Doesn't Hebrews 2:3 Show The Sign Gifts Had Already Ceased?

[awaken]

When John heard the thunders in Revelations, he was going to record it, but God told him to seal the book. There are no new revelations today given to God. That's Marconi and Mormonism.

The gifts are for the church! Ignore them if you want! But they do edify and build up the church!

 

[awaken]

This is a matter of authority. On what basis does the Church do everything it does in ministry? Should it believe the Bible is the sole source of authority and that it must utilize wisdom to properly interpret it and apply it to the decisions the Church makes each week concerning worship, outreach, benevolence, etc…? Or should the church look to multiple sources for guidance such as words of knowledge, tongues, prophecy, etc… Here is a practical example of the importance of the issue. A church must make decision about whether or not to expand its property and facilities. The expansion could cost one million dollars. Should the church wait for a member of the church to be overcome with some feeling or experience that he claims is from God? When a member bursts out in ecstatic language and many of the members “feel in their spirit” that his experience is genuine, should that be the guiding principle behind the decision? No. The Bible should be the guide. The congregation should consider its Great Commission and whether or not expansion at this expansion is wise at this time. The principles of prudence in wisdom and narrative literature, the precepts and passions laid out throughout Scripture- these should guide the congregation- not ecstatic experiences falsely attributed to God giving extrabiblical revelation.
It is also a matter of credibility. Has the church been wrong about one of the most important theological matters in history throughout its history? Almost no one before the birth of the Pentecostal movement about 100 years ago believed that tongues, prophecy, etc… should be a regular part of the ministry of the church. So, for nearly nineteen centuries the church was doing it all wrong missing out on one of the most important things the church ought to have- revelatory gifts. It also has to do with credibility in the world in which the church lives. People are needlessly put off by the madness that is the typical worship service of charismatic type churches. It comes off as wild emotionalism unbridled by intellect or reason. Paul was concerned about this even in Corinth when the gifts still existed when they were doing it much better than charismatic churches do it today. They were actually exercising real gifts, not blurting out babbling nonsense and calling it a gift- yet Paul was still concerned about how it would appear to thinking people. I Corinthians 14:23, “If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?”

Yes! it is very possible that the church has taught it wrong!
I have always said that tongues is a real language. It is one that the speaker has not learned or understands UNLESS he prays for the interpretation.
You can go on ignoring the manifestation of the Holy Spirit just as you were taught. It will not affect your salvation...but there is so much more than what we were taught in seminaries...

 

[DHK]

Yes! it is very possible that the church has taught it wrong!
I have always said that tongues is a real language. It is one that the speaker has not learned or understands UNLESS he prays for the interpretation.
You can go on ignoring the manifestation of the Holy Spirit just as you were taught. It will not affect your salvation...but there is so much more than what we were taught in seminaries...

1. If it is a real language why can't I recognize it as a real language as I can with others?
2. Why can't the most professional linguists in the world recognize it as a language?
The answer is because it is not a real known language as it was in Biblical times contrary to your assertion. You say what you know not. That is of the devil. Speaking without meaning Paul condemned.
You don't have interpretation do you? If you did they would know the language and it could be verified. It isn't. It is just a hoax.
3. You maintain that it is a manifestation of a Spirit. An imitation is not a manifestation of the Spirit, but rather of the flesh.
4. For 1900 years the church was silent, and you call yourself right and 1900 years of church history wrong?? You don't think something is wrong with that statement?

 

[DHK]

scriptures interpret scriptures! I did not take it out of context! I was showing you what they would understand about the serpents etc. Do a study!

I have done a study; you have not. Those scriptures have nothing to do with Mark 16 and its interpretation.

 

[Luke2427]

It is also a matter of credibility. Almost no one before the birth of the Pentecostal movement about 100 years ago believed that tongues, prophecy, etc… should be a regular part of the ministry of the church. R. C. Sproul notes, “Though some have bent over backwards trying to prove that there has been a steady stream of speaking in tongues and other evidence of a subsequent Spirit baptism throughout church history, the overwhelming testimony of church history is to the discontinuity of speaking in tongues as an evidence of Spirit baptism.”


Therefore, according to the charismatic, for nearly nineteen centuries the church was doing it all wrong missing out on one of the most important things the church ought to have- revelatory gifts. Is the historic Christian church credible? Sproul reasons, “If the purpose of Pentecost was to pour out a continuous gift of tongues, then the historical discontinuity indicates that the objective was not obtained, and Pentecost was a failure”.


Did nearly the entire Christian church err on something as major as whether or not Christians should be doing the works of the Apostles all over the world and in every age? Have hundreds and hundreds of millions of Christians spanning nearly two thousand years of history been totally without the baptism of the Holy Spirit? Were the outstanding figures and heroes of Christian history severely lacking in spiritual experience since they did not speak in tongues?


Was St. Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, John Wycliffe, John Huss, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, John Wesley, William Carey, Charles Spurgeon- all men who never spoke in tongues- were they all severely lacking in the power of the Holy Spirit? Are the vast majority and millions of Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians and other non-charasmatic denominations today completely missing out on one of the most important parts of the Christian experience?

These are questions with very serious implications that demand sound, biblical answers.

 

[convicted1]

The gifts are for the church! Ignore them if you want! But they do edify and build up the church!

I am not ignoring them Brother. When's the last time you saw someone walk on water? Lay hands on someone and they receive the Holy Ghost? Immediately heal the sick that they walked around like nothing had been wrong with them to begin with? Walk in a funeral home and raise the dead? Cast out demons?


Churches are going around and handing out prayer cloths like they have healing in them. Some churches lay hands on people and they get "slain in the Spirit". Some churches have "cast out demons". Things like this happen due to a lack of biblical discernment on their part. When the last Apostle died(Paul?), these signs ceased.


Google A.A. Allen and read about him. He has destroyed some churches with his "goobly gook". And some people are gullible enough to swallow it "hook, line, sinker, rod, and reel".

 

[convicted1]

It is also a matter of credibility. Almost no one before the birth of the Pentecostal movement about 100 years ago believed that tongues, prophecy, etc… should be a regular part of the ministry of the church. R. C. Sproul notes, “Though some have bent over backwards trying to prove that there has been a steady stream of speaking in tongues and other evidence of a subsequent Spirit baptism throughout church history, the overwhelming testimony of church history is to the discontinuity of speaking in tongues as an evidence of Spirit baptism.”


Therefore, according to the charismatic, for nearly nineteen centuries the church was doing it all wrong missing out on one of the most important things the church ought to have- revelatory gifts. Is the historic Christian church credible? Sproul reasons, “If the purpose of Pentecost was to pour out a continuous gift of tongues, then the historical discontinuity indicates that the objective was not obtained, and Pentecost was a failure”.


Did nearly the entire Christian church err on something as major as whether or not Christians should be doing the works of the Apostles all over the world and in every age? Have hundreds and hundreds of millions of Christians spanning nearly two thousand years of history been totally without the baptism of the Holy Spirit? Were the outstanding figures and heroes of Christian history severely lacking in spiritual experience since they did not speak in tongues?


Was St. Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, John Wycliffe, John Huss, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, John Wesley, William Carey, Charles Spurgeon- all men who never spoke in tongues- were they all severely lacking in the power of the Holy Spirit? Are the vast majority and millions of Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians and other non-charasmatic denominations today completely missing out on one of the most important parts of the Christian experience?

These are questions with very serious implications that demand sound, biblical answers.

Didn't a lot of this originate from the Azusa Steet "revival"?

 

[Luke2427]

Didn't a lot of this originate from the Azusa Steet "revival"?

I'd say all of it.

Only heretical groups before Azusa St. ever practiced these things and even so they popped up for a few years and disappeared for centuries.

There are no Pentecostal roots throughout church history.

It is new.

If it is right then NINETEEN HUNDRED years of Christians did not have the baptism of the Holy Spirit!!!!

Spurgeon, Moody, Tozer, Wesley, Edwards, Wycliff, Augustine, Athanasias, etc... were all functioning in the power of the flesh!!

WHAT A TREMENDOUS INSULT TO CHRISTIANS!!!

Everything we had for nineteen hundred years was BOGUS and these tongue talkers have come along to set us all straight!

What unmitigated GALL!!

All of us should be angry.

 

[awaken]

It is also a matter of credibility. Almost no one before the birth of the Pentecostal movement about 100 years ago believed that tongues, prophecy, etc… should be a regular part of the ministry of the church. R. C. Sproul notes, “Though some have bent over backwards trying to prove that there has been a steady stream of speaking in tongues and other evidence of a subsequent Spirit baptism throughout church history, the overwhelming testimony of church history is to the discontinuity of speaking in tongues as an evidence of Spirit baptism.”


Therefore, according to the charismatic, for nearly nineteen centuries the church was doing it all wrong missing out on one of the most important things the church ought to have- revelatory gifts. Is the historic Christian church credible? Sproul reasons, “If the purpose of Pentecost was to pour out a continuous gift of tongues, then the historical discontinuity indicates that the objective was not obtained, and Pentecost was a failure”.


Did nearly the entire Christian church err on something as major as whether or not Christians should be doing the works of the Apostles all over the world and in every age? Have hundreds and hundreds of millions of Christians spanning nearly two thousand years of history been totally without the baptism of the Holy Spirit? Were the outstanding figures and heroes of Christian history severely lacking in spiritual experience since they did not speak in tongues?


Was St. Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, John Wycliffe, John Huss, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, John Wesley, William Carey, Charles Spurgeon- all men who never spoke in tongues- were they all severely lacking in the power of the Holy Spirit? Are the vast majority and millions of Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians and other non-charasmatic denominations today completely missing out on one of the most important parts of the Christian experience?

These are questions with very serious implications that demand sound, biblical answers.

Baptist were birthed in the fire of pentecost; however, the fire, the signs, the wonders, and the power of the Spirit now embarrass us?

Prior to the twentieth century, you will search in vain for a clearly stated cessationist view. The supernatural gifts and miraculous things waned during the Middle Ages. The basic doctrine of justifecation by faith was not even embraced, much less the gifts, signs and wonders. At the conversion of Constantine, the church became a patron of the state and lost its vitality.

You can not prove that God no longer operates in power today by pointing to the dry spiritual season of the Middle Ages. Reformation brought a recovery of truth. John Calvin and Martin Luther led the fight to return the church to the saving doctrines of the faith.

Baptist find their roots among the fringe groups that most called heretics back then.

 

[Luke2427]

Baptist were birthed in the fire of pentecost; however, the fire, the signs, the wonders, and the power of the Spirit now embarrass us?

Prior to the twentieth century, you will search in vain for a clearly stated cessationist view. The supernatural gifts and miraculous things waned during the Middle Ages. The basic doctrine of justifecation by faith was not even embraced, much less the gifts, signs and wonders. At the conversion of Constantine, the church became a patron of the state and lost its vitality.

You can not prove that God no longer operates in power today by pointing to the dry spiritual season of the Middle Ages. Reformation brought a recovery of truth. John Calvin and Martin Luther led the fight to return the church to the saving doctrines of the faith.

Baptist find their roots among the fringe groups that most called heretics back then.

You don't know what you're talking.

NOBODY spoke in tongues but a few heretical groups popping up briefly and disappearing for centuries at a time throughout the 2000 year history of the church before Azusa.

This "baptists were born in the fires of pentecost" junk is utter bull.

There were some little fringe anabaptist groups that were suspected of speaking in tongues but even so it was not MOST anabaptists. And Baptists share baptism with anabaptists and not much more. The modern standard bearers of the anabaptist movement are the Mennonites- not the modern baptists of today.

And as for this "search in vain for cessationist" mess. I could go through a lengthy writing project to show you the idiocy of that statement, but to save time and energy I'll make it a lot simpler:

Pick up a Matthew Henry Commentary or ANY major commentary written before 1875.

EVERY ONE OF THEM will be cessationist.

This continuationism mess is just a passing fad born of eccentric people. It is new and temporary.

But the damage it is doing before it passes off the scene into obscurity once again, where it has dwelt throughout MOST of Christian history, is IMMEASURABLE.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You don't know what you're talking.

NOBODY spoke in tongues but a few heretical groups popping up briefly and disappearing for centuries at a time throughout the 2000 year history of the church before Azusa.

This "baptists were born in the fires of pentecost" junk is utter bull.

There were some little fringe anabaptist groups that were suspected of speaking in tongues but even so it was not MOST anabaptists. And Baptists share baptism with anabaptists and not much more. The modern standard bearers of the anabaptist movement are the Mennonites- not the modern baptists of today.

And as for this "search in vain for cessationist" mess. I could go through a lengthy writing project to show you the idiocy of that statement, but to save time and energy I'll make it a lot simpler:

Pick up a Matthew Henry Commentary or ANY major commentary written before 1875.

EVERY ONE OF THEM will be cessationist.

This continuationism mess is just a passing fad born of eccentric people. It is new and temporary.

But the damage it is doing before it passes off the scene into obscurity once again, where it has dwelt throughout MOST of Christian history, is IMMEASURABLE.

Hmmmm,.... Ever read "JOY UNSPEAKABLE" by Martyn Lloyd-Jones? And would you consider him an eccentric?

 

[Luke2427]

Hmmmm,.... Ever read "JOY UNSPEAKABLE" by Martyn Lloyd-Jones? And would you consider him an eccentric?

I have read Joy Unspeakable. I have it right here on my shelf.

If you have read it then you know that Lloyd Jones did not at all espouse the charismatic movement which I am rejecting.

 

[awaken]

You don't know what you're talking.

NOBODY spoke in tongues but a few heretical groups popping up briefly and disappearing for centuries at a time throughout the 2000 year history of the church before Azusa.

This "baptists were born in the fires of pentecost" junk is utter bull.

There were some little fringe anabaptist groups that were suspected of speaking in tongues but even so it was not MOST anabaptists. And Baptists share baptism with anabaptists and not much more. The modern standard bearers of the anabaptist movement are the Mennonites- not the modern baptists of today.

And as for this "search in vain for cessationist" mess. I could go through a lengthy writing project to show you the idiocy of that statement, but to save time and energy I'll make it a lot simpler:

Pick up a Matthew Henry Commentary or ANY major commentary written before 1875.

EVERY ONE OF THEM will be cessationist.

This continuationism mess is just a passing fad born of eccentric people. It is new and temporary.

But the damage it is doing before it passes off the scene into obscurity once again, where it has dwelt throughout MOST of Christian history, is IMMEASURABLE.

No, it began the Day of Pentecost and is still here today! Nowhere in scriptures including Heb.2:3 claims otherwise!

I will stick to the Word of God... not others unbelief!

 

[Luke2427]

No, it began the Day of Pentecost and is still here today! Nowhere in scriptures including Heb.2:3 claims otherwise!

I will stick to the Word of God... not others unbelief!

You are not sticking to the word of God.

The word of God does not say that one should expect these gifts to continue any more than the word of God says that one should expect the parting of seas to continue.

Continuationism adds to the Bible.

One might as well expect sticks to turn to serpents as expect people to speak in tongues.

 

[awaken]

You are not sticking to the word of God.

The word of God does not say that one should expect these gifts to continue any more than the word of God says that one should expect the parting of seas to continue.

Continuationism adds to the Bible.

One might as well expect sticks to turn to serpents as expect people to speak in tongues.

Cessationism takes away from the Bible!

The Pharisees pressed the grid of their commentaries and traditions on Scripture. Soon they believed their own interpretations were equal to God's Word.

The truth is the Word of God says nothing about them ending...until the return of Christ!

 

[DHK]

Cessationism takes away from the Bible!

The Pharisees pressed the grid of their commentaries and traditions on Scripture. Soon they believed their own interpretations were equal to God's Word.

The truth is the Word of God says nothing about them ending...until the return of Christ!

That is only an opinion and that is all. It isn't even a scriptural one.
It flies in the face of 1900 years of Godly men who have studied far more than you have.
It goes against almost all scholarship of today except for Charismatic writings or those sympathetic to it.

 

[Luke2427]

Cessationism takes away from the Bible!

The Pharisees pressed the grid of their commentaries and traditions on Scripture. Soon they believed their own interpretations were equal to God's Word.

The truth is the Word of God says nothing about them ending...until the return of Christ!

You're just making a statement without support.

This is a debate site.

You're supposed to set forth a claim and then SUPPORT that claim with arguments.

Just saying, "Uh-uh. You are! You are!" like you do here is not debate.

It's what children do.

 

[awaken]

You're just making a statement without support.

This is a debate site.

You're supposed to set forth a claim and then SUPPORT that claim with arguments.

Just saying, "Uh-uh. You are! You are!" like you do here is not debate.

It's what children do.

I guess I took for granted everyone by now knows what I believe and why because it is posted on every thread.

There are some that want to win an argument at any cost--even if it mutilates and destroys the context of God's Word. The practice of distorting Scripture exists mainly because it's not the truth being defended, but the doctrines of men placed on an equal level with Scripture (Matt. 15:7-9). The modern church is full of such practices.

Many of the arguments against the gifts of the Spirit are in defense of ministry reputation, rather than the Bible.

When you view the context of all of Saint Paul's writings, he repeatedly wrote about the soon return of our Lord. When you examine Paul's New Testament writings in the Bible, "that which is perfect" refers to one thing--when Jesus Christ (the perfect one) returns He gives us "perfect knowledge" that makes speaking in tongues unnecessary. Tongues are not discontinued until our Lord Jesus returns at the end of the age. It is dishonest and nonsensical to apply "that which is perfect" to the advent of the printed Bible. Why? In addition to "tongues ceasing" with the arrival of the Bible, this Scripture also says "knowledge shall vanish away." Has knowledge vanished? Has knowledge been "done away" with? If it hasn't--then "that which is perfect" hasn't come yet--and tongues haven't ceased.

 

[DHK]

Your view makes no sense.
What is knowledge?
When will "knowledge" pass away?

 

[awaken]

Your view makes no sense.
What is knowledge?
When will "knowledge" pass away?

Do you have perfect knowledge?