toldailytopic: Spiritual Gifts. Do they still exist today?

[The Berean]

If Mike actually heard words, it would have been an evil spirit. They like to imitate God and the Holy Spirit. If Mike just had a thought run through his head, then it was Mike speaking to Mike.

So evil spirits can "talk" to people but God cannot? An evil spirit told Mike to go to church and pray for a young man? That sounds like a very strange evil spirit doesn't it?

Either way, God brought spiritual good out of the incident, did He not?

More likely God was the author of the "incident" not some evil spirit.

Why not focus on God's grace, rather than any kind of speculative sensationalism?

Who is focusing on some speculative sensationalism? As I already said I give God 100% all the credit for sending Mike directly into my path. I shared this example as a possible example that the OP is asking about. My ecounter with Mike sent me to the Bible and I spent several months reading and studying it. At one point I finally realized I needed to repent of my sins and seek my Lord and Savior. This is where God did the most important work by opening my eyes to the Scriptures. Meeting Mike was simply a beacon to look to a new place. And remember Mike didn't tell my about being sent to church. And to be honest if he would have told me that on the evening I met him I would have thought he was crazy or was on drugs. I would not have believed him.

It is much safer to do so, for the warnings about claiming "God said," when in fact God did not speak, are quite severe. (e.g. Jeremiah Chapter 23)

Nang

But what if God did "speak" to Mike? That would be a good thing, wouldn't it? I never said God "spoke" to Mike audibly.

 

[Nang]

So evil spirits can "talk" to people but God cannot?

Yes, evil spirits can talk and even appear to people.

God has spoken through His written word in this age, through His Son, alone. (Hebrews 1:1-2)

An evil spirit told Mike to go to church and pray for a young man? That sounds like a very strange evil spirit doesn't it?

Not at all. Satan likes to imitate God, and Scripture says he can even come as a "minister of light." II Corinthians 11:15

More likely God was the author of the "incident" not some evil spirit.

It would appear, according to your testimony, it was a case of God bringing good out of evil, as He had ordained for you before the foundation of the world.

But what if God did "speak" to Mike? That would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

I do not believe so. I do not think it is good for Mike to think that God speaks to him directly, apart from the written word.

It did you no harm, for God controlled your call and the events leading up to your conversion . . . but such practices can do great harm and bring severe penalties upon people unawares.

I never said God "spoke" to Mike audibly.

Well, that is what you seem to imply and what you seem to be defending.

???

Nang

 

[Krsto]

God has spoken through His written word in this age, through His Son, alone. (Hebrews 1:1-2)

but such practices can do great harm and bring severe penalties upon people unawares.

Geez Nang. You keep asserting this thing about God not speaking any more and quote scriptures that have nothing to do with the subject. Heb. 1:1-2 is merely saying he spoke to the prophets before and then spoke in Christ. He said nothing about the future or that that would be the only way God would speak in any age. He never said anything about the age.

So tell me precisely where you get this theology that gifts have ceased?

And I ask you again, what modern day prophet has received the penalties warned about in Deut. and Rev. for merely excercising his gift? Can you tell me the name of even one? I know all kinds of prophets and they live a perfectly normal and happy Christian life like the rest of us. NONE of them live under any curse. More often than not they are trying to help others get out of their bondages because that is part of their ministry and here you are saying they will be under a curse. Based on what exactly?

 

[ThePresbyteers]

This message is deleted and closed.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

when disciples spoke in a language that they had never spoken in before, go and read it,
the listeners HEARD THEM IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE. it was UNDERSTOOD. simple, eh.
....
when the chinese demon worshipers raise someone to life who has been dead 3 days to a week in the hospital bed (no heart beat, no breath, no brain activity)
how do they do it? (is it a spiritual "gift" ?) It is much more common than the chr.st..ns raising someone from the dead in china, although both believers and pagans are not surprised when someone is raised from the dead.
...
in the u.s.a., Yahshua Himself does not do many miracles because of the lack of faith throughout the country.

 

[Krsto]

when disciples spoke in a language that they had never spoken in before, go and read it,
the listeners HEARD THEM IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE. it was UNDERSTOOD. simple, eh.

Only in Acts 2 do we see known tongues. Every place else it's unknown. Why else would Paul say to have someone with the gift of interpretation give the interpretation in 1 Cor. 14? If the listeners always hear them in their own language there is not need for interptretation. Also, Paul would not make a distinction between praying in the Spirit and praying with the understanding if it was always understood.

 

[Nick M]

Only in Acts 2 do we see known tongues. Every place else it's unknown. Why else would Paul say to have someone with the gift of interpretation give the interpretation in 1 Cor. 14? If the listeners always hear them in their own language there is not need for interptretation. Also, Paul would not make a distinction between praying in the Spirit and praying with the understanding if it was always understood.

I am going to add to this. Tongues is a sign for unbelievers. The prophet Joel said the sons and daughters of Israel would prophecy. The church at corinth obviously had a problem with it. They figured they should just activate the biomechanical gift they were given. The gift to unconfound the babbling God placed on the different nations so they could here the gospel.

So to Corinth, he goes into detail explaining it is no good to do so, then summarized and says tongues are for a sign to non believers.

 

[godrulz]

I'm not exactly cessational but I'm skeptical and guarded with any kind of 'yes.'

For instance, I don't remember anybody since the apostles saying "Money I don't have, but rise and walk."
Also, We haven't added anything to our scriptures in over 2000 years, so it would follow that there haven't been Apostles/prophets for awhile either. Does God still speak to us? Yes. Does God still heal? Yes. Do people have the gifts of prophecy and healing? I don't know but back to my first sentence.

There is no exegetical basis for cessationism, let alone a theological one. If you throw out tongues and apostles, you should also throw out pastors, teachers, giving, helps, etc. in the same lists.

Historical narratives about the work of the Spirit in the first century do not conflict with didactic portions intended for the Church Age (I Cor. 12-14) nor with a variety of works of the Spirit through the centuries. You are also not omniscient nor omnipresent, so your anecdotal experience is limited.

The original 12 apostles and OT prophets are not the only kind on the block. Apostles/prophets is a legit gift even if subsequent ones do not write Scripture (your assumption is not correct).

 

[godrulz]

The gift of Grace, the Holy Spirit. What more do we need?

The Spirit is not passive, but like the wind. We need the fruit and the gifts of the Spirit, not either/or. Having grace/Spirit is sufficient, but not all that God is up to. Gifts enhance ministry and are a good thing or He would not have used them to begin with.

 

[godrulz]

Amen, Ktoyou!

Plus, we have a completed canon of Holy Scripture, from which we are commanded to not add nor subtract.


Nang
(A cessationist)

The work of the Spirit is dynamic. The gifts serve a purpose in the Church in addition to the Book that does not do much when it is never read. Jesus quoted Scripture, obeyed it, preached it, etc. AND He did signs and wonders, deliverance, etc.

It is both/and, not either/or. The early church is a precedent. Why start in the power of the Spirit and leave the rest of the church age to the arm of the flesh (the early church also had Scripture, but not a closed canon 2 Tim. 3:16).

Closing of canon is a faithless loophole, not a theological/exegetical argument.

 

[godrulz]

How are those events not in accord with the teachings of Holy Scripture?

And he wasn't giving credit to a guy named Mike.

They are in line with Scripture, just not in line with Nang's subjective interpretations and wrong beliefs.

Trying to limit God or put Him in a box is not cool.

 

[Nang]

There is no exegetical basis for cessationism, let alone a theological one.

Says who? You?

One of those who ignores historical Christianity in order to invent a new religious theory?


Nang

 

[Nang]

The Spirit is not passive, but like the wind. We need the fruit and the gifts of the Spirit, not either/or. Having grace/Spirit is sufficient, but not all that God is up to. Gifts enhance ministry and are a good thing or He would not have used them to begin with.

Bah . . .

What needs to be added to the Person and works of Jesus Christ, or His saving grace?

Nang

 

[Nang]

They are in line with Scripture, just not in line with Nang's subjective interpretations and wrong beliefs.

Trying to limit God or put Him in a box is not cool.

Bah . . .

Open Theists are the ones who attempt to limit God and box Him into their humanistic conceptions of religion.

Nang

 

[Krsto]

I am going to add to this. Tongues is a sign for unbelievers. The prophet Joel said the sons and daughters of Israel would prophecy. The church at corinth obviously had a problem with it. They figured they should just activate the biomechanical gift they were given. The gift to unconfound the babbling God placed on the different nations so they could here the gospel.

So to Corinth, he goes into detail explaining it is no good to do so, then summarized and says tongues are for a sign to non believers.

I really don't think "tongues are a sign for non-believers" is a summary of the chapter but more a rabbit trail that doesn't even address the problem they were having at Corinth. I think the problem at Corinth was using tongues w/o the gift of interpretation in an attempt to edify the believers and Paul's point is that it doesn't edify anybody else if they can't understand it so when they come together as a body for mutual edification they shouldn't just excercise tongues unless someone can provide the interpretation through the gift of interpretation.

This is one of those passages we have to read between the lines to determine what problem is being addressed in order to make sense of all that is being said which is difficult to do with any certainty but I submit if you take my interpretation and read it carefully line by line it fits while I can show you how other interpretations, like what the Baptists typically come up with, doesn't fit very well.

 

[Nang]

I really don't think "tongues are a sign for non-believers" is a summary of the chapter

Doesn't really matter what you "think," Krsto.

What NickM quoted is exactly what he Word of God reveals. Tongues are a sign to unbelievers.

This is one of those passages we have to read between the lines

Not how proper biblical exegesis is done.

I submit if you take my interpretation and read it carefully line by line it fits

"Private interpretations" are invalid.

Scripture interprets Scripture, and the careful exegete of Scripture compares every verse with the entirety of Scripture.

Nang

 

[Krsto]

Bah . . .

What needs to be added to the Person and works of Jesus Christ, or His saving grace?

Nang

Yeah, really. Why even have the scriptures if all we really need to know is "Jesus died on a cross for our sins," as you seem to imply. Especially the Old Testament. I mean what was Paul thinking when he told Timothy they would make him "wise unto salvation"? The oral tradition at the time should have been good enough since it covered "the Person and works of Jesus Christ, or His saving grace" pretty adequately. And all that stuff Paul, Peter, James, and John added regarding eating meat offered to idols, women and their praying with their heads uncovered, and all the rest of the stuff about Melchizadek, Moses, Mary, and Mergetroid. Why add that? Confuse us with a book of symbols. Great. Not needed. Too many theological battles and headaches figuring that stuff out. Bah indeed!

 

[Nang]

Yeah, really. Why even have the scriptures if all we really need to know is "Jesus died on a cross for our sins," as you seem to imply. Especially the Old Testament. I mean what was Paul thinking when he told Timothy they would make him "wise unto salvation"? The oral tradition at the time should have been good enough since it covered "the Person and works of Jesus Christ, or His saving grace" pretty adequately. And all that stuff Paul, Peter, James, and John added regarding eating meat offered to idols, women and their praying with their heads uncovered, and all the rest of the stuff about Melchizadek, Moses, Mary, and Mergetroid. Why add that? Confuse us with a book of symbols. Great. Not needed. Too many theological battles and headaches figuring that stuff out. Bah indeed!

Bah . . .

to your thinking that your opinions and thoughts measure up to and amount to Holy Scripture that defines "the Person and works of Jesus Christ."

Advocating and defending additional revelation through tongues is nothing more than illegally meddling with the written Word of God.

It is unnecessary, especially since the Spirit's establishment of Canon, and such practices prove to be not in accord with sound biblical doctrine, but nothing bu outrightly sensational and superstitious!

Nang

 

[Krsto]

Doesn't really matter what you "think," Krsto.

What NickM quoted is exactly what he Word of God reveals. Tongues are a sign to unbelievers.

Not how proper biblical exegesis is done.

"Private interpretations" are invalid.

Scripture interprets Scripture, and the careful exegete of Scripture compares every verse with the entirety of Scripture.

Nang

I couldn't have said it better myself. So why don't you put it into practice?

Yes, tongues are for a sign to the unbelievers is exactly what the Word reveals. A careful exegete of the scriptures doesn't stop there but also looks at everthing else said about tongues instead of ignoring it. A careful exegete of scripture also recognizes that Paul's epistles were written for the most part to address problems in the church but doesn't just come out in the letter and say, "OK, Corinthians, here is the problem, and here is what to do about it." They all KNEW what the problem was as soon as Paul started to teach about it but we don't know because we weren't there. We have to read between the lines to get at what the problem was in the first place. Nick supplied his take, and I supplied mine. Now a careful exegete will take each one and examine the passage to determine which one best fits the data given.

Let me give you another example. By using your method of exegesis you would not allow any woman to speak in your church, would you? I'm guessing you do allow them to speak because someone in your church has read between the lines (or consulted a good commentary which explained how they did things back then) to determine what exactly was the problem in that church to cause Paul to make such a statement. Using your logic I would just say don't let women speak because that is what the Word "reveals."

Do you catch my drift?

I have actually done the exegesis. I recommend my friends do likewise.

"Proper exegesis." (sigh)

 

[Krsto]

I am going to add to this. Tongues is a sign for unbelievers. The prophet Joel said the sons and daughters of Israel would prophecy. The church at corinth obviously had a problem with it. They figured they should just activate the biomechanical gift they were given. The gift to unconfound the babbling God placed on the different nations so they could here the gospel.

So to Corinth, he goes into detail explaining it is no good to do so, then summarized and says tongues are for a sign to non believers.

How does this fit in with ALL that is said in just this chapter, let alone all the other places in Acts where people spoke in tongues, none of which was in a known tongue?