GiftsManifestations of the Spirit Are they valid for this Age

[dcdc (141.156.171.67)]

Wyoming,
Okay. Here's what I think the problem is and why people reject or don't believe that these gifts are no longer needed. Before i start, let me say i attend a place of worship that does believe in the Gifts of the Spirit.

I think what many people have a problem with is the emphasis on the gifts such as tongues, etc. Also, I believe that many falsely use tongues as a litmus test to determine who is saved or has the Spirit of God. Tongues is not the only sign of the Spirit of God residing in a man. There are many things listed in the Bible that speak to the evidence of the Spirit.


These gifts are needed in this age because it shows the Power of God. But the main reason for these gifts is to empower the believer to be an effective disciple for Christ. God spoke through Malachi and said He does not change.

A lot of people go to corinthians 13 to prove that these gifts have ceased because of what Paul says in verse 10.

I don't agree with how people interpret verse 10. Paul to me is stressing that these gifts will cease at the second coming of Christ. It is only then as Paul said that those in Christ will see him face to face. Paul said in verse 12, "Now we see through a glass,darkly: but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as I am known"(KJV) So clearly Paul considered himself and all those in Christ as looking through glass. Why would the gifts cease? Because Christ the Perfect One is here. Why would you need to prophecy when Jesus returns.

The Greek word for "perfection" can mean end,fullfillment,completeness, or maturity. Some people say this refers to completion of the Bible.

But where has any Apostle preached and prophesied about the completion of the Bible. All the Apostles preached the Gospel which doesn't talk about the completion of the "written" Word of God. The Gospel does talk about the second coming of Christ.

Your take?

[Douglas (68.162.54.73)]

I understand the possibility of and how the gifts can work. I have seen what I believe to be manifestations of them but not seen people grow irises or hands or tumors dissappear as a friend whose testimony I accept has seen and partaken of. I don't see why the gifts wouldn't work and often wonder what is wrong with my faith that I don't manifest healing powers more than I do.

I used to feel lonely all the time until I met that friend who told me about the healings he partook of. I met him in an almost supernatural way and I was not lonely while he was staying with me for a few months and since then have never been lonely, about 20 plus years.

I suppose our egos get in our way but although I do not see why they wouldn't operate I don't know if I could tell you why or when they would or should.

I agree with you about the tongues thing and the scripture about the gifts ceasing when Messiah returns. They also cease in building us up when he is finished in us as an individual and sits on the throne of our heart. I suspect that is why the apostles were building up and not getting built up at the point where they could say, it is no longer I that lives but Christ in me.

[Wyoming (67.170.149.100)]

The chronology of the Bible is not all business as usual. God does not change. Times and circumstances change. e.g., God dealt differently with Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, judgement with the flood, the tower of Babel and the spread of nations; Abraham, Issac, and Jacob; Moses in Egypt, in the wilderness, and delivering the Law of the Ten Commandments, etc.; the life, death, and resurection of Jesus Christ, and the Church Age under Grace, and the transition in the Book of Acts from a Jewish Church to a Gentile Church; saved and un-saved. Lots and lots of CHANGE with different circumstances and conditions!


Paul said: "I thank God I speak with tongues more than you all!"

Paul told us exactly where and why he spoke with tongues at that time. It was in fulfillment of the Jewish prophecy concerning how God was going to deal with unbelieving Israel, "this people." - Isa 28:9-12; 1 Cor. 14:18-22.

Speaking in tongues was a sign to unbelieving Jews and is never found after God breaks off the last of "the natural olive branches (Israel)." "The Jews require a sign," God promised to give the sign of tongues, and Paul said, speaking with tongues was not for the church but was a sign for unbelievers in fulfillment of God's promise in "the law," - Isa. 28:9-12; 1 Cor. 1:22; 14:18-22.

Every Bible instance of "speaking in tongues" is in connection with doubting or unbelieving Jews. - Acts 2:4-7; 10:44-46; 19:3-8.

[dcdc (138.88.32.164)]

Wyoming,
I need to do a little more research to get my thoughts together; so i will post some more tonight.

I don't know if you know or not but your interpretation proves that tongues still exist today. Why? You said that tongues are for unbelieving Jews. Well, we in this age still have unbelieving Jews. Paul in his letter to the Romans told the Gentiles to not be arrogant about their salvation and look down on the branches that were broke off("unbelieving Jew"). The reason salvation was granted to the Gentiles is so that Israel could be saved, also. He said Israel has experienced a hardening until the full number of Gentiles has come in(Rom 11:25). I say that number has not been fullfilled yet. When that number is fulfilled, then there is a remenant in Israel that will hear and be saved.(Rom 11:26).

So that's why I say tongues and all the gifts are still valid today. It's not only edifying for the Body of Christ and the believer, but like you said it is a sign to the unbelieving Jew now, who if he repents and believes will become one of the 144,000.

Do you agree with this interpretation?

[Wyoming (199.141.125.33)]

"Whether there be tongues, they shall cease... when that which is perfect is come." - 1 Cor. 13:8-10. As soon as Paul was inspired to give Christians the revelation of their completeness in Christ (Col. 2:10-12) and the fact that God had temporarily ceased to deal with the Jewish nation, all believers were told that they were perfect in Christ and were neither "Jews nor Gentiles" but citizens of heaven. Thus, "that which is perfect" had come and tongues ceased. So also did all the "signs and wonders following." - 1 Cor. 2:6; Phil. 3:3, 15; Rom. 11:25.

Romans 11:25 “…that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.”

Acts 28:28, “…that the salvation of God is sent unto the gentiles, and that they will hear it.” Also, 2 Cor. 5:16, 17

"Perfect" believers have no physical types and signs.

Paul's letter to the over-grown "babies" at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:11-12; 3:1-4) is the last, and only, epistle where speaking in tongues is found. And, indeed, "tongues and stammering lips" was religious "baby talk" that God used dealing with unbelieving Jews before the destruction of Jerusalem. - Isa. 28:9-13; 1 Cor. 14:18-22; 13:8-11; 9:19-22.


Note the clear change from Acts 2:4 to Eph. 5:17-19.

Acts 2:4, “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” [And, I might add that all the foreigners listed there HEARD in their own language.]

1 Cor 14:23 “If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?”

Ephesians 5:17-19. “Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is. And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.”


In the light of 2 Tim. 3:16 to “shun profane and vain babblings”, and “that which is perfect” has come, WHAT USE HAS THE CHURCH NOW for "tongues"?

[No guessing now… give me scripture in proper context.]

Did you know that other religions, non-Christian, such as Buddhists, Eskimos, and American Indians babble in tongues? Anyone can hypnotize themselves into doing it.

[FriendInChrist (68.34.76.34)]

dcdc,

One important caviat to the tongues issue. Everytime tongues is spoken of, that would be the 3 historical occurrences in Acts, the speaker was talking in KNOWN national languages, not an UNKNOWN utterance. I believe also that the gift of tongues can be manifested if God chooses. But it is NEVER in a way that others cannot understand. The interpreter spoken of is someone who can interpret the national language being spoken.
Many people have taken this to a hyper-spiritual level by babbling and saying this is a sign of salvation. This is not Biblical.

[Wyoming (199.141.125.33)]

"And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." - Acts 2:4. Please note very carefully that the miraculous sign here was that the unbelieving, Christ-rejecting Jews could understand every word WITHOUT AN INTERPRETOR. But with Christians it was always necessary to have someone present who had "the gift of interpretation of tongues" because tongues were not intended as signs except to unsaved Israel. - 1 Cor. 14:18-24. It should also be noted that the messages given in tongues were concerning "the wonderful works of God." - Acts 2:11.

[dcdc (141.156.191.38)]

FriendInChrist/Wyoming,
I agree that in Acts 2 they spoke with KNOWN languages. Why? Because in order for the Gospel to be preached the Apostles had to have the ability to speak in a known language other than their own so that other people could hear the good news.

Now, there are tongues that are unknown(1 Cor. 13:1) and known(Acts 2:2-4). Now, the gift of interpretation is not for KNOWN tongues because remember they are speaking a language that is known of man. The hearers as in the case of Acts 2 knew the language because they spoke the same dialect. They did not need the gift of interpretation to understand. They understood because they spoke the same language.

Now, unknown tongues is that which is only known by God Himself. Those who speak in tongues are speaking to God Himself.(1 Cor 14:2). Paul said no one understands him. It is not babbling; so be careful labelling it as "babbling". Paul said he spoke with unknown tongues. It's the believers spirit that is praying to God and magnifying God uttering mysteries unknown to any man. Now, this is where interpretation comes in and that is why Paul said that those who speak in tongues should pray for interpretation (1 Cor 14:13) so that by interpreting, others can understand and be edified also. Just because there are some that may abuse this gift doesn't not make the Gift wrong. Remember this is God's gift and this gift is given by God Himself to whom He chooses. I don't think God placed a limit on when and to whom he will give this Gift.

I agree. Those who link tongues with salvation are mistaken. I said in my original post that "Also, I believe that many falsely use tongues as a litmus test to determine who is saved or has the Spirit of God".

My problem is that many people say that the Gifts of the Spirit(miracles, healings, tongues, interpretation) are not for today.

I leave you with this thought for today. There are over 100 languages in the world and countless dialects. There are also people in the world who have not heard of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. How will these people hear the Gospel unless someone is sent to them or unless God reaveals the Gospel to one of these unbelievers who in turn goes out preaching(like Paul). The Bible has not been written every language and dialect of the world. So my point is this; some of the Gifts of the Spirit are meant to show the unbeliever that God lives; it's EVIDENCE of God's power on Earth. When Jesus was living He preached the Gospel and performed miracles and healings. Some people believed in Jesus because of what He said; some believed because of what He said AND what they saw(i.e miracles, healing)(Luke 4:22, 4:33-37,5:15-26,7:11-16,Acts 2:22). Same thing in the Apostles days, some believed because of what they said and some believed because what they said AND what they saw.(Acts 3:9,10, 5:12-16, 6:8, 8:6-8, 9:32-42, 14:3)

I think today that in some parts of the world people are hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Some of these folks believe because of what was preached to them. Some believe because of what was preached AND what they saw(miracles and healings). The miracles and healings, etc give EVIDENCE that the Spirit of God is at work. Just as God used these signs in there day to confirm the truth of the Gospel, He is using it today.

[dcdc (141.156.191.38)]

Wyoming,
You're 1:21 pm post i will respond to tomorrow.
I'm still trying to understand what you mean. Your later post is on target.

[Wyoming (67.170.149.100)]

Where does it say at any time that no one understood Paul. Also, there was no babbling among the disciples; the babbling is today. As I stated, the Gentiles need an interpretor. Everything was done correctly then, and the gift was done away when the church became perefect as described in my earlier post. Read the scriptures and accept them and don't try to use human reasoning. The gifts were signs to unbelieving Israel and that's all. What's going on today is a staged deception.

[FriendInChrist (69.139.232.85)]

Well said Wyoming

[dcdc (138.88.11.166)]

Look and read carefully, when I said the
" Paul said no one understands him". That should have said "them". The them refers to the person speaking in tongues. I'm not using human reasoning. I quote 1 Corithinans 14:2 "For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: FOR NO MAN UNDERSTANDETH HIM; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries". Look in the English dictionary and tell me what "no man understandeth him" mean. Paul was very clear no man can understand the one that speaketh in an unknown tongue, unless there is somebody there who has the gift of interpretation or the speaker is able to interpret. That's straight from the Bible.

[Wyoming (67.170.149.100)]

Let's see what we can get from context.

1 Cor 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. (11) When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. (12) For now we see through a glass, darkley; but then face to face; now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (13) And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the createst of these is charity.

1 Cor. 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. (2) For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; FOR NOT MAN UNDERSTANDETH HIM [I see; him, whoever is speaking]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. (3) But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. (4) He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; [I don't understand how he could even edify himself] but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. (5) I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that mprophesieth than he that speakethwith tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. (6) Now, brethren, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you eithere by revelation, or byknowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? (7) And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what ispiped or harped.

I'm sorry. I though you said that no one understood Paul -- which didn't sound right to me.

Back to tongues being a sign to the Jews, the Gentiles need an interpretor. I'm thinking that Paul is saying, what use would it be to speak in tongues if there were no Jews present to hear you. Like being facetious about someone talking to themselves.

FriendInChrist, what do you think.

[dcdc (138.88.147.145)]

Wyoming,
Now to address your earlier post. The perfect coming in 1 Corinthians 13 IS NOT referring to believers. You quote the following verse:
Rom 11:25. "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happended to Israel UNTIL the fulness of the Gentiles be come in". But you MUST read verse 26 which says "And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, THERE SHALL COME OUT OF SION THE DELIVERER, AND TURN AWAY UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB". "Until" means as far as, as long as, up to. In this case it means "up to".

You said "Thus, "that which is perfect" had come and tongues ceased. So also did all the "signs and wonders following." - 1 Cor. 2:6; Phil. 3:3, 15; Rom. 11:25. " THAT IS NOT BIBLICAL!! You mention these verse because they reference "perfect". LOOK AT THE CONTEXT. It's talking about believers who are mature.
The Bible says the Law of the Lord is perfect(i.e. without defect, blame, perfect)(Psalm 19:7). The only one that is without blame and pefect is Jesus.

If the "perfect" is meant the way you say then Paul would not have wrote in the same letter "1 Cor 13:9,12. All Paul had to say was BECAUSE you are PERFECT you no longer needs these gifts. PAUL DID NOT SAY THAT BECAUSE HE KNEW WHAT THE GIFTS WERE SUPPOSE TO BE USED FOR!!! 1 Corithians 13:9 says "FOR WE KNOW IN PART, AND WE PROPHESY IN PART.Verse 12 Says "FOR NOW(that means the time Paul was writing) WE(the "church") SEE THROUGH A GLASS, DARKLY(that mean we can see some things but not everything clearly): BUT THEN(referring to a future time) FACE TO FACE: NOW I(Paul) KNOW IN PART; BUT THEN(again a future time) SHALL I(Paul) KNOW EVEN AS ALSO I(Paul) AM KNOWN". When Christ returns, then these gifts are no longer needed because the perfect has come. I ask you has Christ returned? So if the perfect means what you said, then why did Paul say "I know(PRESENT TENSE) in part". He knows in part because you cannot know Jesus in his totality until HE returns. So Paul clearly stated the Gifts of the Spirit which are imperfect will pass away when see Jesus "face to face". This CAN ONLY happen when the Lord returns.

Paul stated that he was a child and spoke as a child. These are past events.(1 Cor. 13:11). Now in verse 12 what does the "then" refer too? It has to refer back to something in the previous verse. Nothing in verse 11 refers to a future time. Now, go back to verse 10. BINGO!! Verse 10 is the only verse that talks about a future time. To paraphrase verse 10 "the perfect WILL come", and the IMPERFECT gifts shall be done away.

Then Paul compares what will last(i.e. faith, hope, and love). Out of everything gifts of healing, prophecty, etc., faith, hope, and love will remain EVEN when Christ returns.

Wyoming, you looked up perfect found the greek word and the places it is used in the NT. What you must realize is that the same word you looked up is found in Heb 9:11. In order to understand, you have to look at the context and in this case the context is referring to Christ's return not the Gentile Believers or the completion of Bible.

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1:7 "So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ". Paul was commending them because God in His grace had provided spiritual gifts while they waited on the return of Christ.

Paul did not seek to eliminate or say that these gifts should not be used.(1 Cor 14:39); he was trying to change their attitude towards these spiritual gifts so that they would be used according to God's intention.

Because you reject it and don't understand the Gifts of the Spirit I would be very careful in saying that if it is manifested in this age that it must be "staged deception". Just because you believe in God and read the Bible,etc doesn't mean you KNOW the FULL KNOWLEDGE OF GOD. WE(meaning you, I, and everybody else) ONLY KNOW IN PART, just like Paul said.

You said "Read the scriptures and accept them and don't try to use human reasoning". I am reading the scriptures and I am accepting what it says. I guess you are saying because I do not agree like you that i'm not reading scripture and not accepting them. I don't just quote a verse. Anybody can quote a verse. The thing is understanding what is written.

One last thing, true, tongues is a sign to the unbelieving Israel. Does NOT ISRAEL still reject that JESUS is the Son of God TODAY? If so, then from your own argument then, the sign must be still manifested to show Israel's unbelief. Or, are you telling me that ISRAEL has already been saved? What did the scriptures say, "WHEN THE FULLNESS of the GENTILES is COME", then(a future time) WILL ALL ISRAEL BE SAVED". Gentiles are still being saved today and ISRAEL still rejects that JESUS is God's Son.

Peace.

[dcdc (138.88.147.145)]

Wyoming,
I saw your last post after I wrote my previous post at 5:54. It took me a long time to come up with that past. Coming up with some of these responses is NOT EASY. But it's definitely a good learning experience and forces one to examine their beliefs and to truly search out what the scriptures say.

Anyway, edifies means to "build up". It provides encouragement and comfort to the the speaker. Each believer edifies God in their own way. What helps and strengthens you may not help me and what helps and strengthens me may not help you.

Peace

[Wyoming (67.170.149.100)]

I'm trying to keep things simple and down to the most common denominators with the most important proof texts in my earliest posts in hopes that you will reconcile things for yourself.

All the miracles - not just here, were given to make an impression upon the Jews. ("How many times have I stretched out my hand to a stubborn and stiff-necked people.") I should clarify that the miracle of the Jews hearing in their own language was ment to be effective right there on the spot. It is not the expectation that the Jews who are present and listening will continue in unbelief but will have cause to believe because of the amazing miracle.

The "perfect" is referring to the Gentiles being established. With Paul's missionary journeys, you might have more Gentiles as Christians than Jews by time you get to the end of the Book of Acts. The overwhelming majority of Jews rejected Christ and His offer of the Kingdom, which they could have at at His first coming. By the end of Acts the Church is perfectly established. It has been given to another people for at least 2000 years. (This is not talking about the Second Coming of Christ.) Tongues are no longer needed. Miracles cease. Paul and others can't even be healed anymore. You don't see any more miracles in the second half of Acts.

If you are interested in how the transition takes place from the beginning to the end of the book of Acts and how the apostles kept practicing the Jewish religion for a while and then start figuring thing out, significant to Law and Grace, then you might like to read this article: http://www.mauricejohnsonarchives.com/Understanding%20Acts.htm

Keep going. Don't give up.

[dcdc (138.88.14.49)]

Wyoming,
You are confusing things. The tract you ref is totally confusing to me. What did you mean by this " By the end of Acts the Church is perfectly established. It has been given to another people for at least 2000 years."

How can the "church" be perfectly complete. The "church" is the Body of Christ. If the "Body of Chist" is complete(i.e. perfect,full), then nobody can be added unto it. You don't add on to something that is complete.

People are still being added unto the "Body of Christ"; therefore the "church" has not been perfectly established. Paul told Timothy to continue to preach the word. Even after Paul died I surmise that people were being saved under Timothy's preaching. This was AFTER the Acts of the Apostles.

I guess I will just have to disagree with you on this.

[Wyoming (67.170.149.100)]

Have a little patience and you can figure it out.

From Pentecost to Acts 10 the church was entirely Jewish. Cornelius was the first gentile convert. More Gentiles came in. In Acts 15 (and the Book of Galatians) there is a question as to weather they should make the Gentile believers conduct themselves like Jews. The church is going through a transition. Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles. Peter was hypocritical in mixing and eating with the gentile believers when the Jewish believers weren't around and staying away from the Gentile believers when the Jewish believers were around. I'm trying to tell you that there is a transition taking place and the apostles are slow in figuring things out.

My posting, Friday, October 08, 2004 - 01:21 pm

-------------------------------
"Whether there be tongues, they shall cease... when that which is perfect is come." - 1 Cor. 13:8-10. As soon as Paul was inspired to give Christians the revelation of their completeness in Christ (Col. 2:10-12) and the fact that God had temporarily ceased to deal with the Jewish nation, all believers were told that they were perfect in Christ and were neither "Jews nor Gentiles" but citizens of heaven. Thus, "that which is perfect" had come and tongues ceased. So also did all the "signs and wonders following." - 1 Cor. 2:6; Phil. 3:3, 15; Rom. 11:25.

Romans 11:25 “…that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.”

Acts 28:28, “…that the salvation of God is sent unto the gentiles, and that they will hear it.” Also, 2 Cor. 5:16, 17

"Perfect" believers [by the end of the book of Acts] have no need for physical types and signs.

[dcdc (141.156.164.250)]

Wyoming,
I agree with the Peter and Paul statement.

I tell you what,

1) Explain 1 Cor 13:8-12 to me and how the "perfect" believer fits in that? Break down these verses and explain each one.


I leave you with this thought. The gifts of the Spirit are gifts; they are a work of the Spirit(1 Cor 12:11). God gives these gifts to the believer not for a sign or wonder. The Gifts are given so that they can equip and strengthen the believer and the "church"(the Body of Christ)(1 Cor 14:26) in the service of the Lord. Remember, the Gifts of the Spirit are given to believers. 1 Cor. 12:7.

To those who unbelieve it is a sign and a wonder;it's a sign of the work of the Spirit. It shows EVIDENCE that God's Spirit is at work.

Paul encouraged believers in 1 Cor 14:1 to seek spiritual gifts.

If they in Paul's day were given gifts of the Spirit so that the "church"(Body of Christ) could be strengthened, then we in our day surely need these same gifts so that the "church"(Body of Christ) is strengthened also. The same Spirit that worked in that day is working now. That's why God said HE doesn't change. God's power doesn't change; HIS word doesn't change; HIS promises don't change, and neither does HIS blessings change.

Straigtht from the Bible.
Peace.

[Wyoming (67.170.149.100)]

Tongues were not given to edify the established Church for the equipping of the saints [all Christians] to minister to one another. Tongues was given as a way to reach unbelieving Jews who came from other parts of the region and spoke other languages. Some of them are listed right there in Acts 2. The fact that it was miraculous, should get their attention. The non-Jewish believers needed the courtesy to know what's going on here, so they had an interpretor.

There are miraculous gifts that Jesus had and there are miraculous gifts the aposltes had: bringing back the dead, healing leprosy, speaking in tongues, etc. The apostles gave gifts to others but the reciepients could not pass them on to others beyond themselves because it was an apostolic gift. There are OTHER gifts that Christians have today for the equipping of us saints. They are given in OTHER scriptural passages because they are in a different context. Teaching, exhortation, prophesy [Greek PROPHETEO, preaching], giving, mercy, and serving -- for the equipping of the saints. If you've got everything mixed together, you've got a Mulligan stew. If you don't rightly divide the Word and separate all this you will end up saying that all the miraculous gifts can be performed by us today. Where are the cloven tongues of fire and the sound of a rushing mighty wind today? That's why those blatant Charismatics are all nuts!

The perfect believers are the believers as a group -- the Church. "Perfect" when the church settled in by the end of the book of Act (and Hebrews). Romans and Galatians is the most active part of that transition. Read them for yourself over and over again. I've fully explained the purpose and duration of the miraculous gifts.

A broader knowledge of the Epistles is needed to gain sound doctrine. There are no contridictions in scripture, and when any sect or movement presents something that does meld, there has to be a different answer. I've given you the resources to pick up from here and start studying for yourself.

I've understood these things clearly for 30 year, long after having dealt with it on a different level. Perhaps I need to understand that, since I now take it for granted, others may have a more difficult time understanding. I'm not the best communicator. If you really want some help in understanding how all that I'm saying could likely be true, I'll help you. After I have already explained the main points over and over again and someone just wants to argue a position, I'm not interested in arguing with anyone, especially anyone who doesn't want to be convinced. If I move on, I hope that something said here will strike a chord someday.

I Cor 13:8 The thing we can count on is a loving attitude. These other things shall pass away -- tongues included.

Verse 9: We have limited understanding.

Verse 10: In context with the previous verse, the "perfect' is related to understanding by a means we need to consider here in this verse. That which is in part done away is referring to verse 8. As the Church grew through to the end of the book of Acts, knowledge, teaching, and doctrine became perfect, so the things in verse 8 pass away. [We don't have to wait for the Second Coming of Christ. We are now perfect in Christ.]

Verse 11: When I was a baby Christian in the earliest days of the Church or as a young Christian.

Verse 12: Mirrors were shiny metal in those days. A glass is not a mirror but you can see some reflection -- barely a reflection, darkly. Now knowledge is to be clear, as big as life, when finding maturity.

[dcdc (138.88.132.165)]

Wyoming,
We will never convince each other, but that does not mean that you are lost or I am lost. This thread was meant to SHARE knowledge amongst those that believe in God, but have varying interpretations on the subject mentioned.

I've been reading 2 books "Understanding Christian Thelology" by Charles Swindol, and Systematic Theology by Wayne Gruden. Both of these authors tackle all the major doctrinal issues in the Bible inlcuding (Gifts of the Spirit, etc). Both have opposite opinions. Swindol believes similar to you in this fashion. He refers "the perfect" as being the completion of the foundation of the Church which is centered on the completion of the N.T. I think this is what you are trying to say.

On the other hand Gruden lays out a very good argument as to why he believes this is incorrect.

If the perfect is referring to the maturity of the Church, then I ask is the Church mature today?

Revelation was written around A.D 90, long after Paul died. If the perfect is referring to the completion of the NT, then that would mean we know more than the Apostles because the Bible was not completed in their lifetime.

In Gruden's book he mentions the various denominations and how they interpret the major doctrines. For Pentecostal/Charismatic's views he refers to William Rodman's Renewal Theology book.

Read this link(http://www.cbn.com/SpiritualLife/drwilliams/BK_TheoPilgrim.asp) and tell me what you think? It's quite long, but he talks about this very subject from personal a standpoint.

Let's not call "Charismatics" nuts. I'm not one, but by labelling those as such you show a lack of love. Nobody knows which persons will be saved ultimately. Some of those people you call "nuts" might be the ones standing before God receiving their crown.

Peace.

[Wyoming (67.170.149.100)]

DC: You must be off for the govt holiday too today... I'll read the article. I've never heard of Gruden. As I get older I read less books, because of all the confusion, and more Bible, and I prefer the interlinear Greek. Over the years, I've met, visited, and dealt with the Charismatics. I've experienced their craziness. It's polite to call them nuts. They pervert the word of God. I love their souls but I hate what they practice. No apology. I love God more.

[Anonymous (64.255.96.72)]

I Cor 14:18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue

And how you can even THINK the church is perfect is beyond me.

[dcdc (141.156.221.73)]

Wyoming,
Yep. I was off. These books are very good. Trust me when you read these books you will not be confused. It contains sound doctrine in both. There are only a couple of areas where they differ. But there is truth in both of them. No matter whom the truth comes from it is truth. They systematically layout all the doctrines of the Bible and support it with Scripture. Both come from different religous backgrounds. From reading these book I would consider you a "cessionist" whereas I would be given non-cessionist label. I prefer Grudem's book.

64.255.96.72,
Have you read this whole thread? What do you think?

Peace.

[Wyoming (67.170.149.100)]

DCDC: If I'm alligned with Swindol's position, wouldn't that make me an orthodox fundamentalist. My position on tongues is also traditional which is prior to Aime Semple McPhearson, where it mostly got started. With regard to man-made denominations, I'm a separatist.

64.255.96.72: "When that which is perfect is come" is not referring to perfect Christians or a perfect Church. It's referring to the completion of the FOUNDATION of the Church which is centered on the completion of the New Testament.

The Lord bless you all.

[Anonymous (64.255.96.72)]

I think you're reading a lot into that.

[Anonymous (65.230.198.173)]

Regarding the posting of Wyoming above:
If that which is perfect coming refers to the completion of the New Testament, then why did Paul say that when that which is perfect has come, I will know even as I am known? Seems like he is talking about the Millenium or something.

[Anonymous (64.255.96.72)]

I believe he is talking about seeing Jesus face to face.

[Wyoming (199.141.125.33)]

With regard to "now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." The answer is in context immediately before it. When you see a dark image in a glass [not a real mirror], it is hard to recognize the figure in the "dark" reflection. But when that which is perfect is come, it should be recognizable as plain as your known face. The simplest explanation is the best.

[dcdc (141.156.168.211)]

Wyoming,
No where in Paul or Peter's letter have they ever talked about the completion of the NT as completing the "church" Find me another verse.

None of the Apostles prophesied about the completion of the NT. The completion of the NT has nothing to do with preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The only thing the Apostle's preached is CHRIST JESUS. Why would they talk about the completion of the NT; it makes no sense. The Apostles viewed their letters as "Scripture". They didn't become "Scripture" upon completion of the NT. They were "Scripture" the day they wrote it.

Peter and Paul didn't tell the "churches" in that day to read my letters until such time as the NT is written and then you will know all things. They did tell the "churches" to read the letters to all "churches" so that they can grow in Christ and be ready for when the "bridegroom" comes. Paul and Peter considered the very letters that they wrote as the Word of God(Scripture); therefore they(the letters) should be read even as they read the other "Scriptures" that the "church" considered authorized. Peter compared Paul's letters to scripture.2 Peter 3:16.
So when they wrote letters, they were "Scripture" the minute that Peter and Paul inked their thoughts on paper.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Well this is all very interesting, I have to say that I agree with and have been taught with what Wyoming is saying for the most part; although, I understood "that which is perfect" to be the Word - and the Word is God. (The completion of the whole word of God - the Bible.)

[mark1124 (mark1124)]

Anybody who believe in the idea of the Bible being our only rule of authority (which I do), needs to give me chapter and verse that the thing which is perfect is the Bible. I hate to disagree with the above poster, but we did not have the complete Bible until the fourth century.

Anyway...without getting into arguing over this, I ask that someone post a scripture verse that says that the Bible is that which is perfect.

I challenged John MacArthur once about that and he could not answer me.

Mark Scaliotti

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

To Mark and everyone else,

I wish that this section of scripture were clearer - because I am looking through that dark glass as I read it. Perhaps "that" isn't the bible; however, it certainly could not be Jesus. Yes, Jesus is perfect; however, I don't see how Paul would refer to Jesus as a "that".

Edited and Added:

And I don't see the second coming of Christ being a "that" either - rather an event.



(Message edited by Hillbilly on November 15, 2004)

[medicine (medicine)]

The Bible also speaks of fruits of the spirit. One noticeable thing about a Christian is we have the Love of God, even if one or some of us can't read the Bible, we still have the love of God in us.1 John 4


God's Love and Ours

7"Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." (Biblegateway NIV).

Peace.

[jason_stone (jason_stone)]

DC, most people who have never been around the manifestations of the Spirit do not understand it in the least. They try to look at it in the natural. No matter what people say, God uses tongues through his people. For, the most part they go uninterpreted. Which is out of line.
People who do not believe in manifestations can't seem to grasp it is not us but the Spirit within us that does the speaking. That is if it is real. I also speak in tongues when the Spirit gives utterance. I prayed for God to give me the gift of interpreting. I can't for anyone else. But, the Spirit will speak the interpretation out. Much in the same manner of speaking in tongues. The Spirit speaks plain also. Just like you would speak in tongues. You would speak plain english. In those cases you don't need an interpreter.

Although, I have never heard it speak plain through anyone other than people who have the Spirit of Adoption Doctrine.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Jason,

I know you were talking to someone else but I am not convinced of such but if I did "believe" in the gift of tongues I certainly could grasp that it would be the Spirit within that was doing the speaking. The problem I have with the concept would be why would God continue this gift in today's world when you have various other "spirits" that try to imitate this.

A mind is often an easy thing to deceive. I would like someone to plainly explain to me what the "that which is perfect" is. The closest that I have ever come to understanding this is assuming it refers to the "maturity of the church" - although with the constant teaching that I get concerning it being the completion of the Bible - I get easily confused.

God bless,

[godsservant (godsservant)]

Hillbilly,

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

<font color="ff0000">A mind is often an easy thing to deceive.</font><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Let us not worry about the things which only God can understand. It is better to understand that speaking tongues is reality and no matter what spirit is within, dont let them affect you. Know that you are Saved and------PLEASE READ BELOW:

<font color="119911">Mr 12:30</font> And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

This commandment should be our most Imperative and let us not get distracted by things which Satan has intentionally caused doubt in.

<font size="+1"><font face="wingdings">V</font></font>GOD BLESS

[dcdc (dcdc)]

jason,
Thanks for your post. I agree 100% with your statements. Like i said in one of my earlier post, the Gifts of the Spirit are for the edification of the "church" and the believer. Also, some of these same gifts are a sign to the unbeliever that God lives. Just as there were unbelievers in the Apostle's days, there are unbelievers today and God is using the same evidence, the same Spirit, and the same Gospel.

hillbilly,
Can the gifts be imitated. Yes, the Bible clearly says so, but that didn't stop God nor the Apostles from believing in what Jesus told them.

For those that think "that which is perfect" refers to completion of the Bible, I have a question. Which version of the Bible is perfect? Is it the NIV, KJV, NASB, etc. I can't find one Scripture in the Bible which gives prophesy to the completion of the NT. That is not in the Bible. I can find many scriptures concerning the "coming of the Lord". When Christ finally returns the believer need not prophesy, nor speak in a tongue, nor heal the sick, etc. Why? Because we the believers will be with Christ where there is no more weeping, nor pain, nor death, and neither shall the former things be(Rev 21.4).Now, that is perfection! Like Paul said the greatest gift which is love will never cease.

Now some say it refers to the maturity of the Church; how can the church be perfect in this day when people are still being saved. The "church" becomes complete when God decides that no more souls will be added. While there are souls being added, the church is still growing and maturing.

Peace.

(Message edited by dcdc on November 29, 2004)

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

dcdc,

Thanks for your post! It doesn't bother you that "that" refers to the "Lord" or the "coming of the Lord" - that is the response I usually get from those around me.

(i.e. Paul [assuming it was Paul] would not refer to Jesus as a "that")

God Bless,

[dcdc (dcdc)]

hillbilly,
I think the "that" refers to an event, not the Lord or Christ. It refers to the "coming of the Lord" which I consider as an event. Now, Paul could have stated that plainly. I think the people in Paul's day knew he was talking about the coming of Christ and not the completion of the "church" or the Bible(NT). The "coming of the Lord" was one of the truths Paul preached about. The completion of the Bible(NT) is not a doctrine which any of the Apostle's preached nor taught.

Peace.

[actually (actually)]

Yes, I agree with dcdc, "then" in 1 Cor 13:12 refers to the second coming of Jesus and the readers of the letter would have understood that. If we look at the whole of this letter to the Corinthians, we see that right from 1 Cor 1:8 Paul mentions the "day of our Lord" and this starts a recurring theme in this letter. Paul deals with specific problems in their church and urges them to see these things in light of the day of the Lord. Whether it is immorality (5:5), their practises in celebrating communion (11:26-32) or errors in doctrine (15:22-28), Paul always draws them back to the day of the Lord. When Paul speaks about "the day" (3:13) and "the time" (4:5), it is clear even in the context of that chapter, that he is talking about the judgement that will happen at the second coming. In 13:12, where it is less clear in the context of the chapter, we can look at the context of the letter and see that Paul is again referring to Jesus's second coming and judgement day.

Some of the confusion seems to come from 1 Cor 13:10 and the word "perfect". This is the Greek word "teleios" which means "brought to completion". It will be a perfect completion, to be sure (just as God proclaimed creation to be "very good" when He completed it), but the emphasis in the meaning is that something is coming to an end. This is consistent with what will happen to the world as we know it when Jesus returns.

So in line with this, tongues (of angels ie the spiritual gift, and of men ie earthly languages) will only cease at Jesus's second coming. Again, this makes sense in the context of the whole letter. Paul knew that the Corinthians valued speech and knowledge and he complimented them on their gifting in this area (1:5). But in chapter 13 he was pointing out that even though you are able to study, reason and formulate convincing arguments, if you don't love then all of your brilliant sermons are just noise. A simple message (1:17-2:5) delivered out of a sincere love for God and for the lost will have a far greater effect than a theological masterpiece delivered in pride and arrogance ("look at me, I understand the scriptures SO much better than you!"). Paul takes the argument further by pointing out that after Jesus returns, we will know Him completely so the ability to interpret scripture and teach it will no longer be necessary. Until Jesus returns, it is a vital task to devote yourself to studying scripture and teaching others but it is only a temporary calling. When we get to heaven, it won't be necessary because we will all know God. Love, of course, is permanent and will be applicable in this life and the next so we should place a priority on love if we are looking at life with an eternal perspective.

[cindig (cindig)]

Why would Paul think it necessary to tell everyone that tongues will cease when Jesus comes back? I don't think I read where there was anyone ever questioning the fact they thought we would be speaking in tongues in heaven. Do you all think that you needed that cleared up for yourself? I would never even think to believe that we would be speaking tongues in heaven. Why didn't he say witnessing would cease? Why not anything else? Why would he think it important to let everyone know that tongues would cease in heaven? Of course, we know we won't go around speaking in tongues in heaven.

[actually (actually)]

Hi cindig
Paul specifically mentioned tongues (languages) here as well as knowledge because the Corinthian church valued eloquence and knowledge (1 Cor 1:5). They were gifted in this area both naturally and spiritually (note the list of spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 12:8-10, they are mainly "highly visible" giftings that people would notice and desire. Compare this to the list Paul gave in Romans 12:6-8 which included less visible gifts like service, mercy, encouragement and giving). Paul encouraged the Corinthians to desire spiritual gifts but to pursue love (1 Cor 14:1). In other words ask God to give you spiritual gifts because they are of great benefit to the body but put your energy and focus into developing the fruit of the spirit (Gal 5:22-23), notably love, hope and faith. The reason Paul gives for pursuing love over spiritual gifts is that love will still function in heaven whereas eloquence and knowledge will not. The focus of this passage is not to introduce the doctrine that we will not speak in heaven (either in the languages of men or the languages of angels) but to challenge the priorities that the Corinthian church had adopted.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

OK . . . not to get off topic too much here but would it be possible that a young child had the gift of prophecy? (Assuming that it still exists.) And yes this child is saved.

[nikita (nikita)]

Hi hillbilly,
absolutely!!! I knew of of four year old that did!

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Hey Nikita,

Thanks and how would you define exactly what the gift of prophecy was?

[nikita (nikita)]

well, he used to come up with scripture, just off the top of his head, and tell his mother that God said for him to tell her to read it. It would always be right on. Something that she needed to hear at the time. Not exactly sure which of the nine gifts that was. Now, mind you this guy had only just turned four, at the time.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

I can hardly believe where this conversation has gone. There's too much guess work and speculation here. If you go to the Bible scholars in the seminaries and to the traditional commentaries, you will find a more credible search of scripture to explain things, even if there is disagreement among those who make the most deliberate and laborious task of rightly dividing scripture by comparing scripture with scripture. Many will say that "that which is perfect is come" is the establishment of the foundation of the Church; establishing or making known it's existence. Everyone at Pentecost, especially the foreigners, heard in their own tongue; God's way of telegraphing the news of the birth of the Church to the nations. There were signs and miracles for the purpose of getting unbelieving Jew to believe. The early Church was virtually all Jewish. Imagine a Jew being solid in their faith and being challenged by revolutionary concepts. Then, later in the chronology, the Gentiles come in. Tongues, they shall cease. The apostles played their part and then were gone. All this is what I got out of my formal studies many years ago.

We go astray when we treat Christianity more like Philosophy. We all stick our necks out when we take the casual approach of speculation. Speculation is dangerous, spiritually. DCDC drew me out to get this thread started and I haven't posted for two months. I've given up on it. The positions I've taken were orthodox in the worldwide Christian community for centuries until the advent of the gospel according to Amie Semple McPhearson in the 1920s. More latter-day confusion.

[actually (actually)]

Hi Wyoming
Could you mention some of the traditional commentaries that maintain that "that which is perfect is come" refers to the establishment of the foundation of the church? I also value tried and tested commentaries as an aid to help us understand the Bible but perhaps I'm missing some vital commentaries in my collection because all of those I've consulted maintain that Paul is talking about heaven in this passage.

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible says that this refers to the life to come ie the resurrection; the 1599 Geneva Study Bible says that Paul is comparing the heavenly and eternal life to our present life; Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory of the Whole Bible state that "then" refers to the Lord's coming; Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible also believe that this refers to heaven as does the People's New Testament as well as John Weasley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible and Albert Barnes Notes on the Bible. Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible is less clear, refering to "the eternal state of blessedness" rather than saying "heaven" or "the Lord's return" but I think it's reasonable to assume that the "eternal" implies heaven rather than the establishment of the earthly church.

Now it is true that Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, the People's New Testament and John Gill's commentary mention that they believe that the gifts have already ceased but there is an important distinction to draw here. They say that scripture indicates that the gifts will cease in heaven but by observation they note that the gifts have already ceased. They regard this as a primary fulfilment of this verse, the ultimate fulfilment will come in heaven.

I find it very interesting that despite their personal views on the spiritual gifts, they do not interpret this passage to mean that the gifts will cease on earth. At most, they say that in their observation, the gifts have already ceased.

I don't have all commentaries ever written so Wyoming, please do add in the commentaries that you have which support your view. Thanks!

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Actually,}

Here are some additional resources:

http://www.e-sword.net/
http://www.ccel.org/
http://www.blueletterbible.org/

Today I don't know where to direct you specifically because I settled these questions when I was much younger - in spite of my formal training. I'm trying to figure how I may oblige you because this is a worthwhile pursuit. I have contacts and literature I might be able to consult. It could take a month or so. I'm going through boxes in my garage to find the answers to an unrelated issue at another thread. [Why do I do this.]

I don't see why there would be any need for gifts in Heaven since knowledge and communication are somewhat omnipresent.

Have you been able to sort out that there are signed gifts and there are ministering gifts?

I don't want to speculate but speculation can lead to testing and conclusion if you can get past speculation and not settle for speculation as some people seem to do. Too many times people believe what they "feel" subjectively or how they have been "influenced" by prejudices.

I'd like to recommend: TOTAL TRUTH by Nancy Pearcey, and THE CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND by Allan Bloom. http://www.addall.com

PERHAPS, "in Heaven" is a reference to the validity or purity of something as to how it would rate in Heaven. Is "that which is bound on Earth" also bound "in Heaven"? There's an awful lot of standards, proceedures, and tradition down here. How do they stack up "in Heaven"? (Pure speculation on my part at this point, so let's keep it as speculation.)

In searching for any Biblical answer, we must ask who is speaking and who is being spoken to. Are they believers, unbelivers, Jews under the Law, Gentiles under Grace, before you are saved, after you are saved, the past, the future, etc. This is where the Charismatics are a lost cause. When they are challenged they lose control of themselves and get so vicious that you can see that they don't have the fruit of the Holy Spirit that they claim. What was the purpose of tongues? If the purpose ceased, what was the fulfillment of the purpose to bring it to conclusion? What is the status of language and communication in the world then and today. Is the Bible available to virtually the whole World? Do we need magic tricks in order to become believers? What would the reason be for the signed gifts to cease at the Second Coming (which might be 350 years from now) or at the end of the Book of Acts. However, you arrive at your conclusions, you must get your definitions from scripture, and you must rightly divide -- compare scripture with scripture in order to come to your own conclusions. Everyone needs to do it for themselves and walk in their own faith. Most people are lazy -- just like me, and would prefer to be told. But thank God, there are ministering gifts and some Christians have the valid gift of Teaching. Anyone who proceeds to minister as a teacher needs to prove themselves. I have the gift of Mercy (empathy) and I am willing to share. For Teachers who rightly divide, we need to be willing to search the scriptures along with them to see if various doctrine are so. As long as someone is doing this, I have confidence in them in their pursuit of sound doctrine. The vast majority of folks I read on FactNet I have very little confidence in. It is a waste of time to deal with them because they are very loose with opinion, have no concept that they may be wrong, too proud to give it up, enamored with their own authority, or they think that some euphoric experience validates their doctrine. Then there are a few people like you who seem to be trying to prove all things and it appears that you are willing to accept whatever conclusion you can arrive at, without prejudice. That's what I call honesty!

[doug (doug)]

I find it interesting when I hear people having reasonable discussions about this subject. I too have found charismatics to get vicious when challenged.
I experience God as able to do the miracles because I see where he is coming from and it seems simple but as to the questions here whether the gifts are still functioning to me it is obvious that until they do God doesn't have a purpose for them and if, when he wants them to they will. "Miracles" are not the only evidence of God and are not necessary for understanding God.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Actually,

Here is an article that I've used that is quite susinct.

http://www.bibletruths.org/church/tongues.html

"Whether there be tongues, they shall cease . . . When that which is perfect is come." - 1 Cor. 13:8-10.

"That which is perfect..." is dealt with at the end of the article:

[dcdc (dcdc)]

I see the debate continues. It amazes me how folks can believe the Bible , but yet reject the gifts/works of the Spirit; that is that somehow the Spirit is limited in this day and is not manifested in this day because it is no longer needed. The gifts of the Spirit are not for the unbeliever. It is for the believer. As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts the gifts are given by God to whomever he pleases. It is very clear in the Bible that we cannot receive anything from God unless you have faith. The reasons why people haven't experienced the gifts like those in the earlier church is because of a lack of faith or because they fail to seek these gifts. It is not because God said it will cease. Modern religion and church search the Scriptures to try to prove that gifts of the Spirit were only for a certain period and for certain people in order to justify its lack of faith and its lack of obedience to God in seeking these gifts. There are tons of scriptures that talk about the gifts of the Spirit and none allude to them ceasing.

What Paul was trying to correct in Corinth is the apparent carnal thinking of the believers about spiritual gifts and their use. In Paul's eyes they were immature NOT because of the gifts of the Spirit but because of envying, strife, and divisions(1 Cor. 3:3). So Paul told them in 1 Cor 14:1, after 1 Cor 13:10 to follow after love and do what? desire spiritual gifts, especially prophecy?(1 Cor 14:1). So if prophecy, tongues, etc ended, then why would Paul tell them to seek them?

I tell you what, no where did Jesus preach that the power of God will cease to work in this day.
Read any of the Gospels, Jesus said in John 14:2 "...He that believeth on me, the works I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father". Jesus did not say that for the Apostles only. It was for all who believe(i.e. have faith). The "signs and wonders" that many today don't believe can happen though they do confirm God's Word.(Rom 12:3-9, 15:18-19,29 Heb 2:3-4).

And for those who look at 1 Cor. 12-13 as being the only chapters in the bible talking about the gifts of the Spirit. Go to Romans 12:3-9. Paul preached the same thing; same message, same Gospel. The only difference is the believers in Romans were not carnal minded in thinking as those in Corinth. They had a strong faith.(Rom 1:8).

[doug (doug)]

Wyoming
I read your link teaching.
I went to a born again group when I was much younger. I once asked some there what hypnotism was and they gave me this superstitious, seemed to me, look and told me that it was evil and that I shouldn't even mention it but they never told me what it was and why it was evil so I got a few books on hypnotism. I soon discovered why they didn't want me to mention it. They took me to a big charismatic meeting and it was step for step the same thing described in the books I read on hypnotism. Their whole slain in the spirit thing was in my view done in a hypnotic trance.
I had once gone up to one of the members bible colleges and saw the phenomenon spoken of in the teaching on your link of laughter. People would go up to this lady who was alleged a prophetess and she would say a few words over them and they ended up on the floor all over the room, it was an interesting sight, a room full of people draped all over the floor with waves of uncontrollable laughter going through them. I didn't feel the romance, I didn't catch the spark, but I remember thinking, I don't see the purpose in it but I guessed it might be better than going out and getting drunk on alcohol, I mean a bunch of young men and women out in the country with no entertainment studying bible all day. I wasn't offended at it nor had any accusations against it nor was I repelled by it like I was by the big charismatic meeting display.
I wouldn't say the gifts have ceased for teaching is one of them and certain people have a way of bringing things home that is definitely a gift from God. I believe the gifts are possible and perhaps i have seen some of them in action but I believe there is much counterfeit and lawless use of them.

[doug (doug)]

PS
I don't see the gifts spoken of in the bible as any more miraculous than many other things I have seen God do. The few people who I have met who have faith bring healing to people that is no less miraculous than growing a new limb or a blind man regaining their sight and perhaps God does those things too today where there is faith.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Doug,

Yes, hypnotism is a big thing in primetime religion. Hypnotism gets these folks all charged up into some experiential thing and they think it is a latter-day revealation. This is not Biblical scholarship.

The Charismatics, and many others who are twisted in their Biblical doctrine, continue to take scripture out of context and mis-apply it. RE: who is speaking and who is being spoken to. Are they believers, unbelivers, Jews under the Law, Gentiles under Grace, before you are saved, after you are saved, the past, the future, etc. When you look at them, their lack of understanding seems to indicate the absence of the Holy Spirit as teacher, along with the inability to rightly divide. Where's the Holy Spirit? There is a point where you have to give up on trying to help them and just turn them over to the Lord to be dealt with.

No one is saying that God is not all powerful. There is a time for every purpose under heaven. There are ministering gifts available to us today, but the signed gifts have long since served their purpose.

[doug (doug)]

It's an interesting subject but I don't know a lot about it.

[cindig (cindig)]

wyoming,
I have enjoyed your comments, and agree 100% with them. My husband came from a family that was charismatic, he doesn't believe salvation can be lost anymore, but he still believes in tongues for today. This may sound "not to nice" but it really bugs me. He is chairman of the deacons in our church (Southern Baptist) so it is something that isn't practiced at church. He said he prayed about it and God showed him that it is still in operation today. I can see no reason for tongues what-so-ever since we have the Bible. No one has new revelations. He, and the ones that believe in tongues as a private prayer language have no other basis than the emotion and feeling they get when doing it. A very poor basis for interpertation of scripture.
I don't believe the Holy Spirit showed him anything. I am truly bothered that he can't be any more discerning than that.
What do you think?

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Although your husband is a man of "position", you are in a better position spiritually. Most wives seem to have the ability to see folly in their husbands. Just be careful to not ursurp his headship. You can appeal to him [unemotionally]in a way that does not put him down. You might try printing http://www.bibletruths.org/church/tongues.html and presenting it to him. I think people are drawn into tongues because they are not satisfied with a simplicity in Christ, they are not satisfied with themselves, they have a yearning and they think they have to do something to be holy; it's carnal religiosity. Pray for him. Let him know your position. But you can win him with your gentle entreaty if he is receptive.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Cindi,

I want to mention that there have been various religions throughout History, such as Budhists, Eskimos, and American Indians, that have used speaking in tongues. It is not Christianity!They bring it on themselves, perhaps through self hypnotism or inviting spirits to come in. The Charasmatics are not unique and they have not validated themselves as being scriptural.

[actually (actually)]

Hi Wyoming
Thanks for your responses so far. E-sword is one of the references that I have been using so I've already looked at all of the commentaries there and I covered them in my last post. I checked the other two sites and found a few more commentaries that I had not seen, thanks! John Nelson Darby, Chuck Smith and David Guzak were the only ones that specifically covered 1 Corinthians 13:10 and all of these commentaries state that this refers to heaven. So I'm still in the situation where every commentary I have access to says the same thing - that tongues will cease when we reach heaven (or at the second coming, whichever comes first). I look forward to any other info you post when you have time to go through your literature (or anything relevant you find in your garage :-) but so far, I don't see any support for ceasation of tongues on earth.

I agree that there would be no need for gifts in Heaven - it is a perfectly logical teaching that Paul is bringing in that regard. But he does not say that we will reach a time on earth when any of the gifts will be useless and therefore cease.

I'm interested to hear more about the way you divide the gifts into those that are a sign and those that are for ministry. I've always regarded all gifts as a sign to unbelievers, whether it's a miraculous healing from incurable disease or supernatural mercy toward people who are still sick, I can see how God could use those gifts to demonstrate His love and draw people to Him.

The article you posted was interesting in explaining the belief that tongues were only a sign for Jewish unbelievers and not for Gentile unbelievers. Certainly the cases in Acts where Christians spoke in tongues did convince the Jews that God had accepted those believers into His family. In the Old Testament, the sign God used was prophecy (Numbers 11:25; 1 Samuel 10:10-12) and in Acts, it seems to be tongues. But just as prophecy was not only a sign in the Old Testament but also a "ministry gift", tongues is not only a sign in the New Testament but is also a ministry gift.

Paul says in 1 Cor 14:2 that speaking in tongues is speaking to God. He elaborates in :14 and :16 that you can pray and bless God in tongues. Paul does say that praying to God in tongues does not instruct anyone else, it only blesses God and edifies the person speaking (:4). So in a meeting where people are gathering to be instructed in God's word, speaking in tongues is not fruitful unless someone brings the interpretation of what was said in tongues. Then the 2 gifts working together do build up the church (:13).

The best understanding of this portion of scripture that I can come to through studying it and reading commentaries is this: the Corinthian church was fascinated by the "showy", verbal gifts. They thought that the gift of speaking in tongues showed others how spiritual they were and that it was good for this reason. When they met together, there was therefore great confusion because people would be speaking in tongues all together, trying to show each other how spiritual they were. When Gentile unbelievers came into their meetings, this unintelligable babble made people think they were mad (1 Cor 14:23). Jewish people entering the meeting may have made the connection with the passage in Isaiah and may have seen this as a sign that God was among them but only the Jewish people would make this connection, the others would remain unreached.

So Paul spoke to them to bring order to their meetings and to encourage them to focus on what is eternally valuable rather than on what is only valuable on earth.

Now I will say that Paul message is still vital for the Charismatic church today. There are churches where the services are disordered and where the gifts are not being used to minister to others and win the lost but rather to show people how "spiritual" they are. This type of practise showed that the Corinthian church was immature and it shows the same thing today. These churches would do well to apply Paul's teaching.

But there are also charismatic churches where the gift of tongues is not misused and where it is a blessing to the body as God intended it to be. There are also believers who have the gift of speaking in tongues like cindig's husband but who attend a church where that is not welcome. And so they refrain from using this gift publically and use it just to praise God privately. This shows great maturity and cindig, you should be very proud of your husband!

Cindig, I really encourage you to use the resources that wyoming gave a few posts up and look at what Bible scholars have to say on the subject. The majority (all of the ones I've seen) say that tongues will only cease in heaven. Some made the observation that people didn't speak in tongues in their day but that is their observation - they do not say that the Bible advocates earthly ceasation. You are in the unique position to observe your husband. Do that and see whether he is genuinely praising God or self hypnotised/channeling a demon.

[cindig (cindig)]

actually,
Thank you for the time you spent writing your post. I personally don't agree with your interpertation of tongues for today. I will try and state some of my reasons other than it's what the bible teaches.
#1. I don't believe if there are non-christians in a church, and someone jumped up and started babbling in syllables and someone else jumps up and act like God himself is speaking would do nothing but turn them off.
#2. What is the reason in the first place? There are no new revelations, we have the bible. Are we so lazy that we can't read the bible for ourselves, we have to have someone act as if God himself is talking through them?
#3. Anyone can mimick it, anyone can jump up and babble and anyone can jump up and interpert it.
#4. Cults speak in tongues also.
#5. It didn't even start until the early 1900's, since the bible.
#6. Every preacher that condones it, are almost all the ones that are rich by their congregation, have affairs, acutally the guy that started the charamastic beginnings, got into some type of big trouble. Can't quite remember what exactly it was.
#7.God will never give anyone a spiritual gift that only lifts them up. Spiritual gifts are for the whole body. The bible says not all will speak in tongues. God won't give some tongues in their private life and others not.

I honestly believe with all of my heart that it is not meant for today, we have the bible. And it was never, ever incoherent babble, but known languages.

A super read about a man that was Pentecostal is
wayoflife.org/fbns/17%20Reasons/17reasons01.htm
It is extremely long, but very good.

actually, I have been married for 30 years, I haven't changed now, and I never will. But, thank you for your time you spent writing. I enjoy everyone's viewpoint.

[doug (doug)]

I have heard believers tell of speaking in a language they never learned and the people who spoke that language understood them. I have no reason to believe they made it up nor did I know them well enough to vouge for their honesty.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Doug,

I question the source of such a manifestation as being valid within the Christian realm.

[marie (marie)]

Hi everyone -
I appreciate the posts from Actually and Cindig. Actually's was well written and researched with scripture to back it up. And while I appreciate the thought and time that went into Cindig's response, I couldn't help but notice that Cindig didn't answer any of the scriptures given by Actually. C's replies seemed to be based on subjective opinions and personal observations.

Now, I don't personally believe it is a matter of salvation to believe or not believe in the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. I can only say that I have experienced them personally and they have been most helpful in my walk with God. Just because something is abused does not make it inherently wrong or evil or not of God. To be sure, there have been and continue to be abuses, but it all comes down to a person's individual walk with God and their ability to discern His voice.

[cindig (cindig)]

marie,
Yes you are right, I was telling the reason I personally didn't think it was something used today. I know there are many who like to write forever and tell scripture, and that is great, much can be learned from them. But I have no desire, nor time to sit and write a response that it lenghty. Anyone can write, and make people believe in their stand, it all sounds very good. You have to be discerning, no matter how well it is written.
Have a great day, have things to do, don't have time to sit for long.
<{{{><

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Wonderful article Wyoming! This is right in line with a sermon I recently heard by David Jeremiah.

Thanks for sharing!

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

I think I should expand a bit on my earlier comment. I believe David Jeremiah leans toward "that which is perfect" being the maturity of the church or the body of Christ since this is what the context of the earlier text is related to.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Hillbilly,

Article... you must be referring to http://www.bibletruths.org/church/tongues.html . It's the best argument, with tons of applicable scripture, I have seen. Do you have any details to share from the preacher you mentioned?

I'm going to do a study in Kittle's regarding the KJV "perfect" which is "perfect thing" in the Greek interlinear. I can think of other scriptures that use the word "perfect" in this temporal life, therefore they can't really mean absolute perfection as would be found in Heaven. So, where the commentators say that "perfect" means 'when we all get to heaven', I do not think they are on solid ground. There is room for another interpretation.

For the record... I believe that the Lord performs miracles today that we mostly do not know about. It may be in the matter of World Affairs which ultimately revolve around Israael and Bible Prophesy. We pray for miracles but it is up to God to decide for us, especially when we ask amiss. God is not a Santa Clause who should be expected to provide "miracles on demand" on the basis that we don't tarry or pray hard enough because we have so little faith. That's a carnal con game under their big circus tent! If we could perform miraculous gifts on demand, we would all become egocentric and think that we were potentates and get all puffed up with pride. Latter day dillusions and priestcraft!

[cindig (cindig)]

wyoming,
Thank you for taking the time to write me back. Also, thank you for the web-site address. I have printed it off.
I will also go to the site with David Jeremiah, I listen to him often on the radio, and also listen through the computer. He is really good.
Thanks again

Another very good message board that has very knowledgeable people on it is, Baptist Bible Believers website. Go to Doctrinal Studies on pg. 2, then to THE CHARASMATIC MOVEMENT. It is very helpful.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Wyoming,

I have planned on taking the CD of the sermon and outlining it. I will place it on this board when I am through doing so. I have to find the CD. David Jeremiah is very good at presenting God's word. I think my husband "stole" the CD out of my car but I will find it.

I would be interested in your study of the "perfect" - I still lean on "completeness" as a possibility.

I agree on the miracles being performed today; however, I think God generally does this in a manner that He and only He should get the glory for doing this . . . not "snake oil salesman."

Cindig,

I praise God for David Jeremiah and men like him. With all the hoopla out there it is refreshing to see God's word being preached as this man presents the word of God.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Ah . . . but alas! Even David Jeremiah has his critics: http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/jeremiah/general.htm

Oh well, I guess everyone has their critics. I personally think the world of "what" David Jeremiah preaches (notice emphasis is not on the man). I also like what I have seen come from Moody which is also spoken of critically in the above article.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Hillbilly,

"GodsServant" is located in the same town as yourself. Do you know him personally? I can tell he has a good heart. He doesn't get nasty like the rest of us.

I will do a Google search on David Jeremiah.

telos, teleo, telion is in Vol VIII, pages 49-87, in Kittle. Just at first glance, it is rendered "achievement", "execution of a resolve", "fulfillment" of a law, "carrying out", "to add execution", "were carried out" (opposite of neglect), "success" in all acts, state of "completion", "the final step", "power" (deity has the power to determine), "with full powers", "the influential", "those in office", the "office" itself, "official power" (authority), "decision", "what is valid", "the supreme stage" of happiness is God, "crowning", "caught" in extreme evil, the "mark", the "goal", "maturity", "to be full grown", "result", "final result", "the "final state", "ultimate destiny", "fully", "entirely", "finally", "continually", "unceasingly", "fully", "totally", "from beginning to end", "cessation", "end of life", "to be dead", of a ship that has sunk "it has gone", "it is over", "obligation" such as a tax, "offering" for the Gods, "group", and "detachment" (group). THAT'S OFF OF PAGE 49 TO MID PAGE 51, JUST ADDRESSING THE GREEK LITERATURE.

So... which do you prefer for your translation? People choose the translation to fit their private doctrine, just like they choose their theology to fit their sin. "No prophesy [proclamation] is of any private interpretation". (2Pet1:20) We have a long way to go!

The translaters of the KJV in 1611, as translaters have always done and continue to do, take whatever license they have in choosing the word they want for the translation as influenced by their orientation of their day. Where does objectivity and subjectivity begin and end? It is not a perfect science! The best help we have is not merely linguistic but in rightly dividing, comparing scripture with scripture, and checking up on each other as intelligent, level headed brethren of good sound reputation and dependability, who have spiritual discernment without a prejudicial approach. Seminarians and those who publish books frequently are puffed up with "knowledge". A life hid in Christ is more profitable, such as Cindig's. "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto you."

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Wyoming,

How do you know that godservant is in the same town I am in? That's kinda scarey isn't it?

My very rough outline of David Jeremiah’s sermon on Prophecy and Tongues: 1 Corinthians 14:1-40


14th Chapter about the Books of Corinthians deals with two subjects:

Tongues and Prophecy

These two gifts were predicted in the Old Testament as signs of the coming of the Holy Spirit. (Isaiah 28, Joel 2)

Signs would signal the coming of the Holy Spirit’s ministry.

The gift of prophecy is not what is at stake . . . in Corinthians ch. 14 we are talking about prophesying.

Prophecy:

Gift of telling the future beforehand

Prophesying:

The forth telling of the word of God

Means – Shine before – causes the word of God to shine forth

Chapter 14 - Comparison between gift of Tongues and Prophesying (before the scriptures were completed included the predictive element).

Chapter is a “Comparison between Charismatic Utterances and the Teaching of the Word of God.” Where is the emphasis in the churches today? Some are expository by nature others are experience by nature.

It is interesting that Paul would look into the future and help us sort this out.

Verses 1-5: The priority of the word of prophesying.

Setting relates to what the church does when it comes together.

Prophesying takes priority over tongues speaking.

Tongues spoken to God.

Prophesying has a three fold effect on those that hear:
edifying, exhort, and comfort.

Tongues edify the individual (unless it is interpreted); prophesying edifies the church.

Dealing with the church and its gathered ministry.

Rules laid down here:

Under no conditions were tongues to be exercised without interpretation.

If it were for today what we generally see today would be outlawed.

Use of gift in public is of no benefit without interpretation.


Vs. 6-19 – Prerequisite of Interpretations

Seek that ye excel to the edification of the church.

Tongues must ALWAYS be interpreted.

Four ministries that can benefit the whole church:

Revelation (Unfolding of the Truth), Knowledge, Prophesying, and Teaching.

Tongues may fit in the 2nd of those four because it is prayer, praise, and thanksgiving.

Tongues without interpretation NEVER did have a place in the church.

Paul uses illustrations to explain dealing with music and language.


Those that speak in a tongue should pray for the gift of interpretation. (Because my mind will be unfruitful) He is here again insisting that the gift be interpreted.

Paul is saying if you go to a prophesying church it is good. It is better than going to a church were everyone is emotionally high but no one understands what is going on.

Vs. 20-25 – Purpose of Tongues and Purpose of Prophecy

BE NOT CHILDREN IN UNDERSTANDING - Paul is calling the Corinthians to “maturity.” Does that which is perfect (or complete) refers to this maturity?

But in regard to evil, be naïve as babies.

When it comes to thinking be mature. Think through things.

Tongues are a sign for those who believe not. A sign to unbelieving Israel (back to prophecy in Isaiah 28: 11-12) (This is a prophecy of double meaning: Israel being taken away by the Chaldeans and then speaking in tongues in the early church.)

The purpose for the gift of tongues is to be a sign to unbelieving Israel.

A sign concerning the judgment (re: Isaiah is saying the Lord has interest in you . . . and in the New Testament (day of Pentecost) has the same basic message – just a few years after that Jerusalem was destroyed).

Paul uses humor in vs. 20-25. Will unbelievers think that you are all crazy? (Hillbilly says: Ironically my dad jumped out of a Pentecostal church window when he was a teenager.)

The gift of prophecy is superior. Paul turns the argument around that without the works of the supernatural gifts there is no evidence of the Lord at work. If an unbeliever comes into a service where there are things he doesn’t understand he walks away shaking his head but if he walks into a church where there is the forth shining of the Word of God, he understands and HE IS CONVICTED. He is then judged or called into account, self evaluation. The secrets about himself are disclosed to him. The power of the spirit of God is present in this church.

Nothing can compete with the prophesying of the Word of God.

Unsaved people SHOULD be in church. It is expected.

Only purpose for tongues is as a sign to unbelievers.

Tongues were never intended to edify the church and can only do so if interpreted.

Tongues are always a public gift . . . never a private gift.

The gift of prophesying was a gift to go on and on.


OK . . . I'm sure something is lost in my note taking; however, you can order the CD from David Jeremiah's site located at:

http://www.turningpointradio.org/

I wish this ministry would list who it is accountable to. I understand David Jeremiah used to associate with the GARBC. I don't believe he does anymore. Again, I have a lot of respect for this man's ministry.

(Message edited by hillbilly on December 16, 2004)

(Message edited by hillbilly on December 16, 2004)

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

I don't think godsservant and I necessarily live in the same town. I think we both use the same IPS - AOL. My parents live three hours away and I get the same IP address when I post from their house and their AOL account.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Today . . . I'm leaning toward "perfect" being "maturity."

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Virtually all those references to TELOS, TELEIOS can be applied this side of Heaven. In synthysizing all those usages, the sense is of accomplishing or arriving at something. Telos is a projection, like a telescope. I'm still looking for 1 Cor 13:10 in Kittle.

Later, we can go into the Greek for "prophesy" and find out that it isn't exclusively telling the future. It more often means to preach or to proclaim. This is what the O.T. prophets did and in some instances, by Divine assistance, foretold the future in terms they may or may not have been fully understood themselves. Today, we do not have O.T. prophets telling the future or reading peoples minds like the staged antics that go on in some charasmatic establishments. The book of Revelations is closed until it be fulfilled. "If anyone add to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.", Rev. 22:18-19.

Did you come out of some cult that is discussed at FactNet? I'm a Separatist, something like the Pilgrims of Plymouth who were completely separated from organized religion. One fault is taht they were Calvinistic like the Puritans. They were not Puritans like the historians proclaim. The Puritans were in the Boston, Salem, and thereabouts.

That exposee on David Jeremiah doesn't look good. I stay away from all that organized religion, not only because of it's traps, but because it is unauthorized of the Lord. Division, including the exclusivism of man-made religious organization, is Sin. No wonder most of them eventually turn into the cults we are talking about on FactNet.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Wyoming,

I am just taking that exposee on David Jeremiah with a grain of salt . . . people are going to find problems with everyone. David Jeremiah seems to be pretty much of a "baptist" sort to me. And I'll agree that man made religions are not what we should be after; however, churches generally do and should associate with one another and the way that they are able to do this is to identify what they believe . . . thus your associations, conventions, synods, etc. Even nondenominationalist associate with each other, don't they?

I was raised in the Church of Christ/Noninstrumental. My mother was originally Church of Christ and my father was Methodist. Past that generation, I have some strong Huguenot roots as well as Quaker roots, Presbyterian, and who knows what else. I have posted on the Church of Christ thread.

I currently attend a Landmark Baptist Church of the ABA variety (association).

Their statement of faith is as follows:

1. We believe that love one for another as Jesus loves the believer manifests our discipleship, proves our love for God and symbolizes our authority as New Testament churches. Love is therefore the great commandment of the LORD Jesus Christ upon which all others are dependent (Matt. 22:35-40; John 13:34, 35; John 15:12; 1 John 4:7-21; 1 John 5:1-3; Rev. 2:4, 5).

2. We believe in the infallible, verbal inspiration of the whole Bible and that the Bible is the all-sufficient rule of faith and practice (Psalm 119:160; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17).

3. We believe in the personal triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, equal in divine perfection (Matt. 28:19).

4. We believe in the Genesis account of Creation (Gen. 1; 2).

5. We believe that Satan is a fallen angel, the archenemy of God and man, the unholy god of this world, and that his destiny is the eternal lake of fire (Isa. 14:12-15; Ezek. 28:11-19; Matt. 25:41; 2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 6:10-17; Rev. 20:10).

6. We believe in the virgin birth and sinless humanity of Jesus Christ (Matt. 1:18-20; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22).

7. We believe in the deity of Jesus Christ (John 10:30; John 1:1, 14; 2 Cor. 5:19).

8. We believe the Holy Spirit is the divine Administrator for Jesus Christ in His churches (Luke 24:49; John 14:16, 17; Acts 1:4, 5, 8; Acts 2:1-4).

9. We believe that miraculous spiritual manifestation gifts were done away when the Bible was completed. Faith, Hope and Love are the vital abiding Spiritual Gifts (1 Cor. chapters 12-14).

10. We believe that Man was created in the image of God and lived in innocency until he fell by voluntary transgression from his sinless state, the result being that all mankind are sinners (Gen. 1:26; Gen. 3:6-24; Rom. 5:12, 19).

11. We believe that the suffering and death of Jesus Christ was substitutionary for all mankind and is efficacious only to those who believe (Isa. 53:6; Heb. 2:9; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 Peter 3:18; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:2).

12. We believe in the bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ and the bodily resurrection of His saints (Matt. 28:1-7; Acts 1:9-11; 1 Cor. 15:42-58; 1 Thess. 4:13-18).

13. We believe in the premillennial, personal, bodily return of Christ as the crowning event of the Gentile age. This event will include the resurrection of the righteous to eternal heaven, and the Millennium will be followed by the resurrection of the unrighteous unto eternal punishment in the lake of fire and that the righteous shall enter into the heaven age (John 14:1-6; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; 2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 19; Rev. 20:4-6; Rev. 20:11-15; Rev. 21:8).

14. We believe that the depraved sinner is saved wholly by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and the requisites to regeneration are repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 13:3-5; John 3:16-18; Acts 20:21; Rom. 6:23; Eph. 2:8, 9), and that the Holy Spirit convicts sinners, regenerates, seals, secures, and indwells every believer (John 3:6; John 16:8, 9; Rom. 8:9-11; 1 Cor. 6:19, 20; Eph. 4:30; Titus 3:5).

15. We believe that all who trust Jesus Christ for salvation are eternally secure in Him and shall not perish (John 3:36; John 5:24; John 10:27-30; Rom. 8:35-39; Heb. 10:39; 1 Peter 1:5).

16. We believe that God deals with believers as His children, that He chastises the disobedient, and that He rewards the obedient (Matt. 16:27; Matt. 25:14-23; John 1:12; Heb. 12:5-11; 2 John 8; Rev. 22:12).

17. We believe that Jesus Christ established His church during His ministry on earth and that it is always a local, visible assembly of scripturally baptized believers in covenant relationship to carry out the Commission of the Lord Jesus Christ, and each church is an independent, self-governing body, and no other ecclesiastical body may exercise authority over it. We believe that Jesus Christ gave the Great Commission to the New Testament churches only, and that He promised the perpetuity of His churches (Matt. 4:18-22; Matt. 16:18; Matt. 28:19, 20; Mark 1:14-20; John 1:35-51; Eph. 3:21).

18. We believe that there are two pictorial ordinances in the Lord's churches: Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Scriptural baptism is the immersion of penitent believers in water, administered by the authority of a New Testament church in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Lord's Supper is a memorial ordinance, restricted to the members of the church observing the ordinance (Matt. 28:19, 20; Acts 8:12, 38; Rom. 6:4; 1 Cor. 5:11-13; 1 Cor. 11:1, 2, 17-20, 26).

19. We believe that there are two divinely appointed offices in a church, pastors and deacons, to be filled by men whose qualifications are set forth in Titus and 1 Timothy.

20. We believe that all associations, fellowships, and committees are, and properly should be, servants of, and under control of the churches (Matt. 20:25-28).

21. We believe in freedom of worship without interference from the government and affirm our belief in civil obedience, unless the laws and regulations of civil government run contrary to the Holy Scriptures (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-15).

(Message edited by hillbilly on December 17, 2004)

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Personally, I just speculate (from what I have seen) that there are just very minute differences between the various Baptist groups (accept from a few exceptions, i.e. the Independent Baptist, etc.) I could probably attend most Baptist churches and Community Churches like David Jeremiah's comfortably and still believe what I believe.

Now I'm not saying what I believe is correct . . . it is just were I am at in my walk.

And I feel extremely blessed when I listen to David Jeremiah.

(Message edited by hillbilly on December 17, 2004)

[cindig (cindig)]

hillbilly,
Do you know anything about Adrian Rogers? I think he is wonderful, very easy to understand. He is a pastor in Memphis. You can get many of his messages on line.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Thanks cindig! I don't know that much about him; although, I have heard of him. From what I can tell he is pretty grounded in the Word of God. I'll have to check his messages on-line.

I guess I am pretty much a Baptist although I don't think they have done a very good job at explaining "that which is perfect" - just not really satisfied with the answer yet.

God Bless,

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Of course, this is where I am at today. There was a time when I was a member of the Church of Christ that I would have never thought I would be fellowshipping with Baptist. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

Wyoming,

About division . . . I just don't see how you can keep from having division this side of heaven?

[doug (doug)]

There is no more division in heaven.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Yes, but we are still on earth. At least at the moment.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Yes... because of man's pride, carnality, and choosy spirit (all Sin).

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Yes and I suspect if we were unified here on earth we would all be unified in an incorrect belief. This is why I don't have a problem with the label that has been given to David Jeremiah and Moody Bible Institute . . . at least in the sense of having become ecumenical in evangelism efforts. quoted from: http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/jeremiah/general.htm }

I am beginning to believe that heresy is a departure from the biblical teaching regarding salvation and not differences in understanding on doctrines that are not related to salvation.

On the otherhand, to keep divisions from happening within a local church, etc. I believe that associations, conventions, fellowships and the like are needed to "keep peace." If a division does occur, I believe a split is necessary so both groups can move on and serve the Lord. This is not to say that rebuke, exposure, etc. is not allowed but at some point people need to move on.

Oh well . . . I'm really getting off the topic.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Oi! The scriptures show devision as Sin. Jesus prayed for unity in the Garden. Throughout the book of Acts we see reference over and over again as "and they were of one accord" (homothumadon). I think there are standards in the scripture that we are to pursue even though they appear to be intangible. I am ecumenical in the true sense that there is the unity of the only one true church in spite of what man has done. The Ecumenical Movement, or Universal Unitarianism, of course we know, is paving the way for the church of the Anti-Christ. I am opposed to anything of hierarchial control beyond the local assembly -- and if the local assemblies are conducting themselves properly according to Timothy and Titus, now that the apostles are gone. Associations, conventions, fellowships and the like, are what lead to sectarianism and cult behavior. We need to encourage one another and be a help to one another, but I don't want to get within a hundred miles of crossing over into group control beyond the local assembly. We have the scriptures and the holy spirit is our teacher and guide. That is exactly how the church survives in spite of what man has done over the past 2000 years. Please take some time to read what these 52 well known Christians leaders have to say about division in the Church:

http://www.mauricejohnsonarchives.com/Content_Sin_of_Sect.htm

When do you ever hear anything like this? What's amazing is that they even indict themselves.

[doug (doug)]

I see divisions as a work of the flesh on par with fornication and anger and drunkenness and those who practice and cause division amongst the brethren will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Yet division must be just like with Moses and Korah etc.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

We believe that all associations, fellowships, and committees are, and properly should be, servants of, <u>and under control of the churches</u> (Matt. 20:25-28).

Wyoming,

Don't get me wrong . . . I believe that the local church should have complete authority. This complete authority includes allowing speakers, singers, etc. to visit their pulpit if the local church feels comfortable with it. This should be done very carefully; however, with associations (which generally give the authority to the church) there are several associations that my local church could have decided to associate with.

There is benefit in associational work because it allows local churches to accomplish more than they could alone and still allows the local churches complete authority.

The ABA in a Landmark Baptist Association. There are others such as the BMA (Baptist Missionary Association of America), etc. These churches differ from the Conventional Baptists like the Southern Baptist and the GARBC (what Landmarkers lovingly call "garbage" baptist) in that the convention has more control over the local churches. However, ask a Southern Baptist on this board where the authority is in their church and I believe they will also say with the local church.

This is precisely why the division occurred between the SBC and the Landmarkers in the 30's (or so) because of the authority issue. There have been some mission related belief issues, particularly with the BMA and the ABA that are extremely minute. Our church would probably easily associate with the BMA if the ABA ever did something that it thought was wrong.

I am just saying that in some Baptist circles (and probably other denominations) some of the differences are extremely minute so it would be ok to have an evangelist from one association speak at our church. It would be rare but it does happen. Again, this does not take away the local authority of the church. It is my guess that the church David Jeremiah pastors had the authority to invite the speakers they invited.

As a side note . . . the ABA doesn't even believe in an invisible "catholic" like universal church . . . it believes that Christ founded church(es) and not a church. It differs than a lot of groups in that it does not believe that the church started on the day of pentecost but started with the calling out of the Apostles and then the church "was added too" on the day of Pentecost.

However, my original point was that even though unity should be what we strive for . . . this is next to impossible because of SIN. At some point when you have division in a local body (and even in an association) you have to part ways because no one is going to give on an issue. That is precisely why we have denominations etc. I don't see how it can be helped as long as there is sin. And I certainly have difficulty in understanding associating with individuals that I have major differences with. I don't know that this is what David Jeremiah has done.

Also, since these divisions already exist . . . I can use this to help understand what a local church believes and avoid churches that may have extremely different beliefs that are heretical (i.e. in my opinion the Church of Christ).

I'm going to post this because it is getting very long . . . I may continue though.

(Message edited by hillbilly on December 18, 2004)

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

I also believe that all of these "para-church ministries" or ministries that are outside of church authority do not line up with the word of God. I believe these ministries should be under the authority of a local new testament church.

However, a local new testament church, as well as an individual, may decide to support such a ministry even if it is outside their local new testament church. Of course, this support should be "after" they have given to their local church.

Douglas,

Ya know I am a once saved always saved gal. . . this is one issue that I am solid on so know that "nothing" (including any division) can separate me from the love of Christ.

God Bless,

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Wyoming,

I read the article; however, I think there is a difference between pursuing unity with others and pursuing a universal anti-Christ type church. I see David Jeremiah as doing the former not the latter. I think the article incorrectly tries to place David Jeremiah in with the latter, TBN type group.

Again, as you said, it lies with where the authority is . . . in David Jeremiah, the church he pastors, or another organization. It has not been demonstrated to me that it lies outside of the church that he pastors.

Here is another link for the various divisions/diversity between baptists:

http://www.mercer.edu/baptiststudies/pamphlets/baptstyle/baptstyleHTML/DoingDiversityHTML.HTML

Landmark Missionary - Landmark Missionary Baptists with a half million members are premillennial fundamentalists. They, however, go a step farther than separatist fundamentalists in making polity a touchstone. They are strong proponents of Landmarkism, which denies legitimacy to any other religious denomination. The Lord's Supper is confined to members of the local church.

As adherents of local church autonomy, they attack conventions and their systems of boards. They believe a church should give directly to the missionary; the contribution may or may not be forwarded through a mission committee or similar body. This body, however, has no authority to supervise the missionary on the field.

Two national Landmark Baptist bodies have such mission agencies-the American Baptist Association and the Baptist Missionary Association. Each also has other committees or departments for specialized ministries and also independent schools and periodicals. A number of Landmark Baptist associations and churches are independent of the two national bodies.

Regarding Graves in the above link . . . I think he took things way to far and should have just stopped at allowing the local church decide who should and should not be in the local church's pulpit.


My point is even though I associate with a Landmark church, I am not an elitist and believe there are saved individuals associating with various local churches besides Landmark Baptist churches.

Now we are really off the subject!

(Message edited by hillbilly on December 18, 2004)

[wyoming (wyoming)]

I can't cope with any kind of denominationalism. These waters are to muddy for me to sort out in the denominational context of what you are talking about. Sectarianism is an attitude of heart. There are Christians out there who only meet in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Some are in home churches or house Churches. Many are registered at House Church Central http://www.hccentral.com/ but the Christians I meet with are not listed there and we are not incorporated with a man-made name. Each individual may not agree on everything but we agree on the obvious essentials. We come together and stick together because of the conditions of our hearts. I knew an old gentleman who took the position that the church didn't start until the end of the book of Acts. Throughout his 100 years he was compelled to share his notes with almost everyone but we all loved him.

We don't want to build a physical structure, hire ministers, and have a budget, not only because it causes carnal problems, begging for money, the O.T. law of tithing being imposed under "Grace", and even fights and splits, but we see it as being contrary to the sufficient example we see in Timothy and Titus.

You should know that the Church is not a man-made institution no matter what legal papers they might have. The scriptures say that the Lord adds to the Church daily those who are being saved. That happens only when one receives the one Lord, one faith, one baptism by the Holy Spirit, as a true believing, accepting, repented, child of God. The Holy Spirit was given at pentecost, the 50th day after the Resurrection. After the Crucifixion, the apostles went back to fishing. They didn't know much what to do until the Holy Spirit was given. There is a reference that the things that Jesus taught them began to make sense. If someone wants to believe that the Church started at any other time, it is not an issue for Christians to be divided over and abandon one another, but it will effect their understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit.

You can't reform the "churches". They deserve to die the natural consequential death that they are going through. Instead of being part of the problem, you can come out of the problem and become part of the solution with those who see through the problem. That is the foundation for legitimate testimony and growth. It's the real thing!

There are some Christians on this thread that I would be happy to fellowship with, like you and Cindig, and Doug, and God's Servant, because we are open to one another and we see some truth, even if in part. Most Christians have become so traditionalized, with associations and practices that have no Biblical precedent or the scriptures being stretched to fit the circumstances, that they do not have any idea that there is something else available.

Later, I have something to say about items 17, 18, 19 &amp; 20 in your statement of faith.

[infoman (infoman)]

HiLLbilly,

All ministers should be under the local church period. But not all ministries they run should bow their knee to all local churches. I know of many ministries that operate soulwinning and discipleship (better than any local church) successfully outside the local church.
The local church should not stifle ministries.

For God so loved the world that HE DID NOT SEND A COMMITTEE OR A LOCAL CHURCH BOARD..he sent Jesus.

After all soulwinning is outside the sanctuary where the unbelievers are.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Hillbilly, I didn't catch your last post before mine went up but I think it is my answer to all of the above. What I want to add is that the issues you present with those Baptist splits and the personality driven ministries are of issues that are all NON-CHURCH issues and more like the Donald Trump EMPIRE. They all need to be fired!

INFOMAN: You have some good points.

Ministers are answerable to their local congregation (the elders); the congregation is not answerable to them. When ministers get their counsel outside of the congregation, the congregation loses confidence in them. I know of a church split, even among the kind of fellowship that I propose, where this was the cause of a split. We need to get outside the thinking of the corporate World and just read get our Church polity from Timothy and Titus.

[godsservant (godsservant)]

Is it true that baptists believe that once saved, always saved?

If so, that seems a bit unreasonable. I know from experience that backsliding is a reality and happens to many Christians. How can anyone be pure in heart; yet sin, and still become part of Gods Kingdom? There is only 1 road which is Straight and Narrow. Only following the Straight and Narrow path will Lead Us Home(Paradise). Meaning, we shall(should) strive to be perfect in heart as Jesus. It is through Prayer(Conscience) with GOD that we are SAVED and Forgiven for our Sins. Without forgiveness we Shall Reap what we Sow. Sowing bad seed(Sin) Shall reap bad Harvest(Hell).

Just as the Light is seperated from the Darkness, we the Children of God will be seperated. We shall be divided according to our judgement and by our judgement, we will be placed on GODs Right Hand Or Left. Choose what ye will.

<font size="+1"><font face="wingdings">V</font></font>GOD BLESS

[wyoming (wyoming)]

What's a nice guy like you doing believing that it is possible to lose your salvation? When we accepted Christ we received the covering of His blood for all our sin; past, present, and future. At the judgement seat of Christ, He will see the blood covering all those who received His blood. We are saved by Grace, not by works of righteousness!

Please go to the thread that I started at "Saved and Lost" / Lose Salvation / False Doctrine. The folks who believe in "saved &amp; lost" have gotten their scriptures all mixed up and they don't know the difference between the scriptures on salvation and the scriptures on the walk of the believer. That's the whole story in a nutshell.

A true believer -- a born again child of God, receives the Holy Spirit. Satan cannot posses him because he now belongs to God and Satan cannot steal him from God. "I have given unto them eternal life and no one shall pluck them out of my hand." "These things are written that ye may know that ye have eternal life." God is not an Indian giver! [Apologies to the Indians.]

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Amen wyoming . . . on the last post that is. I'll have to digest all of the other posts but today is our Christmas Sunday at our "local church" and it will be a busy, busy day.

I would like to point out that many, many groups don't see themselves as denominations . . . these are titles others gave to them. I still don't think it is wrong to fellowship and associate with other churches for missionary and educational purposes. (But I will reread the above posts when I have time.)

Infoman,

You are going to have to say more to convince me that ministries should not be under church authority.

No one going to comment on the no "universal" church belief held by the Landmarkers? This is an area I had great difficulty with and am still not sure about. I do believe in the local church and its authority though.

God Bless,

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

godsservant,

I know from experience that backsliding is a reality and happens to many Christians. How can anyone be pure in heart; yet sin, and still become part of Gods Kingdom?

Yes it is reality and that is exactly why God sent his Son to die for our sins. We become part of God's kingdom because of the blood of Jesus which washes away our sins. It is not what we do, if it were we would all be damned to hell.

Yes, we will reap what we sow . . . here on earth and in heaven. We will receive crowns, etc. in heaven but all these are just meant to be thrown at Jesus' feet . . . not for our glory at all.

God bless,

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

And wyoming,

I am interested in what you have to say about the other items on the statement of faith. I do want to clarify that this is not "my statement" of faith. I have not written such but perhaps I should. This is the ABA's statement of Faith.

Infoman,

Are you bibleman too?

(Message edited by hillbilly on December 19, 2004)

[doug (doug)]

Christ and his apostles and disciples were approved by signs and wonders. It was clear where the authority came from but today its just a bunch of men giving their spin on doctrine and establishing their "authority" if you can call it that but certainly not in my eyes. By God's grace I shouldn't be part of any church that isn't based on the true foundation and approved in like manner.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Hillbilly,

Won't you be happy when this busy, busy season is over? I don't think the season is what the Lord had in mind. I've personally been liberated from it all.

[bubba (bubba)]

hello all,

In a previous post I thank it was doug who talked
about people being offended when confronted.
Well when you're comparing those people to nothing
more than idiots or lunatic's when they have word
ta back it up ,it's hard not respond ain't it?

I wonder who the "Apostate" church is?
"Having a form of Godlyness, but DENYING the power
there of."I've not been "educated" at one of tha
many "Cemetary's" or anythang and have'nt readany of tha "opinion's" of these "men" that are held
in such high esteem but that verse from Revelation
seem's to "CLEARLY" describe tha naysayer's here
and everywhere else their found!

There's alot of thing's I don't understand but I
have enough fear of God in me that just because I
don't understand something there's no way I will
get into Blasphemy and say that it's"of tha devil"
just because of what some man has taught me but
tha "Apostate" church define's this mindset clearly!

One last thought,in Hebrew's 3:1 tha writer say's
"Wherefore,HOLY BRTHREN,partaker's of the HEAVENLY calling.",
so he's not talking to unbelieving Jew's,say's in
chapter 6:2 that "laying on of hands" is a "fundamental"
of tha Christian faith!
However member's of the "Apostate" church deny this
aswell.

Be careful what you say is not for today when
scripture prove's you to be deceived and a deceiver !

[doug (doug)]

Hillbilly
<font color="0000ff">Douglas,
Ya know I am a once saved always saved gal. . . this is one issue that I am solid on so know that "nothing" (including any division) can separate me from the love of Christ.
God Bless,</font>
Then the question would be that if someone is a drunk or a fornicator or causes division among brethren and continues in it, were they really saved? If Christ and or his apostles taught that people who practice works of the flesh will not inherit the kingdom then you can assume it is true or understand for yourself the same. Someone else's sin can't separate you from the love of Christ but why would someone practice contrary things if they had him and if done in ignorance why would one continue if corrected?

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

OK folks . . . I'm getting a little confused about exactly what the topic is because it is now going in sooooo many directions.

Douglas,

All I can say is that there is NO doubt in my mind that I am saved. Period. I am not drinking (accept for too much coca-cola), fornicating or causing division. (In fact I can safely say that I have past some pretty major tests regarding some of these issues.) On areas that I may not have the same understanding on with my association's statement of faith, I keep quiet. That does not mean that I do not continue sinning. No God did not want division but it exists . . . there is nothing I can do to change that.

Keep in mind where I am coming from, brought up in the Church of Christ and now in a extremely fundamental Baptist Church that believes others outside of their group of associated churches can be saved. My whole point is that YES you should stand for exactly what you believe (once you have it all figured out); however, accept in areas that would be considered heretical according to the biblical definition of heresy then I believe there should be some attempt at unity. If I disagree with what my husband believes what is the best course of action? To a certain degree the same could be said about churches, etc.

I don't know where the point is that you have to break away because it is impossible to stay unified, I am just saying that sometimes this exists.

Remember I am coming from the extreme Church of Christ view which believes they will be the only ones in heaven. My liberality in believing that all believers will be in heaven may be where some of you were starting to begin with.


Wyoming,

Exactly what problem did you see in the information regarding David Jeremiah and Moody Bible Institute . . . what did you not like? The link about neo-evangelicals had absolutely no evidence to back it up. It made claims about these individuals but did not show that these individuals had stated they believe the way that the writer of this article indicated (at least from my point of view anyway).

Yes . . . I will be thankful when things quiet down but I am always happy to remember Christ's birth.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Douglas,

I believe most of us agree with your statement: By God's grace I shouldn't be part of any church that isn't based on the true foundation and approved in like manner.

But I also think you have to be careful in determining who is not based on a true foundation. Some in the ABA believe that this church based on the "true foundation" is the bride of Christ and everyone else will still get to be in heaven. Keep in mind that I am still looking at what I believe regarding this. I'm just repeating what I have heard. To clarify, I don't believe things just because I hear them . . . I try these things out and try to prove them myself. (Of course, I could be just a little slow in doing this.)

And I will still state that various associations, etc. may have the same true foundation, etc. but vary on some very minute issues.

(Message edited by hillbilly on December 19, 2004)

[doug (doug)]

bubba, you said,
<font color="0000ff">In a previous post I thank it was doug who talked
about people being offended when confronted.
Well when you're comparing those people to nothing
more than idiots or lunatic's when they have word
ta back it up ,it's hard not respond ain't it?</font>

The only things I posted that I find that may resemble that is
Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 10:28 pm:
<font color="119911">I find it interesting when I hear people having reasonable discussions about this subject. I too have found charismatics to get vicious when challenged.</font>
and
Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 12:38 pm:
<font color="119911">I wasn't offended at it nor had any accusations against it nor was I repelled by it like I was by the big charismatic meeting display.
I wouldn't say the gifts have ceased for teaching is one of them and certain people have a way of bringing things home that is definitely a gift from God. I believe the gifts are possible and perhaps i have seen some of them in action but I believe there is much counterfeit and lawless use of them.</font>

Are you accusing me of blasphemy being that my name is the only one you mention in your post?
<font color="0000ff">because I don't understand something there's no way I will get into Blasphemy and say that it's"of tha devil" just because of what some man has taught me</font>
I shared my experience and not what some man taught. I don't claim that the actual gifts are of the devil. Just because some people run around making unintelligible sounds similar to what I have seen on film done by primitive heathen tribes in a drug induced state doesn't mean they have the gifts the bible spoke of.

I believe tongues is a great gift when it is bestowed by God. I too like to make unintelligible noises and babyish babblings but I don't do it in public and I don't consider it to be the gift that was used on pentecost. If it can't edify the hearer it isn't a gift from God to speak it to them. In fact, if someone can share the gospel in a way that others can understand it is uncomparably more pentecostal than unintelligible noises.

When people see others who believe and teach it a sign of the holy spirit to do something unedifying then it is not blasphemy to speak out on it and expose it. Perhaps people who do such things, in causing an over reaction by some to their powerless to edify form of godliness, cause some to blaspheme.


Bubba, I wonder what you are distracting people from or to trying to prove by your misspelling which appears to be feigned, with intent, whether conscious or not.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Douglas be nice. Bubba is probably just trying to state what he believes like the rest of us. He is coming from where he is right now like I am coming from where I am.

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

I know of many ministries that operate soulwinning and discipleship (better than any local church) successfully outside the local church.

Ok...can someone tell me who these ministries are accountable too? Who keeps them on the straight and narrow?

[actually (actually)]

Hi Cindig
I missed a few days and the topic has changed while I've been away but let me quickly address your concerns (from your post Dec 15, 1:57pm) then please feel free to return to the current conversation :-)
1) I agree. That's what Paul was saying in the passage I was discussing. I think that the Corinthians believed that such an obvious demonstration of the supernatural would draw the unbelievers to God but Paul corrected them by pointing out that unbelievers observing this would think they were mad. By mentioning the Isaiah reference I think he was pointing out that it would be seen as a sign by Jews (see Wyoming's points) but only the Jews. Prophecy on the other hand, would convict all unbelievers.
2) Tongues are not for new revelation any more than the gift of teaching is for new revelation. The gifts can only help us understand God better - illustrate, illuminate, apply scripture. I love reading the Bible but I still gain insight when I hear ministers preaching from it and the same is true of the gifts of tongues and prophecy.
3) Anyone can teach falsely too that is why we must judge everything, including the interpretation of a tongue.
4) Cults also teach and have faith but those are nonetheless of immeasurable value.
5) No, there were cases in the mission fields in the inbetween times. I was interested to read recently that missionaries like William Carey were also considered to have the gift of tongues because they learned so many languages so easily
that it could only indicate supernatural assistance.
6) Not at all, I'm afraid this statement is drastically untrue.
7) The gift of tongues in conjunction with the gift of interpretation are equivalent to the gift of prophecy in terms of building up the congregation so it is not only a personal prayer language. But when used in prayer, it glorifies God just as prayer and praise in a natural language do. And God is certainly worth of all praise.

Doug, yes, I also have friends that have been used by God to speak in an earthly language that they had not learned and foreign visitors heard them praising God in their own language resulting in the salvation of the visitors - Praise God!

[doug (doug)]

I agree with you hillbilly that people should divide themselves from obvious heresy and there are many things we aren't clear on. I consider division contrary to sound doctrine that causes known by Christ believers in Christ to stumble to be bad/no no/taboo/flesh and not spirit, whatever that means.

<font color="0000ff">I try these things out and try to prove them myself. (Of course, I could be just a little slow in doing this.)</font> some things take me a day and others take a lifetime to understand.

[doug (doug)]

wyoming
Could you please break down your teaching for me. I am a little lost having trouble following the larger picture.

Actually
<font color="0000ff">Doug, yes, I also have friends that have been used by God to speak in an earthly language that they had not learned and foreign visitors heard them praising God in their own language resulting in the salvation of the visitors - Praise God!</font>
That's what I have always seen as the gift of tongues. It is a great thing when it happens and humbles us to realize that it is not the wisdom of man but God that speaks what he wishes without our own intellect even knowing what we are doing. Thanks for sharing that.
Where do you reside, if I may ask?

Hillbilly
<font color="0000ff">Douglas be nice.</font>
Bowed head, downcast eyes, hands behind back and shuffling feet, "Sorry if I took it too far, I have no right to get indignant at others".

[dcdc (dcdc)]

I have a question for those who believe the gifts of the Spirit are not of today, Explain 1 Corinthians 14:1 and Paul's command to "Follow charity, and DESIRE SPIRITUAL GIFTS. It's no wonder many churches are dead today because they deny the Power of God which is HIS Spirit. People denying the power of God reminds me of Matthew 12:31-32. Jesus was able to heal folks because of the Holy Ghost(Spirit of God). When the Pharisees saw him casting out devils they said Jesus must be a devil in order to cast out devils. Jesus' response is something many should take heed of today. HE told them any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven man, even anyone speaking against Jesus Himself would be forgiven, EXCEPT somebody speaking against the Holy Ghost. How did the Pharisees speak against the Holy Ghost? They spoke against the Holy Ghost by denying the Power of God and by denying the works of the Spirit which Jesus performed. In this case it was casting out devils.

So I would be careful saying that signs and wonders and gifts of the Spirit have ceased, especially when the Bible does not say it. I don't need no commentary to tell me this. Some may try to imitate the gifts of the Spirit, some may misuse them, some may not know the meaning of and the use of the gifts, but it still doesn't negate what the Spirit of God can give for a true believer.

If you have not witnessed God's power, then maybe you should ask yourself, why? Everybody in the NT witnessed the works of the Spirit and power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The signs and wonders, various miracles, and the Gifts of the Holy Ghost are God's witness of HIS great salvation.(Heb 2:3-4). The same way God confirmed salvation during Jesus day, during the Apostle's day, and during our day is the same. If somebody says it's different then, they must reject Heb 2:3-4.

The Bible declares that "FOR WITH GOD NOTHING SHALL BE IMPOSSIBLE" Luke 1:37 If God gave gifts in the days of the Apostles, then HE can give gifts today. But you have to believe. If you don't believe,then don't try to rationalize with man's thoughts to say that it is not biblical

(Message edited by dcdc on December 19, 2004)

[wyoming (wyoming)]

.
Hillbilly, you must be referring to my comment...

<font color="0000ff">I can't cope with any kind of denominationalism. These waters are to muddy for me to sort out in the denominational context of what you are talking about.</font><font color="000000">

In these last days, there are very few places you can meet decently and honoring to the Lord. I described above how I me with Christians in homes. I do not think in terms of navigating my way through the denominational scene as to what is going on there.

I have a total rejection of denominational churches which I see as man-made religion. After spending half of my life there, I just don't go there anymore, and I mostly ignore them and their circus activities. I don't follow the personalities nor even care to evaluate them. The only people I listen to on TBN are Jack Van Impe and Hal Lindsey. My only compromise is that I'll go to the Bill Gothard seminars; even they have some short comings.

I won't affiliate with anyone who takes a denominaational name with articles of incorporation and bylaws that they create by the work of their hands under Caesar's jusisdiction.

My heresies are that no man-made institution is a legitimate or viable representation of the Lord's Church, even though most Christians can be found there. Next, there are no ordinances to be observed by Gentiles under Grace, as the Jews did under the Law. Also, just like the ordinances, there are no holy days to be celebrated by Gentiles, and also they are not to be celebrated by Jews because Christ fulfilled the Law. "It is finished." When the veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom, at the moment Jesus died on the cross, the Law and all the activity of the temple ceased -- at least for now.

I believe in the basic tenants of fundamentalists but I resist the idea of a formal statement of faith because man's interposition tends to be vulnerable to error and to be humanly authoritative in nature. (They like to get you to sign papers and control your flesh.) The Bible is sufficient, and it leads you in the preferred direction of purity in Christ.

The so-called ordinances have been a major stumbling block to unity among Christians. The original Greek for "communion" simply means "fellowship", which includes eating together. We do not want to eat unworthly, glutoneous, or get drunk. A little cracker and a thimble of grape juice does not fit the new testament references. The "Last Supper" in the upper room was the "Last Passover", it wasn't the "first communion". Christ wasn't instituting anything new. He was THE MAN, right there in their midst, to explain, for the first time, the real significance of the Passover and what the elements really meant. "As oft as ye do this" really means "at any time you do this." It wasn't a future reference except that HE IS THE PASSOVER and He won't be back for a while. The Passover was one night a year for Jews only. It is a zero argument for the Church.

Ephesians 6:4 says, "There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of us all." If there is one baptism, what baptism does it have to be? Every born again child of God is baptized in/by the Holy Spirit. The Greek baptizo wasn't translated, it was transliterated because the translators couldn't find an exact match for this word. There are many synonyms that you can shake together to try to understand it. Yes, it can mean immerse, engulf, surround, inundate, filled, etc.; but in the Holy Spirit, water is out of the question. There were ceremonial cleansings and washings in the Jewish system, and it was a point of reference that the Ethiopian eunuch asked for. There are other baptizo in the scripture, including by death, by fire, etc.

The "great commision" [in the margin of your Bible] in Matthew 28 is after the Resurrection and before Pentecost. The message is what gets people baptized. Again, the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not with water.

Before the death, burial, and resurrection, the purpose of the Jewish disciples of Christ was to go out and offer the Kingdom of God to the Jews with Jesus Christ as the Messiah. The Jews rejected the Messiah. At Pentecost Peter preached that the Jews had just missed their opportunity to accept their Messiah, the long awaited prophet, priest, and king, and actually have the Kingdom of God right then with the Messiah sitting in the temple in Jerusalem. So, in the meantime, we get the Church age. Paul explains it over again in Romans 9-11.

John the Baptist was preaching a baptism of repentence <u>BEFORE</u> THE ATONING WORK OF CHRIST WAS ON THE RADAR SCREEN. HIS BLOOD WAS NOT YET SHED and preaching the Kingdom of God with a Messiah over the entire nation of Israel. Christ being baptized/anointed by John was an ABSOLUTELY UNIQUE ACT to ANOINT Him as the CHRIST. "Christos" means "the anointed one." It is total blasphemy to think that anyone can imitate Him in His anointing as some kind of example. We are buried "with Him", not "like Him". He did ALL the work to redeem us. He carried us through His death, burial, and ressurection. Many mis-led Christians think that we are supposed to immitate Him.</font>
.
.

(Message edited by Wyoming on December 19, 2004)

[doug (doug)]

sounds dcdc 2 me dc
Rather than question the gifts we should question our faith.

[doug (doug)]

Wyoming
Now I understand you clearly!
If people understood what Christ Jesus did they would understand that the law was fulfilled and God isn't going to judge by the law any more than by a flood or a tree of knowledge of good an evil. Christ unsealed the access to the tree of life itself and his command is everlasting life, eternity.

[dcdc (dcdc)]

Wyoming,
Your statement about the great commission is not correct. Jesus said go preach the gospel to ALL NATIONS. If Jesus meant for it to be to Israel, HE would have said it like HE did the first time. Now, the first time the Apostles were sent, Jesus told them specifically to go to the lost sheep of Israel, not to the Gentiles or the cities of the Samaritans(Matthew 10:5-6). The second time HE told them to go to ALL NATIONS, not Israel only, but ALL nations. .

Now, of course, Peter and the Apostles didn't quite understand what ALL meant; that's why God stepped in and showed Peter what "ALL" meant.

(Message edited by dcdc on December 19, 2004)

[wyoming (wyoming)]

DCDC:

Yes, you are correct. Matthew 28 is after the Resurrection. Again, the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not with water. The message is what gets people baptized.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Wyoming,

I don't think we are worlds apart on this but let me ask what makes a denomination a denomination? I would say that many of the nondenominational groups can also be considered a denomination of sorts.

DCDC,

I understand where you are coming from sort of. Because I don't understand the matter of spiritual gifts (still waiting for God to turn that light bulb on for me) so if I had a "personal statement of faith," I probably wouldn't even touch the issue of spiritual gifts. I also don't know that it is a faith issue (this is to Doug) as it is an "understanding" issue.

Who was the great commission given to? Just the apostles, the church or to the individual believer?

Doug,

Sorry, I didn't mean to be the "assertive" female with the be nice comment . . . I know some would consider me such on other threads. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

(Message edited by hillbilly on December 22, 2004)

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Ah So!... You bring up an enlightening point. The Lord's Church only has His name on it and it is a spiritual body and not a non-profit corporation nor a house made with hands. Everything else is man-made. To deNOMinate is to name yourself apart from the whole. "Nom" equals "name". The names are sign tags that identify the division among Christians. Do you think maybe that the Lord doesn't like division among His people?

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Of course I don't think that God wants or likes division among His people. But as I said, it is often others that give other Christians names that are then viewed as denominations. Every church that I have attended has stated that they are not part of a denomination. This goes back along way in history . . . i.e. the Anabaptists were called such because they were against infant baptism.

I don't know what the answer is. It seems if you go too far one way you are separatists and if you go too far the other way you risk becoming a part of the Anti-Christ Universal Church.

The new testament has examples stating that we should not follow a man (i.e. a particular apostle) but even then people were tempted to do so.

For the record . . . I am home tonight because we had an extra long service this morning and this afternoon instead of having our regular Sunday evening services. Don't want anyone thinking I'm skipping church!

[dcdc (dcdc)]

hillbilly,
Although the great commission was specifically directed to the 11 Apostles only, I feel it is for us today. I believe the Apostles passed the intent behind the commission to those that they(Apostles) sent to be teachers/elders,etc. See Acts 6:3-8,Acts 8:5. Philip and Stephen were called deacons, yet they did same thing as the Apostles(preached Christ to the people in various cities and in Philip's case baptized believers). So I say the commission is the same today for those who are called to preached Christ to the lost.

Also don't become fascinated with tongues; that is not the only gift or the most important gift though it is the one that sparks the greatest controversy. Paul puts its best when he says that we(the believers) should "seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church" 1 Cor. 14:12
We should seek gifts of the Spirit so that it will not only help us individually, but that it should help make the church(Body of Christ) grow, strong and fruitful, and a shining light to the unbelieving world.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

de·nom·i·na·tion (d-nm-nshn) KEY

NOUN:

A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.

from: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry?id=d0133000

The association that my church associates with does not meet the requirements of this definition. There is a statement of faith; however, it is up to the local church to decide whether or not to agree with the statement of faith . . . i.e. most ABA's are premillennialists but I know a few churches that believe in a split rapture.

Also, there is no single administrative and legal hierarchy over the local churches.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

The smallest unit is a denomination of the whole. To take a name and separate yourself from all other so-called churches is to denominate yourself even as a unit of one of a kind. If we can shake all the junk out of our heads and start from scratch with just the Bible, we might get it right. Just forget what everybody tells us and start with Timothy and Titus.

.......

Can someone tell me how to go back and edit a posting.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

dcdc,

Believe me, I am not fascinated with tongues . . . in fact as I am sure you can tell, I am very cautious about this gift.

My question regarding who the great commission was given to relates to this statement of faith also mentioned above:


We believe that Jesus Christ established His church during His ministry on earth and that it is always a local, visible assembly of scripturally baptized believers in covenant relationship to carry out the Commission of the Lord Jesus Christ, and each church is an independent, self-governing body, and no other ecclesiastical body may exercise authority over it. We believe that Jesus Christ gave the Great Commission to the New Testament churches only, and that He promised the perpetuity of His churches (Matt. 4:18-22; Matt. 16:18; Matt. 28:19, 20; Mark 1:14-20; John 1:35-51; Eph. 3:21).


If you believe the above . . . then you expect all parachurch ministries, etc. to be outside of God's word regarding this. This is why I have trouble with ministries that are not accountable to a local church. I'm not saying that they do not do good. I'm just saying based on my belief above, they are not under the correct authority and not following the great commission as I understand it. Albeit, my understanding is greatly influenced by my husband and my church.

Wyoming,

Did you notice the "and each church is an independent, self-governing body, and no other ecclesiastical body may exercise authority over it?"

I'm trying to make it through your post regarding "perfect" but I am having difficulty understanding it. (Maybe too much for me this evening.)

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

One more question and then I'll quit throwing out questions (at least tonight). This goes back to my statement to Douglas.

How do you guys feel about women discussing these issues with you on this board? Does this go against the bible? I don't see this as church and I find it to be a good way to test and prove my beliefs.

I have tried to get some discussion going on this on the Joyce Meyer board but haven't had very many nibbles . . . of course this was more in line with women preaching. I did read an interesting article the other day comparing the issue of women preaching to the slavery issue and how it was viewed at one time by various Christian "denominations" and churches, etc.

[dcdc (dcdc)]

hillbilly,
I agree with the first statement EXCEPT "and each church is an independent, self-governing body, and no other ecclesiastical body may exercise authority over it". Every church MUST have some type of ecclesiastical body to govern it. The church in Peter and Paul's day used the concept of a general council(See Acts 15) which consisted of the Apostles and elders, Peter and John being the leaders. When doctrinal issues arose the Bible states the Apostles and elders of the "church" came together to make a decision. The local churches were subject to the decisions made by the Apostles and elders of the council.

The fact that they sent letters to the local church show that they were subject to the teachings of the general council.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Hillbilly, I don't have anything against women; I think every man ought to own one.

Seriously, you don't come on as being preachy. Your individual persona has been pleasent.

However, I wouldn't want anyone teaching my wife. I might punch out their lights. (You guessed it; I don't believe in Sunday School.) The Bible says that you should ask of your husband at home.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Wyoming!

Ohhhh!!!!!!!!!! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

Well . . . I ask my husband too. (In fact he is busy looking up all the answers to my many, many questions so you guys get the other ones . . . particularly the ones that I am not satisfied with his answers . . . no offense meant to him at all.) My question relates to is it wrong to talk to others?

(Message edited by hillbilly on December 19, 2004)

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Wyoming,

Well . . . I wouldn't want a woman to instruct a man http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif but to edit click on the sheet of paper in the upper right hand corner next to the icon with a red X on it (which is the delete button).

Douglas,

My husband made a "correction" comment to me today. You want to guess what happened? LOL! But it was all in fun . . . with a bit of seriousness.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

DCDC:

In Acts 15 we see the activity and interaction of that which was transpired, but where does it say that this for a formal "general council", other than in the editor's notes in the margin of the Bible?

Where does it say in the Bible that every church MUST have some type of ecclesiastical body to govern it?

Can you imagine the disciples filled with the Holy Spirit and following Robert's Rules of Order like they do in "church councils" today?

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Wyoming,

Just curious . . . does your wife agree with you about everything you teach her about? I believe in submitting to your husband; however, I think there is plenty in the bible (particularly related to unbeliever/believer relationships) that demonstrate it is probably ok for a woman to think.

Just my guess though.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

The Bible says that you should ask of your husband at home.

This is not the case with my husband . . . but what if the husband at home doesn't know????

(Message edited by hillbilly on December 19, 2004)

[doug (doug)]

Hillbilly
<font color="0000ff">I also don't know that it is a faith issue (this is to Doug) as it is an "understanding" issue.</font>
Yes. Faith is in Christ Jesus and not in miracles in and of their self.
<font color="0000ff">Sorry, I didn't mean to be the "assertive" female with the be nice comment . . . I know some would consider me such on other threads.</font>
I don't care assertive male or female. Truth is true because its true and not because of the gender of one speaking it.
Also in the bible women were never forbidden to teach women or children or prophesy. If a woman was single or if a woman had an unbelieving husband she couldn't ask him anything. The teaching prohibition was in regard to laying down the doctrine. I think it had to do with Eve being deceived. I don't believe a woman should have the place of an apostle. In Israel women were prophetesses and judges and have also lead in battle. Bee posts on here (but not lately). If she saw something she had questions about she asked her husband and shared what her husband told her. She also submitted our responses to her husband. No, I don't think this is the same situation with regards to a church. I'd say, say whatever you want as long as your intention is not to harm anyone. My only warning is to not let anyone confuse you and if they do you can take it to God or to your husband if it may cause problems with him or your faith.

<font color="0000ff">the Anabaptists were called such because they were against infant baptism.</font>
They were called anabaptists by outsiders as were the "christians" called christians by outsiders. It was not a name given themselves to incorporate it as a church.

Wyoming
To edit look at the upper right corner and click on the icon of a notepad with the pencil. To delete click on the pad with the red X

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Thanks Douglas,

On several occasions I have printed out your posts (particularly on predestination) and had him (my husband) look at your responses.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Hillbilly, My wife is not a door mat. My wife and I are together on these things. I do not expect her to be knowledgable or active at the same depth. She caught on to some of these things before I met her. Doug's reference to Bee I think is commendable of her. What's important is that you have your husband's blessings, or permission, and I would advise that you share with him what you are being fed.

[dcdc (dcdc)]

Wyoming,
Let me break it down. A question in the early church arose concerning the Gentiles salvation. Certain elders ordained by the Apostles were not preaching the correct Gospel(Acts 14:23-24). So what did Paul and Barnabas do? They went to Jerusalem which was the center of the "church" in that day.

When they went, what happened? They met with the apostles and elders, representatives of the "church"

What did the apostles and elders do? They presented their case concerning the Gentiles. So that meant it was like a court where both sides present their case.

After the cases were presented what happened? They must of voted and came to some type of decision. How do I know? Because the council drafted letters and sent men on their behalf to Antioch,Syria, Cilicia with Paul and Barnabas.

Now in order for all the apostles and elders to to come to a unified decision, they had to vote, which means they had some type of order. Does the Bible say they voted? No, but how else does a group of people come to a decision unless they vote or someone rules(See Acts 1:26)

What is a council? A group of people assembled together to discuss a matter. Who was assembled in acts 15? The apostles, elders, Paul and Barnabas. They were recognized leaders of the Church. What matter was discussed? Gentiles and the Law. I think this meets the definition of a council. It's "general" because they were there to discuss a matter.

You see, I don't need margin notes in a Bible to tell me this. According to MSN Encarta council is "an assembly of church representatives who meet to decide matters of discipline and doctrine". If I'm wrong then Encarta is wrong. So if the Bible I'm reading labels this as a council, then I would agree with that definition.

The Bible does not state in words that a church MUST have a ecclesiastical body to govern it, but you can infer from both the OT and NT.

When the Apostles sent people to establish local congregations, they wanted to make sure that they preached the same thing they did; that's why the Apostles ordained Elders. The Apostles used epistles to instruct the local churches and validate what they were being taught by their local elders. I don't think the Apostles would ordain Elders who were not subject to them. Peter told the churches to be subject to the Elders(1 Peters 5:5). The elders were subject to the Apostles because the Apostles ordained them. Acts 15 proves this. As Jesus was subject to the Father whom sent HIM, and as the Apostles were subject to Jesus, and as the Elders were subject unto the Apostles who sent them, even so should local churches be subject to the ecclesiastical body of the church.

Some references to look at 1 Peter 5:5, Titus 1, and 1 Timothy 3. If a church does not have an ecclesiastical body, then how can it govern properly. Acts and the other Epistles prove that there WAS an ecclesiastical body in the early church.

Who/What is "Robert's Rule of Order"??????? What do you mean by your last statement?

[wyoming (wyoming)]

To me, the church is very simple. Finite minds like to structure the church in a finite sense. The Apostles were gifted unlike us today. I'd like to think they had enough spirituality where they functioned naturally, from what I get from the Bible, and that they didn't refer to anything they did as a general council, or meeting of synod, or a vatican council. The scriptures do not present any such kind of an ambiance, much less an ecclesiastical order. Those are man's conceptions.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

I belonged to a Congregational church in the 1960s. As a member of the "Church Council" we functioned under Robert's Rules of Order.

[doug (doug)]

<font color="0000ff">they had to vote, which means they had some type of order. Does the Bible say they voted? No, but how else does a group of people come to a decision unless they vote or someone rules</font>
The spirit of God rules and all present who had it submitted to it. I guarantee that it was not democratic. If everyone was in error and one was hearing from God that one would follow their conscience but I believe the holy spirit which they all were sensitive to caused them to be in unity and corrected them if they were wrong.

[doug (doug)]

<font color="0000ff">The Apostles were gifted unlike us today.</font> perhaps, but if so it isn't meant to be that way. The same holy spirit is still, I believe, given (even if not received) without measure.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Doug,

I was also thinking along the lines that the apostles came to agreement without voting, for the same reasons you mention.

Do you not see that the Lord gave the apostles special gifts that are not available to us today. Forinstance, they could pass certain gifts on to other, but the others could not pass them on beyond themselves.

I still need to find my study which came from the Bill Gothard material as well as other material, that the signed gifts that have passed away are not the same as the ministering gifts we have today. I might find it in February.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Hillbilly, My wife is not a door mat. My wife and I are together on these things. I do not expect her to be knowledgable or active at the same depth. She caught on to some of these things before I met her. Doug's reference to Bee I think is commendable of her. What's important is that you have your husband's blessings, or permission, and I would advise that you share with him what you are being fed.

Thanks! I will do that . . . I actually think he appreciates getting a break from some of this! I don't think he has a problem with my looking at other views because he knows me well enough to know that I will try to prove things out myself. He has never told me not to do this anyway. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

Wyoming,

I'm not jumping on the other side with dcdc on the council issue here but I will admit, I have seen the authority of the local church go amiss . . . I haven't dealt with councils). As democratic as the church that I attend is (and the previous churches since the mid 1980s), a large group in the church can make a bad decision if they are not following the Lord.

In our church every member has a vote. If they don't like what the pastor is preaching, they can vote him out. In fact at the last church I attended, a large enough number of the members got mad because the pastor said that the church did not have to have the name "baptist" on it to be a new testament church. Silly, isn't it?

(Message edited by hillbilly on December 20, 2004)

[wyoming (wyoming)]

I'd like to have a break from some of this too!

Yesterday morning the posts here were 100. Today they are 144.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Doug,

They were called anabaptists by outsiders as were the "christians" called christians by outsiders. It was not a name given themselves to incorporate it as a church.


The term "Old Landmarkers" was first used to describe J.R. Graves and those in harmony with the principles that he advocated in the mid-1800's. Like the name "Christian" (Acts 11:26) the name "Landmarker" was first used in derision by those opposed to the principles which J.R. Graves and others espoused. The term came from an article entitled "An Old Landmark Reset," written by J.M. Pendleton at the request of J.R. Graves and published in 1854. The term applies to those doctrines concerning the church, which set Landmarkers apart from the rest of professing Christendom, and especially from modern day Baptists.

http://www.carmichaelbaptist.org/Sermons/perdue1.htm

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

LOL Wyoming!

Sorry . . . I'm just trying to study to show myself approved. Maybe I should take more seminary courses instead of just 1 course at a time.

Seminary study does not always give a good "comparitive" study on various issues though.

(Message edited by hillbilly on December 20, 2004)

[dcdc (dcdc)]

Doug,
Why do you think it is foreign that there was some type of vote or rule of order? If they didn't vote then somebody decided whose role is like that of a Judge in a court.


I would think it's natural that anywhere you have a council assembled to decide a matter that it would run similar to a court system; you have a judges, rules and regulations. Look at Acts 15:30. It says they were "dismissed".

I know you will probably disagree with me on this statement, but I feel that James was the leader of this particular council.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

I met for 30 years with a group of Christians who might be called seperatist. We met in a manner and under the concepts which I have represented here -- believing that all denominations are man-made religion. We refused to claim any name but the Lord Jesus Christ.

I would like to mention that business was conducted in men's meeting and WE NEVER VOTED! We did not have elected officers. We prayerfully discussed issues and gradually came to consensus of agreement. This was done decently and in order. It can be done if you have the right heart's attitude. We did not have the same kind of fights that you see where "CHURCH COUNCILS" DO VOTE!

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Wyoming,

I have reviewed your post on "perfect" - am I correct that a conclusion could be made that "perfect" refers to being in the complete will of God - or what I would consider maturity?

I found this interesting as I begin to prepare for teaching our youth about the book of James (and boy am I getting my toes stepped on).

James 1:3-4 (of course this was written to the Jews but it is interesting to note the usage of mature and complete):

because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. . .

(Message edited by hillbilly on December 20, 2004)

[dcdc (dcdc)]

Wyoming,
The concept of a council is not bad, it's the people that make up a council. The people in Acts 15 had the correct mindset. Now, one thing you can't deny is that there was a hierarchy in the earlier church and the Apostles approved of it. You can't find me one scripture to say there was not. Find me a scripture that speaks to their not being a hierarchy in the church.

Are you criticizing the apostles and elders in Acts 15? They disputed with one another in love and came to the correct decision on the doctrinal issue at hand.

If I am wrong, then prove to me that I'm wrong by scripture; not some commentary neither by what you believe.

The early church grew and was successful. Only after the apostles died did the church become corrupt and began teaching false doctrines saying that what the church did back in the apostle's day doesn't apply now. Or, we don't need do like the early church because the church was trying to get established.

The church today needs to go back to the way that the Apostles did, then maybe people will see and witness the true power of the real Gospel.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Hillbilly, My first impression of that which is presented in Kittle's is of individual personal maturity, which would be a new enlightment for me as to 1 Cor 13:10. There is a lot there. It would make sense. If so, it certainly is not future perfection in Heaven. I need to chew on it some more.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

DCDC:

There is really no difference at all between us in your last post. I personally tone it down as to the pomp and circumstance of officialdom. From what we see of the apostles in the scripture, I perceive that the Holy Spirit must have been present to make their conduct of business a testimony, because of what we know of them, that is greater than the legalistic and contentious process that we see in most churches today.

(Message edited by Wyoming. on December 20, 2004)

[bubba (bubba)]

Hello doug,

You were right in saying that you didnt know whether my post was directed at you but you certainly did assume that it was or you would'nt have felt it necessary to speak to me in a condescending manner or would you?

Tha only reference to "doug" was concerning what was written about your comment, but like most tha assumption's here and elsewhere people seem ta believe what they want and that's fine.

As far as tha attempt at low blow's and such I realize that most people away from where I live
take great pride in belittleing folk's down here
when tha truth of tha matter is is that if we too
had had repeating rifle's then they would'nt be so quick now to assume that
we are of a lesser breed than them and would'nt be so quick to try and keep us under your feet as defeated foe and continually berate us for tha way we talk,what a simpleton.


When i first found this sight i "assumed" that it was a chance for people to express their view's and to respond to people who did'nt hafta believe like them in order to be accepted but boy on this one i was dumb as a rock but at least i finally realized what its all about.

God bless you hillbilly i've enjoyed talking to you on several issue's and i will miss that, i pray tha Lord's blessing's on your life.

To all, don't allow yourself to be associated with tha "Apostate" church because they're on tha losing side all tha while thanking their doing God a favor.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Wyoming,

I am also leaning toward this understanding . . . although the maturity of the church is still an option.

Bubba,

God bless you too . . . this board is no different than the rest of the world. Ya got to work to make communications work and at the same time set appropriate boundaries.

To everyone else,

Please, please tell me that I do not have the highest number of posts on this board. I've got to learn to shut my mouth!

[doug (doug)]

bubba,
I said
<font color="119911">Bubba, I wonder what you are distracting people from or to trying to prove by your misspelling which appears to be feigned, with intent, whether conscious or not.</font>
I don't consider you a simpleton and that's why your misspelling seems contrived or intentional to me. I didn't know why you were writing that way but from your last post it looks like culture or perhaps cultural pride, because I haven't seen anyone else from the south write like that so it stood out to me as different, not as southern. It is you, not I, who sees yourself as a "<font color="0000ff">lesser breed</font>" "<font color="0000ff">defeated foe</font>" "<font color="0000ff">simpleton</font>" and I think you're proud of it and use it to justify your judgmental resentful hate of people who don't see things as you do. Something prowling in you was waiting for someone to say something to jump on about it.

I'm still wondering,
Are you accusing me of blasphemy being that my name is the only one you mention in your post?

The only thing I discerned about myself was feeling slightly indignant that you put my name in your what appeared to me as a diatribe against denying the gifts exist.

<font color="0000ff">As far as tha attempt at low blow's and such I realize that most people away from where I live
take great pride in belittleing folk's down here
when tha truth of tha matter is is that if we too
had had repeating rifle's then they would'nt be so quick now to assume that
we are of a lesser breed than them and would'nt be so quick to try and keep us under your feet as defeated foe and continually berate us for tha way we talk,what a simpleton.</font>
You sure seem to be getting a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions (hillbilly, I got the phrase from Hannah).
If you can't deal with the issues here than run but no one is chasing you and I certainly apologise if my sincere question as to your grammar was taken as a slur that has anything to do with south and north or apostate vs non apostate. I didn't intend to provoke pride and racism "<font color="0000ff">I realize that most people away from where I live take great pride in belittleing folk's down here</font>" in you, but as the scripture says, what's in the well comes up in the bucket.
Perhaps if you stand back from your reaction you'll see that this is a place <font color="0000ff">
for people to express their view's and to respond to people who did'nt hafta believe like them in order to be accepted</font>

[doug (doug)]

Wyoming
<font color="0000ff">Doug,
I was also thinking along the lines that the apostles came to agreement without voting, for the same reasons you mention.
Do you not see that the Lord gave the apostles special gifts that are not available to us today. Forinstance, they could pass certain gifts on to other, but the others could not pass them on beyond themselves.</font>
I have seen a man who has healed many people and so I wonder if there still are not people like him that God uses to pass on healing but the people who receive the healing and faith do not have the same gift.

<font color="0000ff">I still need to find my study which came from the Bill Gothard material as well as other material, that the signed gifts that have passed away are not the same as the ministering gifts we have today. I might find it in February.</font>would be interesting.



DCDC
<font color="0000ff">Doug,
Why do you think it is foreign that there was some type of vote or rule of order? If they didn't vote then somebody decided whose role is like that of a Judge in a court.

I would think it's natural that anywhere you have a council assembled to decide a matter that it would run similar to a court system; you have a judges, rules and regulations. Look at Acts 15:30. It says they were "dismissed".

I know you will probably disagree with me on this statement, but I feel that James was the leader of this particular council.</font>
Not enough of a buff on it to agree or disagree on that last sentence but I experience those things written before that sentence as done in the manner that Wyoming and I spoke about in our recent posts. David was king in Israel because the people wanted a king like the nations and they suffered greatly for it and I believe David suffered greatly for it too. I definitely don't believe in voting in matters of God's leading and even though the apostles drew straws I believe that God's choice to replace Judas was the Benjaminite Saul. There are very interesting similarities between Saul/ Paul and king Saul. I'll expound upon it later if God allows it and I live to do so but it is late for me and I have to wake up early tomorrow.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Keep in mind that the apostles drew straws for the replacement of Judas because, this being before the Holy Spirit was given at Pentcost, they weren't very enlightened at that time. Just a little earlier when they were in jail they were asking such ignorant questions as to whether Jesus was the Messiah or should they look for someone else to come. After the Holy Spirit was given, they began to understand what Jesus had tried to teach them. Paul was really the 12th apostle.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Doug,

Today was the first time I've read a post of Bubba's and I thought the very same thing; unbeknownst to me what was going on between you two -- that this person sounds too literate and intelligent to write that way and it had to be done on purpose. I think he's playing with you.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Or he may just have a chip on his shoulder?

<font color="ff0000">Added:

You can be intelligent and have a chip on your shoulder.

Of course, ya know I feel a special kinship with Bubba with the Southern name and all.

Of course, maybe the female is too gullible? Hope not.</font>


(Message edited by hillbilly on December 21, 2004)

[dcdc (dcdc)]

Doug,Wyoming,
Saul/Paul did not replace Judas because Paul said so himself in 1 Cor. 15:5-8. He said in verse 7 that he was seen of James, then of "ALL the apostles, and last of all he was seen of me also". That means Paul did not number himself with the 12. It didn't matter to Paul if he was numbered with the 12, because in Paul's eyes he was sent by Jesus and God, therefore he was an Apostle because the revelation given to him was not given to any other.

Wyoming, I think Peter was very enlightened. He knew that the office Judas held as an Apostle had to be filled. Somebody probably questioned Peter why was another Apostle being selected. Peter knew that scripture had to be fulfilled and selecting someone to fill Judas' office was fulfilling scripture. Peter quoted from the OT to enlighten the others why it should done. Peter then stated the qualifications and then they appointed two persons. Then, what did the 120 do? They prayed to the Lord to shew them the one whom God wanted. How did God show the 120 whom HE wanted? God showed them the way by the "casting of lots". The "casting of lots" goes way back to Moses' day. The way I see it, God chose, not the 120, Matthais as an Apostle by HIS Spirit. The casting of lots in his favor by the 120 validated God's selection.

So, how could Paul be the 12th Apostle when clearly in Acts 1:26 the Holy Ghost confirmed that Matthais was numbered with the eleven.

Also, many people believe that there were ONLY 12 Apostles, the Bible never says that.

Can you all explain your rational for thinking that Paul was the 12th? I don't see the significance of Paul being numbered in the 12 if you believe that there were more that 12 Apostles.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

This is the only time we hear about Matthais. My point is about Matthais and it's not worth arguing about the numbers 12, 13, or 14.

"Casting lots" appears to me to be human reasoning in the absence of the leading of the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit didn't come until Pentacost. Scripture also tells us of when people had their moments. It wasn't always divine guidance. Paul even told us when he gave an opinion where he didn't have direction from God -- it wasn't "thus saith the Lord". They cast lots; but was it something they decided to do on their own?

[doug (doug)]

Wyoming
Paul considered himself to be the last apostle, at least I believe he referred to himself as an apostle.
It is late and I'd like to share all the details later but some of them are that King Saul was a head taller than the other Israelites. He was of the tribe of Benjamin. He persecuted David. David asked Why do you chase your servant like a dog? or something like that. An evil spirit from the lord came upon Saul. Saul fell on his own sword perhaps just as Judas did.
Saul/ paul was the smartest of all the Pharisees, perfect or innocent as to the law. Saul?Paul was also of the tribe of Benjamin. He persecuted Jesus. Jesus said, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? A messenger from Satan buffeted Paul lest he become exalted.

Paul refers to himself as last of the apostles, I believe, like an untimely birth. He is an apostle representing the 12th son of Israel, Benjamin whose mother died in giving birth to him.
An interesting thing is that David refused to ever speak against Saul even after Saul's death and called Saul "God's anointed"

The bible is so full of mysteries!

[wyoming (wyoming)]

That's awe inspiring. Yes, Paul was the last apostles. Why do people today want to claim apostolic gifts today? Do they think they are apostles?

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

I have wondered about that very question myself.

[dcdc (dcdc)]

Wyoming,Doug,
I'm going to explain what "apostle" means and why I say there were more than 12 apostles. Now, an "apostle"(GR. apostolos") means messenger or some one that is sent. That person sent is a representative of the sender who also has been given the authority and the same power of the sender.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that an apostle is someone that is sent by Jesus or saw Jesus. Modern commentary thinks this way, but the Bible doesn't. Now, Jesus had many disciples in his day that saw him, but he only chose 12 disciples whom he called apostles. They were not apostles because they saw him but because HE SENT them out as messengers on his behalf to preach the Kingdom of God; not only that, they were given the same authority and power that Jesus had. Therefore those 12 were called correctly the Apostles of Jesus Christ because Jesus sent them. Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ because he was sent by Christ.

Now, there must of have been people questioning Paul's Apostleship as seen in 1 Cor. 9. So Paul defended his Apostleship. Why did Paul make reference to seeing Jesus? Paul knew that to be an apostle meant that someone had to send him. Paul knew and all others knew he wasn't sent by the leaders of the church. So Paul says I saw Christ, therefore the implication is that Christ sent Paul. But Paul probably put it best by saying, I'm paraphrasing, even if the apostles in Jerusalem didn't send him and even if he had not saw Christ, the fact that the Corinthians heard his message and believed in the Gospel unto salvation proves his apostleship. In 1 Cor 9:2 Paul said "If I be not an apostle(i.e. messenger) unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord".
Paul's defense proves that apostleship is not tied to seeing the man Jesus. Verse 2 proves this.

Wyoming,Doug, I know you all have Bible Software so search the NT for "apostolos". You will see that in Phillipians 2:25 that apostolos is used to represent Epaphroditus(i.e. but your apostolos) The thing is that Epaphroditus was sent, not by Jesus, but by Paul. So I say Epaphroditus was an apostle because Paul sent him.

Another apostle is Titus. Look at 2 Cor. 8:23 where Paul says that Titus is one of his fellowhelpers. Paul said if it is asked about who Titus or the brethren, then tell the people they are "apostolos of the churches". So Titus was an apostle of the Church because Paul and the church SENT him. Look at the epistle that Paul sent to Titus. Paul recognized Titus as an apostle(messenger). Why do I say that? Because he told Titus to go to Crete and set the church in order. Titus had authority by Paul and the church to setup the church in Crete by ordaining bishops and elders.(Titus 1:5,15). From my reading thus far the apostles were the ones that established the local churches, then they ordained elders and bishops to run the local church while they went to their next location.

So confusing the office of apostleship with apostolic gifts is in error and to say that there are not apostles today is an error.

Jesus is the Apostle of God.(Heb 3:1). The 12 disciples Jesus sent,(Matthais replaces Judas' office), and Paul are apostles of Jesus Christ. The other apostles in the Bible were sent on behalf of the church or they were sent on the behalf of the apostles of Jesus Christ.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

DCDC:

Most of your points are well taken except for a couple of objections. I agree, to be more precise, the 12 plus Paul should be called "apostles of Jesus". (Matthais was not a "sent-out-one" by Jesus; regarding my proposition that casting lots for a replacement for Judas was a carnal move.)

You say something that I don't think you really mean...

<font color="0000ff">they were given the same authority and power that Jesus had.</font>

Christ had unigue authority and power!

Paul and the 11 or 12 are not here today. I am holding to the uniqueness of the 12 and Paul for special gifts of miracles of healing that Jesus directly gave them, that they could perform and assign to others, but the others did not have the power to hand out the miraculous gifts to subsequent others. This has been consistent Christian doctrine until the Charasmatic Movement tampered with it a little over 100 years ago when they started channeling spirits.
.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Wyoming,

Quick question because I don't want to distract from the conversation but would like to know. Do you think "all" charismatics channel spirits or perhaps some just have their minds playing games on them?

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Hillbilly,

Always and never are seldom; whether self induced hypnosis, peer pressure to conform [another form of hypnosis or brainwashing], or channeling of spirits. In all instances they are opening themselves up and surrendering and inviting outside control. Some are also faking it.

[doug (doug)]

Christ needed to be Christ to fulfill all righteousness and bring Judgment on Satan. No one else needs to be Christ because Christ filled the position and finished the work once and for all. The 12 Apostles are heads over each of the 12 tribes of Israel, 12 sons of Jacob/Israel. 2 B continued, gotta go

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Thanks Wyoming. That certainly is a scarey thought.

Doug, I posted this earlier and then thought, nay . . . I didn't need to get into this conversation but the way I see it is that yes, there were the 12 apostles for the 12 tribes but Paul was the apostle to the gentiles. Maybe that is too simplified but that is what I am thinking.

Hope you are enjoying spending time with your stepson. Unfortunately, no church tonight . . . the weather is a bit frightful here.

[doug (doug)]

Well said Wyoming.


An interesting thing about the 12 brothers. 11 of them rejected Joseph and sold him into slavery. Benjamin was not guilty of that.
Joseph was exalted and during the famine his brothers came to him for help. Joseph would not reveal himself to his brothers until they were willing to lay down their lives for Benjamin out of love for their father. Joseph and Benjamin were the sons of Israel by Rachael, the one Jacob first loved. Some say that was Jacob's. Israel was still Jacob when the 11 were born, I believe. The 12 children have 4 mothers and one father.

There is so much deeper truth in every scripture but concerning the 12 apostles I'd seek to understand it in the 12 sons of Jacob.

[dcdc (dcdc)]

Doug,
Your observation about the 12 Apostles and the 12 tribes is correct, except I would disagree with Paul being the 12th. Although I understand now why you believe that he is the 12th. The 12th was Matthias; though he was not specifically sent by Jesus, he was chosen by God and counted with the 11(Acts 1:26). Why Jesus chose 12 can be found in Matthew 19:28. Peter wanted to know what the Apostles would get for leaving all they had and following him. The answer is the 12 apostles would set on the 12 thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. But for Paul, the 13th apostle of Jesus Christ and the last of the apostles of Jesus Christ he was sent specifically for the Gentiles.

[doug (doug)]

dcdc
Good point! I never noticed that

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

dcdc,

Thank you! That was my point but I could never have put it as good as you did.

Doug and Wyoming,

Perhaps Matthias was predestined to be an Apostle and the casting of the lots and the selection of Matthias is an example of compatibilism? Not that they meant the "casting of lots" for bad but it does seem that they could have found a more appropriate way to understand who should be the 12th apostle.

Cindig,

If you are still lurking, what do you think of John MacArthur?

God Bless all and Merry Christmas!

(Message edited by hillbilly on December 24, 2004)

[yaakov (yaakov)]

Doug

<font color="0000ff">An interesting thing about the 12 brothers. 11 of them rejected Joseph and sold him into slavery. Benjamin was not guilty of that.</font>

Correction, It was Reuben that tried to save Joseph, not Benjamin. (Exodus 37:22 And Reuben went on "Shed no blood! Cast him into that pit out in the wilderness, but do not touch him yourselves" - intending to save him from them and restore him to his father.

[doug (doug)]

Actually, I was thinking that Benjamin had not been there but I was wrong. It looks like even though Reuben planned to deliver Joseph, the others planned on letting him die and Judah saved him from that by selling him into slavery.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Wyoming,

Have you noticed the use of the term "perfect" in Matthew 19:21? I think Jesus was speaking of "spiritual maturity" here and also making the point that no one will be perfect without him.

I love it when God provides these little gems when I am actually looking at something else. I think I am going to have to look at my topical bible regarding "perfect." I cannot recall if I have done this before but I should have.

God Bless,

[wyoming (wyoming)]

It's the same Greek word -- TELEIOS.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/5/1104354175-3513.html

Look at Colosians 1:28 -- we are "perfect in Christ".

When God looks upon us, He doesn't see our sin, He sees the blood of Christ covering us over, and sin is not counted against us. That's how we are perfect. That's the Grace of God. Some Christians think they are working their way to Heaven by keeping the Law of commandments and ordinances! Hog wash! Good works will be the by-product, joyously, AFTER we are first saved.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/p/1104354536-6976.html

Speaking of maturity, we start out with the "milk" of the Word, then we progress to the sincere "meat" of the Word.

[dcdc (dcdc)]

Wyoming,hillbilly,
Context is important. Paul didn't say we are perfect in Christ in Col 1:28. Paul was saying that he labors so that he can present his followers as perfect in Christ. That's why Paul was admonishing and teaching everywhere. Now, who was Paul going to present his followers to? Paul said in 2 Cor. 11:2 that he was going to present his followers to "Christ". Paul can only do that on judgement day.

Second, Paul talks about two types of perfection:
1) one being mature. See Phil. 2:14)
2) consummate end; in this case to be resurrected like Christ.

Paul said in verse Phil. 2:10 that he wanted to know Christ AND HIS resurrection power. This is what Paul was striving for; to "attain unto the resurrection of the dead"(Verse 11). Then, he says I have not attained this(i.e. this resurrection power) NOR has he been made perfect.(Verse 12). So Paul clearly in this case and I say in 1 Cor. 13:10 alludes to perfection as being resurrected like Christ. This was the mark that Paul was pressing towards.

Now in one of my early posts I said that in 1 Cor. 13:10 refers to the second coming of Christ. That's incorrect. I think that Phil. 3:12 shows that the perfection Paul is talking about is when we as believers are resurrected like Christ.So in 1 Cor 13:10,"when that which is pefect comes" refers to the resurrection of the believer. When we become resurrected like Christ, then we will know and the various gifts will cease because at this point we have attained the prize. We shall know just like Christ because we have experienced that resurrection power. Until we have experienced this power we only know in part.

Does this makes sense?

Thanks for your posts Wyoming/hillbilly.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

No, your explanation of 1 Cor 13:10 mixes other concepts that are not what 1 Cor 13:10 is saying. Kittle's exegesis in the original Greek leans heavily on the maturity of the individual Christian in the individual's present circumstances. I've backed down on it referring to the Church coming of age by the end of the book of Acts, although every individual Christian makes up the Church; technically they are one in the same.

Whether Paul is making a presentation or not in Col 1:28, everyone in Christ is perfect in Christ.

Again... when God looks upon us, He doesn't see our sin, He sees the blood of Christ covering us over, and sin is not counted against us. That's how we are perfect to begin with. But then maturity comes in our faith, walk, and growth, to the point of putting away childish things. The scriptures are replete with exhortations for us to be mature IN THIS LIFE.

We've exhausted the subject above in Kittle's, etc. Your prejudicial viewpoint of holding on to Charismatic beliefs, will not allow you to accept any contrary doctrine, reproof, or correction.

[dcdc (dcdc)]

Wyoming,
My viewpoint is not prejudicial, neither do I hold on to charismatic beliefs. I do hold on to the Apostle's doctrine. You have taken Col 1:28 out of context. That's why I say you are mixing two different concepts. When you look at Paul's letters when he talks about perfect, he is either talking about maturity or that end goal where the believer has complete knowledge of Christ and of HIS resurrection power.

Explain Phil 3:12? Clearly Paul stated that he had not reached the end goal(teteleíoomai - consecrate, finish, fulfil, make perfect). Paul is talking about he had not reached the end of the race and obtained that perfect(complete) knowledge in Christ and had not experienced that resurrection power that Christ experienced.

1 Col 1:28 - pefect(téleion). Paul is talking about presenting (parasteésoomen - recommend,proffer) every man as perfect in Christ. Who is Paul presenting this too? See 2 Cor 11:2.

1 Cor 13:10 - perfect(téleion - complete in growth, mental, moral character, etc)) in this case is alluding to when we are resurrected like Christ, then we will see HIM as HE is. At that point when we become resurrected like Christ, then and only then will we have complete knowledge of HIM(know HIM as he is).
1 John 3:2 - Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is

With your definition of perfect, how do you explain 1 Cor 13:12. That verse refers back to verse 10.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

OK now I am confused. Yes, God sees us as perfect through the shed blood of Christ; however, I think the reference is to being "spiritually mature." As Wyoming stated "we start out with the "milk" of the Word, then we progress to the sincere "meat" of the Word.

Perhaps the reference is when the individual reaches this maturity or the church or body of Christ as a whole reaches this maturity, spiritual gifts will no longer be needed.

Now when this "spiritual maturity" occurs is another issue.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

And is the word "that" in the original greek? 1 Cor 13:10

[wyoming (wyoming)]

DCDC:

TELEIOS, TELEION is a common word in the Greek used in many contexts and with a variety of English translations. It does not necessarily mean the absolute sinless perfection uniquely reserved for our future in Heaven. It can mean an achieved level of maturity in a developmental process down here. The context of 1 Cor 13:10 is within context of Chapters 12, 13, and 14, which is about the status and disposition of signed gifts down here, and where we should put away childish things in this life.

Kittle's Greek exegesis, posted above, simplifies it for me.

[dcdc (dcdc)]

hillbilly,
Good point. I have a question? How can we complete knowledge of Christ now without having experienced the resurrection power?
Our knowledge of Christ, though it may be mature, is not complete. If it were complete, then we would know how we shall be when Christ return. According 1 John 1:3:2 we don't know how we shall be; therefore our knowledge is incomplete.

According 27th Edition of Nestle-Aland, téleion translates to "that which is perfect"

That's why I say the gifts of the Spirit are still here and are valid today. The gifts are needed to help the Church get to what Paul talked about in Ephesians 4:13. We are not there yet. When verse 13 happens, then there would be no need of pastors and teachers because the Church would be in unity and in perfect knowledge of Christ.

[dcdc (dcdc)]

Wyoming,
The gifts of the Holy Spirit are not childish. What was childish was how the Corinthians viewed the gifts and how they used the gifts. It was their envying, strife, division, and carnal thinking that Paul wanted them to push aside(1 Cor 3:6). That's why Paul made it clear that they should "Follow charity, and desire spiritual gifts".(1 Cor 14:1) If they corrected their childish ways and became more mature in Christ, then they could properly use and understand the gifts that God gave them which are perfect and are needed to pefect the saints.

(Message edited by dcdc on December 30, 2004)

[wyoming (wyoming)]

You may have the last word. I'll rest my case with my two previous posts and stick with the latitude that Kittle gives, which was posted much earlier:

In 1 Cor 13:10, TELEION, is an Accusative Case, Singular, Masculine noun (Analytical Greek Lexicon). It can also be used as Nominative Case, Neuter; which is not the case here. The root idea of the Accusative is as to limitation. The root idea of Nominative is as to designation. (Dana &amp; Mantey, P. 67)

"The accusative is probably the oldest, and is certainly the most widely used of all the Greek cases. Its direction is more general than that of any other case... It must originally have had a great variety of uses, as a result of which its root idea is not easy to discern. It relates primarily to action, and indicates the direction, extent, or end of action. 'The accusative signifies that the object referred to is considered as the point toward which something is proceeding: that it is the end of the action or motion described, or the space traversed in such motion or direction.'" (Dana &amp; Mantey, Page 91.)

KITTLE: In Greek thought and usage TELEIOS often means "totality". The one who does the "whole" will of God... the heart which is "undivided" in obedience to God. The attitude behind the question: What lack I yet?" which is based formally on what precedes. The context in each case supplies the reference. In the Catholic Epistles, too, TELIOS means "whole", "complete"... The man is "whole" who does the "whole" work... What is "whole" and "without fault" comes from God... "Full," "unlimited" love, "which lacks totality", leaves no room for fear... The nothing of its command to be "completely" sober...


NOW FOR THE BIG PRIZE ON PAGES 75-77 IN KITTLE: I transcribed the Greek letters.

3. In the Pauline corpus the meaning "whole" is suggested at 1 C. 13:10 by the antithesis to ek merous. Spiritual gifts - gnosis (YLS 44 and prophecy are mentioned - do not give full knowledge 45 of God -> IV, 596, 22 ff. This will be granted to the Christian only with the immediacy of face-to-face, v. 12. Col. 4:12 is referring to the solid position occupied by Christians as those who are "whole," "complete" (par. peplarophoramenoi --> VI, 285, 10 ff.) in the total will of God (cf. 1:9, a

<font size="-1">44 The ref. in 1 C. 13:8 is to the logos gnoseos which is grouped with other charismata in 12:8, cf. the list in 13:2.
45 ginosko in the broader, fuller sense; prophecy, too, mediates only ginoskein ek merous; the gnosis received by the pneumatic now is not teleia.</font>


76 teleios D 3

statement about the content of intercession for the community, ->- VI, 291, 12 ff.). Yet in the main the feeling of antiquity (--)- V, 642, 28 ff.) was that only an "adult" can be a "full" man; hence these senses can overlap in Paul. Thus in Col. 1:28 he describes it as the goal of his preaching and teaching to present every man before God or Christ (-* V, 840, 19 ff.) as "complete," "full-grown," under the direction of Christ and His cross and resurrection; 46 the "whole" man is the one who lives in the power of the cross and resurrection of Jesus. In accordance with the previous sentence teleios seems sometimes to be used explicitly in antithesis to gapios etc. (~ 68, 41 ff.); formally this is especially clear in 1 C. 14:20: paidia… tais phresin 47 - tais… phresin teleioi.48 Concerning tongues the judgment of those addressed is compared to the immature thinking and imagining of a child 49 and the judgment of mature Christians is set in contrast to it. On Eph. 4:13 - VI, 302, 22 ff. 50 Since the reference here is to the judgment of the teleioi, a similar understanding seems natural in Phil. 3:15: 51 mature Christians judge in the way set forth in 3:3-14.52 Nor is this understanding to be ruled out at 1 C. 2:6 53 even though Paul is here adopting a term of his adversaries. 54, 55 The mature are those who understand
the message of the cross, namely, as 56 the wisdom of God, and who embrace it in faith, -. IV, 819, 12 ff. J7 There seems no reason to suppose that in R. 12:2 Paul is adopting the concept of the teleion, along with the agathon (-.1,11,15ff.) , as we find it in the Greek value-system, -+ 79, 19 ff. 58 In any case the word is governed here
by the preceding to thelema tou theo59 Knowledge of the "perfect," "entire" will

<font size="-1">46 Cf. F. Neugebauer, In Christ us (1961), 103, 177.
47 Cf. ta kakia napiazeta. The idea of moral immaturity is implied.
48 Philip V of Macedonia showed himself to be, not a paidion napion, but a teleios anar, Polyb., 5, 29, 2. There is a chiasmus in both cases.
49 Cf. 1 C. 13:11; -- IV, 919, 8 ff. Those who regard good fortune as constant are napioi, children with no understanding or discernment, Philo Leg. Gaj., 1.
50 "Full-grown," "total," acc. to S. Hanson, -The Unity of the Church in the NT," Acta Seminarii Neotest. Upsaliensis, 14 (1949), 159, cf. 158-160. Further bib]. Rigaux, 251, n. 2. On the Gnostic view in H. Schlier, Christus u. d. Kirche im Eph. (1930), 27-35 cf. -- II, 943, 7 ff.; on the history of the interpretation of teleios in Paul in the light of Gnosticism, du Plessis, 20-32.
51 "Arrives a I'age d'homme," Spicq, 216.
52 There is no trace of a dialectical tension between teteleiomai in v. 12 and teleios in v. 15; cf. W. Liitgert, "Die Vollkommenen im Phil. u. d. Enthusiasten in Thessalonich," BFTh, 13, 6 (1909), 17-23; here the apostle's "perfection" is seen in his steadily pressing on to the goal, 23. It is not to be ruled out that Paul was perhaps using a term current in Philippi.
53 Independently of 3:1 f., though children are contrasted with the pneumatics here, -~ n. 55.
54 These might thus style themselves full Christians or full men. Paul could also be using the term in the latter sense, though with a different view of what constitutes a "full" man.
55 Materially, of course, teleios means here the same as pneumatikos, Spicq, 217; Osnes, 173-5; Wilckens, op. cit., 53. The message of the cross is indeed accessible only to pneumatics, 1 C. 2:10-13.
56 W. Grundmann attempts to establish a distinction between Paul's preaching of the cross and his preaching of wisdom, "Die NHI710 1 in d. urchr. Paranese," NTSt, 5 (1958/ 59), 188-205, esp. 191.
57 Wilckens, 53 and 60 transl. "perfect" but interprets teleios in 1 C. 2:6 by Gnostic mystery terminology, 54, cf. 53-60. Bauer, 11 has "ripened."
58 Grammatically to agathon ktl. can be taken as an attribute of to thelema ... cf. Ltzm., Mi. R., ad loc., though they do not transl. attributively, Dihle thinks only an attributive understanding is possible.
19 Cf. materially Philo Deus Imm., 118, which is shaped by bib]. thought, -- 71, 6 ff.</font>}

77

of God60 in the concrete situation is developed by renewal (-- III, 453, 21 ff.) of the power of judgement through the Holy Spirit.


<font size="-1">60 euareston then denotes what is well-pleasing to God, cf. Eph. 5:10 and does not, like prosphila in Phil. 4:8, relate to general judgment; it is certainly defined in a Chr. way in Col. 3:20. Cf. Wis. 9:10: The wisdom sent by God teaches what is well-pleasing to God. That (or he) is uearestos with which (whom) God is pleased, which (who) is right to Him, e.g., Enoch in Wis. 4:10; euaresteo is used in LXX for a term which denotes action (-> I, 455, 20 ff.; 457, 19 ff.). It occurs sometimes outside the Bible in a long list of terms describing the agathon acc. to the Stoic view, Cl. Al. Prot., VI, 72, 2; Strom., V, 110, 3; Eus. Praep. Ev., 13, 13, 37 (the author supposedly Cleanthes); here man is the measure of what is pleasing. But in context one need not think of the judgment of others (cf. Phil. 4:8) but only one's own, what is pleasing to "me."</font>
.

[doug (doug)]

Wyoming
I noticed that when I went through seemingly dark times of trial and self doubt God brought all kinds of miraculous to me circumstances and events together but when I was stronger in faith they subsided for me.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

That makes sense!

In the positions I have taken, one might incorrectly think that I might be ignoring God's direct activity in our lives. There are things that happen in my life and in the lives of people around me that have to be more than coincidence. And they can only be believed by faith. The Lord doesn't really do them blatantly as a "sign" to unbelievers anymore. And another side of the coin, is that He doesn't want us to latch on to handling Him "on demand" according to our manipulation. Nor to serve us like Santa Claus when we pray selfishly.

I've just had wonderful holidays -- not celebrating the holidays. Such peace; simply in Christian service.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Doug &amp; Hillbilly,

Would you contact me at: 1Baptism@comcast.net

[overseas (overseas)]

If we equal manifestation of the Spirit with God miracles, then a pattern is hard to establish. Jesus did some miracles especially for non believers, while others only for believers. It seems that God has His exact measure of proof that He delivers to convince people to accept faith.
I am shocked to see how the apostles ministry was like a 'mountain-rousse', because one day Peter is released by angels from prison, next day he is beaten to death by jews. Paul has the ecounter with the Lord, but later he has to run for his life. Miracles come and go, but the Spirit remains with us. What is guaranteed to us is that the Holy Spirit is always here for producing spiritual fruit in us like love, patience and so on.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

OVERSEAS:

Are you native to Kenya or are you a missionary?

The "charismatic" controversy is over the ability or inability as to people who call themselves Christian to be able to perform magic today in the name of Christianity.

My thesis at these posts is that Jesus gave the apostles miraculous powers that the apostles could use upon others, but the others could not pass on these powers. Most of the miracles were in the earlier chronology of the Book of Acts in order to impress unbelieving Israel of their credentials as bestowed by God. We see a fading of these miraculous gifts by the time we get to the end of the Book of Acts -- when the Church has been firmly established by the Apostles, and the Apostles leave the scene. That is what the argument has been at these posts.

[just_a_sinner (just_a_sinner)]

I would add, with Wyoming's permission, that this does not mean that God cannot, Himself, divinely interact on our behalf and as a result we may see what appears to be miraculous; however, this does not happen through the acts of a man.

Wyoming, correct me if I am wrong.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Sinner:

You are 100% correct.

[just_curious (just_curious)]

just_a_sinner:

Just a thought -- if you are a saved child of God, you are no longer "just a sinner." You are clothed in Christ's righteousness! Yes, you may sin in the flesh, but you are now a SAINT, not a sinner! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[wyoming (wyoming)]

courious:

I wish all Christians knew that, so they wouldn't think you could lose your salvation.

I think of the song, "Only a sinner, saved by Grace." I think that's the concept.

[just_a_sinner (just_a_sinner)]

OK . . . maybe I'll change my name to Saved by Grace!

Thank you Curious!

[saved_by_grace (saved_by_grace)]

How's this?

[marie (marie)]

So, are you guys saying that God does not work through humans?

[just_curious (just_curious)]

Saved by grace:

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/smile.gif

[wyoming (wyoming)]

I think the leopard was able to change it's spots.


Marie, were taling about miracles performed by God and the Apostles, eliminating man today. We're not saying that we do not minister as man being led by the holy spirit of Christ.

[overseas (overseas)]

wyoming, I am in Eastern Europe, was your question a joke ? http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

I just came in briefly, not strictly following your posts. Still you have there my brief opinion on miracles and other spectacular signs.

[saved_by_grace (saved_by_grace)]

That's what I thought overseas. I don't think Wyoming was joking, he really thought you were from Kenya.

God bless

[wyoming (wyoming)]

overseas:

I searched your IP address and it came up Kenya. Now I just did it again and it indicated a city in Eastern Europe.

I get the impression that there is a lot of Charismatic activity in Russia and in your country. Is that correct?

[saved_by_grace (saved_by_grace)]

I think the leopard was able to change it's spots.

Nope, just covered by the blood of Jesus!

[saved_by_grace (saved_by_grace)]

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[marie (marie)]

<font color="0000ff">Marie, were taling about miracles performed by God and the Apostles, eliminating man today. We're not saying that we do not minister as man being led by the holy spirit of Christ.</font>

Do you believe that man, being led by the Holy Spirit of Christ, may operate in the gifts of the Holy Spirit with manifestations of healing?

[saved_by_grace (saved_by_grace)]

I know Wyoming would say no and I am pretty much there with him except I have a little problem with "the face to face" comment in Corinthians and how it relates to the existance of spiritual gifts.

dcdc would say yes and I think Doug and Overseas would too but I'm not sure.

I don't know about anyone else.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

I believe that God heals, but not necessarily on demand. Through prayer, he may or may not heal. Prayer itself might be the change of attitude that effects your body and allows healing.

The more that man tries to exalt himself to perform healing, the less God is apt to be a part of it. There is an awful lot of deception out there, and I think that most of it is deception.

I've heard people claim that God healed them of the flu, ignoring that such healing comes naturally. That is taking God's name in vain.

I would go along with Bill Gothard that spiritual gifts for the present ages are Preaching, Teaching, Serving, Exhortaion, Organization (Administration), Giving, and Mercy (Empathy).

As I indicataed earlier, <font color="0000ff">In the positions I have taken, one might incorrectly think that I might be ignoring God's direct activity in our lives. There are things that happen in my life and in the lives of people around me that have to be more than coincidence. And they can only be believed by faith. The Lord doesn't really do them blatantly as a "sign" to unbelievers anymore. And another side of the coin, is that He doesn't want us to latch on to handling Him "on demand" according to our manipulation. Nor to serve us like Santa Claus when we pray selfishly.
</font>

[marie (marie)]

<font color="0000ff">He doesn't want us to latch on to handling Him "on demand" according to our manipulation. Nor to serve us like Santa Claus when we pray selfishly</font>

I agree totally with this statement. However, from what I've read on this thread it seems you deny that God does these things at all. Just because you personally have not witnessed it does not mean it isn't there. Just because there are those who misunderstand or just blatantly abuse people's perceptions of these gifts/manifestations,does not mean they are not real and active.

God does perform miracles today, I have witnessed and been a part of them myself.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

I've seen the evidence of deception regarding the popular faith healers.

My previous post confirms God's active intercession into our lives.

I've exhauseted the subject on this thread over the past two months.

There are too many spiritual whores out there, typically on TBN. And their <u>fruit</u> of the un-holy spirit ALL GOES TOGETHER... money, glamor, money, rock music, money, speaking in tongues, money, faith healing, money, immorality, money, "God is going to perform a great miracle here tonight".

By their fruit, ye shall know them.

[overseas (overseas)]

Talking about prayer for/and healing, see below my brief points on both. It is not strictly on gifts, but can be easily used to check one's attitude in using gifts.
Healing:
- I understand from the Bible that flesh (even for believers) and this world are under the consequences of sin until the final restoration, so healing is not the norm
- if healing is the norm, what about growing old and physical death - I guess the logical extension is that believers must not die anymore
- in NT epistles, sometimes sickness is equal to God's parental rebuke for believers - now imagine a believer rebuking that sickness by 'word of faith' !!!; in Gospels some sickness was described by Jesus to come from the devil; christians have to decide which is which
- the problem with faith healers is that they teach to pray for healing with strong faith; if you are not healed then your faith is not enough - this can cause serious psychic troubles to believers cause they panic and suspect themselves of deviance from faith; my question is if one had faith for salvation, then how can we accuse him of not having faith for healing ? if one takes healing as a sign of spiritual health then what about the non believers that die at 100 years in very good shape ?
- I do not deny some healings are from God and I do not deny His power; but one should explain me why going to a group of 'specialised' healers is expected to accomplish more than my sincere prayer or more than my christian friends prayers for me ? because assumption is that healing is provided by God not men...
- before Jesus ressurection, apostles had some failures (once they could not do an exorcism), but in Acts they succeeded all the times; still, they did not target everybody, but when they did they healed the person, no failures
- desperate people/ believers with serious illness and pains are very exposed to look for healing with little or no regard to biblical consistency; that is understandable and human, but truth should not be sacrificed.

Prayer:
- if God is omniscient, then we do not pray to inform Him
- if God is most good, then we do not pray because he does not want to do good
- if God is omnipotent, then we do not pray to help Him accomplish something
- if God is most wise, then we do not pray to show Him a better plan we have
- if God decided to do something, our prayer cannot change His plan; if God decided not to do something, our prayer will not change his conviction; otherwise God would be a puppet in a game called 'who prays harder'
Then why should we pray ? Apostle John teaches that only praying in acccordance with God will (for the things He agrees) guarantees the proper answer. The miracle is not that requests in accordance with God will receive answers (that is obvious); the miracle is that some people get convinced to wish the same thing with God, that is to accept His will.

http://www.reformed.org/books/
A. Pink in the book Sovereignity of God: "Our main purpose in this chapter has been to emphasize the need for submitting, in prayer, our wills to God's. But it must also be added that prayer is much more than a pious exercise, and far otherwise than a mechanical performance. Prayer is, indeed, a Divinely appointed means whereby we may obtain from God the things we ask, providing we ask for those things which are in accord with His will."
I strongly recommend you to read the chapter on prayer, it's free/ online.

Charismatics in my country (Romania) are not that numerous, but their influence is spreading fast.

[actually (actually)]

Hi there
I've got access to the internet again so I'll try to catch up briefly.

To summarise the Kittle commentary - "teleios" points to something coming to an end. This is consistent with all of the commentaries I posted which clarify and say that is it life on earth that is coming to an end.

If applied to a man, then it obviously refers to death (or the second coming) because the process of sanctification in us does not finish until we leave this earth to face the final judgement. We mustn't get confused between justification and sanctification. We are justified when we accept Jesus ("dikaioo" in the Greed) and are declared righteous. God no longer holds our sin against us and this is purely through the death of Jesus - we do not earn it through our work. But although we are justified, that does not make us perfect - we still sin. The process of sanctification involves work ie we need to know the will of God by studying and teaching the Bible and we need to encourage each other to follow God instead of our own selfish desires. Teleios refers to thes process of sanctification (Phil 3:12 - pressing on to completion as dcdc explained so well; Col 1:28 teaching and training people so that they move toward perfection), not justification. Sanctification is only complete when we die because there is always some area of our lives that we can work on while we are on the earth.

So yes, hillbilly, I would agree that perfect/complete would refer to having completed the will of God and become as mature as you'll ever get ie the end of our earthly lives/Jesus return/our resurrection. If we apply it to the church as opposed to the individual then it must also refer to the second coming because the church will continue to mature in numbers as more unsaved people are added and in character as well all individually work out our salvation in awe of God.

Hi doug, to answer your question, I live in South Africa (which is why I'm generally not online at the same time as those of you in the US)

Hi marie, yes, I do believe that man can be led by the Holy Spirit to operate in the gift of healing. Note that the Holy Spirit leads, not the man's own choice so it is never the man deciding who is healed and who is not, that is solely God's decision. I am strongly opposed to the teaching that if you are not healed, it is because of your lack of faith. In that sense, I agree with what a lot of posters have said - God is not our genie-in-the-bottle, waiting to fulfil our every request. Conversely, we are His servants waiting to do His will. I do believe that God is eager to heal the sick. Jesus showed that in His earthly ministry - healing the sick when they came to Him - and God does not change. But we are human and our understanding is partial so if we pray for someone to be healed and God does not heal them immediately, we have to trust that He has a plan.

That doesn't give us an excuse not to pray for the sick, it just means that we have to kill our pride so that if we pray for someone and they are not healed, that we do not take it personally. I've prayed for a number of number of people to be healed. Some were healed and some weren't. What I do know though, is that when someone is healed, it results in such joy and praise to God that it's worth the "risk" of praying for someone who isn't healed instantaneously. If you pray for someone and they aren't healed, what do you lose? But if they are healed, what does the person and the church in general gain? Much more.

Hi overseas, to comment on your post - constant health is not the norm because our bodies are still subject to the curse. But God is free to heal us supernaturally. Sickness is sometimes the consequence of sin. Being sick in that case can cause you to seek God, realise where you went wrong and repent, then healing can come - natural or supernatural. Yes, Christians need to discern if this is the case hence the spiritual gift of discerning of spirits. Isn't it great how God gives us everything we need!

About going to "healers" - we all have different gifts. We don't all have the gift of healing just as we don't all have the gift of administration. So it is acceptable to look for someone who has been given that gift and ask them to pray for you. Obviously, you first need to make sure that the sickness is not the result of sin in your life and you need to check the fruit of the "healers".

On your prayer pointers, I have to disagree. If we see pray as conversation with God then we can gain insight though the ways people in the Bible conversed with God. God is omniscient but He still asks questions (Mark 10:51). God is good and omnipotent but He will still allow us to spend eternity in hell if we do not pray and ask Him to forgive our sins. True, we do not pray to show God a better plan, rather we inquire of God as to the best plan and then pray in accordance with His will. Finally, God has changed things in answer to the requests of people eg Abraham and Lot in Genesis 18:16-19:21. Jesus said that people don't have because they don't ask so we need to first ask for knowledge of God's will and then ask for Him to do it.

[marie (marie)]

Hi Actually - thanks for your response to my post. I agree with much of what you say. My personal favorite tho was when I was praying with someone for salvation. All of a sudden she jumped out of her chair and started bending and twisting, crying and rejoicing. She told me that she had been living with chronic back pain and it had suddenly vanished as we prayed. I love when God gives us things we have not even asked for!

(Message edited by marie on January 06, 2005)

[marie (marie)]

Hi overseas -
I enjoy reading your posts. I also agree with much of what you say. However, (you knew that was coming) I somewhat disagree with your statements about faith. Faith is a component in healing - how many times did Jesus say "your faith has made you whole"?

That said, I agree that just because an individual is not healed, does not mean they lack faith. God's ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. I don't believe in the formulaic approach to God "If you do/say this, God must do that." God is supreme and sovereign and he is concerned with our immortal souls more than with these mortal bodies.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

.
actually:

<font color="0000ff">commentaries I posted which clarify and say that is it life on earth that is coming to an end.</font>

"Teleios" is just a common Greek word referring to attainment or the coming to the end of something. Teleios can refer to the end of a 10 minute bus ride. Eschcatology doesn't have exclusive rights on the word "teleios". Go back to my earliest post on Kittle and I gave about 50 different English words that are the translation of teleios from common Greek usage. This, and many other common Greek words in the Bible have been "sanctified" by later day promoters and publishers of "many books" in designing their "theology" of discovering something they can take credit for.

et al:

I yield to Kittle's honest objective exegesis in his sole purpose of being faithful to the original languages. Referred earlier, he implies that teleios in this passage [although translated "perfect" in 1611] referred to a level of individual maturity or accomplishment. It is the simplest and most direct explanation in context of the specifics of that chapter, which is the most reliable approach to the exegesis of any scripture. Then we must also compare scripture with scripture.

You all have some fine points but they can go far afield of context and application. We all see what we want to see, subject to prejudice, which involves the "security" we might be trying to hold on to for dear life, and we might feel threatened.

Most of us are too lazy, deficient, or don't have the time, but we want instant maturity and the ability to claim authority. We look for a fast track and we randomly stumble through a candy store of teachings and end up accepting someone else's faulty doctrine. THAT'S WHAT YOU FIND ON FACTNET! Until we study and make the scriptures our own, we need to be careful and in some cases even shut up!

Many Christians, later in life, find that the proper exegesis of scripture turns out to have been the simplest exegesis. We finally say, "That was so obvious, why didn't I see that before." I think it was because we had some pre-conceived ideas or prejudices from taking too much stock in what others had to say.

Attitude is everything. Maturity comes when we are no longer offended and we no longer have to win our battle. God will take care of His own reputation and vanquish His enemy. We are only His servants.

God is patient with us.
.

[saved_by_grace (saved_by_grace)]

Most of us are too lazy, deficient, or don't have the time, but we want instant maturity and the ability to claim authority

Guilty as charged . . . which is why I don't think that I am through with this thread. I don't believe I have ever come to a strong enough conclusion and want my conclusion to be firm.

So I hope you guys will be patient with me too!

[wyoming (wyoming)]

.


You've been great. I like your attitude.

[saved_by_grace (saved_by_grace)]

Wyoming,

I recently received a book that presents 4 views concerning spiritual gifts. The first view combines the pentacostal/charasmatic view, the second is the third wave view, the third is the cessation view, and the fourth is something like an open but cautious view (which is probably where I fit at this moment because although I lean toward the cessation view it has not completely satisfied me intellectually [which I know if probably a problem in itself]).

I haven't completely read your next to the last email thoroughly but promise to get to it soon.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

.
There are places on FactNet that I won't jump in on because I don't like the atmosphere, endless speculation, nor the topic, but I come here.

grace:

The author probably hasn't made a decision either. It afforded him the vehicle to do the book. There's the possibility that all four positions will not be conclusive, because he may not be conclusive himself, and possably because he left something out. It still sells books.

Scripture has the best power, in the H.S., to teach and bring conviction. I avoid commentaries and peer pressure. When you clean out all the cob webs that various advocates have planted in your mind, not necessarily accepting or rejecting anything, and have a purity of heart, the spirit of truth will be obvious.
.

[saved_by_grace (saved_by_grace)]

Well could you consider jumping in on the new main thread on salvation because I need your help . . . we can come back to this at another time. (Actually, four different authors and an editor which has an opinion too.)

(Message edited by saved by grace on January 06, 2005)

[overseas (overseas)]

Marie, I have good friends in Johannesburg and I know SA has lovely places to visit.

I can back my views on prayer, faith and healing with Scripture. What about the above conclusions on prayer derived from God character, they are plain and hard to deny, while 1 John 5:14 confirms them. None of my conclusions comes against the practice of prayer, the conclusions just destroy wrong motivations for prayer. Think what motivated Daniel (Dan. 9:1-3) to pray for the fulfillment of God's prophecy ! Did Daniel think God needs his prayer or that his prayer would bless Israel in some way not already planned and decided by God ? It is not us moving God by praying, it is God who makes us pray by touching our souls with His good intentions for us or for others.
Genesis 18-19 deserves a separate discussion, but it does not mean that Abraham was more merciful than God. It is rather God 'playing games' with Abraham to make his heart more sensitive. The same with Moses intercessing for Israel in the desert and stopping God' wrath. Anybody of you claim that God had a first wrong decision and He corected that after Moses made Him think twice ? Hope not.

I don't think we disagreed on faith up to now http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif I just said it is not fair to question one's faith if he is not healed if the same person is saved (his faith quality is beyond doubt). BTW, I also have a first hand account from somebody miraculously healed at conversion (myopia) without asking that. Neither me nor that person are charismatics.
I have the impression that you define the gift of healing by somebody gifted to pray for one's healing. I have a big problem here cause the gift is not 'to pray for sick' but to 'heal the sick' though prayer accompanies that. Otherwise you may say that the gift of 'working miracles' in 1 Cor. 12:28 is the gift of 'praying for miracles'. Seek the Acts to see apostles did not just pray for the sick, but healed them 100%. Show me a healer fitting the Acts criteria. If you show me somebody that prays for sick and sometimes people are healed, that's deception not the gift of healing.

[marie (marie)]

Hi Overseas –
I think you have me confused with someone else regarding your friends in SA – I saw someone thought you were from Kenya – that wasn’t me.

Regarding your views on prayer, I think we agree on most. I’m just saying that you cannot completely remove faith as a component in prayer for healing anymore than you can remove it from any other part of our walk with God. It is the substance of things hoped for.

That said, as I indicated with the testimony I shared, sometimes faith has nothing to do with it at all – God sovereignly moves on our behalf. In other cases, our faith plays a key role in our prayers being answered as many scriptures attest to. And, as you said:

<font color="0000ff">I don't think we disagreed on faith up to now I just said it is not fair to question one's faith if he is not healed if the same person is saved (his faith quality is beyond doubt.</font>

<font color="000000">I agree 100%.

</font><font color="0000ff">I have the impression that you define the gift of healing by somebody gifted to pray for one's healing.

</font><font color="000000">That is incorrect. If I were in need of healing I would ask God myself and I would ask those close to me to pray for me as well. Depending on how serious the illness was I would call for the elders of the church and ask to be anointed with oil:

James 5:13-15
“Is anyone among you suffering? He should pray. Is anyone in good spirits? He should sing praise. Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.”

Also in James it says that you have not because you ask not. You ask and receive not because you ask amiss, to consume it on your own lusts.

I didn’t say it – the Word of God did. Does it happen all the time? Obviously not. And, I might as well open this can of worms, I do believe in redemptive suffering. I have seen many people grow closer to God through their suffering. And in the end, they all triumph, tho maybe not in the way we would have hoped. For ultimately, they all arrived at that kingdom where death, pain and suffering have no hold.

I believe prayer is for us, it is to help us to conform our minds and our wills to the mind of Christ and the will of God. Do I understand all the mechanics of it? No. Do I need to? No. I need only to obey and serve my Abba and I trust that He will take care of everything else.

I think part of what you are talking about is the doctrine of Triumphalism espoused by many in the church today. This is the belief that if you are a Christian then you should be healthy, wealthy and problem free. If you are not, it is a result of sin. This is a completely false doctrine that has crept into the church and caused great harm.

I think the bottom line, as a Christian is to know that regardless of what trials and troubles we face here (and we will face them), we know how the story will end and we have faith and confidence in the One Who Loves Us.

I hope my thoughts aren’t too scattered and that I’m making some sense. </font>

[dl1957 (dl1957)]

Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 3:08 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
courious:

I wish all Christians knew that, so they wouldn't think you could lose your salvation.

I think of the song, "Only a sinner, saved by Grace." I think that's the concept.

'Wyoming, I just read this and do you mean you that you dont think a person can loose thier salvation?
Im fairly new to this forum I just found it yesterday and many things Ive read have gotten my attention.

[doug (doug)]

<font color="0000ff">I've heard people claim that God healed them of the flu, ignoring that such healing comes naturally. That is taking God's name in vain.</font>
God healed me of many things but it wasn't miraculousy. He also has afflicted me.


Actually
I met a man named Hennie Venter (or Ventner?) from S Africa. It was quite miraculous how we met. I may write about it when I have more time. I wish I could find him but there are probably hundreds with his name there. He married a lady named Sylvia or Silvia.

[overseas (overseas)]

Marie sorry I mistaken you with Actually for whom the main part of my posts were.

I am deeply sorry if I can be taken as Triumphalist. Can you check to see if you did not mistaken me too http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif I thought my posts have a scent of Calvinism. The little calvinism I know (without going to extremes) means to me to put God first, trust His plan is perfect and decided from eternity and live the christian life as a reaction to God initiatives.
I am definitely not Triumphalist, please my post where I denied that healing is the norm, also denied that all sickness is due to sin.

[saved_by_grace (saved_by_grace)]

Doug????

I think I would say he allowed for you to be afflicted. But I suspect you meant what you said. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[marie (marie)]

Overseas -
I had a feeling I wasn't being clear! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif Sorry, I was a little distracted last night.

I did not mean to imply that you are triumpalist - it is clear you are not. I was talking about the people you refer to who blame sickness on lack of faith.

[overseas (overseas)]

Marie: OK &amp; regards http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[ohwretchedmanthatiam (ohwretchedmanthatiam)]

Gifts of the Spirit are not for us but for Jesus/GOD and his purposes. If you see Jesus/GOD provide you with an ability that serves him and others he is trying to help, it would be hard to imagine telling Jesus/GOD, thanks but no thanks. When angels loyal to Jesus/GOD keep you on track and out of trouble, when you hear foreigners in your own language, when you hear people praying for Jesus/GOD to have mercy, forgive them, help them, when you see people and events thousands of miles away and later find out Jesus/GOD was allowing you to see it word for word and it is full of wonder, awe and respect towards Jesus/GOD. How may it serve Jesus/GOD is the question I always am asking? If it leads to the edification of the body of christ and serves Jesus/GOD and you to work together in unision, especially with demonstrated principles in scripture to be shared and learned, then it has beauty and concordance.

I'm not impressed with the gifts of the Spirit, I'm impressed with who it all comes from, LOL Jesus/GOD and his will to be done. If it clearly shows his glory for his purposes and it serves his desires I will not turn it down, but give thanks for allowing me to be a part of His will to be done.

[saved_by_grace (saved_by_grace)]

My husband, who is getting very tired of me questioning that which is perfect, pulled an expanded translation of the New Testament off the shelf today by Kenneth Wuest. Wuest is apparently a greek scholar who has translated the New Testament with as many words as needing to get to the original meaning (now I'm sure that there is some debate in that thought).

Regardless I thought I would share Wuest's translation:

But whether there are utterances given by a person consisting of divine revelations he has received, they shall cease; whether languages, they shall stop, whether knowledge, it shall be done away; for we know in a partial, fragmentary, incomplete way, and we utter divine revelations in the same way. But whenever that which is complete comes, that which is incomplete and fragmentary will be done away. When I was a child I was accustomed to speak as a child. I used to understand as a child. I was accustomed to reason as a child. When I have become a man and have the status of an adult, I have permanently put away the things of a child, for we are seeing now by means of a mirror obscurely, but then face to face. Now I know only in a fragmentary fashion, but then I shall fully know even as also I was known. But now there remains faith, hope, love; these three. But the greatest of these is this previously mentioned love. (p. 407)

[wyoming (wyoming)]

.

That's excellent. I've always appreciated Wuest's paraphrase. The sense of the scripture is accurate, and though expanded, it is not complicated but simple.

[overseas (overseas)]

Quote: "I'm not impressed with the gifts of the Spirit, I'm impressed with who it all comes from."
Amen to that !

Thanks for Wuest too.}

[actually (actually)]

Hi saved_by_grace
Yes, that is a fantastic paraphrase! When Wuest uses the simple word "languages" instead of the contested word "tongues" it makes this passage much easier to understand. Obviously languages have not yet passed away because we are still communicating in one! Supernatural languages fall under the general category of "languages" so then there is no reason to assume they have passed away.

Wyoming, I'm not sure where we are disagreeing? I don't disagree with Kittle. He indicates that we are looking at the end of something, reaching the totality of something. You said that he implies this totality is individual maturity. Sure, I can see that conclusion being reached - it is certainly more plausible than the theory that this passage refers to the completion of the Bible which is not indicated at all.

So now the question is, when is an individual completely, totally mature? You seem to imply that total maturity comes at the point of salvation. I disagree. Maturity or perfection is something that we press on toward for the rest of our lives (as Paul pointed out in Phil 3:12). We are totally saved at the point of salvation but we are not totally mature, that takes work. So until we are totally mature and we know God as fully as He knows us (which I think will only happen in heaven), we should still seek to know God more fully through teaching (languages), knowledge and prophecy. If we accept the thought that 1 Cor 13:10 has already happened, that we are already complete, then it follows that we already know God fully (1 Cor 13:12). Personally, I'm not at a point where I can say that - I still find the Bible thrilling as it reveals more about God every time I study it.

Hi Doug, no, sorry, I don't know anyone by the name of Hennie Venter. It is a fairly common name here in the Afrikaans community, do you know which city he lives in?

Hi overseas, yes SA does have some great places to see, I hope your joburg friends are encouraging you to come and visit! About prayer, I do agree that God directs us to pray and that prayer changes us. But I also believe that prayer changes the world. It's not that we "change God's mind" if we pray but I do believe that God can choose not to act if we choose not to pray. God knows what we need (Matthew 6:8) so we don't have to babble with many words explaining why we need it. But we do have to ask (Matthew 7:11). If we don't ask, we may not receive (James 4:2). Why didn't Jesus automatically heal the blind man - He knew what the blind man wanted? Jesus was showing us that we need to ask - to pray - with faith, not simply move through life passively assuming that God's will will automatically be done.

About healing. Yes, I do think that there is a gift of healing. You make a valid point in that Jesus commands us to "heal the sick" and that praying for the sick is just the method to bring that healing, not the goal in itself. My explanation for people who were prayed for and were not healed is not that the gift of healing is not functioning but that the gift of discernment is not functioning. God has a reason for withholding that healing and we need to discern what that is. A simple example is if someone chooses to smoke despite the risks and becomes sick with emphasema. God could chose not to heal them until such time as they realise the consequences of their choice and decide to quit. If that were the case, they could be prayed for by elders, people God has gifted in healing, friends, family or entire cities but until God's will is done in their life, the healing will not come. It doesn't invalidate the elders or "healers" or faithful prayers of Christians, it simply shows us that there is something else God has in mind and we should seek that first.

For the record, I'm also anti-Triumphalism so we're all in agreement there. In this life, we will have troubles and some will be longer lasting than others. God is all powerful and could choose to give us a trouble-free existence but it is not in our best interests that He does so and He knows this. When troubles hit, we need to seek God's will - if that's healing, then pray for healing; if it's repentance, then repent and if it's perseverence through suffering then we must learn that too.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

ACTUALLY:

<font color="0000ff">You said that he implies this totality is individual maturity. Sure, I can see that conclusion being reached - it is certainly more plausible than the theory that this passage refers to the completion of the Bible which is not indicated at all.</font>


Thank you, my brother. We are both very much on the same page, but I don't want to imply that maturity means totality, and I don't think Kittle does either. You can reach a certain point of maturity; it doesn't have to be perfect maturity. It can be a point along the way were we meet an acceptable level of attainment. And with such a multitude of translation in the Greek literature of the word TELEIOS, the KJV choice of the word "perfect" is an extreme that throws us off. At what point of personal maturity, or the collective maturity of the early church, which is made up of all the individuals, is tongues no longer necessary?

The KJV is my preferred version, but we have to keep in mind that all translations are subject to the prejudices of the environment in which they were produced. When I really am looking for precision, I work with the interlinear, Strong's, my set of Kittle's, and I might get some help from Dana &amp; Mantey's Greek Grammar. I wish I had more time to spare on FactNet. It can get pretty demanding if you let yourself fall into it.

I think we give more credit to modern day miracles than actually occur.

I agree with Bill Gothard and others, that the basis of many illnesses is the attitude of anger, bitterness, and hatred, etc, that changes our physiology to the point of morbidity statistics. People who suddenly get right with God can reverse these illnesses, and that's how many are healed.

[doug (doug)]

Actually
He used to live in Johannasburg but moved to perhaps the same city.

[marie (marie)]

Wyoming
Well, I see you've spent a considerable amount of time and effort trying to explain away 1 Cor 13:10 (I'm sure there are Catholic seminaries who would be proud to have you). But from what I've read (and I haven't re-read this entire thread) but you never did provide a satisfatory answer to verse 8 - do you believe all knowledge has passed away?

I'll not re-argue the point. Others have done it here much better than I possibly could. You can quote all the lexicons and twist the words any way you want. The bottom line is that you don't see manifestations of the Holy Spirit because you do not have faith for it.

And that's not necessarily your fault. Faith is a gift from God. We can excercise our faith and help it to grow, but the initial deposit must come from God. But I think faith is also one of those things you believe has been discarded (along with the word of wisdom, word of knowledge, healings, miracles and discerning of spirits &amp; tongues) now that you think we have the "perfect" (1 Cor 12:7-11).

You also have no answer for the scripture I quoted from James. I'll re-quote the relevant verse here from the NKJV since you don't "accept" the Catholic Bible. (Sorry, I couldn't find my KJV - hopefully this version is acceptable to your not-so-discerning tastes):

James 5:14-16
Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.

Of course - you probably don't accept the book of James either.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

<font color="0000ff">Well, I see you've spent a considerable amount of time and effort trying to explain away...

Catholic seminaries who would be proud to have you...

You can... twist the words any way you want...

hopefully this version is acceptable to your not-so-discerning tastes.

Of course - you probably don't accept the book of James either.</font>

Marie, These are all personal attacks. I'd rather have an intense objective argument with DCDC than to correspond with you. I probably would not be edifying to you, especially not by repeating myself. I wrote off the Charismatic Movement 35 years ago. There's nothing more to say.
.

[marie (marie)]

Yes, that's what I thought. Your arrogance is evident in your pontificating (and I use that word deliberately) on these boards.

For anyone truly interested in the the gifts/manifestations of the Holy Spirit, in order to experience them you must walk in them. It requires prayer, faith and action on your part. The faith is a gift from God. If you don't have it, start praying for it. But if you have even a little bit of it you can start exercising and building it. One (non-charismatic) evangelist liked to say that you have to learn to have faith for a donut before you try to have faith for a seven layer cake.

I was blessed with parents who walked in these things and learned them at a young age. I never had to struggle with the doctrinal roadblocks some of you have been taught. I just believed. As I got older and was able to read the Bible myself, what I read confirmed what I saw and experience.

I wish I could give you a step by step how-to guide on it, but the Holy Spirit Himself will teach you, if you are open to it.

I pray that we all learn to walk in all the fullnes of God.

[saved_by_grace (saved_by_grace)]

Marie,

I really don't think Wyoming is arrogant. I think he truly believes what he is saying and we can all tend to come across arrogant when we do this.

Wyoming has stated to me that God often reveals his truths as he sees fits. If the miraculous spiritual gifts such as healing do exist, perhaps God has not chosen to turn the light bulb on in our minds for some reason. I can't speak for Wyoming but for me it certainly isn't for the lack of asking God for understanding (although I suspect it is the same for Wyoming).

God Bless,

[marie (marie)]

SBG -
Sorry if I came across a little strong, but it makes me angry to see people who not only reject the works of the Holy Spirit, but who also set up roadblocks for others. Most arrogant people really believe they are right, thus the arrogance.

I do not lump everyone into this category.

<font color="0000ff">God often reveals his truths as he sees fits. If the miraculous spiritual gifts such as healing do exist, perhaps God has not chosen to turn the light bulb on in our minds for some reason.</font>

I agree totally. Faith for these things is a gift and God bestows them on whom He wills. That does not give those who do not have these gifts the right to say they do not exist and write off those who do walk in them as "nuts" as Wyoming does.

It's obvious from your posts you do not think you know everything and you are open to learn as the Holy Spirit leads you. Blessed are the meek.

[cindig2 (cindig2)]

marie,
What exactly do you mean by action?

[marie (marie)]

I mean that once God has graced you with Faith and you have built your faith up with the word of God, and listened to what the Holy Spirit instructs you to do, you need to actually <u>do</u> it.

[ex_yathed (ex_yathed)]

BEWARE !!! and be aware!

ex_yathed (ex_yathed)
Intermediate Member
Username: ex_yathed

Post Number: 176
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 24.183.33.235

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)
Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 7:12 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just saw on another page of the Religious Cults and Sects page that David Alexander(aka Daveed Derush) is evangelizing (recruiting) all over this web site with links to their newest "Free Papers"(Litmus Test). Its from a computer in Georgia so he is either at their Savannah or Brunswick community.

So, if you dont know, the Twelve Tribes are considered a high control destructive fundamentalist group (cult) by countless professionals and Cult experts.
You can check out there threads under Religious Cults and sects: Twelve Tribes,Community of Believers, Northeast Kingdom etc.

[ex_yathed (ex_yathed)]

As you can see, David Derush has taken my warnings to all the boards as a chance to recruit for his cult which claims they are the Only Ones and the Only Way and if your not with them, your going to the Lake of Fire for eternity or to the first death to pay for your own sins if you can. They are just like the rest of the cults on the factnet boards.
To see both sides of the story go to
http://www.twelvetribes-ex.org/

or if you wish, you can contact me personally at exyathed@yahoo.com

[doug (doug)]

What I shared, David, is not slander and not falsely accusing you of evil but is the teaching of your apostle

I'll repeat my question to your denial of knowing about the teaching "Execution of Justice" from Sprigs AKA Yoneq your apostle.
Are you saying you don't know if Sprigs taught that and if it is one of the communities teachings or you don't know if there is anything wrong with what was alleged in the teaching CD that Jacob took from the community?

Your community claims to be the Twelve Tribes of Israel. If you are that makes your apostle much greater than any of the 12 each representing one tribe and puts him on par with Moses and Jesus/Yahshua.

[pleasant (pleasant)]

I have a question . . . I know we have been all over this subject but I tend to like to try to have all the details regarding an issue if possibility because this allows me test my faith.

One argument that is used to state that spiritual gifts are still in existance today is that God is the same, yesterday, today, etc.

Yes, He is the same; however, He does use different methods, for example He used the law as a school master and then He used the age of grace. I am assuming that if the spiritual gifts existed after the apostolic age that there would be some documentation regarding this in history. I'm not finding a lot. I find 13th century monks from a secondary source. Also, I'm aware that there is some references regardings Quakers speaking in tongues. And then you have the seminary in the US where the phenomenon seemed to kick off the mass movement regarding tongues in our age.

Does anyone have any information on this? From the surface, I have not found enough information regarding this to make me think the practice has existed throughout the church age.

God Bless,

[bob_o_link (bob_o_link)]

{<font color="0077aa"><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica"><font size="+1">Pleasant,

The way ya phrased that question
is real bright an balanced.

Me...myself ...
I do believe that tongues exist today...
an healin' miracles.
Specially since Jesus said... these signs will follow them that believe...
an greater things those who come after him... will do.

Additional... He told the disciples
who are our examples... to go an heal the sick... an cast out demons...baptize an so on.

Healin' is in the Old an New Testament.
Ken ya tell us where?

Good question...
an it is pleasant ta read...
instead o combatative an rude...
like so many folks ken be.

I'm gonna sign out an pray in tongues fer ya right now...
as the Spirit of the Lord moves.

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/talker.gif [Smiley speakin' in tongues...]</font></font></font>}

[doug (doug)]

Pleasant
Even if I don't see the miracles happening I still believe in them because I know our Father is real. I question my self but not him. I don't know the history but I know the mystery.
It is late and I don't have a lot of time to explain how God does miracles but understanding how sometimes helps more than history.

Next time, Good name "pleasant", Doug

[pleasant (pleasant)]

Thanks Bob and Doug. I appreciate your comments, as for me, I'm still digging for answers.

God Bless,

[jeff_p (jeff_p)]

Honestly, most churches I've been in never pray for the sick or never wait on God for extended periods of time to give Him any opportunity to do anything miraculous. There is also no expectation that God is going to do anything supernatural.

And from my experience, it's these same people that are so critical of the Holy Spirit doing anything today.
They're the ones that exclaim "Well why am I not seeing that in MY church!"

If we're consistent with waiting and giving the Lord room to work, He will show up.

Much of our church services are just us runnning the show. Or as in prayer, we do most of the talking and do not wait and see what God wants to do or what He's saying.

If we ask and wait to see what God wants to do in a particular situation, we'll see that we still worship the Allmighty I Am and not the Allmighty I was. But we have to have the expectation and openness to respond and folllow Him where He is going.

Faith is spelt R - I - S - K.
If we're not willing to step out of our comfort zones, we'll never see the 'big stuff.'