Posted on 11/24/2005 6:32:38 AM PST by tutstar
The Southern Baptist Convention's International Mission Board has adopted a new policy that forbids missionary candidates from speaking in tongues.
The policy, adopted Nov. 15 during the board's trustee meeting in Huntsville, Ala., reflects ongoing Southern Baptist opposition to charismatic or Pentecostal practices.
(Excerpt) Read more at beliefnet.com ...
I'm sure that the point that you're making is that "in the church" speaking in tongues has a different role than in one's personal worship life.
You are exactly right.
What and how a person prays in private is their business.
In the Church is another thing all together
Too bad more people don't understand that.
God Bless
"The scripture is very clear in Corinthians .." ~ whispering out loud
Adults and children see things differently. The emotionally (and spiritually) immature (babes) should never be placed in "leadership" positions.
Tongue Lashing
http://www.tektonics.org/af/cessgifts.html
What Does 1 Cor. 13:8-10 Say About Cessation of the Gifts?
James Patrick Holding
1 Cor. 13:8-10 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
One of our biggest internal bones of contention in the church today is the question of what this passage means with reference to the charismatic gifts.
Some offer arguments that this points to modern expressions of such gifts today being impossible.
I take the position that whatever this indicates, a person who claims to have one or more gifts needs to prove it.
But let's have a look at what the scholars have to say with reference to some popular positions in terms of what "the perfect" is.
[1] It means the finishing of the NT canon. Fee [1 Corinthians commentary, 643-4] rejects this one on the grounds that Paul could never have conceived of a completed NT canon. I would disagree, given that there was already an OT collection and that Paul could have easily anticipated a new one for the Christian church, and signs are that he may have been the one who first conceived of a canon. However, this would be a rather obscure reference to the completed NT canon and must therefore be considered unlikely.
[2] It means the eschaton. This is the most popular view among commentators (see Collins, 1 Corin. commentary, 486; Conzelmann, 1 Corin. commentary, 226) and it notes that the passage uses the eschatological term "come" (erchomai).
If this were true then as a partial preterist I would have to decide that the gifts were to cease after the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem! But is it the right way to read this?
Counting against this point is that erchomai isn't an exclusively eschatological word. It refers to anything that "comes" or "goes" or moves.
It is also noted that in v. 12 Paul uses eschatological language: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." This and the "mirror" metaphor Paul uses were used by Jews and pagans alike to describe our encounter with and understanding of the deity. Some may then wish to connect this not with the eschaton of 70, but with final resurrection and judgment, and hence claim that the gifts were meant to be sticking around. Perhaps so.
But there is one other intriguing answer:
[3] It means, love. Lost at that one? Consider this: Paul's verbiage, when connected up with the Johnanine lit on love, takes on a significance we may not have expected:
Compare "But when that which is perfect" and Paul's "face to face" metaphor to 1 John 4:12: "No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us." Then "is come" with 1 John 5:20: "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ."
Note as well the connection of unity in believers (the ultimate expression of agape) with being "perfect" in John 17:23, and 1 John 4:18: "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love."
The contrast is especially interesting because Paul speaks to the Corinthians as immature believers, while John's recipients are obviously at a higher level of maturity (while still needing instruction).
This would also fit with Paul's "growth" metaphor in v. 11: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
If this is correct, tongues, etc. are indeed supposed to cease in the life of each believer once they have obtained a certain degree of maturity.
In conclusion, while I consider option 2 to be possible, option 3 seems more likely -- and in either case, while option 3 offers no definitive view that the gifts were supposed to cease, it does suggest that the Benny Hinns of the world are pulling a fast one!
Actually, the pre-trib rapture has been proven to be older than that:
http://www.according2prophecy.org/ancient.html
Examining an Ancient Pre-Trib Rapture Statement
by Thomas Ice
All the saints and elect of God are gathered together before the tribulation, which is to come, and are taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see at any time the confusion which overwhelms the world because of our sins.
-Pseudo-Ephraem (c. 374-627)
Critics of pretribulationism sometimes state that belief in the rapture is a doctrinal development of recent origin. They argue that the doctrine of the rapture or any semblance of it was completely unknown before the early 1800s and the writings of John Nelson Darby. One of the most vocal and sensational critics of the rapture is Dave MacPherson, who argues that, "during the first 18 centuries of the Christian era, believers were never 'Rapture separaters' [sic]; they never separated the minor Rapture aspect of the Second Coming of Christ from the Second Coming itself."1
A second critic, John Bray, also vehemently opposes a pretribulational rapture, writing, "this teaching is not a RECOVERY of truth once taught and then neglected. No, it never was taught-for 1800 years nearly no one knew anything about such a scheme."2 More recently, pre-trib opponent Robert Van Kampen proclaimed, "The pretribulational rapture position with its dual parousias was unheard of in church history prior to 1830."3 In our previous issue of Pre-Trib Perspectives, I noted that pre-wrath advocate Marvin Rosenthal has also joined the chorus.4
Christian reconstructionists have also consistently and almost universally condemned premillennialism and pretribulationism, favoring instead, postmillen-nialism. One sample of their prolific and often vitri-olic opposition can be seen in Gary North's derisive description of the rapture as "the Church's hoped-for Escape Hatch on the world's sinking ship," which he, like MacPherson, believes was invented in 1830.5
How to Find the Rapture in History
Is pretribulationism as theologically bankrupt as its critics profess, or are there answers to these charges? If there are reasonable answers, then the burden of proof and historical argumentation shifts back to the critics. Rapture critics must acknowledge and interact with the historical and theological evidence.
Rapture critic William Bell has formulated three criteria for establishing the validity of a historical citation regarding the rapture. If any of his three criteria are met, then he acknowledges it is "of crucial importance, if found, whether by direct statement or clear inference." As will be seen, the Pseudo-Ephraem sermon meets not one, but two of his canons, namely, "Any mention that Christ's second coming was to consist of more than one phase, separated by an interval of years," and "any mention that Christ was to remove the church from the earth before the tribulation period."6
Pseudo-Ephraem's Rapture Statement
I vividly remember the phone call at my office late one afternoon from Canadian prophecy teacher and writer Grant Jeffrey.7 He told me that he had found an ancient pre-trib rapture statement. I said, "Let's hear it." He read the following to me over the phone:
All the saints and elect of God are gathered together before the tribulation, which is to come, and are taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see at any time the confusion which overwhelms the world because of our sins.
I said that it sure sounds like a pre-trib statement and began to fire at him all the questions I have since received many times when telling others about the statement from Pseudo-Ephraem's sermon On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World.8 Grant's phone call started me on journey through many of the substantial libraries throughout the Washington, D.C. area in an effort to learn all I could about this historically significant statement. The more information I acquired led me to conclude that Grant is right to conclude that this is a pre-trib rapture statement of antiquity.
Who is Pseudo-Ephraem?
The word "Pseudo" (Greek for false) is a prefix attached by scholars to the name of a famous historical person or book of the Bible when one writes using that name. Pseudo-Ephraem claims that his sermon was written by Ephraem of Nisibis (306-73), considered to be the greatest figure in the history of the Syrian church. He was well-known for his poetics, rejection of rationalism, and confrontations with the heresies of Marcion, Mani, and the Arians. As a poet, exegete, and theologian, his style was similar to that of the Jewish midrashic and targumic traditions and he favored a contemplative approach to spirituality. So popular were his works that in the fifth and sixth centuries he was adopted by several Christian communities as a spiritual father and role model. His many works, some of doubtful authenticity, were soon translated from Syriac into Greek, Armenian, and Latin.
It is not at all unreasonable to expect that a prolific and prominent figure such as Ephraem would have writings ascribed to him. While there is little support for Ephraem as the author of the Sermon on the End of the World, Caspari and Alexander have demonstrated that Pseudo-Ephraem was "heavily influenced by the genuine works of Ephraem."9 What is more difficult, though secondary to the main purpose of this article, is determining the exact date, purpose, location of, and extent of subsequent editorial changes to the sermon.10
Suggestions on the date of the writing of the original sermon range from as early as Wilhelm Bousset's 373 date,11 to Caspari's estimation of sometime between 565 and 627.12 Paul Alexander, after reviewing all the argumentation, favors a date for the final form similar to that suggested by Caspari,13 but Alexander also states simply, "It will indeed not be easy to decide on the matter."14 All are clear that it had to have been written before the advent of Islam.
Pseudo-Ephraem's Sermon
The sermon consists of just under 1500 words, divided into ten sections and has been preserved in four Latin manuscripts. Three of these date from the eighth century and ascribe the sermon to Ephraem. A fourth manuscript from the ninth century, claims not Ephraem, but Isidore of Seville (d. 636) as author.15 Additionally, there are subsequent Greek and Syriac versions of the sermon which have raised questions regarding the language of the original manuscript. On the basis of lexical analysis and study of the biblical citations within the sermon with Latin, Greek, and Syriac versions of the Bible, Alexander believed it most probable that the homily was composed in Syriac, translated first into Greek, and then into Latin from the Greek.16 Regardless of the original language, the vocabulary and style of the extant copies are consistent with the writings of Ephraem and his era. It appears likely that the sermon was written near the time of Ephraem and underwent slight change during subsequent coping.
What is most significant for present-day readers is the fact that the sermon was popular enough to be translated into several languages fairly soon after its composition. The significance of the sermon for us today is that it represents a prophetic view of a pre-trib rapture within the orthodox circles of its day.
The sermon is built around the three themes of the title On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World and proceeds chronologically. The fact that the pre-trib statement occurs in section 2, while the antichrist and tribulation are developed throughout the middle sections, followed by Christ's second coming to the earth in the final section supports a pre-trib sequence. This characteristic of the sermon fits the first criteria outlined by William Bell, namely "that Christ's second coming was to consist of more than one phase, separated by an interval of years." Thus, phase one is the rapture statement from section 2; the interval of 3 1/2 years, 42 months, and 1,260 days, said to be the tribulation in sections 7 and 8; the second phase of Christ's return is noted in section 10 and said to take place "when the three and a half years have been completed."17
Why Pseudo-Ephraem's Statement is Pretribulational
After learning of Pseudo-Ephraem's rapture statement, I shared it with a number of colleagues. My favorite approach was to simply read the statement, free of any introductory remarks, and ask what they thought. Every person, whether pre-trib or not, concluded that it was some kind of pre-trib statement. A few thought it was a statement from such pre-trib proponents like John Walvoord or Charles Ryrie. Most noted the clear statement concerning the removal of believers before the tribulation as a reason for thinking the statement pre-trib. This is Bell's second criteria for identifying a pre-trib statement from the past, namely, "any mention that Christ was to remove the church from the earth before the tribulation period." Note the following reasons why this should be taken as a pre-trib statement:
1) Section 2 of the sermon begins with a statement about imminency: "We ought to understand thoroughly therefore, my brothers, what is imminent [Latin "immineat"] or overhanging."18 This is similar to the modern pre-trib view of imminency and considering the subsequent rapture statements supports a pre-trib scenario.
2) As I break down the rapture statement, notice the following observations:
"All the saints and elect of God are gathered . . ." Gathered where? A later clause says they "are taken to the Lord." Where is the Lord? Earlier in the paragraph the sermon speaks of "the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from the confusion. . ." Thus the movement is from the earth toward the Lord who is apparently in heaven. Once again, in conformity to a translation scenario found in the pre-trib teaching.
The next phrase says that the gathering takes place "prior to the tribulation that is to come. . ." so we see that the event is pretribulational and the tribulation is future to the time in which Pseudo-Ephraem wrote.
The purpose for the gathering was so that they would not "see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of their sins." Here we have the purpose of the tribulation judgments stated and that was to be a time of judgment upon the world because of their sin, thus, the church was to be taken out.
3) Finally, the Byzantine scholar Paul Alexander clearly believed that Pseudo-Ephraem was teaching what we call today a pre-trib rapture. According to Alexander, most Byzantine apocalypses were concerned with how Christians would survive the time of severe persecution by Antichrist. The normal approach given by other apocalyptic texts was a shortening of the time to three and a half years, enabling the survival of some Christians.19 Unlike those texts, this sermon has Christians being removed from the time of tribulation. Alexander observed:
It is probably no accident that Pseudo-Ephraem does not mention the shortening of the time intervals for the Antichrist's persecution, for if prior to it the Elect are 'taken to the Lord,' i.e., participate at least in some measure in beatitude, there is no need for further mitigating action on their behalf. The Gathering of the Elect according to Pseudo-Ephraem is an alternative to the shortening of the time intervals.20
Conclusion
Regardless of what else the writer of this sermon believed, he did believe that all believers would be removed before the tribulation-a pre-trib rapture view. Thus, we have seen that those who have said that there was no one before 1830 who taught the pre-trib rapture position will have to revise their statements by well over 1,000 years. This statement does not prove the pre-trib position, only the Bible can do that, but it should change many people's historical views on the matter.
ENDNOTES
1 Dave MacPherson, The Great Rapture Hoax (Fletcher, NC: New Puritan Library, 1983), 15. For a refutation of MacPherson's charges see Thomas D. Ice, "Why the Doctrine of the Pretribulational Rapture Did Not Begin with Margaret Macdonald," Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (1990): 155-68.
2 John L. Bray, The Origin of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Teaching (Lakeland, FL.: John L. Bray Ministry, 1982), 31-32.
3 Robert Van Kampen, The Sign (Wheaton, IL.: Crossway Books, 1992), 445.
4 Thomas Ice, "Is The Pre-Trib Rapture A Satanic Deception?" Pre-Trib Perspectives (II:1; March 1995):1-3.
5 Gary North, Rapture Fever: Why Dispensationalism is Paralyzed (Tyler, TX.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1993), 105.
6 William E. Bell, "A Critical Evaluation of the Pretribulation Rapture Doctrine in Christian Eschatology" (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1967), 26-27.
7 For more information on the Pseudo-Ephraem statement see Grant R. Jeffrey, Final Warning (Toronto: Frontier Research Publications, 1995). Forthcoming, Timothy Demy and Thomas Ice, "The Rapture and an Early Medieval Citation" Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (July 1995): 300-11. Grant R. Jeffrey, "A Pretribulational Rapture Statement in the Early Medieval Church" in Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy, ed., When the Trumpet Sounds: Today's Foremost Authorities Speak Out on End-Time Controversies (Eugene, Or: Harvest House, 1995).
8 Grant Jeffrey found the statement in Paul J. Alexander, The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition, by (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 2.10. The late Alexander found the sermon in C. P. Caspari, ed. Briefe, Abhandlungen und Predigten aus den zwei letzten Jahrhunderten des kirchlichen Altertums und dem Anfang des Mittelaters, (Christiania, 1890), 208-20. This German work also contains Caspari's commentary on the sermon on pages 429-72.
9 Paul J. Alexander, "The Diffusion of Byzantine Apocalypses in the Medieval West and the Beginnings of Joachimism," in Prophecy and Millenarianism: Essays in Honour of Marjorie Reeves, ed. Ann Williams (Essex, U.K. : Longman, 1980), 59.
10 Paul J. Alexander, "Medieval Apocalypses as Historical Sources," American Historical Review 73 (1968): 1017. In this essay Alexander addresses in-depth the historical difficulties facing the interpreter of such texts. To these difficulties, issues of theological interpretation and concern must also be added.
11 W. Bousset, The Antichrist Legend, trans. A. H. Keane (London: Hutchinson and Co., 1896), 33-41. An early date is also accepted by Andrew R. Anderson, Alexander's Gate: Gog and Magog and the Enclosed Nations. Monographs of the Mediaeval Academy of America, no. 5. (Cambridge, MA.: Mediaeval Academy of America, 1932):16-18.
12 Caspari, 437-42.
13 Alexander, Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition, 147. This leaves the possibility that the work may have been altered or revised prior to the date of the extant manuscripts.
14 Ibid., 145. Earlier, he writes: "All that is certain, is as Caspari pointed out, that it must have been written prior to Heraclius' victories over Sassanid Persia, for the author talks repeatedly of wars between Rome and Persia and such discussions do not make sense after Heraclius' victories and the beginning of the Arab invasions" (144).
15 Ibid., 136-37. The only critical edition is Caspari's which suffers a lack of objectivity in that he relied upon only two of the four extant manuscripts.
16 Ibid., 140-44.
17 Caspari, 219. English citations are taken from a translation of the sermon provided by Cameron Rhoades, instructor of Latin at Tyndale Theological Seminary, Ft. Worth, TX.
18 Ibid., 210.
19 Alexander, 209.
20 Ibid., 210-11.
Return to Pre-Trib Index
http://www.according2prophecy.org/ancient.html
That's a steaming pile!
Paul was glad to speak in tongues, encouraged others to do so and commanded that no one should forbid it.
1Cr 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
Matters of the spirit are not toys for tots. Those who aren't willing to believe God and the Bible won't ever understand, they will stay naturally minded.
It is too, too sad that so many people who claim to be Christians refuse to believe the Bible.
The Bible clearly teaches that speaking in tongues is from God, is good, and should be done.
Those who teach the opposite are actively opposing God.
Pick your sides carefully.
PS---There are those who misuse the church and the word of God to their own benefit. Always has been, always will be in this world.
Those type sour others on the truth of God's word.
I love this statement because of its truth and power.
If it doesn't generate a firestorm of discussion I would be very surprised and disappointed!
"SIC 'EM!!"
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/onecor13.htm
Cannot Participate in the
Modern Charismatic Movement
By George Zeller
Please Note: The doctrinal issues dealt with in this article are more fully considered in the document entitled, The Modern Charismatic Movement - 35 Doctrinal Issues.
1) THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT TEACHES THAT NOT EVERY BELIEVER HAS RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT. They will often ask this question: “HAVE YOU RECEIVED THE SPIRIT?”
The Apostle Paul, in writing to the believers in Rome, declared that every Christian is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, for “if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, HE IS NONE OF HIS” (Rom. 8:9). Those who do not have the Spirit are those who do not have Christ! The person who has the Son of God has the Holy Spirit also! Thus, the crucial question is not whether I have received the Holy Spirit, but whether I have received Christ (John 1:12; 1 John 5:11-12)!
The gift of the Holy Spirit was given to each believer at the moment of salvation (Rom. 5:5). As a result, God’s Spirit lives within every Christian: “Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, WHO IS IN YOU” (1 Cor. 6:19).
How do I KNOW that the Holy Spirit dwells within me? The Charismatic answer: “I know that the Holy Spirit dwells within me because I have had an experience! I have had the ‘baptism’ and I have spoken in tongues!” The Believer’s answer: “I know that the Holy Spirit dwells within me because GOD SAID SO! The Bible says, ‘The Holy Spirit dwelleth in us’ (2 Tim. 1: 14). God said it; I believe it; that settles it!”
2) THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT TEACHES THAT TONGUES IS THE EVIDENCE OF HAVING RECEIVED THE SPIRIT. In other words, when they ask, “Have you received the Spirit?” what they really mean is, “HAVE YOU SPOKEN IN TONGUES?”
God’s Word tells me that I was sealed with the Holy Spirit the moment I trusted Christ (Eph. 1:13-14). As cattle are “sealed” or branded with a mark of ownership, so God has given me the Holy Spirit as the mark and token that I belong to Christ (Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 6:19-20). If I really have the Holy Spirit, and if I really belong to the Son of God, what will the outward evidence of that be? “The foundation of God standeth sure, having this SEAL, the Lord knoweth them that are His. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ DEPART FROM INIQUITY” (2 Tim. 2:19).
Many people name the name of Christ, and claim to be Christians. Many profess Christ, but few actually possess Christ. The real test is whether or not a person DEPARTS FROM INIQUITY (UNRIGHTEOUSNESS). If I have really received the HOLY Spirit, then that ought to be evidenced by a HOLY life: “For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto HOLINESS . . . who hath also given unto us His HOLY Spirit (1 Thess. 4:7-8). The determining question is not whether I have spoken in tongues, but whether I have walked consistently in His holiness!
3) THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT TEACHES THAT TONGUES IS THE EVIDENCE OF BEING FILLED WITH THE SPIRIT.
The important command to be filled with the Spirit is found in Ephesians 5:18. If I am really filled with the Spirit, how will that be evidenced? Paul gives the answer in the verses which follow.
If I am filled with, the Spirit, I will have a song in my heart (Eph. 5:19). The Holy Spirit is the Master Musician who is able to produce a wonderful melody within! (Notice that verse 19 does not say, “Speaking to yourselves in unknown tongues . . .”)
If I am filled with the Spirit, then I will be filled with thanksgiving also (Eph. 5:20)! Unthankful means unfilled!
Finally, if I am truly Spirit-filled, I will submit to God’s order in the home (Eph. 5:21 and the verses following). The real test of whether a person is filled with the Spirit is not on Sunday morning in church when everyone is at their best behavior. Rather it is how one conducts himself in the home during the week in the midst of the problems and pressures of life. The critical question is not, “Has he spoken in tongues?”, but rather, “Is he loving (Eph. 5:25)?” “Is she submissive (Eph. 5:22)?” “Are the children obedient (Eph. 6:1-2)?” God the Holy Spirit is able to produce something far greater than tongues (Gal. 5:22-23)!
4) THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT TEACHES THAT SPIRIT BAPTISM IS AN EXPERIENCE SUBSEQUENT (FOLLOWING IN TIME) TO SALVATION AND NOT ENJOYED BY ALL BELIEVERS. They will often ask this question: HAVE YOU HAD THE BAPTISM?
God’s Word teaches that Spirit Baptism is that wonderful work of God whereby I was placed into the body of Christ the moment I was saved: “For by one Spirit were we ALL baptized into one body . . . and have ALL been made to drink into one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13; cf. Gal. 3:25-26). Those in the Charismatic movement often identify the “baptism of the Spirit” as that “Pentecostal experience” of speaking in tongues. Furthermore, they teach that ALL believers should seek this tongues experience. Thus the Charismatic movement says “ALL” when God says “NOT ALL” (1 Cor. 12:29-30), and “NOT ALL” when God says “ALL” (1 Cor. 12:13).
5) SOME WITHIN THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT, BELIEVE THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO TARRY FOR THE HOLY SPIRIT.
For Charismatics, the term “tarry” often means to seek after the “baptism of the Spirit” (speaking in tongues) by long sessions of prayer, by the laying on of hands, etc. For the Apostles, the word “tarry” meant to wait for the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4). To evangelize the world without the Holy Spirit would be as futile as trying to drive a car without gas!
I might wait for a person at the airport for several hours. Once he comes, however, I do not need to wait any longer! The waiting period is over, and I can simply enjoy his presence! Praise God, the Comforter has come!
6) WITHIN THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT THERE IS OFTEN AN OVEREMPHASIS UPON THE PERSON OF THE HOLY SPIRIT TO THE NEGLECT OF CHRIST.
In some Charismatic groups and gatherings, the Holy Spirit is spoken of more than Christ! The Lord Jesus said, “But when the Comforter is come . . . He shall testify of Me . . . for He WILL NOT SPEAK OF HIMSELF . . . He shall glorify Me: for He shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you” (John 15:26; 16:13-14).
The Spirit bears witness to Christ! The Spirit ever points people to Christ! The glorious ministry of the Spirit is to glorify and lift up Christ! If the Holy Spirit is really working in my life, then CHRIST will become more and more precious to me each day! His blessed office work is to produce Christ-like saints (Gal. 4:19; 5:22-23; 2 Cor. 3:18)!
7) THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT INCLUDES THOSE WHO TEACH THAT IT IS GOD’S WILL FOR EVERY SICK PERSON TO BE HEALED.
Some “faith healers” today insist that if a person is sick, then he is out of the will of God—either he does not have enough faith or he has not come to the right person (i.e. a “healer”). Here are the facts: 1) In 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 we learn that God denied Paul’s request to have his “thorn” (painful bodily ailment) removed. 2) Faithful Epaphroditus, as we are told in Philippians 2:25-30, had almost died from a sickness, and the implication is that Paul was unable to help him, though God could. 3) In his final letter to Timothy, Paul explained that he had left Trophimus at Miletus SICK (2 Tim. 4:20). 4) Paul apparently knew of no faith healer who could help Timothy with his stomach ailments and frequent infirmities (1 Tim. 5:23). 5) Christ and the apostles healed ALL who came to them, not just those who “had enough faith” (Matt. 12:15; Acts 28:7-9). 6) The healing miracles of Christ and the apostles can be described as INSTANTANEOUS (Matt. 8:3; 20:34; Acts 3:6-7), PERFECT AND COMPLETE (Matt. 14:36) and UNDENIABLE (Acts 4:14, 16; compare Matthew 12:22-24). Sadly, the same cannot be said of the “miraculous cures” of modern “healers.”
8) THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT TEACHES THAT THE BIBLE IS NOT SUFFICIENT! WE NEED SOMETHING ELSE (VISIONS, PROPHECIES, ADDED REVELATIONS, ETC.)!
Nothing is more important than my attitude towards God’s written Word (the 66 canonical books). Consider the following: 1) Christ told His disciples that they needed added revelation (John 16:12-“I have yet many things to say unto you”), but He promised that the Spirit of truth would come and guide them into ALL TRUTH (John 16:13)! What more do we need? 2) Though God once spoke at various times and in “divers manners” (through visions, dreams, etc.), He has in these last days spoken by His Son (Heb. 1:1-2)! What more do we need? 3) All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable . . . that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16-17)! What more do we need? 4) Though Peter actually heard God’s voice from heaven, he assures us that “we have a more sure word of prophecy . . . the Scripture” (2 Pet. 1:18-20)! What more do we need? 5) Jude writes concerning “the faith” (the body of Christian truth) which has once for all been delivered to the saints (Jude 3)! What more do we need? 6) As the Lord completed His written revelation, He issued one final warning: LET NO MAN ADD OR TAKE AWAY FROM MY WORD (see Rev. 22:18-19). Two verses later the final period was placed and the Bible was completed! What more do we need?
9) THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT BELIEVES THAT ECUMENISM IS PLEASING TO GOD.
Charismatic renewal has penetrated all the mainline Protestant denominations and is rapidly sweeping into the Roman Catholic Church. Charismatic converts are told to stay within these churches and to seek to “renew” them by their presence within.
God’s commands are just the opposite. Please read and consider the following commands in light of their context: 1) “COME OUT FROM AMONG THEM” (2 Cor. 6:18); 2) “FROM SUCH TURN AWAY” (2 Tim. 3:5); 3) “AVOID” (Rom. 16:17); 4) REJECT” (Tit. 3:10); 5) “RECEIVE HIM NOT” (2 John 10).
10) THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT MAKES EXPERIENCE THE REAL BASIS OF CHRISTIAN UNITY RATHER THAN DOCTRINE.
Charismatic people are united around a COMMON EXPERIENCE. What a person believes and what church a person attends is irrelevant. What really matters is that all have had the “Pentecostal experience.”
What was it that united the early church? Were converts given the freedom to believe whatever they wanted and to worship however they pleased? No, “they continued steadfastly IN THE APOSTLES DOCTRINE” (Acts 2:42). Their unity was based on “one faith” (Eph. 4:5), not “many faiths.” It was a unity that was based on a common “knowledge of the Son of God” (Eph. 4:13), which implies a correct doctrinal understanding of who Christ is and what He has done. This “oneness” was impossible apart from the protective atmosphere of “doctrine” (Eph. 4:14) and “truth” (Eph. 4:15). Only God’s Word and God’s Truth can effectively unite God’s people. May it so be!
|
The Middletown Bible Church |
More articles under Doctrinal Studies |
APPENDIX 1
TWELVE REASONS WHY
BIBLICAL TONGUES
WERE REAL LANGUAGES
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/tongues/apendix1.htm
1. The term "tongue" is often used in the New Testament describing real languages (Revelation 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15).
2. The adjective "new" is most appropriate for describing real languages (Mark 16:17).
Tongues were the God-given ability to speak in a language that was totally new to the speaker (i.e., a foreign language). How could ecstatic utterances be thought of as being "new"?
3. Speaking in tongues was a supernatural, God-given ability (Mark 16:17-18; Acts 2:4) which is reasonable only if tongues were real languages.
As John Walvoord observes, "Any view which denies that speaking in tongues used actual languages is difficult to harmonize with the scriptural concept of a spiritual gift. By its nature, a spiritual gift had reality, and being supernatural, needs no naturalistic explanation." [John F. Walvoord, The Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958), p. 182.]
Bellshaw adds this comment: "If these tongues are ecstatic utterances, they could be duplicated fraudulently. Gibberish can be uttered by anyone, and a second person could feign interpretation of that unintelligible vocalization. Therefore, it is reasonable that this gift would consist of the ability to speak in a foreign language without the opportunity to learn that language by ordinary means." [William G. Bellshaw, "The Confusion of Tongues," Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 120 (April-June, 1963), pp. 147-148.]
4. The adjective "other" is most appropriate for describing real languages (Acts 2:4; 1 Corinthians 14:2l; Isaiah 28:11).
These are languages other than and different from the person’s native tongue (i.e., foreign languages). In what sense could ecstatic utterances be considered "different"?
5. The tongues of Acts 2:4,11 are clearly identified in Acts 2:6,8 as real languages (dialects).
6. The tongues in the book of Acts were not meaningless utterances, but they were means of conveying a meaningful message (Acts 2:11; 10:46). Likewise the tongues in 1 Corinthians communicated meaningful content.
In Acts:
Acts 2:4-"the great things of God"
Acts 10:46-"magnifyiilg God (proclaiming God’s greatness)"
Thus, tongues in, Acts involved meaningful doctrinal content, not meaningless and empty gibberish.
In 1 Corinthians:
1 Corinthians 14:14-15 – A prayer to God
1 Corinthians 14:15 – A song of praise
1 Corinthians 14:16 – The giving of thanks
7. The expression "kinds of tongues" is understandable only if tongues were real languages (1 Corinthians 12:10,28; cf. 1 Corinthians 14:10).
Any linguist knows that the three thousand languages of the world are grouped into many classes or kinds. But could it be said that there are kinds of ecstatic utterances?
8. The fact that tongues could be interpreted demands that tongues be real languages (1 Corinthians 12:10,30; 14:5,13,27-28).
Interpretation necessitates meaning! Meaningless utterances cannot be interpreted. How can one give meaning to something that has no meaning? How can one give sense to nonsense? In Chapter 5 we gave the example of two songs sung around Christmas time: 1) "Gloria in Excelsis Deo" (this can be translated--"Angels We Have Heard on High"; 2) "FA LA LA LA LA, LA LA LA LA" ("Deck the Halls")--this cannot be translated. It is meaningless syllables.
9. 1 Corinthians 14:10-11 is clearly depicting real languages.
10. Tongues-speaking is said to consist of words, which would be possible only if tongues were real languages (1 Corinthians 14:9,19).
11. The tongues mentioned in Isaiah 28:11 (cited by Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:21) were real languages.
12. The article of previous reference in I Corinthians 14:22 ("the tongues are for a sign") proves that the Corinthian tongues (verse 22) were the very same thing as the Isaiah tongues (verse 21), namely, real languages (see discussion in Chapter 9).
CONCLUSION
"These twelve arguments, taken together, demonstrate conclusively that all of the New Testament references to the gift of tongues concern the same phenomenon. In every case it was the miraculous ability to speak in an unearned foreign language." [This is Seller’s conclusion in his booklet, Biblical Conclusions Concerning Tongues, p. 7. Actually this booklet was originally authored by Charles Smith and later Sellers put his name to it. Smith later changed his position by saying that the gift of tongues was not real languages. On pages 1-7 Sellers gives 13 reasons showing that Biblical tongues were real languages. See also Robert H. Gundry, Estatic Utterance (N.E.B.)?" Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 17, 1966, pp. 299-307. Dr. Gundry shows that the tongues speech of both Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 12-14 can refer only to known languages spoken here on earth.]
Interesting. Just had to flag xzins over for this as he has an interest in Methodist doings. I wouldn't have guessed you as being currently Methodist. Your writing style and demeanor at FR have always struck me as pure Southern Baptist. Myself, I'm not as tough a Calvinist as I once was. And I have even softened up toward the Wesleyan hymns, again, many of which are now in the most recent SBC hymnal, something we would not have had when I was a youth.
The Methodist church has very few pentecostalish charismatic congregations that I know of. I, too, can't think if everyone else is praying out loud when I am. It always seemed like a shouting contest to me. I felt that if someone walked in at that point that they'd think we'd lost our minds.
On the other hand, I do believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit being distributed within the church. I'm not entirely sure that the lists given are exhaustive or illustrative.
I'm not sure there's a particularly good reason for someone to mouth unintelligible words within a worship service. There might be a place for such in a more devotional setting.
I'm interested in your comment about being softer in your calvinism. Likewise, I've grown softer in my Arminianism. Many of the questions raised by my calvinist kin made me think, study, and adapt.
I am a member of a southern baptist church, but I grew up in a pentecostal denomination. Many SBC churches are experiencing tremendous growth, and a lot of the growth comes from people leaving pentecostal churches. I don't now how prevalent this is, but where I live it is a very common occurence. As such, I am observing some SBC churches requiring potential members to attend classes where the SBC doctrine is explicity taught, and the people are usually told that the church is NOT pentecostal. They are feeling the need to do this because of the influx of pentecostals into their denomination.
As do I. I believe the reason I enjoy the Methodist services more is because it seems to be more ordered. It is reminiscent somewhat of Southern Baptist services I attended growing up. Very quiet, very respectful, and in some ways a sense of awe that you are sitting in God's presence. Less focused on emotion and more on the logic of Christianity. I tried out a few SB churches as I was deciding but the services seem to be less ordered than they used to be. I believe I'm still a Southern Baptist at heart from the theological standpoint but I just like the Methodist services moreso right now
Suprising to me I have discovered recently, my family on both sides used to be Methodist until about three generations ago.
One thing I have to admit takes getting used to ;) Methodist hymns seem to be in different keys (at least the ones they sing) and it takes a bit to follow the notes from time to time
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.