Charis-maniac

The Baptist Corpsman | april 2003 | Darren Morrison

[conservonator]

Right…I see…its protestant bashing to whip on a movement that, as I mentioned in my earlier post, can be found in some Catholic churches as well. Uh huh.

And you believe you have to ability to infallible interpret scripture…

That last part could be construed as some gratuitous prod bashing.

[ArrogantBustard]

the NIV is not the word of GOD.

Of course... It's missing a few books from the Old Testament... however, the KJV often suffers the same problem.

At least the KJ uses dignified language... and my copy includes the missing books in a separate section...

[man of Yosemite]

It does in fact accomplish much more than merely exercising spiritual gifts. However, Paul says to desire spiritual gifts, and if his words are inspired then God wants us to use these gifts in the church. The fruit of love in the church was much more prevelant when they were filled with the Holy Spirit than when they weren't. To think that we can neglect the fullness of the Spirit, and produce the fruit of the Spirit is incompatible. Some christians are better examples of transformation than those who have been baptized with the Spirit. It is a matter of discipleship and obedience that makes the difference, and many young charismatic christians just need to grow up. The early church clearly made every effort to fill the new converts with the Holy Ghost. I don't see why that shouldn't be the same agenda today.

[huskyboy]

would that be hyperliteralism in the sacraments or an extrabiblical papacy that claims the vicar or Christ? (despite the fact a number of popes were dirtbags), or a mass spoken in a dead language that no one can understand?

Actually, I always believed that Christ instituted the sacraments, and that the pope is His representative on earth. These things are supported by Scripture, even by protestant bibles. Now, the last thing, is a different story. The so-called "new mass" was the by-product of the Vatican II council. It may have made easier for people to worship since it was always in the local language, but it took away the true meaning behind the Mass: just as the Jews of the Old Testament had their own sacrificial rituals, the Church of the New Testament had to have something along those lines as well - after all, proper sacrifice is necessary to make worship truly pleasing to God.

There is a lot of symbolism in the Mass that the "new mass" took away. Not only that, the new theology which came from Vatican II de-emphasized true morality, introduced ideas not even some "liberal" Catholics would accept (like all religions are equal and can lead to salvation). . . and plenty of other stuff that may take volumes to write about. . . but basically, Vatican II really started a new religion which I couldn't be a part of any longer.

[huskyboy]

It does in fact accomplish much more than merely exercising spiritual gifts. However, Paul says to desire spiritual gifts, and if his words are inspired then God wants us to use these gifts in the church. The fruit of love in the church was much more prevelant when they were filled with the Holy Spirit than when they weren't. To think that we can neglect the fullness of the Spirit, and produce the fruit of the Spirit is incompatible. Some christians are better examples of transformation than those who have been baptized with the Spirit. It is a matter of discipleship and obedience that makes the difference, and many young charismatic christians just need to grow up. The early church clearly made every effort to fill the new converts with the Holy Ghost. I don't see why that shouldn't be the same agenda today.

Fair enough. . . now, how do you discern whether or not the glosslalia is really from God? It's easy to be deceived by the enemy - who Scripture says can easily appear as an angel of light. Same for prophecies.

[man of Yosemite]

Satan has no desire to worship God or elevate Jesus. We are also told to judge the spirits, and that no man speaking by the Spirit can call Jesus accursed. I've had plenty of doubts about a lot of the things I've seen and heard. Many of those who have stood to give words by God's Spirit have had those words not come to pass. I'm still skeptical about many things that I've seen, but I have had the experience myself, and know that I have experienced God's infilling of my body. I think the more we humble ourselves in worship to Christ, the greater the possibility that we may sense His presence and be anointed for His service. There are still many persons who have faithfully served God and done terrific things in service to Jesus that have never spoken in tongues, and there are those who have spoken in tongues who are now sitting in prison. Everyone who comes to Christ has a course to be walked out, and everyone either takes up his cross or sets it down.

[Commander8]

I used to attend a charsimatic/pentecostal church, I left because the worldly junk that got preached there wasn't helping me. It was only hindering me and I was still doing things that Christians ought not be doing. After a year of doing the "Lone Ranger Christian" thing, God guided me to a small, storefront Independent Baptist Church. A church that is missionary minded, soul winning, non-charismatic, grace teaching, Bible believing, separated, Old Landmark and literal creationist. A church where people strive to walk with the Lord.

[P-Marlowe]

I had a non-inspired Bible, The NIV that kept me hungry.

Just out of curiosity, does the Bible that you read now -- the "inspired Bible"-- have 1 Corinthians Chapter 12 through 14 in it?

1Co 14:39-40 So, my brethren, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues;
but all things should be done decently and in order.

[P-Marlowe]

I got involved with the Charismatic movement in it's infancy.

Were you in Corinth in AD 55?

[PFKEY]

What does the Bible say was the purpose of speaking in tongues?

What gain or end was served?

[P-Marlowe]

You tell me.

And then tell me whether or not the spiritual gifts came to an end, and if so, then tell me when they came to an end and which ones came to an end and why they came to an end.

Make your best argument from scripture.

[PFKEY]

First let us turn to 1 Corinthians 13: "Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away. For we know in part, and we prophecy in part; but when that which is perfect is come, that which in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child: now that I am become a man, I have put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I be known fully even as also I was fully known. But know abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love" (vs. 8-13). In this passage Paul was definitely talking about the time when prophecies would be done away-spiritual gifts would cease. He mentions the time when prophecies would be done away, tongues would cease, and knowledge would be done away. It should be apparent to all that Paul was speaking of miraculous .powers, and the time when they would be no more. Prophecies, tongues and knowledge were miraculous gifts. It is absurd for a person to declare that if one teaches that miraculous gifts were done away there is no knowledge left in the earth. Note the specific knowledge that Paul had in mind: "For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:8). In this passage Paul was enumerating the spiritual gifts. One of them was the gift of knowledge. While I certainly believe that natural knowledge is yet in the world, I do not believe that any man today has supernatural power. The apostles were told to take no thought what they, should say, for it would be given to them of their Father who is in heaven (Matt. 10:19). If these men who claim to have miraculous gifts of divine knowledge have such power, I could ask them to quote any passage in the Bible and even though they may never have memorized it, by divine power they could recite it. Find such a person. We would like for him to be tested.

Furthermore, one says if you say that that "which is perfect" had not come in New Testament times, you are declaring that the church was then imperfect. Paul was speaking of the fact that the New Testament Scriptures had not all been given, and that when they were perfected, or completed, for that is the meaning of the word "perfect", then that which was in part, namely spiritual gifts or divine knowledge, prophecies, and tongues, were to be done away. Notice also that it is not I who says that that which is perfect had not come, but the apostle Paul: "...but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away."

Sorry to quote from articles but it saves time and typing.


You tell me.

And then tell me whether or not the spiritual gifts came to an end, and if not, then tell me when they will end and which ones will end and why they will end.

Make your best argument from scripture.

[P-Marlowe]

Sorry, but "That which is Perfect" refers to Christ. The Church has never been perfect. Just read Christs letters to the seven churches. The church was anything but perfect then and it is worse now.

It is clear from Chapter 13 that these gifts would cease when Christ returned and not before. We still see in a glass darkly. We do not know in full. We need spritual gifts. We ought to covet them and not deny them.

[PFKEY]

The Church has never been perfect.

I would disagree.

His church is perfect.

[P-Marlowe]

His church is perfect.

But it wasn't perfect in 55 AD??????

[PFKEY]

Col.1

[18] And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Eph.1

[22] And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
[23] Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

His church is and always will be perfect.

Man might not always do the Fathers will. We are members of the church but not the head of the church.

Christ is perfect and he is the one that established (i.e. built the Church). It is perfect.

[PFKEY]

Sorry, but "That which is Perfect" refers to Christ. The Church has never been perfect.


Heb.5

[9] And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Col.1

[24] Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

[Revelation 911]

And you believe you have to ability to infallible interpret scripture…

no, perhaps pope piel - pocket fisher of man does though

Rather, I claim the discernment to see beyond the hyperliterism and extrabiblical nonsense that is grafted so neatly with symbolism this and symbolism that, observing that faith, not works or pretty churches, stained glass, bingo or Christs mother, is the cornertone of our salvation

[drstevej]

Alas, I am semi-infallible since I misplaced my Urim and Thumim.

[Note to self: Really must clean out the garage.]

[P-Marlowe]

Christ is perfect and he is the one that established (i.e. built the Church). It is perfect.

You have a big problem here PF. If the church is perfect, then "that which is perfect" was already present on the earth and there was no need for the spiritual gifts in 55 AD when Paul penned the letter. So what was Paul talking about? By your own admission "that which is perfect" is Christ. And if it was yet to come, then clearly it refers to Christ's visible second coming. If it referred to the Church, it was already there.

This whole argument regarding Chapter 13 was clearly made out of whole cloth as an excuse for those who wish to deny the continued use of spiritual gifts. The burden is on those who deny the perpeturity of spiritual gifts to show exactly when they ceased. Are you one of those "70 AD return" people? If not, then you've got a problem.