Have the "gifts of the spirit" ceased?

In Acts 2 - it is clear to all - tongues is in fact real languages.

In 1Cor 14 it is made very clear that tongues is given as a sign to ungifted - unbelievers. It is also stated that the abuse of tongues is manifest whenever it is done in a way such that the ungifted unbeliever does not know what is being spoken in the tongue. (And trust me that gibberish you just heard is an odd way of saying "Jesus loves me this I know" - would not "impress" the unbeliever as a "sign").

Further - Paul claims that he does know if he is singing, or praying or exhorting in a tongue according to 1Cor 14.

Finally - Paul claims that the tongue gift is not a case of the Holy Spirit taking control - (as in the case of prophecy). Paul says that you must "shut it down" in cases where there is no clear interpretation available. But in the case of prophecy (where the Holy Spirit IS in control of the "event" - ) you are to sit down EVEN if you are in the middle of relating the spirit-given-prophecy IF the Holy Spirit gives another person a prophecy in the middle of your message.

This presents a huge contrast in the "control"
factor of the Holy Spirit between gifts.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob Ryan said:

you are to sit down EVEN if you are in the middle of relating the spirit-given-prophecy IF the Holy Spirit gives another person a prophecy in the middle of your message.

Pam says:

Sorry, I can't let that stand. The scripture you mentioned means that you DO NOT interupt another while they are speaking. You hold it until it is your turn to speak.

Even though the Holy Ghost gives you the message, he wants you to wait your turn. Everything must be done decently and in order.

Have a nice day!!

Tam

 

I see 'let the first hold his peace' as refering to the speaking prophet. So I agree that the speaking prophet is to yield the floor when another receives a revelation, for ye may all prophesy one by one. This is not disorderly. This is the order of scripture. I don't understand how you arrive at your view, Tamborine Lady. Could you explain how you interpret the passage, please?

 

Lets read it together --

Notice the problem for those who say the Spirit is in charge of the very act of speaking in tongues? The obedient reader of 1cor 14 would at times have to tell the Spirit to "stop that".

By "contract" the prophetic gift IS under the direct control of the Holy Spirit - so HE is in charge of the order - not man.

Notice.

Notice the contrast?

EVEN if one is STANDING - speaking - giving their message - they must "stop" - mid-message if another is given a message by the Holy Spirit.

The modern form of "I had the good feel to speak so I did" would never have worked back then as an excuse for prophecy. It would have been utter chaos.

In Christ,

Bob

 

1 Cor 14-30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

If the Lord has given you a word, and you are "about" to give it, and someone else stands up and begins their message, you wait until they are done before you speak. It says NOTHING about interupting someone when they are already speaking.

Verse 31 says "you may all prophesy one by one" that all may learn.

I can't see where ya'll get your interpretation, but then that's just me.

Tam

 

I think the key to this issue is to follow the scripture that says " in honor prefer one another."

 

Notice the contrast (with the case of tongues?)

Some might say "no"!

But in the case of prophecy - "the first" one to stand and speak - is speaking. But then "another one" receives a message then and there -- while the first is speaking, while the first is "not silent". And "at that point" the first must keep silent.

There is no "please wait until the first one has completed his message and has chosen of his own accord to end - to keep silent THEN and only then may the one seated speak up".

Nope! All that is missing.

The order is for the first one to instantly and immediately "keep silent" and the one who is seated - the "second one" in that case - is to take the floor. The first - the one who was ahead of the "Second" - the one who must now keep silent - must cease to speak and yield the floor to the second one - the one seated, the one who was before this - silent.

This is the opposite of tongues. In the case of tongues - each one waits his turn. There is nothing said about the first one - the one standing - the one that is not silent - having to suddenly keeping silent BECAUSE another one has just been given a message in tongues

The scenario of "first" and "second" where the second is seated and quiet - but then receives a message and stops the first (who must now keep silent) is totally missing from the discussion on tongues.

Again - having to state - and restate the obvious but I think the point bears emphasis.

The contrast in the scenarios God gives between tongues and prophecy could not be more obvious.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Tamborine Lady,

I see 'the first' as referring to the speaking prophet. He is 'the first' becaue he is the first one speaking, and the person the verse is already talking about.

This idea makes sense in light of the next verse... 'for ye may all prophesy one by one...." Stopping to allow another who recieves a revelation to speak allows for all to prophesy on by one.

 

Indeed - IF the text had said "IF another who is still seated should happen to receive a revelation while the FIRST is not silent but speaking - then the second must wait his turn patiently UNTIL the first one has completed his message - relating all that was revealed to Him by God".

No such instruction is found - rather the opposite is stated. The FIRST must "keep silent" a the moment it is discovered that "another" who is yet still seated has - then and there - receieved a revelation.

It is a case of absolute and total control by the Holy Spirit in the exercise of the gift - so much so - that he may interrupt the order - placing the second up to speak - while the first is not yet silent. Forcing the first one to THEN "keep silent" upon learning that ANOTHER who is seated has just been given a revelation.

A huge contrast to the sequence given for tongues. In the case of tongues - you may not be "allowed" to speak at all depending on the conditions.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The key verse here is verse 31. ~ For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

Did we as children get in trouble for interupting when someone else was speaking? There might need to be more study put into this.

BTW, If someone stood up and started speaking in our church while the preacher was prophesing.... we'd be thinking that person had a Jezebel spirit or something.
MOHO (my own humble opinion) I think Paul stated for things to be done decently and in order for a reason.

M4H

 

We all agree that Paul is urging order. But the policy for getting to that order changed radically between the example of tongues and prophecy.

The reason -- is that the Holy Spirit is in absolute control of prophecy and can not be told "No! - sit down and be quiet, or wait until I am at home!" as in the case of tongues that is totally under control of the individual.

Makes perfect sense.

Hence...

In Christ,

Bob

 

But would it make since for the Holy Spirit to interupt Himself? The Holy Spirit could speak through the first man who is prophesing. Not unless the first mans spirit is not sensitive as to what the Holy Spirit is saying or that the first man is just speaking in his own steam.

Sometimes I wonder if Paul was asking a question in some places where the interpreters put a period? I was told that there was no capitals or punctuation marks in Hebrew and/or Greek.

Music4Him

 

The idea is that the first man has received a revelation "through a dream or vision" and may have received it even before coming to church - who knows? the text does not specify.

But in the case of the second person - they DO receive the revelation WHILE seated in church. This is an act of the Holy Spirit IN THE MIDDLE of the service.

Since He is God - He gets to say what happens. Since God Himself has chosen to interrupt the first speaker by giving the one seated a revelation - then the first must acknowledge the direct hand of God - stop speaking, remain silent and let the second one speak.

Clearly it is a clear sign that the Holy Spirit is in direct and absolute control over the timing of the revelation and he is allowed to interrrupt the message currently in play as it were.

God is in absolute control when giving the revelation...

In Christ,

Bob

 

'[Joel 2:28-32] AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,' God says, 'THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS, AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS;

Acts 2:18
EVEN ON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT And they shall prophesy.

Here we have the OT concept - the OT gift exercised in the NT - and claimed in the NT -

It is one and the same gift.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well in the case of Moses and his siblings...the spoken Word of God would take preminence(sp?)*authority over* a dream or vision. It like a pecking order type of thing so to speak huh?

Just like the Apostles first, 2nd the prophets,3rd the teachers....ect. (1Cor. 12:28) And out of these who God has set over the church, they have their own regulations of how they work?
*My choice for words may not be exsactly right in that question, but I hope you understand what I'm trying to ask/say.*

Music4Him

 

I don't think we should see this as the Holy Spirit 'interrupting Himself.' The issue is the speaking prophet should give someone else a chance to speak the message from the Spirit, because _ye may all prophesy_ so that all may be strengthened and all may be encouraged.

Earlier in the chapter, Paul writes about a scenario in which an unbeliever comes in and all prophesy, and the secrets of his heart are made manifest, and faling down on his face, he says that God is truly in (or among) you.

Let's consider this. 'All' prophesy, and the secrets of his heart are exposed. Could it be that there is one big message, divided up among many people in the assembly in this scenario? Notice, also that the group nature of this sort of prophesy, leads the man to say that God is truly in (or among) you, of the group, not just that God is in brother so-and-so. He is convinced by all, not just one person. And all are involved in it, since all prophesy. There seems to be a central theme to all these prophecies in this scenario.

I know someone who give prophecies in church who sometimes, before they give a prophecy, someone else starts off and gives the same prophecy they got. I've known a couple of people who experienced the same thing with interpretations of tongues, where they get the same interpretation that someone else gives.

If a church follows the instructions of I Corinthians 14, then the saints can take turns sharing the messages the Spirit has for the church, rather than one person hogging them. And we may get more from the Lord if we do take turns, because all are to prophecy so that ALL may be encouraged, and all may be comforted. Could it be that if just one prophecies, only some will be encouraged, and only some will be comforted? Sometimes a group of prophets may here more than just one man.

 

Agreed.

But the other thing that it says is that the "means" that God uses to communicate to a prophet is wayyyy more than "the good feel to forthtell something".

It is "dreams or visions" directly from God.

Peter declares that it is NOT subject to one's own interpretation - it is directly from God - inspired, infallible, revelation via dream or vision.

But always tested "sola scriptura" as we see in Acts 17:11.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Again. - The text does not say "if the FIRST one has been speaking too long and he sees that others also are waiting patiently for their turn - he should try to keep his time down to some reasonable segment so that all have a chance to speak before it is time to go home".

That idea you are suggesting - is totally absent from the text. Though you have a good and noble thought that certainly could ALSO be something to think about during those meetings - it is NOT the subject of the text about what happens IF during the time the FIRST one is not-silent another one receives (at that time) a revelation.

True enough. The text that speaks about a "revelation being given" to "another who is seated" does not say what the "subject of that revelation must be".

The point remains.

God is in full control of the gift of prophecy UNLIKE the personal CHOICE involved in exercise of the gift of tongues. Choice that include - "just be quiet and say nothing until you get home".

In other words - the Holy Spirit can not be told to "just keep quiet" so prophecy does not follow the same set of rules.

Just saying any old thing that comes to mind "passes for prophecy" in many churches today. No wonder - they have abandoned the guide of God's Word stating that the revelation will be by "dream or vision" directly from God.

The result is that "having the good feel" to say something passes for "the gift of prophecy" today.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob Ryan.

Helloooooo? Have you been reading my posts.

Bob Ryan wrote,
***Again. - The text does not say "if the FIRST one has been speaking too long and he sees that others also are waiting patiently for their turn - he should try to keep his time down to some reasonable segment so that all have a chance to speak before it is time to go home".

That idea you are suggesting****

This is not what I have been saying at all. My point has been that the speaking prophet must be silent for the next person to speak. Please go back and look at my previous posts.

My point in the quote you responded to was that we shouldn't think of the prophet yielding the floor as 'the Spirit interrupting himself.' Rather, the Spirit can share his message through many vessels, rather than just through one. As Paul put it 'for ye may all prophesy.

I refered to Paul's example of an unbelieving man who is convinced of all when he hears prophesying. You responded:

**True enough. The text that speaks about a "revelation being given" to "another who is seated" does not say what the "subject of that revelation must be".**

True, but a previous example shows there being one central theme that the prophecies focused on, though many spoke.

***The point remains.

God is in full control of the gift of prophecy UNLIKE the personal CHOICE involved in exercise of the gift of tongues. Choice that include - "just be quiet and say nothing until you get home".**

Can you explain yourself. You seem to say that opposite of the point you are making in the rest of the message.

The passage says that the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. (The word 'spirits' here might be the terminology the Greeks used for the pagan version of spiritual gifts. They may have had the idea that the 'pneumatika' of the prophet ovewhelmed him.)

Paul shows us that the prophet can be silent. Indeed he should to let another who recieves a revelation to speak.

In other words - the Holy Spirit can not be told to "just keep quiet" so prophecy does not follow the same set of rules.

the prophet can choose to besilent at the appropriate time just like a speaker in tongues can choose to be silent.

**Just saying any old thing that comes to mind "passes for prophecy" in many churches today. No wonder - they have abandoned the guide of God's Word stating that the revelation will be by "dream or vision" directly from God.**

Are you saying then that God can give a prophet revelation through the scriptures (n the scriptural sense of the term 'revelation' not the sense many Bible colleges use it), since you think a prophet must only recive revelation through dreams and visions?

The Bible shows us that God told Moses that God would speak to prophets through dreams and visions. That is true. But the Bible never says that God would only speak to prophets through dreams and visions. The other prophets didn't have the type of communication, as if face-to-face, that Moses had.

You are making a logical error. Compare the following sets of statements.

1. The Bible says that God will speak to prophets through dreams and visions. That doesn't mean that this is the only way God would communicate.

2. The Bible says that God loved Jacob. That doesn't mean that Jacob was the only person God would ever love.

The type of reasoning you apply to dreams adn visions, if applied to 'Jacob have I love' would lead us to believe that God only loved Jacob, and no one else.
**The result is that "having the good feel" to say something passes for "the gift of prophecy" today.**

I suppose it cane, but there are also those who are speak as moved by the Spirit, which is how Peter described prophecy done by Old Testament prophets, including those who lived after Moses' time.

In Christ,

Bob

 

DHK,

Earlier, you disagreed with me when I said that there was a connection between faith and miracles. You wrote,

****But the truth is that faith is not important in miracles. **

Then you write,
**There never was any question that sometimes Jesus related healing to faith. Sometimes you read the statement "be it according to your faith."**

You seem to be flip-flopping here. I have been consistently arguing that there is a close connection in the scriptures between healing and miracles and faith.

****Sometimes you read the statement "be it according to your faith." Sometimes--not all the time. But those are isolated incidents used for our instruction. When you look at the numbers as a whole-great crowds healed--every one of them healed; there were more healed without having faith than there were that had faith. Likewise with miracles. There were more that were fed (5,000+), that were not believers, then were. Faith was not always a requirement.*****

Isolated incidents? Dozens of examples are just 'isolated incidents.' If we counted up all the miracles and healings in the Gospels, I wouldn't be surprised if more of them indicated that the recipient had faith than didn't. These examples are in there to teach us something.

Just think about it. When those people were following Jesus around and He 'healed them all'- don't you think those people had some faith that he could heal them? Why did all the sick people come to the door o the house where he was at if they didn't think he could heal them? Why did they come out to listen to Him if they didn't have some faith in Him? I am not saying they had saving faith. John speaks of people who 'believe' in Jesus who sure don't seem to have saving faith.

It is reasonable to assume that the times when Jesus healed the masses, that the inviduals who came to him in this situation often had some faith that Jesus could heal them. Sometimes, it was someone else's faith. The man sick with the palsy's friend had faith. Maybe the man was too sick to know what was going on. But maybe he did have faith, too, since Jesus forgave Him.

What did Jesus do when He was in an atmosphere of unbelief in Nazareth. The Bible says he didn't (and Mark says, could not) do many mighty miracles there because of there unbelief. In this atmosphere, He still was able to heal a few sick folk. Maybe they were healed.

I never said that everyone who got healed had to have faith personally. The centurian's servant was healed after the centurian displayed great faith. THe Syro-Phonecian woman's doaugther was healed in response to her faith.


John 14:12. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.


***Search through history as you will. You will never find any person who did the kind of miracles that Christ did, never!**

Not all events that have occured are recorded in historical documents. Jesus clearly did miracles, and He said that He would believed would do the works that He did. From reading Paul, it would seem that some of the kinds of works Christ did are given to some to do, and some to another. So that may be one way of reading this. But clearly miracles are among the works of Christ. And look up the word for 'works' while you are at it and still if you hold to the same interpretation after doing a word study.

Casting out demons was a work of Christ. Do you believe that people can still cast out demons today, or do you think God took that power away from the church as well? Do Christians not need to cast out demons since they have the Bible, in your opinion?

**And no man ever will. They were unique miracles over nature, time, and space, that man could never accomplish--with or without God's help. They are unique only to God, for that was their purpose--to show the deity of Christ.**

Jesus walked on water. So did Peter, until his faith wavered. Peter's miracle didn't attest to Peter having deity.

Jesus' miracles bore witness of Him. But do you have any scripture that specifically states that His miracles bore witness to the doctrine of the deity of Christ? I believe in Christ's deity, but I don't know of scripture to back up your specific point.

The miracles the apostle did also bore witness to the truth about Christ, btw. So if a Christian does miracles, it isn't a challenge to Christ's uniqueness or His deity. We can see that from John 14:12.


On James 5, you wrote,

**Please note very carefully where the faith comes in. There is no faith mentioned on the part of the sick person. If the sick person does not get well it is one of two reasons:
1. Perhaps it is not God's will (Charismatics traditionally reject this reason)**

I suppose you could try to argue for this exception from other scripture. I don't see an exception for 'not God's will' in James 5.

I do see the possiblity that the sick not confessing his sin could hinder his sickness in the passage. Read the next verse about praying and confessing faults one to another.

**2. The fault then lies in the faith of the pastor, for it is the faith of the prayer of the pastor that has failed--not the sick person.
--The typical faith healer today is not only a fraud, he is a cruel fraud. He needlessly blames his victim when he doesn't get well for not having enough faith.**

I don't know that that is 'typical.' This is a stereotype you could get from a WOF preacher on TV, maybe.

A lot of people who mionister or try to minister divine healing, ('faith healer' is not usually a term used by these people to describe themselves) are not elders in the local church. The teaching of the Gospels, and Acts, about the connection between faith and healing still holds true. We cant' cancel out all those dozens of scripture by simply quoting a verse from James that requires faith on the part of the elders when they pray for the sick.

** The truth be told, it is the faith healer that doesn't have enough faith, according to the Scriptures--if he truly believes that the person should be healed. These people are frauds.**

The promise of James 5 is for elders. Btw, are you a preacher? Has anyone you prayed for not gotten healed? If you were a preacher, or even an elder of the church, and this happened, would you say that you weren't a fraud or that it was 'not God's will.'

Why do you say that 'faith healers' are frauds, instead of just concluding that the healing was 'not God's will'? Do those who disagree with you become frauds when their prayers aren't answered as they like, but it's just 'not God's will' when it happens to you? Some people who di this kind of ministry find that some people are healed, and others aren't. There are preachers who wronlgy promise that everyone be healed, or nerly go that far. Others don't do this.