-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Have the "gifts of the spirit" ceased?
- Thread starter Rosell
- Start date
Welcome to BB Link. It would do you good to read some of the previous posts before jumping into the middle of a conversation. We have already been over some of the points that you brought up many times. God doesn't give out the gift of tongues any more becaust to do so would be superflous. Its purpose has already been fulfilled. Paul made very clear that it was a sign to the unbelieving nation of Israel (1Cor.14:21,22). That purpose has been fulfilled. It was fulfilled 1900 years ago. It is a sign no longer. How else would you explain those verses? The gift has ceased. You need to study Scripture a bit more. God does not limit Himself, but He never goes contrary to His own nature (that is he cannot lie, etc.,), and He never goes contrary to His own Word.
Oh, you are so right. If I don't stick my head in a garbage pail, I would never know that it is dirty.
If I don't take drugs, I would never know that I could become addicted to them and they would be harmful to my life. I hear that kind of great sounding logic from those who don't know the Word of God a lot.
See my example above. I don't have to be a drug addict to know it is wrong. Our measuring stick is not experience it is the Word of God. I measure everything by the Word of God.
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Can you verify the experience. What was the langueage that he was speaking in. How does the interpreter know this for sure? Is there any outside verification, or are we all supposed to accept this on their word? God does not accept gibberish as Biblical tongues. Tongues were real foreign languages. They were languages that were spoken for a purpose. For what pupose were these languages spoken?
1. Your examples are anecdotal at best, and can be countered with the same experience that I have encountered with people standing up and speaking in perfect Greek (or another language) saying such things as "I love the devil" over and over again.
2. Your example is totally unbiblical. First the purpose of the gift of tongues was for the unbelieving nation of Israel. I doubt if you had any unbelieving Jews present in your meeting.
3. Another purpose of tongues was extra Biblical revelation UNTIL the New Testament was complete--until "that which was perfect (the Bible) was come, then that which was in part (prophecy, tongues, etc.,) would be done away. They did not have all the NT in the first century. Gifts such as prophecy and tongues made up for that which was lacking.
3. Your example doesn't make sense in the sense that you have someone standing up and speaking in a foreign language to an audience that all understood English. That defeats the very purpose of tongues, and makes it unbiblical in itself.
I've preached the gospel in the dialect of the people too. I learned it first.
"Yor do err not knowing the Scriptures..."
God doesn't distribute and spiritual gifts that are not for today. He does not go contrary to His Word. If you think you have the gift of tongues, then you have a cheap imitation of the real thing.
And with many signs and wonders did the Apostles work among them. The signs and wonders that the Apostles did (which we do not have today) authenticated them as Apostles, and it authenticated the message that they preached as being from God.
"An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, but no sign shall be given them but the sign of Jonas..." What does that tell you about those that seek after tongues and other experiences.
For the exact reason that I just explained. He was associated with the Apostles.
God told him when he was first saved (through Ananias) "for I must show him how many things he must suffer."). Suffering is the will of God for believers, contrary to Charismatic thinking.
Philippians 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;
Sure they would be useful, but not the will of God, nor necessary. Take the gift of healing for example. There is not a person alive today who can demonstrate that they have the gift of healing. If they did, they would be able to enter into a hospital, walk up and down the corridors and heal all that are sick. But they don't have that ability. The apostles had that power, you don't. Why? The spiritual gifts are not for today.
You need to read the biography of Carey. He had no supernatural help in the sense of a supernatural spiritual gift of the first century. You need to understand what a spiritual gift was. They were all supernatural in essence. They were not just talents or abilities. God gave a supernatural ability to accomplish certain things in the first century. They were supernatural gifts. God gave Carey the grace to do things he otherwise would not have been able to do. He depended on the grace of God. That is true. But that is much different than a spiritual gift which is supernatural.
DHK
We live in a day and age of grace. That is true. Paul said plainly, (quoting our Lord) "My grace is sufficient for you." Therefore did Paul glory in his infirmities and sicknesses. He had the grace of God (not spiritual gifts) to depend upon. You confuse grace with spiritual gifts. He did not exercise the spiritual gifts all the time, as is seen in 2Cor.12.
And so God did use him. His works has lasted for an eternity. The people of India have had the Word of God translated into several of their languages, without which many souls could never have been saved. Later missionaries would have had no way of reaching these people.
God gave Carey a greater ABILITY. To translate the Bible into many different languages. BTW, Carey was a very humble man. He must have been a very good teacher. He established a college on his own, and through it prepared many students to go forth and preach the gospel to others. But his greatest work was in his translational work which gave the nation of India, the second largest in the world, the Bible, that others could have the opportunity to be saved. By that act alone he indirectly saved more people than time will ever tell.
Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
"You have not because you ask not; you ask and receive not, because ye ask amiss that ye may consume it upon your lusts.
You are asking for things that are no longer in existence. You are asking amiss. You are asking contrary to the will of God. Tongues have ceased. What you pass off as tongues is a cheap imitation of the real thing, which Satan rejoices to see. It crosses all boundaries of all denominations, and even into heathen and world religions. To do so you must give up doctrine that all may be one. Thus the Charismatic has no set doctrine. They are mutually inclusive believing every sleight of doctrine that comes along--baptism by immersion, baptism by pouring, baptism by sprinkling, or no baptism at all. It doesn't matter as long as you speak in tongues. Doctrine doesn't matter any more. It doesn't matter what God you worship any more as long as you speak in tongues. The Charsimatics have become all inclusive in their doctrine. They have to be. Speaking in tongues crosses over into all religions. Be a Catholic, be a protestant, a mormon--it doesn't matter any more as long as you speak in tongues.
True Biblical tongues is God giving to Judson the gift of the Burmese language so that he would not have to learn the language. That is what tongues is. Have you not heard of "a mother tongue?" The word tongue means language. If he had the gift of tongues he would have been speaking in their language immediately. But he didn't. By hard arduous work he learned their language. Their was no spiritual gift of tongues available to him. Such gifts have ceased. You also read in in 1Cor.14 how some had the gift of tongues and the gift of interpretation. Judson obviously would have been understanding what he would have been speaking had he the gift of tongues. But he didn't have it. He learned the language.
Study your Bible. There is a difference between grace and the gifts of the Spirit. No, Judson did not have any of the gifts of the Spirit. He displayed the fruits of the Spirit in his life. God gave him grace. He did not have any of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit. There are many biographies, and even his own autobiography written. Study about his life, and see for yourself. Don't remain ignorant, and speak from what you do not know.
DHK
Yes we are to be obediant to "the law", I have no problem with that. But women to keep silent in church is not a law. If it was God would have said it.
As far as eating unclean animals....you better recheck that in Acts 10:1-33. Gentiles were seen as unclean, the vision that Peter had was to mean that he wasn't suppost to look on Gentiles as they were unclean. Afterward he understood that he should go with the messengers into a Gentile home and tell Cornelius the Good News of salvation in Jesus. Not... hay brothers and sisters we can eat pig tonight.
There was never a change made in the relationship between men and women since the fall.
No thank goodness & Praise the Lord you are right...because Mariam was a prophetess. She even has a song published in the bible (Her actual words, so it goes to proves that women can speak if front of a congragation.
Then theres Deborah, Barak and his army wouldn't make a move without her. She didn't usurp authority over the men they asked...she told them...Happily they listened. And there is a song that her and Barak sang and it is also published in the same book...the bible.
Oh and theres Anna the prophetess "which departed not from the temple", she told every one who was looking for redemption in Jerusalem about Jesus.
Then theres Priscilla who with her husband Aquilla taught Apollos a little better, the way of God.
Yes we are to be under submission to OUR HUSBANDS and respect authority. But who has final authority of us all?
If God tells me go and tell.... then I'm not going to stand around and tell Him that I'm sorry I can't because when Paul answered the letter to Corinthians and in it he said women should not speak....My reply should be, Yes Lord!
BTW, I for one am grateful for the gifts of the Spirit, because my husband asks me the questions and if it wasn't for the gifts of the Spirit we'd be in a mess.
Respectfully,
Music4Him
Link in response to DHK,
DHK wrote,
***We live in a day and age of grace. That is true. Paul said plainly, (quoting our Lord) "My grace is sufficient for you." Therefore did Paul glory in his infirmities and sicknesses. He had the grace of God (not spiritual gifts) to depend upon. You confuse grace with spiritual gifts. He did not exercise the spiritual gifts all the time, as is seen in 2Cor.12.***
First of all I did not say that charis and charisma are exactly the same, but that they are closely related. I think you may have too narrow of a definition of 'charisma' ("spiritual gift.") Spiritual gifts aren't always about doing spectacular supernatural feats. I Corinthians 7:7 indicates that getting married or not getting married are both charisma. The ability to endure not being married is a 'gift.' We can also describe it as having grace not to be married.
If Paul receives grace to endure hardship, couldn't we also say that he recieved a 'gift' to endure hardship? The scriptures don't use this term (charisma) for Paul enduring hardship as far as I know, but it seems consistent with the way 'charisma' is used in some other passages.
Look up the words 'grace' and 'gift' in a concordance and do a little reading on the subject of spiritual gifts. There are plenty of resources where you could look this up. You imply that Judson had no gifts of the Spirit. I find it strange that anyone would argue that all charismata were gone, or that charsimata in the church were not from the Spirit. In Romans 12, Paul identifies gifts like leading, encouragement, and teaching. Do you believe that these gifts are gone?
**And so God did use him. His works has lasted for an eternity. The people of India have had the Word of God translated into several of their languages, without which many souls could never have been saved. Later missionaries would have had no way of reaching these people. *
I can appreciate what I know of Carey's work. I have read that some of the churches started through his ministry have multiplied exponentially since then, into numerous house churches.
But all of this is getting away from the original point. A Bible translator could also be a great evangelist. Carey could have benifited a lot from many other gifts that he didn't have. We can't prove these other gifts don't exist merely by pointed out that Carey didn't have them. The Bible doesn't teach that Carey or Judson would have all spiritual gifts available in their time period. It's just human reasoning to point to their lacking a gift as evidence tha the gift did not exist.
**God gave Carey a greater ABILITY. To translate the Bible into many different languages. BTW, Carey was a very humble man. He must have been a very good teacher. He established a college on his own, and through it prepared many students to go forth and preach the gospel to others. But his greatest work was in his translational work which gave the nation of India, the second largest in the world, the Bible, that others could have the opportunity to be saved. By that act alone he indirectly saved more people than time will ever tell.
Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.**
Would you say that Carey did all of these things by the strength of his own flesh, or would you agree with me that he problably had some 'charismata' operating in his life?
***"You have not because you ask not; you ask and receive not, because ye ask amiss that ye may consume it upon your lusts.
You are asking for things that are no longer in existence. You are asking amiss. You are asking contrary to the will of God. Tongues have ceased.***
I don't see any scriptural basis for your argument. Where does the Bible say that these gifts are no longer in existence? I tend to be afuturist in my reading of Revelation, and I see prophets in the end times. The idea that the gift of prophecy no longer exists doesn't line up with the word.
What we have int the Bible are commands to covet to prophecy and to be zealous of gifts that build up the body. We must obey the scriptures.
You don't have the authority to define 'asking amiss' contrary to scripture. James said that those who were asking amiss did so that they might consume it upon their lusts, as you have quoted. He doesn't say asking for spiritual gifts is always asking amiss. In fact, Paul encourages the Corinthians to pray to interpret tongues. He tells them to covet the best gifts, including prophecy. He is positive about the Corinthians being zealous of spiritual gifts, and wants them to be zealous of sspiritual gifts that build up the church. If someone's motivation for asking for spiritual gifts is to edify the body of Christ, that is a positive motivation.
It is possible to have wrong motivations in asking for gifts. Simon of Samaria wanted some supernatural abilities, probably to impress people and maintain his status. He offered Peter money, and was soundly rebuked. So it's possible for people to desire spiritual gifts for the wrong reasons. But to imply that people who desire spiritual gifts necessarily do so for the wrong reasons is not in line with scripture.
** What you pass off as tongues is a cheap imitation of the real thing, which Satan rejoices to see. It crosses all boundaries of all denominations, and even into heathen and world religions.***
I don't see any proof for your assertion, Biblical or otherwise. Speaking in foreign languages is common all over the world. I don't have a problem with the idea that demons could cause pagans to speak in foreign languages, or just babble. And I wouldn't say that every professing Christian who claimed to speak in tongues really was. I don't see how your assertions are any reason for me to give up Biblical teachings on tongues found in I Corinthians 14, and be opposed to the use of tongues and interpretations in church meetings. I'll stick with the Bible.
Btw, if some possibly unsaved people in the Bible gave true prophecies (Balaam, Caiaphas), then maybe some unsaved people can speak in genuine tongues.
***To do so you must give up doctrine that all may be one. Thus the Charismatic has no set doctrine. They are mutually inclusive believing every sleight of doctrine that comes along--baptism by immersion, baptism by pouring, baptism by sprinkling, or no baptism at all. It doesn't matter as long as you speak in tongues. Doctrine doesn't matter any more. It doesn't matter what God you worship any more as long as you speak in tongues. The Charsimatics have become all inclusive in their doctrine. They have to be. Speaking in tongues crosses over into all religions. Be a Catholic, be a protestant, a mormon-it doesn't matter any more as long as you speak in tongues.***
I'm sure you are making some valid points, but you are painting with a broad brush. This is really a straw man argument. I believe doctrine is important, and there are many churches where speaking in tongues is common that hold doctrine to be important.
I could make similar criticisms of a lot of evangelicals, including some Baptists, who think that baptism doesn't matter, and doctrine is not important, as long as your repeat a prayer that says to ask Jesus into your heart and uses the phrase 'Personal Savior' after a preacher. I would be more comfortable with a baptism-by-immersion church that doesn't have much speaking in tongues than with a paedo-sprinkling assembly that promotes speaking in tongues. So your broad brush paint strokes aren't applicable to me here. And they are a red herring. The issue is that the Bible teaches Christians to desire spiritual gifts, and lists the spiritual gifts God gives to the church. We need to believe what the Bible teaches.
**True Biblical tongues is God giving to Judson the gift of the Burmese language so that he would not have to learn the language. That is what tongues is. Have you not heard of "a mother tongue?" The word tongue means language. If he had the gift of tongues he would have been speaking in their language immediately. But he didn't. By hard arduous work he learned their language. Their was no spiritual gift of tongues available to him. Such gifts have ceased. You also read in in 1Cor.14 how some had the gift of tongues and the gift of interpretation. Judson obviously would have been understanding what he would have been speaking had he the gift of tongues. But he didn't have it. He learned the language.**
I'm familiar with the meanings of the word 'tongue.' That isn't the issue. Earlier, you expressed a belief that tongues were not understood by the speaker. Apparently you think that someone who could interpret could break down the languge into linguistic components, like a regular bi-lingual person. From talking to people who interpret tongues, I gather that they get the interpretation similar to a prophecy, without understanding what each word means. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to accept that. Now that I understand your theory on what interpretation is, I see where you are coming from. I can't prove either way what the gift of interpretion is like from scripture at the moment. I don't know if there is enough information in scripture to do so. I don't necessarily hold that everyone's gift will be exactly the same.
Be that as it may, the Judson argument is just human reasoning. God could give one person a miraculous ability to know a language and make a Bible translator work very hard. God doesn't always do things the way that seems the easiest and most logical to us. Paul didn't instantly translate Paul every place he went and make him disappear right before the whip fell. He could have had Paul multiply one piece of bread to last him the rest of his life, but Paul worked hard to feed himself and others. He let Paul work hard and suffer.
I've read about a monk named Pochomius or something like that who prayed for several hours and was granted the ability to understand certain languages he needed to know to be allowed into a certain ministry in his church. This was probably pre-Nicene. My memory is a bit fuzzy. I don't see this as a typical I Corinthians 14 gift. But, if this occurred, I don't see a problem with it just because I can't categorize it. It might not be the Biblical 'gift of tongues' but God is sovereign. (Maybe it would be a 'word of knowledge.')
***Study your Bible. There is a difference between grace and the gifts of the Spirit. No, Judson did not have any of the gifts of the Spirit. He displayed the fruits of the Spirit in his life.**
This is a bizaar point of view, imo. Romans 12 lists gifts like teaching and encouragement. Do you believe these have ceased to? Do you believe that the Holy Spirit does not have any connection with the operation of the gifts or the grace of Gdo?
** God gave him grace. He did not have any of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit.**
Supernatural is beyond natural. The things of the Spirit are supernature. If someone has a gift of teaching, encouragement, etc. from the Spirit, how can you say he has no supernatural gifts?
The Bible speaks of 'charismata.' People who hold to a world-view that makes it hard for them to deal with the idea of God doing something 'supernatural' divide the gifts up into categories and try to do away with the one's they put in the 'supernatural category.' This is not the way we should interpret the Bible. The Bible doesn't say the 'supernatural' gifts passed away, and the rest remained.
DHK wrote,
***We live in a day and age of grace. That is true. Paul said plainly, (quoting our Lord) "My grace is sufficient for you." Therefore did Paul glory in his infirmities and sicknesses. He had the grace of God (not spiritual gifts) to depend upon. You confuse grace with spiritual gifts. He did not exercise the spiritual gifts all the time, as is seen in 2Cor.12.***
First of all I did not say that charis and charisma are exactly the same, but that they are closely related. I think you may have too narrow of a definition of 'charisma' ("spiritual gift.") Spiritual gifts aren't always about doing spectacular supernatural feats. I Corinthians 7:7 indicates that getting married or not getting married are both charisma. The ability to endure not being married is a 'gift.' We can also describe it as having grace not to be married.
If Paul receives grace to endure hardship, couldn't we also say that he recieved a 'gift' to endure hardship? The scriptures don't use this term (charisma) for Paul enduring hardship as far as I know, but it seems consistent with the way 'charisma' is used in some other passages.
Look up the words 'grace' and 'gift' in a concordance and do a little reading on the subject of spiritual gifts. There are plenty of resources where you could look this up. You imply that Judson had no gifts of the Spirit. I find it strange that anyone would argue that all charismata were gone, or that charsimata in the church were not from the Spirit. In Romans 12, Paul identifies gifts like leading, encouragement, and teaching. Do you believe that these gifts are gone?
**And so God did use him. His works has lasted for an eternity. The people of India have had the Word of God translated into several of their languages, without which many souls could never have been saved. Later missionaries would have had no way of reaching these people. *
I can appreciate what I know of Carey's work. I have read that some of the churches started through his ministry have multiplied exponentially since then, into numerous house churches.
But all of this is getting away from the original point. A Bible translator could also be a great evangelist. Carey could have benifited a lot from many other gifts that he didn't have. We can't prove these other gifts don't exist merely by pointed out that Carey didn't have them. The Bible doesn't teach that Carey or Judson would have all spiritual gifts available in their time period. It's just human reasoning to point to their lacking a gift as evidence tha the gift did not exist.
**God gave Carey a greater ABILITY. To translate the Bible into many different languages. BTW, Carey was a very humble man. He must have been a very good teacher. He established a college on his own, and through it prepared many students to go forth and preach the gospel to others. But his greatest work was in his translational work which gave the nation of India, the second largest in the world, the Bible, that others could have the opportunity to be saved. By that act alone he indirectly saved more people than time will ever tell.
Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.**
Would you say that Carey did all of these things by the strength of his own flesh, or would you agree with me that he problably had some 'charismata' operating in his life?
***"You have not because you ask not; you ask and receive not, because ye ask amiss that ye may consume it upon your lusts.
You are asking for things that are no longer in existence. You are asking amiss. You are asking contrary to the will of God. Tongues have ceased.***
I don't see any scriptural basis for your argument. Where does the Bible say that these gifts are no longer in existence? I tend to be afuturist in my reading of Revelation, and I see prophets in the end times. The idea that the gift of prophecy no longer exists doesn't line up with the word.
What we have int the Bible are commands to covet to prophecy and to be zealous of gifts that build up the body. We must obey the scriptures.
You don't have the authority to define 'asking amiss' contrary to scripture. James said that those who were asking amiss did so that they might consume it upon their lusts, as you have quoted. He doesn't say asking for spiritual gifts is always asking amiss. In fact, Paul encourages the Corinthians to pray to interpret tongues. He tells them to covet the best gifts, including prophecy. He is positive about the Corinthians being zealous of spiritual gifts, and wants them to be zealous of sspiritual gifts that build up the church. If someone's motivation for asking for spiritual gifts is to edify the body of Christ, that is a positive motivation.
It is possible to have wrong motivations in asking for gifts. Simon of Samaria wanted some supernatural abilities, probably to impress people and maintain his status. He offered Peter money, and was soundly rebuked. So it's possible for people to desire spiritual gifts for the wrong reasons. But to imply that people who desire spiritual gifts necessarily do so for the wrong reasons is not in line with scripture.
** What you pass off as tongues is a cheap imitation of the real thing, which Satan rejoices to see. It crosses all boundaries of all denominations, and even into heathen and world religions.***
I don't see any proof for your assertion, Biblical or otherwise. Speaking in foreign languages is common all over the world. I don't have a problem with the idea that demons could cause pagans to speak in foreign languages, or just babble. And I wouldn't say that every professing Christian who claimed to speak in tongues really was. I don't see how your assertions are any reason for me to give up Biblical teachings on tongues found in I Corinthians 14, and be opposed to the use of tongues and interpretations in church meetings. I'll stick with the Bible.
Btw, if some possibly unsaved people in the Bible gave true prophecies (Balaam, Caiaphas), then maybe some unsaved people can speak in genuine tongues.
***To do so you must give up doctrine that all may be one. Thus the Charismatic has no set doctrine. They are mutually inclusive believing every sleight of doctrine that comes along--baptism by immersion, baptism by pouring, baptism by sprinkling, or no baptism at all. It doesn't matter as long as you speak in tongues. Doctrine doesn't matter any more. It doesn't matter what God you worship any more as long as you speak in tongues. The Charsimatics have become all inclusive in their doctrine. They have to be. Speaking in tongues crosses over into all religions. Be a Catholic, be a protestant, a mormon-it doesn't matter any more as long as you speak in tongues.***
I'm sure you are making some valid points, but you are painting with a broad brush. This is really a straw man argument. I believe doctrine is important, and there are many churches where speaking in tongues is common that hold doctrine to be important.
I could make similar criticisms of a lot of evangelicals, including some Baptists, who think that baptism doesn't matter, and doctrine is not important, as long as your repeat a prayer that says to ask Jesus into your heart and uses the phrase 'Personal Savior' after a preacher. I would be more comfortable with a baptism-by-immersion church that doesn't have much speaking in tongues than with a paedo-sprinkling assembly that promotes speaking in tongues. So your broad brush paint strokes aren't applicable to me here. And they are a red herring. The issue is that the Bible teaches Christians to desire spiritual gifts, and lists the spiritual gifts God gives to the church. We need to believe what the Bible teaches.
**True Biblical tongues is God giving to Judson the gift of the Burmese language so that he would not have to learn the language. That is what tongues is. Have you not heard of "a mother tongue?" The word tongue means language. If he had the gift of tongues he would have been speaking in their language immediately. But he didn't. By hard arduous work he learned their language. Their was no spiritual gift of tongues available to him. Such gifts have ceased. You also read in in 1Cor.14 how some had the gift of tongues and the gift of interpretation. Judson obviously would have been understanding what he would have been speaking had he the gift of tongues. But he didn't have it. He learned the language.**
I'm familiar with the meanings of the word 'tongue.' That isn't the issue. Earlier, you expressed a belief that tongues were not understood by the speaker. Apparently you think that someone who could interpret could break down the languge into linguistic components, like a regular bi-lingual person. From talking to people who interpret tongues, I gather that they get the interpretation similar to a prophecy, without understanding what each word means. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to accept that. Now that I understand your theory on what interpretation is, I see where you are coming from. I can't prove either way what the gift of interpretion is like from scripture at the moment. I don't know if there is enough information in scripture to do so. I don't necessarily hold that everyone's gift will be exactly the same.
Be that as it may, the Judson argument is just human reasoning. God could give one person a miraculous ability to know a language and make a Bible translator work very hard. God doesn't always do things the way that seems the easiest and most logical to us. Paul didn't instantly translate Paul every place he went and make him disappear right before the whip fell. He could have had Paul multiply one piece of bread to last him the rest of his life, but Paul worked hard to feed himself and others. He let Paul work hard and suffer.
I've read about a monk named Pochomius or something like that who prayed for several hours and was granted the ability to understand certain languages he needed to know to be allowed into a certain ministry in his church. This was probably pre-Nicene. My memory is a bit fuzzy. I don't see this as a typical I Corinthians 14 gift. But, if this occurred, I don't see a problem with it just because I can't categorize it. It might not be the Biblical 'gift of tongues' but God is sovereign. (Maybe it would be a 'word of knowledge.')
***Study your Bible. There is a difference between grace and the gifts of the Spirit. No, Judson did not have any of the gifts of the Spirit. He displayed the fruits of the Spirit in his life.**
This is a bizaar point of view, imo. Romans 12 lists gifts like teaching and encouragement. Do you believe these have ceased to? Do you believe that the Holy Spirit does not have any connection with the operation of the gifts or the grace of Gdo?
** God gave him grace. He did not have any of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit.**
Supernatural is beyond natural. The things of the Spirit are supernature. If someone has a gift of teaching, encouragement, etc. from the Spirit, how can you say he has no supernatural gifts?
The Bible speaks of 'charismata.' People who hold to a world-view that makes it hard for them to deal with the idea of God doing something 'supernatural' divide the gifts up into categories and try to do away with the one's they put in the 'supernatural category.' This is not the way we should interpret the Bible. The Bible doesn't say the 'supernatural' gifts passed away, and the rest remained.
Quote from Link answering what DHK said:
-------------------------------------------------
** What you pass off as tongues is a cheap imitation of the real thing, which Satan rejoices to see. It crosses all boundaries of all denominations, and even into heathen and world religions.***
I don't see any proof for your assertion, Biblical or otherwise. Speaking in foreign languages is common all over the world. I don't have a problem with the idea that demons could cause pagans to speak in foreign languages, or just babble. And I wouldn't say that every professing Christian who claimed to speak in tongues really was. I don't see how your assertions are any reason for me to give up Biblical teachings on tongues found in I Corinthians 14, and be opposed to the use of tongues and interpretations in church meetings. I'll stick with the Bible.
Btw, if some possibly unsaved people in the Bible gave true prophecies (Balaam, Caiaphas), then maybe some unsaved people can speak in genuine tongues
-------------------------------------------------
One more thing not mentioned is the fact that in
Gen.11:5-7....
~ 5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower (ie. Bable), which the children of men builded. 6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
.....if the Lord can confound the language wouldn't He make a way for all diffrent people/nations/languages to still hear His word? Would the above text be saying the Lord even created the diffrent languages?
Just a FYI here the Baptist missionay that also works for the bible translation press that prints bibles, (Its one of the big ones up north I think?) said that they still haven't got all the translations down yet? Could this be true? I also heard that the "Cluck cluck"(pronounced that way not sure if its spelled right) language has finally got a interpretation also. (Has anyone else heard this?) I would like to see one page to see how would it even be written.
Music4Him
-------------------------------------------------
** What you pass off as tongues is a cheap imitation of the real thing, which Satan rejoices to see. It crosses all boundaries of all denominations, and even into heathen and world religions.***
I don't see any proof for your assertion, Biblical or otherwise. Speaking in foreign languages is common all over the world. I don't have a problem with the idea that demons could cause pagans to speak in foreign languages, or just babble. And I wouldn't say that every professing Christian who claimed to speak in tongues really was. I don't see how your assertions are any reason for me to give up Biblical teachings on tongues found in I Corinthians 14, and be opposed to the use of tongues and interpretations in church meetings. I'll stick with the Bible.
Btw, if some possibly unsaved people in the Bible gave true prophecies (Balaam, Caiaphas), then maybe some unsaved people can speak in genuine tongues
-------------------------------------------------
One more thing not mentioned is the fact that in
Gen.11:5-7....
~ 5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower (ie. Bable), which the children of men builded. 6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
.....if the Lord can confound the language wouldn't He make a way for all diffrent people/nations/languages to still hear His word? Would the above text be saying the Lord even created the diffrent languages?
Just a FYI here the Baptist missionay that also works for the bible translation press that prints bibles, (Its one of the big ones up north I think?) said that they still haven't got all the translations down yet? Could this be true? I also heard that the "Cluck cluck"(pronounced that way not sure if its spelled right) language has finally got a interpretation also. (Has anyone else heard this?) I would like to see one page to see how would it even be written.
Music4Him
tamborine lady
Active Member
I have heard about that langauge before also Music.
(I thought it was pronounced"click click" but I could be wrong}
But I dare say that if some of us heard it without knowing what it was we would think it was gibberish!!
Praise the Lord!!
Tam
Tam, think for a minute what you are saying. So every time a person is speaking in Tongues and it sounds like repetitive gibberish, which is about every time, right. It is some language from a remote tribe that maybe no one has ever heard of before??? Why wouldn't just sometimes the language be Greek, or Spanish, Latin some obvious language. The problem is you have not accepted what I and DHK have said. The person speaking the language, in the true gift of tongues, knew what they were saying and in what language. It was a miracle and they just plain knew the language and therefore their mind was fruitful when they were speaking in the tongue. A fruitful mind is one of Paul's requirements with the gift of tongues. The gospel was shared with someone who did not speak the language. The interpreter then interpreted the language, as the message was being presented and then all were edified who were around. Any Jews present would then see the "sign" that was foretold in action. Anyhow, that is how Biblical tongues works and why you and M4H have to assume the tongues you speak and hear are some very rare mysterious languages. Please don't be offended by this post. It may sound heavy but it is intended with love and concern.
In Christ,
Brian
In Christ,
Brian
Charis is used 156 times in the Bible, 130 of which it is translated "grace." The other less frequent translations are: favor, thanks, thank, pleasure.
Charisma is only used 17 times in the Bible. 15 times it is translated gift, and twice it is translated "free gift." Nowhere is it directly translated "spiritual gift," neither is it referred to as such. Only the context determines whether "charisma" refers to spriritual gifts or not.
For example in 1Cor.7:7 when Paul uses the expression "proper gift of God," it in no way refers to a spiritual gift. It refers to an ability that Paul had that not everyone else had. He had the ability to remain single. He was advising the Corinthians that if they didn't have this ability to remain single then, by all means, marry. For it is better for you to be married then to be tempted to commit fornication. Please take the verse in its context to determine the meaning of the word. It simply means "gift." The context of 1Cor.12-14 (all three chapters), is a discussion of the abuse of the spiritual gifts. Again context is very important. This is the problem that Paul was discussing in these chapters, not marriage as he was in chapter 7.
Charisma does not mean spiritual gift. It simply means gift.
No, he received an ability, a talent if you will. This was not a supernatural spiritual gift as described in 1Cor.12.
As you can see, I have already done my homework on the subject. The spiritual gifts have ceased. They were miraculous in nature. They were supernatural gifts. They were not simply special abilities or talents. BTW, the word "charismata" is a made-up word, not found in the Bible.
One of the reasons that these men didn't have what you claim that they should have is that their ministries were in the 1800's (the 19th century). The modern tongues movement that you are familiar with didn't exist until the beginning of the 20th century. It is a cultish phenomena no known before the 20th century--an imitation of the real thing. Jabbering away in gibberish would have done no one any good at all. It would just create chaos and confusion among all. Yet that is pretty much all that is done in Charismatic circles today. There is no verifiable speaking in Biblical languages that I know of.
The Bible does teach that the gifts were not available, because they have ceased. They have no more purpose to function today. They weren't available to Carey or Judson. If they were, such Godly men as these certainly would have been aware of them. For you to sit back in your so-called theological arm chair and so criticize men who have hazarded their lives for Christ's sake, and accomplished so much, and then have the audacity to say: "Oh well they could have done so much more if they had asked for the spiritual gifts..."
I am aghast!He depended on the grace of God, as did Paul who said: "My grace is sufficient for you."
"I can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth me." (Phil.4:13). Spiritual gifts were not needed, neither available. They had ceased.
The canon of Scripture is complete, and therefore these gifts have ceased (1Cor.13:8-13)
Tongues was a sign to the unbelieving Jews of the first century (1Cor.14:21,22). This time has passed, and therefore the gifts also.
These gifts (signs and wonders) were specially used as signs to authenticate the apostles and their message to be of God. This also is no longer needed as we now have the complete Word of God.
DHK
Every command must be taken in its context. Some of these commands were written to first century Christians. The Spiritual gifts were for first century Christians.
Asking amiss is asking God for an experience just to have an experience that you don't need. You think that you need an experience to make you feel more holy. That is pure carnality.
Asking for gifts that don't exist is asking amiss.
What does the Bible say about this?
"An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign."
Here is what I believe will happen with much of the Charismatic movement:
Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Which group of people today, who call themselves Christian, invoking Christ's name as Lord, and claim to prophesy in His name, cast out demons, and do other many works (signs) such as speaking in tongues? It sounds all too familiar doesn't it? The Charismatic movement fits this description exactly.
Biblical tongues were real and genuine languages unknown to the speaker, but known to the hearer. Modern day tongues is gibberish unknown to all. There is no evidence that your tongues or anyone else's today is Biblical. Go verse by verse through 1Cor.14, and I will guarantee you that you cannot keep all the restrictions that Paul imposes upon the speaking in tongues. For that reason alone I know that it is not Biblical.
And God used a donkey too. Your point is??
Or perhaps your point is that because Hindus and Voodoo worshippers speak in tongues then that makes it of God??
You don't quite understand this issue? By associating youself with the Charismatic movement you associate yourself and are agreeing with every conceivable doctrine known to mankind--from the denial of the deity of Christ and the trinity, to baptismal regeneration, to the veneration of Mary, to adherence to the Book of Mormon, etc. You now condone all these doctrines because of your association with the Charismatic movement.
Your criticisms are invalid. I belong to an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church. It is not part of any denomination, association, etc. We are completley independent. To assert any such accusation against us you would have to know our membership and level accusation only agains our membership, which BTW, is very small. You cannot include the testimonies of other Baptist evangelists, etc. with us because we do not associate with them. But you are part of the Charismatic movement by your very association with them. Therein lies the difference.
And if you read the biography of Judson you find out that Judson worked hard and suffered as few men ever have. There was nothing miraculous about what he did, except that he had the grace to endure and survive what he did. I suggest that you read his biography before you comment more.
The Bible does not speak of charismata. There is no such word in the Bible. The Bible speaks of spiritual gifts which are addressed in 1Cor.12-14. Those are the gifts which I am addressing. These are the gifts which have passed away.
God giving grace or strength to a person is completely different than a supernatural spiritual gift. You obviously don't understand the meaning of supernatural.
I leave you with a challenge.
Find for me a man or woman who has the gift of healing such as the Apostles had it and perhaps you can convince me that the gifts are for today. This will be your test case.
Show me a person that can go to a hospital and heal all that are in the hospital, or gather a crowd of people and ALL that come to him will be healed. REAL healings such as broken arms, legs, etc.
DHK
Brian wrote,
**Tam, think for a minute what you are saying. So every time a person is speaking in Tongues and it sounds like repetitive gibberish, which is about every time, right. It is some language from a remote tribe that maybe no one has ever heard of before??? Why wouldn't just sometimes the language be Greek, or Spanish, Latin some obvious language.**
I don't know why God doesn't always give people Spanish or some language like that. Apparently the Corinthians were getting languages the others didn't know, and needed the gift of interpretation to be able to interpret.
As far as gibberish is concerned, my bachelors is in linguistics, so I pay attention this, too. I would supect some speaking in tongues is counterfeit, especially considering some of the ways I've seen people try to get others to speak in tongues. I know one church here in Indonesia where it seems like everyone says 'badabadabada' or 'bababa'-doing it all at the same time, too. In that association of churches, I've also heard 'si laba-laba laba-laba" which means 'spider spider' in their own language. to say the least, i'm skeptical of these 'tongues.' If I am skeptical of the tongues of this group, that doesn't mean I'm going to throw the Bible out with the bathwater. The Bible teaches a true gift of tongues, and I believe it.
Some who have examined certain utterances in tongues find them to be repetetive utterances of phonements from the speaker's own language. tat, in itself, doesn't meant he tongues aren't real languages (a strong accent could explain this.) I've heard a lot of tongues that don't sound like languages to me. I studied several languages in college, and learned a fair amount about phonemics, morphology and other aspects of linguistics in college. I remember going to a small-town church several years ago, where a man gave a message in tongues and there was an interpretation. After having studied linguistics and several languages, this utterance to me sounded like a real language, with foreign phonemes, etc. There was an interpretation given as well.
I'd like the opportunity to hear a message in tongues in Indoensian sometime, now that I speak that language. I don't know if the Lord would ever grant that opportunity. I've read a number of accounts of people who heard a language they knew spoken in tongues, so it does happen sometimes.
*** The problem is you have not accepted what I and DHK have said. The person speaking the language, in the true gift of tongues, knew what they were saying and in what language. It was a miracle and they just plain knew the language and therefore their mind was fruitful when they were speaking in the tongue. A fruitful mind is one of Paul's requirements with the gift of tongues.****
Please explain where you get this from. Paul said if he prayed in the Spirit, his mind was not fruitful. In the next verse, Paul says that he will pray with his spirit, and his his understanding also. this _ might _ be describing tongues and interpretations. If this is the case, it argues against the idea that the interpreter consciously understood the tongue.
*** The gospel was shared with someone who did not speak the language. The interpreter then interpreted the language, as the message was being presented and then all were edified who were around. Any Jews present would then see the "sign" that was foretold in action.**
I think you are making assumptions here that aren't from the text. The 'sign' to unbelievers was that they would hear tongues and not believe it. the tongues are the sign of their unbelief. As I see it, in context, the 'sign' to the unbeliever is a fulfilled prophecy in Isaiah. fulfilled prophecies can be signs to. what is the fulfillment of the prophecy? That they would hear tongues and not believe. This interpretation fits with Paul's aplication of the verse in the exmaple of the unbeliever saying 'ye are mad' if hears tongues.
**Tam, think for a minute what you are saying. So every time a person is speaking in Tongues and it sounds like repetitive gibberish, which is about every time, right. It is some language from a remote tribe that maybe no one has ever heard of before??? Why wouldn't just sometimes the language be Greek, or Spanish, Latin some obvious language.**
I don't know why God doesn't always give people Spanish or some language like that. Apparently the Corinthians were getting languages the others didn't know, and needed the gift of interpretation to be able to interpret.
As far as gibberish is concerned, my bachelors is in linguistics, so I pay attention this, too. I would supect some speaking in tongues is counterfeit, especially considering some of the ways I've seen people try to get others to speak in tongues. I know one church here in Indonesia where it seems like everyone says 'badabadabada' or 'bababa'-doing it all at the same time, too. In that association of churches, I've also heard 'si laba-laba laba-laba" which means 'spider spider' in their own language. to say the least, i'm skeptical of these 'tongues.' If I am skeptical of the tongues of this group, that doesn't mean I'm going to throw the Bible out with the bathwater. The Bible teaches a true gift of tongues, and I believe it.
Some who have examined certain utterances in tongues find them to be repetetive utterances of phonements from the speaker's own language. tat, in itself, doesn't meant he tongues aren't real languages (a strong accent could explain this.) I've heard a lot of tongues that don't sound like languages to me. I studied several languages in college, and learned a fair amount about phonemics, morphology and other aspects of linguistics in college. I remember going to a small-town church several years ago, where a man gave a message in tongues and there was an interpretation. After having studied linguistics and several languages, this utterance to me sounded like a real language, with foreign phonemes, etc. There was an interpretation given as well.
I'd like the opportunity to hear a message in tongues in Indoensian sometime, now that I speak that language. I don't know if the Lord would ever grant that opportunity. I've read a number of accounts of people who heard a language they knew spoken in tongues, so it does happen sometimes.
*** The problem is you have not accepted what I and DHK have said. The person speaking the language, in the true gift of tongues, knew what they were saying and in what language. It was a miracle and they just plain knew the language and therefore their mind was fruitful when they were speaking in the tongue. A fruitful mind is one of Paul's requirements with the gift of tongues.****
Please explain where you get this from. Paul said if he prayed in the Spirit, his mind was not fruitful. In the next verse, Paul says that he will pray with his spirit, and his his understanding also. this _ might _ be describing tongues and interpretations. If this is the case, it argues against the idea that the interpreter consciously understood the tongue.
*** The gospel was shared with someone who did not speak the language. The interpreter then interpreted the language, as the message was being presented and then all were edified who were around. Any Jews present would then see the "sign" that was foretold in action.**
I think you are making assumptions here that aren't from the text. The 'sign' to unbelievers was that they would hear tongues and not believe it. the tongues are the sign of their unbelief. As I see it, in context, the 'sign' to the unbeliever is a fulfilled prophecy in Isaiah. fulfilled prophecies can be signs to. what is the fulfillment of the prophecy? That they would hear tongues and not believe. This interpretation fits with Paul's aplication of the verse in the exmaple of the unbeliever saying 'ye are mad' if hears tongues.
DHK wrote about the command to desire spiritual gifts,
**Every command must be taken in its context. Some of these commands were written to first century Christians. The Spiritual gifts were for first century Christians. **
What we have to go on is the Bible. The Bible does NOT say that spiritual gifts were for the first century Christians only.
It is easy, with no Biblical basis whatsoever, to categorize a command as only applying to someone else. For example, I encoutnered an extreme dispensationalist who believed that water baptism was only for early Jewish Christians and was not for the Gentile church age. One could argue that the command not to commit fornication was only for the first century Gentile Christians, or that the command to love one another was only for the 12 apostles and whatever Christians were in the churches to whom epistles were written.
That would be convient wouldn't it? We could argue our way out of having to keep any commands by arguing that the commands were only for groups that excluded ourselves. "Oh that command was only for the Corinthians. That command ws only for the Philippians." But if we really read the Bible, we see that what applies to the church, applies to the church. There is a universal element to these epistles. The scriptures are PROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE, for the whole church, not just for the church in a particular time period.
Paul hints that the commandments of the Lord for church meetings are universal, and not just for the Corinthians. He says things like 'as in all the churches of the saints..'
consider these statements from I Corinthians 14:
36. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37. If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
The implication is that the word didn't start with the Corinthians, and they weren't the only ones who had received it. So they didn't have the authority to change the universal, God-ordained way of conducting church meetings. These commands tell the prophets to speak two or three, and tell people how to speak in tongues in church meetings.
So what should I believe, your assertion that the commands about gifts are not applicable, or the commands of scripture?
***Asking amiss is asking God for an experience just to have an experience that you don't need. You think that you need an experience to make you feel more holy. That is pure carnality. ****
I doubt that is what James had in mind when he wrote that verse. In I Corinthians 14, Paul tells the Corinthians to desire gifts that edify the church. That is a good motivation to ask for gifts. If someone asks gifts just to impress people or to feel superior, of course that is not the right motivation. But if someone asks for gifts for the wrong reason, that doesn't mean that there are no gifts.
*******
Asking for gifts that don't exist is asking amiss.
What does the Bible say about this?
"An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign."
******
James verse about 'asking amiss' has to do with asking with the wrong motivation, not asking for something that doesn't exist. Since God has all power and can do anything, I don't see why a Christian would say that miracles, etc. 'don't exist'- especially since there are so many examples of them in the Bible.
The key issue here is that the Bible does NOT teach that miracles, healing, tongues, prophecy, etc. "don't exist." Instead, we see prophets right at the end in the book of Revelation. We see the Two Witnesses prophesying.
You quote,
"An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign."
Jesus said that an evil and adulterous generation sought a sign. But He did NOT say that anyone who asks for a sign is evil or adutlerous. If this is how you interpret it, then you are committing a logical fallacy.
The apostles prayed for God to do signs and wonders, but not because they had adulterous hearts, but they desired them to occur for Christ's sake. And God answered their prayer. Clearly they were not those who 'ask and recieve not because ye ask amiss.'
*********
Here is what I believe will happen with much of the Charismatic movement:
Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
*********
I don't see where the Bible teaches that God casts movements into hell. The verse is talking about people, and I wouldn't doubt that there are a lot of people who call themselves 'Charismatic' who will hear this on the day of judgment. But notice that Jesus' problem with them is NOT that they did miracles. If doing miracles made one wicked, or claiming to do so, what would we conclude about the apostle Paul, who did miracles, and told others about them.
Jesus problem with these people is that they do iniquity, not that they do miracles or claim to do them. On the day of judgment, I would not want to be handcuffed to someone who did miracles but lived a disobedient life, but neither would I want to be handcuffed to someone who was an independant Baptists cessationist who lived the same way.
** Go verse by verse through 1Cor.14, and I will guarantee you that you cannot keep all the restrictions that Paul imposes upon the speaking in tongues. For that reason alone I know that it is not Biblical. **
I used to be able to quote the KJV I Corinthians 14 (and the rest of the book) back in my teen Bible quiz days, so I am very familiar with the passage. I've read it many times, and I don't know of any restriction on it that I do not keep.
It doesn't make sense though, for you to conclude that tongues themselves are not Biblical because you see some people who don't obey certain scriptural commands about tongues. The Corinthians had genuine tongues but they weren't using them right! This shows us that a genuine gift can be used in a disorderly manner; this fact is implied all throughotu the chapter. Why do you think the chapter was written in the first place?
******And God used a donkey too. Your point is??
Or perhaps your point is that because Hindus and Voodoo worshippers speak in tongues then that makes it of God??*******
I also said in my post that I don't see why demons couldn't speakthrough people in foreign languages. I have read of people-groups prepared for the Gospel by their 'holy men' prophesying about coming missionaries. actually, I think people-group like this in the 1800's was evangelized by some Swedish Baptists.
***You don't quite understand this issue? By associating youself with the Charismatic movement you associate yourself and are agreeing with every conceivable doctrine known to mankind--from the denial of the deity of Christ and the trinity, to baptismal regeneration, to the veneration of Mary, to adherence to the Book of Mormon, etc. You now condone all these doctrines because of your association with the Charismatic movement. **
Who is associating who? I don't see where I have associated myself with the 'charismatic movement.' I associated myself with the Bible, which teaches that the Spirit gives gifts to his church. _ You _ are the one doing the labeling here. Here, you can have your labels back.
I notice you say you go to an Independant Fundamentalist Baptist church. I heard about a Fundamentalist preacher- he may have been Baptist, possibly independant- who beat some kids and got in trouble with the authorities for it a year or two ago. It was in the news, so maybe you heard about it. Sinjce you use the term 'Fundamentalist' and 'Baptist' to describe yourself, does that mean that you are responsible for beating kids? I knew a lot of people who called themsleves 'Baptists' back in Georgia who got drunk sometimes. Does that mean you are associated with drunkenness?
I knew a guy who called himself a Fundamentalist who had an employee working 24 hours guarding some property, but was only paying him regular full-time wages. So are you associated with not paying fair wages? Also, some Pentecostals call themselves Fundamentalists, so you must be associated with any error found in this movement. One FUndamentalist I met believed you had to be baptized to be saved. Mormons say they go to 'church' so you must be associated with Mormons, too.
You see the problem here? It's called 'guilt by association.'
The Bible says that the Spirit gives gifts like healing, miracles, speaking in tongues, and I believe that. Because of this, you associate me with rejection of the deity of Christ and the trinity, baptismal regeneration, etc.
What am ? Am I a believer in Jesus Christ. Those who are Christ's are my brothers and sisters, whether they wear labels like 'Charismatic' or 'Fundamentalists' or not. Paul warned against people labelling themselves by their favorite leader when he wrote to the Corinthians. Our identity is found in Christ, not in labels people put on us. We need to be careful about separating from brethren who don't wear man-made labels we come up with.
You wrote,
**Your criticisms are invalid. I belong to an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church. It is not part of any denomination, association, etc. We are completley independent. To assert any such accusation against us you would have to know our membership and level accusation only agains our membership, which BTW, is very small.**
My criticism were meant to be invalid. That was the point. It isn't fair to associate you with the sin of someone who calls himself a 'Baptist' becasue you use that label to describe yourself. No more than it would be fair for you to assciate me with some bizaar teaching of the Charismatic movement _ if _ I had identified myself as a 'Charismatic.' If you say you hold to a pre-trib position, that doesn't mean that you 'are associated with' every error that has been put forth by anyone who has ever held to a pre-trib position. This is guilt by association.
Another problem is using labels to refer to 'those Christians but not us' or 'us but not other brethren' in Christ in an exclusive way. I don't have a problem with someone describing their beliefs a certain way, just to describe theri beliefs. But if labels become a tool for creating the kind of division the Bible warns against, then they are a problem.
**You cannot include the testimonies of other Baptist evangelists, etc. with us because we do not associate with them. But you are part of the Charismatic movement by your very association with them. Therein lies the difference.**
I don't see the difference here. 'Charismatic' is a ver broad label used to describe a wide vareity of church movements that have a particular doctrine in common. Pre-trib, Post-trib, and amillenealist are used in the same way, to identify someone's position on _one_ particular aspect of their belief. "Fundamentalist" is also used to describe certain beliefs. It doesn't mean all Fudnamentalists believe the same or are in some kind of church organization together. Charismatics are not all in one denomination. The word 'charismatic' is used to refer to those who believe in the gifts of the Spirit for today. Paul was a 'charismatic' in this sense because he taught the gifts were given by the Spirit. Plus he even spoke in tongues. But we are talking about theological labels men came up with, not our spiritual identity according to the Bible.
Furthermore, you are the one who 'associated' me with other people. If I tried to associate you with every nutty idea held by someone who claims to be a Fundamentalist, then you wouldn't appreciate it. So show me the same curteousy you want me to show you.
**And if you read the biography of Judson you find out that Judson worked hard and suffered as few men ever have. There was nothing miraculous about what he did, except that he had the grace to endure and survive what he did. I suggest that you read his biography before you comment more. **
I've never read a whole book on Judson. But that's beside the point. The point is that you said the man had no gifts of the Spirit. The New Testament uses the word 'charisma' to refer to a wide vareity of gifts that don't apear miraculous. Some translators put the word 'spiritual' in front of the word gift in certain places, but that doesn't have much to do with the meaning of the word 'charisma.'
**The Bible does not speak of charismata. There is no such word in the Bible.**
The Bible does refer to 'charisma' using the gramatical form 'charismata.' Look at the following references.
Romans 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
Romans 11:29 Ametameleeta gar ta charismata kai hee kleesis tou Theou.
Romans 12:6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
Romans 12:6 Echontes de charismata kata teen charin teen dotheisan heemin diafora, eite profeeteian kata teen analogian tees pisteoos,
1 Corinthians 12:9 heteroo pistis en too autoo Pneumati, alloo de charismata iamatoon en too heni Pneumati,
1 Corinthians 12:9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
1 Corinthians 12:28 Kai hous men etheto ho Theos en tee ekkleesia prooton apostolous, deuteron profeetas, triton didaskalous, epeita dunameis, epeita charismata iamatoon, antileempseis, kuberneeseis, genee gloossoon.
1 Corinthians 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
1 Corinthians 12:30 Mee pantes charismata echousin iamatoon? Mee pantes gloossais lalousin? Mee pantes diermeeneuousin?
1 Corinthians 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.
1 Corinthians 12:31 Zeeloute de ta charismata ta meizona. Kai eti kath huperboleen hodon humin deiknumi.
>> The Bible speaks of spiritual gifts which are addressed in 1Cor.12-14. Those are the gifts which I am addressing. These are the gifts which have passed away. God giving grace or strength to a person is completely different than a supernatural spiritual gift.<<
The Bible uses 'charismata' to describe I Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 gifts.
In I Corinthians 12:2 "pneumatikoon" is translated in the KJV as 'spiritual gifts.' But the gifts listed later in the chapter fall into the 'charismata' category, as do the gifts in Romans 12.
**I leave you with a challenge.
Find for me a man or woman who has the gift of healing such as the Apostles had it and perhaps you can convince me that the gifts are for today.**
First, I've seen some of the gifts in operation, and have known people who were healed, but I don'thave a miracle worker in my back pocket I can mail you.
You apparently have a copy o the Bible. Reading that should be enough for you to believe. Why are you asking to see this? By your own definition, are you asking amiss? Can you imagine how the apostle Peter would have responded to you if you made this request?
**Show me a person that can go to a hospital and heal all that are in the hospital, or gather a crowd of people and ALL that come to him will be healed. REAL healings such as broken arms, legs, etc. **
Even Jesus didn't always do that. He healed one man by the pool of Bethesda. paul healed one man out of a crowd of Gentile listeners among the Lyaconians.
**Every command must be taken in its context. Some of these commands were written to first century Christians. The Spiritual gifts were for first century Christians. **
What we have to go on is the Bible. The Bible does NOT say that spiritual gifts were for the first century Christians only.
It is easy, with no Biblical basis whatsoever, to categorize a command as only applying to someone else. For example, I encoutnered an extreme dispensationalist who believed that water baptism was only for early Jewish Christians and was not for the Gentile church age. One could argue that the command not to commit fornication was only for the first century Gentile Christians, or that the command to love one another was only for the 12 apostles and whatever Christians were in the churches to whom epistles were written.
That would be convient wouldn't it? We could argue our way out of having to keep any commands by arguing that the commands were only for groups that excluded ourselves. "Oh that command was only for the Corinthians. That command ws only for the Philippians." But if we really read the Bible, we see that what applies to the church, applies to the church. There is a universal element to these epistles. The scriptures are PROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE, for the whole church, not just for the church in a particular time period.
Paul hints that the commandments of the Lord for church meetings are universal, and not just for the Corinthians. He says things like 'as in all the churches of the saints..'
consider these statements from I Corinthians 14:
36. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37. If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
The implication is that the word didn't start with the Corinthians, and they weren't the only ones who had received it. So they didn't have the authority to change the universal, God-ordained way of conducting church meetings. These commands tell the prophets to speak two or three, and tell people how to speak in tongues in church meetings.
So what should I believe, your assertion that the commands about gifts are not applicable, or the commands of scripture?
***Asking amiss is asking God for an experience just to have an experience that you don't need. You think that you need an experience to make you feel more holy. That is pure carnality. ****
I doubt that is what James had in mind when he wrote that verse. In I Corinthians 14, Paul tells the Corinthians to desire gifts that edify the church. That is a good motivation to ask for gifts. If someone asks gifts just to impress people or to feel superior, of course that is not the right motivation. But if someone asks for gifts for the wrong reason, that doesn't mean that there are no gifts.
*******
Asking for gifts that don't exist is asking amiss.
What does the Bible say about this?
"An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign."
******
James verse about 'asking amiss' has to do with asking with the wrong motivation, not asking for something that doesn't exist. Since God has all power and can do anything, I don't see why a Christian would say that miracles, etc. 'don't exist'- especially since there are so many examples of them in the Bible.
The key issue here is that the Bible does NOT teach that miracles, healing, tongues, prophecy, etc. "don't exist." Instead, we see prophets right at the end in the book of Revelation. We see the Two Witnesses prophesying.
You quote,
"An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign."
Jesus said that an evil and adulterous generation sought a sign. But He did NOT say that anyone who asks for a sign is evil or adutlerous. If this is how you interpret it, then you are committing a logical fallacy.
The apostles prayed for God to do signs and wonders, but not because they had adulterous hearts, but they desired them to occur for Christ's sake. And God answered their prayer. Clearly they were not those who 'ask and recieve not because ye ask amiss.'
*********
Here is what I believe will happen with much of the Charismatic movement:
Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
*********
I don't see where the Bible teaches that God casts movements into hell. The verse is talking about people, and I wouldn't doubt that there are a lot of people who call themselves 'Charismatic' who will hear this on the day of judgment. But notice that Jesus' problem with them is NOT that they did miracles. If doing miracles made one wicked, or claiming to do so, what would we conclude about the apostle Paul, who did miracles, and told others about them.
Jesus problem with these people is that they do iniquity, not that they do miracles or claim to do them. On the day of judgment, I would not want to be handcuffed to someone who did miracles but lived a disobedient life, but neither would I want to be handcuffed to someone who was an independant Baptists cessationist who lived the same way.
** Go verse by verse through 1Cor.14, and I will guarantee you that you cannot keep all the restrictions that Paul imposes upon the speaking in tongues. For that reason alone I know that it is not Biblical. **
I used to be able to quote the KJV I Corinthians 14 (and the rest of the book) back in my teen Bible quiz days, so I am very familiar with the passage. I've read it many times, and I don't know of any restriction on it that I do not keep.
It doesn't make sense though, for you to conclude that tongues themselves are not Biblical because you see some people who don't obey certain scriptural commands about tongues. The Corinthians had genuine tongues but they weren't using them right! This shows us that a genuine gift can be used in a disorderly manner; this fact is implied all throughotu the chapter. Why do you think the chapter was written in the first place?
******And God used a donkey too. Your point is??
Or perhaps your point is that because Hindus and Voodoo worshippers speak in tongues then that makes it of God??*******
I also said in my post that I don't see why demons couldn't speakthrough people in foreign languages. I have read of people-groups prepared for the Gospel by their 'holy men' prophesying about coming missionaries. actually, I think people-group like this in the 1800's was evangelized by some Swedish Baptists.
***You don't quite understand this issue? By associating youself with the Charismatic movement you associate yourself and are agreeing with every conceivable doctrine known to mankind--from the denial of the deity of Christ and the trinity, to baptismal regeneration, to the veneration of Mary, to adherence to the Book of Mormon, etc. You now condone all these doctrines because of your association with the Charismatic movement. **
Who is associating who? I don't see where I have associated myself with the 'charismatic movement.' I associated myself with the Bible, which teaches that the Spirit gives gifts to his church. _ You _ are the one doing the labeling here. Here, you can have your labels back.
I notice you say you go to an Independant Fundamentalist Baptist church. I heard about a Fundamentalist preacher- he may have been Baptist, possibly independant- who beat some kids and got in trouble with the authorities for it a year or two ago. It was in the news, so maybe you heard about it. Sinjce you use the term 'Fundamentalist' and 'Baptist' to describe yourself, does that mean that you are responsible for beating kids? I knew a lot of people who called themsleves 'Baptists' back in Georgia who got drunk sometimes. Does that mean you are associated with drunkenness?
I knew a guy who called himself a Fundamentalist who had an employee working 24 hours guarding some property, but was only paying him regular full-time wages. So are you associated with not paying fair wages? Also, some Pentecostals call themselves Fundamentalists, so you must be associated with any error found in this movement. One FUndamentalist I met believed you had to be baptized to be saved. Mormons say they go to 'church' so you must be associated with Mormons, too.
You see the problem here? It's called 'guilt by association.'
The Bible says that the Spirit gives gifts like healing, miracles, speaking in tongues, and I believe that. Because of this, you associate me with rejection of the deity of Christ and the trinity, baptismal regeneration, etc.
What am ? Am I a believer in Jesus Christ. Those who are Christ's are my brothers and sisters, whether they wear labels like 'Charismatic' or 'Fundamentalists' or not. Paul warned against people labelling themselves by their favorite leader when he wrote to the Corinthians. Our identity is found in Christ, not in labels people put on us. We need to be careful about separating from brethren who don't wear man-made labels we come up with.
You wrote,
**Your criticisms are invalid. I belong to an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church. It is not part of any denomination, association, etc. We are completley independent. To assert any such accusation against us you would have to know our membership and level accusation only agains our membership, which BTW, is very small.**
My criticism were meant to be invalid. That was the point. It isn't fair to associate you with the sin of someone who calls himself a 'Baptist' becasue you use that label to describe yourself. No more than it would be fair for you to assciate me with some bizaar teaching of the Charismatic movement _ if _ I had identified myself as a 'Charismatic.' If you say you hold to a pre-trib position, that doesn't mean that you 'are associated with' every error that has been put forth by anyone who has ever held to a pre-trib position. This is guilt by association.
Another problem is using labels to refer to 'those Christians but not us' or 'us but not other brethren' in Christ in an exclusive way. I don't have a problem with someone describing their beliefs a certain way, just to describe theri beliefs. But if labels become a tool for creating the kind of division the Bible warns against, then they are a problem.
**You cannot include the testimonies of other Baptist evangelists, etc. with us because we do not associate with them. But you are part of the Charismatic movement by your very association with them. Therein lies the difference.**
I don't see the difference here. 'Charismatic' is a ver broad label used to describe a wide vareity of church movements that have a particular doctrine in common. Pre-trib, Post-trib, and amillenealist are used in the same way, to identify someone's position on _one_ particular aspect of their belief. "Fundamentalist" is also used to describe certain beliefs. It doesn't mean all Fudnamentalists believe the same or are in some kind of church organization together. Charismatics are not all in one denomination. The word 'charismatic' is used to refer to those who believe in the gifts of the Spirit for today. Paul was a 'charismatic' in this sense because he taught the gifts were given by the Spirit. Plus he even spoke in tongues. But we are talking about theological labels men came up with, not our spiritual identity according to the Bible.
Furthermore, you are the one who 'associated' me with other people. If I tried to associate you with every nutty idea held by someone who claims to be a Fundamentalist, then you wouldn't appreciate it. So show me the same curteousy you want me to show you.
**And if you read the biography of Judson you find out that Judson worked hard and suffered as few men ever have. There was nothing miraculous about what he did, except that he had the grace to endure and survive what he did. I suggest that you read his biography before you comment more. **
I've never read a whole book on Judson. But that's beside the point. The point is that you said the man had no gifts of the Spirit. The New Testament uses the word 'charisma' to refer to a wide vareity of gifts that don't apear miraculous. Some translators put the word 'spiritual' in front of the word gift in certain places, but that doesn't have much to do with the meaning of the word 'charisma.'
**The Bible does not speak of charismata. There is no such word in the Bible.**
The Bible does refer to 'charisma' using the gramatical form 'charismata.' Look at the following references.
Romans 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
Romans 11:29 Ametameleeta gar ta charismata kai hee kleesis tou Theou.
Romans 12:6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
Romans 12:6 Echontes de charismata kata teen charin teen dotheisan heemin diafora, eite profeeteian kata teen analogian tees pisteoos,
1 Corinthians 12:9 heteroo pistis en too autoo Pneumati, alloo de charismata iamatoon en too heni Pneumati,
1 Corinthians 12:9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
1 Corinthians 12:28 Kai hous men etheto ho Theos en tee ekkleesia prooton apostolous, deuteron profeetas, triton didaskalous, epeita dunameis, epeita charismata iamatoon, antileempseis, kuberneeseis, genee gloossoon.
1 Corinthians 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
1 Corinthians 12:30 Mee pantes charismata echousin iamatoon? Mee pantes gloossais lalousin? Mee pantes diermeeneuousin?
1 Corinthians 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.
1 Corinthians 12:31 Zeeloute de ta charismata ta meizona. Kai eti kath huperboleen hodon humin deiknumi.
>> The Bible speaks of spiritual gifts which are addressed in 1Cor.12-14. Those are the gifts which I am addressing. These are the gifts which have passed away. God giving grace or strength to a person is completely different than a supernatural spiritual gift.<<
The Bible uses 'charismata' to describe I Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 gifts.
In I Corinthians 12:2 "pneumatikoon" is translated in the KJV as 'spiritual gifts.' But the gifts listed later in the chapter fall into the 'charismata' category, as do the gifts in Romans 12.
**I leave you with a challenge.
Find for me a man or woman who has the gift of healing such as the Apostles had it and perhaps you can convince me that the gifts are for today.**
First, I've seen some of the gifts in operation, and have known people who were healed, but I don'thave a miracle worker in my back pocket I can mail you.
You apparently have a copy o the Bible. Reading that should be enough for you to believe. Why are you asking to see this? By your own definition, are you asking amiss? Can you imagine how the apostle Peter would have responded to you if you made this request?
**Show me a person that can go to a hospital and heal all that are in the hospital, or gather a crowd of people and ALL that come to him will be healed. REAL healings such as broken arms, legs, etc. **
Even Jesus didn't always do that. He healed one man by the pool of Bethesda. paul healed one man out of a crowd of Gentile listeners among the Lyaconians.
Hi Link, Thanks for your post. Here is the scripture I referrenced when speaking of Paul saying "fruitful" was a tongue requirement.
[14] For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
[15] What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
[16] Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
[17] For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
Paul is saying in 14 that the unknown tongue is gibberish. You have to remember that Paul is rebuking the Corinthians here for the mis-use of Tongues. This is not a positive chapter, it is a stirn rebuke. Read the verses in that context and you see things in a different light. Paul by spirit is just saying inside himself. He is saying that if he is just making noises that he may have some sense of prayer but it worthless because his mind is unfruitful, i.e. he has no understanding, which leads to verse 15 saying as much. Paul is saying if he is going to pray or sing it will be with understanding because that is when it has value. That menas it is in a language he understands or knows what he is saying. You must have understanding yourself and in your audience for everyone to be edified and so have the prayer or song even (apparently people were singing in tongues) bear fruit. That is why Paul uses the illustration of not being able to say Amen. A message or prayer out loud is useless to a group that does not understand what is being said because they can't even say Amen (let it be so). It is fruitless and so that is what interpreters are for when the real gift was exercised. Interpreters made the rest of the group understand what the speaker said. A tongue speaker woulfd only speak in a different language if someone of that language was present at the assembly. Everyone can be edified in this way which is another "gift" requirement.
Link, DHK and I split in that I believe that only Healing, Miracles, tongues, and Interpretation gifts are gone. I believe service gifts remain, as well as preaching, teaching, etc...
All for now, In Christ,
Brian
[14] For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
[15] What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
[16] Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
[17] For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
Paul is saying in 14 that the unknown tongue is gibberish. You have to remember that Paul is rebuking the Corinthians here for the mis-use of Tongues. This is not a positive chapter, it is a stirn rebuke. Read the verses in that context and you see things in a different light. Paul by spirit is just saying inside himself. He is saying that if he is just making noises that he may have some sense of prayer but it worthless because his mind is unfruitful, i.e. he has no understanding, which leads to verse 15 saying as much. Paul is saying if he is going to pray or sing it will be with understanding because that is when it has value. That menas it is in a language he understands or knows what he is saying. You must have understanding yourself and in your audience for everyone to be edified and so have the prayer or song even (apparently people were singing in tongues) bear fruit. That is why Paul uses the illustration of not being able to say Amen. A message or prayer out loud is useless to a group that does not understand what is being said because they can't even say Amen (let it be so). It is fruitless and so that is what interpreters are for when the real gift was exercised. Interpreters made the rest of the group understand what the speaker said. A tongue speaker woulfd only speak in a different language if someone of that language was present at the assembly. Everyone can be edified in this way which is another "gift" requirement.
Link, DHK and I split in that I believe that only Healing, Miracles, tongues, and Interpretation gifts are gone. I believe service gifts remain, as well as preaching, teaching, etc...
All for now, In Christ,
Brian
Link, please do not be offended but you are missing the most important point. Spiritual Gifts are never for self-edification and so you would NEVER pray in the spirit, in a launguage you did not understand, because not only your mind would be unfruitful but because you need to edify the "body" with your gift (1 cor. 12:7). When Paul says earlier in Chap 14 that when you speak in an unknown tongue you edify yourself, that is a negative statement. He is saying it is wrong to do that. People edify themselves or think they are rather, and that is wrong because gifts are for the edification of the "body" not the individual. Hope that clears up my position. Have a great day!
In Christ,
Brian
In Christ,
Brian
Quote from Link's "June 03, 2004 12:36 AM" post
-------------------------------------------------
*********
Here is what I believe will happen with much of the Charismatic movement:
Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
*********
I don't see where the Bible teaches that God casts movements into hell. The verse is talking about people, and I wouldn't doubt that there are a lot of people who call themselves 'Charismatic' who will hear this on the day of judgment. But notice that Jesus' problem with them is NOT that they did miracles. If doing miracles made one wicked, or claiming to do so, what would we conclude about the apostle Paul, who did miracles, and told others about them.
Jesus problem with these people is that they do iniquity, not that they do miracles or claim to do them. On the day of judgment, I would not want to be handcuffed to someone who did miracles but lived a disobedient life, but neither would I want to be handcuffed to someone who was an independant Baptists cessationist who lived the same way.
--------------------------------------------------
In the above scripture reference when Jesus said, I never knew you, depart from me..... I was reminded me of the seven sons of Sceva. The demons knew who Jesus was, but the men useing the name of Jesus to cast the demons out didn't know Jesus and even the demons in the man knew those men didn't know Jesus.
Acts 19:13-16 ~ Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. 14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. 15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? 16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.
Now in 2 Thessalonians 2:7-12 ~
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Looking at verse 10 in the above scripture ask yourself this...what are these false teachers/prophets/people lacking?
I would get a little wary if I seen someone doing signs and wonders and not preaching the gospel of Jesus and the salvation He offers. Just like those guys in Acts tring to cast out them demons...they knew the Name that is above every other name, but they didn't know Him. The only way anyone will know Him is if they learn of Him, Read the bible, pray and seek Him, and acknowledge Him and ask Jesus to be your Lord and Savior. Seems to me that all the other "things" (gifts) will fall into place when it is in His will for you.
With that said here one more scripture that should be self exsplainitory(sp?)....
1 John 4:1-6 ~
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
.....put them through the test.
Music4Him
-------------------------------------------------
*********
Here is what I believe will happen with much of the Charismatic movement:
Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
*********
I don't see where the Bible teaches that God casts movements into hell. The verse is talking about people, and I wouldn't doubt that there are a lot of people who call themselves 'Charismatic' who will hear this on the day of judgment. But notice that Jesus' problem with them is NOT that they did miracles. If doing miracles made one wicked, or claiming to do so, what would we conclude about the apostle Paul, who did miracles, and told others about them.
Jesus problem with these people is that they do iniquity, not that they do miracles or claim to do them. On the day of judgment, I would not want to be handcuffed to someone who did miracles but lived a disobedient life, but neither would I want to be handcuffed to someone who was an independant Baptists cessationist who lived the same way.
--------------------------------------------------
In the above scripture reference when Jesus said, I never knew you, depart from me..... I was reminded me of the seven sons of Sceva. The demons knew who Jesus was, but the men useing the name of Jesus to cast the demons out didn't know Jesus and even the demons in the man knew those men didn't know Jesus.
Acts 19:13-16 ~ Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. 14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. 15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? 16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.
Now in 2 Thessalonians 2:7-12 ~
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Looking at verse 10 in the above scripture ask yourself this...what are these false teachers/prophets/people lacking?
I would get a little wary if I seen someone doing signs and wonders and not preaching the gospel of Jesus and the salvation He offers. Just like those guys in Acts tring to cast out them demons...they knew the Name that is above every other name, but they didn't know Him. The only way anyone will know Him is if they learn of Him, Read the bible, pray and seek Him, and acknowledge Him and ask Jesus to be your Lord and Savior. Seems to me that all the other "things" (gifts) will fall into place when it is in His will for you.
With that said here one more scripture that should be self exsplainitory(sp?)....
1 John 4:1-6 ~
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
.....put them through the test.
Music4Him
tamborine lady
Active Member
Link said
Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
There are going to be a lot of people, not just charesmatics, who are going to hear this phrase from Jesus!!
2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. I think denying the Lord that bought them, not only means not believing on Jesus, but denying some of the works He does and attributing them to the devil, even if you acknowledge Him as Savior.
FALSE teachers for one are going to hear it!!
So we have to be careful who we listen to. Jesus said Matt. 24-22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. and that is because even the elect can be deceived if they listen to the false prophets and teachers long enough.
Jesus also said His sheep know His voice!!
Who belongs to the voice YOU hear???
By the way, this is not aimed at any particular person, it's just to get us to check out the Word, and BE SURE that the voice we hear IS Jesus!!
Working for Jesus,
Tam
tamborine lady
Active Member
Well I messed up a little.I opened with Link said
Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. And then just went on with my own thing.
There should have been one of these lines between what he said and what I said.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like that!!
Anyway Link, thanks for posting here. It is like breath of fresh air on a subject that never seems to get resolved.
welcome
Tam,
"Ditto" Tam! I could read Link's posts all day long.Originally posted by tamborine lady:
Anyway Link, thanks for posting here. It is like breath of fresh air on a subject that never seems to get resolved.
welcome
Tam,
He has brought out some very interesting Biblical points. MEE
