Many people associate certain spiritual gifts with emotions. They think of a church that has speaking in tongues or prophesying as being emotional. Does the Bible teach us that the first century church that had these gifts were very emotional churches?

One thing we need to keep in mind is that spiritual gifts is a _Bible issue_ not just a Charismatic issue. So what if Charismatics and Penetcostals talk about spiritual gifts. A person from an RM background may have a Knee-jerk reaction to spiritual gifts becaue of the teachings of a TV preacher, but the fact remains that spiritual gifts are in the Bible, so we should focus oin what hte Bibnle says about such things.

I think we have two issues here- emotional meetings and spiritual gifts. A lot of our thinking on the issue has been influenced by watching Pentecostals and Charismatics.

This may be true of some Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, and maybe that is where people get hte idea now. Pentecostalism started among Holiness people, who had a long tradition of campmeeting revivalism behind them. The Azusa street revival was also interracial and Blacks still tend to be a little more expressive in their meetings. (Compare a typical 'black Baptist church' in the South with a typical 'white Baptist church.') Even among Charismatics today, there are people who prophesy or speak in tongues without getting very emotional.

Some Pentecostals also started to emphasize the importance of exuberant praise, even before the Charismatic movement started in the late 1960's. Many in the Charismatic movement have emphasized this in their music.

The Psalms talk about praising God with musical instruments, rejoicing, dancing, clapping hands, and things like that. When we come to the New Testament, we see that Christians are to sing to one another being filled with the Spirit and the word of Christ. The two passages that show us this do not specify if the singing should be accompanied by dancing.

Let's think about the first century Christians. James said that there were many in the church in Jerusalem who were zealous after the Law. If you think about it, they probably made offerings in the temple, and participated in temple worship. A great number of priests had become obedient to the faith. There may have even been members of the church whose job it was to sing or play musical instruments in the temple. The temple worship we see in the Old Testament- in accordance with theplans put into David's heart by God- involved singers and musical instruments. It is quite likely that the early Jewish Christians sang exuberantly in the temple, if that part of the Old Testament were stil being followed there.

When we think of how to interpret the teaching of the New Testament, let us try to consider how someone living during that time period would have interpreted the passage, rather than interpreting it through 22st century eyes. If you come from a church where there is unemotional singing with no musical accompanyments, and read Paul's instructions about singing and think of it as very calm without musical instruments. If you come from a Charismatic mega-church with an orchestra-rock band combo at the front to lead music eveyr week, you may have a different idea. Let us try to come at this from the perspective of a first century Jew who knew the Old Testament well- such as Paul himself. Would Paul, who participated in the temple himself, be opposed to exuberant worship. Couldn't singing to the Lord be done exuberantly?

But enthusiasm in worship and spiritual gifts are a different issue. One could make a case for speaking in tongues being very emotional because on the day of Pentecost, some thought those speaking in tongues were drunk. There are some instances of prophecy in the Old Testament that appear to have been done by someone in an ecstacy, but I don't think we can say that that was always the case.

I Corinthians doesn't say much about emotionalism per se. We could conjecture that emotionalism was a problem in Corinth, but I don't see that necessarily in the text of I Corinthians 14. There was a problem with speaking in tongues that Paul wanted to address.

It might have been the case that many were standing up and speaking in tongues at the same time without interpretation. Or, maybe they took turns speaking in tongues without interpretation. Paul instructed the Corinthian who spoke in tongues that if there were no interpreter, he was to keep silent in the church. This, of course, is one passage many Charismatic churches overlook. There are Charismatic churches, however, that discourage speaking in tongues without interpretation in a church meeting based on this passage.

Paul also gave certain instructions for prophesying: 'Let the prophets speak two or three and let the other judge.' etc. Paul's instructions may not make sense to us if we are really into church tradition. Church tradition tells us that a church meeting is supposed to revolve around one man's sermon.

However, studying this passage, we see that members of the congregation took turns speaking. There was not just one man who spoke called 'the pastor.' 'Pastor' is just one of the gifts in the body. It is translated as 'shepherd' elsewhere. The word does not mean 'clergyman' or 'Sunday morning speaker,' but rather 'shepherd.' Paul and Pter both told elders to 'pastor' the church of God. Peter encouraged the elders by saying that when the chief Pastor appeared, they would receive a crown.

In church meetings, elders can speak. Leaders will naturally speak. But elders are not to be the only teachers in the church. Other members of the body can share and teach. Paul wrote to the Romans that he was confident that they were complete in knowledge, and able also to admonish one another. John wrote an epistle in which he told his readers that they had an anointing that taught them all things and did not need that anyone should teach them. We often read such passages thinking of individuals having an anointing. But if we realize that this group, like the other churches, probably met together to encourage one another, and the anointing taught them, and consider that perhaps he was saying they did not need a teacher to coem in and teach their assembly from the outside, this passage makes sense.

Regardless of what one's position is on the Charismatic movement, the Bible teaches us that the Holy Spirit gives out spiritual gifts. The Bible even teaches to 'forbid not to speak in tongues' (Which makes a lot more sense in a turn taking meeting than in a situation where it interupts the traditional flow of the traditional style, programmed, sermon-centered church meeting.) If we forbid speaking in tongues, we are disobeying a direct command of scripture.

Think about the movements in history for church restoration. Think about Luther and all the truths he found in the Bible. But yet the Lutehran church, in terms of church government, is very much like the Roman Catholic church in a lot of ways. Think of all the truths Wesley and that movement rediscovered. The idea that someone in modern times could be called an 'evangelist' was rediscovered, for example. In these movements we see a trend. A movement recoveres spiritual truths, and then the next generation gets stuck in the way their parents did things. After a few generations, the movement becomes an institutionalized movement, and often stops digging deeper into the Bible and rooting out traditons.

Now think of the Campbell's and what they wrote. The early RM writers were influenced by the Englightenment thinking of the day. We still are influenced by this type of thinking. Before the Campbells, a Calvinist writer came up with this theory about the gifts of the Spirit, that hte Bible had replaced the role of the so called -sign gifts' and that these gifts were no longer needed otday.

O course, there were others before who had believed certain giftts had ceased, though perhaps the idea that the Bible replaced miracles only became popular in the Reformation era, such as Augustine, in his younger days..but, from what I've read, he changed his tone after seeing the results of some healing miracles in his later years.

What is the Biblical or logical basis for the idea that the Bible replaced mriacles. Some argue that since 'that which is perfect' in I Corinthians 14 is nueter it MUST refer to the Bible. This type of reasoning has some obvious logical flaws to it. (See post below on Holy Spirit theology of the CoC.) 'The Bible' doesn't fir with this passage.

Some say that miracles confirmed the Bible, and after the cannon was complete, we didn'tneed miracles anymore. Where is this type of reasoning in the Bible? Where does it say that miracles only were given to confirm the Bible? We see that miracles 'bore witness to' or attracted attention to the preaching of the word. But we also see that that there were other purposes for miracles. I Corinthians 12 lists them among gifts that are given to 'profit withal.' Gifts are given to build up the body.

There are a lot of things that the Lord can do through gifts of the Spirit that having a copy of the scriptures can not do. Suppose a little boy has no hands or feet. He needs to be able to feed himself. If he were healed mriaculously, he could be able to eat and run around again. Suppose you gave a little boy like that a Bible and said, 'Now that you have the Bible, you don't need healing miracles anymore. Here, you have a Bible. It replaces miracles." Will that little boy be able to eat, or even turn the pages, if he had a copy of the Bible?

The truth of the gospel was already around before the Bible was written down. It just existed in oral form. Jude considered the faith to be as true in his day as it was in the beginning. So in Jude's day, before the cannon was written, the faith was complete, and before Jude, it was already complete. It just hadn't been writen down. Why would writing the Bible down change the way that God operates?

The Bible also gives us instructions for certain gifts of the Spirit, such as tongues and prophesying. It doesn't make sense to say that because these instructions were all written down, they were no longer needed anymore. Isn't this just irrational theology?

Did miracles 'confirm' the Bible? We see miracles bearing witness to the word as it ws preached in the Bible. Let's think about how this works. When Philip was in Samaria, the people paid close attention to what he said after they saw the signs and wonders that he did. But let's say that when Philip went far away to Azostus, would the fact that he did signs and wonders in Smaria mean anything to the people in Azostus, who were not in Samaria when he did the signs and wonders.

When Paul went into a city, he didn't say, 'You can know my message is true because I did miracles in another city, but I won't do any miracles here because I already did miracles in another city, and my message is already confirmed.' Paul prefered not to boast about his previous good works so that people would not think more highly of him than what they saw of him or heard of him. If Paul did miracles in Corinth, but not in Crete, would the miracles in Corinth mean much to unbeliving Cretans? Doesn't much of the impact of a sign come from witnessing the sign? If the miracles of the past which bore witness to the message served as a kind of one time stamp of approval from God, and that only, why were so many of htem done inthe Bible? Why didn't the apostles say 'Our message is true because Jesus did miracles. Here let us tell you about them, or write down a gospel so you can read about them.' The apostles told what Jesus did, but they also did miracles themselves. The Bible does not replace miracles, and does not teach that it will replace miracles. In fact, the Bible teaches that God gives the gift of miracles.

Where does 'Enlightenment philosophy' come into play. Enlightenment philosophy emphasizes the importance of reason. Since this way of thinking became popular, many people have been increasingly skeptical of the supernatural. Now, in some ways, it is good that people don't believe everything they hear attributed to the supernatural. But, in other ways this is bad, because it causes peole to interpret the BIble through their anti-supernatural prejudice, or disbelieve the scriptures.

Now, we have 'liberals' who don't believe God parted the Red Sea. They think the Israelites just passed through the mud during low tide. The Bible says one thing, but that is supernatural, so they choose to believe another.

One way this way of thinking has influenced the RM is that it makes it really easy to accept the idea that 'sign gifts' have passed away. those who are prejudiced against the supernatural. The Bible does not separate spiritual gifts into two categories- 'sign gifts' and 'common grace.' But this way of thinking fits really well with an anti-supernatural bias. Okay, in this basket we put all the supernatural gifts that don't fit with our modern non-supernatural way of viewing the world. Tongues, miracles, healing all go into that convenient little basket. In the other basket we put all the spirutal gifts that don't offend our non-supernatural way of viewing things. The supernatural 'sign-gifts' backet goes out the window.

But wait a minute! There is no scriptural justification to divide spiritual gifts into sign gifts versus non-sign gifts. This division is just based on an anti-supernatural world view.

It is easy for us to believe that miracles happened way back in yonder years, for some reason. But to think that God might do such things today is difficult for a lot of people to believe. Some even allow for the idea that God might do a miracle every now and then on the missions field, far from where they live and might have to confront such a challenge to their world view, but would be excessively skeptical of the idea of God doing such a thing to someone they know. Many young people who have an anti-supernatural world view see the Bible stories as myths. Is it no wonder? If we modern folk feed them the philosophy of the day that does not allow for the supernatural, should we expect them to believe the Bible which does not fit with the world view we give them?

We shouldn't be surprised at the lack of miracles if we dont' believe in miracles in the first place. When people do get healed, doctors write it off as 'spontaneous remission' or something like that,

Of course, now, the pendulum is swinging back. It is becoming common to believe in the supernatural. Young people can call their 'psychic friends' and contribute $3 a muniute to the kingdom of Satan. The anti-supernatural bias is challenged by New Age thinking among unbelievers.

And many Christians who are still caught up in the old unbiblical anti-supernatural view of the world are not equipped to minister to others who have had supernatural experiences in the occult. Some have gotten so caught up in the anti-supernatural bias, that they do not believe that there are real demonic entitites. When they have to deal with such things in people, how can they cope? How can they minister to them if they do not believe what the Bible has to say about such things.

Let us dig deeper into the Bible, and not give heed to the philosohies and traditions of men. Spiritual gifts are Biblical. A lot of ideas people have about why they are not for today have no basis in either scripture.

Link Hudson

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2000

Answers

If memory serves me correctly, Jesus had something to say about people who "constantly seek after signs."

True faith does not need to witness a miracle. True faith is content with the Word that records the miracles.

There is a hermenutical principle known as the "parsimony of miracles." That is.....understanding that miracles in the Bible were indeed a rare event in relation to the rest of biblical history, an event should only be regarded as a miracle when no other expositional explanation does the job.

A view that suggests that miracles in the Bible, O.T. or N.T., were as common as Pancakes at the Waffle House, is indeed a misrepresentation of the biblical history and the seedbed for infantile faith.

-- Anonymous, July 11, 2000

Connie....

How dare you question the faith and practice of "snake handler" religions. They love Jesus every much as you do. Who are you to question their practices?? And then, on top of everything else you question the Holy Bible. I've got to go...I'm getting the "vapors."

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Link said...."There are many parts of the world who have not heard the Gospel (like right here in Indonesia). Miracles have a role to play in evangelization."

Romans 10:17: "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ."

2 Tim. 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."

It sounds to me that in light of the above verses, Link does not believe the written word is enough to produce faith in the individual.

I believe it was John MacArthur (my favorite Calvinist)....who referred to this belief as "Neo-Gnosticsm".....i.e., more is needed than Christ.

If I'm not mistaken, Dennis Free, one of our missionaries to India has had a very successful ministry in Indonesia for over 20 years.....and Dennis simply preaches and teaches the Word without any need for "miracles."

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

John.....

As long as you have known me on this forum.....take a stab at. Go ahead....give it a shot.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

John.....

What you described would be an answer to prayer....NOT...a miracle in the biblical sense.

A TRUE MIRACLE in the biblical sense would be if you walked in....laid hands on her and she was IMMEDIATELY and completely healed.

That ain't gonna happen....and if it did....you would also be able to heal the others in the hospital and raise people from the dead (just as the apostles did).

Which leads me to ask......why did Oral Roberts build a hospital??

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2000

Oh please!

-- Anonymous, July 14, 2000

Yeah Paul.....

That "Neo-Sporin" is awesome stuff!!

-- Anonymous, July 15, 2000

Paul....

You are EXACTLY right.

Many people, including Connie, mix the use of the word "WONDERFUL"....and "MIRACLE."

Childbrith is WONDERFUL....but it is not by biblical definition a MIRACLE. (Now when a virgin has a child....that's not WONDERFUL....it's a MIRACLE.)

There is no such thing as the MIRACLE of modern medicine. Modern medicine is WONDERFUL....but not a MIRACLE. Most cures have taken years to develop.

IMHO....the desire to see the "miraculous" is a demonstration of weak faith.

-- Anonymous, July 23, 2000

Connie,

As Paul said in I Cor. 13....."When I was a child, I talked like a child, I THOUGHT like a child, I REASONED like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me."

-- Anonymous, July 23, 2000

Link....

First....quote me one place where I said that the I did not believe what the Bible said about miracles. (I don't believe "Link's or Connies" interpretation of what they think the Bible says about miracles....but I most certainly believe what the Bible says about miracles.)

Don't cast yourself as the "true Bible believer" but putting up a "straw man" that indicates I don't believe in Biblical miracles. Those who know me well know me as an ardent defender of Biblical inerrancy.

Second.....the early church fathers are simply not as "vocal" as you indicate concerning the "miraculous." In fact, if you put them all together you get a resounding echo of silence on the matter.

Chrysostom flat out makes the claim in 303 that the gifts were dead and had been for sometime.

Besides, the church fathers are not the vehicles of sound doctrine anyway....Scripture is. Evidence of that is how many of them even went off course in their doctrine....thus leading to the Roman Catholic church.

BTW.....the Greek word for "perfect" is an "inanimate" word in the Greek. If it did refer to Jesus....it would be the only place in the entire N.T. that Jesus is referred to as an inanimate object.

-- Anonymous, July 24, 2000

Link....

There is a place where everyone can speak out and give their .002 cents worth (which is about all it's worth at times). It's called....Sunday School....Bible Study Classes....Home Bible Studies.....etc....etc....etc.

But over and over in the N.T. the Elders of the church are warned to be careful about "who" is allowed to speak in the assembly....and that false doctrine is something to be taken seriously and checked at the door.

Interestingly.....by your suggestion.....how does one determine who should speak and who shouldn't?? Suppose a J.W. comes in disguise for a few weeks to your congregation and then all the sudden declares that he would like to speak. Do you let him?? Who decides who speaks and who doesn't?? Do you just assume that everyone who wants to speak is "led by the Spirit?"

Such an open ended view of speaking in the assembly seems to beg for trouble.

A preacher in a particular church is allowed to fill the pulpit not because he has some "inalienable" right to do so. He does so because he has been found worthy to fill the pulpit and teach the congregation by the elders of the congregation who have investigated the soundness of his doctrine.

-- Anonymous, August 01, 2000

By the way Sam,

I agree 100% with your last post. We have talked about this before and are in agreement in that a lot of problems are started when people view the N.T. as an "Order of Worship Bulletin."

-- Anonymous, August 01, 2000

Acts 14:23: "Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them IN EACH church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust."

Acts 20:28: To the Ephesian elders: "Keep watch over yourselves and your flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers......I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you....so be on your guard!" (Note....he didn't give this command to the "general assembly").

1 Timothy 5:17: "The elders who direct the affairs of the church are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching." (Hmmmm....it appears there were men with specialized ministries.)

Link.....at least 75% of what you said in your last post was culturally based. They also kissed one another in the first century church (see Romans 16:16). Should we also do that in order to follow the strict order of worship outline you seem to think the N.T. lays out??

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

Tongue speaking is not and has never been unique to Christianity.

It has always been a part of pagan worship, cultic worship, and even Satanic ritual.

"Even Satan appears as an angel of light."

-- Anonymous, August 12, 2000

Connie......

Men still greet one another with a holy kiss......at the Metropolitan Gay Community Church!!

-- Anonymous, August 12, 2000

Amen... thank you for you treatment of this matter. I found it was insightful and I agree with it.

-- Anonymous, July 11, 2000

Thank you, Link.

Have you got on the 'full armor of God'?

You may need it.

-- Anonymous, July 11, 2000

>If memory serves me correctly, Jesus had something to say about >people who "constantly seek after signs."

He said that a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign. (Of course, it doesn't follow that all who seek for signs are wicked and adulterous.)

Keep in mind that the Jews tested prophets by asking for a sign, based on Deuteronomy. One type of 'sign' was for the prophet to give a short term predictive prophecy as a sign that the rest of his message was true. For example, Hezekiah asked for the shadow on the stairs to move backward. This was a sign that he would go up to the house of the Lord (and not die there on the bed.) There was one tsign Jesus gave to the wicked and adulterous generation of His day- the sign of the prophet Jonah.

On one occasion, Isaiah asked the king for the sign he wanted from God, and the king refused to ask one. Isaiah rebuked him for it.

>True faith does not need to witness a miracle. True faith is content >with the Word that records the miracles.

It is one thing to say that you will only believe God if you see a sign or a miracle. It is another to take God at His word and later see miracles.

Thomas said he would only believe that Christ rose from the dead if he put his finger in Christ's hands and put his hand in the wound in his side. When Christ apeared, He let Thomas do this, and said 'And be not faithless but believing.' Thomas believed, but he missed that blessing given to those who have not seen (the risen Christ), and yet have believed. (Did Paul miss out on this blessing as well?)

Of course, many who had not seen the risen saw and did miracles.

Many overestimate the impact of a miracle, thinking if somoene sees a miracle, he will believe. Moses did miracle after miracle and the peple were still full of unbelief. Jesus did miracles and many people did not believe.

Others did see the miracles and believe. We see in the Bible that one of the functions of miracles is to draw attention to the gospel. When Philip did miracles, the Smaritans paid attention to what he said.

The Bible teaches that God does miracles, and I believe the Bible. That does not mean my faith is weak or childish. The problem is with those who see that the Bible teaches miracles and still do not believe in miracles.

>There is a hermenutical principle known as the "parsimony of >miracles." That is.....understanding that miracles in the Bible were >indeed a rare event in relation to the rest of biblical history, an >event should only be regarded as a miracle when no other expositional >explanation does the job.

I suppose we need to define 'miracle.'

Other than some of the things that happened in the temple, perhaps, miracles may not have been a normal, everday occurange among the Israelites (though it seems there were periods of time with a lot of prohesying- true and false.)

But when we get into the New Testament, throughout the New Testament, gifts of the Spirit seem to be rather commonplace in the church. Second century writings, like those of Ireneas' _Against Heresies_ mention various gifts of the Spirit (the so-called 'sign gifts'-healing, foreknowledge, resurrection of the dead, etc.) happening in his day. He lived in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. His is not the only account of gifts in church history.

Peter also quotes from Joel about the pouring out of God's Spirit accompanied by dreams, visions, and prophesying as being fulfilled in his day, and all throughout the New Testament, we see a church with these kinds of gifts. Of course, there seems to have been an ebb and flow of miracles. Paul probably did more miracles in Ephesus than he had just prior to that, because God started doing unusual miracles.

Even when Paul was absent, in his letter to the Galatians, he mentioned 'he that does miracles among you' as if it were a common thing in the church. I Corinthians 12 also mentions gifts among the Corinthians.

What we don't have in the Bible is a good 'Biblical pattern' for a church that does not have these gifts. If our church is supposed to be like the church of the New Testament, where are the miracles.

It reminds me of a story about St. Francis of Assisi who was talking with a bishop. After the bishop showed him great church riches, the bishop said to Francis, 'The church can no longer say, 'Silver and gold have I none.' Francis answered 'Neither can it say, 'In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise and walk.' Legend and biographies about him say that Francis did do miracles. Regardless of one's opinion of Francis, the story does make a good point.

There are many parts of the world that have not heard the gospel (like right around here in Indonesia.) Miralces ahve a role to play in evangelization. We should believe the Bible's teaching about miracles. Otherwise, how can we have faith for such things? In Acts 4, we see that after the apostles were persecuted, they pray that signs and wonders be done for the sake of Jesus. It happened, and attracted a lot of attention to the gospel message.

The (debated) end of Mark which contains that baptism verse in it says that certain signs would follow 'them than believe' and doesn't put a time table on it. Jesus taught 'he that believeth in Me' would do His works and greater works also. Jesus works certainly included mriacles, and 'he that believeth in Me' refers to individuals who believe, not just apostles.

There was just an earthquake here, so if anyone sees it on tv, and wants to know, I am okay. (People kept emailing me about that last time.)

Link Hudson

-- Anonymous, July 11, 2000

Link,

Those disputed verses at the end of Mark are the ones which talk about snake-handling. I know there are people who actually do that. There was an article in the paper about them recently here.

I'm glad those verses are disputed, 'cause snakes and spiders are on my 'no-no' list.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Danny Gabbart wrote, "It sounds to me that in light of the above verses, Link does not believe the written word is enough to produce faith in the individual. "

The verses you quoted don't show that I don't believe the written word is enough to produce faith in the individual. I said that miracles had a role to play in evangelism, not that the written word does not produce faith.

Scripturally, though, I can't think of much evidence that many people became believers from the written word alone. God choose the 'foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.' The general method is to preachthe word, rather than just letting it remain written. But the scriptures can make one 'wise unto salvation,' and I'm sure there are many who could tell stories of coming to faith through the reading. But I digress here.

There are many people who have come to Christ without witnessing a Bible-style miracle. I didn't say one had to see a miracle to become a Christian. Sometimes miracles are used by God to open up new areas that were hardened to the Gospel.

Here are a few verses that demonstrate some of the roles of miracles in evangelism:

Acts 4:28-30 28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. 29 And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word, 30 By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.

Mark 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Romans 15:19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

Acts 8:5-8 5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. 6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. 7 For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed. 8 And there was great joy in that city.

Miracles have a role to play in evangelism. That is Biblical. If you don't like the idea, take it up with Christ and the apostles, because they miracles were a part of their 'evangelistic method.' Neither of the verses you quoted indicate that miracles do not serve a purpose in evangelism. If they didn't serve a purpose in evangelism, why did the Christ and the apostles use them in evangelism? We have to consider the whole New Testament in context, not just take prooftexts here and there.

You quote the verse: 2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Some try to use this passage to say that there is no place for miracles today. Notice that the passage does not say that 'all we need is the Bible.' Rather, it says that scripture is given so that the man of God might be fully equipped... A soldier is given a gun so that he might be fully equipped, but that is not the only equipment he uses. If a soldier has a gun, but no belt, bullets, clothes, undergarments, is he fully equipped? the gun is given that the soldier might be fully equipped, but it is not the only piece of equipment that he has.

Paul writes of the 'armor of God.' He also speaks of the 'sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.' A man might know the word of God, but if he doesn't have the helmet of salvation, the breastplate of rightesouness, etc. he is not fully equipped.

The Pharisees thought they had found eternal life in the scriptures. I've read that the Pharisees like to memorize scripture, and that Jewish boys learned to quote the Torah. The Pharisaical leaders would have had more education than that. Jesus told a group of Pharisees, thoguht thought htey had eternal life in the scritpures, that htey did not have the word of God abiding in them. It is possible to quote wcripture, and not have the word of God abiding in oneself.

Having the Bible does not in itself make one fully equipped. If a man has the Bible, but doesn't have the things mentioned inthe Bible, like fruits of the Spirit, is he fully equipped? If a man has the Bible but does not have the gifts of the Spirit to do the jobhe is trying to do, is he fully equipped for the jobhe is trying to do. Remember that the gifts of the Spirit are _talked about in the Bible._ Having the Bible does not eliminate the need forthe church to have the gifts. Think about it. The Bible talks about love, but having the Bible does not eliminate the need for love.

Not to mention the fact that, when this was written, the cannon was probably not completed yet, and Paul may have had the Old Testament in mind.

On MacArthur, his book _Charismatic Chaos_was probably one of the worst books I've read on the subject. Full of straw man arguments. Full of rhetoric (calling something 'mystical' as if that proved it were unbiblical.) Full of logical errors ('Because miracles happened at time periods X, Y, and Z inthe past, they cannot happen today.) Mistatements on church history (liek the assertion that there were no of tongues, or miracles or some such manifestation in church history after the first century, or words ot that effect.) There was even a blatant contradiction of scripture (that an apostle would not fall into a trance. Peter and Paul both did, as Acts records.)

Actually, I have heard that MacArthur is a scholar who has written some great works. Unfortunately, this book was the first one I ever checked out that he had written. He might be an author with a lot of good things to say, who wrote a bad book.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Connie,

There is a passage in Psalms that talks about the angels bear ing up' so he doesn't strike a foot against a stone.

Satan used that verse to try to get Jesus to jump. But jesus knew better than to tempt God that way, so He qutoed a verse to Satan 'Thou shalt not tempt the Lord Thy God." If Christ, God's Son, knew not to tempt God, how much more should we learn this lesson.

The passage at the end of Mark does not say go pick up a snake. It does mention signs that would be fulfilled. Acts records a snake biting Paul and Paul being unharmed. Eusebius' inthe 300's records a tradition abotu Justus Barsabas, who was not chosen as the twelfth apostle when lots were cast. The story goes that someone snuck poison in his drink, but he was unharmed.

Link

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Danny and Link,

I didn't say that it isn't possible for people to pick up snakes and not be harmed. With God all things are possible, and I'm a believer in miracles. The article I referred to was very complimentary of the lives of those handling snakes. They DID mention that several had died from snakebites, however.

Link, you mentioned, I think it was you, the phenomenon of 'spontaneous remission' which has been authenticated in medical histories. I believe that there are (rare) miracles today. And I don't doubt ONE WORD of Scripture, in the 'signature' languages. I just mentioned that Mark, chapters 9 through 20, including 16:16, are in dispute by the most respected translators, who indicate that these passages are not in the earliest manuscripts they have to work from.

I think almost all modern translations have a footnote or notation to that effect.

I DO hope, though, that in my own case, that God never uses me to prove that the most devout can survive the bites of poisonous snakes.

By the way, when I was gone on a weekend retreat many years ago, my husband allowed our sons to bring a 5' boa constrictor into our home, with a cage all built. (I think he did it to get even with me for leaving him with five children for the weekend! ;-) ) We also raised rats and mice (u-g-h!) to feed the boa. The boa's name was 'Julius Squeezer', which had to later be changed to 'Juliette Squeezer', when they took it to a pet shop (Noah's Ark) at the request of the owner, so he could see it. He said it was a wonderful speciman, but was a female, not a male.

It had grown to 7' before we sold it to a school district my husband was working with up north. By the way, while I never let them put it around my neck, I DID touch it, and it was dry, not slimy.

But I digress. Which you hate.

I believe EVERY WORD of what God has breathed to holy men of old, and I believe in God and His ability to perform miracles, if He wants to.

And I love you, Danny, no matter how you may feel about me. Life is too short to fight.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Danny: Please enlighten me, I am confused ... were your comments to Connie earlier serious or meant tongue-in-cheek?

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

I am assuming your comment at the end (I'm getting the "vapors") was your way of saying it was meant as a jest? (Oh, what an imprecise medium this is!)

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

It's O.K., John.

I have on 'the full armor of God' PLUS my asbestos undergarments.

;-) ;-) ;-)

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Connie;

I was especially at a loss because Danny wrote that "you question the Holy Bible." I cannot see anywhere in your posts that you had done so ... unless he means your reference to the disputed ending of Mark. Which indeed is disputed. The ending in the KJV is only one of several endings attached to the book (I have a Bible at home that has two of them), apparently by zealous scribes who recognized that the book was incomplete. The earliest known copies of Mark end at verse 8.

Perhaps by "you question the Holy Bible" he meant you question the Holy Authorized 1611 King James Version? (I am jesting here, but there are many who would take the position that if it appeared in the 1611 version, it must be God's Word. Of course, the Apocrypha also appeared in the original 1611 ...)

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

An alternate ending to Mark, which can be found in the NASB and CEV, among others:

And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.

I understand that in some manuscripts, both endings are appended, in some one or the other, in the earliest, neither.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Yes, John.

Speaking of 'signs', as some have above:

Judges 6:36-40: NASB

36: Then Gideon said to God, "If thou wilt deliver Israel through me, as Thou hast spoken,

37: Behold, I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece only, and it is dry on all the ground, then I will know that Thou wilt deliver Israel thri=ugh me, as Thou hast spoken."

38: And it was so. When he arose early the next morning and squeezed the fleece, he drained the dew from the fleece, a bowl full of water.

39: Then Gideon said to God, "Do not let Thine anger burn against me that I may speak once more; please let me make a test once more with the fleece, and let there be dew on all the ground."

40: And God did so that night; for it was dry only on the the fleece, and dew was on all the ground.

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I didn't remember this because of my association with the Gideons, but it's a great passage which I had forgotten.

I was not brought up in a Christian home, so I didn't learn all the Old Testament stories when I was a child. My children, however, brought enough Sunday School papers home for me to be able to bring this to mind. (Or possibly, it was the Holy Spirit!)

Also, throughout the early years, I heard about 'laying out a fleece' to try to determine God's will. I didn't really know what that was.

When we first became Christians, we concentrated on the N.T., and I sort of passed over the O.T. until more recent years.

He is such a loving Father, and not rigid to those who live in obedience to Him.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

From above, typo:

then I will know that Thou wilt deliver Israel 'thri=ugh' me, as Thou hast spoken."

'through'

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

To all,what are your experiences with miracles? Any comparison with the miracles that are mentioned in the Bible are welcome.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

I shared one with James Spinatti in the thread about his mother (btw James, can we have an update?). But here is another: There is a woman in our church who was recently completely healed of paralysis. She was a paraplegic, but today to the confoundation of her doctors she can walk just fine. I do not have any particulars on this yet but will share them when I find out more of her story.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

John,

My mother had another one in the hospital Tuesday night. They coded her. She is not doing well at all. Thanks for your prayers. My mother is the only other Christian, other than me, in this Sicilian Mafia family. I helped bring her to the Lord 2 years ago.

Jim

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Sorry to hear that, James. Perhaps you can make God an offer He can't refuse? <grin> Will keep up the prayers.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

James, your mother will continue in our prayers.

I noticed that you say you are Sicilian.

My best friend's father, in my childhood, was from Sicily.

Their names were Joe and Rose Maggio (the parents) and her name was Antoinette (named after her grandmother).

Joe was very friendly and used to give us tomatoes, grren peppers and zucchini from his garden.

The first time I met them, my mother told me to ask them if they had a 'bambino'. Joe laughed and said 'one' ~ Antoinette. (She was my age ~ 5 ~ so it was great).

He had a strong accent, but Rose didn't.

They would invite us to different celebrations, where there were fabulous pastries and other Italian foods.

May God, if that is His will, spare and heal your mother. I am thankful that she is a Christian.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2000

James, Hang in there and keep believing God. All things work together for good for them that love Him who are the called according to His purpose.

On witnessing miracles: When I was in middle school, I went to a very large church. The church also had a Christian school on the same property associated with it. There as a girl in the 89th grade, a year ahead of me that had severely crossed eyes. I didn't know her well, but I had seen her and knew her eyes were crossed.

A group of Christian weightlifters- the Power Team- came to our church. I'd never seen that in church. Blowing up hot water bottoles, breaking bricks- etc. What they did was go into schools with anti-drug and other similar messages and invite the kids to church to see them do some great feats. After busting bricks and boards and after the lader had bent rebar using his mouth as a fulcrum, the preacher preached, and later in the night prayed fo rhte sick. There was a big crowd up ffront. He walked one lady out of her wheelchair, but I don't know if she could walk without the wheelchair before she went up.

The next day at school, I heard tha the girl with the crossed eyes had gotten healed. Sure enough, I went over to talk to her, and she didnt' have crossed eyes anymore. She said that she was healed when that man prayed for her.

Another time, I went to a big 'mriacle crusade.' Before the well-known preacher got there, we had to wait for hours. Some of the ushers and other people gathered around one old woman at the bottom of my section. The woman sitting next to me had seen the old woman coming down the stairs. She had an oxygen mask on, connected to a tank, and walked rally slow. The group down below prayedfor the woman, and she lifted up her hands as if giving thanks to the Lord. The peole on our side of the building started clapping. Every once in a while, you would see people on the floor running around or getting out of wheelchairs and everyone clapped.

I didn't know how many of these people could already walk without the wheelchairs- some use sick people use wheelhairs because it's easier. I thought if I got down there and started running, I could probably get some cheers.

I saw this old woman at the bottom off my section. She was close enough for me to be able to find her and get to her. I walked down the stairs and explained that I was curious and wanted to know what had happened. So I asked her. She had had emphazema, and if she were off oxygen for just a short time, she would begin to pant and wheeze. As I talked with her, she wasn't using her oxygen, and she said she breathed just fine. She had letters from her doctor rejecting her for a heart transplant because they felt her lung condition would make the transplant too dangerous. I asked her what she wanted to do now that she felt better. She wanted to go fishing with her little grandson who loved fishing. She seemed really hapy about that answered prayer.

I asked her if she could walk up the stairs before. The woman sitting next to me had already told her how she had slowly, slowly gone down to that seat.

I asked the lady if she would like to try to climb the stairs. I hadn't seen her leave her spot very far since she had been prayed for. I took her hand to escort her up the stairs. The crowd clapped. We walked half way up the steep flight of stairs, and back down.

I've probablyu known quite a few people who were healed, but these come ot mind right now. I was in a meeting once where a preacher prayed for a woman sho said she couldn't hear in one ear, and after the prayer, she said she could hear. But I didn't get a chance to interview her and check out the story.

Link Hudson

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2000

Not everyone is healed. Witness Paul.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2000

A person being healed of paralysis is indeed a true miracle. It may not be a miracle of the same type as a the spiritual gift of healing, but there are several miracles recorded in scripture where no one went and laid hands on the person and they were healed. It is beyond the realm of human understanding (the doctors at the hospital continue to run tests because they are all totally flummoxed) therefore putting it in the realm of miracles.

Incidentally, Benny Hinn has been going around saying he went to a hospital in Canada and started healing people, and the staff got upset and chased him out. When the staff of the hospital was interviewed, their first response was "Benny WHO?"

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2000

Danny >A TRUE MIRACLE in the biblical sense would be if you walked >in....laid hands on her and she was IMMEDIATELY and completely healed.

Once Peter prayed for a while on his knees before laying hands on a dead woman, raising her up. Maybe people just are overlooking this 'technique' in starting out the prayer by laying hands on the sick person. Maybe some of these people should pray first until they know the will of God and then lay hands on others.

'Miracle' in Greek is a word for 'power'- 'dunamis.' If someone prays for an hour before a sick person is healed, I don't see why that couldn't also be considered a 'miracle' if it is a demonstration of God's power.

Jesus Himself once ministered to a man twice before the man was completely healed. Remember the story of the blind man He laid hands on, and the blind man saw men as trees, and then Christ ministered to him again, and he could see normally?

>That ain't gonna happen.

Why not? The Bible shows us that the gift of the working of miracles is one that god gives to parts of the body, not just especially to apostles.

Remember that Jesus, in Nazareth, could not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief. He could only heal a few sick folk there. Don't expect to see God to do many great miracles if you don't believe He is willing ot do so. We just have to read the Bible and believe it, even if what the Bible teaches about miracles doesn't fit with American skepticism.

There is a missionary here in Indonesia who won a village of hunter-gatherers to Christ in Irian Jaya, Indonesian Papua. The testimony goes that this tribe really mourned when people died. That really tore them up. They had heard this white man speak, but weren't that interested in the gospel.

A small child, maybe two years old, fell into a bog and drowned, and his body was discovered. The missionary, the story goes, prayed for the boy, and he came back to life. At that, the tribesmen started paying attention to the missionary, and the village was eventually converted to Christ.

continued do to server problem

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2000

...and if it did....you would also be able to >heal the others in the hospital and raise people from the dead (just >as the apostles did).

That just doesn't follow. Just because someone does a miracle once, he can do miracles whenever he wants? If miracles were 'automatic' for apostles, why didn't Paul just deliver himself from his thorn in the flesh, the angel/messenger of Satan sent to buffet him? And why did he have weakness in the flesh among the Galatians? Why did the miracles in his ministry have an 'ebb and flow,' increasing in Ephesus while he was there?

>Which leads me to ask......why did Oral Roberts build a hospital??

I think Oral Roberts believes that medicine is fine. He's said he's prayed for many many people that got healed, but he's prayed for many many people that have not been healed as well.

He wanted a hospital where people believed God, and there was a good spiritual atmosphere where doctors prayed and believed God could heal, and treated people with love.

Many hospitals were started by church organizations. But nowadays, there are a lot of hospitals with doctors who don't believe in God and have a skeptical attitude toward His power to heal. This is not the best spiritual environment for healing. One of the kings of Israel died because he trusted in physicians but did not trust in the Lord. If we go to the doctor, we need to trust that it is the Lord that heals us, not the doctor. And it is helpful if the doctor believes with us. The doctor can sew up a wound, but only the Lord can heal the wound.

I have a friend who says the place faced such trouble financially because it was too sucessful. Peopel got better, so they didn't make money. This fellow believed the medical system in the US is based on people getting sick. He said in China in the old days, the community would pay the doctor if he kept them from getting sick. I don't know his sources on Oral Roberts, or the Chinese. He might have been musing a bit about hte Oral Roberts hospital.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2000

All:

My great-uncle was an alcoholic who was healed in an Oral Roberts crusade.

I was not a Christian at the time, so didn't know the right questions to ask, but Uncle Lonnie told me about it.

My family definitely didn't like a ministry such as Oral Roberts', but they were thankful that my uncle didn't drink antmore. (And he was very kind and friendly when not drinking).

I didn't like the Roberts style, either, nor Rex Humbard and others, but people have become Christians out of these ministries.

My dad had a cousin whom my parents thought was 'odd' simply because, from what I can gather, she was a witnessing Christian.

There was a huge tent put up every year near our home, and my friend and I used to go and listen and clap, because it was such a lively place. Now I realize they were preaching the Gospel, but my dad called them 'holy rollers' and ridiculed them. And my mother laughed at the way my dad described them.

God will sort it out.

And I agree, Link, that miracles still happen.

-- Anonymous, July 14, 2000

Danny, I cut my finger a while back, after some prayer, not even 48 hrs later it was healed. Its a miracle!!!

-- Anonymous, July 14, 2000

Understand,the human body is an amazing thing. We still do not know all the capabilities it posseses.God has given us a wonderful gift. (our bodies).Is it a miracle a man can lift a car off someone? No,Its adrenaline.Same with peaple getting pysched up at these rallys walking for a few feet thinking its a miracle.Alot of peaple are healed,yes,but remember the human body is designed to heal itself,to recover from terrible illnesses,and accidents.That is how our good Lord made us.I am still waiting to see or hear of a true miracle even close to what was going on back then.

-- Anonymous, July 14, 2000

Yes, God has endowed us with miracles ~ best example: conception, birth and growth of a human being.

God is definitely into miracles. There are instances which cannot be explained any other way. (Such as spontaeous remissions acknowledged by medical experts).

Healing of ordinary injuries IS a miracle. But just as there were not many striking miracles when Jesus was on earth, there are not many today. That is why the people then were just as amazed as we are when they occur.

And it's true: If you don't believe in miracles, you won't witness any.

-- Anonymous, July 14, 2000

Is that anything like...such and such has not been healed because they just don't have enough faith??

-- Anonymous, July 14, 2000

D. Lee, that's a legitimate gripe against the Word-Faith healers, to be sure ... but I didn't get that from reading Connie's post.

-- Anonymous, July 15, 2000

btw nice to see you again D. Lee; I haven't seen you posting in a while. =)

-- Anonymous, July 15, 2000

Hello, D. Lee,

Nice to see your name.

No, I don't believe that faith alone results in miracles. We see Paul, Job, and the blind man and His parents as examples of this.

So bad things don't happen just to bad, or faithless people; sometimes God allows bad things to demonstrate His power and His love, and the FAITHFULNESS of His people. (As in Job's case).

Our position should be to wait to see what God's intent is. Most of the time, I believe (IMHO) that God wants us to draw closer to Him.

Sometimes, as in Job's case, He just wants to prove to satan that some people will not deny Him just because of bad circumstances.

Also, in the case of the man born blind ~ someone asked: "Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" And His response was that neither had sinned ~ it was for the purpose of demonstrating His power.

-- Anonymous, July 15, 2000

Thanks guys, it is nice to be back.

Connie, I am glad to see that you do not believe that faith alone results in miracles.

John, it wasn't a gripe.

What it was I did not make clear. Look at the following two statements.

This from Connie: "And it's true: If you don't believe in miracles, you won't witness any."

This from myself: "Is that anything like...such and such has not been healed because they just don't have enough faith??"

I didn't say that Connie believed a person isn't healed because of lack of faith, I asked if her statement was anything like the one I made.

It is not true that if you don't believe in miracles, you won't witness any...just as it is not true that a person doesn't have enough faith if he is not healed.

Concerning biblical miracles it is true that lack of faith can play a part.

Mark 6:5-6 He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. And he was amazed at their lack of faith. Then Jesus went around teaching from village to village.

But, in the following these people DID NOT want to see miracles yet they sure did.

John 10:24-26 The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.

John 10:31-32 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

John 15:23-24 He who hates me hates my Father as well. If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father.

It is also a fact that some so-called miracles originate with satan...

II Th 2:9-10 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

Matt 24:24 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect-- if that were possible.

-- Anonymous, July 15, 2000

I should have said it is not necessarily true that a person..."

Not...it is not true that a person doesn't have enough faith if he is not healed.

-- Anonymous, July 15, 2000

D. Lee,

I re-post from above:

And it's true: If you don't believe in miracles, you won't witness any.

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), July 14, 2000.

I should have said: Just because you may witness miracles, doesn't mean you will believe them.

I have witnessed miracles which are difficult to explain to another person, but which to me are bonafide miracles, such as almost immediately answered prayer on many occasions. Anyone else might consider some (or all) of these things to be coincidental, but I know better. Otherwise, there would be no point in praying, which we are instructed to always do.

I think Link's mention of 'enlightenment' thinking has some merit. I think the churches are riddled with it, and I don't think it comes from God.

And, yes, satan and his angels can work miracles. That is why we must 'test the spirits, whether they be of God'.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, July 16, 2000

Oh, and I agree that a LACK OF FAITH can definitely affect miracles and prayers. (I forget exactly how you worded that)

It's just that unanswered prayer or answered prayer in a way which we don't request, DOES NOT NECESSARILY mean one lacks faith.

Sometimes we have to listen for this answer: "My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness".

-- Anonymous, July 16, 2000

Connie,since when,(and I ask this with all respect and love)is conception,birth,growth of a human being,healing of ordinary injurys,considered miracles? Are these things not explanable and gauranteed to happen unless there is something wrong? Maybe it is just our own beliefs of what a true miracle is,that separates ourselves on this issue.

-- Anonymous, July 16, 2000

Sorry I missed that last question.

I believe every day that I get up to be a miracle; not in the sense of something out of the normal experience, but in the sense of all of these miraculous things God has created that we TAKE FOR GRANTED.

Unusual miracles in the sense of spontaneous healings (with laid-on hands or not) or raisings from the dead, or something like the parting of the Red Sea, or the Long Day of Joshua, don't happen very often.

However, am I going to say they don't happen, EVER, any more? No, I am not. In fact, now with the help of modern medicine, doctors can indeed bring people back after all vital signs are negative. And there are many accounts of spontaneous remissions which have been authenticated. Not many in my town or your town, but in the totality of cases.

And I often am blessed with answered prayer, in ways that I consider miraculous.

The following should probably be on another thread, but I think it fits here, also, since the Holy Spirit is the agent of miracles.

The former CoC members in my Sunday School class, Mike and Mary Murphy, who helped found two Coc (or CC? ~ I'm not sure) churches, one in Katy, Texas, and one in Connecticut, gave me a booklet (named 'Integrity') put out by a CC/CoC group of persons ~ a Curtis McClane; Elton and LaQuita Higgs; Keith Brumley and a Noreen Bryant.

Is a quite interesting little booklet.

In the section titled 'Book Recommendations from the Board' (of the booklet ~ RM adherents) it recommends the following:

Surprised by the Power of the Spirit, by Jack Deere, Zondervan, 1993.

The reviewer says:

'Just WAIT till you read this book. It will blow you away. It's written by a former professor at the conservative Dallas Theological Seminary who knew, and even formulated all those arguments about why the Holy Spirit doesn't do anything in our lives today, since we have the Bible. Well, the Holy Spirit had a thing or two to show him, and he in turn shares his experiences with us. Because he's from a tradition so similar to ours, his revelations of the Spirit's work in his life are particularly compelling for those of us who have been taught that miraculous gifts ceased with the apostles'.

There are reviews of about twelve books, and this is the only one addressing the work of the Spirit.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2000

Surprised by the Power of the Spirit_ is a good read!

-- Anonymous, July 22, 2000

Danny,

It seems to me that if you desire to restore the church to its New Testament beginnings, you would embrace New Testament practices.

Your positions are much more in keeping with the enlightenment thinkers than with Christianity.

In everything I said above, I recognize that out of the ordinary miracles are rare. And when I mentioned the 'spontaneous remission' cases in every hospital, even the doctors think them miraculous ~ there is no explanation, from a rational standpoint, to explain them.

Since the world was flung into space until the time when the Lord takes us to meet with Him in the air, I will be a believer in miracles, even though I may never personally witness one. (Actually, I've witnessed many ~ the whole universe declares His handiwork.) I just won't be a doubting Thomas, as some are.

'Blessed are those who believe WITHOUT seeing'. [Paraphrased]

Sadly, but respectfully,

-- Anonymous, July 23, 2000

Danny,

Try to read a little above the portion you quoted, where Paul tells us what attributes we should display.

Have you ever seen the sign in some stores stating: "In God I trust. All others pay cash."?

That's how I feel in this discussion. In God I trust; you'll have to prove yourself.

Also, 'Except you become as a little child, you shall not see the Kingdom of heaven'. [Paraphrased]

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, July 24, 2000

Danny Gabbard wrote: > IMHO....the desire to see the "miraculous" is a demonstration of weak faith. <

Let's back up what we say with scripture. Would you say the apostles were demonstrating weak faith when they prayed in Acts 4 for God to stretch forth his hand to do signs and wonders? Jesus did what God wanted Him to do. God apparently wanted Jesus to do miracles. Do you think God had weak faith?

If someone wants to see miracles so that he can finally believe in God, that is weak faith. But if somoene does not believe what the Bible teaches about miracles, he also has weak faith.

Paul's comments on understanding like a child, etc. are not about the gift of miracles per se. That verse is one of the verses that demonstrates that 'the perfect' does not refer to the Bible. We have the Bible now, but we cannot rightfully say that we are so much more mature than Paul since we have the whole NT and he didn't have a copy. Paul's state in the resurrection, an issue dealt with later in the book, would make his then current state seem like childhood. We all still know in part.

Link

-- Anonymous, July 24, 2000

Personally, I'm not totally convinced that "TO TELEION" ("the perfect" / "the mature" / "the complete") in I Cor. 13 must necessarily mean the completed Bible (i.e. with the addition of the N.T.). Some things don't quite seem to "fit" with that interpretation. But then that's true of most of the other explanations I have seen. The most common one, that it is Jesus at his second coming, or perhaps the second coming itself, doesn't "fit" much better.

But I have noticed that most people who do not believe that it is the canon of the N.T., seem to ignore the context of I Cor. 13. It comes right between I Cor. 12, where Paul talks in general about the many varieties of spiritual gifts, manifestations, signs, etc. (with many of them specifically named, including "tongues"), and I Cor. 14, where he talks specifically about speaking in tongues and prophecy. Mere position alone should tell us that this is an integral part of the discussion of spiritual gifts. Not only that, but he prefaces this discussion of love by saying, "and now I will show you a more excellent way." And in the course of that discussion, he says that "prophecy will cease, and tongues will be stilled."

Any discussion of the gifts mentioned in I Cor. 12 and 14 must take seriously what is said about the gifts in I Cor. 13! Apart from those who say that "TO TELEION" is the N.T. canon, and use that as proof that the miraculous gifts have ceased, few others do -- take it seriously.

BTW, my father WAS consistent about spiritual gifts and did not make an arbitrary division between miraculous or "sign" gifts and other kinds of gifts. He believed that ALL spiritual gifts, i.e. anything that is designated as a "gift" from the Holy Spirit, including all those mentioned in Romans 12, have passed away. I found that a little hard to swallow -- some of the Romans 12 "gifts" are, I believe, still needed by the church -- but I do believe that there is ample evidence that the miraculous gifts at least are not with us any more, at least not in general use. Therefore I have tended to accept the dichotomy between "sign" gifts and "motivational" gifts at least to some extent, just as a practical matter. Incidentally, note that we are specifically told that prophecies and tongues WILL CEASE. We are not told that about the other gifts -- but, to be fair, we are not told that about "healing" or "miracles" either.

BTW, although Paul is clearly saying that these gifts, being partial, will not be needed after "TO TELEION" comes, he never says that these gifts will continue UNTIL "TO TELEION" comes. It would make sense if the times coincided, but he never says directly that they will. Prophecies will cease. Period! Tongues will be stilled. Period! But someday "TO TELEION" ("the perfect/mature/complete") will come, and then these partial things like prophecy (no mention here of tongues, BTW) will be irrelevent anyway.

When will "TO TELEION" come? I don't know. Maybe it already has. When will prophecies and tongues cease? I believe that (for the most part at least) they already have, and that there is ample evidence to show that they have (again, at least for the most part) and that most of what goes by these names today bears little resemblance to the gifts described in the New Testament.

-- Anonymous, July 24, 2000

Benjamin Rees

>Personally, I'm not totally convinced that "TO TELEION" ("the perfect" >/ "the mature" / "the complete") in I Cor. 13 must necessarily mean >the completed Bible (i.e. with the addition of the N.T.). Some things >don't quite seem to "fit" with that interpretation.

For one thing, there is nothing in the context to indicate that Paul is talking about the Bible. Just picking an idea and plugging it into the passage is not good hermenutics, and _guessing_ that 'the perfect' in this passage refers to the Bible does not prove that these gifts ceased.

> But then that's >true of most of the other explanations I have seen. The most common >one, that it is Jesus at his second coming, or perhaps the second >coming itself, doesn't "fit" much better.

What's wrong with this view? From what Paul writes in chapter 15, it seems to be that Paul may be talking about what happens in the resurrection. Sure seems to fit to me. Plus it makes sense. Paul mentions tongues, prophecy, and the perfect, then expands on tongues and prophecy in chapter 14 and the resurrection in chapter 15.

> Not only that, but he prefaces this >discussion of love by saying, "and now I will show you a more >excellent way." And in the course of that discussion, he says that >"prophecy will cease, and tongues will be stilled."

I don't know Greek, but I've wondered when he that 'whether there be tongues' if he is not talking about the individual occurances of tongues. That is, a prophecy or a message in tongues is stilled or ceases. This is just a guess, but I do wonder if it is a possibility in Greek.

>Any discussion of the gifts mentioned in I Cor. 12 and 14 must take >seriously what is said about the gifts in I Cor. 13! Apart from those >who say that "TO TELEION" is the N.T. canon, and use that as proof >that the miraculous gifts have ceased, few others do -- take it >seriously.

I don't know about that. There are plenty of people who act in love when they operate in their gifts. That, I believe, is the true mark of spiritual maturity in ministry.

>BTW, my father WAS consistent about spiritual gifts and did not make >an arbitrary division between miraculous or "sign" gifts and other >kinds of gifts. He believed that ALL spiritual gifts, i.e. anything >that is designated as a "gift" from the Holy Spirit, including all >those mentioned in Romans 12, have passed away.

What a terribly sad view. One professor said that 'charismata' could be dubbed 'gracelet.' Charismata- spiritual gift- is related to the word charisma- grace.

Just imagine church meetings without God's grace- all the teacing being done in the flesh. Actually, it might happen in some places, but that is a terrible thing. Wouldn't it be better for everyone to be silent in church if there were no grace at work?

> I found that a little >hard to swallow -- some of the Romans 12 "gifts" are, I believe, still >needed by the church -- but I do believe that there is ample evidence >that the miraculous gifts at least are not with us any more, at least >not in general use.

How can there be evidence for that? I've seen evidence for the gifts still being with us.

if the gifts ceased when the Bible was completed, we would expect that the records of church history show this. But instead, there are writings that mention the ministry of prophets in the late 1st and early 2nd century, like the Didache and other writings. Ireneaus lived in the 200 and 300's and he wrote of an extensive list of supernatural manifestations in his day- raising the dead, healing the sick, tongues, foreknowledge, casting out demons, and many others.

Some beleive these gifts are more common on the frontiers of the gospel. There may be some truth to that. I hear a lot of stories about miracles in China. I think there is an ebb and flow to some of these gifts in history. It sounds like a lot more healings were taking place back in the 50's per capita, anyway, in the US. But I don't know for sure.

There is a missionary in Papua who sometimes comes here to jakarta. My wife heard him speak. The story goes that a whole village came to Christ after a miracle was done in response to his prayer. At least, the miracle got them interested.

Not all supernatural things like that in missions are as shocking as what happened with that missionary. I had lunch with another missionary whom I hear was the catylyst the Lord used to lead an entire people-group to Christ. My other missionary friend says that this man won't take credit for it and talks like he wasn't involved, but really it was him and his wife out there. I talked with him, and he made it sound like he had a very small role to play in leading the Dani people to the Lord. They have about 2 or 3 hundred thousand people in Papua New Guinea, and the Dani in turn preached the gospel to other people groups. This missionary told a story of going to preach in a Dani village. The village appeared to be deserted, but one of the Dani checked and saw the people hiding in houses. They asked them to come out. The people came out and said their gods were just fine, so they didn't want to burn their idols and ceremonial spears and serve this new God. They pointed to a lush garden up on the hill to show how good their gods were.

The missionary and his friends left. A little shile later, there was a mudslide, that pushed the garden down into the water, almost along the border of the garden. The people called hte missioanry and wanted to know about this new God.

> Therefore I have tended to accept the dichotomy >between "sign" gifts and "motivational" gifts at least to some extent, >just as a practical matter. Incidentally, note that we are >specifically told that prophecies and tongues WILL CEASE. We are not >told that about the other gifts -- but, to be fair, we are not told >that about "healing" or "miracles" either.

That's true. And we are not told that tongues have ceased, but that they will cease. They didn't cease in the first century, because there are some records of tongues occuring among the 'orthodox' church (not just Montanists.) There are problably more references to prophecy in the first three hundred years of Christianity than there are to tongues. These gifts seem to have dwindled as the church got more institutionalized and developed more structure.

Eusebius records one 'orthodox' saint debating with Montanists living in a generation after Montanus. The Montanists talked about their two dead woman prophets as being like Philips daughters. The orthodox Christian argued that prophecy had ceased among them, but not in the church, and that the apostle [Paul, I guess] said that prophecy would continue until the Lord returned. So we have a fairly early view perhaps, on I Corinthians 13. This is in the first half of eusebius' Ecclesastical History.

Btw, for those who hold to millineal views about the Two Witnesses (that they are still to come in the future) it doesn't make much sense to say that prophecy ceased for all time in the first century. The Two Tinesses prophecy. People who believe in that sometimes have a 'gap theory' about miracles, but it doesn't seem to be based on anything.

-- Anonymous, July 24, 2000

Danny,

>First....quote me one place where I said that the I did not believe >what the Bible said about miracles.

I didn't mention your name in my post did I?

My statement was true wasn't it? If one doesn't believe what the Bible says about miracles, there is a problem with his faith.

Your statement was not true. It is not true that anyone who desires to see the miraculous has weak faith. The apostles wanted to see God stretch forth His hand and do miracles forthe sake of Christ when they were persecuted. They did miracles and peached the gospel. I would like for God to do the same here. Seeing miracles is not my main priority, and I don't have to see them to believe God. You make an accusation that implies that I have weak faith, just because I want someting that the apostles wanted. The Father wanted miracles to be done as well, or He would have had Christ do them.

My statement was true. Yours was not. Yet you get upset at my statement. And your statement looked like an accusation to me. If you are going to make accusations, you shouldn't be so upset to hear them. But I did not say your faith was weak, unless you are one who does not believe what the Bible says about miracles.

If what I wrote does not apply to you, don't get upset. If it does, then examine yourself.

Would you say that following statement is true? "For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom... to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;To another the working of miracles..."

Btw, there is a difference between adhearing to the principles of inerrency and faith in the actual scriptures themselves. This is not an accusaion, btw.

>Don't cast yourself as the "true Bible believer" but putting up >a "straw man" that indicates I don't believe in Biblical miracles.

The Bible says the Spirit gives the gifts of miracles. It does not say that God has withdrawn the gift.

>Second.....the early church fathers are simply not as "vocal" as you >indicate concerning the "miraculous."

There is still plenty of evidence in church history for miracles. But if only one of them saw a genuine miracle, then genuine miracles still occured. If one said there were no miracles,that proves absolutely nothing at all.

There is a good full of occurances of miracles in the early centuries of Christianity: _The Spirit and the Church_ by Burgess. It is filled with quotes from and commentary on the early centuries of Christianity. If you don't believe me, and you are in the

>Chrysostom flat out makes the claim in 303 that the gifts were dead >and had been for sometime.

That just shows us a little about Chrystosom's church. By that time, sermons in front of large crowds were becoming popular. the body ministering one to another may have become less common. Things were getting institutionalized.

>Besides, the church fathers are not the vehicles of sound doctrine >anyway....Scripture is.

Chrystosom above is a case in point. Ever read his comments ont he Jews? Though he ws sound on certain others doctrines.

>BTW.....the Greek word for "perfect" is an "inanimate" word in the >Greek. If it did refer to Jesus....it would be the only place in the >entire N.T. that Jesus is referred to as an inanimate object.

I did not make the claim that 'that which is perfect' in this passage is Christ. 'The resurrection' seems to fit much better into the flow of what Paul was saying, sinc ehe expands on that topic later on. The Bible is not mad libs, where you pick a word and stick it in the blank. You can't just plug a word into this verse and use it as doctrine. There should be a contextual reason for the interpretation, or some other type of evidence.

I don't know Greek, but I did study linguistics and a few ancient languages, and this point seems to be made by those who do not really know languages that are marked for gender. I don't think those who really know Greek arguebased on this point.

I asked a retired Greek professor about this verse, and I don't even remember the grammatical components. But he said these particles don't always agree in gender with their referents, and gave me an example or two off his head. 'Neuter' in Greek is a grmmatical category. Some things in languages that have no gender are given a gender marking.

In Hebrew, if I remember correctly'arms' would be feminine, even if the arms were owned by a male.

Be that as it may, there seems to be a fairly good contextual argument that Paul may be talking about the state of the resurrection described in chapter 15 later on in the same epistle.

-- Anonymous, July 24, 2000

Link,

In your response to my earlier posting, you said --

"For one thing, there is nothing in the context to indicate that Paul is talking about the Bible. Just picking an idea and plugging it into the passage is not good hermenutics, and _guessing_ that 'the perfect' in this passage refers to the Bible does not prove that these gifts ceased."

You are right. And the trouble is that there is NOTHING in the immediate context to show that "TO TELEION" has anything to do with the Second Coming or the Resurrection in the last days!! The closest connection is the one you mentioned -- that Paul does discuss the resurrection in chapter 15. But I Corinthians seems (and most commentators agree) to be addressing a series of different problems in the church at Corinth and/or questions he has received from them. Chapters 12-14 discuss the misunderstandings they have over spiritual gifts and their misuse of spiritual gifts. Chapter 15 introduces a new topic -- their misunderstandings concerning the Resurrection.

On the other hand, even though I still think there are a few things that don't quite "fit" with the idea that "TO TELEION" is the completed New Testament, it does fit the context quite well -- much better than the Resurrection or the Second Coming.

Remember that even though most English translations (out of tradition?) translate "TO TELEION" as either "The Perfect" or "Perfection", the Greek word does have two other meanings: "complete" and "mature".

Paul obviously has these two meanings in mind when he writes -- as much as, if not more than the meaning "perfect." The words traditionally translated "imperfect" are literally "EK MEROUS" (lit. "out of parts"). The main contrast is not between something that is "perfect" and something that is "imperfect" according to our English ideas of "perfection", but rather between something that is "complete" and something that is "incomplete". (He also plays on the meaning "mature" when he uses his example of thinking like a child, but later putting away childish things.) SEVERAL TIMES he says that "we prophecy IN PART" -- but when the "complete" comes, the "partial" (that "out of parts") will disappear.

To that extent, the idea that "TO TELEION" is the completed New Testament fits very nicely with what is said here. Prophecies given by individual prophets in individual congregations were, of necessity, only partial. The New Testament is also prophecy -- in the proper sense of being a message from God. In fact, it is a collection of prophecy which is adequate to the needs of all churches and all situations from the time it was completed and disseminated to the churches until Christ comes again.

BTW, in looking again more closely at I Cor. 13, I see that there is a closer connection between the coming of "TO TELEION" and the cessation of these gifts than I remembered when I wrote yesterday. ("When the complete comes, the partial will be abolished", vs. 10.) I still don't think it necessarily means a particular moment in time -- one is annulled the moment the other comes into effect -- but there does seem to be a closer connection than I was remembering.

As for the fact that there are reports of prophecy continuing into the third Century, the fact that the New Testament was completely written by the end of the first century does not mean that it was available to all churches that early. It took time for it to be circulated to the majority of churches. This is one possible and quite plausible explanation for the continuation of this particular gift beyond the date of the actual "completion" of the New Testament.

Regarding the gender of "TO TELEION". It is an ADJECTIVE, NOT a NOUN. Nouns in Greek (as in many languages) have a certain gender that has nothing to do with whether or not the particular object is male, female or neuter. But adjectives take the gender of the thing they are modifying. Since the adjective "complete" is used substantively, i.e. in place of a noun and without the presence of the noun, we have to supply that ourselves in our understanding. But it cannot (or at least should not) be something that has a different gender. As the retired Greek professor you refer to said, there are times when someone might use the wrong gender -- just as someone in English might make other grammatical blunders -- but it seems unlikely in this case, where Paul uses the same substantive repeatedly.

You know, researching this side of things again in order to answer your arguments against this position is coming close to convincing me that "TO TELEION" must be the New Testament after all!

Changing the subject, you have either made a rather stupid blunder -- especially for someone who claims to have some knowledge of languages and how they work -- or you are being dishonest in your argument. With regard to what father believes (and many other people I have met), that ALL the spiritual gifts that are labelled as spiritual gifts in the Bible, have now passed away, you talk about what a sorry state of affairs it would be to have a church without grace. Just because the Greek word for "gift" and the Greek word for "grace" are related, does not mean they are they same. The church cannot exist without the grace of God. But it can exist very well without the miraculous gifts of the spirit. Could it exist without the so-called "motivational" gifts? It couldn't exist without those qualities -- or at least it would have great difficulty existing without those qualities. But since all the Romans 12 gifts apart from prophecy are qualities that exist "in nature", so to speak, it would still be possible to have those qualities in the church, coming from a combination of natural talents and the teaching and motivation available from the scriptures and from the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, even without them being specific gifts of the Spirit. I personally believe that the qualities listed in Romans 12 are still available to us AS GIFTS FROM THE SPIRIT (with the propable exception of prophecy, though some interpret prophecy in this chapter to mean something like "preaching"). But a consistent view like that of my father and many others I know would not result in a "grace-less" church like you describe.

Incidentally, in re-reading I Cor. 12-14 yesterday and today, I ran across a passage that would support making a distinction between the "miraculous" gifts and "other" gifts of the spirit. I Cor. 12:4-6 says that there are many "varieties" of gifts, of service, and of working, but the same Spirit, the same Lord, etc. Verse 7 says that "to each is given the MANIFESTATION of the spirit for the common good." Paul then proceeds to list the "manifestations" of the spirit. EVERY gift listed here is a supernatural one -- miracles, prophecy, healing, miracles, tongues, etc. (He does not just list "knowledge" and "wisdom", but the "utterance" of knowledge and of wisdom. And since "faith" is listed as a "manifestation" that is only given to some -- "to another, faith ..." -- it is not "saving faith", but the "faith that can move mountains", cf. I Cor. 13:2.) And I could not think, off-hand, of any supernatural gift of the spirit that is not included in this list of "manifestations." So Paul does, himself, put the miraculous or supernatural gifts into a separate list -- that of "manifestations" of the spirit.

I think there may have been another point or two I planned to discuss, but this is getting long and I ran out of time some time back, so I'd better close and get this sent.

-- Anonymous, July 25, 2000

At 08:33 AM 7/25/2000 GMT, you wrote:

Brother Benjamin,

You are right about the lack of items in the immediate context to plug in for 'the perfect.'

The reason I think it may be referring to the resurrection relates to what you wrote about the concept of 'to teleion' really referring to something complete or mature, rather than 'perfection.' I wonder if the English word has changed in meaning since 1611, producing new doctrines or interpretations along with it.

Paul's statment which seems to tie in the incomplete/the immature/ the imperfect with childhood is another thing that has influenced me in this direction.

Compare this to the comparison of chapter 15 of the mortal body and the body in the resurrection. Paul compares it to grain. The picture seems to fit with the concept of 'maturity' in my mind.

In the resurrection, our knowledge, prophecy, reason, understanding, etc. in the present life will seem like childhood. Now we know in part. then we will know even as we are known. Another passage says that we will be like Him. We will see Him as He is. Mortality certainly will seem childish in comparison to that state.

On the other hand, if we say that _having the Bible_ makes one mature, what does that say about Paul. 'I have the Bible, so therefore I am more mature than the apostle Paul.' It just doesn't add up. Paul had the revelation of the gospel. Actually, the faith had already been handed down 'from the beginning' according to Jude. It was oral, though. Eventually, Gospel teachings were written down and collected to form the New Testament.

Did _having the New Testament_ make the entire church mature? Historically, it doesn't seem to be the case. Just go to any church business meeting wherever you go to church. You might just have a bunch of loving people there that know how to get along. But you might see a lot of immaturity. I think paul was a lot more spiritually mature than a some saints I've seen in church business meetings. (I've seen soem that went just fine, though.

Spiritual maturity is not a matter of having a copy of the Bible. It is not just a mater of hearing the Bible either. James said to be doers of the word, and not hearers only. Having a copy of the Bible, in and of itself, does not make one mature, or a doer of the word. There are plenty of non-doers who read the Bible. We can see that there were many Pharisees that did this with the OT that are mentioned in the NT.

So I just don't see how the NT cannon could possibly fit this description.

The resurrection state, imo, fits it perfectly.

As for there being no reference to the resurrection in the immediate context, of course there is no reference to the completed cannon either. One reason I am thinking of Paul as expanding on tongues, prophecy in 14, and then expanding on his 'perfection'/ resurrection state in chapter 15 isbased on my understanding of how Paul writes as based on the book of Romans.

In Romans 3, Paul mentions various themes, and expands on them later on. These themes are expanded on in various chapters later on. Romans 3 talks about the role of the Law in exposing guilt before God. This theme is expanded on in chapter 7. Romasn 6 tells us about overcoming sin through death and resurrection and Romans 8 expands on this theme. Paul's writings seem like the 'nested subroutines' of computer programmers. So the idea of Paul mentioning three things in I Cor. 13, tongues prophecy, and the perfect- and then expanding on them in later chapters seems very consistent with the way he wrote his epistles.

I Corinthians 5 is a good example of the way Paul mentions something little and then expands on it later on. Paul brings up the following themes in I Corinthians 5. 1) Fornication. 2) Christians rightly judging. 3) Lord's Supper (Christ our Passover, Leaven, perhaps not eating with such a man.)

Chapter 6 deals with Christians judging and fornication. Chapter 7 deals with marriage, which relates to not fornicating. Chapter 11 deals with issues related to the Lord's Supper.

Even the theme that gets expanded on in chapters 8 and 10 about conscience may in some way be loosely related to the problem of the man sleeping with his mother-in-law. These chapters deal with the border betweeen freedom and conscience.

We see that Paul mentions themese and then later expands on them in detail. I've heard this is how rabbis wrote about issues. Instead of a three point discourse, they would 'walk around an issue.' Someone said this style is like an onion, where you keep unfolding one layer after a nother until you get to the center.

I see the idea of I Cor. 13 referring to the state of believers in the resurrection as consistent with Paul's style of writing.

Another thought that comes to mind on the issue: I Corinthians 13 mentions prophecy in part in contrast to the perfect. Ephesians 4:11 says that Christ gave...prophets...till we all come into the unity of the faith...unto a PERFECT man...unto the full nature of the stature of Christ.

(Personally, I don't see this as happening. If you think it has, takea tour of churches and attend business meetings.)

>On the other hand, even though I still think there are a few things >that don't quite "fit" with the idea that "TO TELEION" being the >completed New Testament, it does fit the context quite well -- much >better than the Resurrection or the Second Coming.

But there is no reference in the context to a completed cannon. This is just 'plugging in' a word. But, logically speaking, how does having the completed cannon make either the individual or the entire church mature?

Paul makes his point using himself as an _individual_. Are individuals that read the Bible more spiritual or spiriutally mature than Paul was? There is a difference between even memorizing scripture and having insight into the mystery of the Gospel. Pauyl had both.

> (He also plays on the meaning "mature" when he uses his >example of thinking like a child, but later putting away childish >things.) SEVERAL TIMES he says that "we prophecy IN PART" -- but when >the "complete" comes, the "partial" (that "out of parts") will >disappear.

This is a tangent, but in terms of Greek, does anyone know if it is possible that Paul's word's might allow for the following idea:

When the perfect comes, impartial prophecy and impartial knowledge will disappear.

Does the passage allow for the ideathat complete prophecy and complete knowledge will be available after 'the perfect' comes. After all, Paul says 'know we know in part' but then we will 'know even as we are known.'

>As for the fact that there are reports of prophecy continuing into the >third Century, the fact that the New Testament was completely >written by the end of the first century does not mean that it was >available to all churches that early.

Do you think there might have been prophecy before 1500's in Europe? Europeans in many countries did not have a Bible they could understand in their own language. Or they were illiterate and so could not read the Bible. Would prophecy have been prevelant under such circumstances?

Or what about churches in Third World countries where most people are illiterate and cannot read the Bible. Would prophecy be present among them?

I was just talking with a missionary Sunday working with a Bible translation group on one of the world's largest islands, just north of mine. He was telling me about the churches that didn't have Bibles in their own language. They didn't know whether to use existing language translations as a base and to modify those or if some of these groups have completely different language.s There is a lot of work that needs to be done. Do you think it possible that the gift of prophecy might appear in this environment?

Just some quick comments on grace. I studied linguistics, not Greek, but my comments about the connection between 'gifts' and 'grace' is not just based on the fact that one word in Greek is derived from another. It is based on scripture.

First of all, let me just really briefly say some things about grace.

Grace is not just mercy, as some think. It is used in a unique in the NT. Some theologicans call grace an 'active force.' God spoke to Paul in a way similar to Hebrew poetry, where two lines contain concepts rlated to each other. 'My GRACE is sufficient for you, for my STRENGTH [POWER] is made perfect in weakness.'

Paul said that he outlabored the other apostles, yet not he but the GRACE that was with him. The grace of God was out there doing miracles, empowering Paul to preach the Gospel. Paul came not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and power. God's grace was working in him. Paul wrote of the grace of God that work3ed effectually in him.

Some theologians call grace an 'active force.' Sin is not to have dominion over us because we are not under the law but under grace...As Paul writes elsewhere, the power of God works within us to will and to do that which is good. Paul mentions GRACE in connection with being free from sin in Romans 6. But in Romans 8, Paul talks about being free from sin through the SPIRIT. Elsewhere in Scripture, we see that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of grace.

Then, we see in many of the spiritual gift passages, that grace is mentioned in connection with the gifts.

Romans 12 we each have GIFTS differing according to the GRACE given unto us...

I Peter 4. We are to minister GIFTS one to another as good stewards of the manifold GRACE of God...

Ephesians 4 has another verse that I can't exactly remember. But it ties in gifts with grace, write before talking about apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers.

The concepts of gifts and grace are tied together in scripture. Grace empowers us to do the will of God. Gifts ('gracelets' as one professor called them) are manifestations of that grace.

We work by the Spirit of grace. The gifts are called the gifts of the Spirit. 'Spiritual gifts' and 'grace' are not concepts that should be so separated.

Paul wrote that the life he lived in the body, he lived by faith of the Son of God, and it is no longer he who lived, but Christ who lived in him.

Our life and power for ministry comes from the grace of God, from the Spirit of God, from the life of Christ in us. We minister through God's gives. These things all work together. We can't just say 'spiritual gifts' have passed. It doesn't fit with the Biblical equation on the issue.

-- Anonymous, July 25, 2000

Link,

Individual prophecies, given to individual men, in individual churches, were only "partial", as Paul describes them. The New Testament completes the Bible, making it "complete", sufficient for all churches in all times and all situations. It fits the context very well.

I try to keep an open mind about prophecy and even tongues and other miraculous manifestations in situations like those you describe -- medieval Europe, remote mission fields with illiterate people, etc. I can accept that such miracles MIGHT occur in situations like this far easier than I can accept that tongues, healings, power encounters, etc. occur today in 20th Century Los Angeles, Toronto, Florida, London, etc.

I have NEVER witnessed a purported case of "speaking in tongues" today which fits the description of the act and the purpose of the act as given in Acts 2 and I Cor. 14. (And I have witnessed SO-CALLED "speaking in tongues" in both Hong Kong and Missouri.) I have heard of many, many, cases, and have only heard of two that I believe fit the Biblical criteria -- and the reports of these two were not first-hand but so remote as to constitute "hearsay".

The prime criteria I would look at are, (a) did the person speak in a known language? (b) was the language recognised by someone present -- particularly by a non-Christian? (c) did this serve to convince a non-Christian of the truth of what was being preached? (Paul says, "tongues are a sign, not for the believer, but for the unbeliever. ... But if an unbeliever comes into your meetings and does not understand what is being said, won't he think you are crazy?") If "tongues-speaking" doesn't fit these criteria, either it is NOT the Biblical gift, or, if it is (which I think unlikely), it is not being used for the stated Scriptural purpose.

I have also seen a number of examples of so-called "prophecies" or "revelations" given by people today for people and situations today. Only one or two of the ones I have seen contained anything that is not already to be found in the Bible for those who will read it. (And they were not given to people who had no access to Bibles, but to people who probably had several Bibles each.) The couple of "prophecies" that contained additional material included specific predictions THAT DID NOT COME TRUE. Hence a part of my skepticism of modern-day "prophecies."

I don't deny that Paul does discuss the Resurrection in a later chapter. And I know he does sometimes bring up a subject at one point and then elaborate on it in another. But he does NOT bring up the Resurrection by name in ch. 13, not does he refer to it in any fashion that is at all clear. There is absolutely NO reason to "plug it in" in ch. 13, using it as the meaning of "TO TELEION" apart from (a) the fact that it is something that could be described as "perfect" (but so are many other things), and (b) it is something else that Paul discusses in greater detail later in the book (but he deals with quite a number of other subjects in this letter as well). There is NOTHING in the immediate context (chs. 12-14) that has any relation to the Resurrection.

With regard to the completed Bible, it does have something in common with something that IS mentioned in the IMMEDIATE context. Prophecy -- as it existed at that time -- is specifically said to be "partial", and knowledge is said, twice, to be "partial." I would say that the first place to look, in trying to determine what "the complete" is, is for something that gives complete knowledge and fulfills the role that "partial" prophecy fulfilled at that time. True, we MAY know some things MORE fully when Christ comes again, but the PURPOSE of his second coming and of our resurrection is NOT to accomplish that. The purpose of the Scriptures is to give us God's full revelation to mankind -- as full (and "complete" and "perfect") a revelation as He deems we should have at this point.

You don't think that the reference to "growing up" and "putting away childish things" fits with the idea of "TO TELEION" being the completed revelation of the Bible -- largely because you see a lot of immaturity in individual Christians. I think it fits very well.

First, I think Paul is telling the Corinthians to "grow up" in their own use of spiritual gifts. There was a lot of immaturity in that church, including in the way they used and misused their gifts, and I think he is telling them, quite bluntly, that they need to "grow up" in their attitude toward and use of the gifts of tongues, prophecy, etc.

Second, in saying that this plainly cannot refer to the Bible because we have had the completed "canon" (one "n") for nearly 2000 years, whereas individual Christians and individual congregations are still very immature, you are confusing the characteristics of the individual Christians or individual congregations with the "universal church". Just because individuals or even whole congregations are plainly still immature, does not mean that the "church universal" has not made certain progress toward maturity and passed certain benchmarks, one of which would be the possession of the entire canon of the New Testament. (And don't bother to come back with examples of apostasy in the larger body -- just because an adult sometimes acts childishly does not mean that he is not an adult; just that he is inconsistent and needs to "act his age.")

When my children were small they continued to like me to carry them long after they were old enough to walk on their own feet. I finally had to start refusing to carry them except when it was really clear that they actually NEEDED to be carried.

When the Israelite nation entered the Promised Land, three or four days later they celebrated the Passover, and they ate for the first time from some of the produce of the land. As soon as they had done this, the manna, which they had been eating for about 40 years, ceased (Joshua 5:10-12). It is not that the manna would not have been a blessing and a help to them later. (Think of Naomi and Elimelech, forced to go to Moab because of a famine.) It is that they, as a nation, needed to "grow up" and learn to provide for themselves.

Prophecy, speaking in (actual) languages one has not studied, healings, and other miraculous manifestations were given in the infancy of the church. Bit by bit, the New Testament was written, accepted, and disseminated, and the miraculous gifts gradually ceased. Personally, I'm willing to entertain the possibility that they MAY still be useful and therefore MAY still be given in particular unusual situations, e.g. remote mission fields, etc. But they were intended for an infant church, and, like the manna for the Israelites, and like me carrying my kids after they could walk themselves, it is not something that is intended for or needed by a church that is maturing. We need to "put aside childish things" and learn to make better use of what we have today.

Finally, again on "grace". I personally believe that we do have some "gifts" of the Spirit today -- specifically the Romans 12 "motivational" gifts. I just don't believe that the miraculous "manifestations" of the Spirit (I Cor. 12:7) are GENERALLY given today (though they MIGHT be in certain rare circumstances). But you accused me and people like me, who make a division into different kinds of gifts, of being inconsistent. I don't think I am, esp. now that I discovered the I Cor. 12:7 passage, but I said that some who believe that miraculous gifts have passed away are quite consistent, in another way. They believe that anything that is specifically called a "spiritual gift" (as opposed to "the gift of the spirit", i.e. the indwelling presence of the Spirit) has passed away. You turned around and accused them of believing in a church that lacked grace.

I think you are being unfair to those who hold this position. Yes, the two Greek words are linguistically connected. And yes, the "spiritual gifts" are given by God's grace. But God's grace includes some things that are for all who will accept it (e.g. salvation, etc.) and some things are only for some. NO particular "spiritual gift" was for everyone. This is the point of Paul's analogy of the body in Romans 12 and I Cor. 12. Some have one kind of gift, some have another. Some receive certain blessings through the grace of God, and some receive others. Saying that certain gifts have ceased (whether it is only the miraculous "manifestations" or ALL that are called "CHARISMATA"), does NOT mean that God has stopped giving his grace or that the church is living without it or even that a church that doesn't have the miraculous manifestations has any less grace. We still have salvation, we still have the indwelling presence of the Spirit, we still have the Bible (which the Corinthian church did not have a complete copy of), and we still have many other blessings. Please don't try to "fog" the issue by accusing people of believing things that are plainly ludicrous! There is a name for that kind of logical fallacy; I just can't remember what it is right now.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Bejamin,

I wasn't trying to set up a straw man argument. I was responding to this comment:

> But a consistent view like that of my father and many others I know would not result in a "grace-less" church like you describe. <

I don't think I said a 'graceless church.' But the idea of a church where the work of the ministry is not done through the gifts, manifestations of grace, is a sad thought.

I realize your father's view is not your view. I should have quoted the comment in my last post to avoid confusion.

Btw, what reason is there to think that 'prophecy' in one place where Paul uses it has a different meaing from in another. Not all of the gifts in I Corinthians 12 necessarily look spectacular in their manifestation. Prophecy, words of wisdom, and words of knowledge can manifest in non-speculatur ways.

There is also no Biblical evidence that the 'manifestation of the Spirit' would cease in the church. If you think about what the phrase really means, then the idea of it ceasing is very sad indeed. Would anyone want to do any ministry without the manifestation the Spirit?

Btw, 'spiritual' in 'spiritual gift' is an add on if I remember correctly. Charismata is translated as both 'spiritual gift' and 'gift.'

Characteristics of tongues. >The prime criteria I would look at are, (a) did the person speak in a >known language? (b) was the language recognised by someone present -- >particularly by a non-Christian? (c) did this serve to convince a >non-Christian of the truth of what was being preached?

The tongues in I Corinthians 14 would not fit b and c. Paul wrote of the one who speaks in tongues 'no man understandeth him'- hence the need for interpretation.

Acts 2 was a different situation. The tongues were overheard by listeners. A different Greek word is used for 'speak' in 'speaking in tongues' as well.

The Acts 2 scenario might not even fit criterea c. Speaking in tongues attracted attention. Some thought they were drunk. Others were amazed. But they were cut to the heart and repented after Peter stood up and preached, not just from hearing speaking in tongues.

(Paul says, >"tongues are a sign, not for the believer, but for the unbeliever. ... > If >"tongues-speaking" doesn't fit these criteria, either it is NOT the >Biblical gift, or, if it is (which I think unlikely), it is not being >used for the stated Scriptural purpose.

The speaking in tongues in I Corinthians 14 did not fit those criteria. Maybe we could start another thread if we want to go into depth on that issue.

>I have also seen a number of examples of so-called "prophecies" or "revelations" given by people today for people and situations today. Only one or two of the ones I have seen contained anything that is not >already to be found in the Bible for those who will read it.>

What is wrong with that. Sometimes the Lord may reveal to somene a verse to share with another. Sometimes the verse really fits their situation and is a comfort to them. God often speaks to people especially through verses of scripture.

I remember a few of years ago, six months to a year before the May '98 riots in Jakarta, I was talking with an American I knew who worked at a school near where I lived. She showed me a passage from Ezekiel and she said it was what the Lord told her was coming. If I remember right, it was about burning and women being raped. Some time after the riots, I remembered this conversation.

I've heard a lot of 'religious cliche' prophecies. I've probably heard a lot that weren't really prophecies. But I've also heard some that were very edifying.

I've heard a lot of prophecies and revelations about things over the years. I've had people tell me things I'd been praying for, and say what I had been thinking.

When I met my wife, it seemed like the Lord was telling me, when I prayed, that I was supposed to marry her. I had prayed for a long time that the Lord bring the right woman into my life, and had not dated for two years (on purpose for two years anyway.:) After a process which was tough but strengthened my faith to believe God and make the decision, I prayed about it and decided to go ring shopping. I'd always had peace about Hana and myself being together, but after this prayer and decision, I had a lot more peace about it.

My wife-to-be went on a missions trip. I really prayed about marrying her. Within a couple of days after I met Hana at the train station, and went to a meeting. A visiting missionary preacher was there whom I had met a year or two before, before I met Hana. He remembered me. He probably didn't meet that many other white people. This man had prophesied over me before, and I suspected he might at this meeting. I was pretty convinced the Lord wanted me to marry hana no matter what this man said. I told the Lord if he wanted to confirm that I was to marry Hana through this brother, I would be thankful. If not, I was still thankful. At the end of the meeting, he ministered to people in prayer. I went up for prayer, since I was making a big life decision.

He asked for Hana to come up to, and prophesied about us being together and ministering together. I thought it must be bold of him to prophesy something that entails marriage on people when he didn't naturally know what was going on. I asked him later if he was nervous doing that. He said he used to be, but not anymore.

This prophecy was a great comfort to me. My brother also decided to stop dating. I think he believed the Lord didn't want him to. He had been hanging out with a group from a Christian music ministry that has or wants to have a Christian coffee house. He believed the Lord told him that Rachel, from the group, was to be his wife. Rachel heard that my brother was for her. My brother's situation fit with something the Lord had told her soon after she became a Christian.

My mother had not met Rachel, but she saw her at church. She had a feeling that Rachel might be the one the Lord had for Joshua, my brother. She even called a woman from church and told her that and asked her to pray. A few days ago, Joshua brought Rachel over to meet my parents. He said they were planning on getting married. I think he was hoping to surprise my Mom. He didn't like it because she already sort of knew. :)

Not all of these things fit into the category of 'prophecy' per se. Some might be examples of words of knowledge, impressions, or something that may not seem to fit neatly into a gift category. In the Bible, we see that God often does things in the personal lives of His peaple. Sometimes He acts by His soverignty, and we just watch Him put the pieces in place. At other times He gives us a little 'partial' glimspse of what is going on.

If we look at the purposes for prophecy in a New Testament context, we see prophecy was for edification, comfort, and exhortation. I Corinthians 14 mentions these three things, and does mention instruction and comfort elsewhere.

The New Testament provides us with great detail about doctrine. There are plenty of examples for us as well. But can the New Testament tell my brother who to marry? Can the New Testament alone, without the moving of the Spirit, confirm to a man called to preach the gospel overseas that he must go overseas and preach the gospel? How would this man know he was called to preach overseas, and not minister in a lesser capacity locally, if all he had to guide him were the New Testament and his own mind? He needs guidance from the Spirit.

Did the New Testament replace the function of prophesying? I don't see the NT teach that the main purpose for NT prophesying ws necessarily teaching doctrine. I don't deny that prophecy could have been used for this purpose in the first century. But Paul says that prophecy is for exhortation, edification, and comfort. The Holy Spirit moves people to speak to edify other brethren. The prophecy may be a verse of scripture, a word of exhortation, or even a 'thus saith the Lord' predictive prophecy. How does the Bible replace the need for this?

We see in the New Testament that believers were told to hold to the apostles doctrine. Paul said to commit what he had taught to faithful men that they might be able to teach others also. the apostles doctrine was taught and passed down, before the New Testament was even written. Even in a church where the apostle's doctrine was being taught, as in Antioch, the saints could still be edified by prophets coming down from Jerusalem. Many saints were edified, Luke wrote, for they were prophets. He didn't say new doctrines were uncovered.

Having the Bible is great. But having a copy of the Bible and having someone come up to you and tell you when you are at your weakest moment, depressed, needing encouragement, and tell you a verse of scripture that you know is from the Lord for you because it 'speaks to your condition' right where you are at that moment is different.

The Bible does not replace all of the functions of prophecy in either the NT or the OT. For example, can I go to the Bible and find out where my donkey was lost? Samuel told Saul. We can hope that Samuel got some other types of issues to deal with at other times. If I no longer 'knew in part' wouldn't I always know where my donkeys are? Christians now obviously don't have all knowledge.

The Bible is a wonderful gift, and believing in gifts of the Spirit today do not in any way lessen its importance. In fact, the Bible tells us about the Holy Spirit and gifts of the Spirit. If it weren't for the Bible, not many Christians might not know much about the gifts of the Spirit.

> (And >they were not given to people who had no access to Bibles, but to >people who probably had several Bibles each.) The couple of >"prophecies" that contained additional material included specific >predictions THAT DID NOT COME TRUE. Hence a part of my skepticism of >modern-day "prophecies."

Counterfeits abound. But experience with prophecies that did not come to pass is not evidence that there are not real prohecies. Just think about the huge number of prophets in Jeremiah's day who prohpesied falsely. At certain times there were many would would put on a prophet's 'garmet to decieve.' Many played up to the desire of kings to hear good things. Others may have been involved in occultic or pagan activity. But there were true prophets in Israel, too. They were often in the minority.

>I don't deny that Paul does discuss the Resurrection in a later >chapter. And I know he does sometimes bring up a subject at one point >and then elaborate on it in another. But he does NOT bring up the >Resurrection by name in ch. 13, not does he refer to it in any fashion >that is at all clear.

There are 'long thoughts' in Paul's letters. Some feel that hermenuitics has focused too much on immediate context, and not enough on longer threads running throuh epistles. I think this may be a 'long thought' in Paul's epistle.

Where do you get 'the completed Bible' to plug into I Corinthains 13. Is it even an issu or a theme discussed in the entire epistle.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Benjamin,

Notice how Paul personalizes, 'when I was a child I spake as a child,' etc. What does the passage mean if 'the mature' or 'complete' refers to the canon?

Paul, the apostles, and the church spoke, thought, and understood as children? But now we speak, think, and understand as adults? They saw through a glass darkly, but we see face to face? They knew in part, but we know completely?

That doesn't sound like it fits to me. Paul even saw things that were not allowed to be uttered. We Christians still know in part.

Link

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Link,

You asked, "Where do you get 'the completed Bible' to plug into I Corinthains 13. Is it even an issu or a theme discussed in the entire epistle." [sic]

Of course it is! Use your head and THINK about what you are saying, rather than merely reacting out of your preconceptions. What would you expect Paul to call the completed New Testament? "Scripture"? But he normally uses that word to describe the Old Testament. What is the Bible but God's revelation to us -- God's Word -- God's message to mankind -- etc.? What is prophecy but God's revelation to those to whom it was given -- God's message for a particular time and place -- etc. One of the main themes of chapters 13 and 14 is prophecy and the benefits of prophecy to the church. What more logical than that when he speaks of prophecy as being "partial" (in the way it was given then, through individual prophets in individual churches) and then refers to something that is "complete", that "the complete" would be the completed revelation, a compilation of all the prophecy that is deemed necessary for the church in the church age?

You also say, "Paul, the apostles, and the church spoke, thought, and understood as children? But now we speak, think, and understand as adults? They saw through a glass darkly, but we see face to face? They knew in part, but we know completely?

"That doesn't sound like it fits to me. Paul even saw things that were not allowed to be uttered. We Christians still know in part."

I have also already dealt with this (two separate aspects of it), but once again ....

You are confusing individual levels of maturity with the maturity of the church as a whole, the so-called "universal church." One of the primary functions of prophets at that time (as I see it) was to provide guidance (and exhortation, edification, comfort, teaching, etc.) for congregations that had neither the presence of the original apostles nor, as yet, the completed New Testament. But the Bible also provides all that you say was provided by prophecy. Once the New Testament writings were complete and accepted and disseminated to the church, the church had reached another step in growth toward maturity, and no longer needed these partial individual prophecies.

Certainly having such individual prophecies would be a comfort and a blessing and help give confidence that we are on the right track (provided we haven't listened to something that was claimed to be a prophecy when it really wasn't). So would manna also have been a blessing to later generations. But when they entered the Promised Land and ate of the produce of the land, the manna stopped. Sometimes "growing up" requires learning to get along without helps and "crutches" we depended on as infants.

Think about the Christian life on an individual level. New Christians often need guidance with each step they take, just as a baby needs to be carried, and a toddler needs to hold onto something as he takes his first steps. But as we grow we learn to discern for ourselves what is right and wrong and to apply Biblical principles for ourselves. So we need less individual attention. We go from needing "milk" to needing to be teachers (Heb. 5:11-14).

Now think about the infant church. As it was just beginning and had no traditions to draw on (not that traditions are always correct, but they give us a starting place and can be amended when we see what is wrong with them), and no treatise about law and grace, such as Paul gives us in Romans, or advice for ministry, such as Paul gives Timothy and Titus, or written details of the life of Christ such as we have in the gospels, or discussion of practical Christian living, such as James gives us, they NEEDED individual attention, given by prophets in individual churches. But now that we have all these, the church (as a whole body) has "eaten from the produce of the land" and no longer needs the "manna." So the manna ceased.

Saying that we don't know everything that can possibly be known, is a straw man. I can't recall any promise in Scripture that we will EVER know all that God knows, even when we are in heaven with Him. The closest we come to that is one particular interpretation of I Cor. 13:12, coupled with our DESIRE to know more than God is prepared to tell us. But I think that is a misinterpretation of what he means in I Cor. 13:12. However, if we know all that God intends us to know in this particular stage of the life of the church, our knowledge is, in that sense, "complete."

If a person is only "prophesying" things that are already in the Bible, but applying them to a particular situation, I wouldn't call that a gift of "prophecy"; I would call it, perhaps, a "gift of discernment" -- or perhaps "guesswork", depending on the outcome. If someone is giving "prophecies" that are more specific than that, I would be very cautious. If other things happened to confirm what was said, I would still put it down to "discernment" or "guesswork", since the Bible clearly says that "prophecies will cease."

I think anyone familiar with the situation in Indonesia in recent years could have predicted the same thing your friend did -- even without claiming that it was prophecy from God. And I certainly would not accept specific individual prophecies without confirmation, knowing that the devil also gives prophecies to those who believe in prophecies.

I'm glad your experience with your wife and your brother's with his have turned out well. The only similar case that I've had any personal connection to was a disaster. I know a woman who married the man -- a preacher, incidentally -- who was courting her because he told her that God had given him a message that she should marry him. It turned out that he was a wife-beater, and unfaithful too, I think. It was not long before they ended up divorced.

I have most often seen people claim to have a "message from God", NOT when it was merely specific guidance in carrying out teachings that are in the Bible, BUT RATHER when the people involved wanted to do something contrary to clear Bible teachings, and wanted to claim that they had God's permission/authority to disobey His Word!!

True, a few "bad" cases like this don't "prove" that there is no prophecy today, but neither do a few "successful" cases like those you tell about show that there is valid prophecy from God today.

II Peter 2:1 is not conclusive, at least not in itself, but it is certainly suggestive: "But there were (past tense) also FALSE PROPHETS among the people, just as there will be FALSE TEACHERS (future tense) among you." Why the change in tense? It suggests that false prophets were more common previous to the time of writing, and that false teachers would be the prevalent source of error in the future. And why should that be except that true teachers (of the Word of God) would come to replace true prophets in the life of the church?

Regarding speaking in tongues, I think that both Acts 2 and I Corinthians 14 fit VERY WELL with all three of the criteria I proposed. I can show you how, verse by verse, but don't have time right now. However, I think you can see it easily for yourself if you would take off your "blinders" (of pre-conceptions) and re-read the two chapters, in detail, with this possibility in mind. It may not be so easy for someone to see if they are totally mono-lingual and live in a mono-lingual society, but it is quite easy if you know a couple of languages and live in a polyglot society, as I do here in H.K. and as I suspect you do as well if you live in Indonesia.

How would people react if they are confronted with people that they don't expect to speak their language, but they can? How would people react if they hear people speaking in words that they (the hearers) can't understand, when they have no reason to think that the speakers would have any knowledge of any other languages other than the one or two that they themselves understand?

How do most Chinese who do not know me react when I start speaking to them in Cantonese? How would most people in Arkansas (where my parents-in-law live) react if I got up in front of a group of them -- especially, again, some who don't know me -- and started speaking in Cantonese to them?

It all makes perfect sense, viewed this way, and both chapters easily fit all three of my criteria! In fact, the teachings of these chapters -- especially I Cor. 14 and what it says about the purpose of tongues -- are the reason I insist on these three criteria!

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

>You asked, "Where do you get 'the completed Bible' to plug into I >Corinthains 13. Is it even an issu or a theme discussed in the > entire epistle." [sic] > >Of course it is! Use your head and THINK about what you are saying, >rather than merely reacting out of your preconceptions. What would >you expect Paul to call the completed New Testament? "Scripture"? >But he normally uses that word to describe the Old Testament. What is >the >Bible but God's revelation to us -- God's Word -- God's message to >mankind -- etc.?

I suppose this is an epistological problem for all of us Frandamentalist types. The NT often mentions the 'word of God' and other phrases like 'the word of Christ' but not in reference to a completed written collection of documents. The word of God was a living, spoken message. The Word of God proceeds forth from the Father.

Jesus even told the Pharisees that they did not have the word of God abiding in them. He said this even though they thought they had eternal life inthe scriptures. I've heard it was the custom for a lot of regular synagogue-educated boys to have memorized the Torah, and for Pharisaical leaders to ahve studied much more deeply into oral traditions in addition to this. Even if the Pharisees could quote portions of the scripture, they did not have the word of God abiding in them. So many people often read 'the Bible' into passages which speak of 'the word of God' or even the passage which speaks of the word of Christ dwelling in us richly speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiriutal songs, though a seemingly parallel passage says to be filled with the Spirit

I don't see any reference to the concept of the completed canon in I Corinthians. If it is there, please tell me. I suppose reading the idea into chatper 13 solves two emotional needs for some interpreters- an explanation for the lack of certain gifts in their own church experience, and also a scripture reference of a reference to the completed canon. But the Bible does not say that 'the perfect' is the completed canon.

No individual Christian has all knowledge, but Paul wrote to the Romans: Romans 15:14 And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.

Notice that 'all knowledge' before the canon was completed.

John wrote in 1 John 2:27: "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

The anointing taught them all things. Possessing the scriptures did not give them complete knowledge. Even understanding the scriptures requires spiritual revelation: Ephesians 1:17-18 17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: 18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

The early church had the revelation of the gospel that could be had in this age. Individual believers may not have had the revelation, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians 'But WE have the mind of Christ." The Lord showed the secrets of the kingdom of heaven the the apostles, and they taught these thigns to the church. When these apostles that witnessed the Lord's revelation began to pass away, according to a tradition recorded by Eusebius', the saw the need to write down their teachings. The brothers would much rather thave had the apostles than their teachings written down.

The church already had the knowledge. The apostles were a part of the church. Over time, the early apostles wrote down 'the apostles doctrine' and then passed away. But the revelation of our faith was not completed when the Bible was completely written.

Let's take a look at what Jude wrote: Jude 1:3 3. Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Notice that the faith had already been 'once delivered' before Jude got to verse 3 of his epistle. The revelation knowledge of the gospel was already complete.

When Paul talks about 'that which is perfect' he must be speaking about something else. The church still sees through a glass darkly. Our future state will make the present state seem like childhood:

In a sense it is possible for the chruch collectively to have the 'all knowledge' that Romans talks about. The Romans ahd this before the canon ws completed. But if there were no partialness to our prophesying or knowledge know, why do Christians have discussions like this on forums like these?

Jude 1:3 3. Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

For now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face. now we know in part, but then we shall know even as we are known.

You pointed out that 'the perfect' really has to do with the concept of being complete or mature. Notice that the concepts of maturity and complettion do relate to the idea of grain springing up. The following is in connection to the resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

I think it more likely that in I Corinthians 13, Paul mentions a theme he is going to expand upon later, rather thana theme not mentioned elsewhere in the book.

In terms of hermenuitcs, if all we have to do with I Corinthians 13 is _guess_ then it is a really weak basis for denying the existence of the gifts. The direct commands of scripture include 'despitse not prophesyings' and 'forbid not to speak with tongues.' many disregard or downright disobey these commands based on theological guesswork and eisegesis.

> One of the >primary functions of prophets at that time (as I see it) was to >provide guidance (and exhortation, edification, comfort, teaching, >etc.) for congregations that had neither the presence of >the original apostles nor, as yet, the completed New Testament.

Do you have any scripture to support your view ( other than the one in question. That would be 'begging the question.') I don't see evidence in the New Testament that prophecy just was meant to fill in the gap until the canon was completed.

I do see where Moses wished that all God's people were prophets at that God would put his Spirit on all of them. I think of the era we now live in, where God puts His Spirit on people, and we are given the teaching 'for ye may all prophesy one by one."

This reminds me of the Law in the Old Testament, and the promise of a New covenant, where the Lord would write His laws on their minds and hearts. they would not say 'know the Lord' for all shall know Him, fromthe least to the greatest.

One practical aspect of knowing the Lord is being able to communicate iwth Him. The Spirit spoke to Philip and Peter. The Lord answered Paul's three- times repeated request for deliverance from his thorn with words. Paul wrote of the fellowship of the Holy Ghost. God wants to lead us in our lives. Not only give us guidelines. Paul wrote that it was no longer he who lived, but Christ who lived in him. God wants Christ to live through us. This is something living and organic, not just knowing principles and being able to interpret the Bible (which definitely have an important place in spiritual growth.) Knowing Christ is not just an academic exercise. It wasn't for Paul, Peter, and the others, who we read about as examples of godly men.

>But the Bible also provides all that you say was provided by >prophecy.

Even if you are pretty good with Torah codes, I doubt the Bible could tell you who you were supposed to marry. Not everybody gets a big revelation on these things, but God gives peace about making decisions, sets things up and can let us see Him working, and sometimes he does speak to our hearts.

I know a man who is from the CoC movement in Texas. He prayed about acountry where, years ago, he was doing some missions work. The country had a lot of languages, and he was concerned about the need to translate the Bible into all those languages. He said when he prayed, he got the idea for a computer equation that could be used in artificial intelligence to translate the Bible. But this was in the 60's, and he had never seen a computer. He came into contact with IBM punch cards after that and learned a little programming on those. After he had this experience in prayer, he began to study and learn about the types of equations that he learned about during that time in prayer.

Do you think God can speak to people's hearts? To tell them how to translate the Bible? Tell them they are to preach the gospel? Show them how to fix a car, or translate the Bible? Can God communicate with His people outside of the Bible? How would you feel if you were really close to your dad, and spent a lot of time talking to him, and one day He wrote you aletter telling you things you needed to know, and how much he loved you, but refused to ever speak to you again. Does God only speak thorugh the Bible? (The techinology didn't exist to do the program the man with the computer program wanted to do back then. He would like to raise money to do the project, through business or whatever other way, btw.)

> Once >the New Testament writings were complete and accepted and disseminated >to the church, the church had reached another step in growth toward >maturity, and no longer needed these partial individual prophecies.

If an individual prophecy can tell someone where to find his donkey, but the Bible doesn't, how can you say that the Bible does away with the 'impartialness' of prophecy. A lot of prophecy in the Bible is individual. The Bible shows us stories of other people's lives. It shows us God telling other people things they need to know for their lives, their ministries, their nations, and their congregations. But it doesn't tell us certain details about particular modern congregations, ministries, nations, etc. It doesn't teach us about the gift of prophecy, which the Spirit gives, by which God can tell us about such things.

In the sense paul spoke of, the church still does know in part. In terms of the faith that was once delivered unto the saints, the church already had that before the canon was complete.

>If a person is only "prophesying" things that are already in the >Bible, but applying them to a particular situation, I wouldn't call >that a gift of "prophecy"; I would call it, perhaps, a "gift of >discernment" -- or perhaps "guesswork", depending on the outcome. If >someone is giving "prophecies" that are more specific than that, I >would be very cautious.

Prove all things, but be careful not to 'despise prophesyings.'

If the words spoken through the mouth of the prophesying person are from the moving of the Holy Spirit, I would consider that to be prophesying.

>I think >anyone familiar with the situation in Indonesia in recent years >could have predicted the same thing your friend did -- even without >claiming that it was prophecy from God.

At that time, we had no idea. Maybe the Lord had shown some people. This was when the rupiah was still at 3000 from 2400 to the dollar, before it went to 5,000, then to 15000, and then 10000 to the dollar.

>I have most often seen people claim to have a "message from God", NOT >when it was merely specific guidance in carrying out teachings that >are in the Bible, BUT RATHER when the people involved wanted to do >something contrary to clear Bible teachings, and wanted to claim that >they had God's permission/authority to disobey His Word!!

There are plenty of false prophets. Jesus warned about that. But He also said he would send prophets.

>II Peter 2:1 is not conclusive, at least not in itself, but it is >certainly suggestive: "But there were (past tense) also FALSE >PROPHETS among the people, just as there will be FALSE TEACHERS >(future tense) among you." Why the change in tense?

Jesus warned about false prophets coming. Paul talked about false apostles. Revelation, maybe written later than this, talks about false apostles, teachers, and a deceiver calling herself a prophetess.

Peter mentions Balaam. Both here and in Revelation, Balaam, an OT prophet, is used in connection with false teachers. Balaam, a prophet, took his spiritual knowledge and used it to tempt Israel to stumble in fornication and idolatry. Certain false teachers were doing the same thing.

Btw, Jesus test of false prophets was not the time period in which they came, but their fruits.

btw, what type of eschatology do you believe in?

And why should >that be except that true teachers (of the Word of God) would come to >replace true prophets in the life of the church?

There were both. The Didache talks about the problem with false prophets in the decades following.

>Regarding speaking in tongues, I think that both Acts 2 and I >Corinthians 14 fit VERY WELL with all three of the criteria I >proposed. I can show you how, verse by verse, but don't have time >right now. However, I think you can see it easily for yourself if you >would take off your "blinders" (of pre-conceptions) and re-read the >two >chapters, in detail, with this possibility in mind.

Frankly, I don't see how there is any way that I Corinthians 14 could fit your criterea.

The fact that these tongues could NOT be understood by others is central to Paul's argument that they should not be spoken out in church without an interpreter. 'No man understandeth him.' 'Let him pray that he may interpret'...How can the one who doesn't know say 'amen' to thy thanksgiving seeing he DOES NOT UNDERSTAND what you are saying. Paul also argues for responsible use of gifts because unbelievers would think that all were mad if all spake in tongues in a meeting. He does not say the unbeleivers would understand. Nevertheless, these tongues were edifying- did build up- the speakers who spoke them. Paul writes that at the beginning of the chapter, and allows for the speaker without an interpreter to 'speak to himself and to God.'

>How would people react if they are confronted with people that they >don't expect to speak their language, but they can? How would people >react if they hear people speaking in words that they (the hearers) >can't understand, when they have no reason to think that the speakers >would have any knowledge of any other languages other than the one or >two that they themselves understand?

They would probably be surprised, as in Acts 2. But in I Corinthians, one of the problems Paul was addressing was that the tongues were not edifying to the congregation without interpretation because others did not understand them. So it does not fit your criterea.

-- especially I Cor. 14 and what it says about the purpose of >tongues -- are the reason I insist on these three criteria!

The purpose of tongues reminds me of Jesus reason for teaching in parables.

Matthew 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

'and yet for all that they will not hear Me' is a sad sign to see fulfilled.

maybe we could do another thread on tongues when you get the time.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

Link,

You won't like this, but ....

Yesterday morning I read your submission to the forum in which you described your decision, and your brother's, about whom to marry. In the afternoon I received the June issue (it comes on the proverbial "slow boat to China") of the CITIZEN magazine, published by Focus on the Family. It contains an article titled, "Divorce: Bible Belt Style." Among much else, the article gives an account of Amy Grant's decision to leave her first husband and re-marry. I couldn't help but be struck by the similarities, in both content and general "tone", between what you said about your reasons for believing you and your brother were marrying the right people and and what she gave as reasons for believing she was doing the right thing. Here is what the article says about her decision:

"Grant said she recognized that God hates divorce, but she also realized a more personal and freeing truth. In August 1998, after undergoing what she called 'tons of marital counseling,' she went to the pastors with whom she had sought guidance and to her then-husband, singer/songwriter Gary Chapman, and told them all, 'I believe and trust that I've been released from this [marriage]. And I say that knowing that even the Bible says the heart is deceitful.'

"She further explained how she knew this was God's will, and 'to the best of my level of peace, I had a very settled, unshakable feeling about the path that I was going to follow.'

"Some advice from another counselor added to her blessed assurance. Amy recalled her counselor's words: 'He said, "Amy, God made marriage for people. He didn't make people for marriage. ... He provided this so that people could enjoy each other to the fullest. I say if you have two people that are not thriving healthily in a situation, I say remove the marriage."'"

One great danger I see (both theoretically and in cases I have actually dealt with) is that people who believe that the Bible is NOT "complete" and that we can have, or even need, additional "prophecies" today -- or other "personalised" guidance today APART from the Scriptures and the application of the Scriptures -- is that they often give priority to the present-day "prophecies" or "enlightenment" or personal "guidance by the Spirit" EVEN WHEN IT IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE BIBLE. After all, the present-day "guidance" is more up-to-date and more personal to them.

And if there turns out to be a conflict between the two? Of course they will choose the one they personally prefer -- which often turns out to be the present-day "prophecy" or "guidance". They will then rationalise their decision by saying that since God would not contradict himself, and since this guidance is personal to them, it must be the traditional interpretation of the Bible that is at fault. Or perhaps God has a valid reason for making an exception in their case.

I have spent an inordinate amount of time over the years trying to dissuade young women who are convinced that "it's God's will" that they marry some non-Christian -- despite clear Biblical teachings that this is never what God really wants. A few are dissuaded. Most go ahead anyway. And most end up regretting it and realising that they were following their own will and not God's.

A lot of the questions you brought up -- how do I know whom to marry? how do I know that it is God's will for me to serve on the foreign field? etc. -- are really only "problems" if you believe that God has a "bull's eye" will for each of us. That is, that for any significant choice in our lives (actually, for EVERY choice, if we are to be consistent about this, but few are), God only has ONE choice for us, ONE path He wants us to take, and if we take any other path, we are taking less-than-the-best. If I don't find THE right person to marry -- if I don't make THE right choice about what career to pursue -- if I don't make THE right decision about where to serve, I have missed "God's will" for my life. I don't think the Bible teaches that. I believe that in most cases God gives us a wide range of choices and allows us to make the choice ourselves, based on Biblical principles (SOME choices would be outside of His will simply because they violate Bible teachings), the situation, the wisdom God gives us ("if anyone lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives freely to those who ask"), our own talents and personality, and what we simply prefer to do. Following Paul's analogy of children growing up, when children are very young, parents make all their choices for them; the older they get, the more freedom of choice parents can and should give to them. If the choice of one particular course is really crucial for some reason, God is perfectly capable of making this reasonably clear to us even without having "prophets" tell us.

Look at the Apostle Paul and his journeys. Occasionally, he was guided by dreams, visions, audible voices, or prophecies given through others. But at other times -- even in an age when we all agree that individual prophecies were being given -- he allowed himself to be guided by circumstances, by "open and closed doors." In one notable case, he believed that it was "God's will" to disregard clear prophecy. Having "prophecy" today does NOT necessarily simplify our choices or even necessarily give us unequivocal assurance that we have chosen correctly.

If you want to believe that individual prophecies are still given today, I obviously can't stop you. And if these "prophecies" help you feel greater confidence that you are on the right course, I guess there is no harm in them -- AS LONG AS you never do anything that is in conflict with the written Word of God. Personally, I could not accept them because I believe that the Bible teaches that they will cease once they have fulfilled their temporary purpose, and that church history confirms that they have ceased. But I think the sense of assurance I feel that I have chosen the right wife and the right career is just as strong as yours, even though I arrived at my decisions by using God-given wisdom to weigh the Biblical principles and all the other factors, rather than by relying on the confirmation of modern-day prophecies.

As for what I teach others, I teach that the Bible says that prophecy will cease, and I give my reasons for believing that it already has, at least for the most part. If those I talk to don't agree, that's their prerogative. Not everyone I teach accepts everything I try to teach them, and I'm not threatened by that. But I do stress as strongly as I can that even if they do believe in modern-day prophecies, they MUST accept the primacy of the written Word of God, and if any "prophecy" tells them anything that contradicts the written Word, it CANNOT be from God. No matter how much "assurance" Amy Grant may feel that she is doing the right thing in discarding one husband for another, the Bible clearly says that "God hates divorce"!

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

Link,

In response to your message which appears just before my last submission (and which I had not yet read when I wrote what I did) --

You know, it's ironic. I began, some days ago, by saying, "Personally, I'm not totally convinced that TO TELEION (the perfect / the mature / the complete) in I Cor. 13 must necessarily mean the completed Bible (i.e. with the addition of the N.T.)" -- just that none of the other explanations I had seen seemed to fit any better. But the more I argue with you that it is POSSIBLE that this is at least part of what is meant here, the more it clarifies my own thinking and the more convinced I become that it MUST BE at least part of the meaning of TO TELEION. I'm not -- not yet, anyway -- ruling out the possibility that "full completeness" MAY include one or two other things IN ADDITION TO the N.T. canon. But this MUST be at least part of it.

You say, "I don't see any reference to the concept of the completed canon in I Corinthians. If it is there, please tell me." I don't know if you are being dense or deliberately obstinate in saying this. I've already told you, several times, why I think it is there, "plain as day", so to speak. At least twice I have spelled out VERY clearly why I think it's there. You may not agree with me that this is what it really means, but you ought, by now, to understand where I (and many others) get the idea from. If you don't "get it" by now, I doubt if you ever will.

You haven't yet answered my question in this regard: "What would you expect Paul to call the completed New Testament?" If you can bring yourself to "suppose", hypothetically, that Paul did mean what many people believe he meant, and what I am coming increasingly to believe he meant -- that prophecy, as they had it then, was only a temporary gift given for a temporary need and would be replaced by the written New Testament, how do you think he would have expressed it? -- especially given that prophecy about future happenings is almost always given in "veiled" language that is not understood until after the event takes place (and sometimes not even then unless it is explained, e.g. many of the prophecies about Christ).

All your quotations about the church already having knowledge and the completion of the New Testament not eliminating the need for knowledge are another "straw man" and contradictory to your own position as well -- unless you are saying that after the second coming of Christ and our resurrection *ALL* knowledge will "pass away" and that there will be ABSOLUTELY NO knowledge in Heaven!! Plainly he means some kind of special supernatural gift of knowledge or "utterance of knowledge" (I Cor. 12:8). I presume that you would say that this will be superseded by general fuller knowledge when we meet the Lord face to face. I would say that it has already been superseded by the completed canon of Scripture.

You say, "I think it more likely that in I Corinthians 13, Paul mentions a theme he is going to expand upon later, rather than a theme not mentioned elsewhere in the book." But what is the Bible other than God's revelation, i.e. PROPHECY? What is one of the main themes of chapter 14, and a theme mentioned in ch. 13 itself? PROPHECY. It is NOT a theme "not mentioned elsewhere in the book." It is a theme mentioned repeatedly in these very chapters.

You said, "Our future state will make the present state seem like childhood." Presumably it will, but this is a relative thing. Compared to our present situation, where we all have the whole Bible, Old and New Testaments, to guide us (and to provide a common basis for discussions like this one), their situation in Corinth looks like infancy.

You ask, "If an individual prophecy can tell someone where to find his donkey, but the Bible doesn't, how can you say that the Bible does away with the 'impartialness' of prophecy."

There is ONE example in the Bible of someone going to a prophet and wanting help in finding his father's donkeys. Where do you find in Scripture that this is a normal or intended function of a prophet -- to find lost things? That seems, to me, to really trivialise the role of the prophet.

We have one example of someone laying out a fleece to get confirmation that what he had been told to do was really God's will. Does this mean that this should be our normal way of seeking clarification about God's will? (And I mean REALLY putting out a fleece of wool, and not the various things we may metaphorically call "fleeces" today -- which are often weighted toward giving us the answer we want.) We have one example of Christ's disciples casting lots to determine who should take a certain leadership position. Should this be our normal way of selecting church leaders today? Simply noting that something happened once does not necessarily mean that it is normative, unless it is backed up by teaching of some kind.

Even if finding lost things was a normal function of a prophet at that time, why should we feel that this indicates that we must still have prophets today, just because it makes things easier for us and is more "comforting" to know that we can do that? Could the Israelites go out and gather the "fruit of the land" off the ground outside their dwelling places in the way that they could the manna in the desert? Wouldn't it have been so much more personal if they could have? Wouldn't they have been "comforted" by the presence and provision of God if they could have continued to do that? But when they entered the land and ate of the fruit of the land, the manna ceased. Growing up often requires learning to do for ourselves things that we formerly depended on others to provide for us.

By the way, I've never had any lost donkeys, but I frequently mislay my keys, my wristwatch, my glasses, and various papers I need. The Bible itself doesn't help me find them. But wisdom (which God promises to give if we ask) helps me know what are sensible places to look and what are not. I can also pray to the one who promises to hear and answer all our prayers. Usually once I have prayed myself and, in the more difficult cases, told my wife and enlisted her prayers ("whenever two or three of you agree on earth concerning what you ask ..."), it isn't long before we find the missing item.

Regarding your analogy of a son who is close to his dad having his dad write and say he wasn't going to talk to the son any more because his letter already said it all -- that illustration doesn't "fit" on several counts.

First, we are not talking about God talking to people personally, at least not as a general rule. We are talking about Him communicating through one kind of intermediary (a prophet) versus another kind of intermediary (the written word). Personally, I have found the written word to "speak" to me much more "personally" than any of the so-called modern-day prophecies that people have tried to give me. (Oh, I do not "forbid" people to prophesy. When people think they have prophecies to give me, I do listen. But I've never had any of the so-called "prophecies" that have been given to me personally ever "fit" the situation half as well as things I have found in my own study and/or that others have pointed out to me from the Word of God without making any claim to have received it supernaturally.)

Secondly, growing up does mean that a certain amount of separation is necessary. Few fathers would quit communicating with their sons entirely, and when they do it is seldom because "I've already told you everything you need to know." But my son doesn't live under my roof any more, and today I communicate with him through different methods than I did when he lived under my roof and I saw him every day. Of course the analogy breaks down eventually, because someday we will be with Jesus himself and have a closer relationship with him then than we have ever had in this world. But for this present age, it fits reasonably well. The infant church had help "on call", whenever and wherever it was needed. But that church had to grow toward greater maturity. Part of that growth involves learning to walk "by faith and not by sight" -- learning to apply principles gleaned from study of the Word, rather than having the minute details of what we should do "spoon fed" to us.

Question: what is the purpose of the New Testament if we still have individual prophecies? Why not just rely on the prophets?

Regarding what I said about the change in tense in II Peter 2:1 being "suggestive" that "teaching" would come to replace the former function of "prophesy" in the church, you said, "There were both. The Didache talks about the problem with false prophets in the decades following."

What's your point? This is just what one would expect. There were already teachers in Paul's and Peter's day, but prophets had a "superior" function since they relayed messages directly from God. There also had to be a transitional period when the one role was declining and the other was gaining ascendancy.

What's your explanation of the change in tense?

You ask, "btw, what type of eschatology do you believe in?"

What relevance does that have to this discussion? Tell me how it's relevant to the issues in this thread, and tell me exactly what you mean by the question (it may be clear to you, but it certainly isn't to me), and I'll probably answer. Otherwise it looks like just a way for us to get side-tracked. I don't mean to say that that's your intention, but I'm afraid that's what would happen.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

Regarding "tongues" -- I think the subject fits very well in this thread, which is headed "Spiritual gifts, emotion and Bible interpretation." It is also mentioned in I Cor. 12-14, which we are currently discussing. But perhaps discussing "tongues" and "prophecy" in the same messages does make things too long and too diverse.

I still don't have time for a detailed exposition of Acts 2 and I Cor. 14 to show how they both fit my three criteria very well -- and, in fact, are the source of my three criteria -- but for now I suggest the following exercise. Read I Cor. 14 slowly and carefully -- out loud would probably be best. Every time you see the word "tongue" or "tongues", insert the name of some known language -- one that you don't know yourself and that members of your particular congregation would not understand, but that some in your city or community MIGHT.

For example, try "Urdu" (the language of Pakistan) in 14:22-24. A little paraphrasing is necessary to make it make complete sense, but I won't do much. I'll also insert a little in square brackets to clarify a couple of things I think are implied, but again, I won't go overboard on this.

"Speaking Urdu, then, is a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers. So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in Urdu, and some who do not understand [Urdu] or some [non-Urdu-speaking] unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand [Urdu, but understands your normal language] comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all ...."

Paul says that speaking languages by the gift of God is a sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers. But he says that if an unbeliever comes in and doesn't understand, he will think they are crazy. (On the day of Pentecost, some thought the apostles were drunk, which amounts to much the same reaction.) So when and how could it possibly be a sign for unbelievers? Acts 2 gives the answer. Those who could understand the various languages the apostles were speaking were amazed -- and led to believe -- by the fact that these unschooled men could speak these languages they had not studied! That's the only way I see that it could be an effective sign for unbelievers -- for whom Paul says the sign is given, and it fits well with what is said about it in both Acts 2 and I Cor. 14.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

Brother Benjamin,

Sounds like Amy Grant's decision was based more on someone persuasive with psychology rather than anything having to do with prophecy. (And I'm sad to hear the news.)

Christians should follow prophecies which contradict the teaching of Christ. There were true and false prophets in Israel. The Israelites were not supposed to follow the prophet who said to worship other gods.

There are plenty of examlpes of people making wrong decisions because they chose to believe false teaching. The case with Amy Grant sounds more like a case of Amy Grant following someone's teaching rather than following a revelation.

If you teach that there is no prohecy, and you are wrong about it, you may be encouraging people to disobey commands of scripture like 'despise not prophesyings' and the 'comandments of the Lord' for church meetings in I Corinthians 14.

At best, plugging the Bible into I Corinthians 14 is guesswork. The text does nto really demand it. I'm not even sure that the text clearly says that 'the perfect' would do away with prophecy. It could do away with impartial prophecy or the impartialness of prophecy.

For we know in part and we prophecy in part, but when that which is perfect is come, that which is part shall be done away.

The text does not say that prophecy or knowledge will pass away, but that that which is in part will pass away.

...now I know in part, but then shall I know even as I am known' Paul continues, indicating that knowledge will not be done away with. But the impartialness of knowledge will be done away with.

Perhaps the impartialness of prophecy will be done away with just as the impartialness of knowledge that Paul talks about will be done away with. This does not prove the gift of prohecy will cease.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

You ask what was the purpose of prophecy if it did not replace the New Testament.

Paul lists three in the early part of I Cor 14. Comfort, edification, exhortation. One of the passages in Acts said that when certain prohets came down from Jerusalem, many of the people were exhorted, BECAUSE they were prophets. Barnabas, the name the apostles gave Joseph the Levite- would literally mean 'son of prophecy' but Luke translates it as 'son of encouragement.' I forget exactly which Greek word is used where, but the word for comfort related to 'Paraklete' shows up a lot. Prophecy is spoken in accordance with the moving of the Holy Ghost. It edifies the body of Christ. Not all of it begins with 'Thus saith the Lord.' A prophecy even can be a Bible verse one is moved to speak to a certain situation.

The donkey is a trivial sounding example, but many prophecies met individual needs of individuals. Not all prophecy is recorded in scripture. We know that from scripture. Paul received personal prophecy. Prophecy could also serve the needs of particular congregations or regions. The prophecy of the coming famine may ahve helped saved a lot of people in Jerusalem from suffering.

Receiving prophecy from people don't make life simple. I've had people say things that if I would have listened, would have steered me wrong, in regard to my marriage, too. That was a bit of a trial.

Christians have to be discerning. The Bible instructs that 'the other' are to judge if a prophecy is given in the meeting. A prophecy doesn't absolve a Christian of the responsibility to make decisions.

I don't see in the Bible where it says that the teachings of the gospel were primarily passed down through prohpets receving revelations to give the infant church. That probably took place, but the main emphasis for passing down the essentials of the gospel is on teaching. Jesus taught the disciples. They taught others. Teaching was the vehicle for passing down doctrine. The NT talks about 'encouragement' in connection with prohpecy a lot.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

I'm familiar with the idea some have of tongues just being purely natural languages. I suspect many genuine manifestations of tongues are human languages. Paul does mention 'tongues of angels,' so if he is being literal, that is a possibility.

I don't believe every manifestation of 'speaking in tongues' is genuine. Most people can repeat syllables to manufacture fake tongues if htey want to or get psyched up.

I think Paul is pretty clear that in the Corinthian situation, the problem is that people in the meeting did not understand the languages. The sitution of someone entering and actually understanding the tongue is not addressed in the chapter.

Paul instructed speakers in tongues to pray that they may interpret, which imo, indicates we aren't dealing with a natural language situation here.

About tongues being a sign, if you take that approach to it, Paul's example just doesn't make sense. Paul seems to be contradicting himself on the surface. Tongues are a sign for unbelievers. But his example is of an unbeliever coming in and saying you are mad! The unbeliever does not believe.

Prophecy, though is for believers, (I think 'a sign for believers' is the sense here.) But the unbeliever who comes in proclaims that God is among you of a truth.

So, wait a second here. Tongues is a sign for unbelievers. But if unbelievers see it, they think you are mad. What is Paul saying here?

Let's look at the verse he quotes about tongues being a sign. I think the key is here.

'With men of other tongues and other lips, I will speak to this people, but yet for all that, they will not hear me' - mayhbe not an exact quote.

A 'sign' can be a short term fulfilled prophecy that is evidence that a future event will take place. Like the shadow moving on the stairs as a sign that Hezekiah would live and go up to the house of the Lord.

In Isaiah, unebleivers have a sign against themselves, that if they hear speaking in tongues, they will not believe it. This verse is a sign for them, a sign against them. That is my understanding of the passage.

Even in Acts 2, tongues brought mocking and scoffing. The people did not believe until they heard the word preached. The speaking in tongues did amaze some who understood it. But the tongues were about the wonderful works of God, and there is no mention of the gospel being explained then in those languages. After the speaking in tongues, Peter stood up and preached the gospel, and they believed. God has chosen the 'foolishness of preaching' to save them that believe, not speaking in tongues.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

My point on the Didache and references in scripture is that the NT predicts both false teachers and false prophets, as well as true teachers and true prophets.

The false prophet Peter mentions is Balaam, who, though a true prophet in terms of gifting is a type of false teachers. He plotted to have Israel tempted through fornication and idolatry, which is what many false teachers (many gnostics included) tempted Christians to fall into.

As for eschatology, the 'Two Witnesses' prophecy, and prophets are mentioned in Revelation. That is why I asked about your eschatalogical views. Are you a preterist? A millinealist? etc.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

About the shift from false propehts to false teachers: Consider what happened historically in Israel and in the church.

In Israel, false prophets led people into worshipping Baal in Elijah's day. Later, there were false prophts claiming to prohpesy in the name of the Lord, but they encouraged people to be comfortable with their sin. The people were also engaging in idolatry and unfaithfulness to the covenant.

There were various groups even as early as New Testament times enticing Christians to commit idolatry and fornication. Nicolaitans apparently taught something like this (similar to the doctrine of Balaam.)

The prophets and flase teachers both wanted money. The tempted people to sin. In Israel the prophets did this. In

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

Bejamin,

What is your point on the II Peter thing about Peter comparing OT false proephts to NT false teachers? Is that to prove that there will not be prophets in the future?

notice that Peter does not say anything about there not being true prophets in the future. If Peter is saying there will not be false proehts in later days, does that mean all prophets are true? i doubt you are arguing for that, but do you see my point that the verse doesn't argue against true proehts int he last days.

I think the explanation of the correlation between Ot false prohepts and NT false teachers can be explained by looking at israel. In Elijah's day, false prophets persuaded people to worship Baal. In Jeremiah's day, false prophets told people about peace and prosperity coming, instead of telling the people to repent. The people were committing idolatry and other sins, and the prophets just told them what they wanted to hear, giving them pillows to put under their elbows as they listened to their nice words to hear.

In the Christian era, there were false teachers leading the people away. People with 'itching ears' listened to what they had to say. israelites fell into idolatry and various other sins. Even in New Testament times, there were those teaching people to fall into idolatry and fornication. They made people at ease with their sin. Some of the gnostics taught that the body was unimportant and that the spirit was all that mattered, and so fornication and idolatry didn't matter in their opinion. I dont' know if this was what was taught in the NT era, but it sounds like a possibility.

Historically, what the OT prohets did and what the NT prophets did were similar. Nicolatians are compared to Balaam as well.

But Jesus predicted false prophets and His own prophets so we know that there are false prophets and not just true prophets.

btw, on the NT being mentioned in I Corinthians- I noticed you couldn't point out a verse. I realize you, like myself, come from a background where the printed Bible is called 'the word of God' and many people make the Bible itself the center of our faith. Remember that inthe first century, 'word of God' often was used to refer to a spoken message. I don't see evidence in the New Testament that Paul knew that his writings and others would be complied into the New Testament canon. He did seem to think his letters were worth reading.

The New Testament talks a lot about the importance of the word of God, and the gospel. If we read 'a printed copy of the New Testamentcanon' into passages that say' the word of God' that is eisegesis. We have to think of what the words are used to mean in Bible context.

So while there is a lot of reference to the word of God and the Bible in Paul's letters, I don't know of any references to the canon per se.

Btw, not all the prophecies were included in the NT, so when Paul says 'prophecy' I don't see that as equalling the New Testament scriptures.

Link

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

Link,

Try reading -- and rereading -- WHAT I SAY, and not "reading into" it what your pre-conceptions make you think I mean, either because that is what various terms and situations mean to you or because you can use certain exaggerations of what I have said as "ammunition" to build up "straw men" (mixed metaphors there!) to fight against some perceived position that isn't really mine at all. -- and that often not by really giving logical answers, but sometimes by making it look as though what I have said (as intepreted by you) is ridiculous and implausible, while yours therefore, by contrast, is so much more plausible.

Your current "flurry" of postings is full of that kind of thing and I don't have time to go back and respond to every point. Suffice it to say that (a) you still don't seem to have "got the point" of several of the things I was trying to say, and (b) a lot of your responses target things I have not actually said.

The tail end of your last posting is a good example:

"The New Testament talks a lot about the importance of the word of God, and the gospel. If we read 'a printed copy of the New Testamentcanon' into passages that say' the word of God' that is eisegesis. We have to think of what the words are used to mean in Bible context.

"So while there is a lot of reference to the word of God and the Bible in Paul's letters, I don't know of any references to the canon per se.

"Btw, not all the prophecies were included in the NT, so when Paul says 'prophecy' I don't see that as equalling the New Testament scriptures."

(1) I never said that we can "read 'a printed copy of the New Testamentcanon' into passages that say' the word of God'" -- or even anything anywhere close to that.

(2) You say, "while there is a lot of reference to the word of God and the Bible in Paul's letters, I don't know of any references to the canon per se". The only one I have claimed is that this is probably at least a part of the meaning of TO TELEION ("the complete") in I Cor. 13. Generally, whenever Paul refers to "the Word of God", I would take it to mean EITHER (a) the whole of God's revelation -- O.T., people speaking prophecy in any age (any age that had prophecy, and that has never been EVERY age), and, if the context allowed it, the N.T., which was not yet complete at that time; OR (b) whatever portion of (a) that the context indicates that he is referring to. But that in no way shows that it could not mean/include the written canon if that is what the context indicates, and it has nothing to do with whether or not "the complete" in I Cor. 13 (contrasted with prophecy and [supernatural] knowledge being "partial) could mean the completed revelation of the N.T.

(3) Did I ever say that "when Paul says 'prophecy'" (do you mean "whenever", i.e. every time?) it "equals" the N.T. scriptures? There is much prophecy which is not in the written word because it was personal in nature, so, as John said about the things Jesus did, "if every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." So when I say that the Bible is "complete", I don't mean (and never said, or said anything to indicate) that it contains all prophecy ever given. But it is "complete" in the sense that it gives us all we need (perhaps not all we would like to have, but all we NEED) for this "day and age". In terms of what Paul says in I Cor. 13, "prophecy" is PARTIAL revelation; the completed Bible is COMPLETE (i.e. sufficient or adequate) revelation.

By the way, you STILL haven't answered my question. If you can bring yourself to suppose, even hypothetically, that the view that TO TELEION in I Cor. 13 is correct, and that what Paul is trying to do is to contrast the partialness of the prophecy they had at that time, with the completeness of the written compilation that was to come, HOW DO YOU THINK HE WOULD/SHOULD HAVE EXPRESSED THIS?

It is totally unreasonable for you to just keep parroting "but he didn't SAY that", unless you are willing to give some kind of reasonable suggestion as to what you think he would have said IF he was going to "say that." He could not have used the terms we have been using to describe it in this forum, since the terms didn't exist then and some of the concepts might have been foreign to his readers, if not to him personally. It is always difficult to describe something your hearers haven't seen yet -- especially something that doesn't even exist yet. How can you say so dogmatically that he didn't "say that", when you won't even offer an alternative way for how you think he should have said it if he was going to?

You say, "At best, plugging the Bible into I Corinthians 14" [I presume you mean I Cor. 13] "is guesswork. The text does nto really demand it. I'm not even sure that the text clearly says that 'the perfect' would do away with prophecy. It could do away with impartial prophecy or the impartialness of prophecy."

(1) Since Paul does not say directly, "TO TELEION equals XXXX", ANY explanation of what it means is "guesswork" to some extent. I've given (repeatedly!) my views of why "the completed revelation" (i.e. the completed Bible, O.T. and N.T.) is the "best guess" and certainly a more likely one -- one that fits the context better -- than the other "guess" that you offered in place of it.

(2) I Cor. 13:8 DOES say, "where there are prophecies, they will CEASE, where there are tongues, they will BE STILLED, where there is knowledge it will PASS AWAY." Verses 9 and 10 continue, "For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when 'the complete' comes, the partial disappears." I looked up the Greek word that is translated "disappears" in the NIV. It is actually quite a strong word meaning "to be abolished or annulled."

Mention of the "Two Witnesses" and/or of any other persons prophesying in Revelation is a straw man (I keep wanting to write "straw dog" for some reason). The seven churches were being addressed during a period when I would agree that the gift of prophecy was still being given. So reference to prophecy or prophets, true or false, in chapters 1 to 3 is irrelevant to this discussion. As for all the rest of the book, including the Two Witnesses, most of it is written in figurative language and not literal, so why pull out one particular image and say that that one must be literal when the rest that surrounds it is figurative?

Perhaps you are right and we should save "tongues" for a separate discussion at another time and another place, but just a couple of observations on what you said about that:

Paul REFERS to the "languages of angels" in I Cor. 13:1, but does he actually say that he can speak the languages of angels himself? (Does he say in the following verses that he actually has moved mountains by his faith or literally surrendered his body to the flames?) Does he ever, anywhere, say that anyone else has spoken the languages of angels? What he says in these verses might better be translated, "EVEN IF I could/did ... it would be valueless without love." It doesn't necessarily mean that anyone ever has done any of these things. Undoubtedly, many at that time did speak in the languages of men, and man have given all they possessed to the poor and surrendered their bodies to the flames, but has anyone ever literally spoken a word to a mountain and had it move because of his faith? (What Paul says is obviously a reference to what Jesus said, and Jesus literally said that with the right kind of faith someone could "SPEAK to this mountain" and have it move.) Saying, "even if I could speak in the languages of angels" does not prove that he or anyone else ever actually did.

You say that the context for what Paul says about speaking in tongues is them using the tongues in their meetings. True! And what he tells them is that they have been misusing the gift and shouldn't be doing it in the way that they have been. He doesn't come right out and say, "quit doing it in your meetings", but he says, don't do it unless there is someone who understands, and/or a translator (and I would assume that a translator would be someone who understands); he says, in your meetings it is far better to use the gift of prophecy than the gift of languages, since people can be edified by words they understand; and he says that the gift of languages was not intended for believers (which most of the people in the meeting would be), but for unbelievers -- i.e. they were doing it in the wrong place: it should have been used out where the unbelievers were.

I have offered a plausible explanation, which fits well in the context of both Acts 2 and I Cor. 14, for what Paul meant when he said that "languages" was a sign not for believers but for unbelievers. The only explanation you can offer is the parallel for what Christ said about his parables. But Paul does not say that "languages" was a sign "against" unbelievers, but rather a sign "for" them. To me, this indicates something that is intended to lead them toward belief, not to keep them from it.

I'm afraid that uses up my available time for today, and I haven't addressed even half of the "straw men" in your latest spate of postings. As I said at the beginning, try rereading what I have already said. I've already answered most of your objections.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

I'd like to point out something that I feel is a key issue in this discussion.

**What should our 'default' belief about miracles be? I mean, where should our starting point be?

usually, our starting point is our own church background or what we have been taught. For example, one who is taught that these gifts has ceased usually believes that these gifts have ceased. Someone who has NOT seen these gifts in action and has been taught they ceased usually believes that they have ceased. But we should not base our beliefs on our experience or lack thereof in spite of the teaching of scripture.

But really where is the burden of proof. The Bible shows us a church with miracles, and shows the apostles doing miracles. I believe our 'default' belief- our starting point is that God does miracles and gives out gifts of the Spirit. If we can see from scripture where God withdrew these gifts, then and only then should we believe they ceased. If we cannot see this in scripture, then we should believe the gifts are still given. If saying the gifts ceased is based on theological guesswork, then we should not accept the conclusions based on mere guesswork. If the guesswork is wrong, we may disobey direct commands of scripture such as 'forbid not to speak with tongues' 'despise not prohpesyings' and 'let the prophets speak two or three.'

But in real life, most people don't interpret the Bible like that. they usually rely on their own experiences. if they never saw a miracle and were taught that miracles don't happen, they usually are inclined to try to find passages in scripture which support what htey ahve been taught. Those who have seen miracles and have been taught that they occur today look for verses to support their view as well.

I don't mean to misrepresent your ideas. Since this is a public forum , and other can read these messages, sometimes I use your messages as a springboard to discuss other related views. I don't mean to attribute all these views to you. Maybe I should write more clearly when I'm doing that. I'm already producing volumes of messages, so sometimes I may get sloppy without realizeing it when I type too fast.

>It is totally unreasonable for you to just keep parroting "but he didn't SAY that", unless you are willing to give some kind of reasonable suggestion as to what you think he would have said IF he was going to "say that." <

I guess I just didn't see this as something central to the discussion. I don't know Greek ,so i can't write this in Greek, but Paul had plenty of Greek words available to him. He could have written that when the apostle's doctrine was completely recorded in written form, then imperfection would have passed away. There are dozens of ways he could have phrased it. if Paul wanted to be clear that he was talking about a collection of books, he could have done that much more clearly than saying 'the perfect.' It would have been an easy concept for him to write down in Greek.

One of the reasons I kept mentioning that there was no mention of the canon in I Corinthians is that context is very important in Corinthians. It makes a lot more sense to say that Paul is refering to something else that shows up in the context of the letter, and show evidence for it, than to just plug a concept into a word like 'the perfect' without any kind of evidence for it. Shouldn't there be some reason from the context of the letter for us to assert that 'the perfect' refers to the canon of scripture?

>>>But that in no way shows that it could not mean/include the written canon if that is what the context indicates, and it has nothing to do with whether or not "the complete" in I Cor. 13 (contrasted with prophecy and [supernatural] knowledge being "partial) could mean the completed revelation of the N.T. <<<

The issue is that there needs to be some reason _for us to think that it does mean that_. Many people disregard direct commands of scripture based on what the 'plug into' the meaning of the 'the perfect.'

>>>I've given (repeatedly!) my views of why "the completed revelation" (i.e. the completed Bible, O.T. and N.T.) is the "best guess" and certainly a more likely one -- one that fits the context better -- than the other "guess" that you offered in place of it. <<<<

You've given reasons for why you think the canon is what Paul is talking about, or part of what Paul is talking about. I don't recall you giving reasons why Paul could not be talking about the resurrection and what occurs to believers at the coming of Christ.

I wrote earlier: "At best, plugging the Bible into I Corinthians 14" [I presume you mean I Cor. 13] "is guesswork. The text does nto really demand it. I'm not even sure that the text clearly says that 'the perfect' would do away with prophecy. It could do away with impartial prophecy or the impartialness of prophecy."

I realized after sending the message, the the following doesn't make sense without refering to an idea I wrote earlier.

When Paul says that prophecies would fail/cease, how do we know that refers to _the gift_ of prophecy? What if Paul is saying the following 'Where there are prophecies, they will be made of none effect.' (of none effect is consistent with one of the Strong's glosses, for what that's worth.) When Paul says that whether there be tongues, they will cease (or will be stilled by themselves aas some have dubbed the mediopassive here) maybe he is saying where there are individual manifestations of tongues, these messages will come to an end. Maybe Paul is saying: Where there is knowledge, it will be rendered of none effect,

I don't know Greek, and I don't know if this is the right way of looking at the passage, but I have wondered if the verse is even talking about the end of the gift of prophecy.

Notice that Paul uses the same word for 'cease' or 'fail' or to be made of none effect for prophecy as he does for knowledge. But when the perfect comes, there will be knowledge, just not the impartial knowledge Paul talks about. After the perfect comes, according to Paul, he will know as he is known.

Know I know in part, but then I shall know even as I am known.

But wait a minute! Earlier in the passage he said if there was knowledge it would come to naught.

But does that really mean that all knowledge will come to non- existence, or just individual manifestations of it will be useless.

Can you see that here is a difference between saying 'if there are prophecies, they will come to naught' and 'THE GIFT OF Prophecy will come to naught. Many people see 'the gift of prophecy' here in this verse, and I am not sure that is what Paul is saying. After all, all knowledge will not pass away. Impartial knowledge will pass away. Perhaps there will be completed prophecy as well.

I don't know if I am explaining this idea well or not. Do you get the general gist of what I am trying to say?

On tongues of angels- Maybe this is hyperbole. Maybe not. It _is_ possible that someone could give himself to be burned or give all to the poor. People have done that before. So why couldn't speaking tongues of angels fit into the category of soemthing possible to be done as well? btw, I've hear or read that moving mountains is used in rabinnic writing to refer to doing the impossible.

It might have been an idiom back then, and the way Jews in the first century used it may not have been purely literal. I heard a story about how a certain Bible college was built in Singapore. The preacher who wanted to build it bought a plot of land that had a big hill on it. Remembering the teaching of Christ, he kept praying and commanding it to be cast into the sea. Some people came and offered to buy the dirt from him. Land is scarce on that island. If i remember right, they moved the dirt from the hill into the sea as part of the project to fill in part of the ocean for the Sing airport (which I've been to, btw.) The preacher used the money they paid for the hill to help finance the Bible college.

The tongues of angels, imo, is not a central issue.

On tongues, btw, do you think interpretation came through a supernatural gifting of the Holy Spirit? Verse 13 of ch 14 speaks of praying to be able to interpret.

>> can be edified by words they understand; and he says that the gift of languages was not intended for believers (which most of the people in the meeting would be), but for unbelievers -- i.e. they were doing it in the wrong place: it should have been used out where the unbelievers were. <<

A different word is used for 'speaking in tongues' here than in Acts 2. I don't know if that proves anything. One of the characteristics of the I Corinthians 14 tongues is that they had to be interpreted to be understood. The Acts tongues did not.

I see the sign as being a fulfilled prophecy from Isaiah that those who hear the tongues will not believe, just as the prophecy says. Paul shows the negative response to speaking in tongues from unbelievers when they hear it, not a positive response. I dont' see any indication that Paul wanted the Corinthians to use this gift in evangelization. He told the one who spoke in tongues without an interpreter not to do it in the congregation, but to speak to himself and to God (rather than to unbelievers.)

>But Paul does not say that "languages" was a sign "against" unbelievers, but rather a sign "for" them. To me, this indicates something that is intended to lead them toward belief, not to keep them from it. <

The term 'sign against' is not there, of course. The example Paul gives is one that relates to unbelievers not believing when they see tongues. How does the idea that the sign helps them believe relate to the I Corinthians 14 passage?

About the Two Witnesses- that is certainly not a strawman. Many dispensationalists believe that there will be two witnesses that prophesy, but are also cessationists. There are literalists who are also cessationists. That is why I wanted to know your view of eschatology.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2000

Link,

I should have left ten minutes ago, so this is just the quickest of responses to two points in your missive that I think are quite easy to answer.

You said, "One of the characteristics of the I Corinthians 14 tongues is that they had to be interpreted to be understood. The Acts tongues did not."

ANY language has to be interpreted to be understood by someone who does not understand that language. NO language has to be interpreted to be understood by someone who already does undertand. Or haven't you ever, in all your travels, attended a meeting where someone is speaking in a language you don't understand? In BOTH Acts 2 and I Cor. 14 I see people who understand and people who don't -- hence the various reactions described in Acts 2 and Paul's emphasis in I Cor. 14 on "if you do it and there is no-one who understands ..." What is the point of saying things like that that if the "language" is a kind of babbling that NO-ONE understands and no-one is expected to understand? He is PLAINLY (if you will get your blinders off) talking about actual languages that CAN be understood being spoken in situations where none or only a few are actually able to.

I minister to a polyglot congregation. People in the church know many different languages. There are at least 7 different "home" languages. Because of that we have a "language policy" (which I think is in keeping with Paul's teaching in I Cor. 14), that any "public" speaking, i.e. preaching, announcements, etc., must be done in one of the two languages that we can reasonably expect that the majority will understand. And if an outsider comes in who doesn't understand the language being spoken at the time, we try our best to get someone to interpret. But in their prayers, or in their small groups, together with others who speak the same language they do, they are free to use any language they choose. What Paul says, understood the way I understand it, speaks almost directly to the situation I am actually in, except that I am only dealing with languages learned through natural means, while he is ALSO dealing with languages learned through supernatural means. And I believe that the "interpretation" could have been BOTH -- sometimes merely from people who understood the language, and sometimes from people who have a supernatural gift.

You also said, "About the Two Witnesses- that is certainly not a strawman. Many dispensationalists believe that there will be two witnesses that prophesy, but are also cessationists. There are literalists who are also cessationists. That is why I wanted to know your view of eschatology."

Eschatology is a BIG subject, which is one reason why I didn't want to get into it -- plus the fact that I have found it one of the least fruitful subjects for discussion in fora like this. People go round and round ASSERTING that their view MUST be the correct one -- but the other person, with radically different views, is also doing the same.

Regarding the Two Witnesses, specifically -- I haven't yet come to a conclusion as to who they are, though I'm inclined to think they may be "witnesses" who have already come and already given their testimony, etc., e.g. Moses and Elijah, who appeared with Jesus on the mount of Transfiguration. Even if this refers to people yet to come, they are obviously "figurative" in some senses. Does their "prophesying" have to be the kind of "prophecy" you have been claiming? Couldn't it be figurative too?

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2000

In the Acts situation, tongues did not need to be interpreted because there were people there who understood the languages. As far as what we can see from what Paul wrote, the Corinthians were speaking in tongues that others in the meeting could not understand without interpretation.

1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

The implication is that the speaker couldn't understand it, either,

1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

There is no indication in this passageof a situation where someone int he audience understands the language spoken in tongues, and it is a sign to them.

Paul does speak of tongues for a sign. Let's look at the verses:

1 Corinthians 14:21-22 21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Notice the key word 'wherefore' connecting verse 22 with the verse quoted from Isaiah in verse 22. We see that the example Paul gives is of uneblievers saying that participants in a meeting where all speaking in tongues are mad. The sign, here, is not one of believing, but one of not believing.

In the Acts account, there was a different situation. Instead of no man understanding, men did understand the languages spoken. the I Corinthians 14 tongue edifies the one who speaks in tongues, and with interpretation can edify the congregation. Paul's argument of tongues as a sign (..."and yet for all that, they will not here me"...) is part of his argument against the misuse of tongues in meetings, and his emphasis of prophesying in meetings.

There are many differences between these passages, and even different terminology for speaking, in the phrase speaking in tongues. I Corinthians 14 uses an archaic term, from what I've read. It may have already had a current usage at that time.

Brother, I don't believe I am wearing blinders on this passage, at least not on the points you mentioned. Is it possible that you might be wearing some blinders yourself. I didn't arrive at my understanding of this passage just from my own church experience because a lot of the instructions here are frequently ignored. I've memorized and studied and pondered this passage.

The part about the sign always threw me, becuase Paul's example seemed to argue against the point he was making. After I studied more about signs, the passage started making more sense.

This is avery important and much ignored passage. It tells us how to have Biblical church meetings. Most people ignore the passage and have traditional, programmed, one-man sermon meetings.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2000

This is avery important and much ignored passage. It tells us how to have Biblical church meetings. Most people ignore the passage and have traditional, programmed, one-man sermon meetings

It tells us no such thing. It tells us, at most, how the folks in Corinth were doing it; in fact, it tells how they were doing it wrong.

This is the only passage in the New testament that directly refers to this manner or style of meeting. There are other ways spoken of. Lydia's group met by the river for prayer and happily received one-to- group instruction, and Paulwas happy to give it in that way. And, in fact, almost every other description of a group of believers gathering speaks of one person explaining the scriptures to the group, or addressing the group on a particular subject.

Link, you are taking this one example, this one partial description, this on place in which the Apostle is giving them a dressing down for their approach to church gatherings, and you are building a out of it a standard which you expect all congregations to meet. Let's take this method and apply it to other examples.

The one mentioned above -- Lydia's group . Apparently we are supposed to go down to a river side and meet for prayer.

Or wait. Why not model it after the group of which Eutychus was a part. By THAT model, we are to meet in an upper room, have one person address the group, and make sure it goes long and late.

Or perhaps we should use the Jerusalem model, and find us a good temple or synagogue to meet in, in between having pot lucks at each other's houses.

you can't take one example of many, and categorically proclaim that THAT's the way the church is supposed to be doing it. God did not give us a cookbook, so that we could slavishly follow just the right details to get it right.

Of course, if He DID, then you're still wrong. One example of your favorite, and many more of one person instructing a group.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2000

Sam,

I somewhat agree with what you are saying, but what I see in most churches is that, in spite of the fact that there were all of those different methods of 'gathering together', and different days and ways, today some insist on the single form of Sunday morning with one preacher/teacher/pastor/elder expounding, when it is obvious from Scripture that not only did they meet on different days (sometimes daily) and observed the Lord's Supper at various times (it was initiated on a Wednesday so how could Sunday be the only day to observe it? ~ also, the fact that he said 'As often as you do this, do it in remembrance of me' ~ strongly implying that there was not to be a day-specific form, but a spontaneity); and there were at times different people contributing in the manner of a dialogue, and at other times one person was preaching/teaching.

The teachings which command that we conform to a pattern are not only denying the Spirit which has been so freely offered to us, but also ignoring what the Word clearly shows.

They have a 'form of Godliness but [are denying] the power thereof'.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2000

Sam,

I Corinthians 14 does not give us a detailed liturgy of how to conduct a church service. It does give us some commands and general principles by which a variety of different types of things can happen in a church meeting.

The problem with many modern meetings is that they DO follow a strict order for church meetings according to a traditional formual. This order for meetings prevents the congregation from edifying one another with their spiritual gifts.

I Corinthians 14 tells the Corinthians about what they were doing wrong in meetings. ther eis no doubt about that. But Paul also told them WHAT TO DO. he gave them a general principle. 'Let all things be done unto edifying.'

Then he gave them specific commands about how to have one speak in tongues and have it interpreted. He commanded for the prohets to speak two or three and let the other judge, and for the speaker to be silent if a revelation came to another who sat by.

Notice Paul's indication that these practices were practiced in the other churches. What came the word of God out from you? Or are you the only ones to whom it has come? The Corinthians received the word from elsewhere and didn't have a right to change the church meeting.

Earlier int he chapter, Paul had given instructions to prophets. He reminds them. If any man consider himself a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that what I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.

The commandments of the Lord. Something the Corinthians had not right to change. Who are we to disregard the instructions for mutual edification because of tradition?

There is other scriptural evidence. Herbews 10:24-25 is the one passage in the Bible that tells us to go to church. It says not to forsake the assembling of yourselves together, but to EXHORT ONE ANOTHER.

Not sit back and passively and quietly be exhorted, but to exhort one antoher.

I Peter 4 says that as every man has received the gift, let him minister it one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.

If any man SPEAK, let him speak as the oracles of God. So says Peter.

In a New Testament church meeting, Agabus could stand up and give a prophecy, and others could be edified.

Keep the cultural background in mind- the Jewish synagogue- where regular men of good standing in the Jewish community could have a turn reading and speaking in the synagogue. There was even opportunity for discussion or debate, as we see in Paul's journeys. The administrator of one synagogue offered the floor for a word of exhortation for the people, and Paul took it.

The closed pulpit is a later notion.

The directions Paul gave for meeings allow for freedom, unlike the traditions many follow today.

Paul did teach all night one time. He was leaving the next day. I Corinthians 14 allows for teaching in church meetings. Of course, according to Acts 20:7, Paul was holding a discussion that night, not just giving a lecture.

As for Paul by the river, that was evangelistic work, rather than a meeting for edification of believers, but believers did meet to pray as well.

The big meeting in Acts 15 may not have been that much different in format from a regular church meting, except that it was just elders and apostles speaking.

-- Anonymous, August 01, 2000

Danny,

With such a disrespect for your congregants, I wonder if you bring others to Christ and have baptisms in your assemblies.

I'm not looking for specific numbers, just ARE THERE ANY?

Also, when we were having the 'Gideons' discussion, the question came to my mind ~ if the preaching of the Gospel were limited to only the ones who agree completely with your position, how many would be saved?

I know God isn't keeping a tally sheet, He's looking on our hearts.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, August 01, 2000

Danny,

Sunday school was invented in the 1800's. Many early church meetings were home meetings as well. Scritpurally, what is your basis for defining Sunday school classes and home Bible studies as something different from a church meeting? I don't see this distinction in scripture.

I don't see edifying speech in church in general as a matter of giving one's '2 cents worth.' The object is edification. Not giving one's opinion. We should not expect that every word spoken in church wil be direct exegesis of scripture. Some words will be words of exhortation, songs, or other types of utterances.

I read an article from a retired Greek professor who'd been reading Greek for decades, and had a feel for the language. He believed that 'speaking to yourselves' in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, refered to one person singing before the assembly. In Tertullian's _Apology_, it shows that after the Supper, water was brought for the hands, and each one went forth to sing before the others a song from his own heart or from the Scriptures to he Lord.

Danny, Where are the scriptures that tells elders to be careful who speaks. Let us see the scriptures you are thinking of. I can understand the case for not allowing false teachers to speak, or even be present during the love feasts (as spots and blemishes. The Passover was to have no spots or blemishes either.)

Notice that Paul told Timothy to charge the peole teaching to teach 'no other doctrine.' He didn't say close the pulpit and not let anyone speak. What kind of church format do you think the Antioch church had? False teachers came up with Jeruslaem, and in the church format practiced there. Paul and Barnabas also disputed with them.

Paul didn't tell Timothy have a closed pulpit and only allow one person to speak. Instead, Timothy was to charge the people what to teach. Paul taught Timothy. Timothy was to teach faithful men. They were to teach others also, and the message and minsitry of teaching was to continue in that fashion.

Notice the pattern. Even in terms of prophesying, 'Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge' and 'Despise not prophesyings. Hold fast to that which is good.' Even prohpesies were to be judged. First the prophecy had to be spoken, and then it could be judged. Where is the place for an elder to moderate in Paul's instructions that if one prophet is speaking,a nd another receivess a revelation, let the first hold his peace? Paul continues to say that 'ye may all prophesy one by one.'

Paul wrote letters with no mention of elders or salute to elders. In fact, from Acts, we can see that it was the practice of Paul and Barnabas to plant churches without elders first, and appoint elders from within those churches later on. Many of the letters Paul wrote may have been written to churches that did not yet have elders. Paul's church planting system worked because the entire church, not just elders, is responsible for edifying one another, and for resisting false teaching.

Elders resisted false teaching. Scripture does not tell us that Paul and Barnabas were elders in Antioch. Scritpure mentions no elders in Antioch, but they did serve as teachers there. They resisted false teachers who spoke. Paul also wanted elders to do this. But he didn't say to muzzle the gifts in the congregation.

Think about the cultural background of the early church. Many scholars say that church liturgy grew out of the synagogue. God to a Greek Orthodox chruch and look. The parts of a sanctuary correspond to parts of a synagogue which correspond to parts of the temple. After a few centuries of Christianity, churches thought of their clergy as corresponding to the ministers in the temple as well.

But do you know how the first century synagogues operated? Regular people from the assembly could be the ones to read and expound on the Torah. From the New Testament, we see there was even a place for 'disputing' with the speaker, as many did with Paul.

Paul didn't encourage disputing among brethren in church, though he did dispute with false teachers in Antioch. The instructions for meetings of the New Testament meetings seemed to involved even more participation than that of the synagogue. 'For ye may all prophesy' Paul said. Paul did not say to have a closed pulpit.

The Bible does not command to have a synagogue liturgical meeting, but the church meetings developed into something like that, and then so much of congregational activity was given to clergy that it allowed for less ministry for regular participants than even the first century Jewish synagogue!

Jews had a Torah reading schedule for the synagogue, with additional readings from other writings. Early on, the church started reading through letters. Paul told Timothy to give himself to teaching, exhortation, and reading, and instructed that certain of his letters be read in certain churches. We think of scripture reading as a personal activity. THe early Christians thought of it as a public activity. Before the printing press, scriptures were hand copied. One church might have one copy. In medeival Europe, the liturgy continued on in Latin, so the masses did not benefit, but there is some wisdom to reading through the scriptures in meetings.

I've been to meetings where the teaching was done by those of the congregation who which to stand and speak on the scripture passage for that week. It flows well, many are edified, and more than one person gets to 'exercise' his spiritual senses.

Danny, try to free your mind of any preconceptions about church and then answer me this question- where does the Bible say there must be one speaker who gives an uninterprutped sermon every week?

I'm not saying it's wrong to have such a message from time to time, but we should not disobey the commands of scripture for meetings and JUST follow the sermon tradition.

-- Anonymous, August 01, 2000

Returning, if I may, to the subject in the heading, i.e. "Spiritual gifts ...."

Link,

In the verses you quoted, I Cor. 14:2 and 14, the word "unknown" is not in the original Greek. It is something added by translators who thought that it made things clearer and that it was justified since, in verse 2 anyway, Paul seems to be talking about a language not being understood. But adding it emphasises the "unknown" aspect too strongly -- much more than in the original -- and makes people think it must be something not just not understood by those present, but also unknown to anyone but God. But there is NOTHING to require that.

You keep asserting that what Paul says in I Cor. 14 does not fit with the idea of the "tongues" being known languages, but haven't yet showed me any verse that can't be understood just as well as referring to a language that is an actual known earthly language but is just not understood by the particular hearers who happen to be present (and POSSIBLY not even by the speaker himself -- I'm willing to concede that possibility). Have you tried the experiment I suggested? -- of reading the whole chapter out loud, substituting the name of some language that is an actual known earthly language, but just happens to be not understood by the majority of the people in your congregation? TRY IT and THEN come back and tell me which verses don't make sense if interpreted that way. I've tried it, and it ALL seems to make sense to me.

You have talked about how our various backgrounds may affect our pre-suppositions, and our pre-suppositions in turn may affect our understanding of the Bible. That's true, and I think I can see it in things you have said, but don't be so sure it is true of me in this case. For one thing, my background has conditioned me to question pre-suppositions more than to blindly follow them. (More about that some other time.) I also was in the latter part of my high school education and in college (a formative period for most people) at the time of an earlier charismatic revival. Pat Boone (and I had grown up on his book, "Twixt Twelve and Twenty") started "speaking in tongues" and wrote about it, and some missionaries I knew (in the R.M.) started "speaking in tongues" and encouraging it in their work. I listened to and, I think, remained reasonably open to both sides of the debate.

During this time, there was quite a long period when I thought that, regardless of whether or not tongues-speaking is valid for today, I Cor. 14 MUST be discussing something different from the tongues spoken in Acts 2. I have been convinced to the contrary by two things: (a) many years of study and restudy of the passages involved (coming at it with the view that Scripture agrees with Scripture, so our interpretations should not put one passage in conflict with another), and (b) over 25 years of work with bilingual and multi-lingual congregations, and seeing, more and more, and over and over again, how EVERYTHING in I Cor. 14 (with the exception of a person saying something without even understanding himself what he is saying) FITS in these congregations, with people merely speaking natural languages that they have learned by natural means! So why should it not fit with someone being given the power to speak a natural language he has never studied?

You have said something at least twice about a "different word" being used in Acts 2 and I Cor. 14. What word are you referring to, and in which verses? I haven't had time to compare every word in each chapter, but I did some spot checking of key words. Both chapters use the word GLOSSA for "tongue", and the word LALEO for "speak." So what word were you talking about, and what point were you trying to make?

Regarding signs, would you supply references for your contention that signs were intended to keep unbelievers from coming to believe (or whatever it is you are trying to say about this)? John 20:30-31 says that the signs that John recorded were written for the express purpose of causing people to believe. I know there are verses about people seeing signs and yet not believing, but the "and yet" always seems to me to be there or at least implied, i.e. EVEN THOUGH they saw the signs (which SHOULD have led them to believe), they didn't. Therefore, it is implied if not stated, the judgement on them will be even harsher, because EVEN THOUGH they have been given special treatment, which SHOULD create belief, they still refuse to. As far as I can see, the purpose of signs is almost always to lead people to belief by some means or other, and never to make it harder for them to believe.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

Benjamin wrote: "You keep asserting that what Paul says in I Cor. 14 does not fit with the idea of the "tongues" being known languages, but haven't yet showed me any verse that can't be understood just as well as referring to a language that is an actual known earthly language but is just not understood by the particular hearers who happen to be present (and POSSIBLY not even by the speaker himself -- I'm willing to concede that possibility). "

I think you are arguing against a stance I am not making. My main point on this particular issue IS that the tongues, as you say,

"not understood by the particular hearers who happen to be present."

I think you are aruging against a point I am not making. the Corinthians may well have been speaking known human languages. (Though I allow for the possibility that they were speaking the languages of angels.) But in the situations Paul addresses in this chapter, the others present do not understand apart from the gift of interpretation. Whether or not the speaker himself understands does not seem to be, imo, that relevent to the issue of whether or not unbelievers come to believe through seeing others speak in tongues.

My own view on the 'sign' issue developed as I studied the passage, learned more about the concept of signs in other scritpures, and my belief that Paul could not be contradicting himself.

Notice that Paul mentions 'divers tongues.' The tongues of Acts 2 and I corinthians 14 could be operating in different ways without the Bible contradicting itself. Notice in Paul's scenario, the unbeliever who hears all in the meeting speak in tongues, thinks they are mad. In Acts 2, some of the hearers accused the apostles of being drunk. God chose the foolishness of preaching to speak in tongues. there is no evidence that the gospel was preached int eh New Testament by means of speaking in tongues.

I have heard of it happening in India. A missionary named Greenoway who used to visit a church attended told about this happening. Ihave also heard accounts of people hearing tongues they knew in church. I don't recall someone I know personally having this experience. I don't say it is not a possibility. In the particular types of situations Paul addressed, the congregation needs the gift of interpretation to hear the tongues.

As forthe use of different words int eh two passages, I am not sure where I read that. I suppose it is possible that I am in error on this one. If so, I apologize, and for now concede the point. It could be that there is something different about the compound word in I Corinthians 14. I amnot sure. I don't know Greek, btw. I don't think there is a contradiction between the two passages, whether these two are considered to be the same gift of tongues, or just two different types of manifestations of the same gift.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

Danny,

What were you trying to prove by the verses you quoted. The fact that Paul told the elders to watch out for wolves doesn't mean the disciples were not supposed to as well. Jesus commended a church, not just the elders, for having tested false apostles. Galatians and II Corinthians are written to those churches, and give teachings about not receiving false teachers. Also, look at II John for teaching on false teachers.

Elders were to be apt to teach. How would one know if only elders could teach? I potential elder would never get a chance to show his gift. There were teachers who were not elders. Young men can be teachers. Timothy taught and he was apparently younger than the elders he was teaching. Paul taught that 'ye may all prophesy' not just he elders.

As for the holy kiss, maybe we should practice that, and foot washing along with it. The European customs of kissing on the cheek probably grew out of this tradition. It spread across nations. Some think that the holy kiss and 'love feasts' was an excuse pagans used to speak evil of Christians. Contrary to popular belief 'agape' could refer to sexual love, and is even used of Amnon's feelings for Tamar before he violated her in the LXX.

I did write some things about he cultural backdrop. It makes more sense to read the New Testmaent with their cultur in mind than it does to read it through the filter of 20th century church culture. Paul did not have the experience of sitting in modern mymn-sandwich sermon oriented meetings quite like we have today. So we shouldn't read the Bible assumming that is the way things should be.

If the Bible shows more participation from the congregation in the meetings, and this was the cultur of the synagogue, then we shouldn't read these occurances in chruch meetings as just exceptions to the rule. The 'rule' of course would be the type of meetings that are held today whether or not they are based on the scriptures.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

I was trying to think of acounts of people speaking languages in tongues, the speakers themselves did not know.

I remembered on this morning. There ws a preacher I knew for about three years in Jakarta. I met him soon after I moved here, and got to know him. I would sometimes call him on his handphone. I felt kind of like he was a father to me. His name was Eric Pittser was his name. He started Bible colleges here in Indonesia. This large Oklahoma cowboy, as he considered himself to be, was so friendly and down to earth, you wouldn't suspect that he was a PhD. He had a Masters in theology and I think a PhD in Curriculum Development. I think he had an honorary doctorate in theology, but I'm not sure of that. Eric Pittser passed away a few months ago.

Before he came to Indonesia, he had been a missionary to the Navajo Indians. He told me a story of holding a tent crusade on an Indian reservation. I am not sure of the tribe now. If I meet his wife again, I could ask her- maybe after seom more time passes since the death of her husband.

Eric Pittser was speaking, and felt moved to speak in tongues. He spoke loudly in tongues. He had no idea what he said, and continued on withthe meeting. After the meeting, some people wanted to know how he knew their language. He didnt' know their language, so they explained what he had said when he spoke in tongues. He found out what had happened. Some mischevious youths wanted to cut the ropes that kept the tent up. When he spoke in tongues, he rebuked them for what they wanted to do.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

This case seems to fit my three criteria. It was a known language; it was understood by someone present; and it led people to "believe" (if not in the sense of putting faith in Christ, at least to believe that some higher power was at work.

If every case of "speaking in tongues" was like this, I think it would be easier to accept that the gift might still be in operation today. But the cases like this are few and far between and almost impossible to verify. Everyone (in the charismatic "camp", at least) seems to have heard of at least one case, but I have NEVER met anyone who had seen it happen, first hand. It's always "I heard that somebody said that they heard about a case somewhere off in ...." Yours is the "closest" I've come to hearing "first-hand" testimony, and even it isn't! (I'll be anxious to hear what confirmation you get. I'd be especially impressed if you can come up with testimony from someone who witnessed the event itself, rather than just from someone who heard this man's claim that it happened to him.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

I think it is pretty clear from the Corinthian text that the situation Paul was daling with did _not_ fit your criterea. 'No man understandeth him' Paul wrote, and the tongue did not edify the congregation without interpretation. We shouldn't expect that most cases would be like Acts 2, as opposed to I Corinthians 14.

I Corinthians 14 and Acts 2 are different settings. One is a church meeting for the edification of believers. Another was done before unbelievers.

Eric Pittser's experience was similar to the way tongues were used in Acts 2. As far as Eric Pittser's honesty was concrned, I knew this man for years before he passed away, and I knew him to be an honest man.

If I really wanted a testimony of it, it is possible that his wife was with him. (At least when I knew him, though, he would travel without his wife sometimes.) I could ask for a tersimony from her, but I'd feel uncomfortable asking her to rehash stories about her husband so soon after his death. I dont' know her as well as I knew her husband.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2000

Link,

I wasn't casting aspersions on Eric Pittser's honesty, per se. But you've got to admit that your account of what happened was very fuzzy, and you admitted yourself that your memory of what you were told about it was very fuzzy. Are you ABSOLUTELY sure he was telling the story about himself and not a story he had heard about someone else? I have heard people tell what I thought they said were their own experiences, only to ask them some questions sometime later about what happened and find that it wasn't their own personal experiences, but the experience of someone else that they were relating.

Are you absolutely sure that the ones who told him that he had spoken in Navajo (or whatever the language was) and had said what they said he said were actually genuine speakers of the language themselves and speaking from "natural" understanding of the language? That is, they were not people with the "gift of interpretation", giving their interpretation out of that rather than from natural understanding. I attended a Pentecostal meeting at which a person spoke in "tongues". Someone "interpreted" -- except that the "interpretation" could not possibly have been a real interpretation of WHAT WAS SAID. The "tongues" was too repetitive. The speaker could not possibly have said as much as the "interpreter" said he said. (BTW, in my opinion the "tongues-speaker" also violated other teachings in I Cor. 14. He jumped up and started babbling right in the middle of a very good and moving testimony -- in English -- by the proverbial "little old lady." It left a bad taste in my mouth.) Linguists who have seriously studied the phenomenon report much the same thing. When they compare tapes of purported "tongues-speaking" with tapes of the purported "interpretation", they say that there is no way, linguistically, that the one could be a real translation of the other. So what kind of an "interpretation" did Eric Pittser get of what he said? And how do you KNOW that, especially when your memory even of what you have been told, is so fuzzy?

I'm not saying this wasn't or couldn't have been a "genuine" case. Like I said, IF all you have related really is true (and can be verified to be true), it does seem to fit the three criteria I proposed. But the testimony and "documentation" of the case isn't really very much better than that of other cases I have heard about. You may think I am overly skeptical, but the Bible does say to "test every spirit."

I also still think that I Cor. 14 fits my criteria except for the fact that they were using their gift in the wrong context and situation. The point of what Paul is saying is that the gift is intended to be used where there were people who understood -- or at the very least could translate. Since they were not doing that, they were misusing it. It was a gift intended not for believers, but for unbelievers -- AND it was REALLY intended to be used in the presence of unbelievers who could understand (otherwise, if they couldn't, they would think the speaker crazy).

You keep ASSERTING that my interpretation doesn't fit, just because Paul is talking about using the gift among people who don't understand. I agree that this is what he is talking about -- but the point of what he is saying is that they are wrong in doing it this way. I have offered evidence from the text that this is the situation. If you have actual evidence, from the text, to show why my view won't fit, then give it. Don't just keep parrotting that my view doesn't fit "because ..." (of something I agree with and that is part of my reason for taking the position I do. You are still free to disagree and continue to hold the view that you do. But don't keep saying my view is impossible when it fits the text and the situation at least as well as yours does.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

By the way, Link,

I have heard of cases (well documented cases, though I don't have the details and documentation in front of me) where ---

-- (in several cases) people who knew some foreign language went to a Pentecostal meeting and spoke a message in the language they knew. Someone then got up and gave an "interpretation" that bore no resemblance at all to what the speaker had actually said. I'm not sure what you might think of the ethics of someone who would do this, but they felt they were fulfilling the command to "test the spirits." And if the "interpretation" was genuine, it should still have been accurate.

-- (at least one case) after the "tongues-speaker" had given his message, the "interpreter" not only gave an "interpretation" but said, "this was such-and-such a language." It happened that there was someone there (a missionary, I think) who understood that language, and he testified that the "tongues-speaker" did NOT speak in that language. Apparently in some circles it is quite common for the "interpreter" to not only "interpret" but also to tell what language the person supposedly spoke, which is one reason I am skeptical of cases where someone says, "I heard that someone got up and spoke in a language he/she didn't understand, and afterward someone said that it was such-and-such a language."

Even the "real" cases may not always be what they seem. I read about a case some years ago that was supposed to be a real, genuine, verified case of re-incarnation. One reason people thought this case had to be genuine was that the person had recited a poem in a language she had never studied. But when they looked into the situation closely, they discovered that the person (in her "present lifetime") had been cared for by a nurse whose native language was this language. So they surmised that the nurse might have recited the poem to the person when she was very young, and it had somehow stuck in her subconscious until then.

I have heard of a number of cases that were claimed to be genuine "speaking in tongues" because the people recited the "Lord's Prayer" (or parts of it) in Latin. But considering that I heard of these cases some years ago, while the Latin Mass and reciting the "Paternoster" in Latin was the way things were done in the Catholic church until the mid-'60s, it was not unreasonable that they could have heard it somewhere. (I can even recite some phrases from it myself.)

"Test the spirits to see if they be from God."

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2000

Benjamin, can understand your concern about my fuzzy memory of the details concerning that account of what happened to Eric Pittser. I do remember that it was a matter of him having spoken in the language of the people that they understood naturally, not different people with the same interpretation. I don't recall him mentioning anyone interpreting. He may have spoken out without an interpretation, and then continued with the meeting. Since the audience spoke the language he was speaking, it didn't really matter.

I have had two friends, one a friend in middle school, and another my dorm roommate in college, who have had the experiences of hearing message in tongues in languages they did not understand naturally, receiving an interpretation that they could have spoken out, not speaking it out, and hearing someone else in the congregation give the same interpretation.

I heard another account of this from a well-known pastor who has a radio programmed named Jack Heyford. He ministers in 'Church on the Way' in the Orange Valley are in California. Jack Heyford is very level-headed educated type of Pentecostal minister. He's not one of the preachers from the south that huffs and puffs when he preaches, and gets really emotional. (I'm from the south so no offense to anyone. You probably get an idea of the type of preacher I'm talking about.) Heyford related an account of being on an airplane and speaking to an atheist intellectual on an airplane. During their conversation, Heyford asked a question about the man's accent or origin, and the man was a little oversensitive, then catching himself explained that he was a Kaiwan (sp?) Indian and that growing up and going to school, he had been a bit sensitive about his background. As they were talking, Heyford explained what his job was. As they talked, Heyford offered to mail the man some books- apologetic type materials written by C.S Lewis, (and maybe a Bible, I'm fuzzy on the details again.) The man politely refused the offer. Later, Heyford felt that the Lord was wanting him to speak in tongues for this man.

Well, Heyford was very reluctant to do this. He told the man next to him that he was able to say some words that he thought might be Kaiwan-- but he didn't know what the words meant. The man told him to go ahead. Heyford started speaking in tongues like he spoke when he spoke in tongues normally, but as he spoke, he began to speak a language unfamiliar to him. The man said he recognized the language.

He said it was from an older dialect that his language had come from, and that it had something to do with light coming down from above. Heyford explained a little about speaking in tongues, and suggested to the man that God might have allowed this event to happen to show the man that Light had indeed come down from above in the Person of Jesus Christ. The man told Heyford that he had changed his mind, and would like to receive the books if Heyford wanted to send them.

This story might be recorded in Heyford's book on tongues. I've never read it. I think he wrote a book called _The Beauty of Spiritual Language._ If you wanted to track this story down, I don't know how far you could get. You could probably get to Heyford, but I don't know if he would give out this guy's address, if he kept it after all of these years.

Usually, when a message in tongues is given out, others in the congregation do not know naturally what is being said. That seems to have been the type of manifestation of the gift of tongues Paul described as well.

I studied linguistics in college, so naturally I was interested when I read about studies on speaking in tongues when I heard about them. I looked up a study or two on the subject, and read bits and pieces.

I've heard many repetitive messages in tongues that didn't sound like languages at all. Or what sounded like the same message repeated week after week with a different interpretation each time. I don't believe that everyone who thinks they are speaking in tongues necessarily are. Many 'tongues' just don't sound like languages. They are repetitions of syllables. On the other hand, it is possible that some of these are short phrases in tongues. I read on the Internet about some English speaking Christians who ran across a little girl who didn't not know English who kept repeating 'I love you Jesus' in tongues. It is theoretically possible that someone could be speaking 'tongues of angels.' I suppose it's conceivable that angels distinguish between words by something other than phonemes or pitch like human languages. So if a particular utterance in tongues doesn't really follow rules for human language, that is not 100% conclusive proof that it is false.

There are many Pentecostals who believe that tongues are natural human languages. Since the Charismatic movement, there have been some Charismatics who think that tongues are just 'ecstatic utterances' and not necessarily human languages. Certain influential preachers have taught people to pray to be filled with the Spirit and to 'speak in tongues' by saying whatever 'bubbles up out of their belly.' They add to this a teaching that tongues may begin as 'baby talk.' In addition to this, some teaching put such an undue stress on the importance of speaking in tongues that there are many people who don't have the gift who want it because they associate it as proof of having an experience of being filled with the Spirit. Add some flaky teaching too desperate people and you end up with some people who just go 'badaba badaba badaba' 'lalalalala' or 'shandai shandai shandai.'

I'm not about to say that every manifestation of speaking tongues in the Pentecostal or Charismatic movements in genuine. But the Bible does teach that speaking in tongues is a gift of the Spirit. And there is the genuine article. I haven't had direct experiences understanding speaking in tongues as a natural spoken language. Now that I know a language that is a bit exotic, it is more likely that this could happen to me. I have heard some utterances in tongues, that to my ears, sound like foreign languages rather than just repetitions of the phonemes from one's own language. I heard one in a country church in Georgia one time.

Do you think that the tongues of I Corinthians 14 could be understood by the speakers? What about the Acts 2 tongues?

If tongues is a sign for unbelievers to make them repent, why is the OT verse Paul connects with the idea of tongues being a sign, about hearing God speaking through men of other tongues and other lips, and yet not hearing.

The scenario Paul describes of the unbeliever, or unlearned, coming in and hearing all speak in tongues and thinking they were mad fits with the message of the verse he quotes.

Is there any shred of evidence in the chapter relating to the idea of tongues being spoken to unbelievers in a language they could hear, as a tool for evangelism. If the Corinthian readers were unfamiliar with the Acts 2 occurrence, I don't see how that idea would come into their minds after reading Paul's letter. I'm not saying God couldn't use tongues as he did in Acts 2. I just don't see any reference to that use for tongues in I Corinthians 14

As far as the purposes for tongues, Paul mentions the benefits of tongues for edifying the speaker. Without interpretation, Paul tells the speaker in tongues to keep quiet in the assembly and to speak to himself and to God. He refers to praying in tongues as 'Praying with the Spirit.' There are other references to praying in the Spirit in the scriptures as well. He does not say go out into the street and speak in tongues to unbelievers. Also, Paul teaches that with interpretation, tongues edifies the church.

What did the Corinthians need to know and do to use tongues properly? They had to remember that tongues in the meeting had to be interpreted. Messages that were understood were edifying to others, whereas uninterpreted messages in tongues were not edifying to the congregation as a whole. They did not have to be for private use, in which case speaking these 'mysteries' with ones spirit was edifying to oneself. They also had to realize the effect that speaking in tongues could have on unbelievers and the unlearned. They might say 'ye are mad.' Even though God was speaking through men of other tongues and other lips, they would not hear Him.

>AND it was REALLY intended to be used in the presence of unbelievers who could understand (otherwise, if they couldn't, they would think the speaker crazy).<

Where is there reference to an unbeliever who understands in the letter. The Isaiah passage shows God speaking through men of other tongues and other lips, and the people not hearing Him.

> I have offered evidence from the text that this is the situation. If you have actual evidence, from the text, to show why my view won't fit, then give it. <

Could you please clarify the evidence from the text of Paul referring to unbelievers who actually understand?

-- Anonymous, August 05, 2000

The reason I recognized some of these things as prophecies was because I began to hear the Lord speaking through people as they were talking sometimes. I didn't get this all the time. Just sometimes. Once, it seemed like the Lord was speaking through my wife as she told me three important points she wanted to make. When she got done telling me these points, she said the Lord had told her that during her prayer time, which was a confirmation to me.

I believe god speaks through people through prophecy in many different styles. Sometimes, he talks through people who use religious cliches and 'Thus satin the Lord.' Sometimes, He talks through people who give prophecies but talk in a normal tone of voice, naturally, and are more down to earth about all of it. Sometimes, He talks through people during their conversations. Someone may feel moved of the Lord to say something. At other times, the Lord can speak through someone without the person speaking realizing that he is prophesying. God can even give a prophecy to a cessationist pastor when he is speaking in church sometimes.

Once when I was single, I was talking to a Christian friend of mine who was a woman. She believed the Lord had shown her some things about her future husband, and she was just supposed to wait. She was concerned about some things about herself that she considered to be weaknesses, and wondered if her husband would like those things. I felt moved to tell her that her husband would be very happy with her. I spoke those words, and she picked up on it. She asked me, as I had asked her before, if that was just be talking. Apparently, she sensed words of comfort from the Lord.

I've seen a lot of people pray for other people and pray for things they didn't know about naturally. I even started doing that for a while when I went to churches where they prayed with each other a lot after the meeting. Later, I sensed being moved to pray these things. This type of prayer was very encouraging. Edifying one another was so much more spiritually fulfilling than just going to church just to be edified.

After having some of these experiences, I was able to understand what some of the people on the house church list I was on were getting at when they talked about the Lord leading them in what they said in the meetings.

It is important that we learn, in our church meetings, to speak what the Lord wants us to say. Paul wrote of church meetings 'for ye may all prophesy one by one...'

-- Anonymous, August 05, 2000

There are two threads running simultaneously which both deal with the showing of emotions in our worship, and with "spiritual gifts". I'm not sure where the following "fits" best. I'm posting it here because this thread is not yet quite as long as the other one.

Yesterday morning, in my personal devotion time, two things that I had been thinking about separately came together in my mind, with an insight that may be pertinent to this thread. (Link, would you call that a "prophecy"? I think the Holy Spirit may have led me -- particularly if others here do find it helpful -- but I would hesitate to call it "prophecy" as such. A lot of what you call "prophecy" I would call by other names.)

Something reminded me, first, of Elijah's experiences on Mount Horeb. He was told to stand on the mountain, because the Lord was about to pass by. This was followed by a great wind, an earthquake, and a fire. But the Lord was not in the wind, the earthquake, or the fire. Instead the Lord spoke to him with a "still, small voice" (NIV: "a gentle whisper"). Then, while I was thinking about that, I was reminded of all that had been said on these two threads about "emotion" in our churches -- talk about whether the miraculous and sensational "gifts of the Spirit" are still valid for today or not, plus (often linked together with) accusations that churches that don't have some visible display of emotion must be dying.

God sometimes does speak in and through the wind, the earthquake, and the fire; but he also speaks through the gentle whisper. The trouble is that we human beings tend to expect and look for God in the earthquake, wind, and fire, and "tune out" the small whisper.

This leads me to a couple of observations or perhaps questions.

1) Could it be that those in these threads who have been putting stress on people showing obvious emotion in church meetings, and especially those who are stressing the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, are looking for God in the earthquake, wind, and fire, and forgetting about the "still, small voice"?

2) As I have observed a couple of times previously (though I forget in which threads), both Bible history and church history show periods when the miraculous gifts are common, and "quiet" times when genuine miracles and prophecies are rare or non-existent. Perhaps we could compare the times when the sensational gifts are displayed with those rare periods when God does speak in the wind, earthquake, and fire, and those times -- generally longer and more common -- when genuine gifts are hard or impossible to find, with God's normal way of speaking through the quiet whisper. So couldn't this be one of the "quiet whisper" times? Why does it have to be one of the "noisy" times?

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

Benjamin,

I believe you are right that a lot of people look for excitement. I believe God can work through very calm services, and that gifts of the Spirit can work in this kind of atmosphere. Because soem of the churches that emphasize gifts also tend to have jubulant music, some people in these churches tend to associate gifts of the Spirit with a certain style of worship.

I noticed more of the gift of prophecy in some groups that are not as into hype as some of the louder churches that believe in gifts.

As for what I personally, consider prophecy, I ebleive prophesying generally involves speaking as moved by the Spirit. Of course some eople prophesied on musical isntruments, so not all prophecy is speech per se. Prophets also did sign acts and such as a part of the messages they were given, like wearing yokes and burying belts and such.

If someone gets a revelation while praying, so that he can understand more, that might be a word of knowledge or wisdom. I don't think these things are always easy to label.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

Hello, Benjamin,

I repost from above:

Perhaps we could compare the times when the sensational gifts are displayed with those rare periods when God does speak in the wind, earthquake, and fire, and those times -- generally longer and more common -- when genuine gifts are hard or impossible to find, with God's normal way of speaking through the quiet whisper. So couldn't this be one of the "quiet whisper" times? Why does it have to be one of the "noisy" times?

-- Benjamin Rees (rees@hkstandard.com), August 08, 2000.

I agree, also, with something earlier in your post concerning the 'still, small voice of God' and another verse came to mind: "Be still and know that I am God", and the admonition to go into our closets to pray so that we don't do it to be seen of men.

I have mentioned the time when the women at my son's and daughter-in- law's church prayed for me in tongues when I was undergoing some sadness. It was anything BUT emotional (except to me ~ it made me feel joyful and at peace); it was quiet but powerful. As I said, there was an interpreter, but I couldn't hear her, because I am slightly deaf. It was a lyrical, breathy sound, one I have not heard before that time nor since.

In re-posting what you said, Benjamin, who is to determine whether it is legitimately from God or not? Whose word do we believe? I am convinced that it was not a 'known tongue' such as at Pentecost, but a language for God's ears only, which required an interpreter. The tongues at Pentecost did not; eveyone understood in his/her own language. I believe THOSE miraculous 'tongues' are no longer operative, but the spiritual language I experienced at my son's church during a shower for my daughter-in-law IS. But who can say? Cannot the person who experiences it say, and can we not believe that person if he/she is a believer?

We have a very orderly service (and actually my son's church also does) so I don't understand the position of some who say it is overly emotional and not for our time, when there are many proofs that it IS for our time ~ the personal testimonies of people experiencing it.

I think many of the people fearing it have not seen it in operation. I, myself, would not like a loud, overly emotional exhibition, and would have to evaluate such if I witnessed it, to determine whether it was from God or satan.

By the way, there are people in our church who hold your position. I don't look down on others who happen to believe a little differently than I do, if they believe that Jesus died for their sins with His shed blood. We are not a church who makes people conform to our image, if we have the basic faith in Jesus.

'If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things I write to you are the Lord's commandment'.

'But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized'.

'Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy and do not forbid to speak in tongues'.

'But let everything be done decently and in order'.

I Corinthians 14:37-39 NASB

By the way, Benjamin, my son Paul was here and sat with me for a morning, but since he is not dogmatic, didn't say what 'that perfect' might be. Of course, Bible scholars throughout history have been trying to determine that. I have a feeling we will not know for sure until we ask Christ.

Your mentioning 'wind, fire', etc. reminds me of something he said about the fact that the writers of the N.T., being Jewish and thinking from a Hebrew or Aramaic language standpoint, used the references of 'water, wind, and fire' to enable their readers (and us, when reading the translated accounts) to understand what they were saying. We do not understand their references completely because we do not know Hebrew and Aramaic thought.

I was very thankful for hearing what he said, but he didn't type it into my computer, so I can't forward what he said.

Respectfully,

Connie

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

Link

Many of the questions you are presenting I looked at about 30 years ago.Our preacher at the time was caught up in this.I will not try to convince you of anything with the following.I consider Benjamin to be much more capable than I and I do agree with his views on gifts and the Lords Supper.

The Lords supper

Who. As at the passover, those that were protected by the blood ate of the sacrifice. The death angel passed on by. Today. Christians are protected by the blood.Therefore christians are to remember the sacrifice.

What.A remembrance of Christ.Unleavened bread, as passover, blood of the grape.

Where. Anywhere. No restrictions that I find.

When. OT priest ate the Shewbread every 7th day. Since the scriptures say I am now a priest, because of the new covenant, the Lords day and now the blood of Christ I am comfortable with unleavened bread and grape juice each Sunday.( Over simplified).

Why. Proclaiming his death until he comes. As in Shewbread,proclaiming Gods presence with us. Remembering Christ.

How.First examine ourselves. 1 cup or many. Break bread from a loaf or use the small prepared pieces.With a meal or loaf and cup only.Your choice.I think the Lord is looking at attitudes and relationships not quantity of intake. To eat unworthy does not have to do with amount eaten as eating in a worthy manner also does not. When speaking in churches that do not have communion each Lords day my wife and I do this togeather at home. Just the 2 of us and not at meal time. We prefer to set aside a time just for this purpose.

I would not say my way is the only way but I do feel it is proper in the sight of God.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

Connie,

I think you didn't quite get my full meaning. I was referring not just to the noise level alone, nor even to the expression of strong emotions alone, but also to those who believe that God is somehow more "present" or "there" when there is some kind of manifestation of tongues or other miraculous happenings than when "nothing happens."

If you felt the peace of God, or felt closer to God, when a woman in your son's church prayed for you in "tongues", I'm glad. But my point is that you ought to have been able to sense God's presence just as clearly (and anyway would have been just as close to God, whether you "felt" it or not) when someone prayed for you in English.

In fact, I'm inclined to believe that in most cases it would actually be "better for you" to have someone pray for you in a language you understand. As Paul says in I Cor. 14:13ff -- "For this reason the man who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind. If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say 'Amen' to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified."

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2000

Hello, Benjamin,

I've had a houseful of company and they needed to access THEIR e- mail, so I've been doing 'real-life' things, like cleaning, cooking, doing dishes, and getting caught up on news, (the fun things) and just deleting a bunch of junk mail, without time to respond to anything.

I would just like to give you MY personal testimony about what happened at my son's church. It was from God; it was a language I have never heard, it was done 'decently and in order', and I will always be thankful for it. It couldn't have been better in ANY language. It fits the 'tongues' description which says 'it is for God's ears only' requiring an interpreter, not the ones at Pentecost where everyone heard in his/her own tongue. If it were the same kind of tongues, no one would need an interpreter ~ they'd all understand in their own language! There are TWO DIFFERENT kinds of tongues described here. It's unmistakable.

I think you have the extra burden of your training to have to shoulder, and I know you will eventually be intellectually honest in your attempt to reconcile what the Scriptures say and what you've been taught.

Just as there are different gifts, and you have the gift of teaching, others have the gift of tongues. It hasn't ended yet. Paul said he was glad that he spoke more in tongues than any of the ones to whom he was speaking. At the end of that passage, he said TO NOT FORBID the speaking in tongues. Nothing indicates that direction has ended.

Since this was written in 57 or 58 A.D., it seems to me that he'd have made it much more emphatic when the 'gifts' might come to an end than the simple 'the perfect' would indicate. (Of course, I believe 'the Perfect' to be Christ). Nothing in that I Corinthians 13 passage or any place else that I've seen indicates that those things he was addressing would end soon.

You indicated in one of your posts (I think it's on this thread) that there have been times in history when the gifts, including tongues, WERE manifest, but you don't seem to want to concede that people who give that testimony today know what they are talking about.

I find that unusual.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2000

The fact that speaking in otngues, or something similar occurs among pagans in no way diminishes the genuiness of the manifestation of tongues that hte apostles expeirenced onteh day of Pentecost, or the manifestationsthat believers currently experience from the Holy Spirit.

there have been pagan prophets, but also true prophets. Pgan religions also have teachers.

-- Anonymous, August 12, 2000

Yes, Danny, that is why we need to 'test the spirits, whether they be of God'.

I indicated in my first telling of the experience at my son's church , that I participated with an attitude of trepidation, but reminding myself that 'if they are not against us, they are for us'.

It was a beautiful, enriching, Godly, not satanic manifestation, and I was helped by it, not hurt.

The main things that I should think would be unique to Christianity would be love, forbearance, affection for the brethren, mercy, grace, and peace. And also an acceptance of prophecy and speaking in tongues.

And I wonder if you have started lifting holy hands in praise and greeting one another with a holy kiss, as instructed to by Paul?

'Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where they are silent, we are silent'. That's an excellent rule.

Respectfully (honest! ~ ;-) )

-- Anonymous, August 12, 2000

Those are unholy kisses.

-- Anonymous, August 13, 2000

Connie,

To really give a proper answer to your last posting to me, I don't think it would be enough to address "bits and pieces" -- assorted fragments -- of the information like I have been doing with Link. I need to give a fuller explanation of just how I see the TOTAL picture and the "weight" of the evidence on both sides. I don't have time to do that right now, but hope I can soon.

In the meantime, I seem to recall that some weeks or months ago -- I think it was while we were debating the meaning of baptism -- someone offered to send you a copy of the commentary on the book of Acts by Gareth Reese. (No, he's not related to me. He also spells his last name differently.) Did that ever happen? It includes a special study on "The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit", and another special study on "Speaking in Tongues." If you have it, I'd suggest reading those. I think he may assume more than he can actually prove with regard to one or two aspects of the work of the Holy Spirit, but I think he is right on target (and proves it well) with most, probably all, that he says about speaking in tongues.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Hello, Benjamin,

Yes, Faris sent me a copy of that book and i started reading it.

I have been trying to read too many books, considering the schedule I've been pursuing, and after discovering a few questionable statements, I did put it down.

I happened to mark one, and while it may be just an error such as anyone can make and it might not be the author's error), I post this from page xxi of the opening 'New Tetsament Chronology':

"SUMMARY OF THE DATES OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE

1. The Church [Connie's question: Is this 'the body of Christ' ~ or a human organization?] was begun in 30 A.D., the same year Jesus died.

2. Paul's conversion - - 34 A.D. [Connie's question: Does he mean Paul's ministry began? ~ after going into the wilderness for three years].

... then it continues to number 14 historical events.

Paul was converted on the Road to Damascus when Christ appeared to him before the Ascension; this was the same year Christ died.

I think the scholarship is O.K., but I've seen better. I read half to 2/3 of the book, but I will look up the portions you mention.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Connie,

I'm glad you have the book and are reading it. My question for you: are you reading it with an open mind, or only to try to find flaws? No book is perfect, but it is one of the most thorough treatments of the book of Acts that I have seen.

Regarding your comments and questions on the chronology, as listed by the author --

"1. The Church [Connie's question: Is this 'the body of Christ' ~ or a human organization?] was begun in 30 A.D., the same year Jesus died."

I'm not quite sure what you mean by your question. I think the church could be said to be BOTH the body of Christ and a human organisation -- divinely ordained and headed, but made up of human beings and with earthly leaders as well as heavenly. But that's only ONE church, with one beginning date. If you are trying to contrast the two (the body of Christ and the human "organisation" being separate entities), then I have no idea what you mean. Do you think there is some problem with that date? I believe that is the date that is most widely accepted by scholars in general, and Bro. Reese gives thorough documentation for all the dates he gives.

"2. Paul's conversion - - 34 A.D. [Connie's question: Does he mean Paul's ministry began? ~ after going into the wilderness for three years]."

Actually, what Bro. Reese says is that Paul's main ministry began in A.D. 37!! after his return from 3 years in Arabia. He documents the A.D. 37 date pretty thoroughly (from the reign of King Aretas), and arrives at the A.D. 34 date mainly by counting backward from that.

"Paul was converted on the Road to Damascus when Christ appeared to him before the Ascension; this was the same year Christ died."

As much as it would add additional support to my point of view in the debate with Link about apostles if Paul, like The Twelve (and ALL the apostles but Paul, in my opinion) had seen the risen Christ before His ascension, you are the first person I have ever heard suggest this. Check any chronology you like -- any commentary, any study Bible, any reference materials at all. I would be very interested to know if you find ANY AT ALL that place Christ's appearance to Paul before the ascension.

Even the Bible alone shows that that is impossible. The church did not begin until the day of Pentecost -- ten days AFTER the ascension, which occured 40 days after the resurrection. Paul began to persecute the (already existing) church AFTER the death of Stephen, who was one of "The Seven" who were chosen to handle the distribution of aid AFTER the church got so big that it was difficult to make sure that everyone was treated fairly without having some group to "specialise" in handling this need. Most scholars think it took at least a couple of years to reach this point.

I don't mean this to sound patronising, but perhaps you haven't caught up on your sleep yet.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Keep in mind that Christ might not have been crucified at exactly 33 AD either. Our calendar could be off by a number of years. I once read tha tHerd died in 4 BC. (The Herod of the story of Jesus' birth, not his son with the same name.)

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Benjamin:

Touche'.

I have the feeling you may doubt this, but I DID pause before I wrote that, with the intention of looking it up to make sure before I typed it in. That's what I get for not making sure.

Keep in mind that I am not trained as you are, except to just read the Scriptures myself. And, actually, there were too many years when I neglected even that. But I've had no Bible school training, which I suppose is obvious. I am actually thankful for that, because I don't want to have my mind be imbedded in concrete, if the Lord wants me to change it.

I DON'T have the chronology firmly in mind but will study it at some future time, with hope not too far in the future. I see others do not have it firmly in mind either, with estimates I've read being from 22 A.D. to 37 A.D. (For the death of Christ).

What you're saying, if I have this correct, is that Christ appeared to Paul AFTER His Ascension. Do people who estimate this gather it from the surrounding historical facts or from the Scriptures? I don't recall its actually being stated. But I could be wrong. (I just proved it!)

The first question in that post came because I am discussing on another forum, 'the church', and this is concerning the RCC, and of course, they think it is theirs. (That is a disease going around).

I must say that I do disagree with so much of what Reese says, that it is tough sledding to continue reading something with which one completely disgrees.

Even he, though, on eschatology, wonders about certain prophecies that he can't fit in with his belief in amillennialism.

I should point out that my husband is reading that book, so I won't be able to study it until he finishes.

Please forgive me if I seemed flippant and seemingly criticized one of your beloved teachers.

And thank you for the correction.

Respectfully,

Connie

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Connie,

I can't say you "criticized one of [my] beloved teachers", since I'm not sure if I've ever met the man. My main acquaintance with him is through his book, which just happens to be one of the most thorough commentaries on Acts that I am familiar with (and I have taught the Book of Acts quite a few times in both churches and a Bible college, so have consulted a number).

I am surprised that you find so much to disagree with, considering that I have found little, if anything, in his book that is in conflict with any other commentaries, study Bibles, lesson materials, etc. that I have consulted -- apart from his conclusions on the work of the Holy Spirit and on speaking in tongues, on which Pentecostals/Charismatics will of course differ with him. But he doesn't just "assume" his conclusions on these issues. He goes quite thoroughly into the evidence on both sides.

Link,

As for the chronology, he doesn't just "assume" any of the dates he gives. Before he gets to the chronology of the church, he starts with the chronology of the gospels. Regarding the date of Christ's birth, he gives nearly 4 pages of evidence before giving his conclusion, that Christ was born "around 5 or 6 B.C." More than 4 more pages of evidence follow before he gives the conclusion that the most likely date for Jesus' baptism is A.D. 26. Nearly 2 more pages lead to the conclusion that the most likely date for Christ's crucifixion was A.D. 30. He spends 11 pages giving evidence from secular sources regarding the dates of people and events that are mentioned in both Acts and these secular sources, before he finally gives the "Summary of the dates of the apostolic age" which Connie quoted from.

Like I said, he's thorough.

Back to Connie,

You said, "What you're saying, if I have this correct, is that Christ appeared to Paul AFTER His Ascension. Do people who estimate this gather it from the surrounding historical facts or from the Scriptures? I don't recall its actually being stated."

As I said in my earlier posting, it would be IMPOSSIBLE, according to the Biblical data alone, for Christ's appearance to Paul on the road to Damascus to have occured before the Ascension. Go to the Bible itself! Read the first 9 chapters in order -- up to the conversion of Saul/Paul in chapter 9 -- and see what the Bible says about it!

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

Benjamin,

I was just trying to clear up for readers who might be confused at a date other than 33 for the crucifiction.

Connie,

Stephen was appointed as one of the Seven to feed the widows of the church in Jerusalem some time after Jesus ascended and the Holy ghost descended at Pentecost. The passage which tells about him dying as a martyr tells about Saul (also called Paul) guarding the coats of them who stoned Stephen. Later, paul goes out persecuting the church, and then Christ appears to Him. He is struck blind, then baptized by a man the Lord told to go baptize him. It's all inthe book of Acts.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

Benjamin:

I re-post from above:

You said, "What you're saying, if I have this correct, is that Christ appeared to Paul AFTER His Ascension. Do people who estimate this gather it from the surrounding historical facts or from the Scriptures? I don't recall its actually being stated."

You re-posted this, also. I was not being 'fresh' with this question. I was sincerely wanting to know.

Anything you want to teach me about it I will accept with respect. I may not agree on everything, however.

Link:

Thank you for the additional information.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

Connie,

Sorry if I seemed "snappish" in my last posting. I was just in a hurry.

Simple answer to your question -- people get it from the order of events (with some only possible after others had taken place first) AS GIVEN IN THE BIBLE ITSELF. As I said last time, re-read the first 9 chapters of Acts yourself and see what conclusions you come to yourself about when Paul saw the risen Christ in relation to the Ascension, beginning of the church on Pentecost, etc.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

Benjamin,

No offense taken.

I am probably exasperating to you. I am re-reading Acts. I have too many projects going simultaneously, many unfinished. No excuse, I know.

Much of both the Old and New Testaments are a jumble in my mind when it comes to sequencing different events. My mother loved history, and my daughter teaches it, but remembering dates has never been my forte'. I'll try to do better.

When we became believers, I read the New Testament as though every word was intended for me, but realize now that perhaps not all was.

Connie

P.S.

We had a baptism today and one girl was crying throughout the whole time she was telling of her conversion. I was so touched, because I felt the exact same way at mine.

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2000