their NT form, or "the Spirit must of necessity be inactive." I put forward a third option: the NT gifts have ceased, BUT God and His Spirit still works powerfully, even miraculously. Now, I do not agree that the NT gifts continue, but I admit that is one option to be considered. You refuse to even admit it is possible for God to work powerfully today, in a way different than he did in the NT. Excluding one of the possibilities a priori is as effective for arriving at truth in a debate as C-3PO's strategy is for winning chess (i.e., "Let the Wookie win.")

I don't agree with you Michael . . . but, if you are in the Phoenix area when Episode II opens, I'd be glad to stand in line with you!

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2000

Mark,

I also apologize for the delay in responding.

Let me address what I see as your main questions:

"If completion of the NT is a criteria for the cessessation of miraculous gifts, would this be worldwide or regional? What I mean is, would gifts still exist in a part of the world where no N.T. translation exists for the natives of that region?"

I believe it was worldwide. The situation in NT times was not just that they did not have the complete NT revelation, there was no complete NT revelation. Now there is. Also, as for remote people groups, until someone is able to speak their language and communicate the basic truths of Christianity, the subject of spiritual gifts is moot. Once someone is able to speak their language, he/she now has the complete NT to convey to those people.

Next, as to the Spirit validating the Word, which now is the basis for testing "spirits" (1 John):

"Isn't this a bit circular? the Spirit validates Scripture, which becomes the basis for validating spirits. We are to test the spirits (assuming the verse still applies today) to distinguish the Spirit from spirits."

I take the "spirits" of 1 John 4:1 to be various teachings. If the Spirit has validated the NT, which I take to be the case, or we have no inspired basis for our faith, then those Spirit-inspired and validated principles are then the basis for testing teaching that we hear. I would just ask, "How do you "test the spirits"? Don't you compare an idea you hear to what the Scriptures says? That is the only objective standard. Without that, we are seeking a "burning in our bosom."

Last:

"Is that your definition of miraculous gifts, ones that deliver and credential revelation? Ephesians 4:7-12 has always suggested to me that one purpose of gifts of the Spirit is to equip the saints."

My definition of miraculous is gifts is 'ones that deliver and credential revelation.' There are gifts that are not miraculous and continue to exist. The overall purpose of gifts is to equip the saints. The foundational need in equipping the saints was to provide a NT revelation. Once that was accomplished, the miraculous gifts that delivered and credentialed that revelation ceased. The gifts which use the facts and principles of that revelation to equip the saints continue.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2000

And just to set the record straight -

To both Steve and Michael: Star Trek Rules!!!

Any Klingon worth his gogk would whoop a wookie!

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2000

Danny:

I just got in, and must now snooze... I will find plenty of Scriptures that will back up what I think... As soon as I figure out exactly what it is I think.

First, you said: 6) BTW....I also do not believe that "Jesus lives in me." My understanding of Scripture is that Jesus is at the right hand of the Father. God's presence in me is the Holy Spirit.

OK, so "God" lives in you, right? God=Holy Spirit?

And it is also true that God=Jesus=Holy Spirit.

My point exactly! Let's not quibble over words. The Holy Spirit LIVES in me. Therefore, God lives in me! Therefore Jesus lives in me!

4) You know as well as I do, that the professor you referred to had what most on this forum would view as a rather narrow view of the Holy Spirit.

"Narrow" compared to whom? I would say that Your view is narrow compared to his. And I can say this Danny, (Don't anybody else try it) you may not have a case of the "be like ems" but sometimes you appear to have a case of the "Be like him" (meaning R. Chambers). How ironic that in this instance, IMHO, he would disagree strongly with what appears to be your very narrow view of God's work in us.

There may be other ways in which the Holy Spirit directs our lives. HOWEVER, the key word there is MAY. I also pointed out, that I don't think we will know for sure whether something was "Spirit led".....or just the way it happened.....until we get to heaven. Until then, I refuse to equate "emotion" or a "feeling" with being, "Spirit led."

Attaboy, now you're back on track. I believe that God's Providence often INCLUDES planting thoughts in the minds of believers (and unbelievers!) to accomplish HIS purpose.... BUT we can never have certainty when this has occured, therefore it should never be presumed, nor should we bandy it about as if we were some latter day prophet, ie, "God told me," etc.

Let me illustrate with a hypothetical situation that ALL of you will probably recognize as similar to something that has happened in your life and ministry.

Let's say there is a preacher (we'll call him Danny), who visits a congregational member in her home, (we'll call her Connie) She asks him to pray for her unbelieving husband (we'll call him Nate). Danny prays, "God, I pray for Nate, and I pray that you might help Connie be a good Christian witness to him so that he might come to know the Lord."

Danny continues, "I pray that you give me boldness, Father, when I speak to Nate, and I pray that you open doors for me, and give me the right opportunity to witness to him..."

So far so good. Now Danny leaves, driving home, whistling a tune, and thinking of his upcoming Hog Hunt, and the fun and fellowship he will be sharing with his hog-hunting buddies. He gets to the usual fork in the road, where 99 out of 100 times he turns right. But for no apparent reason, he decides that today he will take the longer route home, just to be different.

A mile later, he sees Nate's car which has just crashed into a tree. With no thought for himself, Danny rushes over, grabs Nate from the car, just seconds before it bursts into flames, saving Nate's life.

The story ends with the two of them bonding in a special way, and of course Nate's heart is receptive to the Gospel, and he becomes a Christian.

Nate later informs Danny that he too had taken a totally different route, on a whim, for no apparent reason.

Question: Did God plant the thought into Danny's head, to take a different route, as an answer to Danny's previous prayer?

Danny thinks so. Does Danny know for sure? NO. Will Danny Say "God spoke to me?" NO. Will Danny now try to base his theology on this experience? NO. But it is a special thing he keeps in his heart, and can't wait until he gets to heaven to ask Angel #3245 about it.

Question: Did God plant the thought into Nate's head, the NON- Christian? Nate thinks so. Will Nate interpret this as Divine Revelation? Not if Danny does his job of continuing to teach and nurture Nate.

This is one way in which the Holy Spirit can work in our lives.

Is there anyone in this Forum who would deny that these kinds of things happen today?

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2000

I have a million stories like that, but you fellows are ignoring me. I won't use emotion-charged words like 'ostracising' or 'shunning' me.)

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

Danny,

Looking forward to the December 2001 release of Star Trek 10, are we?

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

Steve Vinson:

On March 24 in the 5th or 6th post down, you wrote:

LOVE NEVER FAILS; BUT IF THERE ARE GIFTS OF PROPHECY, THEY WILL BE DONE AWAY; IF THERE ARE TONGUES, THEY WILL CEASE; IF THERE IS KNOWLEDGE, IT WILL BE DONE AWAY.

The issue is not IF the gifts will cease, but WHEN. That shifts the focus to 1 Cor. 13:10

WHEN THE PERFECT COMES, THE PARTIAL WILL BE DONE AWAY.

The big question (as we all know): What is "the perfect"? The two chief contenders are the Parousia (the "perfect" cannot be Jesus, because it is neuter, but the Second Coming is grammatically possible) and the completed NT. (Most will also admit that "perfect" can be translated "complete" which avoids the superficial argument against the latter possibility: "The NT is not perfect." - i.e., because of the minor variants among manuscripts)

I wonder if you feel that 'knowledge has been 'done away'.

It seems to me that knowledge is increasing exponentially. How does that fit into the seguence ~ the' when' ~ of these things which wiil will be done away?

And how do these 'will be done aways' fit in with Daniel 12:4:

[ KJV with ASV renderings]

4. But Thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

sequence

not

seguence

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

Sorry boys (and gals)...

I was in Indianapolis, IN for the National Preaching Summit these past few days. Great conference, lots of learning.

Scott...

Lighten up! Nowhere did I ever even remotely (much less to say arrogantly) imply that I am the only true scholar on this subject. You read into and not the content of what I was saying if you made such a conclusion.

And let's just say this about the great sci-fi debate: there are those who like Star Wars and there are sinners.

Steve,

I would like to answer more in detail, but it will have to be tomorrow. I just got in and have a million things to get to (not to say anything about the 167 e-mails). I will ge back with you on this.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

Danny,

You said...

"6) BTW....I also do not believe that "Jesus lives in me." My understanding of Scripture is that Jesus is at the right hand of the Father. God's presence in me is the Holy Spirit. "

Could you explain the following verses in light of your statement?

John 15:5 "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

2 Cor 13:5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you-- unless, of course, you fail the test?

Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

John 14:16-20 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-- the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

Rom 8:9-11 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

Thanks,

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

Connie,

The knowledge spoken of in I Cor. 13 is obviously some miraculous impartation of knowledge, different from knowledge in general. If that were not the case, whenever "teleion" comes, all knowledge would "pass away," and no one would know anything at all. Now, they do say, "Ignorance is bliss," and heaven is supposed to be a place of bliss . . . Somehow though, I do not expect heaven to be characterized by total ignorance.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

OK....

So somebody answer MY question:

Do you think that God plants a thought in our heads sometimes?

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

Duane:

Yes.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

I asked you first!

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

Duane:

This thought just popped into my head: "yes" ;-P

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

Duane

Thoughts - yes

Miracles - God,yes - man,no.

Faris A Sweet

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

OK....

YES

Your turn!

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

But, the rub here is, IMHO, I cannot KNOW for sure when He does it... and when it is "my own" thoughts....therefore I have no right to say "God told me..."

But it is something personal which I can keep in my heart...

there are too many times when I can look back and see God's hand in my life... as I am sure all of you can...

And many of those times "His hand" was evident in the "circumstances" and how they worked out... and those very "circumstances" were the direct result of the THOUGHTS of various people...

Also, if Satan can tempt us, than it would seem reasonable to assume that he does so by placing "thoughts" in our head... thoughts which of course we can ignore or submit to...

If that is the case, then certainly God can (or does) also place "thoughts" or "mental pictures" into our heads as well, which, likewise, we can also ignore or submit to...

This is a far cry from "revelation" per se... But it is my opinion.

It is also the opinion of all of my teachers in the past... those who I asked, at least. Including RC.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

Re: "lets not quibble over words":

Not quibbling over words can get you into a lot of trouble. True, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But they are not interchangeable terms! While the Bible makes it plain that there is only one God, and makes it plain that each of the aforementioned are God, and are often seen doing the same things, it also makes it plain that Jesus is not the Father or the Spirit, the Father is not the Son or the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father or the Son. When you muddle it up by not "quibbling over words," you can run into the error of modalism as the Apostolics & Pentecostals have. Or you can decide to err on the side of Arianism/Monarchanism like the JWs, or polytheism like the Mormons. (Funny, I actually intended to write an article on this subject this week, but I'm behind schedule.)

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

Doesn't the Holy Spirit let you know?

He does me. There are times when I need to wait to get more information, but eventually I know His will.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

P.S.

Sometimes I have to wait a long time.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

Please don't muddy the waters yet Connie...

I deny direct revelation and mysticism.

I just want to know if any one in here denies that from time to time God "puts thoughts into our heads"

Again. Anyone else?

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

I repost this from earlier on in this thread (forgot to note the date and don't want to scroll up again)):

Concerning the gifts: the most excellent gift is the gift of prophecy, and I don't mean fortune-telling.

Prophecy, as you know, is the bearing of a message from God, whether about the past, present or future.

Just following that passage in I Corinthians 13, we come to I Corinthians 14: 1-5: [AMPLIFIED]

1. Eagerly pursue and seek to acquire this love -- make it your aim, your great spiritual quest; and earnestly desire and cultivate the spiritual endowments, ~ [NAV]: 'GIFTS'~ especially that you may prophesy -- that is, interpret the Divine will and purpose in inspired preaching and teaching.

2. For one who speaks in an [unknown] tongue speaks not to men but to God, for no one understands or catches his meaning , because the (Holy)Spirit utters secret truths and hidden things [not obvious to the understanding.]

{Connie's interpretation: This is not the same 'Speaking in Tongues' as at Pentecost where everyone heard in his/her own language. Those were different existing languages, each hearing in his/her own. My son and his wife are Charismatics and would not like the appellation 'charismaniacs; we are not, but these gifts are for the end times. [IMHO] Once when I was invited to a shower at their church ~ New Covenant Christian ~ I allowed them to pray for me, because I was having some trying times. (If they're not against us, they are FOR us ~ right?} Anyway, they call that kind of 'tongues' a spiritual 'prayer' language meant only for God's ears unless there is an interpreter. And that is what these verses here say. Let me say, also, that it was a very beautiful sound with a lyrical beauty. I had never heard it before, or since.

I was concerned when they were getting involved with this, but my son said: "Mom,~ it's a gift of God, not a ton of bricks!" I am waiting to hear more from God on this subject, but no dead gospel is going to convince me that it isn't for our time. (I don't use the term 'dispensation' ~ although I have.)

The verses right after the place where the tongues of fire are alighting on the heads of the believers, with the reference to Joel 8 (I think) I include the end times to mean up to the time of Christ's return.} [IMHO]

Can anyone explain the meaning of these verses in light of your understanding on the gifts, especially 'speaking in tongues' or don't you recognize that form of worship ~ and if not, why not? (By the way, we don't have the practice in our church, either.)

Wanting to know as much as I can about what my Lord has in store for us ~ the ones who believe in Him, I am:

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

Connie,

You have a strong tendency to believe a passage has a certain meaning because you feel it does or you want it to. It does not work that way. Acts 2, quoting Joel 2 has been explained and for you to want to make it eschatological is only wishful thinking (see the Premil thread).

I won't post the entire thng here but here is an address for you to check out concerning I Cor 14. NOWHERE is there ever mentioned that there were two or three different tyupes of tongues, again, it must be because you want it to be. Here's the address: http://www.954access.net/users/jscott/ICor13&14.htm

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

Was that Scott or Nate who asked the last question? (I don't want to go back to the main part of the thread. ~ I think it was Scott).

In that portion you referred to, that was a direct quote from the Scripture. I will copy it here:

Just following that passage in I Corinthians 13, we come to I Corinthians 14: 1-5: [AMPLIFIED]

1. Eagerly pursue and seek to acquire this love -- make it your aim, your great spiritual quest; and earnestly desire and cultivate the spiritual endowments, ~ [NAV]: 'GIFTS'~ especially that you may prophesy -- that is, interpret the Divine will and purpose in inspired preaching and teaching.

2. For one who speaks in an [unknown] tongue speaks not to men but to God, for no one understands or catches his meaning , because the (Holy) Spirit utters secret truths and hidden things [not obvious to the understanding.]

Verse two says this is an unknown tongue not to men, but to God.

The verses in Acts 2:4-8, say:

4: And they were all filled --diffused throughout their souls -- with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other (different, foreign) languages, as the Spirit kept giving them clear and loud expression (in each tongue in appropriate words).

5: Now there were then residing in Jeruslem Jews, devout and God- fearing men from every country under Heaven.

6: And when this sound was heard, the multitude came together and they were astonished and bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in his own (particular) dialect.

7: And they were beside themselves with amazement, saying: "Are not all these who are talking Galileans?

8: Then how is it that we hear, each of us in our own (particular) dialect to which we were born?

In the first instance, it was a language only for God's ears ( a prayer language) and in the second it is a language which each person heard in his/her own language.

The first language (in the order shown above, not in the order it happened [I've forgotten that]) is for the end times, and the second was a miracle for Pentecost. Now, keep in mind that my church is not Charismatic, but for people to ignore what is the clear happening of Scripture is unusual to me.

There was a 'speaking in tongues' via a prayer language to God alone ~ I Corinthians 14:1-5 and a 'speaking in tongues' in foreign KNOWN languages ~ a miracle which is not repeated in our time. (Acts 2:4-8)

Also, the opening verse of I Corinthians 13 starts out: 'If I [can] speak in the TONGUES of MEN AND EVEN OF ANGELS ...' {Plural ~ two different forms of 'tongues'}.

My printer is having a nervous breakdown, and I haven't read the entire thread, so I'll get back after I've read the remainder.

Also, of course, this one was addressed to the Corinthians ~ a church being given church doctrine by none other than the Apostle Paul.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

Connie,

Paul was scolding the Corinthian Church throughout the entire first letter. They would not want to be the Church you base your actions on. I strongly recommend you read the page I posted for you. The article was written by a really nice guy and fine scholar :o}

There is nowhere in Scripture where you have 2 or 3 forms of tongues given. If what you are claiming is true, then God has become the Great Ventriliquist(sp?) and He is using us to speak to Himself. Do you truly think God is THAT bored?

If you go to the page I listed for you, after reading that article, go back into the main "Articles" section and read the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Speaking in Tongues. You probably will not agree, but I will challenge you to do so according to Scripture and not your own feelings.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

Scott:

In your post just above, you say:

There is nowhere in Scripture where you have 2 or 3 forms of tongues given. If what you are claiming is true, then God has become the Great Ventriliquist(sp?) and He is using us to speak to Himself. Do you truly think God is THAT bored? (Ventriloquist)

I didn't say 'three' but if what you say is true, what do you do with what the Scripture says? I have a hard time believing that what some fellow said (no matter HOW nice a guy he is ;-) ~)is preferable over what God's Word says. The verses I gave above are direct quotes from Scripture and they state that there are TWO DIFFERENT languages,(by the way they are manifested,IMHO) ~ one that each could understand in his/her language, ~ (the miraculous one not repeated today ~ where everyone heard what was being said in his/her own language) and one that was for God's ears only, a gentle prayer and praise language.

Acts 2:17-19: [AMPLIFIED] ~ (written sometime after 62 A.D., probably after 75A.D.) thought to be by Luke:

17: And it shall come to pass IN THE LAST DAYS, God declares, that I will pour out of my Spirit upon all of mankind, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy -- telling forth the divine counsels -- and your young men shall see visions (that is, divinely granted appearances and your old men shall dream [divinely suggested] dreams.

18: yes, and on my menservants and on my maidservants IN THOSE DAYS I will pour out of My Spirit, and they shall prophesy -- telling forth the Divine counsels and predicting future events pertaining especially to God's kingdom.

19: And I will show wonders in the sky above and signs on the earth beneath, BLOOD AND FIRE AND SMOKING VAPOR;

20: The sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon into blood, before the obvious day of the Lord comes, that great and notable and conspicuous and renowned [day].

Have the events of verse 19 and 20 occurred? NO, and neither had the events of verses 17 and 18, until more recently. One has to suspend his own understanding to believe otherwise.

Because the books that Daniel was told to 'shut up until the time of the end' were closed before the return of the Jews to Israel and Jerusalem (1948 and 1967, respectively); and the inventions of this past century that enabled people to 'run to and fro in the earth, and for knowledge to be increased' had not been invented, the scholarship prior to this century could not have been correct. That is why Revelation and Zechariah and portions of Isaiah have been such an enigma.

All 'guesses' on what the end-times prophecies meant has to be re- evaluated. There are many errors of interpretation, simply because the interpreters were guessing ~ they couldn't know.

I don't want to, as some do, resort to ridicule and put-down in place of respectful discourse, as some are wont to do. (Not you, Scott ~ this is for those who do use such tactics.) I HAVE fallen for it, on occasion, because I like sarcasm, but I wish I DIDN'T like sarcasm. Please pray for me.

Respectfully submitted,

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2000

Connie,

The article I recommended was written by myself. That is why I put the little grin by the complimentary remarks. It would be easier if you read them from my site rather than my posting them here. I deal, in detail with the questions you ask.

Nowhere is there even a hint of a suggestion that two different kinds of tongues exist.

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2000

And as far as "the Last Days," Peter said that what was happening at that moment is what Joel prophecied about. The Last Days has refernce to the last dispensation (or age). It has nothing to do with the coming of the Lord except that when He comes, He will put an end to the Last Days.

I have already explain the sun, moon and stars stuff on the premil thread so I won't waste space or time doing it again here.

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2000

Scott:

I don't see how you can get anything but the LAST DAYS out of this.

It was written around 62-75 A.D.; Pentecost had occurred that many years befor and that puts us in the church age.

The account in Acts of the speaking in (foreign) tongues was that each person heard the same message in his/her own language; whereas this is a language only for God's ears. I have heard this one time and it is a very beautiful, lyrical, faint 'a cappella' breathy (pneuma?)sound:

Acts 2:17-19: [AMPLIFIED] ~ (written sometime after 62 A.D., probably after 75A.D.) thought to be by Luke:

17: And it shall come to pass IN THE LAST DAYS, God declares, that I will pour out of my Spirit upon all of mankind, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy -- telling forth the divine counsels -- and your young men shall see visions (that is, divinely granted appearances and your old men shall dream [divinely suggested] dreams.

18: yes, and on my menservants and on my maidservants IN THOSE DAYS I will pour out of My Spirit, and they shall prophesy -- telling forth the Divine counsels and predicting future events pertaining especially to God's kingdom.

19: And I will show wonders in the sky above and signs on the earth beneath, BLOOD AND FIRE AND SMOKING VAPOR;

20: The sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon into blood, before the obvious day of the Lord comes, that great and notable and conspicuous and renowned [day].

Oops! I didn't copy and paste enough of it; gotta go back.

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2000

This group of references has the verses I wanted to copy and paste:

Just following that passage in I Corinthians 13, we come to I Corinthians 14: 1-5: [AMPLIFIED]

1. Eagerly pursue and seek to acquire this love -- make it your aim, your great spiritual quest; and earnestly desire and cultivate the spiritual endowments, ~ [NAV]: 'GIFTS'~ especially that you may prophesy -- that is, interpret the Divine will and purpose in inspired preaching and teaching.

2. For one who speaks in an [unknown] tongue speaks not to men but to God, for no one understands or catches his meaning , because the (Holy) Spirit utters secret truths and hidden things [not obvious to the understanding.]

Verse two says this is an unknown tongue not to men, but to God.

The verses in Acts 2:4-8, say:

4: And they were all filled --diffused throughout their souls -- with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other (different, foreign) languages, as the Spirit kept giving them clear and loud expression (in each tongue in appropriate words).

5: Now there were then residing in Jeruslem Jews, devout and God- fearing men from every country under Heaven.

6: And when this sound was heard, the multitude came together and they were astonished and bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in his own (particular) dialect.

7: And they were beside themselves with amazement, saying: "Are not all these who are talking Galileans?

8: Then how is it that we hear, each of us in our own (particular) dialect to which we were born?

In the first instance, it was a language only for God's ears ( a prayer language) and in the second it is a language which each person heard in his/her own language.

The first language (in the order shown above, not in the order it happened [I've forgotten that]) is for the end times, and the second was a miracle for Pentecost. Now, keep in mind that my church is not Charismatic, but for people to ignore what is the clear happening of Scripture is unusual to me.

There was a 'speaking in tongues' via a prayer language to God alone ~ I Corinthians 14:1-5 and a 'speaking in tongues' in foreign KNOWN languages ~ a miracle which is not repeated in our time. (Acts 2:4-8)

Also, the opening verse of I Corinthians 13 starts out: 'If I [can] speak in the TONGUES of MEN AND EVEN OF ANGELS ...' {Plural ~ two different forms of 'tongues'}.

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2000

From another thread, but appropriate here;

Galatians 4:9-12: [AMPLIFIED] It goes on to say (in vs. 9-12 and on) to say that we are not to return to elementary things where we insist on legalisms, which we have been freed from, enumerating some of them. We are free in Christ! His Spirit, if we are in Him, is in our hearts.

We don't have a dead Gospel, where everything has already been revealed; it's just that what has been revealed and will be revealed has to agree with what is written in God's word.

I pray we can start listening to each other, and hearing each other.

Having been gifted with Eternal Life, and that life is in His Son, and God the Father has gifted me with the Holy Spirit of His Son into my heart. May He do the same for you. Praise His Holy Name.

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), March 28, 2000.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

We don't have a dead Gospel, where everything has already been revealed; it's just that what has been revealed and will be revealed HAS TO AGREE WITH WHAT IS WRITTEN IN GOD'S WORD.

Amen and Amen.

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2000

Notice he says "IF." He doesn't say he does, or even could if he wanted to. People in Charismatic circles sure get a lot of mileage out of that one little "if."

Sounds kinda iffey to me.

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2000

John, Does the 'if' negate everyhing else that is said?

In Him,

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

Because my son does not have time right now to translate the "23 ways" and the meaning of "teleios", (That will take a hundred pages!) I thought this might be interesting to go over, since it relates to the subject.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000

Bump

-- Anonymous, June 03, 2001