Do any Baptist churches believe that Speaking in Tongues is for today ??

Artimaeus,

1. I disagree with your assumption that God no longer gives the gift of teaching to the Church. I also disagree with your assumption that God can only give the gift of teaching to someone who was not a skilled teacher before. Your only basis for thinking this seems to be your definition that a gift must be given only where no natural ability was present before, but this is a gratuitous assumption. Also, I would point out that I know many men who were naturally gifted teachers, but who do not possess the spiritual gift of teaching, i.e. they are not gifted at teaching the Word of God with power. I also have known men who were naturally gifted teachers, but who then were gifted by God to teach His word for the biulding up of the Body of Christ. This is most definitely, then, "something more than the ordinary, natural, human ability." This is also why we cannot simply assume, as many Christians often do, that someone who is a teacher by profession will necassarily be called to teach in the Church.

2.Why did I choose to focus on the gift of teaching in my discussion with you? Because it is not a gift that is contested by Christians in general as being for today, but which you deny is for today. Thus, I thought it would be better to stick with a gift that isn't so hotly debated.

Pastork

 

Lorelai,

You have said: "The first 23 verses of chapter 14 deals with the fact that tongues are not fruitful if there is no interpretation. There are many examples given as to how this is so.Paul didn't say pray and 'hope' that God gives you the interpretation, he said in verses 13-15 that we should pray so that we can pray with our spirit and understanding"

I agree that Paul teaches that the gift of tongues is not fruitful for the others present if there is no interpretation. But I think Paul assumes that there is some edification for the one who speaks in tongues even if he can't interpret when he says, "if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfuitful"(vs.14). He seems to assume that one may be communing with God and being edified in his spirit in ways that are not comprehended with the mind. Thus Paul has already said in verse 13 that one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret, not only so that he may build up the body, but so that he may be more completely edified himself. Yet he nowhere teaches or seems to assume that one who has the gift of tongues will necessarily be given the gift of interpretation. In fact, doesn't his admontion to seek the gift of interpretation assume the opposite, namely that there will be those who can speak in tongues, yet have no gift of interpretation? And isn't this also why he commands that those who have the gift of tongues use it in the public gathering only when there is one present who may interpret? He says, in fact, that "if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God" (vs.28). Here Paul seems to think that there will indeed be those who have the gift of tongues without the gift of interpretation, but also that such persons are still capable of "speaking to [themselves] and to God," even if --as he noted in vs.14-- there understanding is unfruitful.

Pastork

 

Dr. Bob,

Why have you said that speaking in tongues is "not tolerated among Baptists"? You must know that there are many Baptist churches and many Baptist individuals that are non-cessationist. Is it your thinking that they are not really Baptists?

Pastork

 

As for my opinion on tongues:

mwergh asdioj nopunoviu, awervuino!!!!
oiasdfociun asdfiynuioc casiodurnuiyn!!!

 

The verse you quote below specifically states that it is not fruitful for the person who is speaking it.

This is speaking to the person speaking the tongue and their mind is not fruitful if they have no interpretation for what they say.

Verse 15 says how to make your mind fruitful, pray for interpretation.

No, he assumes that the spirit understands what it says, but suggests that unless the mind can also comprehend then it is not fruitful. That is why we were told to interpret. Without both the spirit and mind understanding it isn't performing the purpose that it was intended for and that is to edify the body of Christ.

How can you be edified by not letting this gift edify the entire body?

You are attributing words to Paul that he never uttered.

He said the thanks is suitable, but not that it "more completely edifies" the speaker! You have been taught that concept, no where does Paul suggest such nonsense.

In verses 1-5 he states clearly how prophecy is better than tongues.
WHY?
Because without interpretation the church is not edified.

In verses 6-11 he compares tongues without interpretation to other meaningless sounds.
Since without interpretation they can't edify others, what are they to do?
In verse 12 he says then to excel in gifts that edify the church.

Verses 13-17 reaffirms that interpretation is the only way tongues are fruitful. In verse 17 we are reminded that without them the other man is not edified.

No where in any of the context does Paul say that the person speaking a tongue is "more completely edified" by keeping it to himself. In verse 4 Paul says that you are edified, but he is comparing this to something better. He never suggests that's ok, he is showing us "a better way."

In the entire chapter up to this point he nowhere teaches or seems to assume that someone will not be able to interpret, since interpretation is the only way that the gift can be used to edify the body.

No his admonition to seek interpretation clarifies his point that God wants tongues to be understood. If no one is around with the gift of interpretation then God must be giving you that ability or he wouldn't have given you the tongue to speak in the first place.

He commands them not to speak because unbelievers will think they are crazy. He commands them not to speak because without interpretation it has no use or purpose. He commands them not to speak because of all the things they were doing wrong, because of all the reasons he just addressed in the previous 25 verses. He didn't get here and say "but never mind everything I said about how important interpretation is and the fact that the only reason we should use a gift is for the edification of the body and do this instead." It is ridculous to take this verse out of the context that Paul had so painstakingly laid out up to this point!

I will never understand how people can continue to pick and choose which of these verses they want to live by and which ones they choose to ignore.

~Lorelei

 

Pastork: 1. I couldn't agree with you more. I don't think that I said it that way, but, if I did leave you with that impression I certainly didn't mean to. I meant that the natural ability existed in general. The gift to a particular individual would have nothing to do with his/her natural ability. the Holy Spirit could have gifted anyone He saw fit. It is the gift itself that I meant had a unique quality to it.

2. I see your point. I am curious though, why it is assumed that these gifts are for today but the others aren't. I see three possibilities:

A. They are all for today (I don't believe)
B. Some are, some aren't (I see no reason for)
C. The are not for today (I do believe because their claims don't match scripture)

 

So as I said, the Bible doesn't say that, the Bible says "when perfection comes." You have just interpreted it to mean Christ, it isn't as clear as you would like to think.

We believe Paul was referring to the completion of the New Testament, Christ's perfect revelation of His New Covenant with us.

James 1:23-25 also refers to the word as the perfect law of liberty and compares it to a mirror as well.

It doesn't do justice to God's Word to state your interpretation in place of the words that the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to use.

~Lorelei </font>[/QUOTE]Isn't your view that Paul was speaking about the completion of the new testament an interpretation as well?

What is more adequately described as perfection - Christ returning and meeting him face to face, or the completion of the NT? Surely Christ returning qualifies as a possiblity for perfection.

We cannot simply insert our interpretations you say, then you turn around and do precisely that - insert your interpretation, and an interpretation that may just fail to match the degree to which Christ's return qualifies as perfection.

I know the common argument about cessation, and belive me, I don't subscribe to the way I see a lot of Christians attempt to use 'spiritual gifts', but Christ returning makes a better interpretation for perfection than a process of selecting canon.

You said it yourself, "...we belive that Paul was referring to the completion of the NT...". We believe is not equivalent to 'the Word says.'

Paul simply does not state that once all his letters and others are ruled upon, then that will be perfection; thats one view that has been espoused, but it is not what is stated otherwise we would be able to literally read that instead of interpreting it in.

 

I was responding to this statement

What I believe is an interpretation that is based upon other scripture and historical evidence. I believe my interpretation is correct, but when I say the Bible teaches it, I don't implant my interpretation into the text. I will not try to make it sound as if the Bible literally says that the gifts will cease when the Bible is completed. I always show the text and the explain why I think perfection means what it does.

This statement was made as if the words "When Christ returns" were in the text. It wasn't until I questioned this statement that they revealed their belief was based upon an interpretion of "perfection" to mean Christ.

As you showed I never implied that the words "when the NT was complete" was in the Bible, I simply showed them why I believed what it meant.

This passage also refers to the Word of God as the perfect law of liberty and it also compares that Word to a mirror.

I find many reasons why the Word is the perfection that is referred to. I would think that you would not want to question it's validity by suggesting that the Word of God is not perfect. Therefore it has every right to be considered as an option when interpreting this verse. All I ask is that a fair representation be given on all sides, that is why I questioned them the way I did.


~Lorelei

 

Lorelai,

1. I respectfully disagree with your understanding of 1Cor. 14:14. When Paul says "my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful" he is not saying it isn't fruitful for me at all. Rather, he is making a contrast between the spirit and the mind, specifying that, although my spirit prays, my "mind" is unfruitful. The implication is that the spirit gains something, albeit in a way the mind does not comprehend. After all, if my spirit is praying even though my mind does not comprehend, am I not still communing with God? And if I am still praying to God, how can I not gain something from it, even if in a way beyond my comprehension? I think the answer is that I do benefit and am therefore edified, even if not as completely edified as I might be if I could interpret. I think this idea is reenforced by Paul's statement in verse 28. There he assumes that there may be those who can speak in tongues, but who do not have the gift of interpretation (hence, "if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church," which he would not say if the person with tongues was assumed always to be able to interpret), but he still says "let him speak to himself and to God", thus assuming that, even if he cannot interpret (and thus his mind is "unfruitful"), he is nonetheless still speaking to God (recall "my spirit prays" vs.14). Now, if the person is indeed praying to God, even if he does not understand what he is praying, is he not still edified in some way? Yes, Paul does say "my mind is unfruitful" if I pray without interpretation, but he says this in contrast to "my spirit prays", which seems to imply that my spirit does recieve dome benefit (i.e. is "fruitful").


2. You have said that the above interpretation attributes words to Paul that he never uttered, but I say that I have done no such thing. I am doing nothing more than giving my interpretation of what I believe Paul means, paying attention to the context as best I can. I think Paul clearly assumes that the tongues speaker benefits in some way whether or not he can interpret (see my above comments), but than he himself will not benefit as fully as he can if he cannot interpret (his "mind" will be "unfruitful"), let alone provide edification for others, which is the best thing one can do with any gift. Your response is that I "have been taught that concept, no where does Paul suggest such nonsense." In response to that assertion I will make two remarks: 1)I believe I have offered a defensible interpretation of Paul's meaning, an interpretation that is held by many other Christians, including prominent conservative Biblical scholars, none of whom think it is "nonsense", 2)You haven't the slightest clue what I have been taught on this subject, so perhaps you should not jump to conclusions about what you think is driving my approach and simply deal with my arguments.

3. I agree with you that Paul teaches in 1Cor. 14 that prophecy is better than tongues because tongues does not edify the body unless it can be interpreted, but this doesn't mean that the person with the gift cannot be edified by it himself, which I have argued above. As a matter of fact, I cannot think of any of the gifts that doesn't edify the recipient of that gift along with others. For example, I have the gift of teaching, which I use as a pastor to edify the body, but I am always myself edified as well.

4. You again misunderstand me when you remark in response to my arguments that "No where in any of the context does Paul say that the person speaking a tongue is 'more completely edified' by keeping it to himself." I never even implied such a thing. My argument was simply that a person who spoke in tongues could not only edify the body if he could interpret (which we both think Paul teaches as best), but that that person would himself be more completely edified if he could interpret. I would also observe that agreeing with you that Paul teaches it is "better" to seek to edify the whole body does not mean that I think it is a bad thing that a person may himself be edified via the gift of tongues. Paul obviously has no problem at all with a person praying in a tongue alone (especially if the person cannot interpret - recall vs.28) and thus being edified by the gift as he speaks to God in private. He clearly must think this is a good use of the gift, even if he thinks trying to use it for the whole body is even better.

5. You claim that Paul "nowhere teaches or seems to assume that someone will not be able to interpret, since interpretation is the only way that the gift can be used to edify the body." I disagree. I think Paul clearly does assume this in verse 28, e.g.

6. You say in regard to my interpretation of vs. 28 that:

"He didn't get here and say 'but never mind everything I said about how important interpretation is and the fact that the only reason we should use a gift is for the edification of the body and do this instead.' It is ridculous to take this verse out of the context that Paul had so painstakingly laid out up to this point!

I will never understand how people can continue to pick and choose which of these verses they want to live by and which ones they choose to ignore."

1)Paul never says that the only reason we should ever speak in tongues is for the edification of the body, if by that you mean that there could be no private use of the gift in one's relationship with God. In fact, when Paul says to keep silent in church when there is no one to interpret but "let him speak to himself and to God," he very clearly assumes that there is an appropriate private use of the gift. Otherwise, he could have said, "if there is no one to interpret, don't speak in tongues at all, not even if it is to yourself and to God, for this gift is never to be used in a way that you might be edified but others will not." Yet this seems to be your understanding of the gift. Have I misunderstood your view?

2)I agree that it would be wrong to take this verse out of context, but I do not think I have done this.

3)You have implied that my interpretation is "ridiculous" (earlier you said it was "nonsense") and that I am simply 'picking' and 'choosing' which of these verse I want to live by, but I believe that I have offered a solid interpretaion of Paul's thinking on the matter. I would also reply that I think such accusatory and insulting rhetoric on your part does nothing to edify those who are taking part in this discussion, and, since edifying others is clearly so important to you, I would suggest that a more respectful approach by you would better accomplish this.

Pastork

[ February 13, 2003, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Pastork ]

 

Artimaeus,

You have asked:

"I am curious though, why it is assumed that these gifts are for today but the others aren't. I see three possibilities:

A. They are all for today (I don't believe)
B. Some are, some aren't (I see no reason for)
C. The are not for today (I do believe because their claims don't match scripture)"

My view is that all the gifts are for today.

 

Lorelai,

You have said:

"I was responding to this statement


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Pastork:
By the way, I think the gifts are still for today because the Scriptures teach that they will cease when Christ returns, not because of my experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I believe is an interpretation that is based upon other scripture and historical evidence. I believe my interpretation is correct, but when I say the Bible teaches it, I don't implant my interpretation into the text. I will not try to make it sound as if the Bible literally says that the gifts will cease when the Bible is completed. I always show the text and the explain why I think perfection means what it does.

This statement was made as if the words 'When Christ returns' were in the text. It wasn't until I questioned this statement that they revealed their belief was based upon an interpretion of 'perfection' to mean Christ."

The original statement to which you refer never claimed or nesessarily implied that the specific words "when Christ returns" were in the text. I am glad this misunderstanding was cleared up by my further statements. However, you haven't responded to the specifics of my argument in defense of my position, so I will just repeat my argument from the earlier post for why I think the Scriptures teach that the gifts will cease when Christ returns:

In 1Cor.13:10 Paul says with reference tongues, e.g., that "when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away." After this, he says in verse 12 that "now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known." Paul's reference to "then" in verse 12 refers back to the "when" of verse 10. Thus Paul is equating the time "when" that which is perfect has come with the time "then", when we will see "face to face" and when this "in part" way of knowing will be replaced by knowing just as we are known. This time of seeing "face to face" refers to our encounter with Christ at His return. Thus I conclude that the gift of tongues will cease when Christ returns and that therefore it (along with the other gifts) is to be for the edification of the Body of Christ until that time.

I will only further point out here that I never said or implied that the "perfect" of 1Cor.13:10 which is to come is Christ. My argument was that a way of "knowing just as we are known" will replace our current "in part" way of knowing when Christ returns. And I argued that the reference to our seeing "face to face" was a reference to the return of Christ. I see "that which is perfect" in the context as a perfect way of knowing. Thus the return of Christ is the time when the "perfect" way of knowing will replace the "in part" way of knowing.


Pastork

 

I (and the church I attend) believe that tongues and other gifts *are* for today, but are largely misused/contrived/abused. We don't use them in our services, but do believe they genuinely exist.

 

Pastork, why then, is the following true?
(Recap of previous post, not responded to)
TONGUES:
Scripture: The ability to speak a language previously unlearned.
Contemporary: Gibberish and claims of angelic, or unknown language that
even they don't understand.
My observation: Scripture and Contemporary claims do not match.

HEALING:
Scripture: The ability to heal obvious, outward, visible diseases immediately.
Contemporary: Vague, inward, questionable, indirect, getting better.
My observation: Scripture and Contemporary claims do not match.

PROPHECY: (fore-telling)
Scripture: The ability to predict what is going to happen with 100% accuracy.
Contemporary: Vague, questionable, indirect, platitudes about possibilities
with frequent errors.
My observation: Scripture and Contemporary claims do not match.

MIRACLES: (Not a rare event but an impossible one)
Scripture: Raising someone from the dead (after 3 days)
Contemporary: All events within the realm of possibility, just REALLY unusual.
My observation: Scripture and Contemporary claims do not match.

The Biblical accounts of the demonstations of these gifts were not rare, occasional, debateable events, but, obvious, open, wide spread, clear examples of the impossible being done by mere humans. Now, I am sure that there are a few anecdotal stories of rare circumstances where a reasonable person could look at it in a certain way and maybe see a resemblance to NT gifts. We have quite a large number of people who claim that these gifts are for today, yet, there is nothing more than a few maybes. Where is the New Testament examples NOW?

 

That's a lot of explanation for a single verse. You can think all this if you want, the text is clear. Interpretation is the context. Verse 13 says we should intepret, verse 14 tell us the situation without interpretation, and verse 15 says we can avoid the situation in verse 14 by interpreting. Hence the words "So what shall I do?"

You said that "Paul already said in verse 13", as if Paul said this, not that it was your interpretation of what he meant.

I think it is nonsense and thankfully I have the Word of God to judge these so called christian scholars by so I can indeed discern nonsense from solid doctrine. The Lord warned us that there would be many false teachers and he didn't tell us to use thier christian title and Biblical scholarship as evidence to prove them right or wrong.

Apparantly, according to your first point, you have read a lot of so called "christian biblical scholars."

Your arguments are pure speculation based upon your belief, not the texts of the scriptures. When one reads the text wihtout having already heard about the tongues (as they are heretically taught about today), you would have no such basis for a private in home prayer language to be used outside of the church with no need for interpretation or understanding. The only basis for such a belief is experience.

How can I deal with arguments that continue to focus on the same scriptures over and over again while ignoring the other 35+ verses in the chapter? Your only argument is repeating yourself over and over again because you can't offer but a few scriptures and when the context of them is revealed you repeat yourself and say but this verse means this, no matter what the rest of the chapter says.

Excellent Point! And just how does that gift edify the person possessing the gift as well? Do you sit at home and teach yourself? No! It is the fact that you shared your gift of teaching and used your gift to teach others as was the purpose of that gift, that in turn edified yourself!

Does a person with the gift of healing only use it on themselves at home when they are sick? Does a person with the gift of interpretation sit at home interpreting his own tongue that he already speaks? How can he use it at home for self edification? HE CAN'T!

This is EXACTLY my point! The gifts were intended for the body.

Read the rest of this chapter and see how each part of the body was important, and how their can be no division and that all parts should have equal concern for each other.

And my point was that Paul never said you would be "more completely edified" if you did interpret. This more complete edification is NOT in the text. You are either edified, or not edified. You either edify the body of Christ, or you don't. There is no teaching here that edification becomes "more complete" if you do what you were supposed to do in the first place.

Again, no new evidence just the repeating of verse 28 and verse 14 without regards to the rest of the chapter. Well I disagree because of the entire chapter.

I repeat my question above. What gifts were given for the purpose of one's private relationship with God? We you given the gift to serve yourself, or to serve the body?

What does verse 26 say?

The fact that it took you this many words to explain one simple verse should cause at least one caution flag to be thrown. Instead of addressing the rest of the context you keep making excuses why this one verse can mean what you want it to.

When I see a false doctrine being taught, I call it what it is. To say that Paul was stating that you will be "more completely edified" if you interpret is nonsense. It is definately NOT scriptural. If you read the entire chapter together no where does he insinuate such a doctrine, let alone say it.

Paul called the Galatians "foolish" was he not being respectful?

We are told to edify the body, not let corrupt doctrine have a foothold in it.

~Lorelei

 

Lorelai,

I think I can safely assume that any further discussion between us on this matter would be pointless. Have a nice day!

Pastork

[ February 15, 2003, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Pastork ]

 

Artimaeus,

I have argued from 1Cor.13 that Paul teaches that the gifts were for the Church until Christ returns. If I am right, none of the points you raise based upon your experience with claims about the gifts makes any difference.

Pastork

[ February 15, 2003, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Pastork ]

 

I was responding to this statement

What I believe is an interpretation that is based upon other scripture and historical evidence. I believe my interpretation is correct, but when I say the Bible teaches it, I don't implant my interpretation into the text. I will not try to make it sound as if the Bible literally says that the gifts will cease when the Bible is completed. I always show the text and the explain why I think perfection means what it does.

This statement was made as if the words "When Christ returns" were in the text. It wasn't until I questioned this statement that they revealed their belief was based upon an interpretion of "perfection" to mean Christ.

As you showed I never implied that the words "when the NT was complete" was in the Bible, I simply showed them why I believed what it meant.

This passage also refers to the Word of God as the perfect law of liberty and it also compares that Word to a mirror.

I find many reasons why the Word is the perfection that is referred to. I would think that you would not want to question it's validity by suggesting that the Word of God is not perfect. Therefore it has every right to be considered as an option when interpreting this verse. All I ask is that a fair representation be given on all sides, that is why I questioned them the way I did.


~Lorelei </font>[/QUOTE]Lorelei, I never said the Word was not a suitable choice for what Paul meant by '...perfection...'. It is a choice, an option. And I'm not trying to malign the Word, as you suggest. But you yourself make it clear in your response that this view is an interpretation, of course one you feel is right, thats the way it is with interpretations. Nevertheless, it is an option, an interpretation, one you have a right to make, and one that is quite possibly a suitable candidate.

My point is though, that we are left to figure out and feel what is a most suitable interpretation precisely because the Word doesn't fill it in and make the decision literally for us, otherwise we wouldn't have to defend and postulate and put forth candidates for interpretation.

The Word is perfect, truth is perfect, yes - but we are not made perfect yet. It is quite possible I think that perfection could also be Jesus finally effecting something in us - at his return - that allows us to see and be fully known, as Paul says in the Corinthians passage. James calls the law perfect, Paul is less clear.

Your interpretation has some points to it, I never said it did not. I also believe that the 'perfection as Jesus' argument also has some valid interpretation - also based upon the scripture.

My main argument is that people often go a step beyond where the Word actually goes and takes us when advocating one interpretaiton over another - and that seems to be the case here with what is perfection, is it the cannonization of scripture or Jesus?

But you do make it more clear in your response that your interpretation is a process of assembling and putting together scriptural teaching - thats ok - but the other view seems to be equally and similarily manufactured from and out of the same principles.

We would all know for sure if the Word actually stated one arguemnt over the other, but it does not, and we are left to assemble and try and figure it out. That process is not the same as the Word literally saying or teaching.

You also state that evidence and experience teach you that the gifts are not for today. Your evidence, as already stated, is your attempt to put together the scriptures teaching on a point that is not stated literally for us, but it seems is left for us to try and assemble some concensus on - and thats fair enough.

But you also state and refer to experience as a factor in your formulation - as do the advocates of 'gifts' appeal to experience. So in the end it seems that both sides make an appeal to experience.

My own view is that a lot of 'gifts' are abused and manufactured. But I cannot preclude that no single genuine instance or occurrence is barred because of the cannonization process. I cannot say, and I don't think scripture says, that at some point, from now on, no single occurrence of a 'gift' will ever occurr again.

I think the verses where Paul talks about gifts, miracles etc. ceasing refers to an obvious fact that if a genuine instance of the 'gifts' does occurr, it is limited in time, and then it is over. There is a bigger picture, and a bigger life to lead, a life lead by the principle of love that Paul goes on espouse. So there has been a healing, say for example, or perhaps an occurrence of 'tongues', and assume that these were legitimate and genuine; they occurred, but now they are over, now how do you live the rest of your life?

 

When I read the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures, I did see myself as I fully was, a sinner in need of Christ the only savior.

The law was given, not to bring us to God, but to show us our condition.

The commandments showed me that I was utterly sinful. So the scriptures were there to lead us to what we needed to do.

This new mystery was revealed to the apostles.

We now have a source, that is perfect, that can enable man to know his condition, as it fully is.

The scriptures then are able to make us perfect, or complete. (The word perfect is "artios" which means complete.

When we accept this knowledge from God's Word and come to Christ, our minds are renewed by His Spirit. His words are now written in our hearts, we know this because of the Words he left us. We now have the ability to find out what God's perfect will is.

The new covenant is now here.

Until the apostles and prophets recorded this for us, things were still unclear to us. But all this has now been recorded. The New covenant is not only already here, it is complete. There is no more need for further prophecies, revelations, miraculous signs. The apostles and prophets that were used in this way are gone, as are the gifts that they were empowered with.

We no longer need signs to confirm this to us, for now we have the words of those who were gifted with these signs to confirm it to us.

There is a scripture that tells us that these gifts will cease. You have no scriptures suggesting that they would be around until the earth as we know it ceases to exist.

I worded myself poorly when I said that my belief also relied upon my experience. I guess I should have said it was confirmed through history. The gifts as we see them today do not line up with the Word of God. When the gifts were preformed by the apostles and prophets in the NT, there was no question to their validity, there were no questions as to the authority and everyone, believer and unbelievers alike were amazed. Today, you have no one going around and clearing hospitals and you certainly have no one raising people from the dead. What you have are poor imitations of gifts that were clearly identified in the NT days.

Today we don't have genuine miracles that can be positively identified, we have illusions that rely on emotionalism and feelings. We have people "shaking" and falling down and uttering unintelligable words, and none of these examples are found in God's Word. None of them.

Why then are these false gifts on the rise? Because the time of the end is coming.

That is why I believe what I do.

~Lorelei

 

Victory Leader is non-baptist and has been asked not to post on Baptist-only forums.

[ February 16, 2003, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]