This is in response to AKelley......but I'll share it with others as well.

The key to understanding the purpose of speaking in tongues is found in 1 Cor. 14:28. In that passage Paul quotes Isaiah 28:11,12: "In the Law it is written: Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me."

Isaiah is speaking a prophecy of judgement to national Israel because of their continuing stubborness and rejection of God. They claimed that they alone were the children of God. But Isaiah points out that a sign of judgement will be that foreigners (i.e., Gentiles) will actually speak the Word of God, something the Jews simply could not accept.

We understand, then, why Paul states what he does in the following verse, 1 Cor. 14:22: "Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers."

Did you catch that?? Pauls states that tongues were designed for the unbeliever.....not Christians!! How can you miss that??

And specifically in light of the passage he quotes from Isaiah....unbelieving Jews.

Does this play out in the Bible? Most definitely.

Who was present on the day of Pentecost?? Lots and lots of unbelieving Jews. In fact, Peter quotes the language of judgment in the book of Joel to describe the day (i.e., moon to blood, sun to darkness, etc.).

Were their unbeliving Jews at the conversion of Cornelius? Most definitely...it was Peter himself who was having a hard time accepting the Gentiles.

Were their unbeliving Jews present when Paul discovered the followers of John in Acts 19?? Most definitely. In fact, vs. 8 says that immediately after the event, where did Paul go?? The synagogue.

By the way, this all plays out in what Jesus said about the Kingdom being taken from the Jews and given over to the Gentiles (Matt. 21). Previous to Acts 10 the church was predominantly Jewish. After Acts 10, the church become predominantly Gentile.

This trend continued until God's final judgment upon national Israel in 70 A.D.

Another point of evidence for this purpose.......don't you find it interesting that outside the book of Acts which records the early history of the church....with the exception of 1 Corinthians, one of the earliest N.T. books.....no other N.T. epistle discusses tongues??

It makes sense to me. Since the church become predominantly Gentile....there was no reason. Let's face it.....the predominance of N.T. books were written to Gentile churches. According to Isaiah and Paul....there would be no need for tongues.

Don't you find it unusual that if tongues were as important as people say that more of the N.T. would not be devoted to it??

Don't you find it unusual that if tongues were as important as people say today, that when Paul lists the gifts....he always list tongues last??

Don't you find it unusual that Paul never even mentions tongues in his second epistle to the Corinthians??

I dont' find it unusual....especially when you understand the purpose of tongues as given by Isaiah and the apostle Paul.

Tongues....a sign of judgment upon national Israel for their continuing stubborness and disbelief. As the church became predominantly Israel.....there became no need for the gift anymore. It served its purpose of judgment.

Thus as Paul states in I Cor....."if there are tongues...they will cease." (Greek word indicates...not replaced.)

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2000

Answers

I'm sorry....Paul quoting Isaiah is in I Cor. 14:21.....not 14:28 as stated earlier.

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2000

AKelley.....

In response to something you said about my interpretation being based on three assumptions you pointed out.....

The problem is......that is simply not true. My interpretation is based upon Isaiah and Paul's declaration of what tongues were fore...i.e., a sign of judgment.

The canon issue is never mentioned, the "laying on of hands" issue was the furthest thing from my mind, and I never even mentioned the word "telion.".

In order for something to be an assumption, you have to start from that premise. I clearly did not. As I said, I started, and based my interpretation on Isaiah and Paul.

Now if you disagree with that, then both the Apostle Paul and myself would appreciate the proper understanding of the Isaiah text.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

Go ahead....avoid the question.

Obviously you know better than Isaiah and Paul.

And by the way your "charismatic" elitism shines through quite well.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

Ohhhhh.....AKelly.....conservative scholarship is on your side?? Since when??

You'll have to do better than Knofel Staton.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

And.....by the way....quit creating "the perfect" strawman.

Listen to me one more time......I NEVER USED THAT ARGUMENT IN MY DISCuSSION AND NEITHER DID SCOTT SHERIDAN.

Isaiah and Paul....Isaiah and Paul.....Isaiah and Paul. That's the argument.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

Thank you Cynthia for your kind words.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

Scott,

How were tongues......"an evangelistic tool??"

Far as I can tell....tongues had no evangelistic purpose at all. You know that there was no language barrier in the ancient world.

See Connie.....I pick on other people....even friends!:)

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2000

I understand your position PERFECTLY!!

It's not like it's only been around since you were born.

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2000

Scott.....

First....thanks for clarifying that "evangelistic" aspect of tongues. I concur.

Second.....that note about "understanding your position PERFECTLY".....was directed to A.Kelly....not you.

My bad!!! Besides....I've never understood anything you did!!:):)

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2000

Link....

Not only do you ignore my presented facts....you ignore everything Scott Sheridan has said on the passage.

In fact, your recent post is one of the most shining examples of "yes...but" hermeneutics I have read recently.

I've said all I'm going to say on the subject. Perhaps Scott Sheridan will take over the discussion with you.

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2000

Brother Danny:

I do not have much time but I want to express a hearty AMEN AND AMEN to you for your post. I will come back later when I have more time with more to say about the subject but I wanted to take the time to say amen!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2000

Danny the major problem with your posting is that it is based on an assumption 1) that the perfect is the completion of the canon and 2) that tongues ceased and 3) that is it solely for the unbeliever.

Danny you ignore that passages that I pointed out in another thread I Cor. 14:28 "If there is no interpretoer, the speaker should keep quite in the church and speak to himself and God." If it is only for unbelievers then a believer who has the gift is to speak to himself and God- Paul contridicts himself in your line of reasoning.

I Cor 14:30 "Do not forbid speaking in tongues" if they are going to pass away then why does Paul just tell them that at this point- instead he is encouraging them to continue with the gift.

I Cor 14:14 "For if I pray in a tongue my spirit prays..." There is obviously a another purpose of tongue other than an audible language previously unlearned.

I Cor. 13:10 For when the perfection comes..." the argument for teleios is weak. There is not a legitimate bit of evidence that in the Greek the perfection is implied as the NT or the canon.

I Cor 1:7 Paul says, "Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed." Does Paul indicate that the gifts continue until Christ comes, which I feel is the perfection. Plus nowhere doeds Paul separate the gifts into a "supernatural" category. All the gifts are lumped together as the same as with hospitality and service.

It stands to reason that the gifts ( namely tongues) can and does exist today, for the argument that they where only given through the apostles is indeed weak and pure assumption. If this is so then why does James 5:14-15 tell the elders to pray for the sick and they will recover through prayer offered in faith? Thus we see the gift of healing.

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2000

I have been intentionally not participating on the forum because I find it very addictive and my time is most precious right now. But, I cannot let this go by without response.

Danny, right on!

AKelley, it is amazing to me that so many people come to the very opposite meaning of what Paul was saying in I Cor 14. Below is something I wrote a couple of years ago and paste it hoping it isn't too badly formatted when I post it.

BTW, the teleion argument is not weak simply because you say it is. I believe it to be a very strong argument.

Also, the "hands of the APostles" argument is extremely strong, unless your are one of those types that I speak to so often that likes to say, "I know what it says but that's not what it means." As someone I knew used to say (about other things such as baptism), "You need professional help to miss that one - too bad there are so many professionals."

Here is the stuff I'm pasting concerning I Cor 14:

They (the Church at Corinth)had been prideful over unimportant things. Paul admonishes them to desire the better gifts. It seems the gift of tongues was pretty common and many of them had this gift, but Paul is about to begin letting them know that tongues did not make them all that special and they had nothing to boast about.

{2} For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

This is not what tongues were for, this is how they were using the gift. In other words, they were speaking in tongues but no one was interpreting and it was a mystery. The only one who knew what was being said was God Himself. This was wrong as will be pointed out later.

{3} But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. {4} One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. {5} Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.

All gifts were to edify the Church. They were trying to use the gift of tongues selfishly, for their own glory.

{6} But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching?

Their gift of tongues was of no profit because no one was understanding, so Paul uses the analogies of vv. 7 & 8.

{7} Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp? {8} For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? {9} So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air.

If no one interprets tongues, no one knows what's being said, which is the same as speaking to the air. Once again, he is not telling them what to do, he is scolding them for what they were already doing.

{10} There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning. {11} If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me. {12} So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church.

The word "glossa" means "tongue" or "language." The word that has been translated as tongues throughout this passage is the same word translated as languages in v. 10. Tongues, his point is, were to be translated and for edification. THAT is what they should be seeking for. Not their own pride.

{13} Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. {14} For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

They were "showing off" their gift of tongues by using it to pray with. Again, he is not telling them what to do, he is scolding them for what they were already doing. If you would pray in a tongue, you may be using your spiritual gift but you don't know what you're saying, i.e., the spirit prays but the mind is unfruitful.

{15} What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.

The point is, DO NOT PRAY IN TONGUES! It is unprofitable if no one knows what is being said. What they were doing (which many modern tongues claimants are claiming) is being used of God to talk to Himself. God gives them the utterance, they do not know what they're saying, and only God knows. God becomes the "Great Ventriloquist" speaking only to Himself.

{16} Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? {17} For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified.

Once again, if the Church is not edified, it is useless.

{18} I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; {19} however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Tongues were not the great gift they thought it was.

{20} Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.

Grow up!

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2000

And concerning James 5, might I recommend an article at this web site: www.cccflorida.org/James%205.htm

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2000

Thank you, Scott!!!

I've been meaning to do a verse-by-verse exposition like this myself, but keep getting side-tracked on other issues that I can give shorter answers to, but that end up taking a lot of time overall. Thank you for doing it so well.

I hope Connie sees this too. She just posted something in the subjectivism thread about how the "tongues" in I Cor. 14 can't possibly be the same as those described in Acts 2 because the ones in I Cor. 14 were not being understood.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

P.S.

Interesting insights on James 5. Thanks!

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

Me too.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

Danny, how can someone with such an education, be so off doctrinally. You know better than that. The "perfect" argument lends itself to many debates, but one thing IS for sure... the perfect is not the NT. Consevative scholarship is on my side. Even our movements scholars do know that the perfect cannot be the NT. For example Knofle Staton, once thought so- but since then has recanted.

The Restoration elitism in this forum shines through. I say tongues tdo exist- and bibically it is valid to say so. The laying on of hands argument holds no water.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

I Corinthians 14:39,40: NASB

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

40: But let all things be done properly and in an orderly manner.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

I Corinthians 14:5: NASB

Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues UNLESS HE INTERPRETS, so that the church may receive edifying. [To me, this means that prophesying and tongues with interpretation are equally edifying.]

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

Connie, you often sound like a broken record (you remember, those big black cd's before there were cd's).

AKelley, I have never, nor do I ever feel that it's "my way or the highway." But outside of some name calling and a bit of ranting, you have not given any Scriptural support for your position. Only subjective evidence, which by it's very nature, is not examinable. In all fairness however, I have not been following all of the threads and may have missed something you posted, so I am speaking of only what I have seen. You have never given solid Scripture to hold your position outside of claim the teleon argument is weak (which it is not). The position I hold is one that is well supported - and not by pulling verses out of context.

I would like to see your explanation of why Paul quotes from Isaiah 28 when explaning what tongues were for.

Here is the end of the material I posted above concerning I Cor 14. Bear in mind the formatting doesn't come thru on the post:

{21} In the Law it is written, "BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord.

For this part I am going to copy something I've already written. It is from my Article "The Baptism of the Holy Spirit":

So far in chapter 14 we've seen how tongues were supposed to be used and how the Corinthians abused this gift but we have yet to see a judgmental aspect to speaking in tongues. In verse 21 it reads: '"In the Law it is written, 'By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to me,' says the Lord." This is a quotation of Isaiah 28:11. As we turn back to Isaiah 28 lets' begin with verse 9:

To whom would He teach knowledge? And to whom would He interpret the message? Those just weaned from milk? Those just taken from the breast? For He says "Order on order, order on order, line on line, line on line, a little here, a little there. Indeed, He will speak to this people through stammering lips and a foreign tongue, He who said to them "Here is rest, give rest to the weary," and, "Here is repose," but they would not listen. So the word of the Lord to them will be "Order on order, order on order, line on line, line on line, a little here a little there," that they may go and stumble backward, be broken, snared, and taken captive. Therefore hear the word of the Lord, O scoffers, who rule this people who are in Jerusalem, because you have said, "We have made a covenant with death, and with Sheol we have made a pact. The overwhelming scourge will not reach us when it passes by, for we have made falsehood our refuge and we have concealed ourselves with deception.

The words in italics should not be translated. The words in Hebrew read "Sav lasav, sav lasav, kav lakav, Kav lakav, Ze'er sham, ze'er sham." These are sounds imitating the sounds a baby would make. The English equivalent would be "goo goo gah gah." God is telling Israel that because they would not listen to His commands, He would use people of stammering lips and a foreign tongue to proclaim His message of judgement.

When the Baptism of the Holy Spirit took place, it was not in Hebrew that the terms of the new covenant were spoken, it was through about every other language except Hebrew (Acts 2:5-11). Just as the Baptism of the Holy Spirit was a sign of judgement upon national Israel, speaking in tongues was a constant reminder that (1) the new covenant was for all, not only for the fleshly descendants of Abraham and (2) judgement is coming upon national Israel.

Paul then says in verse 22: "So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers, but to those who believe." Who were the unbelievers? Primarily the Jews. Signs were always for unbelievers (Acts 8:6; 14:1-3; Heb. 2:1-4).

In 70 A.D. God brought forth His judgments against Israel by using Rome to come and utterly destroy the city of Jerusalem. Israel had committed the ultimate national sin: They crucified the Son of God. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit as well as the gift of speaking in tongues were a call to repentance for the nation Israel. When Jerusalem fell there was no longer a need for this sign of judgement therefore it simply ceased to exist just as Paul said it would in I Cor. 13:8.

{22} So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.

Signs were always for unbelievers. See Acts 8:6; 14:1-3; Heb 2:1-4. The desire for signs demonstrates a lack of faith, not a mature faith

{23} Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? {24} But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; {25} the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you. {26} What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. {27} If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; {28} but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.

There are four rules of tongues speaking: (1) 3 at the most may speak (27), (2) They must take turns, not all speak at once (27), (3) Make sure it is translated (27), else shut up (28), and (4) women are not to do it (v. 34)

{29} Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. {30} But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. {31} For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; {32} and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; {33} for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. {34} The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.

By the way, this verse does not mean women may not speak at all in the assembly. We know they were to pray and prophecy (11:1-16). The prophecy that women did were always related to singing, not in a teaching position.

{35} If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. {36} Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? {37} If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment.

This teaching was not Paul's opinion, it was of God, therefore they had better get their act together.

{38} But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. {39} Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. {40} But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

Brother Kelley:

You have said:

Danny the major problem with your posting is that it is based on an assumption 1) that the perfect is the completion of the canon and 2) that tongues ceased and 3) that is it solely for the unbeliever.

Brother Danny has not made any of the above listed arguments or assumptions and you cannot copy and paste any statement from his post that makes such an argument or assumption. So why do you accuse him of making these arguments when he did not? Is it because you have no answer for the argument that he actually made? I think so!

Why do not you just show us where brother Danny or myself for that matter has ever said that the perfect is nothing more than the completion of the canon? Danny never said any such thing and neither have I. That which is perfect is opposed to that which was in part. Now there is no doubt that that which is perfect is placed, in its context, in opposition to that which is in part and is of the same nature and essence with it. They received partial revelations of Gods will in those days for all of the truth had not been completely revealed. For we know in part and we prophesy in part but when that which is perfect is come that which is in part shall be done away. That which is perfect is surely the completion of that which was in part. That which was in part was the knowledge they received of Gods will through the miraculous gift of prophecy. That which would be done away is the very thing that he mentioned in the previous verse. Whether there be tongues they shall cease, whether there be prophecies they shall be done away, and whether there be knowledge it shall vanish away. SO when prophecy, which was being received partially, and revealing the truth from God was complete or finished (both of which are accurate meanings for the word telios) with that purpose, task, or mission these partial things would naturally be done away for they had served their purpose. This is in harmony with the prophecy of Joel, which was completely fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. And that is when God stopped giving the gift of tongues unto men through the lying on of the apostles hands (Acts 19:1-6; Acts 8:14-24). Now these gifts that had been given gradually disappeared as the apostles died and those upon whom they laid their hands died but God stopped using them and giving them when the prophecy of Joel was completed and his will had been completely revealed and confirmed. The "puzzle was complete and entire and all that was working while it was partial and limited vanished and we had the total and complete confirmed word of God left. Now it had not been collected into a canon nor compiled into a New Testament. But it had been revealed and confirmed and was in writing and existed in various places and forms in the body of Christ. But the task of revealing and confirming the truth had been completed and the partial means of delivering and confirming that truth was no longer needed and these prophecies wer done away and these tongues ceased as God promised that they would in these verses.

I would illustrate this idea rather imperfectly as follows. When I put a puzzle together I put it together piece by piece until the entire picture is complete. When I am finished with it the completed picture is made up of the individual parts and the parts are done away for they have been absorbed into the whole. Thus when putting a puzzle together we work one part at a time until the puzzle is complete and then we no longer need the direct intervention of the person putting the puzzle together for the task is complete. Now, I contend that this is the idea portrayed by the use of this play on words so to speak between the words part and the word perfect which would be more accurately translated complete in this passage. The idea is partial and limited as opposed to perfect and entire. That which is complete and entire is the culmination of the finished work of the Holy Spirit who revealed Gods will by that which was partial and limited.

The scaffolding was taken away for the building was finished! Now that is the teaching of that verse and that is my argument and those of you who are fighting against the idea of the collection of the canon and a physical copy of the entire New Testament in writing are arguing with someone else entirely. You are not even lightly brushing against the argument that I have made. You are fighting with some straw man that you have made up in your head that argues just as you tell him to and collapses with ease when you crush the arguments that you have stuffed into his mouth! Now is time for you to face the real argument that you have ignored. And we have not even begun to discuss Ephesians 4 yet!

But the collection of the canon was guided by the providence of God, rather then by the miraculous gifts, which revealed the word of God to us and confirmed it. And this canon was completed much later than the time when God completed the revelation of his will. For that reason I do not say and have never said that the perfect in this passage was the canon. Nor have I said that it was the NT. I have said that it was the completion of the revelation of the truth in its entirety through the miraculous gifts that existed for that purpose. When these gifts accomplished their purpose of giving us a COMPLETE revelation from God and CONFIRMING that those things so revealed were in fact from God they ceased according to the teaching of this verse. So this constant accusation that we are claiming that 1 Cor. 13:8 is talking about the canon or the New Testament is just a way for you to put up an argument that is easy for you to answer instead of answering the real argument that you cannot answer! Now there is nothing in this verse that has any direct reference to the canon or the New Testament but there is PLENTY of reference to a completed revelation and confirmation of Gods will. Now this completed revelation later was collected into the canon but that completion of this work of the Holy Spirit was not the canon. Nor was it the New Testament though through that means the New Testament was ultimately brought to us and today we have it.

On the other hand, Brother Kelley, you have said that you believe that the perfect is the Second Coming of Christ. Now you believe this even though the term telion has never been used in reference to the Second Coming of Christ. And the Second Coming is not even the subject under consideration in these passages. You also only assert that the perfect is the Second Coming of Christ but you do not prove that such is the case! If you were to replace the term Second Coming of Christ in every place where you find the term perfect one could readily see that it makes no sense. But if one puts the completed revelation of Gods will, which was being given partially through the gift of prophecy and confirmed by signs it would fit perfectly. But you simply do not even attempt to prove that the perfect is the Second Coming of Christ.

I do not have much time right now but I intend to put together a comprehensive argument in an organized format and post it for your consideration. For now my only purpose is to show that you are not responding to the actual argument that is being made by either Danny or myself. In the case of Dannys argument above you have completely and deliberately ignored it by putting up arguments that he has not made and answering them as if you were answering him. What is even more ridiculous is that you have failed to even answer the arguments that you put up to avoid answering Brother Danny! If you are going to do something like this it would be wiser to at least choose to put up some argument that you can successfully answer! Ha!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

Brother Scott:

Amen and Amen! You have done an excellent job with this and I would love to hear you discuss this subject in more detail! In fact we should hear more from you on these particular subjects. I appreciate your work in your post and hope to see more of it!

I am also happy to hear from you.

I hope you and your family are happy and well and that you guys will come visit us in Georgia some day!

I can spit on Stone Moiuntain from where I live! Ha!

May God Bless you.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

To Danny; Scott & E. Lee:

Thank you gentlemen for sharing your time & knowledge with this forum. This thread has helped me tremendously to continue with my study of the Bible. It's a wonderful feeling for me to have the *light* go on over my head and say NOW I get **it**.

May God Bless you abundantly in your lives,

Cynthia

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

Cynthia,

Speaking only for myself, I am truly humbled at your compliment. There is no greater compliment you could say to me than I helped you understand a Biblical truth. Thank you so much for your kind words. If I may be self-promoting for a moment, there are several studies and articles that you would find of interest (not all of them are mine) at www.CCCflorida.org, the web site of Central Christian Church in Fort Lauderdale.

I also want to mention that there have been other discussions on this forum in which AKelley and myself have agreed and we stood side by side (cybernetically speaking). I do not question his sincerity nor do I think him a fool. I disagree strongly, however, with him on the issue at hand. I have only tried to demonstrate why I believe him to have false understandings of these things.

AKelley, I would still like to hear your understanding of why Paul uses Isaiah 28 to explain the purpose of Tongues.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

Scott, I do thank you for at least trying to understand my position. Although some have not sought that understanding.

The real hart of the matter is, whether the gift ceased to serve their purpose or not. And if so then where is the clear scriptural passage that states that. Or in other words why does Paul just say... "Ok church it is over when I or you die", but this is not seen. Part of interpretation is not only trying to convey what is just said but the context and intent as well. And if not, then why the confusion?

One thing that strikes me ironic is that we fuss and fight and bick over the gift of tongues when their are other gifts to consider as well. In the scriptures there is not seen this separation of natural gifts or common gifts and supernatural. Instead they are all lumped together. For example Paul says that in I Cor 1:7 that we all have spiritual gifts until the Lord is revealed. Which gifts? Are not all lumped together? If they are not where is the biblical authority for the division? Also, where is the Biblical authority to say that the gifts where "only" given through the laying of hands of the apostles. Yes, we do have many that give us examples of the apostle's laying hands on people and then they receive the gifts.... but is that the norm for all of time... and if so where is the Biblical authority?

Lee, as I conversed with him thought I ignored him at many points. But, I have heard all of his arguments. I once thought as he or at least more like you Scott. But, I found too many theological holes that cannot be answered.

Scott, on the other threads I have tried to explain myself with the Biblical reasons... but I was hitting a brick wall. I wonder will anyone listen and gunuine talk with me about the issues at hand... or will there be more name calling?

For your question, yes Paul uses Is. 28 to point out one of the purposes for tongues to reach a people in rebellion. But, that is not the soul purpose. There are dual purposes in I cor 12-14 that speak concerning tongues. Paul said that "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed no one understands him, he utters mystereis with his spirit" (I Cor. 14:2). Paul also said that if "there is no interpreter, the speaker shouls keep quite in the church and speak to himself and God" (I Cor. 14:28). If tongue where only for unbelieving Jews to come to Christ, then why these and other verses. Plus, the fact that he continues to tell the church "do not forbid speaking in tongues" (14:39) is a pretty good indication that there is more about tongues than we understand, let alone the fact that it can continue. Surely if Paul knew under the inspiration of the spirit to instruct on the tongues, useage then why not tell the church that they will completely stop after he or they die.

See, there are too many unanswered questions. I do not claim to have all the right or wrong ones. But, one thing I do know... when you read the Corinthian correspondence and back it up with experience that is not satanic delusion but divine intervention- then it weighs pretty heavily that tongues can and do exist, as the Lord wishes.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2000

AKelley,

I do not see where there are so many unanswered questions. If Tongues were a sign of national judgment against Israel, then their purpose ceased. I believe Paul made it clear when he used Is. 28 as his explanation for the use of Tongues. He explained it to the Church at Corinth, for they obviously didn't have a clue as what the purpose was.

I have an article on my web site that demonstrates that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that Tongues went into the 2nd century ("Tongues in the Post-Apostolic Church" (I haven't typed in all of the footnotes yet)) and the address is somewhere above on this thread. Of course, since Tongues were a sign of judgment against the Jews, when the judgment took place the sign was no longer needed, so in 70 A.D. they just ceased as Paul said they would (I know you don't like to view I Cor 13:8 that way, but Paul said it).

As to why Paul didn't just come out and say "Their gonna end" I could ask "why isn't the plan of salvation completely given in one location?" The answer: Because God didn't do it the WE want it. The Scriptures are written the way HE wanted it (That is not meant to sound smart-alecky).

I believe this is an issue to "fuss and ... bick" over because if Tongues have not ceased, then we also still have Prophets among us as well as those who receive divinely revealed knowledge, which also means that our Scriptures are an open ended Book. I had a fella visit me Sunday who told me Jesus appeared to him a few years ago. He went on to say that Mary was not REALLY Jesus' mother because she was a Jew and Jesus was an Israelite (does this sound familiar to some of you old timers here on the forum?). Of course, the Israelites are the white-skinned people, Jesus was very pale like a Norwegian, he said. Jesus also had blond buzzed hair and a van dyke beard. Now, this guy is a bit of an extreme example, but if the Bible is open-ended what's to keep those who would add to it out? And what authority do we have to keep it out?

Now, to deal with the verses you mention: I Cor 1:4-8 says "(4) I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus,(5) that in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge, (6) even as the testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you,(7) so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ,(8) who will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ."

You must pay attention to the pronouns (proper hermeneutics). The "you" that is spoken of throughout is the Church at Corinth. Where do you get the idea that this is a general statement? He says "You," not "every Christian throughout time."

About the Hands of the Apostles: Can you show me ANYONE in the New Testament that received spiritual gifts that did not have at least one Apostle lay hands on him (or her)? You know as well as I that we learn a great deal in Scripture by precidence - even when there is not a direct command. I would point out to you that in Acts 8 Simon did not want to buy the gifts themselves, he wanted to buy the authority to pass them on. Why didn't he ask Philip who was there first? Why did Philip have to get Apostles to come from Jerusalem to Samaria to give the gifts? Just show me one "unhanded" gifted person. Show me just one instance where Apostolic laying on of hands was NOT "the norm" (as you put it).

I have already explained the I Cor 14:2 passage. Paul was scolding them for how they were using their gift. I also already explained 14:28. If the Tongues were not being interpreted, then the only one who knew what was being said was God and it did not edify the Church, which was it's purpose.

And a technical point from the position I hold. Tongues were first and foremost a sign of judgment against the Jews. It was secondarily an evangelistic tool.

As far as I Cor. 14:39, He tells them, basically, that even though the Church at Corinth had misused their gifts in a prideful way, do not forbid them to use their gift. This is a far cry from being a universal command to all men everywhere to allow Tongues in their fellowship.

As far as your own experience is concerned I cannot speak toward it. It was your experience, not mine. However, I have more that a couple of close friends who used to speak in Tongues, so they thought, and came to the conclusion they had believed a lie. But they fought hard at the time when someone said they weren't.

This is probably one of the longest posts I have ever made, and I have only scratched the surface. Hope this will sharpen the iron.

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2000

Lee,

Thank for the howdy.

I hope you and your family well, also.

About that spittin' stuff ... Is that something you picked up in Georgia, or did you learn that in Alabama? ;o)

Exactly how far up the mountain can you spit? What's the record? ;o)

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2000

Danny,

Evangelistic only in the since that once they realized judgment was coming they would repent. That is why I said it was secondarily evangelistic.

I'm not sure what you mean by understanding my position. I didn't intend to imply that all this is stuff that I alone have come up with on my own accord, or that I'm the first to hold these views. I, like you, consider these to be the Biblical position - which means they're quite old.

BTW, you can pick on me anytime. I can take it ;o)

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2000

That should be "sense," not since.

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2000

Cynthia:

You have said:

To Danny; Scott & E. Lee:

Thank you gentlemen for sharing your time & knowledge with this forum. This thread has helped me tremendously to continue with my study of the Bible. It's a wonderful feeling for me to have the *light* go on over my head and say NOW I get **it**.

May God Bless you abundantly in your lives,

I sincerely thank you Cynthia for these kind words. I rejoice to know that you walk in the truth and that you love truth enough to constantly search for it. I am happy to know that our words in this forum have in some measure helped you in your diligent search for truth and your strong desire to be faithful to Christ our Lord. Nothing encourages me greater than to hear these things from one who loves truth as much as you and your entire family have demonstrated that you love it. This makes all of the contending in this forum worth it for me.

I am sure that you are known for your great love for the truth and you willingness to know it and walk in it!

You are an example that others should follow!

I pray for you and your family that Christ our Lord will ever abide with each of you and that you will always know the truth and walk in it. Please give my regards to each of them. Say hello to your mother for me and to your husband express my hearty admonition semper fi!

I pray fervently for the good health and happiness of your entire family.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2000

AKelley,

You said you wanted someone to genuinely discuss this issue with you. I am trying to do that. This subject brought me out of my self- imposed silence on this forum. Please rejoin the discussion. I am eagerly waiting.

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2000

Scott, I will be back in on the discussion either Sunday or Monday- I am extremly busy this weekend with church related work. I have a radio program that must be done, calling, and other things to prepare for my sermon (BTW is on the "Healing Miracles of Jesus").

Thanks AKelley

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2000

AKelley,

I can understand the busy thing. This weekend I helped move our new Assoc Evangelist into his new home. He will be heading up our Hispanic ministry. I would like to ask the entire forum to keep this new ministry in your prayers as this is truly a leap of faith for our entire congregation.

AKelley, I will be awaiting your response to my last post (Actually, the one before last).

BTW, I was looking over some of the really old threads today. I didn't realize how many times we have butted heads in the past. Almost from the very beginning of this forum. But there were times when we agreed as well. I'd say we're about 50/50 (give or take a little). I thought it was interesting though.

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2000

Danny,

In response to your initial message, your conclusions are based on some faulty reasoning.

The I Corinthians passages does NOT teach that tongues are ONLY for unbelievers. In fact, it is 100% clear from I Corinthains that the gift of tongues has a function in the church, a few, actually. For one, without interpretation, it edifies the speaker. With interpretation, it edifies the church.

You show where Paul says that tongues are a sign for unbelievers, and then say that therefore tongues have not purpose for believers. This isn't logical, and it contradicts the rest of the chapter. Tongues serves as A SIGN FOR unbelievers, not for believers. For believers, tongues with interpretation serves for mutual edification.

I agree with you that the role and importance of tongues is very much over-emphasized in some circles. But the fact that the gift is over- empohasized does not make it useless. One of the lessons of I Corinthains 12 is that all the body parts, with their gifts and functions need one another. The one who speaks in tongues shouldn's say to one who doesn't 'Because you don't speak in tongues you are not a part of the body.' But neither should someone say 'because you speak in tongues and are not a teacher, you are not a part of the body.' Read the chapter and just believe and practice what it says.

You wrote,

>>>Were their unbeliving Jews at the conversion of Cornelius? Most definitely...it was Peter himself who was having a hard time accepting the Gentiles. >>>>

This is a REAL STRETCH. Are you considering Peter an unbeliever in this passage? Even if he had some doubt he was still a BELIEVER IN JESUS. And, by the time he got to Cornelius house, didn't he already believe? He'd already had the vision experience. He had obeyed the Spirit in going to the Gentiles house without doubting- a step of faith consider the tradition of not going to a Gentiles house because of Jewish sentiments about it at the time. If he were still in doubt, why would he have gone? Doubt or no doubt, how do you get off saying the quote about unbelievers applies to Peter here?

>>>Were their unbeliving Jews present when Paul discovered the followers of John in Acts 19?? Most definitely. In fact, vs. 8 says that immediately after the event, where did Paul go?? The synagogue. <<<<

This seems like more than a stretch to me. Looks like grasping at straws.

The text says that there were abotu 12 men in all. There is no indivation that otherw were watching. These men believed, and then they spoke in tongues. Of course Paul went into the synagogue and reasoned for three months (since he had the opportunity.) He generally preached in synagogues before going to the Gentiles when he traveled. The fact that the passage says 'for about three months' doesn't give the picture of Paul laying hands onthe men on the synagogue steps and then walking in.

>>>>By the way, this all plays out in what Jesus said about the Kingdom being taken from the Jews and given over to the Gentiles (Matt. 21).<<<<

The passage does not say 'to the Gentiles.' Jesus was talking to the cheif preists and elders of the people, and the passage indicates that Jesus was talking to the cheif priests and Pharisees. It doesnt' say that the kingdom would be taken from all the Jews. It does not say that the kingdom would be given to the Gentiles. There are remnant Jews that believe.

I believe the kingdom is given to the church, which is one made of Jews and Gentiles. Two passages come to mine: Paul's use of the passage from Hosea about calling her beloved that was not believed found in Romans 9, and Paul's quote from the song of Moses, founding Romans 10- that God would provoke Israel to jealousy by them that are not people, and by a foolish nation He would anger them.

>> Previous to Acts 10 the church was predominantly Jewish. After Acts 10, the church become predominantly Gentile.<<<

Do you really believe that the Pharisees and chief priests still had the kingdom on the day of Pentecost? Wasn't the kingdom of God already given to the church?

If you look at the I Corinthains 14 passage, you will see that there is no mention of tongues as a sign to Israel per se. Ther eis mention of tongues as a sign to unbeleivers. Look at Paul's illustration. An unbeliever coming in and seeing all speak in tongues would say they were mad. This fits with Paul's quote from the OT. 'and yet for all that, they will not hear me.' The passage from Isaiah actually found a fulfillment in the captivity, when God communicated to Israelites through the mouths of their captors.

Here, Paul uses the passage in regard to the effect of tongues on ubelievers, an the example he gives is of an unbeliever or unlearned, and he doesn't not specify a Jew specifically.

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2000

>>>About the Hands of the Apostles: Can you show me ANYONE in the New Testament that received spiritual gifts that did not have at least one Apostle lay hands on him (or her)? <<<

Cornelius and the band with him. Acts 10. `

1. The Bible demonstrates that gifts COULD be given with the laying on of hands of the apostles. 2. The Bible shows gifts being given WITHOUT the laying on of hands of the apostles.

It is illogical to conclude, from a few verses showing gifts being imparted through apostle's hands, that all gifts were given through the laying on of hands of the apostles.

Corenlius and those with him spoke in tongues while hearing the gospel preached. Another factor to consider is that Timothy received a gift through the laying on of hands of the elders. (He had a gift in him with the laying on of Paul's hands as well. The scripture does not say if this was the same gift. We do see here a gift given with the laying on of elder's hands accompanied by prophecy.)

Paul and Barnabas themselves were sepearted not thorugh the laying on of apostles or elders hands, but by the laying on of hands of prophets and teachers.

Paul wrote to the Romans that he hoped to impart to them some spiritual gift. Later, we read that the Romans already had the gifts of prophecy, teaching, and several others. They had some gifts, and Paul hoped that they could receive some other gift through him (though it is unclear if this was something in the I Corinthians 12 list. Paul uses 'gift' quite freely.)

I Corinthians 12 is clear that gifts are given by the Spirit. Interpretation of tongues is in the gift list of I Corinthians 12. In I Corinthians 14:13, Paul instructs the one who speaks in tongues to PRAY that he may interpret. One gets the picture of someone being able to ask directly to God, without having to go through an intermediary priestly apostle, to mediate between God and man to ask for the gift of interpretation.

Notice Paul does not tell the one who speaks in tongues to go find an apostle to lay hands on him. The Bible in no way limits the gifts to the laying on of hands of the apostles.

The Bible does not neatly divide gifts into 'miraculous' and 'non- miraculous.' these divisions usually come from later world-views. Those enfluenced by enlightenment philosophy might not be comforable with the idea of God doing miracles nowadays. So all the spectular gifts get lumped together into the 'miraculous' category. The Bible does say that all the miraculous gifts will pass away. Even the passage about 'the perfect' so often used does nto say miracles will cease. That is theological speculation.

>>>> I would point out to you that in Acts 8 Simon did not want to buy the gifts themselves, he wanted to buy the authority to pass them on. Why didn't he ask Philip who was there first? <<<<

Notice that if the reason Simon couldn't be given this power was because he was not an apostle, Peter missed a great opporunity. According to Peter, the reason Simon had not part or lot in this matter was because Simon's heart was not right before God. NOT because he was not an apostle. Paul wasn't one of the 12. Jesus called him and later sent Him out through the voice of the Spirit with the laying on of hands of a group of prophets and teachers.

Why didn't he ask Philip? Philip apparently wasn't going around laying hands on people to be filled with the Holy Spirit. His ministry seemed to be really quick evangelizing and baptism. The Bible doesn't say that the work of an evangelist is to do all the follow-up work after evangelizing, appointing elders and such. We do see that Paul said of Timothy, Silas, and himself, that they were among the Thesalonians as apostles of Christ. Paul told Timothy to do the work of an evangelist. So we see the words apostle and evangelist connected with Timothy. Those in aposlolic ministry elsewhere in scripture laid hands on people to receive the Holy Ghost, appointed elders, and such.

As for Philip not laying hands on the Samaritans- the gospel was going to a new people group after the resurrection. It was an important step in chruch history, and apostles got involved in it.

These are observations. God knows why Philip didn't lay hands on the people, whether it was a matter of gifting that Philip didn't have, didn't know he had, or if God wanted the apostles involves, or whatever other reason.

Look at the passage about the baptism of Saul:

Acts 9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

This isn't conclusive, but notice that Ananias laid hands on Saul, and the verse mentions Saul receiving the Holy Ghost.

Here is a another miscelanious point you made:

>>>I believe this is an issue to "fuss and ... bick" over because if Tongues have not ceased, then we also still have Prophets among us as well as those who receive divinely revealed knowledge, which also means that our Scriptures are an open ended Book. <<<<

If prophets are operating today, it does not follow that the Scriptures are an open ended book.The Bible referes to many, many prophets whose sayings are not recorded in scripture. Some prophets had prophetic 'careers' and only a little of what they said is recorded. An example would be Micaiah. He had a brief exchange with the king of Israel that is recorded, but had apparently prohesied before, because the king of Israel had complained that Micaiah never prophesied anything good about him.

John wrote that everything Jesus did could not be recorded, he supposed, in the world if they were all written down. Jesus is the ultimate message of God to man.

Not every revelation or prophecy was recorded in Scripture. Only a select number of people who prophesied were chosen to contribute to scripture. Many others prophesied genuine things. Not every genuine prohecy is for Scripture. Many prophecies were not as useful for our learning as the scriptures are.

The fact taht the idea of ongoing prophecy attacks some people's views about the scriptures is not a valid reason for discounting the possibility. The issue ws whether or not the scriptures teach that prophecy is ongoing.

Notice that the church we see in the Bible had gifts like tongues, miracles, and prophecy. If we go just with the Bible, the 'default' or 'null hypothesis' should be that God gives gifts of the Spirit like this to members of the the body of Christ. The burden of proof is on those who say otherwise.

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2000

Scott,

I disagree with your view that it was not good for the Corinthians to edify themselves with speaking in tongues. Paul was not against the Corinthians speaking in tonguesto edify themselves individually. He was (at least mildly) positive about this. But he was against Corinthians speaking in tongues _without interpretation_ in the assembly. As far as everyone else was conscerned, Their words were spoken into the air. No one could understand without interpretation.

Take a look at what Paul says about tongues

* He that speaks in tongues edifies himself * He that prohpesies edifies the church *I would that you all spoke in tongues * but rather that you prophesied.

Let's look at the reasoning here. Paul would like them all to speak in tongues- to build themselves up. But he would rather that they prophesied. Why? The one who prophesies edifies the church.

So Paul is in favor of building oneself up in prayer. He calls speaking in tongues praying inthe Spirit. Jude also says to build yourself up in the most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost. Building oneself up is good. Edification is building oneself up, not making onself look good and puffing oneself up before others.

He that prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets? Why? That the church may receive edifying.

See Paul's arguments that tongues for self-edification are good, but inferior to edifying the congregation throughout the chapter. Paul says if 'thou' bless in the Spirit, the unlearned is not edified. "I" [Paul, that is] speak in tongues more than you all. Yet IN THE CHURCH, I had rather speak 5 words with my understanding that I may instruct others than 10,000 words with an unknown tongue.

Paul spoke in tongues more than all of the Corinthians. But in church, he sought to edify others, not just do something flashy that only benefitted himself spiritually.

The verse that really clears up the issue is verse 28. If there be no interpreter the tongues speakers is to speak to himself and to God, but to keep quiet in the church.

So we see here that Paul felt that it was good to speak in tongues to edify oneself. Just don't do it in church. If tongues are spoken in church, they must be accompanied by interreptation. So Paul wasn't saying speaking in tongues was childish. the Corinthians were using the gift in a childish manner. Paul himself spoke in tongues. He wanted them all to speak in tongues. He just wanted them to either interpret, or not speak in tongues in the congregation.

As far as tongues having an evangelistic benifit- Paul argues for the negative impact of tongues on evangelism. The quote he uses shows that 'and yet for all that, they will not hear me.' After quoting this, Paul gives an example of an unbeliever thinking Christians speaking in tongues are mad. This is a further argument against the way the Corinthians were probably using tongues in their meetings.

Scott wrote, >>> I have an article on my web site that demonstrates that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that Tongues went into the 2nd century <<<<<<<<<

It sure is hard to prove a negative, especially when I can refer you to a second or third century reference to occurances of tongues. Look in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. Look at the front of volume one (if you get the Loeb edition) until you find the book which contains Ireneaus quotes on the matter from his book _Against Heresies._ Ireneaus ministered in the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries. He wrote of tongues, healing, forknowledge, casting out demons, raising the dead, etc. that were done by believers in his day.

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2000

Lee Saffold wrote:

>>>I have said that it was the completion of the revelation of the truth in its entirety through the miraculous gifts that existed for that purpose. When these gifts accomplished their purpose of giving us a COMPLETE revelation from God and CONFIRMING that those things so revealed were in fact from God they ceased according to the teaching of this verse. <<<

YOu still end up with the same problem- The Bible does not say or teach that 'the perfect' in I Corinthians 13 is refering to completed revelation. That is a theological assumption. If we follow the rest of the letter, Paul also writes about a later state of creation which relates to the resurrection of the dead in I Crorinthians 15. This fits very well with Paul's description in chapter 13.

I Corinthians 13, does not say that 'miraculous gifts' will cease. Tongues, knowledge, and prophecy are mentioned in that passage. The passage says nothing abotu healing and miracles passing away.

The Bible does miracles functioning in evangelism, but it also says shows in I Corinthians, that gifts like healing and prophecy were for the building up of the body as well. This is true, of course, ofprophecy, which is for the upbuilding of the church. To argue that ONE PURPOSE of these gifts have supposedly ceased, and then to arggue that because of that, the gifts have ceased, is illogical. The gifts are to edify the body as well. The body is still here and needs edifying.

>>>>>Now you believe this even though the term telion has never been used in reference to the Second Coming of Christ. And the Second Coming is not even the subject under consideration in these passages. <<<<

The firsts of these sentences is just a really hollow argument. Can you show a single verse that shows that 'the perfect' refers to the canon?

>>>But if one puts the completed revelation of Gods will, which was being given partially through the gift of prophecy and confirmed by signs it would fit perfectly.<<<<

Where, into every reference of 'telion' in the NT? like 'the perfect man' in Ephesians 4? You could come up with some nonsensical verses.

If you are talking about plugging this idea into I Corinthians 13, then you are doing eisegesis. The Bible is not madlibs. You shouldn't just plug in words without some kind of justification for doing so. Where is your justification from the text for doing so?

>>>>>partial things would naturally be done away for they had served their purpose. This is in harmony with the prophecy of Joel, which was completely fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. And that is when God stopped giving the gift of tongues unto men through the lying on of the apostles hands (Acts 19:1-6; Acts 8:14- 24). Now these gifts that had been given gradually disappeared as the apostles died and those upon whom they laid their hands died but God stopped using them and giving them when the prophecy of Joel was completed and his will had been completely revealed and confirmed. The "puzzle was complete and entire and all that was working while it was partial and limited vanished and we had the total and complete confirmed word of God left.<<<<

You don't demonstrate how that Joel's prophecy was over at the destruction of the temple. We are still in the last days.

And this proves nothing. Even if you say that Joel prophecy mentioned in Acts was already fulfilled, that would in no way indicate that God could not still give such gifts to the church. If God promised to give gifts at a certain time, there is nothing to prevent Him from giving gifts at another time as well.

So do you have any arguments for the gifts ceasing that are based on scripture to present?

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2000

Link,

Much of what you said above sounds like a stunt my children try to do on occasion. Many times I tell my children to do something, such as clean their room. They, knowing full well what I meant, because they don't like what I told them, will later will tell me something like, "but you didn't say I had to pick up my toys and clothes off the floor. I sprayed Lysol around so it's clean." What you do to the Scriptures puts me in mind of someone else in the Bible that asked, "Hath God said?"

If I come off a little hesitant to go thru this with you it is because I have seen how you utterly refuse to see any light but your own (at least in the threads I have observed you). For instance, Benjamin has aptly shown you the difference in an Apostle sent out by Jesus, who had the very authority of Jesus, and an apostle sent out by a congregation. But you refuse to accept it. Paul even makes that distinction in Gal 1:1. But I have no doubt you will find an novel way of understanding that verse as you have others (but he didn't say ...).

I have been off of this forum for quite awhile because I find these discussions to be very addictive and I find I use a lot of time on it if I am not careful. That is my problem, not yours. I will respond later to some of what you have posted. You throw too much out there to thouroughly discuss any one or two points.

One other thing, I find it interesting that the only miraculously gifted people you can find that did not have the hands of the Apostles lain upon them is when the Baptism of the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius' house. The only example you can find is an extraordinary event. An event that only happened twice in Church history, and you want to use that as an example. Very interesting. As I see it, the exception proves the rule. I'll explain that later but must go now. Buenos tardes.

-- Anonymous, August 28, 2000

Scott,

That is a rather antagonistic way to start off a conversation with me. I don't believe we have interacted on this forum yet. You may disagree with my viewpoints, but I am an honest student of the Bible, and am receptive to light from the Lord. If you disagree with someting I write, address it directly. Otherwise, if you want to have a serious conversation on the issue, it would be best to abstain from generalizations and accusations about my character.

>>>For instance, Benjamin has aptly shown you the difference in an Apostle sent out by Jesus, who had the very authority of Jesus, and an apostle sent out by a congregation. But you refuse to accept it.<<<

Do you have a specific quote you would like to

Benjamin and I discussed many aspects of the issue. I don't recall this being one of Benjamin's main points. Paul was an apostle sent by Christ, not man. But he was separated through the agency of men in Acts 13. Barnabas was also separated for the work to which the Spirit called him as Paul was. We don't know the way Barnabas was called to be an apostle other than what is recorded of Acts. Would you say he was an apostle of men, and not an apostle of Christ? The phrase 'as apostles of Christ' was used in connection with Paul, Timothy, and Silas, not just Paul. Scripture does not say that Timothy or Silas were mere apostles of men, either. If you would like to discuss this issue, we could do it in another thread.

You wrote,

>>> One other thing, I find it interesting that the only miraculously gifted people you can find that did not have the hands of the Apostles lain upon them is when the Baptism of the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius' house. The only example you can find is an extraordinary event. An event that only happened twice in Church history, and you want to use that as an example.<<<<<<

First of all, this was not the only passage I refered you to. I pointed out that Timothy received a gift with prophecy with the laying on of hands of the elders. Paul and Barnabas were separated to the work with the laying on of hands of prophets and teachers. I also pointed out that in I Corinthians 14:13, one can pray to be able to interpret, even though interpretation is a gift of the Spirit. He is not instructed to go find an apostle to lay hands on him to receive the gift. I also pointed out that the Scriptures teach that gifts are distributed according to the will of the Spirit.

The Bible just does not state or indicate that gifts were only given through the laying on of hands of the apostles. If you are just going to pick the Acts 8 incident and make an inference and build a doctrine on it, and the Acts 10 incident shows that your inference is a false assumption, Acts 10 should be all the information I need to present.

You wrote:

>>>An event that only happened twice in Church history, and you want to use that as an example.<<<<

And you are basing a doctrine on an event that happened once in history plus theological inference. The Acts 8 incident was a pivitol point in church history. Some believe that the apostles needed to be involved in Acts 8 to lay hands on the people because the gospel was going forth not only to Jews, but also so Samaritans, and that Peter was involved in Acts 10 because the gospel just started being spread among the Gentiles. So both passages relate unusual occurances in church history, not just the Acts 10 passage. But the passages are still profitable for doctrine.

Now you say something happened just twice in church history? What do you mean? Speaking in tongues?

There are actually 3 similar occurances in Acts. They are found in Acts 2, Acts 10, and Acts 19.

In Acts 2, the Spirit fell on 120, and they started speaking languages. Did the apostles lay hands on the 120? We don't know if Christ had ever laid hands on these people. The scripture does not tell us that. The most natural reading, imo, especially considering the number of languages spoken in, is that 'all' here refers to the 120. They were all gathered together into one place, and they were all in one accord. They all spoke in tongues.

In Acts 10, Corenlius and his men received the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues while hearing the gospel. Peter then said they should be baptized. In Acts 19, Paul preached the gospel 12 disciples who had been baptized with John's baptism. They believed. He baptized them, and then after that he laid hands on them, the Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues.

What this shows me is that you are really locked into your doctrinal idea about gifts only being passed through the apostles hands. Step back a bit and take a good look at your belief system as it relates to this issue. Ask yourself this question "WHY do I believe that gifts were only passed only through the laying on of hands?" and then try to think of the scriptural support for the position. Acts 8 does not teach that the gifts were only given through the laying on of hands of the apostles. Instead, it shows that the apostles laid hands on the Samaritans, so that they might RECEIVE the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost had not yet come upon any of them. They had only been baptized in the name of hte Lord Jesus. Paul and John came and laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. Simon wanted to by the ability to lay hands on people that they might receive the Holy Ghost from Peter. Peter told him he had no part or lot in the matter because his heart was not right before God.

How can you get from that that gifts are only given through the laying on of hands of the apostles? You shouldn't try to develop such a doctrine out of a passage that doesn't teach it. The passage doesn't say that 'miraculous gifts' are only given through the apostles hands here. In fact, the Bible doesn't put the gifts into 'miraculous' and 'common grace' categories. All are called 'charismata.' Paul puts prophecy in a gift list with teaching. Later theologians divided up the gifts, but not according to any system of categorization found int he Bible.

So if gifts only come through the laying on of ahdns of the apostles, and there can be no more apostles, then how could we have evangelists, or teachers, or those with gifts of administration, or showing mercy? Why do only the gifts you don't believe in operating today come through the laying on of hands of the apostles. Why don't all the gifts that nearly everyone agrees on operating today only come through the laying on of hands of the apostles?

The fact is the Acts 8 passage doesn't even say that gifts of the Spirit were only given through the laying on of hands of the paostles. the passage mentions the _gift_ of the Spirit. The apostles laid hands ont he people that htey might receive the Holy Ghost. Luke seems to use the concept of the Spirit coming on someone, being filled with the Spirit, and receiving the Holy Ghost interchangeably. The Acts 8 passage doesn't say anything about the apostles laying hands on the Samaritans so that they might have 'miraculous gifts.' In fact, we don't know what gifts they received. There was some sort of reason for Simon to be able to recognize that people were receiving the Holy Ghost.

Notice in Acts 8, the apostles lay hands on Smaritans so that they might receive the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost had not yet come upon any of them, for they had just been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Notice that in Acts 19, after baptizing about 12 men, Paul _laid hands on them_ and the Holy Ghost came on them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

Think about how this idea evolved into the practices found in the traditional churches like the RCC or the E. Orthodox churches. They exchange apostles in their scenario for priests, whom they say have the authority of apostles. The elders/preists in their view of things, have certain powers- the ability to change the bread to the body of Christ, the authority to baptize, and the authority to impart the Holy Spirit. They baptize babies. When they babies grow to be children of a certain age (around 12 in the RCC I think), the priests confirm/chrismatize them by laying hands on them. The idea is that the priest has this power, inherited from the apostles, to impart the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is said to be imparted by the laying on of hands and confirmation- that is one view of things. The people in those churches are normally baptized and confirmed according to this neat stock pattern.

Of course, in Acts, God didn't always follow this pattern. In Acts 10, Cornelius and those with him received the Holy Ghost before they were baptized! We also read that Jesus sent a man named Ananias to Paul. He was described as a 'disciple' not as an apostle, elder, or deacon. He came to Paul that Paul might receive the Holy Ghost, be healed, and be baptized. Ananias was the one who laid hands on Paul here, not the apostles. How would an RCC priest respond to this? Was Paul 'confirmed' through a 'layperson?'

The RM has it's own pattern of how God is supposed to work, based on Acts 2:38. Repent and be baptized, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. The view that many in the RM hold to is that receiving the Holy Spirit comes AT baptism- at the instant of baptism.

Yet the Samaritans in Acts 8 had experiences that were consistent with Acts 2:38- but there was a delay between baptism and receiving the Spirit (in some sense of the word.) They repented, were baptized, and later the apostles came and laid hands hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost.

But in the case of Orneilus, God worked a diferent way, giving people the Holy Ghost before they were baptized.

So what is my point in brining all of this up? We need to reconsider our nice neat theological boxes. For example, there are incidents in Acts that don't fit with the convenient idea that God always does things one certain way, that people repent, are baptized, and always receive the Holy Ghost at the moment of baptism, not before and not after.

You may say that the Samaritans received the Holy Ghost at baptism, and that 'recieve' in Acts 8 refers to external on-coming of the Spirit and not internal reception. That is, that 'receive' in Acts 8, refers to soemthing different than 'receive' in Acts 2:38. This is still a theological assumption, something not found in the text. Many Pentecostals believe in two types of receiving the Spirit- one associated with salvation, and another associated with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Some may say that the Samaritans were sealed at baptism, but 'received' the Spirit in some other way later on. Others might argue that the Samaritans received the Spirit accordint Acts 2:38, but only after a delay. Many of these views of this ddifficult passage involve some degree of theological assumption or inference on our part.

But what the passage does not say is that 'miraculous gifts' only came through the laying on of hands of the apostles. The fact is that there are many scriptures that show the gifts are not only given by the laying on of hands of the apostles. To reiterate, Timothy received a gift throught he laying on of hands of the elders. Samaritans and 12 Ephesians believed, were baptized, and then had apostles hands laid on them. But Ananias laid hands on Saul of Tarsus (whether this was only for healing or related to the custom of apostles laying hands on new converts requires a bit of theological inference.) The apostles laid hands on the 7, and later apostles Paul and Barnabas laid hands on newly selected church elders in Acts 14. But we see that Paul and Barnabas were separated for ministry through the laying on of hands of prophets and teachers.

It seems that God is a lot more flexible than some of our theological notions of how He always works.

The Bible just does not teach that gifts only come through the laying on of hands of the apostles, and actually gives a lot of evidence against this idea.

-- Anonymous, August 28, 2000

Link,

You are correct about the way I began to speak to you. I apologize for my shortness. I didn't say that Benjamin had used the Gal 1:1 passage, only that it is one (of many) passages that show a distinction in Jesus sent Apostles and those who were just sent.

It is about 10:30 at night and I just got home and haven't even eaten yet so I will continue this at a later time.

I stand by the positions I hold and I dod not base them, as you claim on just one or two verses. There is great consistency in Scripture - more than you give it credit for.

AKelley, where are you??

-- Anonymous, August 28, 2000

Scott,

Apology accepted. I look forward to a serious discussion of the scriptures with you.

When you get the time, I would like to see you present your case for the belief that gifts of the Spirit, or miraculous gifts were given exclusively through the laying on of the apostle's hands. (If that is indeed your stance.)

To do that, I would like to see proof that 'receiving the Spirit' in Acts 8 refers specifically to receiving gifts of the Spirit, and specifically miraculous gifts, and that the Bible clearly puts 'miraculous gifts' and 'regular gifts' in differen tcategories. I would also like to see a response to Paul's instructions in I Corintians 14:13 that indicate that the gift of interpretaiton can come through prayer, rather than through the laying on of hands of the apostles, and Paul's teaching in I Corinthians 12 that the gifts are given to every man as the Spirit wills.

Link

-- Anonymous, August 28, 2000

Brother Link:

I do not have much time at the moment but I want to say something about your following words:

Acts 9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. This isn't conclusive, but notice that Ananias laid hands on Saul, and the verse mentions Saul receiving the Holy Ghost.

You are certainly correct in saying that this is not conclusive! In fact it is not even CLOSE to being the truth. This passage says noting about how Paul received the Holy Spirit. The simple fact that the verse mentions in this context Saul receiving the Holy Ghost does not in any way prove that he received it from the lying on of the hands of Ananias. We do not have any record of HOW the Holy Spirit was imparted to Paul. You simply are trying very hard to find someone other than Cornelius, which was an exception with a purpose (Acts 11:15-18), that received the Holy Spirit through the lying on of someones hands other than an apostle.

You failed to notice however that Acts 9:12 tells us the exact reason that Ananias laid his hands upon Paul. It reads thus:

Arise and go to the street named straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one named Saul, a man of Tarsus: For behold, he prayeth; and he hath seen a man named Ananias coming in, and laying his hands on him, THAT HE MIGHT RECEIVE HIS SIGHT. (Acts 9:12).

Now the purpose of Ananias laying hands upon Saul was THAT HE MIGHT RECEIVE HIS SIGHT. This much is known for sure. When Ananias actually came to Paul he said:

Brother Saul, the LORD even Jesus, hath sent me, that thou mayest receive thy sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit. And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight and he arose and was immersed. (Acts 9:17-18).

It is clear that the purpose for which Ananias laid hands upon Saul was that he might receive his sight. It is also true that Ananias came to him two reasons (1) that he might receive his sight and (2.) that he might receive the Holy Spirit. The first was accomplished through the lying on of the hands of Ananias. But notice that as soon as he received his sight he was baptized. Acts 2:38 says repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. It should be clear that Ananias came to Saul to lay hands upon him that he might receive his sight and baptized him that he might receive the Holy Spirit. But when and how Paul was given the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit we have not clear record. However Paul did give an indication that he received nothing from even the apostles that were before him. Paul said, But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me from my mothers womb, and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach it among the gentiles; straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood; neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went AWAY into Arabia: and again returned unto Demascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and tarried with him fifteen days. (Gal.1: 15-18).

It seems very possible that Paul received all that the Apostles received in the same manner that they received it while in Arabia with Christ. For he says concerning the gospel he preached, neither did I receive it from man but it came to me by revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal. 1:11,12). It is certainly possible that He received the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit directly from Christ as did the other Apostles and not through the lying on of anyones hands. But one thing is certain. He did not receive the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit through the lying on of the hands of Ananias. Your attempt to make it appear that he did receive the miraculous powers of an Apostle of Christ you admit is not CONCLUSIVE but when we observe the facts that you neglected to point out we can see that it is not even CLOSE to being the truth.

Keep trying Brother Link and see if you can find anyone other than the household of Cornelius and the Apostles themselves that received the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit by any means other than through the lying on of the apostles hands. You will not find one. But you are welcome to keep trying. Saul is not the answer!

It was through the lying on of the apostles hands that the Holy Spirit was given. (Acts 8:14-24; Acts 19:1-6). It was not given any other way except to the House of Cornelieus, which was, in fulfillment of prophecy, and for the purpose of demonstrating to the unbelieving Jews that God had accepted the gentiles. And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them even as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed immersed with water; but ye shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit. IF THEN GOD GAVE UNTO THEM THE LIKE GIFT AS HE DID ALSO UNTO US, WHEN WE BELIEVED ON JESUS CHRIST, WHO WAS I THAT I COULD WITHSTAND GOD? And when they heard these things they held their peace and glorified God saying, then to the gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life. (Acts 11:15-18). This was without doubt a special case and an exception to the rule which otherwise was that the Holy Spirit was given through the lying on of the apostles hands. Paul even uses the fact that he had imparted spiritual gifts unto the Corinthians as a defense of his apostleship to those who were denying that he was an apostle of Christ. If the impartation of Spiritual gifts were proof that Paul was an apostle then it would be reasonable that none but the apostles could pass these gifts to others. Otherwise Pauls argument from that position would have been meaningless. All anyone would have had to say is that Paul himself had received the Holy Spirit through the lying on of Ananias hands. The fact is that they could not say such a thing because that would not have been the truth.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 29, 2000

E. Lee S.,

I'll concede the point on Ananias. I notice, Lee, that I gave a lot of information that proved your stance that the gifts were ONLY given through the laying on of the apostles hands. Instead of conceding that you were wrong, you pick out the weakest link (which I admitted was inconclusive) and wrote several paragraphs about how wrong I was.

>>Keep trying Brother Link and see if you can find anyone other than the household of Cornelius and the Apostles themselves that received the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit by any means other than through the lying on of the apostles hands.<<<

You have written earlier that you are willing to admit if you are wrong. In a previous, you wrote that the 'miraculous gifts' were given ONLY thorugh the laying on of the apostles hands. Acts 10 proves that your previous stance was wrong.

It is not a big deal to be wrong in a discussion, but I don't like seeing someone argue in such a way where he picks one little point wrong in another's posts, and glosses over the fact that he is wrong. This discussion is not a game.

You make some assumptions which show in the quote above. First of all, you assume that 'miraculous gifts' are somehow separate from non- miraculous gifts. The fact is, the Bible does not teach that gifts are given only through thelaying on of hands of the apostles. The Bible shows a few EXAMPLES of gifts being given thorugh the laying on of the apostles hands. But the Bible TEACHES that gifts are given according to the will of the Spirit. Look at I Corinthians 12's comments about the gifts which you call 'miraculous gifts.'

You also did not answer the fact that in I Corinthians 12:13, Paul instructs the one who speaks in tongues to pray that he may interpret. The idea of someone being able to pray and receive a gift like this does not line up with your idea that gifts are given ONLY through the laying on of the apostles hands.

>>It was through the lying on of the apostles hands that the Holy Spirit was given. (Acts 8:14-24; Acts 19:1-6). It was not given any other way except to the House of Cornelieus, which was, in fulfillment of prophecy, and for the purpose of demonstrating to the unbelieving Jews that God had accepted the gentiles.<<<

So, are you saying that the Spirit is not received through baptism? If the Spirit was only given through the laying on of hands of the apostles, and you say there were no more apostles since the first century, and you were born in this century, then do you have the Holy Spirit?

Lukes' language does not distinugih between receiving the Spirit with gifts or just receiving the Spirit. You can invent distinctions that are not in scripture to support your theology, but that is still theological assumption. The Acts 8 passage shows that the Samaritans RECEIVED the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands of the apostles. IT DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE SAMARITANS RECEIVING 'MIRACULOUS GIFTS.'

>> And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them even as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed immersed with water; but ye shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit. IF THEN GOD GAVE UNTO THEM THE LIKE GIFT AS HE DID ALSO UNTO US, WHEN WE BELIEVED ON JESUS CHRIST, WHO WAS I THAT I COULD WITHSTAND GOD? <<

The gift here being spoken of is not the 'charismata.' The gift they received was the 'dorea' of the Holy Spirit. The same Greek root for 'gift' used in ACTS 2:38! They were amazed to see that the Gentiles were filled with the Holy Ghost- had received the Holy Ghost, and Peter remembered Jesus' words about being baptized with the Holy Ghost. Speaking in tongues- the charismata- was evidence to them that the people had received the dorea- gift- of the Holy Ghost.

You wrote,

>>This was without doubt a special case and an exception to the rule which otherwise was that the Holy Spirit was given through the lying on of the apostles hands. <<<

My point is that the Bible does NOT teach that it was a RULE that the 'miraculous gifts' were only given through the laying on of hands of the apostles.

What is your evidence that the 'miraculous gifts' were even given through the laying on of the apostles hands.

Let's think of the passages.

* Acts 2- apostles (and most likely 120) spoke in tongues without any mention of laying on of hands. * Acts 8- Samaritans receive the HOLY GHOST through laying on of apostles hands. NO MENTION of Samaritans using 'miraculous gifts.' *Acts 10- Cornelius and others speak in tongues WITHOUT the laying on of hands of the apostles. Acts 19- Paul lays hands on some newly baptized believers. They Holy Ghost comes on them, and they speak in tongues and prophecy.

So, if we pass up Acts 2, which was an historic event, and look at other occurrances in Acts of people speaking in tongues, we are left with 2 occurances. In one, people spoke in tongues after no apostles laid hands on them. In another, people spoke in tongues after an apostle laid hands on them.

We also have a reference in Romans that Paul wanted to impart a spiritual gift to them. But we see in chapter 12 that they already had some spiritual gifts including, PROPHECY- before Paul had a chance to lay hands on them.

Paul's actual teaching was that gifts were given as the Spirit wills. And in I Corinthians 14:13, Paul indicates that a 'miraculous gift' can be received in answer to prayer.

So what do you based this 'rule' on that 'miraculous gifts' were given through the laying on of the apostles hands? Acts 19? One verse makes a rule? Well, when you find out the rules, you should consult all of scriture, not just one verse. So when we look at Acts 10, and Paul's other teachings, and see that gifts could just be given by God, then that negates the rule that 'miraculous gifts' only come through the aposltes hands.

So not only can you not demonstrate from scritpure that the 'miraculous gifts' were only given through the laying on of the apostles hands, but a study of the scriptues shows that the scriptures actually contradict the idea that these gifts were exclusively given through the laying on of hands of the apostles.

Many manifestations of these phenomenon occured in the Old Testament, before being labeled 'gifts' in the New Testament. Elisha did miracles and prohpesied, though in the New Testament these things are called gifts. Elijah did not have the apostles lay hands on him because they weren't around yet. When we see how prophecy was given in the Old Testament, we see that God could give it to whoever He wished. It wasn't passed along only by apostolic succession or Moses succession. It would sometimes just show up in people. Even men like Balaam prophesied.

Not only that, but dividing gifts into 'miraculous' and 'non- miraculous' is not based on scripture. The Bible shows that Timothy got a gift through the laying on of hands of the ELDERS. So not only apostles were used to impart gifts.

Whern you talk about exceptions to the rule, your rules have to come from scripture in the first place. You should realize that the burden of proof is on you to prove that the laying on of hands was the only way the gifts were given in the first place. Not only do the scriptures not teach this idea that gifts could only be given by thelaying on of hands of the apostles, but they actually contradict it.

Lee,

You wrote,

>>>Paul even uses the fact that he had imparted spiritual gifts unto the Corinthians as a defense of his apostleship to those who were denying that he was an apostle of Christ. If the impartation of Spiritual gifts were proof that Paul was an apostle then it would be reasonable that none but the apostles could pass these gifts to others. <<<

I'm rather familiar with the books of Corinthians (they were the first of my Teen Bible Quiz books when I was involved in that program.) I really don't know what verse you are thinking of. Paul said that the Corinthians were the seal of his apostleship in the Lord. But I don't know of any verse where Paul uses the fact that he imparted gifts to them (speaking of 'miraculous gifts' rather than preaching Christ to them) as evidence of his apostleship. They themselves are the seal of his apostleship, having received the gospel through him. What verse are you thinking of here.

-- Anonymous, August 29, 2000

Sorry, Bible Thumper, Anonymous posts are not allowed in this Forum, unless you email me privately with a good reason for being anonymous. Good post, though. Send me your real email address, and I will re-post it.

-- Anonymous, August 30, 2000

Bible Thumper (Could you tell us your name? I prefer that to clerical titles)

Be careful not to generalize about other brothers and sisters in Chirst. One of the lessons of I Corinthians 12 is that we should not look down on others for having or not having a particular gift. those with the gift of tongues should not look down on those who do not have the gift. And those who do not have the gift of tongues should not look down on those who do.

The problem with churches is not the gift of tongues. I've seen plenty of typical TV stereotypical preachers who talk about healing, money, and speaking in tongues every week, and neglect the weightier matters of the scriptures. But there are plenty of other congregations that have saints that speak in tongues, where tongues are interpreted rather than spoken all at one time, and are not a central focus. There are plenty of carnal believers who do not put the word of God into practice who do not speak in tongues. There are plenty of congregations of non-charismatics who get hung up on one doctrinal focus and get out of balance. Accurate preaching on salvation is great, but if church life consists of going to a church meeting, sitting down, and hearing messages on how to become a Christian every week, believers can't grow very much. There are churches like this. Instead of believers meeting and edifying one another, they sit and listen to one man preach the same message every week on salvation.

I've seen gifts of the Spirit in action, and have seen the results of prayer for healing accompanied by the laying on of hands. That is something very real in my experience. You may not have had such experiences.

Neither my experience nor your lack of experience are a firm foundation for doctrine. We should examine the scriptures to see what they have to say. The Bible shows us that gifts of the Holy Ghost are given to the church for mutual benefit. The Bible tells us that speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophecy, the working of miracles, etc. are gifts of the Spirit. That is the Bible, and I make no apology for the Bible. Whether you choose to believe that or not is up to you. You shouldn't have to see miracles to believe they can happen. The teaching of the Bible should be enough. If you expected God to do them, you might be more likely to see them. Even Jesus could not do many mighty miracles in His own home town because of their own belief. Jesus put forth the scoffing crowd before He raised a dead girl. The Pharisees asked Jesus for a sign, and He would give them none but the sign of the prophet Jonah. We should just believe what the Bible has to say about miracles, rather than seeking an experience of miracles as proof to change a doctrinal stance.

I've seen some of these gifts in action, and this is in line with the scriptures.

Paul ranks teachers and prophets up higher than speaking in tongues in his gift lists. You are right that many overemphasize tongues. Paul wrote 'Do all speak with tongues?' There were probably Corinthians who thought they were spiritual because they spoke in tongues, and who would waste everyone's time in the meeting by speaking in tongues without an interpretation. Other gifts which could be understood by others were more profitable for the congregation, and Paul instructed that tongues should be interpreted.

There are plenty of Charismatics doing the same thing as the Corinthians. that doesn't mean that they don't have gifts. It means they need to read the Bible and put it into action. But there are also plenty of Charismatics who don't follow flakey preaching on money and all speak in tongues at the same time. There are mature believers out there doing the work of the Lord who speak in tongues. Paul was an example of one such a man in the first century.

This conversation has focused somewhat on tongues because early posters brought up the subject, and we've been discussing certain passages that relate to the topic of speaking in tongues. That doesn't mean that I believe speaking in tongues is the most exalted of the gifts, or anything like that.

Please consider your attitude toward believers who speak in tongues. It is not right to judge a believer just because of the gift he receives. Speaking in tongues does not make one a flake, even if there are TV preachers with flaky preaching about tongues and money who buy up a lot of time on the airwaves.

-- Anonymous, August 30, 2000

censorship....on a Christian forum? wow.

Sorry Duane, I have particpated in forums like this before and giving out real info seems to lead to trouble. I've had a computer hacked by extreme people, I've had virie sent to my e-mail box. I'm not going thru that again. be shrewd as a serpent, but harmless as a dove don'tchaknow.

If you want to erase my words go ahead. There is a small list of people who received them via e-mail, so they know what was posted and whether or not it warrented deletion.

Link:

Love to have discussion but it seems I am not welcome to post on this forum. Maybe some other time.

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, August 30, 2000

BTW, the e is real. its an old BB trick to fool autospammers.

-- Anonymous, August 30, 2000

Bible Thumper-

This forum sends out emails to addresses of people who post. So if you use a wrong address, they say it causs trouble, so you have to use real addresses.

Don't worry about getting your system hacked by just giving out your email address. the way your system gets hacked is if you open certain attachments sent to your email. You can even get such an attachment from someone you know and trust if that person opens an attachment that gives him a virus that sends out emails to addresses listed in the files on his computer. Other than that, I don't think your system can get hacked just from posting your email.

-- Anonymous, August 31, 2000

Nor from your real name. All who receive your post via email will agree it was worthy of deletion. Why? Because of its content? No, it was actually quite good.

Because it simply does not meet one of the standards for this Forum, which is "if you have something to say, tell us who you are."

By giving a fake name, it is actually YOU who are censoring information from US!

-- Anonymous, August 31, 2000