The Next Reformation? 9.5 Thesis Posted on 'Church Door'!

9.5 Theses for the Next Reformation

Modern-day Reformers Post Document on 'Church Door'

We the undersigned, out of love for the truth and a desire to see all Christians honor and acknowledge all that God has revealed in his Word, submit these 9.5 Theses for your prayerful evaluation and participation with us in calling for further reform. May these theses be the spark that ignites the next Reformation of Christianity.

1. Everything Jesus said would happen, happened exactly as and when He said it would-within the lifetime of his contemporaries.

2. Everything every New Testament writer expected to happen, happened exactly as and when they expected it would-within their lifetime-as they were guided into all truth and told the things that were to come by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:13).

3. Scholars across a broad spectrum are in general agreement that this is exactly how every NT writer and the early Church understood Jesus' words. If they were wrong on something this important, how can we trust them to have conveyed other aspects of the faith accurately, such as the requirements for salvation?

4. No inspired NT writer, writing twenty or more years later, ever corrected their Holy-Spirit-guided understanding and fulfillment expectations (Jn. 16:13). Neither should we. Instead, they intensified their language as the "appointed time of the end" (Dan. 12:4; Hab. 2:3) drew near-from Jesus' "this generation" (Mat. 24:34), to Peter's "the end of all things is at hand" and "for it is time for judgment to begin" (1 Pet. 4:7, 17), and John's "this is the last hour . . . . it is the last hour" (1 Jn. 2:18).

5. Partial fulfillment is not satisfactory. 3 out of 5, 7 out of 10, etc., won't work. Partial does not pass the test of a true prophet (Deut. 18:18-22). Again, Jesus time-restricted all of his end-time predictions to occur within the 1st-century time frame.

6. God is faithful (2 Pet. 3:9) and "not a man that he should lie" (Num. 23:19). Faithfulness means not only doing what was promised, but also doing it when it was promised.

7. 1st-century, fulfillment expectations were the correct ones and everything happened, right on time-no gaps, no gimmicks, no interruptions, no postponements, no delays, no exegetical gymnastics, and no changing the meaning of commonly used and normally understood words. Such manipulative devices have only given liberals and skeptics a foothold to discredit Christ's Deity and the inerrancy of Scripture.

8. What needs adjusting is our understanding of both the time and nature of fulfillment, and not manipulation of the time factor to conform to our popular, futuristic, and delay expectations.

9. The kingdom of God was the central teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, is a present but greatly under-realized reality, and must again become the central teaching of his Church.

9.5. We have been guilty of proclaiming a half-truth-a partially delivered faith to the world and to fellow Christians. We must repent and earnestly "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). If Christianity has been as effective as it has by proclaiming that Jesus Christ, the Messiah, came, died for our sins, bodily arose from the dead, and ascended to Heaven "at just the right time" (Rom. 5:6; Dan. 9:24-27), how much more effective might it be if we started preaching, teaching, and practicing the whole truth-i.e., a faith in which everything else also happened "at just the right time," exactly as and when Jesus said it would and every NT writer expected (Jn. 16:13). Dare we continue to settle for less?

Surely today, the words of Martin Luther, as he stood in defense before the Diet of Worms in 1521, are still applicable and compelling for the "always reforming" Church:
"Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures . . . and my conscience is captive to the Word of God . . . . I cannot do otherwise. "

Original Signatories

John Noe, President Prophecy Reformation Institute Indianapolis, Indiana Rick Chromey, Professor of Christian Education Saint Louis Christian College Florissant, Missouri
Edward E. Stevens, President International Preterist Association Bradford, Pennsylvania
Danny Griffin, President Carolina Christian Ministries Charlotte, North Carolina
John Anderson, President Lighthouse World Ministries Sparta, North Carolina
Walter C. Hibbard, Former Founder & Chairman Great Christian Books, Inc. Newark, Delaware
Mike Lightfoot, Pastor Father's House Fellowship Clarkston, Washington
Terry Siverd, Minister Cortland Church of Christ Cortland, Ohio
Kenneth J. Davies, President Grace Ministries Lemon Grove, California
Joseph Lewis, Pastor Fulfilled Bible Fellowship Delair, New Jersey
Jerry Wayne Bernard, Vice President Scripture Research, Inc. Riverside, California
Arthur J. Melanson, President Joy of the Lord Ministry Audubon, New Jersey
Jerry Hester, Pastor Dominion Community Church Greer, South Carolina
Terry M. Hall, Minister Miami Valley Church Beavercreek, Ohio
Gene Fadeley, President Anchor Publishing Charlotte, North Carolina
Rod Moyses, Manager M2ktalk.Com, (internet-satellite radio networks) Fresno, California
Stan Newton, Pastor Missionary to Bulgaria Seattle, Washington
Timothy R. King, Pastor Central Baptist Church Grand Junction, Colorado
Walter Koch, Pastor Emanuel Centro Christiano El Monte, California
Jack C. Scott, Jr., Minister Glacier View Church Kalispell, Montana
A. Wilson Phillips, Pastor Abundant Life Covenant Church Springfield, Missouri
Thomas A. Price, Jr., Pastor Sherman Community Church Sherman, New York
Don K. Preston, Minister Ardmore Church of Christ Ardmore, Oklahoma
David Curtis, Pastor Berean Bible Church Cheasapeake, Virginia
Jessie E. Mills, Jr., Minister Central Church of Christ Bonifay, Florida
Bud Fleisher, Host/Producer "Let's Talk Religion" (radio program) Clearwater, Florida
Ron Smith, President Friendship In Action (mission work in Mexico) Mission,
Texas Bill Clark Brumbaugh, Host Proactive News (nat'l syndicated radio program) Bozeman, Montana
James R. Hopkins, Minister Daleville Church of Christ Daleville, Alabama
William Bell, Minister Raines Road Church of Christ Memphis, Tennessee

Published by the Prophecy Reformation Institute: a conservative, evangelical ministry dedicated to continuing the Reformation into the field of eschatology-end-time Bible prophecy, and the International Preterist Association.

Books for the Next Reformation
· Chilton, David. "The Days of Vengeance." Ft. Worth, TX.: Dominion Press, 1987.
· DeMar, Gary, "Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church." Atlanta, GA.: American Vision, 3rd ed., 1997.
· *________. "End Times Fiction: A Biblical Consideration of the Left Behind Theology." Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001.
· Gentry, Jr., Kenneth L. "Before Jerusalem Fell." Atlanta, GA.: American Vision, revised ed., 1998.
· *Noe, John. "Beyond the End Times: The Rest of . . . The Greatest Story Ever Told. "Bradford, PA.: IPA, 1999.
· *________. "Dead In Their Tracks: Stopping the Liberal/Skeptic Attack on the Bible." Bradford, PA.: IPA, 2001.
· ________. "Shattering the ‘Left Behind’ Delusion." Bradford, PA.: IPA, 2000.
· ________. "The Israel Illusion: 13 Popular Misconceptions about This Modern-day Nation and Its Role in Bible Prophecy. "Fishers, IN.: PRI, 2000.
· ________. Top Ten Misconceptions about Jesus’ Second Coming and the End Times. Fishers, IN.: PRI, 1998.
· Otto, Randell E. "Case Dismissed: Rebutting Common Charges Against Preterism." Bradford, PA.: IPA, 2000.
· Russell, J. Stuart. "The Parousia." Bradford, Pennsylvania: IPA, 2002. Reprint of the second edition originally published by T. Fisher Unwin, in London, England in 1887.
· *Sproul, R.C. "The Last Days According to Jesus. "Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.
· Stevens, Edward E. "Questions About The Afterlife. "Bradford, PA.: IPA, 1999.
· ________. "What Happened In A.D. 70?" Bradford, PA.: IPA, 6th ed., 2001.
· Terry, Milton S. "Biblical Hermeneutics. "Eugene, OR.: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1890, 1999.

* (top priority—read first)

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: John Noe Prophecy Reformation Institute 9715 Kincaid Drive Suite 1100 Fishers, IN 46038
E-mail: jnoe@prophecyrefi.org Ph.# 317-841-7777, Ext. 350 Fax# 317-578-2110

Edward E. Stevens International Preterist Association 122 Seaward Ave. Bradford, PA 16701
E-mail: Preterist1@aol.com Ph.# 1-814-368-6578 Fax# 1-814-368-6030

Be sure to visit our websites: www.prophecyrefi.org. Website: www.preterist.org.

_ Copyright 2001 by John Noe
All rights reserved. This material may be reproduced or transmitted by any means in any form, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission, but only in its entirety-i.e., both pages.

1 Corinthians 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

Tongues is the Power to preach in a Tongue which is otherwise unknown to you.
For example, Turkish -- this Tongue is not natively known to me. If God gave it to me to preach the Gospel in Turkish for a season, I would have to totally trust the Spirit for utterance (just as Acts 2 says), for the Turkish tongue is unknown to me.

14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

Continuing the thought, IF God gave it to me to preach the Gospel in Turkish, that is a great and miraculous thing... but why on earth would I use the Gift to pray in Turkish? That would be an Unfruitful use of the Gift; it profits me nothing to pray in a gifted Foreign Tongue, which is granted for a season and for an intended and specific purpose (when it is granted at all).

15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Instead, you should pray in the Tongue which is native to you. That is Fruitful.

16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? 17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

Because by praying in the gifted Tongue of Turkish, I have denied my fellow English-speaking brethren the opportunity to signify, "Amen"!! If gifted the Tongue of Turkish, let me preach the Gospel to Turks; but it is not a Gift for Prayer.

18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

Of course. Paul was sent all over the Gentile World.

19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

But in home churches, he considers it best only to speak in the home tongue. The fact that God has given him to speak Libyan and Cyrene and Latin (or whatever) might look kinda nifty-cool to the Ephesian Church, but it would not edify their understanding (they would not understand his words... almost as bad as babbling gibberish!!).

I submit that my analysis above is precisely commensurate with the explicit wording of the Text, and the explicit normative example from Acts that Tongues is a Gifted Power over Foreign Language.

I submit further that you will reject it, for it overthrows your position entirely; and your Gospel of Gibber is more precious to you than the actual words of Scripture.

Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

I think we can pull the tongues material together by looking again what I said in an earlier post but did not make as clear as I could have:

Acts 2:4...is presented before any of the foreigners are mentioned, so when it says that the Lord's disciples spoke with other tongues, these tongues were manifestly foreign to these disciples.

Notice that the idea of "other tongues" definitely declares that their speaking was foreign. This is not hard to see, since there is no other explanation for the "other tongues" idea. The question of the way the sojourners would soon hear the speaking was not immediately at issue in v.4.

When we get down to v.8, it should be easy to see from v.8 that the "other tongues" were actually known languages. (The speakers themselves just didn't know the languages.)

Now, was the foreign-language speaking natural or supernatural? Were these "other tongues" just languages which the disciples happened to know in addition to their native language? Or was there something miraculous going on?

Well, at this point, I would like to reassure my charismatic friends, who are laudably zealous in upholding the realities of miracles, that I agree that the episode was miraculous--i.e., supernatural rather than natural. (I merely disagree with most charismatics as to what the miracle involved.)

The entire episode was miraculous. It actually amounted to a theophany. The Lord poured out His Spirit from heaven to display Himself in the Spirit, to prove His Power in the anointing promised for Him upon His ascension to His rightful throne in heaven. And this supernatural display of power involved the wonder of men speaking in languages which they did not even know.

If these "other tongues" were foreign languages already known by the disciples, this critical aspect of the episode wasn't miraculous at all. So, I don't buy this explanation. (No Christian I have ever met buys it. So, no charismatic needs to fear that real Christians would dare to deny that the tongues of Pentecost were fully miraculous.)

In the next place, there were evidently too many languages involved in the episode to be reasonably explainable in this decidedly anti-miraculous way.

In the next place, the typology of Babel in the Book of Genesis really does argue that we are looking at a situation of God supernaturally changing their language. If the Pentecost episode was a reversal of the mess with which God judged the race of man at Babel--and the overall Biblical theology definitely suggests that it was--then the spoken languages were being changed. Genesis 11:7 actually says "Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language [literally, lip]." Of course, we now see the result of that judgment by God in the form of an incredible diversity of spoken languages in the world.

My bottom-line point is that the speaking itself as mentioned in Acts 2:4 was miraculously different as language from the normal (Hebrew/Aramaic) language which the disciples spoke. This was obviously a temporary reversal of Babel as a display of God's Power in building a worldwide church.

AND THE FACT THAT THE DISCIPLES WERE MIRACULOUSLY SPEAKING IN LANGUAGES WHICH WERE FOREIGN TO THEM IS TRUE NO MATTER HOW WE READ VERSE 8. AS I HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT, THE EPISODE INVOLVED A MIRACLE OF SPEAKING IN "OTHER TONGUES."

So, I am not going to continue to defend this point. The notion that the miracle of Pentecost's tongues was only one of a supernaturally altered hearing faculty just doesn't fit the text.

(As an aside to RnMomof7, I thoroughly respect your earlier comment that regeneration entails a correction of defective spiritual hearing. But I think I can show you that there is a systematic-theological problem in this argument for your proposed interpretation of v.8. If you don’t mind, I'll save this discussion for a later date.)

I now want to move on to another important matter in the overall controversy.

***

I have already declared that I conclude from vv.4 and 8, not to mention the typological idea of a reversal of Babel, that the "other tongues" idea refers to known languages which had been unknown to the speakers.

Someone might complain, however, that I have not ruled out the possibility that the "other tongues" refers to a strictly non-human language, a so-called "angelic language." But I see no reason whatsoever to conclude this from the text. The more straightforward explanation which I have already offered makes an order of magnitude more sense.

My point is that there is no need whatsoever to invoke the explanation of an "angelic language." It is not an explanation offered by Scripture, but an explanation which today's charismatics read into the Scriptures. All of the real evidence contained in Scripture actually fits my simpler explanation perfectly--certainly including the fact that Pentecost was presenting a reversal of Babel to establish the idea that the gospel is intended to build a worldwide edifice to the heights of heaven.

The ONLY reason why some professing Christians want to believe that the Pentecost tongues were a "heavenly language," a "language of the angels," is because today's charismatics are determined to justify their own denominations' gibberish as though it is surely the same stuff as the Pentecostal tongues.

But I say that it's not the same stuff. It's not even clearly Christian stuff.

(My charismatic friends--who are famous for getting profoundly fooled almost every time they turn around--need to re-read 1 Corinthians. I would suggest that they seriously consider MacArthur's comments about the way the apostle Paul carefully handles the differences between the Corinthian babble and the Pentecostal gift. As I said in an earlier post, I think MacArthur is wrong about a couple of things in his book, but I am afraid that he is right about this. [MacArthur's arguments are pretty shocking for the folks who have spent years believing the "charismatic" babble practiced in our day is surely wonderful stuff, but they can't even begin to support their presuppositions from Scripture.])

***

Now, to help you to see just how bad the charismatic interpretation of Acts 2 is, let's suppose that the "other tongues" mentioned in v.4 were not human language. Let's assume that it was some strictly unearthly ("angelic") language.

But we immediately run into a problem with the grammar of v.4. Luke did not say "they spoke with another tongue"; rather, he said "they spoke with other tongues."

It would appear that there was more than one angelic language involved. Maybe I am overreading the grammar, since each disciple had his own literal tongue between his lips, but I don't think so. The Hebrew text of Genesis 11:7 speaks of confusing "their lip [singular!]" despite the fact that there certainly were a lot of lips involved! And the Septuagint renders Genesis 11:7 with the idea of confusing "their tongue [accusative singular]." The point here is that both the Greek and Hebrew texts use tongue as a collective noun in this verse--for the simple reason that the number of languages was at issue (and it was unity!), not the number of anatomic structures flapping (which probably numbered in the millions or even billions!).

So, "other tongues" in our Greek text of definitely does appear to mean "other languages."

Well, is that a problem? I say it is. For one thing, I am not convinced that a human witness to the episode would have concluded that there was a distinct plurality of unintelligible and completely unearthly languages. This was a noisy and probably rather scary theophany. How could an observer pick out multiple languages--i.e., identify them as plural--when the whole thing was a lot of oddly non-human noise?

But just for the sake of the argument, let's assume that an observer would be able to figure out (in spite of everything in the situation!) that there were multiple angelic languages being spoken. We still have a rather serious problem: Why would there even be multiple unearthly languages among the holy angels anyway? The human race once had a single language; this was turned into diverse languages by God as an act of punishment for man's impudence. So, again, why would there be multiple angelic languages in heaven?

(At the risk of being tedious, I will reiterate that if tongues in v.4 were not knowable human languages, but angelic languages, then we do have to believe that the holy angels of heaven have an inexplicable plurality of heavenly languages. This doesn't make any sense. [Ah, but if these were human languages unknown to the speakers, all of the problems evaporate. The situation makes perfect sense.])

Besides, in the economy of spiritual things, one has to wonder why God would "translate" from each disciple's Hebrew (or, perhaps, Aramaic) language into a multitude of unearthly languages, none of which languages was immediately profitable to anyone, and then turn around again to translate each one of these less-than-immediately-profitable intermediary languages for a multitude of foreigners.

If we follow Occam's Razor--which is certainly a principle of sanctified common sense, even if it falls short of absolutely rigorous proof--then it makes no sense, based on everything I have shown you thus far, to conclude that the "other tongues" spoken by the disciples at Pentecost were anything other than known languages which were unknown to the speakers.

***

Besides, if the Lord God goes to the trouble of recording such an odd detail as the "heavenly language(s)" idea which some charismatics have postulated for the Pentecost episode, why doesn't it strike Luke as odd enough to warrant some kind of highlighting to the effect that this is what actually happened? (Remember: The more relaxed, straigthforward way of reading the text, per Occam's Razor and other plain meaning issues, is to read v.4 with v.8 as depicting known human languages, not non-human languages.)

Another way to say this is that Luke, a careful historian, could have said the disciples spoke in unearthly tongues or evidently angelic tongues or with bizarre vocal sounds, etc. But he didn't do this. So, I'm inclined to argue that we must default to the simpler explanation presented earlier. Under my scenario, Luke would have been happy to say "other tongues," because the explanation of what the other tongues were would be given a few verses later. Luke even names the languages which were identified by the witnesses.

Furthermore, if we are supposed to read the verse as referring to a plurality of strictly non-human languages, then I would want to know WHY God did things in this way. The reason why I would say this is because the Bible is divinely inspired. There is a reason of some kind for everything mentioned in the Bible. And I can't imagine any theological significance attached to the presence of multiple languages among the angels, much less attached to the fact that God would ordain that these be showcased as angelic language at Pentecost.

That brings me to my final point concerning Acts 2:4. If the languages were human rather than angelic, this is theologically significant. It is because Christ is His mystical Body. And Christ is human, not an angel.

Why do charismatics go ga-ga and get foolishly goosebumpy over the idea of experiencing supposedly angelic stuff? My goodness, the Lord Jesus is human. His corporate Body on earth is human. We should expect God's people to use human languages--even if God has to do surprising things to make His point concerning His sovereign Power over those very languages.

There is something downright antichristian about getting goosebumpy about the Spirit of Jesus as though the Spirit of Jesus is an angel. It ultimately encourages the veneration of angels pretending to be God. (Sounds like Mariolatry, doesn't it?) God has used angels in His theophanies, but when He has used them to speak, He has used them by having them speaking as men. Even the Angel of the Lord, the Burning Bush, spoke in human speech to Moses.

Forget about having angelic mediation of any kind for your prayers. The very idea, when you think about it, is just as bad as RCism. There are very serious Christological problems in the charsimatics' presuppositions.

And forget about being a charismatic who just reads his own idolatrous notions into the Scriptures. Many charismatics are worse than RCs in this regard.

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.