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

Freak

March 30th 2003, 07:00 PM

03-28-2003 @ 10:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46805#post46805)
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).

By calling us 'spiritualists' it seems that you are seeking to tar us with the accusation that we are breaking the Lord's commandment found in Deuteronomy 18 about consulting mediums and the like. This is simply not true. Whether you agree with our interpretation of Scripture or not, many of us have actually come to believe in the gifts of the Spirit for today as a result of Scripture, as Gavin's post amply demonstrates.

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.

In short, can I suggest that it might be better to post without using labels that imply we are unChristian, just because you disagree with our interpretation and application of Scripture. I disagree with yours, but because you name Christ as Lord and God, I deem you a brother in Him.

Blessings in Christ
Jon

PS. Just finished reading your post, Apollos. While it may be true that Gavin hasn't posted any Scriptures defending the continuationist viewpoint (though I'm sure he will 'cos they do exist), it must be said likewise that you haven't either. You've insinuated that pentecostals aren't 'true' Christians, boldly stated that Scripture says "No!", but haven't actually given any Scripture that says "The spiritual gifts will cease when the last apostle dies" or such like. Just an observation.

You are correct. Appollos has failed to provide any Scriptural evidence that clearly tells us that spiritual gifts will cease "when the last apostle dies"---the fact is there is ample evidence to prove otherwise.

AcousticJS

April 1st 2003, 10:49 AM

Nice second round Gavin!

So much of the cessationist viewpoint relies on the idea of apostolic/post-apostolic division of church history, which has no basis in Scripture. Certainly the Twelve and Paul never said "Right, once we die, all the miraculous stuff is going to end". As you said, the same Spirit is still being poured out therefore the gifts that were for them are for us. What's more, the same Kingdom is still being extended therefore the same works of the Kingdom (preaching, healing, casting out demons) are still to be done by Jesus' disciples (Derek Morphew talks a bit about this in 'Breakthrough', as does John Wimber in 'Power Evangelism')

I look forward to the more in-depth discussion of 1 Corinthians 13 as I can see how some might legitimately see this as referring to a future state of maturity for the church prior to the Lord's return (at least until you read "Then we will see face to face"). I particularly look forward to reading your views of Eph 4:11-13 since I've held for a while now that this refers to a state of the church that is going to be attained before Christ returns, when the Bride is "[glorious], without spot or wrinkle or any such thing." (Eph 5:27) but that might just be my slightly triumphalist eschatology coming out there.

Either way, I would love to see how some people would argue that we have reached that level of maturity that would bring about the cessation of the charismata. I just don't see how anyone could do it - we're nowhere near the fullness of Christ. Actually, if Christ was fully mature when he walked the Earth, then the church becoming mature wouldn't negate the use of spiritual gifts since Jesus did so many miracles there wouldn't be enough room for all the books to contain them!

I'm just rambling now, so I'll shut up. I look forward to reading your reply Apollos.

Blessings in Christ
Jon

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

tizzidale

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, 06:36 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, 09:40 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, 09:47 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, 09:53 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, 09:59 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, 11:42 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, 04:24 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, 04:29 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

tizzidale

April 12th 2003, 04:38 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, 04:44 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, 04:57 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, 05:20 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, 06:39 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 13th 2003, 12:29 AM

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, 01:25 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, 09:33 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, 03:18 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, 09:50 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, 04:31 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, 05:45 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, 08:28 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, 09:18 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, 10:33 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, 01:03 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, 05:50 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, 06:02 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, 04:36 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, 04:46 PM

Thanks Mate. Cheers.

JG

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

John Reece

May 3rd 2003, 04:53 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, 08:06 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, 11:31 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, 12:20 PM

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, 05:12 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, 01:50 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, 06:54 AM

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

George Blaisdell

June 4th 2003, 11:59 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