toldailytopic: Spiritual Gifts. Do they still exist today?

[Krsto]

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."

Who said that? Never heard a prophet teach theology while speaking in the name of God. Have you? Usually a prophet's theology of the person and work of Christ is just assumed while he speaks of things no one can verify or refute by scripture, such as, "Your ministry will indeed expand to touch the lives of many over radio," or, "Be faithful to God and you will see that which you have spoken come to pass."

When God spoke to the 7 churches in Asia Minor he was being specific to their situations but in a way where all churches thoughout the New Covenant age could study it and receive from it, thus is was "suitable for scripture." I've never heard a modern day prophet make that claim about what was revealed when God addressed the particular situation in a particular church. Have you?

You are aguing about things that don't even apply to how God manifests the gifts in our day. You might as well be preaching to the trees. It's about that relevant.

 

[Krsto]

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

Chapter and verse please. But you can't use the ones we've discussed so far because they don't relate to the question.

 

[Krsto]

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

Uh, where does the bible say the spirit established the canon and what exactly that canon should be? From whence commeth this revelation? Oh, outside or in addition to the scriptures? So you go outside the scriptures and add to it to tell me to not go outside the scriptures and add to it.

Hmmm, that leads me to a question Jesus answered regarding following the Pharisees: should I do as you say or do as you do?

I'm just askin . . .

 

[Nang]

Uh, where does the bible say the spirit established the canon and what exactly that canon should be?

II Timothy 3:16

 

[Krsto]

II Timothy 3:16

That says the Spirit inspired scripture. No question about that. It took the church over 300 years to determine which of the many letters floating around Chrisendom were qualified as spirit inspired scripture. My point is the church had to go outside or look at things in addition to the scriptures to figure out what was scripture because God did not provide a scripture that revealed which other writings were inspired scripture. So 300 years after the canon existed (after the last of it was written, probably Revelation), the Spirit had to reveal to them (assuming that was the case and it all wasn't just an educated guess on their part) what the canon was because it wasn't revealed in the canon.

So anyway 2 Tim. 3:16 does not provide for us what the canon was to be. That had to be revealed by the Spirit several hundred years after the canon already existed.

This really is an excercise in futility given you have no scripture that says the Holy Spirit would stop revealing things to God's people by way of spiritual gifts at the end of the 4th century.

You have no way to identify "that which is perfect to come" as the established canon. How did you come to that conclusion? Why should anyone else believe that, especially when they have been blessed and edified by spiritual gifts?

1 Cor. 13:8-10 - Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.

This tells me people die and with them their tongues, prophecies, and knowledge but after that they are in a state of perfection in which they know all they need to know and the gifts of the spirit will not be needed.

Have you ever done a bible study on perfection or Christians being in a state of perfection? Or do you just accept what you are taught without searching the Word to see if it be so like the noble Bereans did? If you're not going to do your homework then I've got a good church for you where the truth is always taught and you have no need to examine its teachings against what the bible says. It's the Catholic Church and there's one near you.

 

[csuguy]

I believe in spiritual gifts. However, I also believe that the vast majority of "Christians" wouldn't read the bible if it kept smacking them upside the head, let alone understand it or live by it.

I've come to accept Matthew 6:24-25 as one of the most important teachings in the bible for Christians - and it is also probably the least taught, let alone employed:

24"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

25"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?​

Christianity is a secondary thing to most - they might go along with it after their 40+hr work week, if they have time. If their up to it, they can fit in going to church on sunday and they might pay tithe.

So, if you ask me, the reason we don't see spiritual gifts isn't because God has stopped handing 'em out - its that he has no one to give them too.

 

[godrulz]

Because "Mike" would be adding to the Word of God.

There are severe warnings in Scripture about claiming "God said," when indeed God has not "said." (e.g. Jeremiah 23:37-40)

Nang

If God whispers in your spirit to not go down a dark alley because you will get mugged, this is a personal relationship with a personal God, NOT adding to His written Word?!

Calvinism misses the mark on the love of God and God as personal/relational (boo determinism and distance).

God can and does speak through the Word, but this does not preclude Him communicating to us without it becoming Scripture. The Father communed with the Son and not everything became Scripture. God communicated to Paul and not every single word ended up in our Bible.

I don't get your views (because they are weak).

 

[godrulz]

Yeah, do. Please. Yuk it up elsewhere.

I will stick to what God has actually said to mankind, recorded in Holy Writ, and continue to discount what a Mike thinks God spoke special to him.

Bah . . .

Nang

Mormons are wrong to add false revelations and call it Scripture. The warning in Revelation about add/take away actually applies to the Book of Revelation (context), not the modern Bible (but there is a principle for application).

God has not said everything He could in the Bible. It is revelation in a specific culture and canonical, but it does not mean God cannot speak to us personally about things that are not in the Bible. God can prompt men even as the Spirit prompted Jesus and Paul in their ministry. Not all promptings became Scripture. God speaks authoritatively and primarily through the objective Word. He does not add to Scripture now that the canon is closed.

You need a relationship with God, not just a dogma religion. Don't be a Pharisee who knows the Law, but not the Law Giver. Calvinists tend to exalt the Word and rightly so, but they should not be afraid of an experiential relationship with God that is more subjective and not contrary to His Word (if it is, reject it as flesh, demonic, imagination).

 

[godrulz]

God has NOT spoken since (or in addition) to the completion of the canon. (Revelation 22:18-19)


Nang

Another Calvinistic problem...proof texting out of context...the verse should not be used to deny a personal, relational, subjective experience with God consistent with the Word, but not recorded in it (as evidenced in the Word itself with numerous individuals). Rev. 22 is about the Book of Revelation, not the whole Bible or individuals fellowshipping with their God in two-way prayer (another powerful truth blunted by sterile Calvinism...cf. evangelism...Piper being the inconsistent exception).

 

[Nick M]

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.

That is one of the dumbest things I have read on TOL. Thanks. :rotfl: Be sure to let Jesus know he dropped the ball on instruction, and was led down a rabbit trail.

Galatians 1:12

For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Back to the subject. Paul explicitly says it is not fruitfull to the person who is speaking the tongue if it wasn't interpreted. He doesn't speak that language. You don't get anything out of it.

14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.

 

[godrulz]

Really, Krsto?

Where does Scripture say what you claim?

Revelation 22:18-19 is a reiteration of warning and principle revealed by God through Moses in Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32.

You would be wise to pay heed, and repent of disregarding these commands, for the penalty cannot be more severe than what is determined against those who are not satisfied with the written Word inspired, preserved, and gifted to the church by the Holy Spirit, Himself.

Nang

Even the most conservative, Calvinistic scholars often limit this to Revelation because the canon did not exist at that point and the context/verse explicitly refers to the prophecies just given in Revelation. Quit distorting the Word to try to justify your unbelief in the modern work of the Spirit in line with I Cor./Acts properly exegeted/applied. Nice try, but go back to the drawing board with another lame argument like I Cor. 13 being about cessation (no it is not).

 

[godrulz]

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.

This one verse needs to be interpreted in light of all the other verses. The spiritual gifts, including tongues, have more than one use, benefit, expression. The primary basis of the gifts is personal and corporate edification in the church setting. It is also a sign to Israel and if an unbeliever comes into our midst, the supernatural aspect is a sign for them. Otherwise, tongues is speaking to God, not man and it has a personal/devotional and corporate (when interpreted) expression for edification.

 

[godrulz]

Says who? You?

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


Nang

I do not ignore historical Christianity. I don't uncritically accept all classical theological views because many came later in church history and are tainted with unbiblical philosophy.

You still arrogantly think to reject Calvinism (came later in ch. history) is to reject the Bible or Christianity. Yours is the new theory, while Pentecostalism is rooted in the first century and biblical records.

Boo Calvinism. Yah Bible (not everything is wrong about Calvinism, of course).

 

[Krsto]

That is one of the dumbest things I have read on TOL. Thanks. :rotfl: Be sure to let Jesus know he dropped the ball on instruction, and was led down a rabbit trail.

Galatians 1:12

For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Back to the subject. Paul explicitly says it is not fruitfull to the person who is speaking the tongue if it wasn't interpreted. He doesn't speak that language. You don't get anything out of it.

14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.

Perhaps I need a better analogy than "rabbit trail" since you took that to mean what he said was irrelavant. If you chart how a person communicates what you might end up with is a tree. As you move up the trunk of a tree you have these branches that relate to the trunk but dead end. If you go out one of those branches you will need to get back to the trunk to keep moving up to the top. We call these "asides" as we talk and Paul has a lot of them in his writings. They relate to what he is saying but they aren't the main point which is at the top of the tree, so to speak. All I was trying to say Nick is that "tongues are for a sign for the unbeliever" is not his main thesis or issue or even really supports his thesis which is that if they want to be edified in a church setting they need to operate the gift of interpretation along with the gift of tongues so people can get something out of it, which I think is what you just said as well so perhaps we don't actually have a disagreement here other than that I don't agree that "tongues are for a sign for the unbeliever" is the summation of the whole chapter. Chapter 13 is the summation for chapter 14 because if we love we want to edify and if we want to edify then we need to have a gift that communicates something and the gift of (unknown) tongues doesn't communicate anything without the gift of interpretation to go along with it, unless by chance a foreigner is there and God gives the tongue in his language and he is "convinced of all and says 'God is in you'".

 

[godrulz]

Bah . . .

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

Nang

Nothing (Eph. 1:3; I Peter 1:3). This is why I don't need Mormon 'revelation', horoscopes, etc.

The Bible has many other truths besides justification.

I am proposing a reciprocal, dynamic, personal love relationship with God because of Christ's grace/work. This is not sitting on a hill waiting for His return, filling our head with doctrine (as much as I like to do that), but it includes worship, instruction, fellowship, evangelism, service, fun, relationships, prayer, etc. It is both/and, not either/or (you have a false, one dimensional false dichotomy).

We are to grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ from salvation into eternity. There is also a dynamic in Lk. 2:52; 2 Peter 1:3-11 (add this and that, etc.). There is a life to live with God. It does not stop at conversion.

You are missing out on great things in the kingdom of God. Daniel did exploits for God, as did Peter and Paul. You seem to think we just settle into a rocking chair and cannot experience God personally, just through a book (Judas hanged himself...he begat she who begat him who begat her, etc. etc. there is more to it than that). The Bible is full of e.g. of people who walked with God, even in the OT and into the NT. Church history also has accounts that are more dynamic than you think possible. To assume anything subjective must be flesh or demonic is dopey. Sources of the supernatural include divine, demonic, natural/appearances, etc. We need discernment, not your throw-baby-out-with-bathwater distortion of Christianity.

 

[godrulz]

Bah . . .

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

Nang

Bah...you don't understand the view if you think it limits God. God has also limited Himself voluntarily at times, including in the incarnation.

 

[godrulz]

II Timothy 3:16

Even conservative, Calvinistic commentators have said that this refers to the Old Testament (with application to NT when it was finally done). This verse also does not contradict Paul's positive statements about earnestly desiring spiritual gifts, forbid them not, etc. (it is not about cessation, but the use and misuse of gifts).

 

[Krsto]

I do not ignore historical Christianity. I don't uncritically accept all classical theological views because many came later in church history and are tainted with unbiblical philosophy.

Like God being 3 hypostasis and Jesus being homoousian with the Father?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

gag, vomit, yuck.....

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

If God whispers in your spirit to not go down a dark alley because you will get mugged, this is a personal relationship with a personal God, NOT adding to His written Word?!

Since when is the Holy Spirit a substitute for common sense? :chuckle: