Miraculous spiritual gifts have not ceased.

[FredFlanders]

I don't deny that miracles occurred during the time recorded in the book of Acts. However, I doubt the authenticity of Mark 16, which as I said is not present in the best manuscripts. As for Acts 2:38, I agree that the Holy Spirit is promised to all believers. That doesn't mean that non-human languages were ever part of the Holy Spirit's work, or that any particular manifestation of the Holy Spirit is guaranteed to be ongoing. For instance, the Holy Spirit inspired the authors of Scripture. But I hope we agree that the Holy Spirit is not providing new Scripture these days

Everything said in 1 Corinthians 14 makes just as much sense (and, I'd argue, more sense) if you understand the "tongues" to be human languages. And why do you think that "pray in the Holy Spirit" in Jude 20 refers to unknown languages, instead of a right attitude in prayer? It's being contrasted with "men who do not have the Holy Spirit" in the previous verse, not with other sorts of language.

1 Cor 14 v 14 Tell us “When I pray in an unknown tongue my spirit prayeth”

I agree that we should not add anything or take anything from the Word of God as we read in 22 v 18-19. And God gives us a warning that if we add anything, God shall open him to the plagues of this book. And if any words are taken from this book then our part is taken out of the book of life, Holy City and things written in this book.

Thousands of believers today are experiences the Holy Spirit. “Speaking in tongues” is given to every believer who seeks for the infilling of the Holy Spirit. God does not discriminate against any believer who uncompromisingly seeks for the Holy Spirit. Do not be fooled through religious deceit, Satan is the master of deceit and will work through anyone. That is why we need to check scripture and not believe everything we are told.

Mark 16 v 16-20 is consistent with the rest of the Bible.

[RBerman]

1 Cor 14 v 14 Tell us “When I pray in an unknown tongue my spirit prayeth”

Read that passage again with "speak in my mind" meaning "in a way understandable to my audience" and "in an unknown tongue" meaning "in a human tongue not known to my audience." It makes perfect sense. It's not good to conduct church services that can't be understood by everybody present. This would have been an issue in a city like Corinth, where people were from all over.

Thousands of believers today are experiences the Holy Spirit. “Speaking in tongues” is given to every believer who seeks for the infilling of the Holy Spirit. God does not discriminate against any believer who uncompromisingly seeks for the Holy Spirit. Do not be fooled through religious deceit, Satan is the master of deceit and will work through anyone. That is why we need to check scripture and not believe everything we are told.

This is simply an appeal to your personal experience. If we let people of other religions use such an appeal, we'd come up with a really messed up theology. Our beliefs and practices need to be grounded in Scripture.

[FredFlanders]

Read that passage again with "speak in my mind" meaning "in a way understandable to my audience" and "in an unknown tongue" meaning "in a human tongue not known to my audience." It makes perfect sense. It's not good to conduct church services that can't be understood by everybody present. This would have been an issue in a city like Corinth, where people were from all over.



This is simply an appeal to your personal experience. If we let people of other religions use such an appeal, we'd come up with a really messed up theology. Our beliefs and practices need to be grounded in Scripture.

RBerman,

You need to look at the context of all Cor 14 and you will see the three purposes of “Speaking in tongues”

1- As a sign to the unbeliever or to those not yet filled with the Holy Spirit.
2- As a prayer language to God to edify ourselves.
3- As a language to another foreign speaking person.

All are miraculous works/signs of the Holy Spirit.

Cor 14Paul was telling the Church not to speak in tongues at once because this will look confusing to the unbelievers or those that have not yet received the Holy Spirit but v 40 all things should be done decently and in order. So Paul said let it be done 2 or 3 times in Church v 27-28(as a sign v 22) and let it be interpreted if some body could understand.
In private prayer time Paul said in v 18 that he thanked God he spoke in tongues more than any one else in the Church as in v 4 he knew that it edified himself. This expands our revelation in Christ Jesus. (and will correspond with scripture)

[Trusty]

So, I got filled with the Holy Spirit at the time of my salvation many years ago, and as I pray and study, and seek to follow and understand God; the Holy Spirit that obviously brings me guidance, comfort, peace, joy, the capacity to love, compulsion to do good works in the name of Christ, etc... also tells me that "Holy Spirit Baptism", speaking in tongues, and instantaneously miraculous healings, and the like are now no either longer active, or phony, and that God now works through providence.

Are you gonna question the Holy Spirit? Are you gonna tell the Holy Spirit that He is wrong?

Hermeneutic circles work both ways.

So now we have a problem:

Either the Holy Spirit is telling me the truth, or telling you all the truth. Which means in either case, the Holy Spirit is lying to one of us.

Or, one of us is lying about what the Holy Spirit tells us when we read scripture, pray, and seek God, and in certain cases, speak in gibberish, flail about on the floor in convulsions, or what have you.

Or, we are both wrong.

Or, the Holy Spirit doesn't "do" or "say" anything in anyone.

So, what we are left with is being skeptical every time when anyone claims that the Holy Spirit is working in them to do anything, whether it is all the pentecostal/charismatic nonsense, or simply providing comfort to someone.

Isn't that just grand...

[RBerman]

RBerman,

You need to look at the context of all Cor 14 and you will see the three purposes of “Speaking in tongues”

1- As a sign to the unbeliever or to those not yet filled with the Holy Spirit.
2- As a prayer language to God to edify ourselves.
3- As a language to another foreign speaking person.

All are miraculous works/signs of the Holy Spirit.

Cor 14Paul was telling the Church not to speak in tongues at once because this will look confusing to the unbelievers or those that have not yet received the Holy Spirit but v 40 all things should be done decently and in order. So Paul said let it be done 2 or 3 times in Church v 27-28(as a sign v 22) and let it be interpreted if some body could understand.
In private prayer time Paul said in v 18 that he thanked God he spoke in tongues more than any one else in the Church as in v 4 he knew that it edified himself. This expands our revelation in Christ Jesus. (and will correspond with scripture)

Everything you've just said about 1 Cor 14 makes just as much sense if Paul is speaking of human languages not normally known to the person speaking. People shouldn't be speaking in mixed-language church services without an interpreter present. The ability to speak a language you don't normally know is a sign to unbelievers. But it doesn't help to pray in a foreign tongue.

[FredFlanders]

Everything you've just said about 1 Cor 14 makes just as much sense if Paul is speaking of human languages not normally known to the person speaking. People shouldn't be speaking in mixed-language church services without an interpreter present. The ability to speak a language you don't normally know is a sign to unbelievers. But it doesn't help to pray in a foreign tongue.

RBerman,
Unless you have experienced the empowerment of the Holy Spirit you will never understand what speaking in tongues is. I was in that situation once but know I understand what this miracle is.
Fred.

[Trusty]

RBerman,
Unless you have experienced the empowerment of the Holy Spirit you will never understand what speaking in tongues is. I was in that situation once but know I understand what this miracle is.
Fred.

One more thing RBerman.

If you dump a bucket of water on a woman's head and she doesn't burn, it means she's not a witch.

[RBerman]

RBerman,

Unless you have experienced the empowerment of the Holy Spirit you will never understand what speaking in tongues is. I was in that situation once but know I understand what this miracle is.Fred.

In other words, Scripture doesn't support your position so you'll appeal to personal experience. OK. I guess we're done.

[Trusty]

In other words, Scripture doesn't support your position so you'll appeal to personal experience. OK. I guess we're done.

Simply delusions of grandeur, my friend. Hermeneutic circles. When you hide behind the "empowerment of the Holy Spirit", you can say and do anything and no one can argue with it.

[bc1980]

Originally posted by RBerman
In other words, Scripture doesn't support your position so you'll appeal to personal experience. OK. I guess we're done.

Trusty replied:
Simply delusions of grandeur, my friend. Hermeneutic circles. When you hide behind the "empowerment of the Holy Spirit", you can say and do anything and no one can argue with it.

Problem:

Group 1 thinks they see something in Scripture and think they have experienced it. Group 2 says they are basing their theology on their experience, not Scripture, so they are wrong.

Group 2, from lack of experience, interprets the same passages to support their already presumed cesationist position. Any evidence is blown off or explained away.

Group 1 can go over the edge to where they answer to no one.They also tend to think themselves more "spiritual" than the others. (Totally unscriptural)

(In this area I have found myself on both sides so I'm not accusing anyone. We have this problem with many areas of interpreting Scripture.)

Possible Solution:

Until the church can come to some agreed criteria for interpreting the Scriptures we are going to continue in this vicious cycle.

The Apostles worked this out in their time. Who will work it out in our time?

[RBerman]

Originally posted by RBerman
In other words, Scripture doesn't support your position so you'll appeal to personal experience. OK. I guess we're done.

Trusty replied:
Simply delusions of grandeur, my friend. Hermeneutic circles. When you hide behind the "empowerment of the Holy Spirit", you can say and do anything and no one can argue with it.

Problem:

Group 1 thinks they see something in Scripture and think they have experienced it. Group 2 says they are basing their theology on their experience, not Scripture, so they are wrong. Group 2, from lack of experience, interprets the same passages to support their already presumed cesationist position. Any evidence is blown off or explained away. Group 1 can go over the edge to where they answer to no one.They also tend to think themselves more "spiritual" than the others. (Totally unscriptural)

It's not so much that I say group 1 is wrong. I say that group 1 hold a position not supported by Scripture. There's a difference. I don't come to Scripture with the presumption of cessation. I simply don't accept someone's personal experience as relevant to the discussion. The debate would be greatly simplified if we stuck to Scripture.

[bc1980]

It's not so much that I say group 1 is wrong. I say that group 1 hold a position not supported by Scripture. There's a difference. I don't come to Scripture with the presumption of cessation. I simply don't accept someone's personal experience as relevant to the discussion. The debate would be greatly simplified if we stuck to Scripture.

That's what I'm saying. They believe there is plenty of Scriptural support for what they believe. The fact that you interpret the passages differently does not mean the support is not there. It comes down to, "How do we interpret Scripture?"

All of us had our eyes colored by our teachers/preachers/parents before we knew enough to study on our own. It is very hard to come to the Scriptures with a blank slate. But I believe "if" we could, and "if" we approached the Scriptures the same way, we could come to the same conclusions. So the question must arise, "What is the proper way to approach the Scriptures?"

[RBerman]

That's what I'm saying. They believe there is plenty of Scriptural support for what they believe. The fact that you interpret the passages differently does not mean the support is not there. It comes down to, "How do we interpret Scripture?"

There are plenty of issues that come down to a difference of opinion about what the Bible is saying on this point or that. It is hard to first identify and then set aside our presuppositions. At least in my recent interaction with FredFlanders, however, things ended with me appealing to Scripture and him appealing to his personal experience. See his post upthread dated December 29th 2008 07:56 PM.

[bc1980]

There are plenty of issues that come down to a difference of opinion about what the Bible is saying on this point or that. It is hard to first identify and then set aside our presuppositions. At least in my recent interaction with FredFlanders, however, things ended with me appealing to Scripture and him appealing to his personal experience. See his post upthread dated December 29th 2008 07:56 PM.

That's all I'm trying to say. That's why I'm trying to make the point that until we can agree on how to approach the Scriptures there will always be differences.

Sometimes we try to give a word, "tongues" for example, an iron clad definition based on Scripture. But the Scriptures we use were meant as a narrative, not a dictionary. If the writer does not use the exact Greek word every time, then we might assume that he is talking about something different, even though in context he is talking about the same thing. We have the same problem with other religious words, though few bring out as much emotional response.

It seems to me that those that embrace the charismatic/pentecostal definition get offended when someone tries to take "their" gift away from them. It also seems cesationist also get offended at the use of tongues (in the c/p sense).

I believe in the gifts, even tongues, but would never use them around someone who didn't believe in them or didn't understand.

Some things are difficult, if not impossible to define. Like chocolate. Define and explain to someone what chocolate taste like. You can't do it. But once they've tasted it, they understand. They still may not like it, but at least when someone mentions it they know what they are talking about.

I love how Paul throws his dissertation of love right in the middle of addressing an obvious misuse of the gifts. Love is to be our motivating factor, not whether I have or don't have a certain gift.

Fred made his appeal to Scripture several times in this thread and it was rejected. That was when he turned to experience. However, I'm not siding with Fred completely. I don't believe Scripture points to every Spirit-filled believer speaking in tongues. That is only one of the gifts and Paul ask the rhetorical question, "Do all speak with tongues" with the obvious answer, "No."

So I find myself in the middle, neither embracing the "typical" C/P doctrine or throwing the baby out with the bath water (and in my opinion there is definitely some bath water). I understand both sides and I agree with neither. I was a cesationist with all the typical arguments and now I believe in the gifts, but do not tend to agree with the C/P's, all based on my study of the subject in the Scriptures.

I hope that is as clear as mud.

[steveeden]

That passage is literal and men in the 1st century did drink poison and faint not. But miraculous gifts have passed away and we cannot do this today.

That passage is literal and men in the 1st century did drink poison and faint not. But miraculous gifts have passed away and we cannot do this today.

Stop please. You're killing me!

I guess the question would be is can you as a literal Bible-believing Christian drink a cup of deadly poison and live? If men in the first century could then why can't you? Did they believe more than you?

To say that the Holy Spirit does not pass out Her(not him) gifts today is rather blasphemous, is it not? Do you not believe that there are people out there with the gift of healing? How about speaking in tongues? What you are saying is that the Bible is constrained by time, and to say that is saying that the words are not True.

The Words are True, just not in the literal sense for the most part. Jesus the Christ spoke in riddles, He did not speak literally, so why would we take the rest of the book literally? It does not make sense to do so, does it?

whaddya think?

Peace and Love

Steve Eden