I have never said His Word was not complete truth...but our understanding of his word is not completly accurate!
But you associate with those who do, and also infer that His Word is not complete. Phrases such as "The Lord said unto me...," "I have a word from the Lord...." Here is "a word of knowledge....." "In a dream God told me...," and in so many other expressions where the intent is made that God spoke to the individual in an inspired way. That is heresy. God does not speak to individuals like that any longer. He have his inspired Word. There are not two kinds of inspiration. There is only one, one inspired book, and it does not reside with the Charismatics.
"The Lord said to me..." is heresy. The Lord does not speak outside of His Word. Unless the person is speaking or quoting the Word of God, God is not speaking to him. God spoke, and it was done. God's revelation is complete. The canon of Scripture is complete. It was completed ca. 98 A.D. when John wrote the last book of the Bible, The Book of Revelation, and then all of the Bible was finished. There is a curse put on those who should add to those who would add to that prophecy, or since it is the last book, it is applicable to all the Bible. Revelation is closed. It is not open. The RCC and the Charismatics both believe we have open-ended revelation. The Catholic demonstrate that when ever a Pope speaks "ex cathedra". It is an announcement as if it were taken from God--inspired.
We have the Bible. That is all we need. All revelatory gifts (prophecy, tongues, revelatory knowledge) have ceased. They are no longer needed.
Really? You have never changed one view since you began in His Word? I have come across MANY Baptist preachers that have changed several views!
Yes, except for a few relatively minor things, like the overall outline of the Book of Revelation, my doctrine had not changed. It has deepened. I have come to a greater understanding, but it has not changed. Take justification for example. From that very basic understanding that I held shortly after I was saved and still hold--that justification is that point in salvation when God looks down upon you "just as if you never sinned." That is at antipodes with Michael Wrenn who bases his definition on history rather than the Bible. It is not in accordance with the RCC either. It is according to what the Bible teaches. My understanding of this doctrine has deepened. I have a fuller understanding of it. But it has not changed.
I believed the Word first! The experience came after!
So you say, or want to believe. You came to your experience after you had decades of solid Bible teaching. You wanted or perhaps even were looking for something new, a new experience, an experience not based on the Word of God, and you found it. You are too headstrong to believe that it is not of God, even though many on this board have pointed out to you its Scriptural fallacies.
Yes, your background says you believed the Bible first, and so you can claim that. But now you associate with a people who believe that experience comes first. Do your own search on the internet. Tongues is so important to the Charismatic that they teach you how to do it. Yet it was so unimportant to Paul that:
1. He puts it last in a list of gifts that he lists in order of importance (1Cor.12:28).
2. He says that he would rather speak five words with understanding then 10,000 words in tongues.
3. He compares it to prophecy, and in every case he values prophecy as better.
4. He puts such stringent restrictions on speaking in tongues/languages, that today, if those restrictions were followed, it would be impossible for any person to speak in tongues.
Jesus always talked of a balance life, a need to operate in Spirit and Truth! Too often I have seen tradition and theories often lifted higher than sciptures.
*One of those traditions is cessatonism! The Holy Spirit was given until we reach the end of the earth. Thre still remains parts of the world that do not know the gospel, so how could this promise be completed?
Cessationism is not a tradition; it is a doctrine. I have given you a list of Biblical reasons, many of which you are unable to refute, of why tongues are not for today. They have ceased. In this one reason alone, 1Cor.14:21,22, the prophecy is given to unbelieving Jews of the era of the apostles that if they did not believe the gospel during that time that judgment would come upon then! At that time! They did not believe. Judgment came. And in 70 A.D. Titus came and destroyed the city of Jerusalem, along with the Temple, and the nation of Israel was dispersed. They remained dispersed as a nation until 1948 when the U.N. allowed them to be a nation once again. But they still don't have a temple yet.
In this one prophecy alone, it makes tongues invalid. You don't have first century Jews among your churches or even society awaiting a first century judgement. It is past history. Tongues was a historical event that lasted only for a short season--the first century, and then it ended. It was a sign. When the purpose for the sign is fulfilled, the sign is taken away.
*Another contradiction is the gifts ceased when the last apostle died..this can not be because Mark 16 promises that signs and wonders would follow "those who believe."
Those who believed the apostles. The signs and wonders were given to the apostles to verify them as apostles. (Heb.2:3,4; 2Cor.12:12). Everything has context. Do you drink poison and not die? Do you pick up snakes?
*Another is that it ceased when the canon of Scripture was completed. But no one can give an exact date for this occurrence, since thre is much debate about when the canon was actually closed.
It was closed when the last book was written, the Book of Revelation, ca. 98 A.D., or near the end of the first century when all the other evidence is taken into account.
..some still can not agree if the Apocrypha should be included in our Bible.
Only Catholics assert that the Apocrypha are valid books. Jews, Protestants, pre-protestant groups, Baptists, and almost everyone else agree that these spurious books are not to be included in the canon of Scripture.
*Another is when we try to divide up the Bible into ages that the Bible does not divide.
That is a moot point, since you do the same thing. Why should one accept your view as better than others?
All of these theories and ideas are often elevated to the same plane as the Holy Sciptures.
My experiences are documented with scriptures!
Your theories are documented with your twist of Scriptures, and an avoidance of many Scriptures. You fail to take in the totality of Scriptures and your interpretation of Scriptures is very questionable.
Jesus will come for a bride!! One body! So which local assembly will it be?
He will come for his bride; his family.
Study 1Cor.12. "The body" often refers to a local church where each member makes up a member of that body of Christ where the Pastor is accountable to Christ and the members accountable to the Pastor, and each member has a particular gift or talent that he can use in the church.
When you consider the verse: "When one member suffers all the members suffer with it," you realize that it can only be talking about a local church. The suffering of a believer in Africa, South America, or Asia, has no bearing on your suffering or anyone else's outside of that particular local church. Chances are pretty good that you are totally ignorant of all the members of all the local churches of the world. It applies to that body, that local church or assembly, as it did in Corinth.
But often a family can be scattered all over the world. It will come together at the rapture. The bride (symbolically) will be the same way.