Have Supernatural Gifts Ceased?? (Gavin versus Apollos) commentary [Archive]

John Powell

April 2nd 2003, 05:29 PM

POWELL:
This includes special comments to Michaelto20 and AcousticJS.

I'm going to post from two different perspectives, so please understand this and direct your comments, if any, accordingly. I will defend the Mormon point of view as JOHN MORMON. JM will defend what were my beliefs when I was still a believing Mormon. I will defend my current strong atheism as JOHN ATHEIST.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

JOHN MORMON:
The available good evidence supports Gavin.

Prophets exist today in the Mormon church.

People have come back from near-death experiences. People have survived events that should have killed them. This can happen when they worthily wear their temple garments.

Although there were tongues during the days of Joseph Smith similar to those of the times of the New Testament, that spiritual power is usually reserved to people who speak in existing tongues and express their message far more clearly than one might expect from their language training, such as foreign-speaking missionaries. Joseph Smith taught that to speak in unknown tongues doesn't do much good for anyone unless someone can interprete the words.

When people pay their tithing then they receive both spiritual and physical blessings. Sometimes money will come from unexpected places if you trust the Lord to take care of you and pay your tithing as He commands.

There may not be people walking on water or moving mountains, but there are sufficient gifts of the spirit for our day.

Amos 3:7 (KJV):
7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

JOHN MORMON:
This means that if God is going to do anything important for those of us on Earth then He will reveal it to His prophets. That means we need prophets today.

Does your church have prophets who do what the prophets of old do, namely receive revelations from God, new knowledge about God, new prophecies, new scriptures, instructions on what we should do about our modern problems?

If not, then maybe you're in the wrong church.

Now, I'd like to respond to some comments in the arena related to Mormonism.

Michaelto20:
The question is this then: are we in the latent period where God's Spirit is not being poured out or are we in the last days, or are we still in the same age as the author and so the gifts of the Spirit are still with us today?

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons believe there was a significant decrease in the gifts of the Spirit during the Apostacy after the deaths of the apostles in the Old world and the Prophet Moroni in the New World until the First Vision of Joseph Smith. There were no prophets, no new scriptures, but the Spirit was operating on people like Luther and others to protest the abuses of Catholicism, Columbus to discover America, the Founding Fathers to frame the US Constitution and such things.

Since the restoration of the Gospel through Joseph Smith, we are now living in the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times preparatory to the glorious Second Coming of Jesus Christ to rule the Earth during the Millennium.

AcousticJS:
Nice first post Gavin. Apollos, I'm not so keen on you calling Christians of the charismatic/pentecostal persuasion 'Spiritualists' and seemingly lumping them in with JWs, Mormons and other cultic groups that deny the deity of the Lord Jesus and the existence of the Trinity (as outlined by Scripture).

POWELL:
Mormons do NOT deny the deity of the Lord Jesus, they deny that Jesus is His own Father and that He is both inferior to the God that He is (i.e., the Father) yet equal with the God that He is (i.e., the Son) and such things, as you apparently believe. We believe that the Law of Non-Contradiction applies even to God. Why don't you? I am willing to defend the claim that My Mormon-based concept of God is more logical and more Biblical than your Trinitarian view. AVMETRO and I are in the process negotiating just such a debate.

I claim that Jesus is a god (namely an exalted man) and a God (namely a supreme being over our planet), a member of the Godhead that is presided over by His spiritual and physical father, Elohim. The Godhead or presidency of Gods also includes a separate God named the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost.

AcousticJS:
The charismatic network I am part of (Salt & Light Ministries) places a high value upon the Scriptures, as does other networks like New Frontiers International, Ground Level, Vineyard, PDI, Calvary Chapel and so on. We are not anti-Scripture! Unlike mormons, JWs and so on, we hold that if any direction or revelation from the Holy Spirit contradicts Scripture, it is not from God since God cannot lie.

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons are NOT anti-scripture. Unlike inerrantists, however, we realize that those writing and preserving the Bible were fallible human beings even when they were being inspired by God, so they made mistakes. Furthermore, we realize that the Bible does not necessarily mean what a modern theologian might interpret the Bible to mean.

The Bible has errors in it. It is not absolutely reliable. Nor are the typically uninspired Christian readers. That's one of the reasons we need modern revelation, modern prophets, to give us more scripture and a modern point of view to understand God's will for us today.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

JOHN ATHEIST:
Let me interject here that I believe that Joseph Smith and those who helped him develop Mormonism tried hard to justifiably base all their important teachings on the Bible. For example, prophets giving new scriptures existed in the past so they could, perhaps even should exist today. Polygamy existed in the past so it could, perhaps even should exist today. Temples existed in the past so they could, perhaps even should exist today. Baptisms for the dead existed in the New Testament Church so they could, perhaps even should exist today. And so it goes.

Joseph Smith claimed that if he taught anything that wasn't in the Bible then those early members were not bound to follow it. Modern Mormons, however, don't feel so much attachment to just the Bible. They tend to rely more on other things like the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, Temple endowment, conference talks, and such things to decide what to do in their theological lives, but they do come back to the Bible, especially when discussing theology with other non-Mormon Christians.

Mormons probably don't respect or rely on the Bible as much as non-Mormon Christians do, but they do have a lot of respect and do rely a lot on the Bible.

By the way, a Christian should be defined as someone who believes that the Jesus of the Bible is God or a god. A Christian should not be restricted to only those who hold to the beliefs of your particular sect of Christianity and certain others whose Christology is close enough to yours that you'll allow them also to have that "honored" name.

Messianic Jews believe that Jesus was the Messiah, but not deity. They don't want to be considered Christians. Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet, but not deity. They don't want to be considered Christians. Some people think Jesus was a great teacher, but not deity. Generally, they don't want to be considered Christians.

Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, believe that Jesus was a "god," a significantly lesser being than Jehovah. JW's want to be called Christians (I think). Mormons believe that Jesus is a God, a member of the Godhead, and was the God who created the Earth under the direction of God, the Father. I know they want to be considered Christians.

Now, comments about the debate:

The available good evidence supports Apollos.

There are no reliably confirmed cases of "spiritual gifts" evident in the modern era. There are people claiming such powers, but it is my understanding that every time competent magicians / scientists investigate these claims they turn out to have a likely naturalistic explanation.

Experts like the magician turned supernatural debunker, James Randi, have investigated many such claims. Randi has offered something like a million dollars to anyone who can perform their supernatural ability under the conditions that Randi's experts would design to prevent "cheating," but would allow for the power if, in fact, it really existed.

Several miracle workers have attempted to fool Randi's group, but in each case tested so far the trick was discovered. Others have cancelled the tests during negotiations, presumably because they realized their trick wouldn't work under those tight requirements.

If true miracle workers existed who could use the money then why don't they come forward? Is it possible that they really don't have the special powers they claim?

As a personal example, recently a Baptist member in another forum claimed that God existed and the proof was that a deacon of his church had a cancerous tumor miraculously removed by their church prayer. However, I noticed that when he described things as they were happening to those in another forum, he described the thing as a dark spot on his lung x-ray or something like that. He did not claim the doctors called it cancer in that other forum. To us skeptics later on, however, he claimed that the doctors called it a miracle reversal of cancer that could only be accounted for by God's benevolence or something like that. He gave me the names of his pastor and others who participated in the prayer, but he was unwilling or unable to give me the names of those doctors.

Was the deacon's cancer cured by God responding to their prayer? Possibly, but I seriously doubt it. I think it's more likely that either it wasn't cancer in the first place or if it was cancer then it went into remission independent of the prayers. It would help resolve this miracle claim if I could speak with the doctors who allegedly made those non-scientific statements.

This cancer event might be added to the Baptist list of spiritual gifts still existent today despite the fact that it might not have been spiritual at all.

The good evidence suggests that there are no people resurrecting from the dead today. There are no people walking on water. There are no talking snakes or asses. There are no cases of multiplication of bread and fishes or oil. There are no exorcisms. No windows in the firmament open when tithing is paid. There are no reliable prophecies. There are no spiritual beings responding to religious incantation (prayer). And, so forth.

All such modern claims appear to be the work of the self-deluded or the charlatans. These "miracles" all appear to be coincidences, misinterpretations, or deceptions.

Perhaps there were miracles during Biblical times (I seriously doubt it), but there do not seem to be any more.

Bring forth good evidence for current spiritual gifts, Gavin, and then maybe you'll have an argument that might persuade a strong skeptic such as myself. Perhaps Apollos will ask that of you.

John Powell
A former believer in Mormonism.
Now an athe-ist or strong atheist.

George Blaisdell

April 5th 2003, 12:55 PM

JP writes: "Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, believe that Jesus was a "god," a significantly lesser being than Jehovah. JW's want to be called Christians (I think)."

They do want to be called Christians...

The defining question that I have found for them is, when they say that they believe in Jesus Christ: "Do you worship Christ?"

Yes and No are both really clear answers, and define one's Christian or non-Christian existence... And their answer is No...

JP then writes: " The good evidence suggests that there ... are no exorcisms.... no spiritual beings responding to prayer..."

All I can say is you obviously were not at my baptism!

Spiritual beings respond to prayers - demons [also spiritual] to exorcisms [also prayers] - The ancient Church has been exorcising demons [in the prayers of exorcism that begin each baptism] and receiving God's grace in Her prayers for two thousand years now...

Yet you are right - The spiritual is discerned spiritually, and the material by anyone with a modicum of worldly mental health... So that the magician of debunkery of religious shams will blow off the 'Christian' sham artists...

Yet were he to enter the ancient faith, he would experience and know what he now only can materially disprove of sham-Christianity... The wonder-working of God in the human soul in Christ...

The world will pass away...

geo

Rusty T

April 5th 2003, 08:58 PM

I disagree with Powell. As the debate is focused on what is the scriptural evidence for cessation of spiritural gifts. I believe Gavin has done an excellent job. The focus of the debate is not to convince skeptics like John Powell and me.

rusty

Bill S

April 5th 2003, 09:43 PM

Rubia Warren

April 5th 2003, 10:47 PM

Gavin, you are a jive wonda', baby!!
You're doing a great job.

AcousticJS

April 9th 2003, 05:36 AM

Apollos

It's an interesting idea you have that the "spiritual" parts of the Christian walk is reserved for Heaven with absolutely no foreshadowing of that in terms of experience in this present life. The charismatic viewpoint is that it is precisely because the spiritual gifts are imperfect foretastes of the "powers of the coming age" (Hebrews 6) that they will cease when Jesus returns and ushers in the fullness of His Kingdom. To say otherwise seems, to me, to put the cart before the horse - we won't need spiritual gifts in that state of perfection 'cos we will be in the state of maturity that Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 13.

Succinctly put, the word was revealed, the word was confirmed, and the word was believed!

So then as SGs had such a purpose to reveal & confirm the word of God, nothing would be lost if they were to cease, provided all revelation has been received. If their purpose was fulfilled, the need/use of SGs is past!

You make the mistake of assuming that every time Scripture uses the term 'word of God', it is referring to itself. In fact, at least in the Acts references you quote, the context seems to suggest that that 'word of God' is the gospel being proclaimed. As such, miracles were confirming the contemporary preaching of the gospel, which I would suggest is still a valid use for them today.

I'm guessing that by quoting John 20:30-31, you are hoping to pre-emptively answer the kind of argument I have outlined above. However, these verses do not discount the need for the miraculous confirming of the gospel now, anymore than they did when Philip was preaching after Christ's ascension.

Blessings in Christ
Jon

Robyn Banks

April 12th 2003, 08:40 AM

Were the Charismatic Gifts only given to authenticate the new scripture being given?

One of the reasons given for the cessation of charismatic gifts is that the only reason they were given was to vouch for the authenticity of the New Testament, which was being written at the same time. Therefore, once the canon of scripture had closed, charismatic gifts also ceased.

Against this view:

1 Miracles performed in New Testament times may have had the effect of showing that scripture was authentic. But scripture itself (the New Testament) does not itself state that this was a purpose of the miracles being performed. As the bible provides no clear answer, this argument involves speculation as to the motives behind the miracles being performed

2 The argument that miracles are limited to the time of the writing of scripture is only valid if “authenticating scripture” is the only reason for the miracles. If other reasons exist and continue to exist today, miracles and miraculous gifts are not necessarily limited to New Testament times. If more reasons exist, more miracles could validly be expected today. And other reasons do exist for charismatic gifts.

a It is more accurate to say that miracles authenticated the preaching of the gospel, and therefore only indirectly authenticated the giving of new scripture. For example - both Philip and Stephen used miracles to preach the gospel, but neither wrote any words of scripture (Acts 8:6-8; Acts 6:8). Miracles provided a “sign” that the word being preached was
true. As we are still called to preach the gospel today, then following the biblical example, our preaching should be accompanied by miracles at appropriate times.
b Miracles were also used to show that the kingdom of God had come (Matt 12:28; 10:7-8).
c An obvious purpose for miracles is to help those in need. The mercy and compassion of Jesus is made evident by His healings of the sick (Matt 20:30,34; Matt 14;14). As long as sick people need healing, miraculous healings will be available to those whom God wishes to heal (James 5:14-16).
d Miracles were performed to help Christian evangelism. Epaphroditus was restored to health by God, and then went on to serve the Philippian church (Phil 2:25-30). The usefulness of this purpose of miracles continues in our evangelism, today.
e Miracles were performed in the New Testament in order to bring glory to God (John 9:3). Needless to say, this purpose still exists today

Authentication of scripture may or may not be a purpose of charismatic gifts. But if it is, it is evidently wrong to say that “the sole purpose of these charismatic gifts, as manifested in the New Testament, was to authenticate the scripture being written”. Therefore, it is wrong to say that “miraculous gifts ceased when their only purpose (to authenticate scripture) had ceased”. Other purposes still exist for miracles today, especially the purpose of the preaching of the gospel.

3 Although the first century is remarkable for the volume of Christian miracles (Acts 15:12-16), miraculous works are recorded at a high rate for the first four centuries, and (of course) are recorded in every century since then. Yet scripture ceased in the first century. So, (unless we deny the existence of every miracle performed through a Christian since the first century as being from God, or unless we deny the completion of scripture) other reasons than the authentication of scripture must exist for those miracles. Therefore, those same other reasons may exist for the miracles performed in the New Testament period. Again we can conclude that miraculous gifts were not given merely to verify scripture.

4 It has been argued that miracles, as recorded in the bible, occurred in three brief time periods:
1 the time of Moses/Joshua;
2 the time of Elijah/Elisha;
3 the time of Christ/apostles.
The purpose of each era of miracles is argued to be the introduction of new revelation of scripture from God. Therefore, the three time periods correspond to the following three main areas of scripture:
1 Pentateuch - The Law;
2 the prophets;
3 the New Testament.
As scripture is complete, and miracles only occur at the writing of scripture, no more miracles should be expected today.

Against this view:
a The three periods are not so clear-cut as made out. Presuming that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch, the miracles in Egypt and in the desert do correspond to the writing of the Law. However, the books of the prophets were written over a period of several centuries. Any miracles which occurred in that period would certainly not be viewed as a cohesive whole. Furthermore, it is unclear as to whether some of the latter prophets actually performed miracles as signs of their inspiration. There is not the necessary link between signs and scripture. And what of the poetic books? If miracles are to go hand in hand with scripture, then the poetic books should be cut out of the bible as being uninspired. The prophet / miracle stage in the argument is at best debatable. But the argument completely fails to consider the inspiration of the poetic books.
b Other purposes provide better reasoning for the existence of miracles. At the time of Moses, the establishing of Israel in the Holy Land seems to be the primary reason for God’s intervention in natural laws. Jesus’s power over nature primarily displays His deity. And as discussed above, the miracles of the early church were performed primarily to spread the gospel.
c When the argument is closely examined, we have the coincidence of the Law being written at the time God established Israel in the Holy Land. Prophets were given to Israel over a long period of her history, and sometimes were accompanied by miraculous signs. The poetic books were written in the absence of any sign-miracles. Then the coming of Jesus, the Son of God, was accompanied by miraculous events. When the New Testament came to be written there was no pattern that suggested miracles always accompanied scripture.
d What the argument overlooks, in trying to explain miracles in the early church in terms of the alleged pattern between miracles and scripture, is the fundamental difference of the Church Age to all ages before. If any pattern did exist which restricted miracles to the time when scripture was being written (and such a pattern is at best tenuous, as shown above), the change which came about when Christ’s church was established was enough to break the pattern. Beforehand the Spirit of God only rested upon certain people, at selected times. In this Church Age, the Holy Spirit can potentially be poured out on all people (Acts 2:16-21), and His power to produce miracles and bestow charismatic gifts is freely available. Therefore, miracles and charismatic gifts should be explained in a whole new light, separate from their occurrences in the Old Testament.

Conclusion:

Miraculous works indirectly served the purpose of proving that the new writings were from God. However, as shown above, this was not the sole, or even the major purpose of the miracles. The bible does not even state that miracles served this purpose at all. Therefore, the above argument that charismatic gifts ceased with the giving of scripture is quite invalid.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

Robyn Banks

April 12th 2003, 08:47 AM

Were the Charismatic Gifts, such as prophecy and knowledge, only made available for guidance while Christians didn’t have the full revelation of scripture?

Another argument for the cessation of charismatic gifts is that the miraculous gifts were only given while scripture was incomplete, so as to give the full revelation as later provided by scripture to the early Christians.

Against this view:

1 This argument only deals with, and only purports to deal with revelatory gifts. Other charismatic gifts such as healing, exorcism and tongues are not explained by this argument.

2 To the extent that this argument purports to deal with revelatory gifts, it is again speculative, and not supported by scripture. To say that the complete canon replaced prophecy, we must first make one important assumption. That assumption is that prophecy had no more to offer to the church once scripture was completed. In other words, we must assume that the gift of prophecy was redundant in its purpose to provide edification to the church when the word of God had been fully revealed. However, prophecy by its nature is different from scripture, and offers more than what scripture reveals.

3 It has been argued that the continued use of prophecy in the church denies the “sufficiency of scripture”. By people uttering revelations, it is objected that they are “adding to the words of scripture”. This must be wrong, it is argued, because the bible is complete. Against this view:

a This argument assumes wrongly that words of a prophecy have the same authority as scripture. Only if this is true can prophecies add to the words of scripture. But prophecies, according to the New Testament, have less authority than scripture, and must be tested against scripture to see if they are true and correct:

i (1 Cor 14:29-31) “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that we may learn and all be encouraged.”
(1 Thes 5:20-21) “Do not despise prophecy, but test everything, hold on to what is good”.
Prophesies are tested because they are not equivalent to words of scripture.

ii Paul asked these same people at Corinth, “Did the word of God come forth from you?” (1 Cor 14:36), implying the answer, no. Therefore, prophesy is something less than the word of God.

iii Paul disobeyed prophecy. Acts 21:4 says “Through the Spirit they told Paul not to go on to Jerusalem”. Paul would never have disobeyed this prophecy if it contained God’s very words.

b This argument may also assume that because scripture is complete, all revelation from God to man has also ceased. As prophecy is a form of revelation, it is argued that it must therefore have ceased. But revelation is broader than scripture, and the bible states that it has not ceased.

i Revelation includes God’s revelation in reaching out in grace to a sinner. Without God’s revelation, we would never have sought God. “No one knows the Father, except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Mat 11:27). Therefore a revelation still occurs every time a sinner is saved.

ii God reveals things to Christians as well.
-Sin in a Christian’s life:
“If in anything you are otherwise minded, God will reveal that also to you” (Phil 3:15).
-Deeper understanding of the Christian faith:
Paul prayed that God “may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him” (Eph 1:17).
-Teaching:
“The Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26).
-Guidance:
“When the Spirit of truth comes he will guide you in all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you” (John 16:13-14).
-Reassurance:
“The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children” (Rom 8:16).
-Closer knowledge of God:
“I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious
Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better” (Eph 1:17).

Revelation and prophecy do not result in new words of scripture being added to the bible. They exist as separate and different from scripture.

4 Forgetting about the word “prophecy” for now, and all of its connotations, we know that the bible teaches that we must follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We know that we must obey his promptings. And we speak of listening to His voice. These things are fundamentally true to the Christian walk. What if we were to tell others about these personal revelations in our lives? Would the words used to express these encounters suddenly be unbiblical and adding to scripture? Is a person to be stopped from giving their personal testimony on becoming a Christian, and from relating God’s working in their life, because it denies the sufficiency of scripture? Surely not!

5 Much of the bias against prophecy comes from a misunderstanding of the concept of the “sufficiency of scripture”. The phrase has been taken to mean:

a Scripture tells us God’s will, so we should let no subjective factors guide us in decisions.
-A legalistic approach, which ignores the role of the Holy Spirit in a believer’s life.

b Scripture reveals God’s word, so there can be no more revelation -rebutted above in (3)

c The canon is closed, so no more words can be added to Scripture
-This explanation is correct, but begs the question: what is the canon, and why is it sufficient?

d Scripture now contains all the words of God He intends His people to have in the church age. Therefore, it must contain all we need to know for salvation, right doctrine and knowing his will. Therefore, we are not to add to the moral or doctrinal commands of scripture.
-This interpretation recognises that the bible does not tell us everything which it is possible to reveal. Scripture may be sufficient, but it is not sufficient to explain the theory of thermo-nuclear physics. And it need not be. In any given situation, God is certainly able to reveal more. Therefore, God is able to bring to our mind some new information, while preserving the sufficiency of scripture.

Conclusion:

There is no biblical reason why edification provided by God’s gift of prophecy should not continue after the completion of the scripture, just as it provided edification before.

Robyn Banks

April 12th 2003, 08:53 AM

Were the Charismatic Gifts only given to the Apostles, and those whom the Apostles gave the gift to?

This argument comprises two variations:
1 Charismatic gifts were limited to the Apostles;
2 Charismatic gifts were limited to those whom the Apostles appointed. The Apostles, it is argued, were either closely associated with those who possessed charismatic gifts, or had laid their hands on them.

Against the view that charismatic gifts were only given to the Apostles:

1 Miracles and miraculous gifts were a part of the ordinary function of the church. In many parts in the New Testament, miraculous or charismatic gifts are listed as being available for ordinary members of the church.

a “Working of miracles” is a gift to the church in 1 Corinthians 12:10.

b Other miraculous gifts are mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 as belonging to the Corinthian church.

c God “worked miracles in the churches of Galatia” (Gal 3:5).

d The Ephesians had prophetic vision (Eph 4:11).

e The Thessalonians had prophetic vision, also (Thes 5:20).

f Philip’s daughters regularly prophesied in the church (Acts 21:9).

g The churches in Asia Minor possessed all of the gifts of the Spirit (1 Peter 4:10).

h The laying on of hands was considered an “elementary teaching “ in the letter to the Hebrews (Heb 6:1-5).

2 There are examples of non-apostles working miracles in the New Testament: (inter alia)

a Stephen (Acts 6:8)
b Philip (Acts 8:6-7)
c Ananias (Acts 9:17-18; 22:13)

3 Apostles are indeed distinguished from “workers of miracles” and “healers” in 1 Corinthians 12:28. “Apostles” takes the wider meaning than the twelve Apostles, but the term still includes the twelve. Therefore, there were those who had charismatic gifts who were not Apostles. This is conclusive evidence that apostles were not the sole possessors of miraculous gifts.

4 Mark 16:17,18 shows the range of miracles that the early church was involved in: casting out demons, speaking in tongues, picking up serpents and drinking poisons with no effect, and healing the sick. This passage, while not scripture, was widely accepted in the post-apostolic Early Church as correct practice for every Christian.

5 2 Corinthians 12:12 states that “the signs of a true apostle were performed among you in all patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works”. It has been argued from this verse that the miracles were given to show the unique authority of the Apostles. Therefore, the argument follows, others did not have the authority to work miracles. This is an incorrect interpretation, because:

a The points outlined above, in (1) to (4) show the availability of the charismatic gifts to the whole church.
b The “signs of a true apostle” do not necessarily refer to miraculous works, as traditionalists would argue. “Signs” (semeion) instead refer to something which distinguishes a person or thing from others. It refers primarily in this passage to the qualities of Paul’s life, character, and results of his ministry. Chapters 10-13, in which this verse appears, is a defence by Paul of his Apostolic authority. He mentions his care for welfare of the churches, his true knowledge of Jesus and the gospel, his suffering, his visit to heaven, and his spiritual power to fight evil. He argues that miracles can be performed by either an Apostle or a false prophet, but these qualities clearly distinguish him as a servant of God.

c The grammar of the sentence requires that the “signs of the apostle” are necessarily something other than miracles. The signs were performed with miracles (“signs and wonders and mighty works”). The signs, therefore, were not themselves miracles.

d The signs were performed in patience. It would not make sense to say that a miracle was performed in patience. But his ministry, suffering and selflessness were performed exactly like that.

e The traditionalist argument fails to consider the context of the passage. Paul is trying to prove that he is a true representative of Christ and not a false prophet. He is not trying to distinguish an Apostle from other Christians.

6 Hebrews 2:3 states that the gospel was “attested to us by those who heard him, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit”. It has been argued that miracles are therefore only performed by those who heard Jesus.

a But this is not what the passage says. The gospel was confirmed by miracles when it was preached by those who had heard Jesus. This says nothing about whether it would be confirmed by miracles when preached by those who did not hear Jesus.

b If you limit miracles to those who heard him, then on the reading of the passage, you must also limit the gifts of the Holy Spirit to those who heard him. This would be completely contrary to the New Testament.

Against the view that charismatic gifts were limited to those whom the Apostles appointed:

1 This is a hard viewpoint to argue against, because the New Testament primarily contains the story of the Apostles and those closely associated with them. So almost all biblically recorded charismatic works were performed either by the apostles or those closely associated with them. Using the same reasoning as contained in the viewpoint above, one could say:

“In the New Testament churches were only founded by the apostles or their close associates, therefore we should not found churches today”;
or
“In the New Testament missionary work in other countries was only done by the apostles or their close associates, therefore we should not do missionary work in other countries today”.

This does not prove the argument wrong, but shows what a speculative argument it is. The argument wrongly assumes that the working of miracles is by the fact of them being worked by Apostles and their close associates, limited to Apostles and their close associates. There is no foundation for this assumption. Other considerations can prove this argument to be wrong.

2 As shown in the first part above, charismatic gifts were given (potentially) to the whole church. Not every Christian in the church was personally appointed by, or even personally knew an apostle. As more people became Christians in the churches, they too were able to exercise the charismatic gifts available in the Holy Spirit. They didn’t require a special appointing from an apostle to do so. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, while he was absent from them, and noted that they were not lacking in any spiritual gift (1 Cor 1:7). This presumably included new Christians added to the number in the church after Paul had left them.

3 That being so, it may be argued that new Christians who exercised charismatic gifts had to have hands laid on them by a person who had previously had hands laid on them by an apostle.
However, this line of reasoning takes us dangerously close to the Roman Catholic doctrine that the blessings of the Holy Spirit must be mediated through a specially ordained member of the church - an idea completely contrary to the message of the gospel in the New Testament. If you are required to receive the spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit from a person who was appointed by a person who was appointed by a person who was appointed by... (originally) an Apostle, then we can only receive spiritual gifts through the established church. This argument (that charismatic gifts must be received from an apostle, or someone ordained by an apostle), when fully developed, is shown to be absurd. However, more important than its absurdity is the fact that it denies the direct working of God in a believer’s life through his or her faith - which is central to the gospel in the New Testament.

Conclusion:

The bible clearly show that charismatic gifts are not limited to the Apostles. The related argument that charismatic gifts are limited to Apostles and their close associates is not based on any idea in scripture, and is opposed to what the New Testament teaches. Therefore, these arguments are invalid.

So far we have shown that there is no valid argument from scripture limiting charismatic gifts to the period of the early church. However, some would argue that despite this, the charismatic gifts were given for a limited time.

Robyn Banks

April 12th 2003, 08:59 AM

“Tongues will cease”: 1 Corinthians 13:8

“As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away” (1 Cor 13:8)

One argument used for the cessation of charismatic gifts is that (according to this passage) prophecy and tongues will come to an end. That end is then assumed to have been early in the history of the church, so that these gifts are not available today.

Against this view:

1 The passage gives the time when tongues and prophecy will cease: “Our prophecy is imperfect; but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away” (1 Cor 13:9-10). So the time is “when the perfect comes”, which has been interpreted in different ways:

a Interpreted as the time when the Lord returns. This is supported by:

i Verse 12 compares the “imperfect” and “perfect” times, as “see in a mirror dimly” and seeing “face to face”. To see “face to face” is an Old Testament phrase for seeing God personally (see Gen 32:30; Exod 33:11; Deut 34:10; Judg 6:22; Ezek 20:35). Therefore, tongues will not cease before the Lord’s return.

ii Verse 12 also compares the “imperfect” and “perfect” times, as the time when I “know in part” and the time when I “know as I have been known”. This must also refer to the Lord’s return (1 John 3:2; Rev 22:4).

iii In the context of the whole passage, Paul is stating the importance of love, which will endure into eternity; he is making a point about how long love itself lasts for, not tongues or prophecy. If the time when the “perfect” arrives is limited to the early church, it makes his argument self-defeating. Love, also, would only last for a limited time-span.

iv The verb [i]“katageo” (pass away) is used elsewhere as referring to the passing of the age: 1:28; 2:6; 6:13; 15:24-26; 2 Thes 2:8.

b Interpreted as the time when the New Testament canon is complete.

Against this view:

i The Corinthians would never have understood Paul’s words as
meaning this. The concept of the completion of certain inspired writings is completely incomprehensible to the Corinthians at this time, 35 years before Revelation was written. Paul himself probably would not have been able to articulate the concept.

ii If Paul is interpreted as referring to the completion of scripture as the “perfect” time, the purpose of his argument is thwarted. He is in fact saying, “We can be sure that love will never end, for we know that it will last more than 35 years”! This would not be a very convincing argument. This shows how the meaning of the passage must be twisted to interpret the “perfect” time as the time in which scripture is completed.

iii If the “perfect” is the time when scriptures were completed, we today are in that perfect time. Therefore, we must “know, even as we are known” by God. The completed scriptures provide some illumination, but certainly not this amount. It is stupid to make the whole of 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 apply to the early church. It simply is not limited to then, but describes eternity.

iv If we are to apply this viewpoint to other verses, we would end up with absurd results. For example, we could argue that heaven and earth ceased at the time of the early church, because of the words “heaven and earth will pass away”.

c Interpreted as the time when the church is mature - when the office of the Apostle is complete in its foundational role (eg Ephesians 4:11-13).

i Again this falls foul of the objections outlined in (b)(ii) and (b)(iii), above. Such an argument simply denies the context of the passage, and makes a nonsense out of Paul’s arguments.

2 Even if the “perfect” is correctly interpreted as being the second coming of the Lord, it has been argued that tongues will cease before prophecy and knowledge, because a different verb has been used to say it will “cease” (pano). However, this makes too much of a difference in meaning which is only slight. Paul shows no interest in the difference in the passage, and probably only used it for rhetorical reasons.

Conclusion:

Paul is clearly referring to eternal qualities of love, and contrasting this with the transience of tongues, prophecy and knowledge. These three things are good, but only have a use in the present world, whereas love will endure into the next world. It is eternal love which underlies and should be emphasised in the use of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

This passage (1 Cor 13:8-13) also provides a positive statement that charismatic gifts will not cease in the age of the church. Paul is arguing that tongues, prophecy and knowledge will not cease until the end of the age (when the Lord returns). This means that Paul expected these gifts (and by implication probably all spiritual gifts) to continue through the entire church age, for the benefit of the church until Jesus Christ returns. Therefore, charismatic gifts have not ceased to be available.

George Blaisdell

April 12th 2003, 10:42 AM

Under the heading:

Limitation to Apostles
(post#17 )

Robyn addresses the question:

"Were the Charismatic Gifts only given to the Apostles, and those whom the Apostles gave the gift to?"

And replies that the answer is no, that the charismatic gifts were given to the whole [Apostolic] Church...

I agree. But does this not limit the gifts to the Church? And was not entry into the Church accomplished by baptism? And was not baptism done, at least in part, by the laying on of hands?

geo

John Powell

April 12th 2003, 03:24 PM

POWELL:
To Blaisdell.

George Blaisdell:

POWELL writes:
"Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, believe that Jesus was a "god," a significantly lesser being than Jehovah. JW's want to be called Christians (I think)."

BLAISDELL:
They do want to be called Christians...

POWELL:
Good. If that's what they want then I think the definition for Christian should include them. We should not exclude them just because their beliefs about Christ don't match the beliefs of others who also want that esteemed designation.

BLAISDELL:
The defining question that I have found for them is, when they say that they believe in Jesus Christ: "Do you worship Christ?"

Yes and No are both really clear answers, and define one's Christian or non-Christian existence... And their answer is No...

POWELL:
The issue of "worship" may be relevant to the definition of "Christian", but I haven't included it. This is partly because many people who claim to be Christian don't "worship" in the usual ways. Namely, they don't attend church or read the scriptures or even pray. Yet, if asked whether they believe that Jesus is God or a God, they would affirm.

POWELL then writes:
"The good evidence suggests that there ... are no exorcisms.... no spiritual beings responding to prayer..."

BLAISDELL:
All I can say is you obviously were not at my baptism!

POWELL:
Would I or a video/sound machine have sensed the manifestations you imply? If no, then how can you be sure they weren't just in your own mind and body?

Are you willing to give the same glorious assessment to baptisms of Mormons and others who may feel as strongly, if not more strongly, that their baptisms were accompanied by approving spiritual manifestations from God (the kind that indicate that God approved)?

Which of the following is most likely, George?

1) People who appear to sincerely believe their baptism was accompanied by approving spiritual manifestations from God are right.

2) People who are a member of my religious sect or certain other sects I agree with who appear to sincerely believe that their baptism was accompanied by approving spiritual manifestations from God are right, but other people of other sects who appear to be equally sincere are mistaken.

3) People who appear to sincerely believe their baptism was accompanied by approving spiritual manifestations from God are mistaken. It was due to something natural such as biofeedback brought on by wishful thinking. Perhaps either consciously or subconsciously they desperately wanted a psycho-sensory experience they could interpret as indicating that God approved of their baptism and their mind and body cooperated to produce just such an experience.

BLAISDELL:
Spiritual beings respond to prayers - demons [also spiritual] to exorcisms [also prayers] - The ancient Church has been exorcising demons [in the prayers of exorcism that begin each baptism] and receiving God's grace in Her prayers for two thousand years now...

POWELL:
Are you suggesting that demons, rather than organisms and such things, are a significant cause of psychological human illness and that encantations by a devout believer in Jesus Christ can cause these demons to leave one body, perhaps even enter another?

Apparently these "demon" phenomena can be significantly affected by drugs. Apparently, the effects can be reduced by administering drugs and can be increased by administering drugs. Are you suggesting that spiritual beings can be controlled, even "forced in" or "forced out," by administering physical chemicals to human subjects? If that's the case, perhaps God can also be controlled by the use of drugs.

Perhaps religiosity is a psycho-chemical imbalance treatable with drugs and other therapies. :dufus:

Ok, I need to put my polite hat back on. You are justified in coming back with a strong ad hominem.

BLAISDELL:
Yet you are right - The spiritual is discerned spiritually, and the material by anyone with a modicum of worldly mental health... So that the magician of debunkery of religious shams will blow off the 'Christian' sham artists...

POWELL:
Is it possible for demon-possession behavior to be faked or induced by drugs? If yes, then why do you prefer the supernatural explanation over the natural one?

BLAISDELL:
Yet were he to enter the ancient faith, he would experience and know what he now only can materially disprove of sham-Christianity... The wonder-working of God in the human soul in Christ...

POWELL:
Are you suggesting that modern skeptics would be more easily convinced by ancient arguments and evidence than ancient skeptics were? That's highly doubtful.

BLAISDELL:
The world will pass away...

geo

POWELL:
Cheers.

John Powell

John Powell

April 12th 2003, 03:29 PM

tizzidale:

I disagree with Powell. As the debate is focused on what is the scriptural evidence for cessation of spiritural gifts. I believe Gavin has done an excellent job. The focus of the debate is not to convince skeptics like John Powell and me.

rusty

POWELL:
Rusty, where did I say or clearly imply that Gavin's job in this debate was to persuade skeptics such as you and me?

Perhaps you are misinterpreting my suggestion that he try to do so with an assertion that this was obligatory. Maybe?

John Powell

Rusty T

April 12th 2003, 03:38 PM

POWELL:
Rusty, where did I say or clearly imply that Gavin's job in this debate was to persuade skeptics such as you and me?

Perhaps you are misinterpreting my suggestion that he try to do so with an assertion that this was obligatory. Maybe?

POWELL:
Bring forth good evidence for current spiritual gifts, Gavin, and then maybe you'll have an argument that might persuade a strong skeptic such as myself. Perhaps Apollos will ask that of you.

I guess I confused your suggestion with an assertion.

John Powell

April 12th 2003, 03:44 PM

Powel writes:
When people pay their tithing then they receive both spiritual and physical blessings. Sometimes money will come from unexpected places if you trust the Lord to take care of you and pay your tithing as He commands.

BILL S:
Nowhere in the scriptures does it say you can buy the gifts of God. In fact tithing is not a new testiment requirement. No place in the New Covenent does it teach tithe.

JOHN MORMON (Powell according to his former beliefs):
Where in the New Testament did it say or clearly imply that Malachi 3:8-10 was no longer operative?

Mal 3:8-10 (KJV):
8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.

9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.

10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

JOHN MORMON:
Apparently, according to you, this promise from God became void shortly after it was given.

Why don't you test Malachi's promise and see if it isn't true?

Perhaps members of your religion aren't being as blessed by God as they otherwise would be partly due to refusal to accept this as a currently binding commandment from God.

Have you ever wondered why the LDS church is one of the most wealthy? I'll give you ten guesses, but the first nine don't count.

(I must be having a chemical imbalance. Where do all these snide remarks come from that I'm coming up with?)

John Powell

John Powell

April 12th 2003, 03:57 PM

TIZZIDALE:
I guess I confused your suggestion with an assertion.

POWELL:
Perhaps, but it looks more like you confused an assertion that to persuade skeptics Gavin would need to do X with an assertion that to fulfill his requirements in the debate he would need to do X.

I recognized that to persuade skeptics was not the focus of this debate. That's one of the reasons I invoked the possible actions of Apollos to give my words more relevance than they otherwise would have.

It appears that you began this side-thread disagreeing with what you mistakenly believed was my position on Gavin's debate duty.

Perhaps you should have asked me what my opinion was if it was not clearly implied by my words. Maybe? On the other hand, perhaps I should be more clear if there's likely to be a misunderstanding if I'm not. I'll try.

John Powell.

Robyn Banks

April 12th 2003, 04:20 PM

George Blaisdell:

Under the heading:

Limitation to Apostles
(post#17 )

Robyn addresses the question:

"Were the Charismatic Gifts only given to the Apostles, and those whom the Apostles gave the gift to?"

And replies that the answer is no, that the charismatic gifts were given to the whole [Apostolic] Church...

I agree. But does this not limit the gifts to the Church?
Charismatic gifts are only given to the Church in the New Testament. This does not limit God's bestowal of his Spiritual gifts. But there is every indication that his Spirit is given only to the Church.

George Blaisdell:
And was not entry into the Church accomplished by baptism?
It is impossibile to divide God's gift of of His Spirit to those in Christ, from the giving of grace in baptism.

The New Testament views baptism as the initial Christian experience of grace, not a symbolic second experience. Baptism in water is not a mere outward sign of conversion. It has its own power as well.

i.e. it is a "sacrament" - a visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. It is a means of God's grace: "the visible form of an invisible grace" - Augustine

Baptism brings salvation. The saving grace of God is present in baptism itself.

- Mark 16:16 ("The one who believes and is baptized will be saved")
- Acts 2:38-41 (repentance/baptism saves and gives gifts of Spirit. When Peter was asked, on the day of Pentecost, "Brethren, what shall we do?" he did not reply, "repent and believe... for forgiveness... and the Holy Spirit", but "repent and be baptized."
- Acts 8:12-13 (Philip's preaching in Samaria resulted in baptism)
- 1 Corinthians 12:13 ("By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body")
- Baptism in water is referred to as the "seal of the Spirit" (2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13; 4:30)

The New Testament shows the close association between baptism and every element of salvation in the New Testament:
- Forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38)
- Cleansing from sins (Acts 22:16; 1Cor 6:11)
- Union with Christ (Gal 3:27)
- Union with Him in His death and resurrection (Rom 6:3f; Col 2:11f)
- Participation in sonship (Gal 2:26f)
- Consecration to God (1 Cor 6:11)
- Membership in the church, the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:27- 29)
- Possession of the Spirit (Acts 2:38; 1Cor 6:11, 12:13)
- Regeneration/renewal in the Spirit (Tit 3:5-7; John 3:5)
- Deliverance from evil (Col 1:13)
- Inheritance of Kingdom of God (John 3:5)
- Eternal life (Tit 3:5-7)

i.e. "baptism" is as much the means of salvation as"grace" or "faith". Through baptism God works your salvation.

Michael Green talks of a "trinity" of the means of salvation: -"Initiation into Christ" is viewed in three ways in scripture:
1 Divine viewpoint: reception of Spirit, adoption, forgiveness, justification
2 Human viewpoint: repentance, faith
3 Church viewpoint: baptism into the body
There are three different expressions of the same phenomenon of redemption, yet only one method of redemption. We may equally say that we are saved by grace, by faith, or by baptism, as the bible talks about redemption using each of these means, sometimes in conjunction, sometimes separately. Each is a different view of the same phenomenon of salvation, which is a gift from God, separate from any human work.

Water and Spirit baptism are can be understood as separate events. But they are merely different aspects of one great initiation complex which includes the inward attitudes of repentance and faith, the outward marks of water-baptism and the laying-on of hands, and the declaration by God of sin's forgiveness and heart renewal.

Those who say that baptism could not be part of salvation, just because the new Christian may die before baptism, confuses the true nature of baptism - it is a grace from God, not something that is required to be done!

God deals with man through this sacrament. We can be sure of this, but need not understand it fully. We can't fully understand God's grace to us, so too with the sacrament of baptism.

"God's way with men in Word and Sacrament, as in other things, is sure; but it is past finding out. Why not say as much?"
- Bernard Manning

George Blaisdell:
And was not baptism done, at least in part, by the laying on of hands?
Yes. But baptism is not a "rite" (a ceremony you have to follow, which saves you merely because of what you outwardly do or say). The Spirit is not given because of the rite of baptism, but because of what baptism is in fact - the work of the Spirit in the person who recognises the name of the Lord Jesus as their Redeemer (1 Peter 3:21). Baptism into Christ involves union with Christ, and it is this union with Christ that bestows the Spirit.
- 1 Peter 3:21 (not as a physical act of washing, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the work of Jesus)
- 1 Cor 10:1f
- Galatians 3:27 (Justified by faith, baptized in Christ)
- Romans 6:1ff - it is the gracious action of God Himself, not some impersonal influence, through material substances (note passive mood of Rom 6:1-11)
- Col 2:12 - baptism is from God

Hope that helps.

Robyn

George Blaisdell

April 12th 2003, 05:39 PM

POWELL:
Are you suggesting that modern skeptics would be more easily convinced by ancient arguments and evidence than ancient skeptics were?

No. It is not arguments and evidence that convince skeptics. It is reality. The so-called ancient arguments and evidence would do nothing more or less than the modern ones, and that is zero...

My suggestion is that entry into the ancient Church through the path of discipleship as a catechumen and baptism into the body of Christ and the stepping of the path of repentance unto the death of the old man and the growth of the new in Christ would work great conviction, for it does not depend upon argumentation and marshalling evidence but upon a life lived unto Christ and turned away from the world.

The inner junctures of spiritual life wherein the heretics went wrong who had indeed properly entered the Church [and remember, these were bishops, and not laity], are WAY beyond the grasp of this list, and, for that matter, of me as well! Yet they are well understood in the ancient Church...

BLAISDELL:
All I can say is you obviously were not at my baptism!

POWELL:
Would I or a video/sound machine have sensed the manifestations you imply?

I just happened to have been baptized on a windy day! That remark was tongue-in-cheek, yet the howling and shrieking of the winds at the doors of the narthex of the Church during the prayers of exorcism which begin all baptisms was VERY audible. But no, the material manifestations of the wind were NOT in any way "proof or evidence" of the efficacy of the prayers. But they were spooky!
:smile:

The Church fathers write about theology descriptively, not speculatively or theoretically, and if you wish to understand their descriptions, you need to walk their walk... The beginning of discipleship into the Church is purification of the heart in prayer and repentance, and in the early Church, this commonly took 2-3 years of intense effort, culminating in the entry into the body of Christ in Baptism. For some, so thorough was their preparation, that they were baptized directly into theosis [sainthood], and for most, they were baptised into an intense confrontation with demonic powers leading rigorously unto their perfection in Christ...

Hence we have, as our epistemological pre-requisite for knowledge of God, the purification of the heart [repentance]... And outside of this, we have but theoretical speculation of the intellect, which is a vain and sorry substitute for real knowledge...

geo

geo

John Powell

April 12th 2003, 11:29 PM

POWELL:
To Blaisdell.

POWELL:
Are you suggesting that modern skeptics would be more easily convinced by ancient arguments and evidence than ancient skeptics were?

BLAISDELL:
No. It is not arguments and evidence that convince skeptics. It is reality. The so-called ancient arguments and evidence would do nothing more or less than the modern ones, and that is zero...

POWELL:
You appear to have a weak understanding of what is required to persuade a person to believe something, George. Being persuaded is a mental process. Reality doesn't persuade. Reality just is. Observations of the real universe (evidence) and thinking about reality (via arguments) are the things that can persuade.

Some skeptics have been persuaded by religious evidence and arguments, George. A member of this forum ASAJ = Amy Jones, is just such an atheist - turned - Christian.

I suspect that the ancient arguments and evidence were even weaker, less persuasive, than the modern ones.

BLAISDELL:
My suggestion is that entry into the ancient Church through the path of discipleship as a catechumen and baptism into the body of Christ and the stepping of the path of repentance unto the death of the old man and the growth of the new in Christ would work great conviction, for it does not depend upon argumentation and marshalling evidence but upon a life lived unto Christ and turned away from the world.

POWELL:
I believe you are seriously mistaken about argumentation and evidence, George. What you just gave here was a religious argument or reason for why I should believe you.

BLAISDELL:
The inner junctures of spiritual life wherein the heretics went wrong who had indeed properly entered the Church [and remember, these were bishops, and not laity], are WAY beyond the grasp of this list, and, for that matter, of me as well!

POWELL:
I doubt that these notions are way beyond the grasp of those on this list. I've studied mathematical and scientific subjects, George, so I have some experience with "difficult to understand." It's much more likely, I think, that these believers in mysteries wanted their listeners to think such things were way beyond the grasp of others rather than such was necessarily the case.

If you have some pearl to cast before this swine, perhaps I can show you that it's not as wonderful as you think it is. Perhaps it's just a smooth white rock. We can start with the much vaunted Golden Rule if you'd like.

BLAISDELL:
Yet they are well understood in the ancient Church...

POWELL:
Oh, so the idea is those of the ancient Church were some how smarter than theologians of today? I doubt that.

BLAISDELL:
All I can say is you obviously were not at my baptism!

POWELL:
Would I or a video/sound machine have sensed the manifestations you imply?

BLAISDELL:
I just happened to have been baptized on a windy day! That remark was tongue-in-cheek, . . .

POWELL:
Since I can't see people's faces, I tend to read things on discussion forums quite literally. If you intend to use things like humor, irony or sarcasm, you might consider using a smilie to help me identify it.

BLAISDELL:
. . . yet the howling and shrieking of the winds at the doors of the narthex of the Church during the prayers of exorcism which begin all baptisms was VERY audible. But no, the material manifestations of the wind were NOT in any way "proof or evidence" of the efficacy of the prayers. But they were spooky!

POWELL:
So you have an overactive imagination and fear of spooks, so what?

BLAISDELL:
The Church fathers write about theology descriptively, not speculatively or theoretically, and if you wish to understand their descriptions, you need to walk their walk... The beginning of discipleship into the Church is purification of the heart in prayer and repentance, and in the early Church, this commonly took 2-3 years of intense effort, culminating in the entry into the body of Christ in Baptism.

POWELL:
This is doubtful. It sounds too much like the typical "pay lots of money for a little bit of wisdom" scams. Did those in the Bible commonly have to go through this exact process? What do those who complete the process have to show for their effort? Are the mysteries of philosophy, mathematics, and science revealed to them?

At least with science the claims "to pay your dues before you'll understand" seem justified. It is difficult to understand certain concepts without the proper mathematical / scientific background.

BLAISDELL:
For some, so thorough was their preparation, that they were baptized directly into theosis [sainthood], and for most, they were baptised into an intense confrontation with demonic powers leading rigorously unto their perfection in Christ...

POWELL:
Were they really that incredibly saintly or did people just claim afterwards they were? The disciples of Jesus seemed more like typical men and women than they seemed like moral giants. Were those alleged demonic experiences true spiritual entities or merely psycho-sensory experiences? How could you know? How could they know?

BLAISDELL:
Hence we have, as our epistemological pre-requisite for knowledge of God, the purification of the heart [repentance]... And outside of this, we have but theoretical speculation of the intellect, which is a vain and sorry substitute for real knowledge...

geo

POWELL:
I probably know more about the Biblically-supported attributes of God than you do, George, and I don't even believe He exists. If I don't know more than you, I'm confident that there are other atheists who do. What good is putting so much emphasis on trying to know God by "purifying the heart" and ignoring normal methods of learning, if atheists can know God better than those who do that?

John Powell

AcousticJS

April 13th 2003, 12:25 PM

Apollos asserts that spiritual gifts could only be conferred by the laying on of apostle's hands, and that the Holy Spirit could only be given by the laying on of apostle's hands.

I may be a bit simple, but he makes much of the fact that Acts 8 required the presence of the apostles, but says nothing about the other 108 in Acts 2 who received the Holy Spirit without the apostles laying hands on them. He ignores the fact that Paul (an apostle) received the Holy Spirit through the laying on of Ananias' hands (a non-apostle) in Acts 9 (esp. v 17). He likewise ignores the fact that Cornelius and his household didn't have an apostle lay hands on them to receive the Spirit - He was poured out upon them directly.

Perhaps the most troubling part of Apollos' argument is that he seems to be contradicting 1 Corinthians 12. Here it is very clearly stated that the spiritual gifts are distributed by the Holy Spirit as He wills (1 Cor 12:11). To suggest that they were imparted by the laying on of hands by an apostle would seem to usurp the Holy Spirit's role in inspiring and distributing spiritual gifts.

His interpretation of Rom 1:11 is interesting. There seems to be a monumental bit of eisegesis going on by stating, as though it were established fact, that the church in Rome had no SG's 'cos no apostle had laid hands on them. Not only is this a circular argument, it is seemingly contradicted by Paul's discussion of spiritual gifts found in Romans 12 - talking as if they at least had the gift of prophecy in operation there.

Apollos also cites 2 Tim 1:6 to support the view that SG's could only be given by the laying on of elder's hands. Let's not forget that Paul also wrote 1 Tim 4:14 where he says that Timothy also received a gift by the laying on of elder's hands through prophecy. Now, I'm not saying that spiritual gifts are particualrly imparted by any human - I believe it is the Holy Spirit's job to impart SG's.

I may have misunderstood his point, but he seems to have been saying that Paul knew everything as early as Acts 20:27. Based on his argument about 1 Cor 13:10 referring to the end of God's revelation to man, surely that would have meant that SG's ceased before Paul even wrote the first letter to the Corinthians. Does that seem unlikely to anyone else?

I have to confess to being obviously not as schooled in Greek as Apollos seems to be, and getting lost in the detailed discussion about 1 Corinthians 13. Even though I have a version of Thayer's lexicon and Strongs lexicon, I don't really know how to use them (yet). It just seems to me that the Scriptures teach the continuation of SG's throughout the 'last days' until Jesus returns, and I've read nothing from Apollos yet that has shifted me from this view.

God bless
Jon

PS. Maybe the need for apostles to lay hands in Acts 8 is to be found in the history between Israel and Samaria. In holding off baptising the Samaritans in the Spirit, Jesus may have been forcing the Samiritan disciples to recognise the authority of the Twelve, and so end the rift between Jew and Samiritan that existed for too long. Just a suggestion.

Bill S

April 13th 2003, 08:33 PM

Good answers Robyn. I agree with your conclusion. As a classical Pentecostal what else? One good example of what you are talking about is Reinhard Bonke who preachs mostly in Africa. We know miracles do not give faith to be saved because faith comes by the word of God but the scriptures tell us to preach the Gospel, heal the sick and raise the dead.

Bill

George Blaisdell

April 14th 2003, 02:18 AM

John Powell: escriveth:

POWELL:
>You appear to have a weak understanding of what is required to persuade a person to believe something, George. Being persuaded is a mental process.

Exactly so, and people change their minds... Which fact is the quintessential differentia of persuasion, you see...

> Reality doesn't persuade.

It SO persuades... It is so persuasive that it persuades some folks to think that it just IS...

> Reality just is.

Oh... So you too are persuaded that reality just IS? I am too... Arthur Koestler was persuaded by the reality of the pain and agony of old age death to commit suicide... Reality can be totally persuasive...

> Observations of the real universe (evidence) and thinking about reality (via arguments) are the things that can persuade.

Exactly so, which is why they are so worthless, for thinking changes with experience... The mind is a fickle arbiter... It thinks one thing in puberty and the hormonal raging of youth, and entirely another in the death throes of genital cancer at age 94...

> Some skeptics have been persuaded by religious evidence and arguments, George.

Skeptics are the most likely to change their minds, so I am not surprised...

> A member of this forum ASAJ = Amy Jones, is just such an atheist - turned - Christian.

Logical persuasion is as fickle as the shifting sands of one's premises - And in my tradition, a logically persuaded Christian is an oxymoron... The epistemology of faith is found in the power of God in a purified heart, and the illumination of the nous of the believer by God... That's reality...

> I suspect that the ancient arguments and evidence were even weaker, less persuasive, than the modern ones.

Your millieu, my friend, is A&E, [arguments and evidence] in which you are comfortable, and can defend your understanding against all comers... Academia is filled with those of your ken... If you are lucky, your enchantment with A&E will fail you, and in some crisis of personal failing, you will find a bottom from which you can rise... Until then, you will go round and round in self justification, eg the defense of your point of view, and you will think you are standing forth in the truth...

POWELL:
> I believe you are seriously mistaken about argumentation and evidence, George. What you just gave here was a religious argument or reason for why I should believe you.

I am not interested in persuading you, but in challenging you fundamentally... A&E are your millieu, not mine...

POWELL:
> I doubt that these notions are way beyond the grasp of those on this list.

They are only accessible to a repentant and illumined mind in Christ, and there are not all that many of these folks on this list - I most certainly am not one...

> I've studied mathematical and scientific subjects, George, so I have some experience with "difficult to understand."

Mastery of the entire language of the world will do you no good if you do not even have the alphabet of repentance from the world... Let alone the words of askesis, or the symphany of Christ's illumination of the nous, which is but a prelude to unity with Christ... Knowing the proof of A-squared + B-squared = C-squared will do you no good in the language of God, whose alphabet you scorn...

> It's much more likely, I think, that these believers in mysteries wanted their listeners to think such things were way beyond the grasp of others rather than such was necessarily the case.

When I encountered the explanation, it made sense, but I could not validate it, and now cannot remember it, or where I ran across it - Elder Joseph perhaps... He did not claim it was incomprehensible to non-Christians - He just described an inner spiritual process in which a point arises where something can happen, and what happens when certain decisions are made, and certain actions taken, and how and why that necessarily results in heresy, and he claimed that it was at the root of most, if not all, true heresies, which all have some truth at their basis... Sorry I cannot be more specific, but the clear message is that if you cannot follow him in fact, [rather than conceptually], to that point, you will not have knowledge, but merely opinion based on a report [his]... You will certainly not understand in any meaningful way - I sure didn't, even though I did understand it in a shallow [read intellectual] way...

> If you have some pearl to cast before this swine, perhaps I can show you that it's not as wonderful as you think it is.

You offering to trample my pearls in the muck? How kind of you!

Rain check??? ':brow:'

POWELL:
> Oh, so the idea is those of the ancient Church were some how smarter than theologians of today? I doubt that.

I keep trying to tell you - It ain't about smart...

POWELL:
>If you intend to use things like humor, irony or sarcasm, you might consider using a smilie to help me identify it.

It seemed kind of obviously overstated to me, but I'll get those smilies working more for ya!

POWELL:
> So you have an overactive imagination and fear of spooks, so what?

I fear the Lord and crush imaginitive enterprises in my soul - It was just a really good 50-60mph howling!

POWELL:
> This is doubtful. It sounds too much like the typical "pay lots of money for a little bit of wisdom" scams.

The early Church, when converting the ethnoi [eg not the Jews], took a few years normally prior to their entry into the Church in baptism. They gave up possessions, often left their families, and made a radical committment to turning away from the world and turning to God. That's just the way it was... I took 4 years, but I am old and have led a really fallen [and athiestic, like you] life... So I was a slow study - Like you, too bright for my own good - Struggled greatly with my inflated view of the value of my own truth decision making...

> Did those in the Bible commonly have to go through this exact process?

Yes - The disciples and apostles were with Christ for three years, yes? They were in training - On the Job training - Discipleship...

> What do those who complete the process have to show for their effort?

They are hidden in Christ, and out of reach of the world... Feeding them to lions, and using them as human oil lamps, lighting their hair on fire, meant nothing to them...

> Are the mysteries of philosophy, mathematics, and science revealed to them?

Goodness no! The mystery religions had come and failed and gone... Zeno's paradoxes? To get there you first have to get half way there? And to get half way you firstr have to get half of the half way? So you can't move? And all those kinds of mental self stimulations proving the inadequacy or logic? Naaaagh! The times are preciously short for what needs to be done that we can bring healing to our fallen condition... No time for this kind of stuff...

> At least with science the claims "to pay your dues before you'll understand" seem justified. It is difficult to understand certain concepts without the proper mathematical / scientific background.

The same applies to Christian discipleship - It is just hard, and normally comes by way of crisis and serious spiritual calling - Hey! It took God three years to green me into a spiritual understanding of everything... And that was as a non-Christian - I avoided Christians in those days...

POWELL:
> Were they really that incredibly saintly or did people just claim afterwards they were?

They entered directly in baptism into unity with Christ... Normally, you enter into the body of Christ, and then the challenges of putting your 'old man' to death and nurturing the 'new creature' that you are out of the baptismal waters into maturity in Christ.

> The disciples of Jesus seemed more like typical men and women than they seemed like moral giants.

Many were moral midgets - God so often takes the blind and lame of the world and glorifies them to the shame of the visionaries and milers...

> Were those alleged demonic experiences true spiritual entities or merely psycho-sensory experiences? How could you know? How could they know?

Discernment of spiritual realities is a gift from God, and is normally given to those who have made some really extensive progress in the path of repentance... You need to ask someone other than me - I am but a fresh baptisee...!!

POWELL:
> I probably know more about the Biblically-supported attributes of God than you do, George, and I don't even believe He exists.

Well then you have just proved my point! Would you like for me to pray for you? You see, if you are like I was, I had two religious experiences, and had written them both off as just my own mental subconscious emergence in response to stress... So even if God comes and visits you with events, you will be able, as I was, to rationalize them away, and there will be no 'persuasion'... You will need to hit some personal bottom, and if you are not lucky enough to do so, you will probably stay just as you are, in the millieu of A&E...

> If I don't know more than you, I'm confident that there are other atheists who do. What good is putting so much emphasis on trying to know God by "purifying the heart" and ignoring normal methods of learning, if atheists can know God better than those who do that?

Athiests do not know God, and that is what it is all about... They can doubtless know all the available preopsitional formulaics ABOUT God, but they do not know God, for if they did, they could not be athiests... [q.e.d.]

John, you take care... I know you are seeing yourself as standing at the dike with your finger in the hole, preventing tragedy and standing for truth in the face of narrow-mindedness and mystical madness, and in much of your focus, you are right... It is just that there is a whole reality that is hidden to you for now, and I really think you would be better served in actions that are helpful to students, rather than the self-frustrations you will only find on this list...

geo...

Bill S

April 14th 2003, 08:50 AM

>>> Reality just is.>>>

Hmm, Wasn't there a notorius US President that said, " it depends on what "is" is?:dunce:

themuzicman

April 14th 2003, 03:31 PM

Just an aside, I think the debate statement is wrong, because of the nature of the debate.

The debate should be "Spiritual gifts have ceased" or "Spiritual gifts are not for the church today."

The way it is stated, the affirmative winds up presenting its case, and then trying to disprove the argument of the negative.

Since both agree that spiritual gifts were a part of the early church, the burden of proof should lie with those who asser that SGs ended at some point.

Michael

Warcraft3

April 14th 2003, 04:45 PM

This debate is a very important one, in my opinion, and really needs to be resolved among Christians. As long as we are divided over this issue, or give excuses for the difference we see between todays world and the world described in the new testament, athiests will be justified in making statement like John Powell made:

"There are no reliably confirmed cases of "spiritual gifts" evident in the modern era. There are people claiming such powers, but it is my understanding that every time competent magicians / scientists investigate these claims they turn out to have a likely naturalistic explanation."

"All such modern claims appear to be the work of the self-deluded or the charlatans. These "miracles" all appear to be coincidences, misinterpretations, or deceptions."

"Perhaps there were miracles during Biblical times (I seriously doubt it), but there do not seem to be any more."

I am familiar with the two extreme views concerning the supernatural. Neither provides good answers in my opinion. and both views simply refuse to admit a very large problem within the church.

View #1: This is the "well God doesnt do that anymore" argument. It doesnt take alot of Bible reading to see this view is not supported by scripture. Paul wrote letters to many churches and SPECIFICALLY DEALT with the issue of the supernatural. There is absolutely NOTHING IN ANY OF THOSE LETTERS that would suggest his instructions only apply so long as the apostales are alive, or the "scriptures" are completed. There is also NOTHING IN ANY OF THOSE LETTERS to suggest that his words are not relevant for todays church. I know several athiests and NOT ONE of them thinks scripture implies that miracles are not supposed to be happening today. The Athiests I know see this view as a ridiculous attempt to get around the fact that we dont see these things happening today. So if these things have stopped happening then what does Chrsitianity have to offer the athiest? Just another set of dead religious beliefs with no real power or life in it. Christians who take this view dont like to hear this, but that is how many non-Christians view it. It doesnt matter if you are a Christian who has "explained away" the situation to himself, what matters is the athiest does not accept your attempt to explain it away. The athiests that I know dont want an argument or an explaination they want to see a demonstration of TRUTH. This view does not turn athiests into believers.

View #2: This is the modern charismatic view of "Well God is doing miracles today!!!". The problem with this view is the definition of "miracles". I sometimes picture what Paul would say to a church of believers where 80% of them either speak in "tounges" or "prophesy", maybe 10% of them have the gift of "knowledge" or "wisdom", and 5% of them have the gift of "discernment". Notice that I left out the gifts of HEALING AND MIRACLES. Why? Because EVERYONE can speak in tounges but NO ONE can heal the blind or lame. The few gifts that are EASILY FAKED abound within the church and the ones we see in scripture THE MOST are strangely absent. What do you think Paul would have said? Maybe something like this....."How is it then brethern that you all speak in tounges and prophesy yet the gifts of healing and miracles are not among you?" I think he may of said something like that. So how do the athiests I know view this position? Well they think that most of these people are crazy, misguided, or just plain fakes. I am forced to agree with my athiest friends on this one, unfortunately. If the church was actually walking in ALL of the gifts then there would be NO DEBATE. Athiests compare the "miracles" we give as examples to what they see in scripture and they are not impressed or convinced. The fact that tounges and prophecy are present while miracles and healings are not should be an indication that the "tounges" and "prophecy" are probably not genuine.

So group #1 doesnt seek for these things to occur because they dont believe they ever will occur, and group #2 doesnt seek for these things to occur because they believe they are already occuring.

But they arent. Not like in the book of Acts. Not like Jesus. Or Paul, Peter, Stephen, etc. I think we all need to admit that:

1. These things SHOULD BE happening but ARENT

2. The reason why they arent happening is because of those of us who are CHRISTIANS.

WE are the problem. WE are not ready for these things to happen. Why should God do miracles? So He can then have new converts discipled by Christians who dont pray, dont care, and dont have the "time" to really follow God. God will not do these things until the Christians are ready.

The world has always been ready to see these things and believe. And they continue to wait for us to get our act together.
How long will they be waiting?

Russ

Epoetker

April 23rd 2003, 07:28 PM

W00t for Russ. Much HAS happened, but it's faaaaar too slow in the coming nowadays.

I myself tend to hold to the view of America's Puritan forebears: SIN, much more than FAITH, is what keeps the divine power from working overtime. Indeed, often when pressure is given to repent, many psychosomatic illnesses with very real but incurable physical effects tend to disappear. More emphasis on rootling out sin!

Would highly reccommend this particular book:

http://www.theherbsplace.com/excellent.html

It wasn't that He could not heal. It was that we had to become sanctified in certain areas of our lives before He would heal. Diseases in our lives can be the result of a separation from Him and His Word in specific areas of our lives. God would have to become double minded, would have to become evil in condoning evil, in order to bless us in our sins. Except for those times when He would - have mercy on whom He would have mercy (Exodus 33:19) - disease was an issue to do with circumcision of the heart.

John Reece

April 27th 2003, 08:18 AM

Apollos:

In Acts 2 and 10 HS baptism resulted in the recipients receiving the ability to speak in tongues (languages). HS baptism was the result of a promise to only the Apostles (Acts 1:5) and prophecy (Acts 2:16). HS baptism was not a common event (Acts 11:15-16), it is the exception, & only occurred twice. Gavin disagrees so where are his scriptures to show otherwise ???

Contra Apollos:

The promise is not to “only the Apostles":

Luke 24

49 And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high."

Acts 1

4 And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, "you heard from me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

Acts 2

29 "Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. 33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. 34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, "'The Lord said to my Lord,
Sit at my right hand,
35 until I make your enemies your footstool.'
36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."
37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

dizzle

April 27th 2003, 09:33 AM

Very good points John. I have not yet read through this debate in its entirety which I am planning on doing once it is entirely complete.

Jason Gastrich

May 1st 2003, 12:03 AM

Gavin,

I pray your debate goes well.

I attended an Independent Baptist Church from "birth" until age 18. They don't believe the spiritual gifts are for today. However, I left that church 10 years ago and don't believe like them any longer.

I had a funny experience. When I was 20, I was just coming back to the Lord, so I went back to my "home church" to get baptized. They had me sign something that said I believed like they did.

I didn't feel comfortable signing it, though. I had to check the box that said I believed the spiritual gifts weren't for today. I told the deacon about my reservation (because I had heard tongues outside the church and found it existed from my personal study and experience) and he walked about 10 feet away and started whispering to two other deacons. Looking back, it was a hilarious situation. After they conferred, they pleaded with me to just check the box anyway. I didn't want to cause a stir, so I just checked it . . . for them.

When I was 26, I prayed for the gift of tongues and I received it. I also received the gift of interpretation. It's hard to deny it, now! lol

God bless,
Jason

P.S. If Apollos can prove that tongues was only for the 1st century, then how do we know that salvation wasn't only for the 1st century? :huh:

:cheers:

AcousticJS

May 3rd 2003, 04:50 AM

05-01-2003 @ 05:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83793#post83793)
Jason G:

P.S. If Apollos can prove that tongues was only for the 1st century, then how do we know that salvation wasn't only for the 1st century? :huh:

:teeth: Mate, that's a flippin good point.

AcousticJS

May 3rd 2003, 05:02 AM

I guess it was inevitable that the main debate was gonna get onto a discussion about baptism in the Holy Spirit. Can I suggest a book for people to read about this important subject (and it really is important)?

It's by a guy called David Pawson and it's called 'Jesus Baptises in One Holy Spirit'. Suffice it to say that the issue isn't as simple as Apollos tries to make out, with the only mentions of Holy Spirit baptism being made to the apostles. It's also tied in with some of John the Baptists ministry and proclamation, prophetic promises in the OT, as well as later explanation in the epistles. In this book, David Pawson has conducted a study of the whole Bible to try and seek out what the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is, as well as a study of what the church as a whole have historically believed about it. He seeks a synthesis of all the different views, suggesting that all have grasped some aspect of the truth but no-one (and I'm sure he includes himself in this) has grasped all of it yet.

Have a look out for it (they've got it at amazon.co.uk - http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0340693983/ref=sr_aps_books_1_1/202-7475253-0399852 - I'm sure they can ship to America) it's well worth a read, even if you end up disagreeing with what you read. And you may - his view isn't quite pentecostal, isn't quite conservative evangelical.

God bless
Jon

John Reece

May 3rd 2003, 03:36 PM

Apollos:

The phrase “spiritual gift(s)” is found five times in the New Testament (Rom. 1:11; 1Tim. 4:14; 1Cor. 12:1; 14:1; 14:12).

The phrase “spiritual gift(s)” in not found at all in the New Testament, except in English versions, which are not reliable bases for Apollos' assertion.

Since the subject is the phenomena about which Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 12-14, what Apollos calls “spiritual gifts” is what Paul called πνευματικα (= plural of πνευματικο&sigmaf;).

Apollos says that term appears in 1 Corinthian 14:12. It does not occur in 14:12; rather, the word used in 14:12 is πνευματων = the genitive plural of πνευμα (“spirit”).

Apollos says the term appears in 1 Timothy 4:14. It does not occur in 1 Timothy 4:14. The word in 1 Timothy 4:14 is χαρισματο&sigmaf; (= genitive singular of χαρισμα).

The words πνευματικο&sigmaf; and χαρισμα are not equivalent in the NT. And I doubt that Apollos (however wrong he may be in his dogmatisms regarding New Testament πνευματικα) would want to argue that New Testament χαρισματα became obsolete in the 1st Century.

Jason Gastrich

May 3rd 2003, 03:46 PM

Thanks Mate. Cheers.

JG

P.S. Did Ben Franklin really say that about beer? :rofl:

John Reece

May 3rd 2003, 03:53 PM

Apollos:

Because Gavin knows the person of Christ can in no fashion be forced contextually into 1 Cor. 13:10 . . .

No need to force Christ contextually into 1 Corinthians 13:10. He is already there. That is what 1 Corinthians 12-14 is all about: Christ manifested in His Body.

1 Corinthians 12

One Body with Many Members

12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. (ESV)

In saying “So it is with Christ,” Paul is probably using metonymy. Thus, “Christ” means the church as a shortened form for the “body of Christ.” Clear evidence for this is found in v. 27: “Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it,” followed by v. 28,” And in the church God has appointed. . . . “ The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT), by Gordon D. Fee (p. 603)

1 Corinthians 13:10 is the teleological focus of three chapters (12-14) of teaching about how the Spirit of Christ works in and through members of the Body of Christ for the purpose of facilitating the maturation and unification of the Body (which in terms of 12:12 is referred to as “Christ”).

The term to teleion in 1 Corinthians 13:10 has the same referent as andra teleion in Ephesians 4:13; that is, Christ manifested in the consummate unity/maturity of His Body.

The destiny God has ordained for Christ manifested from within His Body the Church is beyond imagining:

Ephesians 3

20 Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen. (ESV)

The presuppositional straightjacket Apollos seeks to impose upon the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12-14, the focal point of which is 13:10, borders on bibliolatry: seeking to replace, with the NT canon, the teleological manifestation of Christ himself within His Body.

John Reece

May 3rd 2003, 07:06 PM

Apollos:

The “promise” that is being referred to in Acts 2:39 is the gift that was promised by the HS through the prophet Joel, that “whosoever calleth on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” That was the promise of the HS (v39) and it is the gift of the HS (v38).

Apollos is asserting that the “promise” referred to in Acts 2:39 is a different promise than the “promise” referred to in Acts 1:5 and Luke 24:49.

Apollos:

“I said HS baptism was the result of a promise and prophecy, and that the occurrence of HS baptism was a RARE event (Acts 11:16), of which only –2- events took place!

Read the following and judge for yourself. Do the texts of the scriptures indicate to you that different things are being promised to different people in these references to “the promise”:

Luke 24

49 And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high."

Acts 1

4 And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, "you heard from me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

Acts 2

29 "Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. 33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. 34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, "'The Lord said to my Lord,
Sit at my right hand,
35 until I make your enemies your footstool.'
36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."
37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

What is there in the text of Peter’s speech to indicate that Peter is differentiating between two different promises in Acts 2:33 and Acts 2:39 : one promise to himself and his fellow Apostles (33), but a different promise to his hearers (39).

Apollos asserts that the texts above refer to two different promises:

(1) a promise of Holy Spirit baptism to Apostles only
(2) a promise of salvation-minus-Holy-Spirit-baptism to all believers

As the hero of my youth, John Wesley, said regarding another subject: “Let him believe it who can.” :smile:

Sir Tor

May 5th 2003, 10:31 AM

Apollos, I have been on your side of the debate for many years, but Gavin's arguments are quite compelling. If you would spend more time in real debate, rather than wasting everybody's time with personal attacks, forcing Gavin to respond to them as well, we would all be better served. It seems to me that the best you have to offer so far is experiential, rather than Scriptural. This is weak in terms of the question at hand. Both you and Gavin need to do a better job of keeping the personal attacks to a minimum, but it seems to be a part of your debate whereas Gavin defends himself and keeps it separate from his. Really, I am not yet convinced on either side anymore and I am open to the idea now. But you have to do a better job of real debate, or, in my opinion, you will lose big to Gavin here.

AcousticJS

May 6th 2003, 11:20 AM

05-03-2003 @ 08:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86540#post86540)
Jason G:
P.S. Did Ben Franklin really say that about beer? :rofl:

I don't know - someone posted it as a favourite quote on here a while ago, and I just added it as my sig. I don't think it matters if he did or not - it's still a true statement :teeth:

John Reece

May 16th 2003, 04:12 PM

Apollos says MSGs became obsolete in the first century. But I have seen scientific studies documenting the presence of MSGs in food today.

:juggle:

Apollos

June 4th 2003, 12:50 AM

The debate is now over, so I am free to address remarks here.

From the lack of activity, this topic must have no interest -or- I have answered all the questions that were previously posted.

Which is it my friends?

Shall we get down to the specifics??!! Or did I really answer all of the arguments posted earlier??

Have you seen the truth that MSGs did in fact cease?

dizzle

June 4th 2003, 05:54 AM

Yes the debate participants are free to discuss here now that the debate is over.

George Blaisdell

June 4th 2003, 10:59 AM

Apollos writes:

> The debate is now over, so I am free to address remarks here.

And had argued:

> While we are in Acts 11, we want to acknowledge that the HS fell upon Cornelius & household “as [Peter] began to speak” (11:15) and thus, before they received the “words whereby they would be saved” (11:14) !!

That is how the Holy Spirit affirms that the words one is hearing beginning to be spoken are Truth... The Holy Spirit accompanies the apostles, you see. It is not their speaking of words [eg the teachings of men] that give them power, but the Holy Spirit.

> -This means Cornelius and household received HS baptism BEFORE they were saved.

It does not. The mere fact of the action of the Holy Spirit is not of itself baptism by the Holy Spirit. And indeed, the GIFT of the Holy Spirit, as Acts 2:38 so simply indicates, FOLLOWS baptism...

> -This means HS baptism was not the means of salvation for Cornelius & house !!

False premise :: false conclusion - logical though...

> (HS baptism was never the means of salvation!!)

Christ sent us HIS gift, and that is the Holy Spirit, after His ascension... That is the gift we are given following our baptism into Christ, which follows our repentance... You will not find salvation outside immersion in the Holy Spirit - [The means of which is ongoing prayer and repentance, btw]...]

> THEREFORE – man can be and IS saved TODAY without HS baptism !!

This is but the vain reasoning of men...

> HS baptism was the result of promise (John 14:26, 16:13, Lk. 24:47, Acts 1:5) and prophecy (Joel 2:28/Acts 2:17), was never commanded for anyone, and never for salvation !!! There is not one NT passage that tells anyone, anywhere to get, give, or receive HS baptism outside of the Apostles being told to wait for it by Christ. It was a spontaneous event poured out by the will of God ! (cf. Acts 2:33). BTW, this supernatural event as all others had a specific purpose as we shall study later !!

The passage you deny is Acts 2:38-39:

38 Then Peter said unto them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to ***ALL*** who are afar off, even AS MANY AS THE LORD OUR GOD SHALL CALL."

Now what is it about "all...as many as the Lord our God SHALL call" that is all that unclear? It sure seems to say that IF God calls you, you will receive the promise, if you repent and are [hydrously] baptized into Christ...

And indeed, Christ's Apostolic Church to this day so baptizes, and confers the gift of the seal of the Holy Spirit throughout the world...

geo

Gavin

June 4th 2003, 11:25 PM

From Apollos' tenth:

Like a wilder beast being gnawed on by a pride of lions, Gavin bellows one final & defensive denial as if it would deter the frenzied feeding taking place upon his theological carcass!

Wow, Apollos, your analogies are killing me! :lol: :rofl: :rofl: :shrug: :huh:

Gavin

June 4th 2003, 11:36 PM

One other point:

I’m willing to put the matter to a test. There are some very nice hospitals here in Oklahoma just as I’m sure there are where Gavin lives. And there are some cemeteries here as well, as there are where Gavin lives. Now I don’t claim to have any MSG’s at all, but this is what I’ll do: if Gavin- or anyone else- will visit one of the hospitals where he lives and miraculously heal just ONE of the patients there who is terminally ill, then I’ll go to the largest hospital where I live and heal every patient. If he will demonstrate his “powers” by raising just one person from the dead, I will raise all the rest.

I don't carry God around on a leash, Apollos, and I cannot heal people at will. Not even Jesus healed everyone! There are times in Scripture where he did/could not heal because of a lack of faith and other reasons. See Mark 6:5 and many other passages as well.

Frankly, I don't believe that it is always God's will to heal. For his sovereign and ultimate purposes, God may chose to let sickness endure in some peoples' lives. This is, after all, a fallen world.

All that being said, I am willing to accept your test. I would gladly go to the hospital with you and lay hands on sick people and pray that God would heal them. I would also want to share the gospel with them, though, and, in line with what I said in the above two paragraphs, I cannot gaurantee that God would heal anyone. I cannot heal at will. Its up to God. Its his decision and power that accomplish anything.

But I have no objection to reaching out in faith and asking, and I think, Apollos, you just might be surprised at what God can do.

James 5
14Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.

Gavin

June 4th 2003, 11:59 PM

A couple of other things I wanted to reply to from Apollos' tenth:

I believe there were many times in the debate where Gavin “saw” the truth, yet he has both refused to acknowledge the truth & accept it.

Upon my word, that has not happened. I am not afraid to admit I am wrong and change my mind (indeed, that is how I became a charismatic in this first place), but nowhere did I see that I was wrong and refuse to admit it.

I did make an error in the debate in falsely stating that telios and telos are the same word when they are actually different but related, but I acknowledged this error in the debate.

I don't care if Apollos believes me, I just wanted to say that.

And those suspicions, by the way, are mutual, its just I don't have the tendency that Apollos has to question your opponent's honesty and integrity so recklessly.

Gavin that, as he grows older and gains some maturity

I knew my age would come into play at some point. It always does when I am debating older yet insecure men. I reply to Apollos like I reply to everyone else, with this verse:

1 Timothy 4:12
Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity.

I am not disqualified from defending sound doctrine simply because I am young! I refuse to be written off simply because I am 19. I have the apostle Paul's own approval in setting an example for believers in "speech, in life, in love, in faith, and in purity." I refuse to be looked down upon because of my age!!!

Job 32
8 But it is the spirit [2] in a man,
the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding.
9 It is not only the old [3] who are wise,
not only the aged who understand what is right.

And from Sophocles' Antigone:

CREON
Men of my age are we indeed to be schooled, then, by men of his?

HAEMON
In nothing that is not right; but if I am young, thou shouldest look to my merits, not to my years.

John Reece

June 5th 2003, 07:38 AM

Yesterday @ 05:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=116879#post116879)
Apollos:

The debate is now over, so I am free to address remarks here.

From the lack of activity, this topic must have no interest -or- I have answered all the questions that were previously posted.

Which is it my friends?

Shall we get down to the specifics??!! Or did I really answer all of the arguments posted earlier??

Have you seen the truth that MSGs did in fact cease?

:rofl:

If you were kidding, Apollos, it wouldn't be so funny.

:smile:

Apollos

June 5th 2003, 03:48 PM

Hello George –

I must say I always enjoy reading your posts. You have a way with words that I enjoy. It seems to me that you actually give some thought to what you write. That is certainly refreshing.

Yet, there are some details I think you overlooked in your last response. Details too important to ignore…

That is how the Holy Spirit affirms that the words one is hearing beginning to be spoken are Truth... The Holy Spirit accompanies the apostles, you see. It is not their speaking of words [eg the teachings of men] that give them power, but the Holy Spirit.
I completely agree! The HS’s action in Acts 10 affirmed that the apostle Peter was speaking the truth – and it was a surprise to everybody. This was the very PURPOSE of such miracles as this –
to reveal & confirm God’s truth!

Second, the HS did accompany the apostle’s so they spoke the truth. It was “these words” they spoke from the HS that had power, as they combined spiritual things with spiritual words (cf. 1 Cor.2:12,13). When these spiritual words were obeyed, there was a spiritual result!

In the case of Cornelius, WORDS were to be spoken whereby he and his household were to be SAVED. The evidence for this begins in Acts 10:6 – “he is going to tell you what to do”, and is repeated in verse 22, 33, & 11:14.

The WORDS Peter spoke are recorded in Acts 10.
The ORDER of events is recorded in Acts 11. (See particularly verse 4.)

It is in Acts 11:15 we see that the HS fell upon Cornelius and household as Peter “BEGAN to speak”. Now unless I just can’t read plain writin’, this means the baptism of the Spirit happened as Peter started talking, too early for the words to be spoken “whereby they would be saved” to be complete.

There is never any mention in these passages of any miraculous actions or events that were to take place that would save Cornelius, only WORDS! Shall we believe the testimony of the HS on this or not?

I conclude that if this was HS baptism (and I believe that it was) then this came too early to be the cause of salvation, as it came before the saving WORDS. I also conclude that because Luke, via the HS, tells us more than once that WORDS would be spoken “whereby” they would be saved, there had to be WORDS spoken that would have the result of their salvation.
<<*>>

Now I had said that: This means Cornelius and household received HS baptism BEFORE they were saved. You replied…

It does not. The mere fact of the action of the Holy Spirit is not of itself baptism by the Holy Spirit. And indeed, the GIFT of the Holy Spirit, as Acts 2:38 so simply indicates, FOLLOWS baptism...
Forgive me if I missed your point, but I think I got it. (I hope our disagreement is not one of semantics. The HS revealed water baptism as the means through which man appropriates the salvation that God offers man by His grace. Surely it is not in this vein that you refer to water baptism as “HS” baptism.)

Acts 11:15 & 16 indicate to me that we are talking about baptism in the HS. Peter’s comparison of the events in Acts 10 with those in Acts 2 - what happened to the apostles in the “beginning” - is a detail not to be overlooked.

These verses also indicate that HS baptism was a rare event, one that had not been witnessed by Peter in the last 10 years or so. Peter had to go back to the “beginning” to recall such an event. In fact, Luke records no similar event for the previous 10 years, and none such are recorded after this. Only Acts 2 and Acts 10 record HS baptism.

As to the “gift” of the HS, this gift does indeed follow (water) baptism as Acts 2:38 indicates. But the “gift” of the HS is not the HS Himself, but a gift that comes from the HS, which is salvation. Acts 8 shows that baptized believers do not receive the HS as their “gift”.[/b] If you feel my explanation of this “gift” as presented in the debate is not salvation, then please feel free to take that presentation, pick it apart, and then allow me to redress you. You certainly would be a good friend to correct my error, if indeed I am in error. I want to be right in the sight of Almighty God !!

Based on the above evidence, I feel that my thought is logical, my premise is sound, and the conclusions based upon them correct! You should stop overlooking the details!

Christ sent us HIS gift, and that is the Holy Spirit, after His ascension... That is the gift we are given following our baptism into Christ, which follows our repentance... You will not find salvation outside immersion in the Holy Spirit…
We must take note that we disagreed what the “gift” of Acts 2:38 is above. But then now, we disagree that the gift/baptism of the HS was promised only to the –12-, Cornelius receiving it because of prophesy. No one here, including you has offered any passage that indicates that HS baptism was promised to any others.

We can start in John 14:26, John 16:13, and progress to Luke 24:49 and into Acts 1, particularly verse 5 & 8. But do not overlook verse 2 which unquestionably sets the context of the entire passage as that concerning the APOSTLES.

The HS was promised to the TWELVE – no one else!

I will leave it up to you to show that HS baptism is directly somehow connected to man’s salvation cause… it ain’t !! Water baptism is!

You call this “vain reasoning” without an ounce of proof. I showed my reasoning above. It looks like you employed a tactic that Gavin used in the debate – “assert & run”.
<<*>>

The passage you deny is Acts 2:38-39:

"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to ***ALL*** who are afar off, even AS MANY AS THE LORD OUR GOD SHALL CALL."

Now what is it about "all...as many as the Lord our God SHALL call" that is all that unclear? It sure seems to say that IF God calls you, you will receive the promise, if you repent and are [hydrously] baptized into Christ...
I understand what “ALL” means, but that is not the point is it? The point is, what is being PROMISED?
What is it that you do not understand about the promise?

Peter told the gathered crowd, Repent and be baptized, this for the remission of their sins, and they would receive the “gift” of the HS. This gift, as prophesied, was salvation for all nations – ALL !!! As many as “called upon the name of the Lord” would be saved!!

Is this not what Ananias told Paul when he told him to… –
Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins… calling upon the name of the Lord! ??

It was and it is SALVATION that was promised to ALL – from Genesis 12 forward!!

And indeed, Christ's Apostolic Church to this day so baptizes, and confers the gift of the seal of the Holy Spirit throughout the world...
The church cannot convey and does not confer baptism in the HS today. The church was never authorized to do such and the church never received any promise that it would do such! Not to change the topic here but, the church-the body confers no such gift of the seal. This comes from God (2Cor.1:22) without using the church as the middle “man”.

Thanks for your discussion!

Apollos

June 5th 2003, 04:01 PM

Gavin –

I think the debating between you and I is over. I see no reason to give you heed just so you can attempt to vindicate yourself on a few points. Take it on the chin and go on! :fight:

You had –10- rounds to present your case – try hard to be happy with that! I certainly am !!!!!!

:cool:

Apollos

June 5th 2003, 04:07 PM

John -

I expected more from a man of your eloquence & apparent intelligence.

Is there a question I can answer for you?

:read:

Gavin

June 9th 2003, 03:18 PM

Apollos,

Gavin –

I think the debating between you and I is over.

I was just addressing some of the more personal things in your last post, like your challenge to go to a hospital. Let me know if you are ever in the area.

sincerely,

the wilder beast being gnawed on by a pride of lions

George Blaisdell

June 9th 2003, 07:03 PM

Apollos: writes:

Hello George –

> I must say I always enjoy reading your posts. You have a way with words that I enjoy. It seems to me that you actually give some thought to what you write. That is certainly refreshing.

What? Ya tryin' to get on my GOOD side??? I ain't got one!

> Details too important to ignore…

The devil's in the details!

> It is in Acts 11:15 we see that the HS fell upon Cornelius and household as Peter “BEGAN to speak”.

Yup - That's how it works with those apostles - They were and are kind of like spiritual Jedi... Sometimes the Holy Spirit gets to gettin' days before they even arrive at a place to begin to speak. And other times, He comes along after their departure...

> Now unless I just can’t read plain writin’, this means the baptism of the Spirit happened as Peter started talking, too early for the words to be spoken “whereby they would be saved” to be complete.

All you need to do is show me the little passage here, those little wonderful words of scripture, wherein it is said, in plain ol' English that this event, this action of the Holy Spirit, was baptism...

In the absence of that little passage, and in the absence of the early and consistent witness of the Church Fathers that this is what is meant by baptism of the Holy Spirit, then you have neither Scripture agreeing with you nor the pillar and ground of truth, the Church...

In the absence of either one of these, you have only your own reasoning, and you are but a man...

> Now I had said that: This means Cornelius and household received HS baptism BEFORE they were saved. You replied…

> > "It does not. The mere fact of the action of the Holy Spirit is not of itself baptism by the Holy Spirit. And indeed, the GIFT of the Holy Spirit, as Acts 2:38 so simply indicates, FOLLOWS baptism..."

> Forgive me if I missed your point, but I think I got it... [i]The HS revealed water baptism as the means through which man appropriates the salvation that God offers man by His grace. Surely it is not in this vein that you refer to water baptism as “HS” baptism.)

I don't understand that paragraph. There were early baptisms by John, and by Apostles into Christ, and on and on, and gradually that all got sorted out into just one baptism, the Church's baptism, in the Name of the Holy Trinity. [Which includes the Holy Spirit yes?]

> Acts 11:15 & 16 indicate to me that we are talking about baptism in the HS. Peter’s comparison of the events in Acts 10 with those in Acts 2 - what happened to the apostles in the “beginning” - is a detail not to be overlooked.

There is one baptism, for the remission of sins, and it is Christ's baptism, and it in water, and is followed by the annointing with the Holy Chrism, the "Christing" of the newly illumined believer, which is the seal of the Holy Spirit, which thereafter remains with the person baptized... This is all done sacramentally by the Apostolic Church.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit that follows this baptism is that of fire [meaning it is not predictable - The Wind blows where it wills], and continues throughout the life of the believer, in a whole lot of ways, without number. Are you arguing that there is some 'baptism' by the Holy Spirit that is a one-time event in each believer's life? Scripture does not show this. Nor does the Church. The one-time event was for the establishment of the Church, to be celebrated next Sunday, the Sunday of Pentecost...

> As to the “gift” of the HS, this gift does indeed follow (water) baptism as Acts 2:38 indicates. But the “gift” of the HS is not the HS Himself, but a gift that comes from the HS, which is salvation. Acts 8 shows that baptized believers do not receive the HS as their “gift”.[/b]

Acts 8: Peter and John, 15 ... prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost. 16 (For as yet, He had fallen upon none of them, for they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). 17 Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. 18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given...

This is why the Apostolic Church baptizes in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and hands are indeed laid on...

> Based on the above evidence, I feel that my thought is logical, my premise is sound, and the conclusions based upon them correct!

So what?

Do you really think that you can deduce you way to truth? That you can turn faith into an epistemic exercise of human reasonings?

Every heretical belief is believed for the exact reasons you ascribe to yourself. These are the vain reasonings of men. It is the Church that is the ground and pillar of truth, and not the premises, logical consistence, and conclusiveness of human beings...

> You should stop overlooking the details!

Your details do not inform my faith.

> We must take note that we disagreed what the “gift” of Acts 2:38 is above. But then now, we disagree that the gift/baptism of the HS was promised only to the –12-, Cornelius receiving it because of prophesy. No one here, including you has offered any passage that indicates that HS baptism was promised to any others.

This is wearying... Christ commands the apostles to baptize in the Name of the Holy Spirit... [together with the Father and the Son]... And that command is unto all ethnoi...

> The HS was promised to the TWELVE – no one else!

Then why is it that Christ commands that we be baptized in the name of the Holy Spirit?

> I will leave it up to you to show that HS baptism is directly somehow connected to man’s salvation cause… it ain’t !! Water baptism is!

And I will leave it to you to keep them separated...

> You call this “vain reasoning” without an ounce of proof.

The proof is your own claim of the reasoning as your own [see above]... You are neither an apostle nor within the communion of the Apostolic Church... And it is the Church that is the ground and pillar of truth.

> I showed my reasoning above.

There! You just proved me right again! YOUR reasoning means nothing except to yourself...

> It looks like you employed a tactic that Gavin used in the debate – “assert & run”.
<<*>>

Oh Waaaah!

Yet even a buff dude like me can only stomach soo much! ':tongue:'

> > And indeed, Christ's Apostolic Church to this day so baptizes, and confers the gift of the seal of the Holy Spirit throughout the world...

> The church cannot convey and does not confer baptism in the HS today.

You speak for yourself...

> The church was never authorized to do such and the church never received any promise that it would do such!

Acts 8:17 Then they [the apostles] laid their hands on them [the believers], and they received the Holy Ghost.

Are you suggesting that John and Peter are not in the Church? Or that the believers are not?

> Not to change the topic here but, the church-the body confers no such gift of the seal.

We are baptized into Christ, and Christ's baptism had the heavens open, the Holy Spirit descended, and remain upon Him...

THAT is what baptism is about... Entry into Christ.

> This comes from God (2Cor.1:22) without using the church as the middle “man”.

The Church is the Body of Christ - And Christ is the "Middle Man" you scorn...

> Thanks for your discussion!

I dunno how much more of it I can take! You take care!

geo

John Reece

June 10th 2003, 10:57 AM

Today @ 12:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=118866#post118866)
George Blaisdell:

Apollos:
Based on the above evidence, I feel that my thought is logical, my premise is sound, and the conclusions based upon them correct!

George:

So what?

Do you really think that you can deduce your way to truth? That you can turn faith into an epistemic exercise of human reasonings?

Every heretical belief is believed for the exact reasons you ascribe to yourself. These are the vain reasonings of men. It is the Church that is the ground and pillar of truth, and not the premises, logical consistence, and conclusiveness of human beings...

Apollos:
I showed my reasoning above.

George:
There! You just proved me right again! YOUR reasoning means nothing except to yourself...

You speak for yourself...

geo

Here’s to you, George: :cheers:

Harrell

June 10th 2003, 03:02 PM

I hope Apollos won’t be upset if someone who happens to agree with him steps into his sandbox to play. I am tempted to say that great minds think alike, but I’m afraid that if I do someone is going to throw 2Cor. 10:12 in my face, so I’ll just let it ride. Although I have only recently found this particular website and was a bit late coming to this debate, I followed it pretty closely throughout. I also followed all of the comments that have been made in the “Arena” area, but have refrained from dipping my own oar into the water until now. I will not comment on the posts made in the “Arena” during the debate, assuming that the questions and issues raised at that time were answered by the time the debate came to an end. However, with respect to the posts since the debate ended, may I offer my own observations?

First, George:
That is how the Holy Spirit affirms that the words one is hearing beginning to be spoken are Truth... The Holy Spirit accompanies the apostles, you see. It is not their speaking of words [eg the teachings of men] that give them power, but the Holy Spirit
There is no question that the HS was guiding Peter in what he was to say (which, by the way, is also evidence that what is claimed today is not what is found in the NT, else folks like Gavin wouldn’t have to dig it out of the Bible for themselves… the HS would simply “guide” them). The point of Acts 11:15 is that the HS fell upon Cornelius (it is identified as HS baptism, by the way, in Acts 11:16) as Peter began to speak! This is an especially significant point that I hope you will pay close attention to. Peter was sent to Cornelius to speak to him and tell him words whereby he and his house might be saved. Now, if Cornelius received HS baptism as Peter was beginning to speak, and if it was by the words of Peter that Cornelius was to be saved, then we can only conclude one thing: Cornelius received HS baptism before he believed, before he was saved!

The mere fact of the action of the Holy Spirit is not of itself baptism by the Holy Spirit. And indeed, the GIFT of the Holy Spirit, as Acts 2:38 so simply indicates, FOLLOWS baptism..
I’m a bit surprised that you would argue that what happened to Cornelius as Peter began to speak was not HS baptism. It certainly has the appearance of HS baptism in Acts 10:44-47. But even if that is not convincing enough, then surely Peter’s own words in Acts 11:16-17 should settle the matter. The problem is not that the record in Acts 10 and 11 is unclear or ambiguous. It is not. The problem is that what happened in Acts 10 and 11 doesn’t fit into what you believe regarding Acts 2:38. Rather than consider the possibility that your interpretation of Acts 2 might be off-base, you stick with what you believe about that verse and then deny what happened in Acts 10 and 11.

It may be that your confusion on Acts 2:38 (“the gift of the HS”) rests upon your personal conviction that this “gift” is the HS Himself, or as Gavin would put it, that it is HS baptism. Apollos pointed out a number of difficulties of this position in the course of the debate. I would simply remind you that if Acts 2:38 is the biblical pattern for HS baptism (i.e., believe, repent, be water baptized for remission of sins, and then receive HS baptism), then the pattern was broken in Acts 10. On the other hand, if “the gift of the HS” in Acts 2:38 refers to something other than HS baptism, then harmony of the scriptures is maintained.

Like Apollos, I believe that “the gift of the HS” in Acts 2:38 refers not to the HS Himself as the gift, but to something that was promised by the HS. Before you start pounding out a response, I want you to look at a couple of other places in the first two chapters of Acts where phrases with a similar grammatical construction are found. The first of these is in Acts 1:4. In that particular place, Jesus instructed His apostles to go to Jerusalem and wait for “the promise of the Father.” Surely you can see the similar construction to “the gift of the HS” in Acts 2:38? OK, then tell me, was Jesus telling His apostles that they were going to receive the Father Himself? No, of course not. Rather, they were going to receive in Jerusalem that which had been promised by the Father, namely, the HS. Hold that thought for a moment, and now look at Acts 2:33. In this passage, Peter declares that Christ received “the promise of the Holy Ghost.” Again, very similar construction to “the gift of the HS.” Now then, is Peter here saying that Jesus received the Holy Spirit as a promise? No, not at all. Instead, Peter is referring to something that the HS had promised through the prophet David, namely that Jesus would not remain in the grave but would be raised up from the dead to sit upon His throne (vv30-31). Now then, if you can see how “the promise of the Father” (1:4) refers to something that the Father had promised and does not refer to the Father Himself as the promise, and if you can see how “the promise of the Holy Ghost” (2:33) refers to something that the HS had promised and does not refer to the HS Himself as the promise, then you should have no trouble at all seeing how “the gift of the HS” (2:38) is referring to something that the HS promised to give, and does not refer to the HS Himself as the gift.

I think Apollos made a good case showing that the thing that had been promised by the HS, the thing about which these Jews on Pentecost were most concerned at that time, was salvation (Acts 2:21). When they cried out in v37 “Men and brethren, what shall we do,” I’m convinced they weren’t saying, “Yo Pete! What can we do to have the gift of tongues?” No, I just have a sneaky hunch that having come to the realization that they had been guilty of crucifying their own Messiah and the very Son of God they wanted to know “what shall we do to be saved!” Peter’s answer fits their question and the context perfectly. Furthermore, verse 39 nails the thing down completely. The “gift” in v38 is called the “promise” in v39, and both are referring to the same thing: salvation. Salvation is the thing that has been promised to “you, and to your children, and to all who are afar off” (Acts 2:21; Matt. 28:19-20; Mk. 16:16). That is the thing these Jews were looking for, and it is what they received when they obeyed the gospel.

Christ sent us HIS gift, and that is the Holy Spirit, after His ascension... That is the gift we are given following our baptism into Christ, which follows our repentance... You will not find salvation outside immersion in the Holy Spirit.
I think that part of the problem in this debate and in discussions such as this one is that we confuse terminology. This was particularly evident in the debate on the very issue you now raise. In the debate, Gavin (and now you) was constantly interchanging the indwelling of the HS with HS baptism, as though these are one and the same thing. They are not. You are correct that we receive the HS following our baptism into Christ. However, the particular measure of the Spirit that we receive is the indwelling measure. He is the earnest, or seal, that we receive in expectation of the eternal inheritance that belongs to those who are in Christ. This indwelling measure of the Spirit is bestowed upon each and every Christian at the very point of salvation. There are no exceptions. However, the baptism of the HS is a different matter altogether. This is a different measure of the Spirit than the indwelling measure. Every case of HS baptism that we read about in the Bible is accompanied by miraculous gifts. By his own admission in the debate, Gavin acknowledged that not all Christians have such miraculous gifts. Therefore, HS baptism must be fundamentally different from the indwelling of the HS. Coupled with this, recall once again the case of Cornelius who received HS baptism before he believed, before he was baptized, before he was saved… and it is clear that HS baptism is not equivalent to the indwelling of the HS.

There is one baptism, for the remission of sins, and it is Christ's baptism, and it in water…
The baptism of the Holy Spirit that follows this baptism is that of fire… and continues throughout the life of the believer, in a whole lot of ways, without number. Are you arguing that there is some 'baptism' by the Holy Spirit that is a one-time event in each believer's life? Scripture does not show this.
I’m not sure what kind of math they teach up there in Roslyn, Washington, but us east Texas rednecks are taught that “one plus one is two.” According to Eph. 4:5, “there is… one baptism.” But you are asserting that there is a “baptism, for the remission of sins… in water” (that’s one), which is subsequently followed by “the baptism of the Holy Spirit” (that’s another). I’m not much on the new math, but I’m pretty sure that’s two baptisms, not one. So, either you’ve got to give one of your two baptisms up, or declare that Paul got it wrong. Or perhaps you’d like to try your hand at reconciling the apparent contradiction.

I would suggest that the “contradiction” is cleared up by acknowledging that HS baptism was something special, something unique. It occurred only two times: the first, on Pentecost, to the apostles; and the second, with the household of Cornelius, the first Gentile converts. Both of these events had occurred a decade or more before Paul writes to the Ephesians and declares that there is “one baptism.” I’ll comment a bit more on this matter when I address your next point momentarily.

I don’t think it’s particularly relevant right now, but I’d also suggest that you take another look at “the baptism of fire” in Matt. 3:7-12, and consider the possibility that this is a reference to eternal punishment.

Then why is it that Christ commands that we be baptized in the name of the Holy Spirit?
I assume you are referring here to Matt. 28:19. This is not referring to HS baptism, but to water baptism which is done “in the name of” (or into a relationship with) “the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” When penitent believers are baptized in water as directed by our Lord, they enter into a relationship with the Godhead. At this point they “have” the Father, they “have” the Son, and they “have” the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8:17 Then they [the apostles] laid their hands on them [the believers], and they received the Holy Ghost.

Are you suggesting that John and Peter are not in the Church? Or that the believers are not?
You are confusing church action and individual action. Peter and John were not “the church” acting. They were acting in their capacity as apostles. The church as a corporate body never received HS baptism nor was it ever empowered to confer it upon anyone. HS baptism was promised to the apostles, they received it on Pentecost, and as a consequence they revealed the gospel of Christ resulting in the salvation of some 3000 souls and the beginning of the church.

Now, to Gavin:
I don't carry God around on a leash, Apollos, and I cannot heal people at will. Not even Jesus healed everyone! There are times in Scripture where he did/could not heal because of a lack of faith and other reasons.
First, as to the matter of having “God on a leash.” Your very clear implication here is that you don’t have any control over the “miraculous gifts” you claim to possess (“I cannot heal people at will”). This, it seems to me, is just one more example of how your claims do not match what we read about in the NT. According to 1Cor. 14:32, “the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.” According to you, your own gifts are not under your control. According to 2Tim. 1:6, Timothy was to “stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.” Now, if this gift was not under Timothy’s control, then Paul was telling him to do something that it was not possible for him to do. Which seems to be what you are saying about your own “gifts.” Finally, I would remind you that Paul’s instructions in 1Cor. 12 and 14 necessarily imply that the gifts were under the control and power of those to whom they had been given. If this were not the case, then what would be the point of all the regulations that Paul gives them as to how and when and where they were to use their gifts? This is not a matter of having “God on a leash,” as you suggest, but in having a gift that is like the gifts that were given in the NT.

Second, I’m astonished at your statement that “there are times in Scripture were Jesus did/could not heal.” I agree that sometime Jesus did not heal for a variety of reasons. But to suggest as you have done that Jesus could not heal seems to me to border on blasphemy. You are suggesting that Jesus’ power is limited by men. What? Do you really believe that the One who created the worlds from nothing by merely speaking them into existence could be thwarted by mere men from performing some little miracle? Is this really how far you are willing to go to defend your own claims? Is this how you go about saying that what you have is just like what we read about in the NT… by diminishing the NT miracles to such a degree that they are comparable to your own claims?

While it is true that Jesus did not always heal, when He chose to heal He had the power to do so. Completely, on the spot, without fail. Those who had spiritual gifts in the NT had this same power (1Cor. 14:32). Your “proof-text” (Mark 6:5) doesn’t do what you need it to do. Does the phrase, “could do no miracle there” mean that it was an impossibility on His part to perform any miracles in Nazareth? Or do you suppose it just might be referring back to the previous verses where the people of Nazareth had rejected out of hand every miracle that He had performed in their presence and would not bring themselves to consider the possibility that this “carpenter’s son” whom they had known as He was growing up was indeed the Son of God? In fact, v2 alludes to miracles that Jesus had performed in their presence, as does the end of v5.

Finally, your suggestion that a healing might be impossible because the person being healed does not have enough faith is preposterous. Weren't spiritual gifts designed to produce faith in men who had no faith? In Acts 2, for example, the apostles spoke in other tongues so that those unbelieving Jews might realize that the message that they were about to hear was of God and not men. Similarly, miracles were performed not because people were already believers, but so that they might become believers (Acts 8:6, 12). Your suggestion that modern healers are somehow prohibited by the unbelief of others from performing a miracle, the very purpose of which is to create faith, is to me very confounding! The miracle that is supposed to create faith cannot be performed because the person in whom faith is to be created does not believe!

Jesus taught his apostles that their ability to heal was always dependent upon their own faith. Faith on the part of the individual being healed is specifically mentioned or implied in only a few of the healing miracles in the New Testament (Matt. 8:2-3; 9:20-22, 27-31; 20:30-34; Luke 17:11-19; Acts 14:8-9). But even though faith on the part of the person being healed was mentioned or implied in these few cases, their faith did not determine the success of the healing. Rather, their faith so impressed the Lord that He "rewarded" them by healing them. But it was not so in the majority of the cases mentioned in scripture. In every single case of miraculous healing in the New Testament, the success of the miracle was dependent upon the person doing the healing and not upon the person being healed. In Matt. 17:19-20, Jesus told his apostles that “if ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed...”. The only faith that was necessary was the faith on the part of the person performing the miracle. The apostles’ failure to heal the man’s son in Matt. 17 was due to their own lack of faith and had nothing at all to do with whether or not the man himself believed.

All that being said, I am willing to accept your test. I would gladly go to the hospital with you and lay hands on sick people and pray that God would heal them.
This, I’m afraid, is another example like the one I mentioned to George earlier, where you are confusing and intermingling two different things. You seem to be confusing the power of prayer and miraculous spiritual gifts. Miraculous spiritual gifts were just that: they were miraculous. They were immediate. They were permanent. They were complete. Do not confuse prayer and miraculous spiritual gifts. Prayer is not a miraculous spiritual gift. It is a spiritual blessing (like salvation) that is enjoyed by all who are in Christ Jesus. Can all Christians pray for someone who is sick? Of course they can! Will God always answer their prayers? Yes, absolutely! Is His answer always "Yes?" No, it isn't. The Lord taught His disciples to pray, "Thy will be done." When we pray to God, we are expressing to Him our desires, wishes, supplications. But as faithful, obedient children who have full trust in their parents' care and protection, we trust that whatever God decides to do will be for the best. But this is not how spiritual gifts operated. Do not forget that those who had those miraculous gifts had the Holy Spirit operating in and through them and therefore whatever they did "in the Spirit" was, by definition, already "the will of God." Consequently, it was not necessary for them to pray to God "thy will be done" before exercising the gifts given to them by God. So, once more, it is evident that your claims do not appear to match those that we read about in the NT.

I would also mention that there is really no reason for you to even make a personal trip to the hospital. In the NT record, there were those who were healed from great distances. That being said, there’s a lady in the church I attend who has been stricken with cancer and has struggled with it for a number of years. Now, sadly, the doctors have said that there is nothing else they can do for her. She is in hospice care and has only weeks left to live. Would you, or any of your like-minded gift possessors heal her now? I won’t hold my breath.

I cannot heal at will. Its up to God. Its his decision and power that accomplish anything.
I appreciate your admission, and remind you and anyone else who reads this that you have hereby admitted that you do not have what we read about in the NT. And I think you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that if you attempt to heal someone, and fail, that it is somehow God’s fault! You wanted to heal, and God gave you the power to do so, but then when you attempted to exercise the power that He gave you He yanked the power back and decided not to let you heal. It was bad enough when you earlier attempted to blame any potential failure on your part on the lack of faith on the part of the person being healed. But to now blame your failure on God… well, I just don’t know what to say.

Apollos

June 10th 2003, 03:03 PM

Hello again George –

I fear we continue to have some semantical confusion. Let try to cut through some of that with the following synopsis of my belief.

The one baptism for today is the same baptism that has been practiced since the church began in Acts 2 – baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” – which is in water and for the remission of sins. This is the only baptism authorized (“in the name”) by Christ in Matthew 28:18f into the name of the F/S/HS. (Which includes the HS, yes!)

HS baptism as in Acts 2 & 10 does not take place today.

I am thinking we have been in agreement on this, but your appearance here in the “Have MSGs ceased” arena makes me question what you are really thinking.

All you need to do is show me the little passage here, those little wonderful words of scripture, wherein it is said, in plain ol' English [I would even settle for Greek] that this event, this action of the Holy Spirit, was baptism...
Would it matter? I mean, later that man’s reasoning (by whatever rules you have made up by man’s reasoning) is not to be considered reliable. Do you ever find yourself arguing with yourself ???

I believe –2- passages tell us that what Cornelius received was in fact baptism in the HS:

Acts 10:47 - Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit… -and-

Acts 11: 15 - And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit.

If you still disagree with me, all you have to do is tell me what these –2- passages mean, and then tell me what it is you think Cornelius did receive (some anointing you say?) – but please tell me WHY you believe this is what it is!!

There is one baptism, for the remission of sins, and it is Christ's baptism, and it in water, and is followed by the annointing with the Holy Chrism, the "Christing" of the newly illumined believer, which is the seal of the Holy Spirit, which thereafter remains with the person baptized... This is all done sacramentally by the Apostolic Church.
You lost me after the water with that “anointing” stuff. If you so care, please provide scripture to back up your beliefs. That is, if you care to reason from the scriptures.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit that follows this baptism is that of fire [meaning it is not predictable - The Wind blows where it wills], and continues throughout the life of the believer, in a whole lot of ways, without number.
Well, according to [b]the order seen in Acts 10, you have this backward George – IF it this were happening today!

And then, the “baptism of fire” is that of eternal punishment (Matt. 3, Luke 3). As you know, not too long ago I posted a short piece about the baptism of fire being eternal punishment. I remember at that time, after being asked by someone else in that thread if you agreed with what I said, you affirmed you did. Maybe you changed your mind since then? (I would be happy to repeat that for you if you like.)

Then you mixed in a little John 3 (The wind blows where it will…) with the baptism of “fire” in Matt. 3, but there is NO mention of the baptism of fire in John 3 & no connection, so that is out of its context!

Acts 8: Peter and John, 15 ... prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost. 16 (For as yet, He had fallen upon none of them, for they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). 17 Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. 18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given...

This is why the Apostolic Church baptizes in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and hands are indeed laid on...
This response did not answer what the “gift” of the HS is in Acts 2:38.

And if this is why the church you are a member of baptizes in the name of the F/S/&HS, I either don’t understand what you said here –or- the reason your church uses is incorrect!

Do you really think that you can deduce you way to truth? That you can turn faith into an epistemic exercise of human reasonings?
Yes –and- Yes !! It is God who has seen to the provision of such!

-God’s word is truth – John 17:17.
-Faith comes from that word – Romans 10:17.
-Paul says we can understand revelation just as he understood it when we read – Ephesians 3:4.
-Paul “reasoned” with the Jews in reference to their salvation – Acts 17:2 out of the scriptures.
-And the Greeks – Acts 18:4.
-Felix received the “reasoning” also – Acts 24:25
-Peter was correct when he told those on Pentecost to save themselves –Acts 2:40.

--So understand my friend what the will of the Lord is – Eph. 5:17 !!

- If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself. – John 7:17.

It is the Church that is the ground and pillar of truth, and not the premises, logical consistence, and conclusiveness of human beings...
The church is the pillar (that which upholds) and the ground (the place of dwelling) of the truth – I agree! And the church should be!!

BUT – the church is not the SOURCE of truth. God is the source of truth! And that truth – his word – comes from and is revealed in the scriptures! And it is from the scriptures – not the church – that man learns to worship & serve Jehovah God!

To love the Lord thy God with all of our heart, soul, strength, and mind requires that we serve Him with the same. Yes, man uses his mind as well as his emotion and will to render service to God!

The rest of the post (your rantings) I think were so much semantical disagreements that I hope have been covered above.

I dunno how much more of it I can take!
Whether you have a good side or not George, you are tougher than this. I have read some of your other discussions. Why this “weakness” all of a sudden?

George, I am still wondering why you are in this thread. You are obviously not a “gift-seeker”.

BTW, where did all of them go????

Apollos

June 10th 2003, 03:11 PM

John -

I hope you take the time to read my post above. Especially the blue print. It was prepared before I saw your last post.

Are you sure there are no "gift" questions I can answer for you???

Isaiah 1:18 - "Come now, and let us reason together..."

Gavin

June 12th 2003, 02:13 PM

Harrel,

I will reply if you can prove to me that you are not Apollos in disguise. :hrm:

Gavin

Harrell

June 12th 2003, 03:01 PM

Gavin,

I will reply if you can prove to me that you are not Apollos in disguise.
I’m not sure who should be more insulted by your question, me or Apollos? If he had my boyish good looks, and I had his charm… well, I suppose that wouldn’t work either. People would probably think we were you (just kidding).

Actually, I don’t know how to prove that I’m not him. Matter of fact, I’m not even sure that I could prove that I’m me. I guess you’ll just have to take my word for it, since I live in the Houston, TX area, and, based on Apollos’ profile he claims to be from Lawton, OK. Now, I’ve never been to Lawton as far as I can remember. But I can’t say whether or not my parents might have ever been there… in which case, I suppose there might be just an outside chance that he could be me.

If you choose to reply to me, I will try to reply to you, if you can prove to me that you are not Elvis Presley.

John Reece

June 12th 2003, 03:24 PM

Gavin,

A sense of humor.

No exclamation points.

Maybe . . .

:smile:

Gavin

June 12th 2003, 04:56 PM

OK, Harrel, I will try to reply to your post in greater substance later on this week.

I cling to my suspicions, though. :hrm:

Gavin

Harrell

June 12th 2003, 05:19 PM

Gavin,

I cling to my suspicions, though.
Suspicious Minds? I knew it! You are Elvis, aren’t you?

I assure you I’m not Apollos. But judging from your picture, if you'd put on a couple of hundred pounds and a white sequined cape, and then let your hair go a little longer with sideburns, who knows… you could pass for Elvis. And while we’re talking about suspicions, I find it very suspicious that you’ve listed your location as “highly classified.” Nobody knows where you are… just like the King. Hmmm…. Could it be? Next time I read of another Elvis siting, I’m not going to know for sure if it was really Elvis or just Gavin trying to catch another blue light special at the local K-Mart store.

I’ll be looking forward to your “greater substance.” Just stay away from the Milk Duds.

Apollos

June 12th 2003, 05:28 PM

Harrell -

I think if anyone gets to be Elvis, it should be you.

(But then, I will e-mail him later and ask him if it is okay...)

Harrell

June 12th 2003, 05:34 PM

I can't do an Elvis impression as well as Gavin, but here goes...

:rockon:"Thank’yuh… thank’yuh vuhra much…":rockon:

How was that?

Apollos

June 12th 2003, 05:40 PM

Harrel -

Maybe you need a white suit to boot. But I don't that will help.

Actually, I think Gavin is suspicious because he is really "Sir Tor" back at post #44 - this thread.

What do you think ???

:huh:

Harrell

June 12th 2003, 06:09 PM

whoooieeee.... I can't tell if I'm schizophrenic or paranoid.

Let me see if I've got this straight...
Gavin thinks I'm Apollos,
I think Gavin is Elvis,
Apollos thinks I'm Elvis and that Gavin is Sir Tor.
If I've got this right, then Apollos is me and Gavin is Elvis (and Sir Tor all rolled up into one). But since Apollos thinks I'm Elvis, then I must be Gavin. And if Apollos is me, then he must be Elvis, and if he's Elvis, then he must be Gavin. But if Apollos is Gavin, then who was debating whom, and do I agree with Apollos or Gavin or neither one of them? I don't know Gavin (or Apollos, or Elvis, or Sir Tor, or whoever you are), but I've just about convinced myself that if we continue our discussion (which really hasn't even begun), that I'll just be arguing with myself. Not that it's never happened before, but it hasn't happened since I've been on my medication.

I think I'm getting a headache. Where are those milk duds?

(If anyone could follow that, then maybe there really is something to these claims of miraculous spiritual gifts today.)

Gavin

June 12th 2003, 11:27 PM

Wow, you are way too funny to be Apollos. I take it all back.

I will gladly be thought of as Elvis, but fyi that is Dave Matthews in my avatar (not me), but they are both successful musicians, so what the heck.

Sir Tor is my friend Noah to whom I recommended the site. If I was faking someone, I would have at least agreed with myself. Sir Tor (Noah) is not a charismatic (yet - I am working on him).

My attempt at greater substance coming below . . . .

:shrug:

Gavin

June 13th 2003, 01:11 AM

Dear Harrel,

First, I find it extremely odd that you would base all your attacks on a small and relatively unimportant converstation between Apollos and myself after the debate was over regarding a personal challenge of his, rather than comment on my arguments in the debate itself. Why not address the more important issues?

Now for line by line.

First, as to the matter of having “God on a leash.” Your very clear implication here is that you don’t have any control over the “miraculous gifts” you claim to possess (“I cannot heal people at will”).

First, I never claimed to have a gift of healing. Already you have proven that your biases against charismatics are going to dominate your discussion. You simply assume that because I believe in miraculous gifts, I therefore claim to have them. The only gift I have experienced of a miraculous nature is tongues (and that very recently, see my tenth post in the debate).

I do not have a gift of healing, but Scripture speaks of praying for the sick in contexts other than the gift of healing (James 5:14-15). Or do you not believe James 5:14-15 has not contemporary relevance?

Second, there is a huge difference between "not having any control over a gift of healing" on the one hand and "not being able to heal at will" on the other. The formor has a much more negative connotation, and I will not allow words to be put in my mouth.

This, it seems to me, is just one more example of how your claims do not match what we read about in the NT.

Nowhere in the New Testament is the gift of healing as is in view in I Corinthians 12:9 said to be "automatic" or "at will". You assume this, but the text never indicates it.

Moreover, several factors actually indicate that the person with the gift of healing could not exercise it at free will, but rather was dependant on God's sovereign prerogative. In other words, the healer could heal only in so far as was in accord with God's will (and it is not always God's will to heal). Among the factors that point toward this conclusion are:

1) Not even Jesus himself cleaned out all the hospitals of the ancient world. There were times when Jesus healed all the sick people who were around him (e.g. Matthew 8:16, 12:15, Luke 6:19), but there are other times when he heals only one among many (e.g., John 5:3-9). At the pool of Bethesda many sick people would be strewn about and would have needed healing, yet Jesus healed only one person! Why? Jesus says in the same chapter, "the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing." Hence Luke's statement, "and the power of the Lord was present for him to heal the sick". As Deere remarks, "why would Luke say that . . . if Jesus could heal at any time, under any condition, and solely at his own discretion? This statement only makes sense if we view healing as the sovereign prerogative of God the Father, who sometimes dispenses his power to heal and at other times witholds it." (*1)

Even more clearly, Mark 6:5 says that "(Jesus) could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.” Jesus’ ability to work miracles is related to the lack of faith displayed in him by those of his hometown. I am not denying the omnipotence of Jesus as the second person of the Trinity, but I am putting it in perspective – in perspective of his voluntary submission to the will of God the Father (this is a theme in John, see 3:34, 5:30, 7:16, 8:28, 12:49-50, 14:10, 24, 31). This view is an entirely orthodox view called functional subordination – Jesus, though God, voluntarily submits himself to doing the work God the Father set out for him while in his earthly life as a man (see Philippians 2:5-11).

The point is, even Jesus himself could not heal at will, anytime, any place, without his Father’s approval. And if this is true for the Son of God, how much more is it true for the apostles and for those with the gift of healing! This is exactly what we read in the New Testament about the miracles the apostles worked. Peter and John protest that it is not their own godliness that heals the begger in Acts 3:12, 13, but God’s decision. And there are instances when the apostles are unable to heal a demonized boy because of their lack of faith (Matthew 17:6). Just as Jesus said of himself, “by myself I can do nothing” (John 5:30), so he tells his disciples in John 15:5, “Apart from me you can do nothing.”

If the Son of God and the apostles could not heal at will, how much less can ordinary lay people who are endowed with gifts of healings! In short, the view of the New Testament is not that healing was automatic or at will, as you presuppose, Harrel.

2) Secondly, the plural(s), “gifts of healings”, charismata iamaton, (I Corinthians 12:9), is most significant (and reoccurs in verses 28 and 29). Why did Paul word it like this? A surprisingly high number of commentators argue that Paul employs the plural to indicate the somewhat sporadic and incalculable appearances of this gift, often in different people to different degrees depending on the context. I won’t cite them all here, but here are few examples.

Carson: “(the plural) strongly suggests that there are different gifts of healings: not everyone was getting healed by one person, and perhaps certain persons with one of these gifts of healing could by the Lord’s grace heal certain diseases or heal a variety of diseases but only at certain times.”

Green: “the use of the plural, ‘gifts of healings’, suggests that each occasion of healing is a manifestation of this gift; no individual permanently possesses the power to heal.”

Robertson and Plummer: “the plur. seems to imply that different persons each had a disease or group of diseases that they could sure.”

Fee: “the plural charismata probably suggests not a permanent ‘gift’, as it were, but that each occurrence is a ‘gift’ in its own right.”

Thomas sums it up: “healing was one of the gifts that a person so gifted could not exercise indiscriminately. It had to be accompanied with a consiousness of harmony with the will of God in any given circumstance.”

Let me know if you want the references for any of those.

You continue:
According to 1Cor. 14:32, “the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.” According to you, your own gifts are not under your control.

First, I am not a prophet. Second, I am not a healer. Third (and again), there is a difference between being in control of your spirit and healing at will.

According to 2Tim. 1:6, Timothy was to “stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.” Now, if this gift was not under Timothy’s control, then Paul was telling him to do something that it was not possible for him to do. Which seems to be what you are saying about your own “gifts.”

Wow that is a bad argument. Why would one need to heal at will to be able to stir up one’s gift? They are not the same.

Finally, I would remind you that Paul’s instructions in 1Cor. 12 and 14 necessarily imply that the gifts were under the control and power of those to whom they had been given. If this were not the case, then what would be the point of all the regulations that Paul gives them as to how and when and where they were to use their gifts? This is not a matter of having “God on a leash,” as you suggest, but in having a gift that is like the gifts that were given in the NT.

See above. Being in control of your gifts and being able to heal at will are not comparable. The gift of healing is not in view in I Corinthians 14 anyway.

Second, I’m astonished at your statement that “there are times in Scripture were Jesus did/could not heal.” I agree that sometime Jesus did not heal for a variety of reasons. But to suggest as you have done that Jesus could not heal seems to me to border on blasphemy. You are suggesting that Jesus’ power is limited by men. What? Do you really believe that the One who created the worlds from nothing by merely speaking them into existence could be thwarted by mere men from performing some little miracle? Is this really how far you are willing to go to defend your own claims? Is this how you go about saying that what you have is just like what we read about in the NT… by diminishing the NT miracles to such a degree that they are comparable to your own claims?

See my first point above. Its far from blasphemy. Now its your turn to exegete Mark 6:5.

While it is true that Jesus did not always heal, when He chose to heal He had the power to do so. Completely, on the spot, without fail. Those who had spiritual gifts in the NT had this same power (1Cor. 14:32). Your “proof-text” (Mark 6:5) doesn’t do what you need it to do. Does the phrase, “could do no miracle there” mean that it was an impossibility on His part to perform any miracles in Nazareth? Or do you suppose it just might be referring back to the previous verses where the people of Nazareth had rejected out of hand every miracle that He had performed in their presence and would not bring themselves to consider the possibility that this “carpenter’s son” whom they had known as He was growing up was indeed the Son of God? In fact, v2 alludes to miracles that Jesus had performed in their presence, as does the end of v5.

Your proof-text, I Corinthians 14:32, does not say anything about the gift of healing being at will. And I have no idea what you are talking about on Mark 6:5. What previous verses? Be more clear! Any way you go with it you will not be able to deal with the specific words of the text: “Jesus could not do”.

Finally, your suggestion that a healing might be impossible because the person being healed does not have enough faith is preposterous.

Are you saying that Scripture is preposterous? Matthew 7:19-20, James 5:15. Lack of faith is not always the reason God does heal, but it can be a reason.

Weren't spiritual gifts designed to produce faith in men who had no faith? In Acts 2, for example, the apostles spoke in other tongues so that those unbelieving Jews might realize that the message that they were about to hear was of God and not men. Similarly, miracles were performed not because people were already believers, but so that they might become believers (Acts 8:6, 12). Your suggestion that modern healers are somehow prohibited by the unbelief of others from performing a miracle, the very purpose of which is to create faith, is to me very confounding! The miracle that is supposed to create faith cannot be performed because the person in whom faith is to be created does not believe!

“Creating faith” is most certainly not the sole purpose of miracles. Where did you get that idea? Miracles are often done in response to faith. Paul repeatedly points to the edification of the body (who are already believers) as the purpose of miraculous gifts (I Corinthians 12:7, 14:3, 26, 31, Ephesians 4:11, etc.).

Jesus taught his apostles that their ability to heal was always dependent upon their own faith.

I thought it was supposed to create their faith . . . ?

The only faith that was necessary was the faith on the part of the person performing the miracle.

That is blatently false according to the very verses you cite. Did Jesus heal the daughter of the Caananite woman because of his own faith, or faith (Mark 15:28)? You need to rethink this.

The apostles’ failure to heal the man’s son in Matt. 17 was due to their own lack of faith

That’s true, it goes both ways.

I appreciate your admission, and remind you and anyone else who reads this that you have hereby admitted that you do not have what we read about in the NT. And I think you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that if you attempt to heal someone, and fail, that it is somehow God’s fault! You wanted to heal, and God gave you the power to do so, but then when you attempted to exercise the power that He gave you He yanked the power back and decided not to let you heal. It was bad enough when you earlier attempted to blame any potential failure on your part on the lack of faith on the part of the person being healed. But to now blame your failure on God… well, I just don’t know what to say.

Its not God’s failure, its just not his will. Where have you been?

(*1) Deere, Surprised, 59.

(*2) idem, 60.

Harrell

June 13th 2003, 02:22 PM

Gavin,

I will gladly be thought of as Elvis, but fyi that is Dave Matthews in my avatar (not me). aaarrrrggghhh….. whaddayamean that’s not you!? You’re just messin’ with my mind, aren’t you? I suppose Apollos is going to come clean next and confess that he really isn’t that old barefoot guy with a white beard and a robe in his avatar.

I find it extremely odd that you would base all your attacks on a small and relatively unimportant conversation between Apollos and myself after the debate was over regarding a personal challenge of his, rather than comment on my arguments in the debate itself. Why not address the more important issues?Well, I didn’t comment on “the more important issues” because I thought Apollos handled them quite nicely. As to my “attacks,” I didn’t mean for my earlier comments to be construed as an “attack,” certainly not a personal attack, and I hope you didn’t take it that way. I merely thought it odd that at the outset of the debate you made it clear that you were going to talk about the issues from a strictly scriptural standpoint. On a couple of occasions Apollos mentioned his own experiences and observations regarding the many disparate religious groups today that all claim to be in possession of MSG’s, but you showed little interest in discussing that particular aspect of the issue. But then, at the very end of the debate in your 10th and final post you waxed eloquent regarding your own experiences.

I don’t question the value of experience, but surely you realize how easily we can be deceived. Does not the scripture warn us that “even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light,” and that “his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness” (2Cor. 11:14-15)? And in another place aren’t we told “let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall” (1Cor. 10:12)? I don’t think these warnings are given to those who have purposely invented preposterous lies and led many astray. These were not deceived… they were liars and charlatans. But I think Paul’s warnings are for men of integrity, for those whose sole aim it is to obey God. Even these can be deceived. They can be made to think that their “experiences” are genuine and that they are evidence of their right-standing before God. I don’t put you into that former class of liars and charlatans. I perceive you to be a man of integrity desiring to obey God… but you have been deceived. The point of my comments was to merely point out what I believe to be differences between your own claims and what I read about MSG’s in the NT.

First, I never claimed to have a gift of healing. Already you have proven that your biases against charismatics are going to dominate your discussion. No, Gavin, I don’t have any biases against charismatics. Don’t mistake scriptural disagreement with personal bias. And forgive me for assuming that you claimed to have the gift of healing. I took your statement that “I cannot heal people at will” to mean that you have the ability to heal, but not “at will.” Nevertheless, the principal applies equally to tongues. The MSG’s were gifts that were given to men. They were under the control of the person to whom they were given. The gift of healing was under the control of the person possessing the gift. The gift of tongues was under the control of the person possessing the gift. By contrast, everyone that I’ve talked to (at least all that I can recall at the present time) who claims such gifts insists that they do not control them, but that the HS just comes down and takes over their bodies and does His work through them. The “God on a leash” argument is one that I’ve heard before… just not in scripture.

I do not have a gift of healing, but Scripture speaks of praying for the sick in contexts other than the gift of healing (James 5:14-15). Or do you not believe James 5:14-15 has not contemporary relevance? I thought in my earlier post that I was clear that I believed in the power of prayer. I was equally clear that prayer is a spiritual blessing given to all believers. It is not a miraculous spiritual gift. I am sure you understand the difference.

Several factors actually indicate that the person with the gift of healing could not exercise it at free will, but rather was dependant on God's sovereign prerogative. In other words, the healer could heal only in so far as was in accord with God's will. I understand your reluctance to assign “free will” to the MSG’s. And believe it or not, I agree with you… to a point. It is surely true that those who possessed MSG’s in the NT could not use them in a manner that would be inconsistent with God’s will or His purpose in giving the gift in the first place. However, it is equally clear that the gifts were in the control and power of the person to whom they were given, and that they were empowered to exercise that gift at any time and in any place… as long as it was consistent with God’s will and the purpose for which the gift was given.

An illustration, perhaps, will help you see the point. Let’s suppose that I were to give my teenage son a car (it ain’t gonna happen, much to his consternation). That car would be his, it would be under his control, under his power to use as he sees fit. He could drive it to work, to school, to church, to the store, on dates… you get the picture. All of these things are consistent with my rules and the purpose for giving the gift. But if I find out that he’s using it in some activity or manner of which I disapprove, then he’ll lose the car. The same thing is true of MSG’s in the NT. They were gifts. They were given. Once received, they belonged to the recipient. They were under his control, under his power. They could be exercised “at will” in any time or place that was both consistent with God’s will and purpose for the gift.

My point is this: if you have MSG’s, then they are under your power, they are under your control (1Cor. 14:32; 2Tim. 1:6). If you attempt to exercise your gift and are unsuccessful, then only one of two things can be true: either you do not have the gift at all, or you are attempting to use the gift in a manner that is inconsistent with God’s will or purpose of the gift. Now, since you claim to have the gifts, then any failure on your part must be attributed to the latter reason. But for the life of me I cannot understand why you would argue that it is inconsistent with God’s will to confirm to unbelievers (like me, in MSG’s) that these gifts are present today just as they were in the first century. I cannot understand why you would argue that exercising the gift in the way I requested would be inconsistent with what you believe to be the purpose of MSG’s. Which brings us back to square one. Unless you can explain for me and any others who may be following this discussion why it would be inconsistent with God’s will and the purpose of MSG’s to exercise the gift that you say God has given you, then I have no choice but to conclude that you do not have MSG’s like the one’s I read about in the NT.

Not even Jesus himself cleaned out all the hospitals of the ancient world. True, because that was not the purpose of miracles.

Mark 6:5 says that "(Jesus) could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.” Jesus’ ability to work miracles is related to the lack of faith displayed in him by those of his hometown. I am not denying the omnipotence of Jesus as the second person of the Trinity, but I am putting it in perspective – in perspective of his voluntary submission to the will of God the Father. Your denials to the contrary notwithstanding, your interpretation of Mark 6:5 most certainly does deny the omnipotence of Christ. Your explanation of the phrase “He could do no miracle there” is that it was an impossibility, that Jesus was powerless to perform a miracle there.

By way of illustration, let me offer another interpretation that is consistent with the deity of Christ and the purpose of miracles. Remember that fictitious car that I mentioned in my last illustration? Well, let’s suppose that someone were to approach my son and challenge him to a drag race. If my son has a brain in his head (which he doesn’t have right now, but I’m told he will grow one as soon as he is out of his teen years) he will respond, “I can’t drag race.” Now, Gavin, do you suppose that “I can’t” means that it is an impossibility? Or is it rather an expression that this activity would not be consistent with his father’s rules and would not be one of the purposes for which the car was given to him? I think you see the difference. When the scripture says that Jesus “could not do any miracles there,” this does not mean that He had no power, but is merely an acknowledgement that given the hardness of the hearts of the people in that town, performing any miracles (other than those He did perform) would not have served any purpose. Those folks would not believe “though one rose from the dead.” Now then, unless you’re arguing that Apollos or I fall into the same category as those described in Mark 6, then this argument of yours is a straw man.

Peter and John protest that it is not their own godliness that heals the beggar in Acts 3:12, 13, but God’s decision. I’m sorry, Gavin, but I’m afraid you read something into the passage that is not there. Peter did not say that it was “God’s decision” that healed the man. Indeed, at the end of v12 he admits that “we made this man walk.” But even though Peter was the one who chose to heal the man, he wanted the people to understand that it was because of the power of God working through him that he was able to do this thing. And if God had empowered Peter to work miracles, then the people ought to listen to the things that Peter had to say- because his words would bear the approval and authority of God Himself. And so, the miracle served the purpose for which miracles were designed: to confirm the message.

Secondly, the plural(s), “gifts of healings”, charismata iamaton, (I Corinthians 12:9), is most significant (and reoccurs in verses 28 and 29). Why did Paul word it like this? A surprisingly high number of commentators argue that Paul employs the plural to indicate the somewhat sporadic and incalculable appearances of this gift. I don’t think the phrase suggests anything “sporadic.” The idea seems to be that some people had the gift to heal one disease (or group of diseases) and other people could heal other diseases. But in either case, those who were in possession of the gift were empowered to use it at any time, in any place that was consistent with the will of God and the purpose of miracles.

First, I am not a prophet. Second, I am not a healer. Third (and again), there is a difference between being in control of your spirit and healing at will. First, “prophets” here is used metonymously (is that a word?) to refer to all the MSG’s (as Paul also does in 1Cor. 13:8). Second, whether “the spirits” in 1Cor. 14:32 refers to the gifts of the HS or to the spirit of the person himself makes little difference as far as my point is concerned. Paul’s statement makes it clear that the gift of prophecy (or by metonymy, any of the MSG’s) does not take from the prophets the control of their own spirits. The person to whom the gift was given had the power to use or not use it.

Wow that is a bad argument (on 2Tim. 1:6). Why would one need to heal at will to be able to stir up one’s gift? They are not the same. I’m not immune to making bad arguments, but I don’t think this is one. My point was that Timothy had MSG’s, which he had received through the laying on of the hands of the apostle Paul. In this particular passage, he was instructed to “stir up the gift.” This is a clear indication that the “gift” that Timothy had was under his control, else how could he stir it up? It would be like if you told me, “Harrell, you need to think smart.” I’m not capable of thinking smart and you would be telling me to do something I’m utterly incapable of doing.

Be more clear! I’m much too fat to be clear.

Are you saying that Scripture is preposterous? No, I’m saying that faith on the part of the person being healed had no bearing on the success of the healing. In a few cases, the person desiring to be healed had faith, and on account of this faith the Lord healed the person. However, the person’s faith was not itself a factor in the success of the healing.

“Creating faith” is most certainly not the sole purpose of miracles. Where did you get that idea? Miracles are often done in response to faith. Paul repeatedly points to the edification of the body (who are already believers) as the purpose of miraculous gifts (I Corinthians 12:7, 14:3, 26, 31, Ephesians 4:11, etc.). “Create faith” was a poor choice of words on my part. I should have said “produce or lead to faith.” This wouldn’t change my conclusion, however, nor would it change your present argument. I just offer this as a clarification.

In the debate, Apollos made a good case showing that miracles served two purposes: to reveal God’s will and to confirm the message that was being proclaimed. I don’t need to add anything to that. Likewise, in the debate you argued (as you are doing now) that MSG’s had other purposes (for the common good, for edification, exhortation, and consolation, etc.). I will ask you, as did Apollos, whether MSG’s could do any of the things you have suggested as their “purpose”- apart from the Word of God? Or, to say it another way, if we were to take the Word of God out of the picture altogether, are you suggesting that the ability to speak in tongues, or the ability to heal someone, or any of the other MSG’s, would edify or exhort anyone? If so, please explain how this would happen? In what way would they be edified or encouraged?

I said: Jesus taught his apostles that their ability to heal was always dependent upon their own faith.
and you responded: “I thought it was supposed to create their faith . . . ?”You either misread or misunderstood my statement. Jesus taught his apostles that their ability to heal was always dependent upon their faith (as opposed to the person being healed). I hope that is clearer.

Its not God’s failure, its just not his will. Where have you been? I’ve been looking for Elvis, but I only saw Dave. Actually, I’ve been right here all along. Never moved. If you attempt to perform some miracle and fail, your failure can only be attributable to one of two things: you either don’t have the power, or performing the miracle was not consistent with God’s will or with the purpose of miracles. Since you insist that you have the power, any failure cannot be attributed to the former. So, if you attempt a miracle and fail, I’ll be expecting you to explain to me why your attempt was inconsistent with God’s will or why it was inconsistent with the purpose of miracles. Either way, you’ve got some ’splainin to do.

Have yourself a good weekend!

Gavin

June 15th 2003, 01:35 AM

Dear Harrel,

thanks for the response. I have been out of town and will try to get back to you soon.

Gavin

Gavin

June 17th 2003, 12:43 AM

Dear Harrel,

Well, I didn’t comment on “the more important issues” because I thought Apollos handled them quite nicely. As to my “attacks,” I didn’t mean for my earlier comments to be construed as an “attack,” certainly not a personal attack, and I hope you didn’t take it that way. I merely thought it odd that at the outset of the debate you made it clear that you were going to talk about the issues from a strictly scriptural standpoint. On a couple of occasions Apollos mentioned his own experiences and observations regarding the many disparate religious groups today that all claim to be in possession of MSG’s, but you showed little interest in discussing that particular aspect of the issue. But then, at the very end of the debate in your 10th and final post you waxed eloquent regarding your own experiences.

I did not interpret your comments to be "attacks" in a pejorative sense (and if I did that would be normative for my discussions), so don't worry about that. I defintely do not think Apollos handled the debate very well and I am surprised you think so, but I guess "great minds think alike," right? :shrug: :lol:

On debating from experience - Apollos argued from experience: his entire third point on the "presence" of the gifts was based on his experiences of charismatics. My tenth post was not an argument per se, as I made clear in the beginning of it. I was not arguing for continuationism so much as I was giving some practical comments to the reader regarding how to seek the gifts if they believe in them. So there is a clear difference.

I don’t question the value of experience, but surely you realize how easily we can be deceived. Does not the scripture warn us that “even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light,” and that “his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness” (2Cor. 11:14-15)? And in another place aren’t we told “let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall” (1Cor. 10:12)? I don’t think these warnings are given to those who have purposely invented preposterous lies and led many astray. These were not deceived… they were liars and charlatans. But I think Paul’s warnings are for men of integrity, for those whose sole aim it is to obey God. Even these can be deceived. They can be made to think that their “experiences” are genuine and that they are evidence of their right-standing before God. I don’t put you into that former class of liars and charlatans. I perceive you to be a man of integrity desiring to obey God… but you have been deceived. The point of my comments was to merely point out what I believe to be differences between your own claims and what I read about MSG’s in the NT.

I appreciate your fairness here (that is more than some would say of me at this site, Apollos not least of all), but I think the warnings for being deceived apply equally to noncharismatics. It is possible for Christians to be decieved both by counterfeit experiences and by an anti-experience mentality. Both extremes of naive gullibility and undue skepticism must be avoided.

But if you can think of any compelling reason why my tenth post experience was something of Satan, I am all ears. As I said though the fruit of the experience was very positive, so I am not sure how it can possibly be attributed to Satan.

No, Gavin, I don’t have any biases against charismatics. Don’t mistake scriptural disagreement with personal bias. And forgive me for assuming that you claimed to have the gift of healing. I took your statement that “I cannot heal people at will” to mean that you have the ability to heal, but not “at will.” Nevertheless, the principal applies equally to tongues. The MSG’s were gifts that were given to men. They were under the control of the person to whom they were given. The gift of healing was under the control of the person possessing the gift. The gift of tongues was under the control of the person possessing the gift. By contrast, everyone that I’ve talked to (at least all that I can recall at the present time) who claims such gifts insists that they do not control them, but that the HS just comes down and takes over their bodies and does His work through them. The “God on a leash” argument is one that I’ve heard before… just not in scripture.

Almost the whole point of my tenth post was that the Holy Spirit does not simply overwhelm us and make us speak in tongues. But at the same time there is a human element involved. How else can one "seek the greater gifts" (I Corinthians 12:31)? Where in the New Testament does it ever say that because spiritual gifts are given to men, they therefore can be used at will?

I understand your reluctance to assign “free will” to the MSG’s. And believe it or not, I agree with you… to a point. It is surely true that those who possessed MSG’s in the NT could not use them in a manner that would be inconsistent with God’s will or His purpose in giving the gift in the first place. However, it is equally clear that the gifts were in the control and power of the person to whom they were given, and that they were empowered to exercise that gift at any time and in any place… as long as it was consistent with God’s will and the purpose for which the gift was given.

An illustration, perhaps, will help you see the point. Let’s suppose that I were to give my teenage son a car (it ain’t gonna happen, much to his consternation). That car would be his, it would be under his control, under his power to use as he sees fit. He could drive it to work, to school, to church, to the store, on dates… you get the picture. All of these things are consistent with my rules and the purpose for giving the gift. But if I find out that he’s using it in some activity or manner of which I disapprove, then he’ll lose the car. The same thing is true of MSG’s in the NT. They were gifts. They were given. Once received, they belonged to the recipient. They were under his control, under his power. They could be exercised “at will” in any time or place that was both consistent with God’s will and purpose for the gift.

My point is this: if you have MSG’s, then they are under your power, they are under your control (1Cor. 14:32; 2Tim. 1:6). If you attempt to exercise your gift and are unsuccessful, then only one of two things can be true: either you do not have the gift at all, or you are attempting to use the gift in a manner that is inconsistent with God’s will or purpose of the gift. Now, since you claim to have the gifts, then any failure on your part must be attributed to the latter reason. But for the life of me I cannot understand why you would argue that it is inconsistent with God’s will to confirm to unbelievers (like me, in MSG’s) that these gifts are present today just as they were in the first century. I cannot understand why you would argue that exercising the gift in the way I requested would be inconsistent with what you believe to be the purpose of MSG’s. Which brings us back to square one. Unless you can explain for me and any others who may be following this discussion why it would be inconsistent with God’s will and the purpose of MSG’s to exercise the gift that you say God has given you, then I have no choice but to conclude that you do not have MSG’s like the one’s I read about in the NT.

Okay, first of all, I am not talking about "trying to exercise a gift and failing." I am talking about using a gift at will in any context. The self-contradiction of your position, as I see things, is that you grant the usage of a gift must be in accord with God's will, but then still want to say it could be used anywhere anytime. But it is not always God's will that we exercise a gift, agree? Or does God always want to heal? And who can always tell the will of God infallibly?

If the exercise of gifts must be in accord with God's will, then they will not be used in any context at any point.

Your two texts, I Corinthians 14:32 and II Timothy 1:6, do not prove what you want them to. What is more, I cannot tell that you interacted adequetely with all the texts that I brought up concerning Jesus.

Your denials to the contrary notwithstanding, your interpretation of Mark 6:5 most certainly does deny the omnipotence of Christ. Your explanation of the phrase “He could do no miracle there” is that it was an impossibility, that Jesus was powerless to perform a miracle there.

By way of illustration, let me offer another interpretation that is consistent with the deity of Christ and the purpose of miracles. Remember that fictitious car that I mentioned in my last illustration? Well, let’s suppose that someone were to approach my son and challenge him to a drag race. If my son has a brain in his head (which he doesn’t have right now, but I’m told he will grow one as soon as he is out of his teen years) he will respond, “I can’t drag race.” Now, Gavin, do you suppose that “I can’t” means that it is an impossibility? Or is it rather an expression that this activity would not be consistent with his father’s rules and would not be one of the purposes for which the car was given to him? I think you see the difference. When the scripture says that Jesus “could not do any miracles there,” this does not mean that He had no power, but is merely an acknowledgement that given the hardness of the hearts of the people in that town, performing any miracles (other than those He did perform) would not have served any purpose. Those folks would not believe “though one rose from the dead.” Now then, unless you’re arguing that Apollos or I fall into the same category as those described in Mark 6, then this argument of yours is a straw man.

I can agree to that. It fits in nicely with my position. But what you are arguing for here is not consistent with your view that miracles in the New Testament were operated at will by the one doing them. Just as it was not God's will for Jesus to do miracles in his home town because of the lack of faith, so also it could not be God's will to heal anyone if I were to pray for people in a hospital. (Again, I do not have a gift of healing, I am referring to the prayer of faith in James 5:14-15.) Hence my statement that I do not carry God around on a leash, which is totally appropriate. I do not see how can you not grant this.

I’m sorry, Gavin, but I’m afraid you read something into the passage that is not there. Peter did not say that it was “God’s decision” that healed the man. Indeed, at the end of v12 he admits that “we made this man walk.” But even though Peter was the one who chose to heal the man, he wanted the people to understand that it was because of the power of God working through him that he was able to do this thing. And if God had empowered Peter to work miracles, then the people ought to listen to the things that Peter had to say- because his words would bear the approval and authority of God Himself. And so, the miracle served the purpose for which miracles were designed: to confirm the message.

Ultimately it was not Peter and John that healed the man but God. If God's power had not made it possible, Peter and John could not have performed this miracle. Agree or disagree?

I don’t think the phrase suggests anything “sporadic.” The idea seems to be that some people had the gift to heal one disease (or group of diseases) and other people could heal other diseases. But in either case, those who were in possession of the gift were empowered to use it at any time, in any place that was consistent with the will of God and the purpose of miracles.

I don't agree with that last sentence (that is your assumption that you have yet to prove exegetically), but even if I grant your take on this passage, would it not mean that someone with a gift of healing could not heal any disease at will? Hence my caution in the "hospital proposal". Do you see how some of the differences between my proposal and healing in the New Testament are perhaps not as strong as you thought?

First, “prophets” here is used metonymously (is that a word?) to refer to all the MSG’s (as Paul also does in 1Cor. 13:8).

Sounds like another assumption to me. Prove it.

Second, whether “the spirits” in 1Cor. 14:32 refers to the gifts of the HS or to the spirit of the person himself makes little difference as far as my point is concerned. Paul’s statement makes it clear that the gift of prophecy (or by metonymy, any of the MSG’s) does not take from the prophets the control of their own spirits. The person to whom the gift was given had the power to use or not use it.

You are importing a lot onto the text. The "spirit" over which the prophet has control is, gramatically and syntactically, the man's own spirit within him (cf. I Corinthians 2:11), not his spiritual gift. Nowhere does Paul suggest that one gifted can exercise that gift at will regardless of other factors. Its your presupposition, not exegesis.

I’m not immune to making bad arguments, but I don’t think this is one. My point was that Timothy had MSG’s, which he had received through the laying on of the hands of the apostle Paul. In this particular passage, he was instructed to “stir up the gift.” This is a clear indication that the “gift” that Timothy had was under his control, else how could he stir it up? It would be like if you told me, “Harrell, you need to think smart.” I’m not capable of thinking smart and you would be telling me to do something I’m utterly incapable of doing.

Okay, I see what you are saying, but again, one can "stir up one's gift" without being able to exercise it at will. You keep interchanging between "being in control of one's gift" on the one hand and "exercising it at will" on the other. I do not see how these are the same either! Nowhere does Paul suggest that someone can heal at will, II Timothy 1:6 least of all. In fact, this passage would lead to opposite conclusions: how can one stir something up that one already has complete mastery over and can use at will? II Timothy 1:6 only makes sense if one can grown in their gifts.

No, I’m saying that faith on the part of the person being healed had no bearing on the success of the healing. In a few cases, the person desiring to be healed had faith, and on account of this faith the Lord healed the person. However, the person’s faith was not itself a factor in the success of the healing.

Perhaps, but it was a factor with respect to whether the healing took place at all in the first place.

“Create faith” was a poor choice of words on my part. I should have said “produce or lead to faith.” This wouldn’t change my conclusion, however, nor would it change your present argument. I just offer this as a clarification.

In the debate, Apollos made a good case showing that miracles served two purposes: to reveal God’s will and to confirm the message that was being proclaimed. I don’t need to add anything to that. Likewise, in the debate you argued (as you are doing now) that MSG’s had other purposes (for the common good, for edification, exhortation, and consolation, etc.). I will ask you, as did Apollos, whether MSG’s could do any of the things you have suggested as their “purpose”- apart from the Word of God? Or, to say it another way, if we were to take the Word of God out of the picture altogether, are you suggesting that the ability to speak in tongues, or the ability to heal someone, or any of the other MSG’s, would edify or exhort anyone? If so, please explain how this would happen? In what way would they be edified or encouraged?

I am not sure I even follow you! Of course miraculous gifts should be exercised with the word of God "in picture". But it is still, according to Scripture, miraculous gifts themselves that do the actual edifying, not as Apollos suggested, merely what they produce. Perhaps I misunderstand you.

I’ve been looking for Elvis, but I only saw Dave. Actually, I’ve been right here all along. Never moved. If you attempt to perform some miracle and fail, your failure can only be attributable to one of two things: you either don’t have the power, or performing the miracle was not consistent with God’s will or with the purpose of miracles. Since you insist that you have the power, any failure cannot be attributed to the former. So, if you attempt a miracle and fail, I’ll be expecting you to explain to me why your attempt was inconsistent with God’s will or why it was inconsistent with the purpose of miracles. Either way, you’ve got some ’splainin to do.

Harrel, I would ask this question to you: do we always know what God's will is in a given scenario?

I appreciate your even-tempered jocularity!

Have a good day!

Gavin

AcousticJS

June 17th 2003, 07:58 AM

There's some quite shockingly bad exegesis of 1 Corinthians 14:32 goin on here, at least to my mind (and I admit I'm no Bible scholar)

First is the assumption that prophecy is being used as a representative of all the other gifts. This just isn't borne out by the context of the chapter. This is part of a summary and application of Paul's instruction regarding verbal spiritual gifts, particularly tongues and prophecy. As such, it could at most be deemed representative of tongues, prophecy, words of knowledge, words of wisdom, teaching and any other verbally delivered gifts I've left out. However, since Paul has just given some practical application points about the exercise of the gift of tongues in a meeting, I would argue that when Paul says 'prophet', he really is just speaking to those who prophesy.

Second, this verse is being interpreted as saying that people with the gift of prophecy could prophesy whenever they wanted. Placing this verse in context, Paul's argument mitigates against this viewpoint. First of all, he links prophecy into a revelation from God (14 v30) - an inference from this is that if God isn't revealing, you can't prophesy - hence the initiative in exercising the gift is always with God. Second, Paul seems to be saying in vv. 30-33 "you don't have to speak straight away - this would just cause confusion. Instead, you are able to speak when it is most peacable and in order." If this is right, then Paul isn't saying "you can prophesy whenever you want to, cos the spirit of prophets are subject to the control of prophets". He's saying the opposite - "you can restrain from prophesying when it wouldn't be in order because the spirit of prophets are subject to the control of the prophets."

Having said that prophecy isn't a representative gift, I would however argue that the gifts of healing and other physical miracles are like the gift of prophecy in that the initiative is always with God. If God ain't revealing the prophecy, then people can't prophesy and if God ain't doing the healing they can't heal either. We can ask God to reveal and ask God to indicate if and who He wants to heal (which is what I believe Paul is talking about in 1 Tim 1:6 as 'stirring up your gifts'), and the gifts remain in our control in that we can restrain the operation of them by our wills, but they're not in our control in the sense of being able to make them happen when God isn't.

I possibly believe that the gift of tongues is controllable by human beings, in that we can decide to start speaking in tongues - I'm trying to solidify in my mind my views on this, but my initial thoughts are that this is the case because someone speaking in tongues is speaking to God (14:2), so the direction of the gift is vertically upwards to Him. As such, we can choose to speak and God supplies the words that we say (as in Acts 2 - the 120 spoke, but the Spirit gave them the words to say - 'as the Spirit gave utterance'). This isn't the case with the other gifts, however, since the direction is vertically downwards - prophecy is God speaking to us, healing is God healing us - and so the initiative is His. If that makes sense.

God bless
Jon

Harrell

June 18th 2003, 11:36 AM

Gavin,

I think the warnings for being deceived apply equally to noncharismatics. It is possible for Christians to be decieved both by counterfeit experiences and by an anti-experience mentality. True, Satan is an equal opportunity employer. Both charismatics and noncharismatics are subject to being deceived by perceived experiences. There is, however, an important difference in this particular matter between you and me. I’m not making any claims of or from experiences. You are. To illustrate my point, fourteen year old Mary proclaims that she is “in love” with Bobby. There’s not another boy in the world for her. Her heart’s just a’flutter and goin’ pitter-patter anytime he’s around. Mary’s parents, of course, are never going to be able to convince Mary that what she is feeling at age fourteen is something other than true love. But they are not particularly worried that Mary is going to go out and get married. Mary thinks it’s love, but her parents know better. It’s only puppy-love. There are areas of similarity between the two, but the “love” Mary has for Bobby- as real as it is to her at the present time- is not the real deal. Now, back the discussion. Folks who say that they know MSG’s are available today because they themselves have “experienced” them, are, in my judgment, ripe for deception. Like Mary in my little illustration, they have decided that their “experience” is the real deal and consequently it is impossible (or nearly so) to convince them otherwise.

For my part, I am not citing any “experience,” but am merely an observer of the claims of others. While this does not necessarily make me less of a target for Satan’s deceptions, it does offer a greater opportunity for objectivity since I have no personal stake in the matter- other than the fact that I want only to know the truth. For example, I can compare the claims made by one group with those made by another group. If there is no discernible difference between the claims of the various groups, then only one of three possibilities exists: (1) all the groups have the gifts (a preposterous and untenable conclusion), or (2) only one of the groups has the gifts (but how to determine which one?), or (3) none of the groups has the gifts (obviously, this is the conclusion I’ve reached so far). I can also compare the claims made by folks today with the things that I can read about in the NT (kinda like comparing Mary’s puppy-love with her parent’s genuine love). Sadly, this comparison does not bode well for modern claims… a point that was brought out by Apollos in the debate.

Where in the New Testament does it ever say that because spiritual gifts are given to men, they therefore can be used at will? Well, I’d say that all the available evidence points in that direction. When Peter and John healed the lame man (Acts 3:6-8) they didn’t say, “We’re going to pray for you and maybe God will heal you.” Rather, Peter said, “what I do have I give to you.” This same pattern is followed throughout the NT. Each time a miracle was attempted, it was successful (and on the occasion before Pentecost when the disciples attempted a miracle but were unsuccessful, it was owing to their own lack of faith). Paul’s command to Timothy to “stir up the gift of God, which is in thee” makes no sense at all unless it was within Timothy’s own power to “stir it up” and use it. Finally, the mere fact that the Corinthians were misusing the gifts that they had, and that they were instructed in how to use them properly, can mean only one thing: they were able to use their gifts “at will.” So, we’re back to square one: what you claim with regard to your own “gifts” is not like the gifts I can read about in the NT. I know the NT gifts were genuine. If yours are not like theirs, well…

Okay, first of all, I am not talking about "trying to exercise a gift and failing." I am talking about using a gift at will in any context. The self-contradiction of your position, as I see things, is that you grant the usage of a gift must be in accord with God's will, but then still want to say it could be used anywhere anytime. But it is not always God's will that we exercise a gift, agree? Or does God always want to heal? And who can always tell the will of God infallibly? If you will allow me, let’s broaden this discussion beyond the gift of healing to include all MSG’s. Now then, we are both in agreement that the church at Corinth had MSG’s. But did they always exercise their gifts in a manner consistent with God’s will? Well… that depends. Obviously, they would not have been able to exercise their gifts in order to further some sinful activity (for example, they would not have been able to use the gift of tongues to rob a bank). On the other hand, it is quite apparent that the Lord was not altogether pleased with the manner/place/time in which they used their gifts (1Cor. 14). The very fact that Paul had to tell them not to use their gifts in a particular way, or place, or time, suggests that they were misusing their gifts, that they were not using their gifts as God intended that they should be used. There is no indication that they had tried to use their gifts but couldn’t or that they were unsuccessful in the exercise of their respective gifts. There is every indication that they exercised their gifts “at will,” when and where they chose.

But let’s step out a little further and talk about “God’s will.” When it comes to preaching the gospel to the lost, do you know what “the will of God” is? Yes. Do you “infallibly” know it? Yes. What is the will of God in this matter? It is to carry the gospel to all the world, to every creature. How do I know this? Because the Bible tells me so. If my neighbor is a drug dealer, or murderer, or adulterer (I live in a rough neighborhood), is it God’s will that I try to teach him? Of course. How do you know? Because he’s lost and God wants all men to be saved. Now, let’s turn back to the question of MSG’s. What is God’s will regarding these gifts? Well, that they be used to further the purposes for which He gave them. Now I believe that those gifts were given to reveal and confirm the will of God. You believe God’s purpose was broader than that… and included edification, encouragement, and exhortation. Now let me ask you something, Gavin. If the purpose of the gospel is to save the lost, then anytime I take the gospel to anyone who is lost, I am doing the will of God. Likewise, if the purpose of MSG’s is to reveal and confirm the will of God, to edify, to encourage, and to exhort, then anytime you exercise any of these gifts for any of these reasons, you are doing the will of God.

Ultimately it was not Peter and John that healed the man but God. If God's power had not made it possible, Peter and John could not have performed this miracle. Agree or disagree? Wrong question, Gavin. Obviously they could heal no one without God’s authority. However, the fact of the matter is that God gave them authority or power to heal. When Peter said “I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you,” he was saying, “I don’t have money, but I have authority/power to heal and I will heal you.” This was not a Wizard of Oz thing where Peter and John were “wizards” and God was the man behind the curtains pulling the strings. You won’t find anything like that in the scriptures. Peter had power. It was given to him by God. He had authority to exercise that power, which implies that he had some sort of guidance from God in the matter beforehand (that is, he did not attempt something and fail only to learn “after the fact” that it wasn’t God’s will).

I said… “But in either case, those who were in possession of the gift were empowered to use it at any time, in any place that was consistent with the will of God and the purpose of miracles.”

You responded… “I don't agree with that last sentence (that is your assumption that you have yet to prove exegetically), but even if I grant your take on this passage, would it not mean that someone with a gift of healing could not heal any disease at will? Hence my caution in the "hospital proposal".”With regard to my “assumption,” I can only repeat what I find in the NT. And what I find is that every time a miraculous spiritual gift was attempted, it was successful. There were certainly times when those who possessed the gifts did not exercise them, but this was not because it was “impossible” (i.e., because they didn’t have the power), but rather because it would not have satisfied the conditions/purpose for which the gifts were given. Now, if you can show me- other than by your own assumption- that anyone in the NT ever attempted to exercise a gift, but was unsuccessful, then I’m listening.

As to the matter of “heal any disease at will,” I think that is exactly what Christians were able to do who had the gift of healing (within the parameters I’ve already discussed). I don’t see any indication otherwise in scripture.

By the way, after taking another look at 1Cor. 12:9 (“gifts of healing”), I think I was in error in my last post when I said, “The idea seems to be that some people had the gift to heal one disease (or group of diseases) and other people could heal other diseases.” Having looked at the passage more closely, I’m convinced (at least for now) that “gifts of healing” (whatever might be intended by the use of the plural) were given as a group to individuals. That is, if a person had the power to heal at all, he could heal all kinds of diseases. I don’t think this affects the point that either of us has been trying to make, but I just wanted to clear that up.

I said… First, “prophets” here [1Cor. 14:32] is used metonymously (is that a word?) to refer to all the MSG’s (as Paul also does in 1Cor. 13:8).

You responded… Sounds like another assumption to me. Prove it. Well… let’s see. In your second post of your debate with Apollos, you said, “Prophecy, tongues, and knowledge (*2) are offered as examples of the åê ìåñïõó, but by implication we would do well to go with Carson and others and view the åê ìåñïõó as “the whole charismatic canoply”. ” I agree. Though Paul deals at length with the gifts of tongues and prophecy (since these seem to have been the particular gifts which the Corinthians were abusing in their assemblies), the principles that he sets forth for these apply equally to all the gifts. 1Cor. 14:27-28 make it clear that the gifts of tongues and interpretation of tongues were under the control of the person possessing those particular gifts (otherwise, the instruction to use them in an orderly manner or to shut up would make no sense). Similarly, 1Cor. 14:32 is clear that the gift of prophecy was under the control of the person possessing that particular gift.

The "spirit" over which the prophet has control is, grammatically and syntactically, the man's own spirit within him (cf. I Corinthians 2:11), not his spiritual gift. Nowhere does Paul suggest that one gifted can exercise that gift at will regardless of other factors. Its your presupposition, not exegesis. You may be right on the first part. I didn’t take a position one way or the other in my previous post because I don’t think it makes any difference in terms of my conclusion. So, let’s just go on the assumption that you are right and that the “spirits of the prophets” (1Cor. 14:32) refers to the prophet’s own spirit. When Paul says that “the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets" he is telling the Corinthians that a person who has a message from God has the power to stop himself and wait his turn. The gift of prophecy does not take from the prophets the control of their own spirits.

I said… It would be like if you told me, “Harrell, you need to think smart.” I’m not capable of thinking smart and you would be telling me to do something I’m utterly incapable of doing.

You responded… “Okay, I see what you are saying.” hmmmm…. I think I’ve just been insulted. You couldn't agree with anything else I said, but you sure didn't waste time agreeing with me on this! Your response was supposed to be something like, “Aw Harrell, you really are a smart and a very intelligent fellow. Probably suave and debonair too.” Instead, I think you agreed with me that I’m utterly incapable of thinking smart. I see that from now on I’m going to have to be more careful in my illustrations.

Nowhere does Paul suggest that someone can heal at will, II Timothy 1:6 least of all. In fact, this passage would lead to opposite conclusions: how can one stir something up that one already has complete mastery over and can use at will? II Timothy 1:6 only makes sense if one can grow in their gifts. Oh, I agree that those who had been given particular MSG’s could “grow” in them. But how does “growth” occur, Gavin? Muscles grow when they are exercised. The mind grows when it is exercised. Faith grows when we exercise it. And MSG’s could “grow” when those who possessed them exercised them. Therefore, Paul’s instruction to Timothy… exercise the gift of God that is in you through the laying on of my hands. Timothy didn’t need to wait around until God was ready to work through him, because God was always ready to work through him to accomplish His purposes.

Perhaps, but it ([I]faith on the part of the person being healed) was a factor with respect to whether the healing took place at all in the first place. Sometimes, sometimes not. The problem is that folks today to claim to have the power to heal insist that they can only heal if the person who is sick has faith. Rather than the other person’s faith being a factor in whether an attempt is made in the first place, it is used as an excuse for the failure of the attempted healing. There’s a big difference.

But it is still, according to Scripture, miraculous gifts themselves that do the actual edifying, not as Apollos suggested, merely what they produce. Perhaps, then, you could take some time and explain to me exactly how MSG’s- any MSG’s- can edify anyone apart from the Word of God. I can see how a person could take the Word of God and use it to edify, encourage, and exhort, without exercising a single MSG. But I’m completely at a loss as to how a person could be edified simply because he witnessed some MSG. Seems to me that he would need to have the Word of God for that, but then again, I don’t always think smart.

Apollos

June 18th 2003, 03:01 PM

Gavin –

I would have thought that after the thrashing I gave you, you would have dropped my name from your mentioning completely. Stop the whining – the debate is over – move on. But since you insist on bringing me up from time to time, a few remarks are now in order…

First, this will be brief as to not interrupt your discussion with Harrell. He will thrash you better than I, as will Glenn.

I defintely do not think Apollos handled the debate very well…

I am more than certain that you don’t. I am certainly happy! I set out to push you away from all your buddies like Storm, Deere, etc. and I accomplished that. I know that this must have disconcerted, probably, your entire effort. This kept you from showing us how “well read” you were in man’s opinion on mSGs. Unfortunately for you, you agreed to “the scriptures teach” which destroyed this "base" that I assumed (most correctly I believe) you would use to build your argument - from man’s teaching and not God’s.

I on the other hand was more than deeply disappointed by your effort. Bypassing for now all the questions you did not and refused to answer, and all the “errors” you refused to own up to, it was disturbing to me to find that you are somewhat, if not more so, dishonest – more-so to yourself, I think, than in any other way. Specifically, this is reflected in what you would and would not address in the debate. It was never a question of “fairness”, it was a question of accepting what was handed to you, and your deciding to answer or ignore it. Your “ignored” too much !!! (Would you like the list ???)

For all your "agreeing" with Harrell or even Glenn, I hope you will put some of this "agreeing" into application. I see none yet!

On debating from experience - Apollos argued from experience: his entire third point on the "presence" of the gifts was based on his experiences of charismatics.

This is inaccurate enough to comment on. Although I relayed some “experiences” with charismatics, the bulk of that post was to ask the reader to COMPARE what they saw today with what they could read about in scripture!!! Using SCRIPTURE as the basis of what real mSGs should “look” like and what real mSGs can accomplish, the reader could then observe for himself, compare, and make the determination as to whether or not what they see today compares. The answer is – the “gifts” of today don’t compare, therefore the “gifts” of today aren’t real!!! This is a no-brainer !!!

But it is still, according to Scripture, miraculous gifts themselves that do the actual edifying, not as Apollos suggested, merely what they produce.

I hope Harrell is not nieve enough to expect you to answer the question –
HOW do mSGs edify apart from the word of God??

You never told me in the debate, so I certainly expect no answer now! Your “dog & pony” show continues.

Just move this question to the top of the list… that list that says –

“And it came… to pass !!!”

Gavin

June 19th 2003, 04:09 PM

Harrel,

This post will be selective. I am sorry if I overlook anything important, but I am just too busy to cover everything. By the way, I will be out of town from tomorrow through the rest of the week.

There is, however, an important difference in this particular matter between you and me. I’m not making any claims of or from experiences. You are.

My claims are not based on experience. I begin this debate before I ever spoke in tongues. I have reached my position based on Scripture alone, and my experiences have confirmed this position.

Paul’s command to Timothy to “stir up the gift of God, which is in thee” makes no sense at all unless it was within Timothy’s own power to “stir it up” and use it.

That Timothy could stir up his gift in no way proves that all spiritual gifts can be operated at will, irrespective of God’s will in any given instance.

Finally, the mere fact that the Corinthians were misusing the gifts that they had, and that they were instructed in how to use them properly, can mean only one thing: they were able to use their gifts “at will.”

Using gifts “properly” and using them “at will” are not the same. Wow, how long are you going to keep up these kind of arguments? You cannot use “at will” and other phrases with different meanings synonymously, Harrel.

Likewise, if the purpose of MSG’s is to reveal and confirm the will of God, to edify, to encourage, and to exhort, then anytime you exercise any of these gifts for any of these reasons, you are doing the will of God.

But God does not edify at every possible opportunity. You might as well say that it is God’s will to perform miraculous gifts around the clock, 24/7. It is patently not always God’s will to give miraculous gifts. Take healing, for instance. Does God always want to heal? What about the role of Christian suffering then? What about Paul’s thorn in the flesh? You need to think things through more carefully, in my opinion.

Now, if you can show me- other than by your own assumption- that anyone in the NT ever attempted to exercise a gift, but was unsuccessful, then I’m listening.

Once again you are changing things from “at will” to trying a miracle and failing. I am not talking about trying to work a miracle and failing (and I never have been), I am talking about being able to work miracles at will. I have introduced several biblical examples of this, but you have apparently found them unconvincing, so I guess we can agree to disagree. You can go on thinking that all claims to the miraculous are counterfeit unless the one working them is totally omnipotent in the area of his/her gift (which is what I think your position amounts to); but good luck finding genuine miracles today!

By the way, after taking another look at 1Cor. 12:9 (“gifts of healing”), I think I was in error in my last post when I said, “The idea seems to be that some people had the gift to heal one disease (or group of diseases) and other people could heal other diseases.” Having looked at the passage more closely, I’m convinced (at least for now) that “gifts of healing” (whatever might be intended by the use of the plural) were given as a group to individuals. That is, if a person had the power to heal at all, he could heal all kinds of diseases. I don’t think this affects the point that either of us has been trying to make, but I just wanted to clear that up.

I appreciate you being able to change your mind.

Well… let’s see. In your second post of your debate with Apollos, you said, “Prophecy, tongues, and knowledge (*2) are offered as examples of the åê ìåñïõó, but by implication we would do well to go with Carson and others and view the åê ìåñïõó as “the whole charismatic canoply”. ” I agree.

A metonomy in chapter 13 does not demand a metonomy in chapter 14. What is in view in 14:32 is not all miraculous gifts but rather the spirits’ of prophets.

You may be right on the first part. I didn’t take a position one way or the other in my previous post because I don’t think it makes any difference in terms of my conclusion. So, let’s just go on the assumption that you are right and that the “spirits of the prophets” (1Cor. 14:32) refers to the prophet’s own spirit. When Paul says that “the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets" he is telling the Corinthians that a person who has a message from God has the power to stop himself and wait his turn. The gift of prophecy does not take from the prophets the control of their own spirits.

I agree with this.

hmmmm…. I think I’ve just been insulted. You couldn't agree with anything else I said, but you sure didn't waste time agreeing with me on this! Your response was supposed to be something like, “Aw Harrell, you really are a smart and a very intelligent fellow. Probably suave and debonair too.” Instead, I think you agreed with me that I’m utterly incapable of thinking smart. I see that from now on I’m going to have to be more careful in my illustrations.

:lol:

I did not intend to be insulting!

Oh, I agree that those who had been given particular MSG’s could “grow” in them.

What room is there for growth if one can already operate a gift “at will”?

Perhaps, then, you could take some time and explain to me exactly how MSG’s- any MSG’s- can edify anyone apart from the Word of God. I can see how a person could take the Word of God and use it to edify, encourage, and exhort, without exercising a single MSG. But I’m completely at a loss as to how a person could be edified simply because he witnessed some MSG. Seems to me that he would need to have the Word of God for that, but then again, I don’t always think smart.

I don’t expect Apollos will see this, because he tends to overlook what he doesn’t want to see (like his arguments that I did not introduce any passages that teach continuationism, when I had clearly introduced Ephesians 4 and I Corinthians 13), but I will answer this question anyway.

I do believe that miraculous gifts edify in accordance with Biblical teaching on miraculous gifts, so in that sense I would say that they should edify not apart from God’s word. But you seem to be saying that unless Scripture is being read out loud, people cannot be edified. That is contrary to the teaching of Scripture itself! Prayer, fellowship, worship, etc. all edify and are done apart from the reading of God’s word. Consequently, I have great difficulty understanding why you think it is difficult for someone to be edified by a prophetic word of encouragement, a humble serving or administering or leading, or any other spiritual gift apart from Scripture. In my opinion your view borders on bibliolatry in replacing the role of the Holy Spirit in the corporate life of the church with Scripture.

Blessings,
Gavin