JMAN05:


First, the Slave is not the same as the Watchtower society.

Semantics or innocent BS

Second, the Faithful and Discreet Slave is not made up of a single human.

They still manufacture garbage for you

Third, not what I call, but what the Bible calls Faithful and discreet Slave. Matt 24:45

You can't prove HOW you jump from scriptures to Watchtower Society, and what Jehovah was using BEFORE it was born

I searched for the true religion on my own, I found it among JWs, and what I believed now, I found it on my own, though most of it were with the help of the witnesses.

Name ONE doctrine you hold that differs with Watchtower Society garbage

But I want to mention Trinity. Even while in he church, I never believed that rubbish. In short when I call trinity in the church, I never knew that that was what it meant, so it means I never even believed it while there.

I say these 'cos some of the points I use in defending my belief in this forum are not all from our publications, many are from my personal research. I read my bible everyday, consult commentaries, bible dictionaries, and enclopedias. Though the Slave open my eye to some truths, they don't determine for me what I believe. However, I am yet to see a group who love truth and stick to the scriptures like the witnesses.

LITTLE of JWS beliefs are completely unique. I can only think of the evolving blood transfusion. Doctrines don't make cults, it is CONTROL. Read PaulGrundy's thread on this. That's a true servant of Jehovah.

https://www.nairaland.com/2063687/discussion-whether-watchtower-society-cult#29241878

And your mistake is that; You think that you must accept all that is taught by the Slave as far as it was the Slave that said it. That is falsehood. You have to prove that teaching to yourself. You don't just swallow them. Gullibility is never encouraged, you have to check whether it is true. If after studying it, and you don't accept it, keep it to yourself and be patient. So, all what I believe now, I found it myself, though many is with there help.

Name ANYTHING you differ with Watchtower Society on

Now, from your reasoning above, The doctrine of early Christians issue from the apostles and the older men in Jerusalem. What do you call them? Cult?

These were EYEWITNESSES of the resurrected Christ, appointed by none other than Christ. Who appoints your AUTHORITY?

JWs do not have a human leader.

BS. Is Watchtower Society ran by aliens?

That there must be only one true Christian organization is a truth from the scriptures. Eph 4:4, 5

Where was it UNTIL 1919?

Salvation is only found in submitting to this Society is false.

Yooguyz school him on this

vooks:

Semantics or innocent BS


They still manufacture garbage for you


You can't prove HOW you jump from scriptures to Watchtower Society, and what Jehovah was using BEFORE it was born



Name ONE doctrine you hold that differs with Watchtower Society garbage



LITTLE of JWS beliefs are completely unique. I can only think of the evolving blood transfusion. Doctrines don't make cults, it is CONTROL. Read PaulGrundy's thread on this. That's a true servant of Jehovah.

https://www.nairaland.com/2063687/discussion-whether-watchtower-society-cult#29241878



Name ANYTHING you differ with Watchtower Society on


These were EYEWITNESSES of the resurrected Christ, appointed by none other than Christ. Who appoints your AUTHORITY?


BS. Is Watchtower Society ran by aliens?




Where was it UNTIL 1919?


Yooguyz school him on this

Nothing much to say, you nailed him big time.

vooks:

Am not rooting for African spiritism or anything, just saying it is dishonest to blame the pentecostal minister.

You give two options to choose from, the African or the Pentecostal Pastor, and you conclude it's dishonest to suggest the Pastor. Why? What's the dishonesty there? I gave my reasons, can you prove anything dishonest in them? Are Africans the only ones with some peculiar cultures? Why then is the phenomena predominant with us? The answer is simple: other cultures and their ministers could separate church and culture but our own Pentecostal pastors chose to marry them. There is nothing dishonest about that.

vooks:

The negro lives in a hard environment full of poverty,ignorance/minimal education and illiteracy and these are the true causes of his mindset.

And the African Christian is the only one living in a hard environment? Excuse me, you can proffer better reasoning here than this.

vooks:

Ministers fornicating has nothing to do with witchcraft or Africa

Did you read the text at all or you simply rushed off to write these. The point of the whole text is that African ministers and witchdoctors are similar in many ways. He proffers the issue of formication to explain that IF these Pastors where doing what they were meant to do, that is preach the word and not indulging extra biblical practices, like prayers on the mountain, they will not be getting caught in such scandals.

vooks:

Ministers competing with medical science, that is exaggeration. Fringe sects that shun medical science are not unique to Africa.

Now it's obvious you don't know a thing about these things. I should ask you were you practice Pentecostalism in Africa bc in Nigeria where I reside, it is the norm. It is a well known fact that T B Joshua discourages his devotees from seeking medical help. WoF essentially derides medicine and makes folks feel less Christian for using medicine. Mbewe was actually very conservative and was not exaggerating at all.

vooks:
Am trying to imagine how an American who has never been to Africa will view Christians in Africa after listening to this man. This guy is exaggerating

The purpose of the message was not public relations for African Christianity. The purpose again was to tell the audience the pervasive influence of Charismatism on evagecalism. What you think is an exaggeration is actually a plain underestimation of the facts as we see them in our shores. it is obvious that you yourself that have turned up to be the leading defender of Charismatics on this thread know very little of the nitty gritty of the things going on within the movement.

Example, I was just discussing with a Pastor who told me of occasions where he has seen leading Nigerian Charismatics Pastors with women other than their wives in hotels. There are stories of Pastors dying and screaming to their deaths as they face the reality of hell and demons because it was public knowledge that they used cultic powers in their ministries. Or the Pastor I overheard on radio a few weeks ago calling folks to an anointing service for the New Year where he would be anointing people with honey. Or the very fact that Nigeria is where she is today bc leading Pentecostal pastors in collaboration with thieving politicians are milking her dry. The list is endless. And the very reason why their doctrines and practices must be examined.

WinsomeX:


You give two options to choose from, the African or the Pentecostal Pastor, and you conclude it's dishonest to suggest the Pastor. Why? What's the dishonesty there? I gave my reasons, can you prove anything dishonest in them? Are Africans the only ones with some peculiar cultures? Why then is the phenomena predominant with us? The answer is simple: other cultures and their ministers could separate church and culture but our own Pentecostal pastors chose to marry them. There is nothing dishonest about that.

Witchcraft is essentially a third world phenomena. What's so peculiar in third world, melanin? No, poverty, ignorance,illiteracy are the common denominators.

And the African Christian is the only one living in a hard environment? Excuse me, you can proffer better reasoning here than this.

Once again, poverty,ignorance and illiteracy is the true cause. Wherever and whenever you run into this, you run into the most despicable aberrations of Christianity or ANY other religion

Did you read the text at all or you simply rushed off to write these. The point of the whole text is that African ministers and witchdoctors are similar in many ways. He proffers the issue of formication to explain that IF these Pastors where doing what they were meant to do, that is preach the word and not indulging extra biblical practices, like prayers on the mountain, they will not be getting caught in such scandals.

He was being dramatic. Fornication is not an African peculiarity nor a Pentecostal proclivity.

Now it's obvious you don't know a thing about these things. I should ask you were you practice Pentecostalism in Africa bc in Nigeria where I reside, it is the norm. It is a well known fact that T B Joshua discourages his devotees from seeking medical help. WoF essentially derides medicine and makes folks feel less Christian for using medicine. Mbewe was actually very conservative and was not exaggerating at all.

The exaggeration is in heaping all that is wrong in the body of Christ on the número uno enemy of Cessationists; Gifts of the Holy Spirit

The purpose of the message was not public relations for African Christianity. The purpose again was to tell the audience the pervasive influence of Charismatism on evagecalism. What you think is an exaggeration is actually a plain underestimation of the facts as we see them in our shores. it is obvious that you yourself that have turned up to be the leading defender of Charismatics on this thread know very little of the nitty gritty of the things going on within the movement.

Example, I was just discussing with a Pastor who told me of occasions where he has seen leading Nigerian Charismatics Pastors with women other than their wives in hotels. There are stories of Pastors dying and screaming to their deaths as they face the reality of hell and demons because it was public knowledge that they used cultic powers in their ministries. Or the Pastor I overheard on radio a few weeks ago calling folks to an anointing service for the New Year where he would be anointing people with honey. Or the very fact that Nigeria is where she is today bc leading Pentecostal pastors in collaboration with thieving politicians are milking her dry. The list is endless. And the very reason why their doctrines and practices must be examined.

Am not a defender of nothing, just an advocate of common sense and logic.
If Catholic priests and whatnot sodomize kids, the problem is not Catholicism or Christianity

vooks:
Witchcraft is essentially a third world phenomena.
What's so peculiar in third world, melanin? No, poverty, ignorance,illiteracy are the common denominators.

Witchcraft IS NOT essentially a third world phenomena
Witchcraft essentially is a whole world wide phenomena, it is just that, in the West, apart from being a seemingly dying trade, it is subtle and has other faces or names to it

In the West, some of the names or transformations, Witchcraft, has come to be replaced with, are Wicca, clairvoyance, psychic etc etc

vooks:
Am not rooting for African spiritism or anything, just saying it is dishonest to blame the pentecostal minister.

The negro lives in a hard environment full of poverty,ignorance/minimal education and illiteracy and these are the true causes of his mindset.

Ministers fornicating has nothing to do with witchcraft or Africa

Ministers competing with medical science, that is exaggeration. Fringe sects that shun medical science are not unique to Africa.

Am trying to imagine how an American who has never been to Africa will view Christians in Africa after listening to this man. This guy is exaggerating

vooks:
He was being dramatic. Fornication is not an African peculiarity nor a Pentecostal proclivity.

The exaggeration is in heaping all that is wrong in the body of Christ on the número uno enemy of Cessationists; Gifts of the Holy Spirit

There is nothing exaggerative or assumptive in Conrad's delivery

It, immediately, is easy to relate to everything Conrad touched or mentioned in his speech

Surprised to read vooks saying "Ministers fornicating has nothing to do with witchcraft or Africa"

Well, there actually is a link between the fornication and witchcraft.

Within an african context, the link has to do with a naija phenomenon or practice called "bọsi abẹ abo"

Literal translation of "bọsi abẹ abo" doesnt give it's meaning a good justice, but will try taking a pot shot of translating or explaining it

"Bọsi abẹ abo" literally means "come under cover, particularly for spiritual protection etcetera"

"Bọsi abẹ abo" as earlier hinted, it is a situation where pastors with clearly opportunistic or predatory behaviors, target, single out or seek vulnerable, desperate, gullible females to exploit for sexual gratification

It can be carried out under the guise of having 7-days seclusion prayers at mountain tops (i.e. "ori oke''), or prescribing 7-times stark n@ked sponge & soap "spiritual-cleansing" bathing at streams or rivers with the pastor actively participating.

"Bọsi abẹ abo" initially was peculiar with white garment churches only but obviously the craft has been perfected, has variations and has now permeated to Charismatic/Pentecostal/WoF-influenced churches
- COZAgate scandal among others are fresh in memory

If "Ministers fornicating has nothing to do with witchcraft or Africa", then one needs more understanding of the psyche of those that succumb to the vile machinations of those pastors exploiting the insecurities or fears of some who believe they are vulnerable to witchcraft or the use of spells.

There is no smoke without fire, these pastors/ministers are capitalising of people's ignorance and fear, as a result some pastors have taken advantage in the form of these unlawful sexual intercourses/escapades

The point Conrad was making about "Ministers competing with medical science" is that traditionally, witch doctors dissuade their patrons from seeking medical help, but now the observation he has noticed is that some pastors too, in all their "witch doctors mimicry" also now discourages their patrons from health care institutions or hospital admissions.
Of course, all know this is about profit-maximising, and so the reason behind this "not to take money business elsewhere" ploy.

Conrad was saying most Charismatics pastors/preachers are 21st century pīmp my crib, my ride witch-doctors
They have all the hallmarks or etchings of the African/Caribbean witch doctors (e.g. the N'anga, Sangoma, Babalawo, Obeah etcetera) like having trances, ecstatic spiritual experiences, speaking in guttural sounds, spiritual gifts, perform healing miracles, claims to divine inspiration etc etc

WinsomeX:
... WoF essentially derides medicine and makes folks feel less Christian for using medicine...

The immediate above, should be decried, as it is tantamount to hypocrisy or "Do as I say, not as I do"

A very well known local heavyweight WoF's wife apparently was for years on wrong medication for an illness misdiagnosed by physicians in South Africa (i.e. given wrong treatment in a South African hospital)
The wrong medication and misdiagnosed illness didnt come to light until when she was involved in a mild domestic accident whilst in the US.
It was the doctors at the prompted visit to the local hospital in the US for medical treatment for the domestic accident that revealed that the previous doctors in SA had misdiagnosed her illness and had prescribed wrong drugs for the popular WoF bishop's wife

Apparently the WoF bishops's wife all along had been on medication for an ill health of some kind, but instead of seeing improvements with taking the drugs the South african doctors prescribed, the opposite was the case. If not for God, the intervention and the timely warning of the US doctors, possibly a different outcome would have been the end of the pastors's wife health issue matter

vooks:
...Am not a defender of nothing, just an advocate of common sense and logic....

Well, hmm, so in relation to "WoF essentially derides medicine and makes folks feel less Christian for using medicine" and the contradiction with what transpired with the very well known local heavyweight WoF's wife, here is where vooks "...advocate of common sense and logic..." resonates almost deafeningly
I'll add to it that, wisdom is the principal thing, so get wisdom, and in all your getting, get understanding

WinsomeX:
...Why then is the phenomena predominant with us?
The answer is simple: other cultures and their ministers could separate church and culture but our own Pentecostal pastors chose to marry them. There is nothing dishonest about that...

I agree totally 110% with WinsomeX, that it is not dishonest to blame the pentecostal minister.
To whom much is given, much is required.
Much is required of the pentecostal minister, and taking off pants at the drop of a hat isnt one of them
- they have questions to answer

On the question of: "Why then is the phenomena predominant with us"
Well because of culture & tradition at this side of the world (i.e. african), africans dont necessarily confront, question, challenge authority, elders, others in position of power or who they hold in high esteem
Due to this, african churches have an enabling environments for improper behaviour(s) to grow and thrive
Also there are arent enough checks and balances to reduce or stop something that does not conform to accepted behaviors

I also, agree totally 110% with vooks, the problem is not about denomination.
There is no denomination in heaven anyway, and this is why I mainly deplore affiliation
- guess we all have a bit of all the flavours of them in us all but not enough to make us stand out as any of them

WinsomeX:
The purpose of the message was not public relations for African Christianity.
The purpose again was to tell the audience the pervasive influence of Charismatism on evagecalism.
What you think is an exaggeration is actually a plain underestimation of the facts as we see them in our shores.
It is obvious that you yourself that have turned up to be the leading defender of Charismatics on this thread know very little of the nitty gritty of the things going on within the movement

Endorsed 115%, this wasnt a PR stunt
The man has been teaching this long ago, even before he got called to share some of his knowledge, observations etc at the conference
- he opted to share this at the conference without any compulsion or coersion
The goal of Conrad was to share his observations of the similarities, mirroring and/or seemingly transformation of some african preachers to an african witch doctor
The man was spot on, he did a splendid work of it (i.e. without any exaggeration).
Kudos to Conrad and to WinsomeX for taking the pain of splattering this particular Conrad piece/work here

vooks:

Semantics or innocent BS


They still manufacture garbage for you


You can't prove HOW you jump from scriptures to Watchtower Society, and what Jehovah was using BEFORE it was born



Name ONE doctrine you hold that differs with Watchtower Society garbage



LITTLE of JWS beliefs are completely unique. I can only think of the evolving blood transfusion. Doctrines don't make cults, it is CONTROL. Read PaulGrundy's thread on this. That's a true servant of Jehovah.

https://www.nairaland.com/2063687/discussion-whether-watchtower-society-cult#29241878



Name ANYTHING you differ with Watchtower Society on


These were EYEWITNESSES of the resurrected Christ, appointed by none other than Christ. Who appoints your AUTHORITY?


BS. Is Watchtower Society ran by aliens?




Where was it UNTIL 1919?


Yooguyz school him on this

Because you keep involving an apostate and disfellowshipped person in this discuss, we are done. 1Cor 5:11

Thank you BabaGnoni for your clarification. I have a question though: how long does it take you to make a post like the one above? I mean, with all the effort at annotations... lol.

CHARISMATIC COUNTERFEITS: DO THE MODERN GIFTS MEET THE BIBLICAL STANDARDS? by Nathan Busenitz

Good morning.  The title of our session for this hour is “Charismatic Counterfeits,” and I expect that there will be more people coming in as we get started, but it is just after 10:45 so we’re going to go ahead and start.  We go until noon today.  Title, as I mentioned, “Charismatic Counterfeits: Do the modern gifts meet the biblical standard?”  And that subtitle really identifies what it is that we’re going to be addressing today. We want to consider the way in which the contemporary Charismatic Movement defines key spiritual gifts. And then we want to compare that Charismatic version with the Word of God to see how they match up.

Now just as a side note as we get started, I want to note that much of the material that we’re going to be covering today, and it will be quite a lot of material.  It parallels what is in the Strange Fire book which you either have received or will be receiving later today.  And so if you want to study this further, or if you’re wondering how you can much of this same content, repackaged a little bit, you’ll find it in the Strange Fire book. So I would direct you to that resource for further study.

All right, similar to my session yesterday, some of you may have been in here yesterday when we talked about the gift of prophecy. I think it’s important for us to begin by defining our terms so that we’re clear what it is that we are discussing.

First important term that we need to identify and I realize at this conference, we’ve been using these terms a lot already, so this may seem redundant.  But I think it’s helpful for us to just review.  The first term would be the term “charismatic.”  The term “charismatic” itself is very broad.  It encompasses millions of people and thousands of denominations. According to the International Dictionary of Charismatic and Pentecostal Movements, there are over 20 thousand distinct Pentecostal or Charismatic groups in the world today.  So you can appreciate how diverse and how broad this Movement is.

Charismatics though are known for their belief that the miraculous and revelatory gifts described in the New Testament are still in operation today, and therefore they should be sought by believers.  It should be sought by Christians in the church today.  Now when we talk about the Charismatic Movement, we usually subdivide the Charismatic Movement into three main categories or waves. The first wave of the Charismatic Movement was classic Pentecostalism which began in Topeka, Kansas on January 1, 1901 when a woman named Agnes Ozman reportedly spoke in Chinese under the directorship of Charles Parham who was a Methodist minister.  It then spread to Los Angeles in 1905 right around there under the leadership of William Seymour and the Azusa Street Revival and classic Pentecostalism was born.

The second wave in the 1960’s took place, actually started here in Van Nuys, California when Pentecostal theology began to infiltrate the mainline denominations and now you begin to have many different denominations which claim to experience the Charismatic gifts.

And then in the 1980’a the Third Wave started when two professors at Fuller Theological Seminary introduced Pentecostal theology into evangelicalism.  So Peter Wagner and John Wimber, John Wimber associated, of course, with the Vineyard Fellowship, but both of them were teaching at Fuller Seminary which is just down the road in Pasadena at the time.  Now we’ll use the term “charismatic” today to refer to all three of those waves and admittedly we’re encompassing a lot in a little and so it necessarily demands that we speak in general terms.

There is a second term that I think is important for us to identify, and that’s the term continuationist.  Continuationist, that term is often used to differentiate theologically conservative Charismatics from those in the broader Movement.  Now continuationist simply means they believe the gifts have continued, but they usually prefer that term over against the term Charismatic because there is, as we’ve seen this week, a lot of baggage associated with the term Charismatic.

Evangelical continuationist would include men like John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Sam Storms and others.  I read this quote in my session yesterday, but I think it’s helpful.  Bob Kauflin talking about what makes a continuationist different than a Charismatic says this, “The term charismatic has sometimes been associated with doctrinal error, unsubstantiated claims of healing, financial impropriety, outlandish and unfulfilled predictions and an overemphasis on the speech gifts,” and he includes some regrettable hair styles.  He says, “That’s why I’ve decided, or started, to identify myself more often as a continuationist rather than a charismatic.”  So, there you can see their own perspective on why they use that term.

And then finally, the term “cessationist” the term cessationist refers to those who believe the miraculous and revelatory gifts passed away after the Apostolic age ended. Cessationists assert that supernatural phenomena like the gifts of Apostleship, prophecy, tongues and healing are no longer functioning in the church today.  Now that does not mean that cessationists are anti-supernaturalists, we do believe that God is working in the world today.  Tom Pennington, I thought, did a good job clarifying that yesterday.  It’s just that we were talking specifically about the continuation of the Charismatic gifts, that is what cessationists are saying have ceased.

So cessationists believe those gifts were given as signs to authenticate the spread of the gospel and the ministry of the Apostles during the foundational age of the church. And once that age ended and the canon of Scripture was complete, the primary purpose for the miraculous and revelatory gifts passed away and so those gifts should no longer be sought.

There is obviously significant disagreement between Charismatics and Continuationists on the one hand, and cessationists on the other. The first group contends that the extraordinary gifts, the miraculous and revelatory gifts are still functioning in the church today. The other, cessationists by contrast, assert that those extraordinary gifts passed away because they were limited to the foundation age of the church, limited to the apostolic age.

That raises a key question.  How should we approach this controversial issue when we talk about it with those whom we disagree with about this particular topic?  Now Charismatics often approach the debate from an experiential starting point. They argue that the extraordinary gifts must have continued because they assert that they have personally experienced them.  Or they know someone who has.  I think this is summarized in James Warner’s quote here.  He says, “It is hard to argue with somebody that speaks in tongues that there isn’t such a thing.”  As Warner’s quote suggests, Charismatics believe that their personal experience makes it hard to argue that the extraordinary gifts are no longer happening.  How can you tell me it’s not happening when I’ve experienced it?

By contrast, cessationists often approach the debate from what I call a chronological starting point. They go to passages like 1 Corinthians 13:8 through 10, and they attempt to argue that the miraculous and revelatory gifts passed off the scene based on those verses in 1 Corinthians 13.  Now seeking to know when the extraordinary gifts ceased is certainly a valid investigation.  However, it’s been my experience at least that this type of argument seldom succeeds when convincing Charismatics that their contemporary practices are misguided.  Part of the reason why is because even if a cessationist can demonstrate that the extraordinary gifts passed off the scene of church history, shortly after the Apostolic age concluded, many Charismatics will respond by simply saying that the gifts returned in 1901 at the outbreak of the Pentecostal Movement.

continued:

So we find ourselves then at a bit of an impasse when we consider the usual ways that this conversation is framed.  Cessationists are generally unimpressed by the subjective experiences of Charismatics. And Charismatics remain largely unpersuaded by some of the chronological arguments that are made by cessationists.

So, the question is, is there a better way for us to frame the discussion in our efforts to think about these things in a meaningful and fruitful way?  Well I’m convinced that there is and that’s what I want to talk about this morning in this session.  Before we start talking about when the gifts ceased, we first need to answer the question, what were the gifts?  What is it that we’re actually talking about.  It’s not until we determine what the gifts were from Scripture that we can then even answer the question about whether or not they’ve ceased.  So our goal then, this morning, is to articulate a biblical understanding of the miraculous and revelatory gifts which we will then compare to contemporary Charismatic practice. We’re bringing the biblical standard to bear on the modern experience. And what we will find is that when compared to the real thing, the modern Charismatic gifts simply don’t measure up. They’re using biblical terminology but their experiences are not the same as what is described in the New Testament .

So, we might call this the what question.  In other words, what were the gifts in the New Testament, based on the biblical evidence.  And how does modern Charismatic practice compare?  It’s only after we answer that question that we are ready to then discuss subsequent questions like when did the gifts cease?  Or why did the gifts cease?  And we’re not going to address those two questions today, we’re going to focus simply on the first question, what were the gifts?  And in particular this morning, we’re going to consider the gifts of prophecy, gifts of tongues, and the gifts of healing.  These three represent major points of disagreement and controversy between Charismatics and cessationists, so it’s important that we consider each one of these from a biblical perspective.  We’ll begin with the gift of prophecy. And my entire session yesterday was focused just on the gift of prophecy, so I’m going to briefly cover prophecy this morning and I’ll direct you to that earlier session or to again the Strange Fire book if you want to dig more deeply into the topic of prophecy.

As I noted in my seminary…seminar yesterday, Scripture gives us three criteria for evaluating anyone who would claim to be a prophet, anyone who would claim to deliver new revelation from God is subjected to these three criteria in Scripture.  Both Charismatics and cessationists would agree that prophecy is the human report of divine revelation. In this case, new revelation, extra biblical revelation.  And the Bible then gives us three tests for evaluating the legitimacy of anyone who claims to have received a new revelation from God.

What are those three tests?  Well the first one is already up, it’s doctrinal orthodoxy.  The revelation declared by a true prophet must align perfectly with what has previously been revealed. God cannot contradict Himself and so if the revelation comes from God, then it cannot contradict something that God has previously revealed. So any self-proclaimed prophet who deceives people by delivering revelation that leads them into false doctrine, that person from a biblical perspective is considered a false prophet.

I’ll just read one passage of Scripture to demonstrate this point. Deuteronomy 13:1 through 5.  “If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you, gives you a sign or a wonder and the sign or the wonder comes true concerning which he spoke to you saying, ‘Let us go after other gods and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams for the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul.  You shall follow the Lord your God and fear Him.  And you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him and cling to Him.  But that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death because he has counseled rebellion against the Lord your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery to seduce you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk and so you shall purge the evil from among you.”

This passage makes it absolutely clear that if a prophet, even if a prophet says things that come true, or does some sort of seemingly supernatural work, if the prophet leads you into heresy, leads you into false doctrine, that prophet is to be deemed a false prophet.  You’ll notice that God Himself fixes the death penalty to this which I think underscores just how serious this offense is in the mind of the Lord.

Second, a second test in addition to doctrinal orthodoxy was moral integrity.  A true prophet was required to live by  God’s standard.  In Scripture, the Lord spoke through holy men who were moved by the Holy Spirit. So any self-proclaimed prophet lived in unrestrained lust or unrepentant sin showed himself to be a false prophet.  Again, just one passage to make this point.  This time from the New Testament.  Second Peter 2, “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there were also be false teachers among you.”  Notice how Peter equates false prophets with false teachers.  “Who will secretly introduce destructive heresies even denying the master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves,” and here’s the moral integrity part, “many will follow their sensuality and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned and in their greed they will exploit you with false words, their judgment from long ago is not idle and their destruction is not asleep.

So again we see that false prophets can be identified by their life style and also by the lifestyles of those who follow them.  Jesus said in Matthew 7:20 that a prophet is known by his fruit, by the fruits of what he teaches and the fruit of how he lives.

That brings us to a third task, what I call predictive accuracy. When a prophet, a true prophet declares divine revelation about future events, or reveals other unknown things, if that word comes directly from God, He speaks with 100 percent accuracy.  On the flip side, if someone claimed to speak prophetic revelation from God about the future, then that doesn’t happen, the Bible declares that person to be a false prophet.

Again, just one passage of Scripture, Deuteronomy 18.  “The prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.”  Now the question naturally arises, well how do we know?  That’s exactly what the Lord says here.  “You may say in your heart, how will we know the Word which the Lord has not spoken?”  Here’s how you know.  “When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about, or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken.  The prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you shall not be afraid of him.”

Well that’s just about as clear as God could possibly make it.  How do we know if something doesn’t come true, it didn’t come from God.  That’s exactly what God Himself says in that passage.

The rest of Scripture reverberates that truth.  Isaiah 44:26 says that God confirms the Word of His true messengers.  Jeremiah 28:9 says that a true prophet is the one whose predictions come true. Ezekiel 12:25, “The Word which God speaks always comes to pass.”  And those who speak for God, if they’re speaking His Words, those words will be true words, one hundred percent of the time.

Now if we take a look at the broader Charismatic Movement, especially that which is represented by  TBN and mainstream Charismatic media, we quickly see that the modern Charismatic version of prophecy fails to meet really all three of those criteria, certainly the last.  The broader Charismatic Movement is hardly known for its doctrinal orthodoxy and it is often plagued by moral scandal. So even the first two tests call it into question.

But I want to focus on that third requirement of biblical prophecy, predictive accuracy because I think it underscores just how different the Charismatic definition of prophecy is from the way that the Bible describes prophecy.  Here’s one of the pretty well-known Charismatic prophets, one of the Kansas City prophets, Rick Joyner.  He says this about another prophet.  He says, “There is a prophet named Bob Jones who was told that the general level of prophetic revelation in the church was about 65 percent accurate at this time.  Some are only about ten percent accurate. Some of the most mature are approaching 85 to 95 percent accuracy.  Prophecy is increasing in purity but it’s still a long way to go,” he says.

Phil Johnson in his breakout session yesterday talked about another one of the Kansas City prophets, Mike Bickle who admitted the fact that actually 80 percent of the time the prophecies he’s heard have been wrong.  So you can see how low the standard is.  And in Scripture, the standard is the opposite.  It’s not how many you get right, it’s how many did you get wrong. And if that number is anything other than zero, then you are condemned by what Deuteronomy 18 says.

continued:

Another well-known Charismatic leader, Jack Deere. “Prophets are really messy,” he says.  “Prophets make mistakes and sometimes when a prophet makes a mistake, it’s a serious mistake. I mean, I know prophets just last year that cost people millions of dollars with the mistake they made.  I talked with people who made the wrong investments, moved their homes and spent tons of money, implication being on a supposed Word of prophecy.

Now I shared some of these quotes yesterday in my discussion of prophecy, I’m just going over them quickly now to show you that in the words of Charismatics themselves, the modern version of prophecy is riddled with errors and mistakes.  Even among more conservative evangelical Charismatics or continuationists as we might call them, this view of modern prophecy prevails. So here Wayne Grudem in his book, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today says this.  “There is almost uniform testimony from all sections of the Charismatic Movement that prophecy is imperfect and impure and will contain elements that are not to be obeyed or trusted.”  That’s an amazing admission.  Biblically, prophecy because it is a revelation from God is authoritative, meaning it must be obeyed and it is accurate, meaning it can be trusted.  But as Grudem here acknowledges, “Modern prophecy by contrast is imperfect and impure and so as a result, it doesn’t have to be obeyed, meaning it’s not authoritative, and it often contains errors and so should not be trusted.  Meaning that it’s fallible.

The…well one more quote here, from John Piper talking about this same view of prophecy.  He’s comparing the gift of teaching to the gift or prophecy in this article.  He says, Now compare this to the gift of prophecy.  He says, “Prophecy is prompted by the Spirit and sustained by the Spirit and based on a revelation from God.” So they are saying prophecy is a revelation that comes from God.  “God revealed something to the mind of the prophet in some way beyond ordinary sense, perception.  And since God never makes a mistake, we know that His revelation is true, it has no error in it.

Now up to this point, I’m tracking with what Dr. Piper is saying.  But then he says this.  “But the gift of prophecy does not guarantee the infallible transmission of that revelation. The prophet may perceive the revelation imperfectly.  He may understand it imperfectly and he may deliver it imperfectly. And so the gift or prophecy then results in fallible prophecy. 

So you see what’s happened there is, he says the revelation is perfect, but it’s the prophet who messes it up.  The problem is that according to the standards of Deuteronomy 18, if a prophet gets perfect revelation and then messes it up in is proclamation, that prophet is condemned by the standard that God has laid out in His Word.

So all of this is an attempt to justify imperfect, erroneous, prophetic words because those are the only kind of prophetic words that exist in the modern Charismatic Movement.  This, of course, makes it very, very difficult to be able to discern whether or not a prophecy is true. Somebody claims to have a word of prophecy, or a word from the Lord.  How do you know if that really came from God or if it’s just somebody’s imagination?  Well it’s entirely subjective. Wayne Grudem, speaking about how to evaluate prophecy says this, “Pastorally if someone is in charge of a home fellowship group, or if a pastor is in charge of a prayer meeting, you have to call it as you see it.  I have to use an American analogy, it’s an umpire calling balls and strikes as the pitcher pitches the ball across the plate.”  So you can see just how subjective prophecy is treated.

Again, it’s not authoritative, so you don’t have to obey it.  It’s not accurate so you can’t trust it. Well how do you know if it’s good or not?  How do you know if it comes from God or not?  Well you call it as you see it.  This, of course, leads to the potential for all sorts of misuse and abuse in the church, people claiming to speak for God, telling people they’ve received some sort of revelation from God and then manipulating or coercing people to do things as a result.

One of the most, I think, telling examples actually comes from the words of John Piper himself.  You find that slide…here it is…in an interview just at the end of last year, December of two thousand twelve.  Piper told this story.  He said, “A woman came to me while my wife was pregnant with my fourth child.  And she said, ‘I have a very hard prophecy for you.’  I said, ‘Okay.’  She said, in fact she wrote it down and gave it to me, ‘Your wife is going to die in childbirth and you’re going to have a daughter.’  Piper says, ‘I went back to my study, I got down and I just wept.’  Then he goes on.  “And when we delivered our fourth boy, not girl, I gave a whoop which I always do but this whoop was a little extra because I knew as soon as the boy was born, that this was not a true prophecy.’”  So you can see even in the personal experience of a respected evangelical leader like John Piper, the destructive effects that modern Charismatic prophecy can have.  He didn’t know if it was a true prophecy or not until after his child was born.  But biblically if he had applied the standards of Deuteronomy, of the Old Testament to how to discern true prophecy from a false one, he could have known from the outset not to trust this woman’s supposed revelation from God.

So, the Charismatic version of prophecy then consists of supposed revelation that comes from God, which is then declared by a human prophet but in such a way that the prophecy is full of errors as this example illustrates, and is therefore not authoritative or binding, but can certainly have destructive effects in people’s lives.

But that’s not at all how the Bible defines prophecy.  Revelation that comes from God is authoritative, it is absolutely trustworthy, it must be obeyed and if a revelation came from God, it will certainly come to pass.  You can see then when we start with the biblical criteria for evaluating the gift of prophecy, when we compare it, the biblical data, with the contemporary Charismatic Movement, the modern version quickly is exposed as not being the same thing. The words they’re using are biblical words, but the practice is not the biblical practice.

This is a quote that comes from the Strange Fire book and I think it summarizes it nicely.  Dr. MacArthur says, “The true prophetic office demanded 100 percent accuracy.  Insofar as they declared new revelation from God to the church, New Testament  prophets were held to that standard. To be sure, the proclamation and exposition of the prophetic word continues today through faithful preaching and teaching. In the same way that biblical prophets exhorted and admonished people to listen to divine revelation so gifted preachers throughout all of church history have passionately encouraged their congregations to heed the Word of the Lord.  The key difference is that whereas biblical prophets receive new revelation, directly from the Spirit of God, contemporary preachers are called to proclaim only that which the Spirit of God revealed in His Word.

Then this is the point.  The only legitimate way anyone can say “thus says the Lord,” or “I’ve received a Word from the Lord,” is if the next words that follow come directly from the biblical text.  Anything other than that is blasphemous, presumption and certainly not prophecy.

Okay, let’s continue by talking about the gift of tongues.  The Charismatic gift that launched the Pentecostal Movement in 1901 was speaking in tongues.  As I mentioned earlier, it was in January 1, 1901 in Topeka, Kansas when Agnes Ozman, a woman there in Topeka, reportedly spoke in tongues. That’s what launched the Pentecostal Movement.

The question is, does the contemporary version of Charismatic tongues, does it match the biblical gift?  Now the definitive passage on tongues is Acts chapter 2.  In fact, the reason the Movement is called the Pentecostal Movement is because they believe that they speak in tongues like what happened on the Day of Pentecost.  So let’s see what Luke tells us from Acts chapter 2 about what happened on that day.

“And they,” this is all who were gathered in the Upper Room, the Apostles along with the rest of the 120 who were gathered there.  “They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.  Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven and when this sound occurred, the crowd came together and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language.  They were amazed and astonished, saying, ‘Are not all of these who are speaking Galileans?  How is it that we hear them in our own language to which we were born, Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, Libya, Cyrene, visitors from Rome, Jews, proselytes, Cretans, Arabs, we hear them in our own tongue, speaking of the mighty deeds of God. And they all continued in Amazement and great perplexity saying to one another, what does this mean?’”

Now that’s a pretty clear description of what the gift of tongues was like and how it operated on the day of Pentecost.  In fact, in Acts chapter 2 verse 4, it clearly states that this was a speaking gift.  They spoke in other tongues.  And verses 8 through 12 is equally explicit in defining those tongues as specific dialects which were spoken in the Roman world at that time. In other words, they were real human languages.  And so we would conclude and I would add here that most Charismatics would agree with us on this, that the gift of tongues at least in Acts 2, the gift of tongues was the miraculous ability to speak foreign languages that the speakers themselves had never learned.

Wayne Grudem talking about the Charismatic view of tongues, wants to open the door to a second type of tongue speaking. So the tongues in Acts 2 are clearly foreign languages.  But the Charismatic version of tongues is not foreign languages, so how do we get around this? Well Wayne Grudem asks this question: Are tongues known human languages?  He says sometimes this gift may result in speaking in a human language that the speaker has not learned. But ordinarily it seems that it will involve speech in a language that no one understands, whether that be a human language or not, and I would highlight that second half there because that’s really the modern version of Charismatic tongues.

Now he gives lip service, at least, to the possibility of real languages, because he can’t deny that it was real languages in Acts chapter 2.  But the reality is that in contemporary Charismatic experience, tongues is speech in a language that no one understands and that when linguists study it is not seen to be a real authentic human language.  In fact, a professor at the University of Toronto, a linguist professor named William Samarin spent several years doing first-hand research, studying Charismatic tongues.  What’s commonly called glossolalia from the Greek words that mean to speak in tongues.  And here’s his conclusion.  Glossolalia consists of strings of meaningless syllables made up of sounds taken from those familiar to the speaker and put together more or less haphazardly.  The speaker controls the rhythm, volume, speed and inflection of his speech so that the sounds emerge as pseudo-language in the form of words and sentences.”  Glossolalia is language like because the speaker unconsciously wants it to be language-like.  Yet in spite of superficial similarities, glossolalia fundamentally is not language.

continued:

Now Samarin is, I’m not even sure if he’s a believer, he’s not in the cessationists Charismatic debate, he’s just approaching it from a linguistic perspective, and his research leads him to conclude the modern version of Charismatic tongues is not real language.

So it would seem then that the contemporary Charismatic version of tongues in terms of non-human languages that no one understands, fails to match the gift as it is clearly defined and described in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost.  Now this raises a question.  How then do Charismatics and continuationists who acknowledge that it was real languages in Acts 2, how do they justify the contemporary experience of speaking in non-languages?

We might put the question this way.  If the tongues of Acts 2 were human languages, but the tongues of the modern Charismatic Movement are not human languages, then how do Charismatics defend their contemporary practice of speaking in incoherent speech?

Well in order to bypass what to me seems like a pretty clear dilemma, Charismatics actually argue that there are two different kinds of categories of tongues that are described in the New Testament. There is the real authentic human language kind of tongues, that’s Acts chapter 2. And then there is the spiritual ecstatic incoherent non-sensible kind of tongues which is what takes place in their churches on a regular basis.  Or in their private prayer closets wherever tongues are practiced. 

So here’s Adrian Warnock(?), pretty well-known Charismatic blogger, he says this, “One thing that most of us agree on is that there are different kinds of tongues.  I think it is fair to say that the tongues of 1 Corinthians are different than those of Acts 2.  Paul himself speaks of different kinds of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:10.  So it is at least possible that at different points in the passage, 1 Corinthians 12 to 14, Paul is talking about different forms of tongues.

So you see what they’re doing is they’re saying there’s actually a different category or a different kind of tongues and that’s the kind of tongues that is consistent with modern Charismatic practice.

So this brings up an important question: Does the biblical evidence allow for this kind of distinction?  Are there two kinds of tongues that are described in the New Testament.  Is the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 12 to 14 different than the gift of tongues that was described in Acts chapter 2?  I would argue, absolutely not, and I’m going to give you quickly here seven observations drawn from these two passages that demonstrate the fact that the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians is exactly the same, at least it’s described in exactly the same way as the gift of tongues in Acts.  And therefore, there is no biblical reason for us to conclude that the tongues in 1 Corinthians was qualitatively or categorically different.

So here are these seven reasons. And again, much of this material is…or parallels what’s in the Strange Fire  book, so rather than trying to feverishly write everything down, you’ll find a lot of this material covered in the Strange Fire book itself.

But are there two kinds of tongues?  Well here are seven similarities.  First of all, the same terminology is used in both passages, both in Acts and in 1 Corinthians 12 to 14 the same words are used to describe the gift of tongues.  The primary word for tongues in Acts 1 is glossa.  Glossa is a Greek word that means, it can mean the literal tongue, or it means language.  That’s what it means.  As in Acts, the primary word for tongues in 1 Corinthians 12 to 14 is glossa, so it is the same word that is being used in both places.

Wayne Grudem, I realize that I’ve been reading a lot today that I disagree with from Grudem, but here’s a part of Grudem’s evaluation that I would wholeheartedly agree with.  He says this, “It should be said at the outset that the Greek word glossa translated tongue is not used only to mean the physical tongue in a person’s mouth, but also to mean language.  In the New Testament passages where speaking in tongues is discussed, the meaning languages is certainly in view.  It is unfortunate, therefore, that English translations have continued to use the phrase “speaking in tongues” which is an expression not otherwise used in ordinary English and which gives the impression of a strange experience, something completely foreign to ordinary human life.  But if English translations were to use the expression “speaking in languages,” it would not seem merely as strange and would give the reader a sense much closer to what first century Greek-speaking readers would have heard in the phrase when they read it in Acts or in 1 Corinthians.” 

I would absolutely agree with that.  Now where I disagree with Dr. Grudem is that he’s going to allow the word “language” to include incoherent speech. But that’s not a language.  A language is a real meaningful way to communicate with other people.  But he’s absolutely right.  In fact, the reason the gift of tongues language has held on in English is because the translators of the King James back in 1611 translated it as the gift of tongues at a time in English where tongue could mean foreign language.  In fact, the cover page of the King James says that this is a translation of the Bible in the English tongue.  So it was a common way of referring to language back in the seventeenth century. That language has been retained by many translations, largely because they don’t want to enter the Charismatic cessationist debate, and so they just keep it ambiguous.

So, same terminology.  A second similarity is the same description. In both Acts and in 1 Corinthians 12 to 14, the gift of languages, or the gift of tongues is described in ways that rational languages would be described.  So, for example, the miraculous ability as it is described in Acts 2, is the supernatural ability to speak in foreign languages.  And we’ve already covered that.  Now in 1 Corinthians, the fact that these languages can be interpreted, which is, by the way, a translation, it’s really the gift of translation, and we still use that word in English when we talk about an interpreter.  It means a translator.  The fact that these languages can be interpreted indicates that it consisted of, or that they consisted of an authentic foreign language, similar to the tongues or languages of Acts 2.  Paul’s direct association of tongue speaking in verses 10 and 11 of chapter 14, which we’re not going to read today just for the sake of time, and also his reference to Isaiah 28:11 and 12, also in chapter 14, really makes this conclusion, I think, very persuasive.  Paul speaks about these languages as if they were real human languages, even there in 1 Corinthians 14.

Now what about 1 Corinthians 12:10 where Paul says that there are different kinds of tongues?  Well the word for “kind” there is genos from which we get the English word genus as in genus and species, the things you learn about in biology.  It refers to different families of languages.  And this is a normal way for linguists who categorize human language. So it’s not two different categories of languages, a real language and a fake language.  No, this is different kinds of human languages. And, of course, in Acts 2 we see more than a dozen different kinds of human dialects that are listed there on the Day of Pentecost.

A third similarity, and I realize we’re going quickly but that’s intentional.  A third similarity is that the same source is behind these gifts. So unlike the modern Charismatic version of tongues which, at least, in some circles can be learned, some churches even have classes that will teach you how to speak in tongues, the gift in the Bible was a miraculous gift that was given to you by the Holy Spirit.  And, you know, what is more miraculous, the ability to suddenly speak fluently in a human foreign language that you never went to school to learn?  Or the ability to speak incoherent mumbo-jumbo?  I’m…obviously that’s not how they would describe it, but which is more miraculous?  Obviously one is miraculous and the other is something that is not. And that’s because the real gift of tongues found its source in the Holy Spirit.

Now fourthly, we see that the same recipients received the gift of tongues in both passages.  In Acts 2 it’s the 120 who are gathered in the Upper Room, it’s more than just the Twelve Apostles.  In Acts 10 it’s Cornelius, in Acts 19 it’s the former disciples of John the Baptist.  And in fact, in Acts 11, speaking of Acts 10, Peter makes the point that what happened with Cornelius was the same as what had happened at Pentecost.

In 1 Corinthians, Paul as an Apostle speaks in tongues, but also the believers in the church in Corinth speak in tongues. So this is not just an apostolic version of the gift, or a lay version of the gift, the recipients in both cases are the same.

Now, in both passages the same primary purpose is listed.  In Acts chapter 2, this is a sign to the unbelieving Jews on the Day of Pentecost.  In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul explicitly says the gift of tongues is a sign for unbelievers, and then he quotes Isaiah 28:11 which demonstrates that it was a sign specifically for the unbelieving Jews.

And then sixthly, same connection to prophecy.  In the gift in Acts chapter 2, the gift of tongues is then followed by Peter talking about the prophecy of Joel, characterizing the apostolic age. And here we have in 1 Corinthians 12 to 14, clear connections to the gift of prophecy throughout.  This shows that the gift of tongues in both places was a revelatory gift like the gift of prophecy.

And then finally, the same reaction from unbelievers.  In Acts chapter 2, the Jews who are there who don’t speak those languages and therefore don’t understand what the 120 are saying, they react by saying, “These people must be drunk.” And in 1 Corinthians 12 to 14 we find out that if an unbeliever comes into the congregation and the tongues, the languages are not translated, meaning the people who are there won’t understand what’s being said, they will respond by saying, “These people re crazy.”  That’s not really that much different…drunk, crazy…it’s essentially the same conclusion that people will draw if they don’t understand what is being said.  Now that doesn’t mean that these languages were no languages or ecstatic incoherent speech, it simply means that unless the real language was translated, people wouldn’t understand what you’re saying and they would conclude that you’re crazy.

Now there’s an additional note that I think is important to make, Luke wrote Acts and he wrote the book of Acts after Paul wrote the book of 1 Corinthians.  Paul wrote the book of 1 Corinthians around 55 A.D.  Luke wrote the Book of Acts around 60 A.D., five, maybe a few years after that, so maybe 61 or 62, so five to six years later Luke writes Acts.  Luke, of course, is the traveling companion of Paul.  He even writes under Paul’s apostolic authority.  It is hard to imagine that Luke would use the same terminology, the same description, and all these other similarities to describe what happened on Pentecost if he knew that this was only going to create confusion with the Corinthian congregation who had already been confused about this five years earlier.

continued

So the biblical evidence then leads us to conclude that there is only one kind of gift of tongues, and if we had time, this morning, I would love to go through all of 1 Corinthians 12 to 14 and discuss each portion there.  But when we compare the two passages, we see that what was happening in 1 Corinthians is the same thing as was happening on the Day of Pentecost.  Thus it is really an intrusion into the text.  It is Charismatics placing their own experiential…yeah, their own experience on to the text that forces them to draw a conclusion that is not inherent in the text.  And that conclusion, of course, has significant implications for the contemporary Charismatic Movement.  The gift of tongues was the miraculous ability to speak a human foreign language you had never learned before.  And as I already mentioned, that is a spectacular gift.

Now, this is an interesting point. The original Pentecostals, Charles Parham and the school there in Topeka, Kansas, they also understood the New Testament as only teaching one kind of tongues, and they believe that it was real human foreign languages.  In fact, they sent missionaries around the world who didn’t go to language school because they were convinced that as soon as they arrived on the mission field, God would supernaturally endow them with the ability to speak the language of the people to whom they were attempting to minister.  They returned in disappointment because that didn’t happen. And so here even Charismatic authors, Jack Hayford, and David Moore, acknowledged the fact that sadly the idea of xenoglossalalic tongues, i.e. foreign languages, sadly that idea would later prove to be an embarrassing failure as Pentecostal workers went off to mission fields with their gift of tongues and found their hearers did not understand them.  The problem is, when the Pentecostal Movement realized that what they’re doing isn’t a real human language, instead of stopping, they reinterpreted the Bible in order to try and find a way to justify their experience. So they redefined tongues in order to include what it is that they’re doing in their churches.

Now just a couple of additional notes here about the gift of tongues, and I think this is important. First of all, 1 Corinthians 12 tells us specifically, explicitly, really, that not everyone was given the gift of tongues. So any church that tells every believer that they should seek the gift of tongues is really violating what Paul explicitly says at the end of 1 Corinthians 12, where he uses a question, but the implied answer is no.  He says, “Not everyone speaks in tongues, do they?”  And the answer is no. 

Now somebody will probably ask at that point, what about 1 Corinthians chapter 14 verse 5 where Paul says, “Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues.  Doesn’t that mean that everyone can speak in tongues? Why would Paul wish for something that can’t be true of everyone?”

Well the answer is because Paul is actually making a rhetorical point.  He’s saying prophecy is better than tongues.  I wish you all spoke in tongues, but even more so, that you would prophesy.  So the point is not to elevate tongues, it’s actually to elevate prophecy as being superior to tongues.  Now how do we know that Paul didn’t think that everyone could speak in tongues?  Well I think we’re helped by 1 Corinthians 7 verse 7, earlier in the book of 1 Corinthians, Paul uses almost the identical Greek expression to say I wish you were all like me, referring to being single.  I wish you all had the gift of singleness.  Now did Paul actually think that everyone in the Corinthian congregation had the gift of singleness?  No, of course not.  He knew there were married people in the church.  So why would he use that expression?  Cause he’s making a rhetorical point, uses the same exact same Greek expression construction wise in chapter 14 verse 5 to say, I wish you all spoke in tongues.  It doesn’t mean that everybody could, or that everybody did. In fact, Paul had already said not everyone speaks in tongues and he’s not contradicting himself, just a chapter and a half later.

Now second question, what about the tongues of angels?  That’s what everybody wants to go to.  First Corinthians 13:1, what about the languages of angels?  “If I speak with the tongues of men and even of angels, but have not love…” and then Paul goes on there.

Well first and foremost, of course, the purpose of 1 Corinthians 13 is to demonstrate the superiority of love over any of the gifts.  But I think the way we understand languages of angels is with the parallel statements that Paul makes in verse 2 and verse 3.  Paul is using hyperbole to show just how great love is.  So the statement, “Languages of angels,” is actually parallel to statements “knowing all mysteries and all knowledge.”  Well that’s clearly an impossibility.  No one knows all mysteries and all knowledge. That’s a hyperbolic statement.  And then he says, “Faith that could literally move mountains.” Well that again, he’s using hyperbole.  So we ought to interpret languages of angels in the context that Paul intends it to be understood.  If you speak in human languages, the normal use of tongues, or even if you were to speak in the most extravagant possible way to imagine it, hyperbolic scenario, hypothetical scenario.  Even then if you didn’t have love, you would still be like a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

Now if someone insists on taking tongues of angels, or languages of angels literally, there’s still a couple of things to consider.  Number one, it is obviously the exception not the rule, if you take it literally as Paul uses it in this passage.  The rest of the New Testament teaching on tongues makes it clear that human foreign languages was the norm.  And then secondly, I think this is important.  Every single time that angels speak in the Bible, they always communicate in a real and meaningful way.  And I don’t mean to be trite when I say this, but I think it’s something of an insult to angels to claim that gibberish is angelic language.  No.  Clearly not.

Now, third, the fact that true languages could be translated indicates that they consisted of genuine languages. The gift of tongues can be interpreted.  This doesn’t mean that you hear somebody speak in an incoherent sense and then you make up an interpretation.  Not at all. This means that you hear a meaningful communication and you translate that message.  So Norm Geisler  says this, “The fact that tongues…the tongues of which Paul spoke in 1 Corinthians could be interpreted shows that it was a meaningful language, otherwise it would not be an interpretation but a creation of the meaning. So the gift of interpretation supports the fact that tongues were a real language that could be translated for the benefit of all by this special gift of interpretation or translation.

All right, a fourth note here, I think this is also important.  The purpose of the gifts in 1 Corinthians 12 to 14 was to edify others, not to edify yourself.  And so we would say the primary purpose was as a sign for unbelieving Israel, but a secondary purpose was when used within the body of Christ, it must be used to edify other people.  So this idea of using tongues to edify yourself, that is not a helpful practice, but it is the primary way in which the modern Charismatic version of tongues is used.  Now when Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14, “He who speaks in a tongue, edifies himself,” the context there shows that Paul clearly intends that in a negative sense.  You’re edifying yourself but that’s not the purpose of the gifts. The purpose is to edify the body.  In fact, the entire theme of 1 Corinthians 12 to 14, which really orbits around chapter 13, is love and love edifies others. So a selfish, self-oriented, self-centered use of the gift of tongues is a clearly unbiblical use.

Now, the prayer in tongues that is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14 is a public prayer, not a private prayer.  So does Paul talk about praying in languages?  Yes he does.  Does he talk about doing that at home in your private prayer closet?  No he does not.  It’s a public prayer and we know that because Paul says that people are hearing you pray and the congregation is going to affirm the prayer by saying “amen” but how can they do that if they don’t understand the words you’re speaking which is why the prayer had to be translated, so that people could be edified and the congregation cold affirm it.  It’s a public prayer, not a private prayer.

And then number six, these gifts were to be exercised in an orderly way. And so 1 Corinthians 14, especially verses 39 and 40 says that if it actually comes from God, it will manifest itself in a way that is orderly.   And we certainly see examples of the way in which that is completely ignored in the broader Charismatic Movement.

All right, number seven, nothing in 1 Corinthians suggest that the languages described there were anything other than genuine foreign languages.  Viewing tongues as authentic foreign languages is the only really possible interpretation of Acts 2 and almost everyone agrees on that.  And has the least number of problems in interpreting 1 Corinthians 12 to 14.  Because if I started speaking in a language that none of you understood, to you it would sound like incoherent speech, unless somebody who knew that language was able to translate it and then you would understand it.  So Thomas Edgar says there are verses in 1 Corinthians 14 where foreign language makes sense, but where unintelligible ecstatic utterance does not.  However, the reverse cannot be said.  A foreign language not understood by the hearer is no different from unintelligible speech in his sight.  Therefore in any passage where such ecstatic speech may be considered possible, it is also possible to substitute a language not familiar to the hearers.  In this passage there are no reasons, much less the very strong reasons necessary to depart from the normal meaning of glossa and to flee to a completely unsupported usage.  So the idea of using the Greek word for language and making it mean a non-language is just not possible in terms of the way those terms were used in first century times.

Concluded:

Now, one final note here and I realize that church history is not authoritative but it’s helpful since I teach church history to get a little bit of it in here. The universal testimony of the church fathers supports the cessationist understanding of the nature of tongues. When the…when the church leaders, Christian leaders for the first five hundred years of church history, when they talk about the gift of tongues, they always talk about it as a real human foreign language and they equate the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 12 to 14 with the gift of tongues in Acts chapter 2.

Let me just give you a couple examples and I’m not going to read many of them, but we could.  Here’s just four.  Augustine said, “In the earliest times, the Holy Ghost fell upon those who believed and they spoke with tongues which they had not learned as the Spirit gave them utterance. These were signs adapted to the time, for it was necessary for there to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to show that the gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth.”

You can see there, even in that last statement, the gospel needs to go to all the languages of the world, so God gives a sign I which the gospel is miraculously translated into the languages of the whole world.  Gregory of Nazianzus who was one of the Cappadocian fathers who stood with Athanasius in defense of the Trinity.  He says, “They spoke with foreign tongues and not those of their native land.  And the wonder was great, a language spoken by those who had not learned it. And the sign is to them that believe not, not to them that believe, that it may be an accusation of the unbelievers as it is written, and here he quotes from Isaiah 28:11, same passage that Paul quotes from in 1 Corinthians 14, with other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people and not even so will they listen to me, says the Lord.”

John Chrysostom, this is perhaps the most clear.  He’s commenting in his homily on 1 Corinthians 14, he says, “And as in the time of the building of the tower of Babel, the one tongue was divided into many so then the many tongues frequently met in one man.  And the same person could discourse both in Persian and Roman and Indian and many other tongues, the Spirit sounding within him.  And the gift was called the gift of tongues because he could all at once speak diverse languages.

And then just one more,  Savarian(?) says this and it’s just a powerful statement.  He says, “The person who speaks in the Holy Spirit, speaks when he chooses to do so and then can be silent like the prophets.  But those who are possessed by an unclean spirit, speak even when they do not want to and they say things they do not understand.”  So that’s a pretty direct statement and I think a fair warning for those who would equate nonsense speech with the miraculous gift of tongues as it is described in the New Testament.

So if we were to define tongues then, we would say the gift of tongues was the miraculous ability given by the Holy Spirit to select Christians, enabling those believers to speak in human foreign languages that they had not previously learned, that is how it is described in Acts 2 and there is nothing in 1 Corinthians 12 to 14 that should lead us to conclude that the tongues there is any different.  It was the same phenomena.

That, of course, if very different from the tongues that are being practiced in contemporary Charismatic circles.  So here Norm Geisler adds this, “Even those who believe in tongues acknowledge that unsaved people have tongues experiences.  There’s nothing supernatural about them.  But there is something unique about speaking complete and meaningful sentences and discourses in a noble language to which one has never been exposed.  This is what the real New Testament gift of tongues entailed. Anything short of this like private tongues should not be considered the biblical gift of tongues.”

Now we just have a few minutes left and so we’re going to go very quickly through the gift of healing.  I intentionally spent most of our time this morning on the gift of tongues.  But when we look at the gift of healing, we see again that the modern Charismatic version of the gift of healing does not match the miraculous healing ministries of Jesus and the Apostles.  So if we were to discuss perhaps descriptions of the biblical gift of healing, we would see that New Testament healings did not depend on the recipient’s faith.  We would see that New Testament healings were complete, permanent, and 100 percent effective.  We would see thirdly that New Testament healings were undeniable and that they cured real diseases and disabilities.  In fact, the Pharisees who hated Jesus couldn’t deny His miracles. The best they could do was try and distort the source of the power behind His miracles, which, of course, they did in Matthew chapter 12. 

New Testament healings were immediate. They were instantaneous.  Now there were occasions where Jesus healed in stages, but it was only a matter of moments before the person was completely well.  So we can say that New Testament healings were immediate in their effectiveness.  And then finally, New Testament healings were not prearranged. We don’t need a stadium where we can emotionally manipulate people in order to heal them of psychosomatic diseases.  No, in the course of everyday life, Jesus goes to Peter’s house, his mother-in-law is sick.  Jesus heals her.  So there’s no screeners at the stage keeping people with real disabilities and diseases off.  Jesus heals anybody and everybody.

You can see then that when modern faith healers excuse their inability to heal on a lack of faith on the part of the sick person, or when their healings are not successful, or when their supposed successes don’t stand up under scrutiny from medical professionals, or when they claim their healings take place over a long period of time, or when they limit their miracle crusades to tightly control the highly manipulated events, they show just how far short they fall of the biblical standard..

Here’s John Wimber, this is an article that appeared in “Christianity Today,” called “Signs, Wonders, and Cancer,” because John Wimber was diagnosed with cancer.  He says this, “Sometimes our experiences don’t fit with our understanding of what the Bible teaches.  That should be a red flag, by the way.  On the one hand, we know that God is sovereign and that He sent Jesus to commission us to pray for and heal the sick.  On the other hand, we know from experience that healing does not always occur.  Why would God command us to heal the sick and then choose not to back up our act by not healing the person for whom we pray?  This can be downright discouraging. As I used years ago in my own congregation, when I began to teach on healing, it was nine months before we saw the first person healed.

Well Wimber is right to be frustrated but he fails to recognize the real problem.  It is his misguided understanding of the miraculous gift of healing itself and his misguided impression that he somehow possesses that gift that leads to the disconnect in his life.

So you can see then that there’s a massive disconnect between the way that the New Testament describes miraculous healing and the way in which the modern Charismatic version expresses itself.  Now to be fair, conservative continuationists generally define the gift of healing as simply praying for people with the gift of faith and trust in God to answer that prayer.

I would respond by saying, as a cessationist, I also believe in the power of prayer and I believe that God can heal people through prayer.  That’s just not the New Testament miraculous gift of healing. That’s not the type of healing that is exhibited in the ministries of Jesus and the Apostles.  So they’re using the terminology but it’s not the same thing.

Now we’ve seen that the gift of prophecy was authoritative, revelation from God accurately declared by the prophets.  We see that the gift of tongues was the ability to supernaturally speak a human foreign language that you had never gone to school to learn. And the gift of healing as illustrated by Christ and the Apostles, was the ability to lay hands on people and pronounced them healed and the result was 100 percent effective, complete, immediate, undeniable and not pre-arranged.  And that is simply not happening today.

So, if we were to compare is prophecy revelation from God which is accurate and authoritative, or is prophecy revelation from God which is inaccurate, non-authoritative, full of mistakes and full of errors?  We would say that version is not the true version of prophecy. Tongues…is tongues the miraculous ability to speak in previously unlearned human foreign languages?  Or is tongue, again for lack of a better word, is tongues gibberish?  No, we would reject that form of tongues. 

Healing, is healing the miraculous ability of a person with a gift to impart immediate and complete healing to people who are sick, like Jesus and the Apostles did?  Or is healing either a claim to heal based on the sick person’s faith or redefinition of healing simply as answers to prayer?  No, we would reject that definition.

Though Charismatics claim to possess the gifts of prophecy, tongues and healing, a comparison of their experiences with the biblical reality demonstrates that the Charismatic version of these gifts consist of something other than the real thing.  And that’s essentially what cessationists are trying to defend. We want to defend the miraculous things that God was doing in Scripture, we don’t want to cheapen those things by allowing artificial substitutes that are called the same thing to taint our understanding of what God was actually doing when He authenticated His message two thousand years ago.

All right, let’s pray and then we’ll close our time.

Heavenly Father, thank You for the opportunity to go to Your Word and to study these things.  I know that this was a lot of information and that we covered it very quickly.  Thank You for the Strange Fire book which much of this information in our talk parallels the content that is there in that book and so I pray that if people have more questions or want to dig into this deeper that they would find that to be a helpful resource.  Lord, thank You for all of these men and women who have come to this conference. Thank You for their desire to examine their own experiences in light of Your Word. And I pray that You would continue to bless them and encourage them as they spend the next few days here in Southern California and be with them now as we dismiss our time for lunch.  We pray this in Jesus name, Amen.

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/TM13-14/charismatic-counterfeits-do-the-modern-gifts-meet-the-biblical-standard-nathan-busenitz

WinsomeX:
Thank you BabaGnoni for your clarification.
I have a question though:
how long does it take you to make a post like the one above?
I mean, with all the effort at annotations... lol.

^^^
My brother, a minimum of up to an hour, at least, I think.
It's not easy, not at all, which is why I give thanks to God for His grace & succour
- to be honest, 9 times out of 10 or most times, I just want to scratch out the started post or jack in the post after starting it

BabaGnoni:

^^^
My brother, a minimum of up to an hour, at least, I think.
It's not easy, not at all, which is why I give thanks to God for His grace & succour
- to be honest, 9 times out of 10 or most times, I just want to scratch out the started post or jack in the post after starting it

I can imagine. Your family will complain o. You may have taken days to complete that submission in the last e-convention on church history. I hope people will someday appreciate these efforts; sometimes I feel all these is a waste but some other time, I think it will find use somewhere.

WinsomeX:
I can imagine. Your family will complain o.
You may have taken days to complete that submission in the last e-convention on church history.
I hope people will someday appreciate these efforts; sometimes I feel all these is a waste but some other time, I think it will find use somewhere.

^^^
It's not family alone...
but then with matters such as these, someone or somebody has to put hand to the plough...

Winsomex,
I have an axe to grind with this last speaker, but I been banned for the last four days and I don't have much time with me.

First, notice how he draws parallels from NT apostolic use of tongues and healings but conveniently ignores the ONLY evidence we have of prophecy in action over the same period namely Agabus. I would have expected him to contrast the little we have of Agabus work with present prophets. Instead, he went off tangent and jumped int Deuteronomy. Agabus simply foretold the drought/famine in Judea and possibly helped Christians prepare. He also foretold of Paul's persecution in Jerusalem. Such specific revelation you won't find in the scriptures and so the argument that gifts somewhat attested the apostles witness won't wash. Note Agabus was not an apostle.

Secondly, I agree with him that tongues are tongues...languages whether in Acts or Corinthians. What I question is the rubbishing of present tongues as gibberish on the basis of a vague research whose contents we are not privy to. There is NOWHERE in the scriptures that tongues were used to preach the gospel. In Acts on Pentecost, the disciples were praising not preaching. Wherever tongues are understood, it is always praising. Besides, if tongues are for preaching, what's the use for the gift of interpretation?

Thirdly, church history and tradition supports the continualism not cessationism position. There are countless records of the spiritual gifts long after the apostolic age and after the pen on the last word of Revelation dried. McArthur lamely quoted three or so fathers and the quotations are incomplete. I will share the link to this later on. Note, the church history is not authoritative and the Fathers were not infallible but it is plain dishonest to claim that they support Cessationism while they don't.

Fourthly, read this paragraph again

This is a quote that comes from the Strange Fire book and I think it summarizes it nicely. Dr. MacArthur says, “The true prophetic office demanded 100 percent accuracy. Insofar as they declared new revelation from God to the church, New Testament prophets were held to that standard. To be sure, the proclamation and exposition of the prophetic word continues today through faithful preaching and teaching. In the same way that biblical prophets exhorted and admonished people to listen to divine revelation so gifted preachers throughout all of church history have passionately encouraged their congregations to heed the Word of the Lord. The key difference is that whereas biblical prophets receive new revelation, directly from the Spirit of God, contemporary preachers are called to proclaim only that which the Spirit of God revealed in His Word.

In one paragraph, MacArthur has equated present day preachers with apostolic age prophets. The question that begs is, how comes there are so many divergent views in this camp (Reformed,Calvinists...)? How can we test their accuracy? Or are they subject to the accuracy test seeing they are carrying out the prophetic role? I have come across some conning arguments for conditional immortality of the soul. I have come across others for eternal torment. Universalism too is supposed to be based on scripture

Then this is the point. The only legitimate way anyone can say “thus says the Lord,” or “I’ve received a Word from the Lord,” is if the next words that follow come directly from the biblical text. Anything other than that is blasphemous, presumption and certainly not prophecy.

Did Agabus words after saying 'this saith the Lord' come directly from the biblical text? What about when the Spirit asked that Paul and Barnabas be set apart? Where are the proof texts for this assertion?


Any movement of God, including the first apostolic/Pentecost if fraught with errors. Like I will share from a source I almost wholeheartedly agree with, these errors are usually over-emphasis on the theme. It could be Holy Spirit,abortion,doctrine,theology and so forth. Pentecostals are no exception and they frequently appeal to EXPERIENCES at the expense of scriptures. Like Winsomex observed, cessationists too appeal to doctrine and theology over experience effectively reducing Christianity to a text book religion devoid of any feelings. This is why Shdemidemi can't coherently explain the purpose of prayer. To him it is a psychological exercise. He can't tell you what Holy Spirit is doing in His life because Holy Spirit is a distant first century effect.

Now, kindly go through Frank Viola's Pouring Water on Strange Fire
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/186817686



Cc
NLmediator
Mbaemeka
BabaGnoni
Gombs

^^^

Is there a way of accessing the text of that book by Frank? The link is requesting passwords.

Sorry for the late reply vooks. I got caught up with the festivity of the season.

vooks:

Winsomex,
I have an axe to grind with this last speaker, but I been banned for the last four days and I don't have much time with me.

Well let's see how we can help your situation. And welcome to the world of Seun antispambots. BabaGnoni knows could give you some tips to get out of them faster if you ask him.

vooks:

First, notice how he draws parallels from NT apostolic use of tongues and healings but conveniently ignores the ONLY evidence we have of prophecy in action over the same period namely Agabus. I would have expected him to contrast the little we have of Agabus work with present prophets. Instead, he went off tangent and jumped int Deuteronomy. Agabus simply foretold the drought/famine in Judea and possibly helped Christians prepare. He also foretold of Paul's persecution in Jerusalem. Such specific revelation you won't find in the scriptures and so the argument that gifts somewhat attested the apostles witness won't wash. Note Agabus was not an apostle.

The Cessationists positions on the office of apostles and prophets is clear enough. They have ceased. They need to cease because only then will the words of scriptures be complete and need no addition.

The matter of Agabus is simple; you are the one making it complex. Agabus was a prophet in the apostolic age whose gift and ministry was relevant at that time. We do not have "Agabuses" today again.

This is however were the Cessationists will disagree with me: God can still give a clear prophetic word about the future today. It doesn't make the vessel he uses equal in prophetic authority as those in the apostles time. Example: I am 100% sure that the church will know when Jesus will return and be prepared to receive him. The Lord will give the word and we will be ready to receive him. If he tarries, I am 100% sure that I will know the time of my death. The Lord will tell and I will pit my house together before leaving. That doesn't make me a prophet.

vooks:

Secondly, I agree with him that tongues are tongues...languages whether in Acts or Corinthians. What I question is the rubbishing of present tongues as gibberish on the basis of a vague research whose contents we are not privy to. There is NOWHERE in the scriptures that tongues were used to preach the gospel. In Acts on Pentecost, the disciples were praising not preaching. Wherever tongues are understood, it is always praising. Besides, if tongues are for preaching, what's the use for the gift of interpretation?

I am glad we are agreed on tongues being languages. On the matter of it being used for preaching, I cannot remember if this was the basis the speaker above used to justify tongues. I believe he was simply saying, as Paul also enjoined us, that if anyone should pray in tongues, he should also interpret it. If what is being said has no interpretation, then it has no meaning and I am convinced that is what gibberish is.

Personally, I do not forbid tongues. I don't preach against it either. If I am asked a direct question on it, I state my position without condemning those who practice it. But does it not worry you that you pray in a "language" that has no meaning? And you are not bothered to seek an interpretation? And why do you sound offended when you are told you are speaking gibberish then?

vooks:

Thirdly, church history and tradition supports the continualism not cessationism position. There are countless records of the spiritual gifts long after the apostolic age and after the pen on the last word of Revelation dried. McArthur lamely quoted three or so fathers and the quotations are incomplete. I will share the link to this later on. Note, the church history is not authoritative and the Fathers were not infallible but it is plain dishonest to claim that they support Cessationism while they don't.

I have actually read someone counter MacArthur here saying that his earliest example was 300AD, when there were records of gifts manifestation in earlier times. I think that person has a point. But the Cessationists have a stronger point. The preservation of biblical truth through the doctrine of Sufficiency of Scriptures that teach no new revelations be accepted outside biblical truth neccesitate Cessationism. But remember that Cessationism does not abrogate all gifts. Gifts they claim has ceased are the offices of an apostle and prophets; then the gifts of miracles, healing, tongues and prophecy. This position is to safe guard biblical truths.

vooks:

Fourthly, read this paragraph again
In one paragraph, MacArthur has equated present day preachers with apostolic age prophets. The question that begs is, how comes there are so many divergent views in this camp (Reformed,Calvinists...)? How can we test their accuracy? Or are they subject to the accuracy test seeing they are carrying out the prophetic role? I have come across some conning arguments for conditional immortality of the soul. I have come across others for eternal torment. Universalism too is supposed to be based on scripture

The beautiful thing about the Strange Fire Conference was the central attention they returned scriptures to Christianity. Sola Scriptura! They debated their points earnestly, encouraging others to prove their points from the perspective of scriptures. And since then there have been articles, magazine editions, books, etc, centered on refuting or encouraging the Cessationists position. That is true freedom and that somewhat like what the Spirit of God will author. I have not seen anything like it in the Charismatic movement. Most times Charismatics pretend there is no problem in church; they encourage a false ecumenism; and they dislike anything critical. Charismatics understand that if they critic a person and his doctrine, others will do the same to them. And since they cannot endure such criticism, they shy sway from it. The Cessationists were rather bold and since then, 2013, all the critique of the conference has not deterred them. They have however made their point.

So I do not think the camps in Christianity is the problem. I think the problem is our not allowing the bible to be central enough. This is what I like about nl religion section. The bible is our constitution here and that is what must be debated until every false notion is brought to obey biblical truths.

vooks:

Did Agabus words after saying 'this saith the Lord' come directly from the biblical text? What about when the Spirit asked that Paul and Barnabas be set apart? Where are the proof texts for this assertion?

Those were apostolic times and such could be understood. Today we have a more sure Word of Prophecy that can guide us, the bible. Even if a prophetic word were to come today, it should never be placed on the same authority with the bible.

vooks:

Any movement of God, including the first apostolic/Pentecost if fraught with errors. Like I will share from a source I almost wholeheartedly agree with, these errors are usually over-emphasis on the theme. It could be Holy Spirit,abortion,doctrine,theology and so forth. Pentecostals are no exception and they frequently appeal to EXPERIENCES at the expense of scriptures. Like Winsomex observed, cessationists too appeal to doctrine and theology over experience effectively reducing Christianity to a text book religion devoid of any feelings. This is why Shdemidemi can't coherently explain the purpose of prayer. To him it is a psychological exercise. He can't tell you what Holy Spirit is doing in His life because Holy Spirit is a distant first century effect.

I agree that every movement can be fraught with errors. But this is the point of the Cessationists, the errors increase to the degree to which the bible is made less central. Make the bible your sole authority, and you will have errors reduced to a minimum.

vooks:

Now, kindly go through Frank Viola's Pouring Water on Strange Fire
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/186817686

I couldn't access the link.

vooks:

Cc
NLmediator
Mbaemeka
BabaGnoni
Gombs

Looking forward to their contributions.

WinsomeX:
Sorry for the late reply vooks. I got caught up with the festivity of the season.

Who didn't?

Well let's see how we can help your situation. And welcome to the world of Seun antispambots. BabaGnoni knows could give you some tips to get out of them faster if you ask him.

Thanks

The Cessationists positions on the office of apostles and prophets is clear enough. They have ceased. They need to cease because only then will the words of scriptures be complete and need no addition.


The matter of Agabus is simple; you are the one making it complex. Agabus was a prophet in the apostolic age whose gift and ministry was relevant at that time. We do not have "Agabuses" today again.

It is ambiguous and void of logic. It's central claim is these gifts were used to give us the scriptures. We have PhIlip's seven daughters who prophesied, we have Agabus who prophesied. How much NT did they give us? What makes Agabus personal prophecy to an apostle less relevant if it was given to another man in 200AD? And on what scriptural basis do they pick which gifts and offices have ceased and which haven't?

This is however were the Cessationists will disagree with me: God can still give a clear prophetic word about the future today. It doesn't make the vessel he uses equal in prophetic authority as those in the apostles time. Example: I am 100% sure that the church will know when Jesus will return and be prepared to receive him. The Lord will give the word and we will be ready to receive him. If he tarries, I am 100% sure that I will know the time of my death. The Lord will tell and I will pit my house together before leaving. That doesn't make me a prophet.

This is where you muddy up. What 'prophetic authority' did Agabus have. A prophecy in 50AD and another in 2014AD have the same TRUTH in that they come from the Spirit of Truth. Both are subservient to the Scripture. God gives prophecies to prophets and he gives tongues to those with the gift of tongues,teaching to teachers. How can one prophesy if they are not prophets? Once again, what do you mean by 'prophetic authority'?

I am glad we are agreed on tongues being languages. On the matter of it being used for preaching, I cannot remember if this was the basis the speaker above used to justify tongues. I believe he was simply saying, as Paul also enjoined us, that if anyone should pray in tongues, he should also interpret it. If what is being said has no interpretation, then it has no meaning and I am convinced that is what gibberish is.

Personally, I do not forbid tongues. I don't preach against it either. If I am asked a direct question on it, I state my position without condemning those who practice it. But does it not worry you that you pray in a "language" that has no meaning? And you are not bothered to seek an interpretation? And why do you sound offended when you are told you are speaking gibberish then?

The last author belabored to demonstrate epic fails of those who attempted to preach in tongues. Obviously he was deriding them. Look up the word xenoglossalaria or something. Gibberish in this context means crab, useless and meaningless . Please note that your inability to understand tongues don't substract the fact that they are inspired of the Holy Spirit.

I have actually read someone counter MacArthur here saying that his earliest example was 300AD, when there were records of gifts manifestation in earlier times. I think that person has a point. But the Cessationists have a stronger point. The preservation of biblical truth through the doctrine of Sufficiency of Scriptures that teach no new revelations be accepted outside biblical truth neccesitate Cessationism. But remember that Cessationism does not abrogate all gifts. Gifts they claim has ceased are the offices of an apostle and prophets; then the gifts of miracles, healing, tongues and prophecy. This position is to safe guard biblical truths.

You are mixing issues. My point is church history is 120% against Cessationist predictions of ZERO spiritual gifts post apostolic age. The gifts persisted and the same was recorded many years after the last apostle died. The speakers who are supposed to be objective theologians are LYING that this is not the case.

Once again, cessationists are engaging in circular arguments. Here goes
1. Spiritual gifts complemented the then insufficient scriptures
2. We have sufficient scriptures
3. We don't need spiritual gifts
Premise 1 is false as evidenced by exercise of these gifts WITHOUT adding nothing to the scriptures and also zero scriptural roof of the same. Premise 2 necessitates stepping outside scriptures to prove it and is disproved by existence of the gifts outside the scripture age.

The worst assault on logic from cessationist camp is to claim that you can't embrace spiritual gifts and sufficiency of scriptures at the same time. This is a false dilemma. It is also elitist and it means either you join cessationism or you reject the 'sufficiency of the scriptures'. Let task you. I believe in present manifestation of ALL the spiritual gifts. Prove to me that I don't believe in the 'sufficiency of scriptures

The beautiful thing about the Strange Fire Conference was the central attention they returned scriptures to Christianity. Sola Scriptura! They debated their points earnestly, encouraging others to prove their points from the perspective of scriptures. And since then there have been articles, magazine editions, books, etc, centered on refuting or encouraging the Cessationists position. That is true freedom and that somewhat like what the Spirit of God will author. I have not seen anything like it in the Charismatic movement. Most times Charismatics pretend there is no problem in church; they encourage a false ecumenism; and they dislike anything critical. Charismatics understand that if they critic a person and his doctrine, others will do the same to them. And since they cannot endure such criticism, they shy sway from it. The Cessationists were rather bold and since then, 2013, all the critique of the conference has not deterred them. They have however made their point.

Strange Fire is not a rallying call to return to scriptures but a call to embracing Reformed Calvinism. They even had a session where they bashed Calvinists who are Pentecostals. It is elevation of theology and doctrine and traditions of men above the freedom of the Spirit.

MacArthur is not the first to ID the excesses of Charismatics and he is not the last. He just sensationalized. If you are hearing the excesses of Pentecostal movement from MacArthur, you are clearly unschooled

So I do not think the camps in Christianity is the problem. I think the problem is our not allowing the bible to be central enough. This is what I like about nl religion section. The bible is our constitution here and that is what must be debated until every false notion is brought to obey biblical truths.

The centrality of scripture is supreme but it MUST NEVER be confused with Calvinism

Those were apostolic times and such could be understood. Today we have a more sure Word of Prophecy that can guide us, the bible. Even if a prophetic word were to come today, it should never be placed on the same authority with the bible.

Nobody is claiming that the prophetic is of equal authority to scriptures. In fact, taken to the extreme, nothing is, no preaching is of equal authority to scriptures, no sermon is...does that mean we despise EVERYTHING except the written Word? No. We test EVERYTHING against the Word

I agree that every movement can be fraught with errors. But this is the point of the Cessationists, the errors increase to the degree to which the bible is made less central. Make the bible your sole authority, and you will have errors reduced to a minimum.

Errors don't increase because of 'decentrality' of the scriptures, they increase because of OVER-EMPHASIS of the same thing the movements are trying to correct. This leads to lack of balance. over-emphasis on Sola Scriptura reduces Christianity to an academic exercise relevant only to the very educated. Sola Sriptura pure fails to explain how words in a text change a human soul.

I couldn't access the link.

I downloaded the scribd app on my iPad and I got the book. Let me see of how I can a access the book

Looking forward to their contributions.

There are good reasons continuists have given this thread a wide berth. You probably think they are pricked in their consciences and are tongue tied. Far from it.

Cessationism is based on EXPERIENCE. Cessationists have never experienced spiritual gifts and based on their inexperience they rationalize that they don't exist. You will be hard pressed to find any commentary before 1960 linking when 'prophecies shall fail' to completion of the canon. I find it decidedly funny that they present themselves as experts in a phenomena they have never experienced.

Take the quadplegic lady who NEVER received her healing. Obviously her entire theology and worldview is centered on her failure to recieve her healing. What of people who hear the word and are least convicted of their sins? Does that make the Word of none-effect?

Well, you have expressed your opinion and I am sure it is noted. I have noticed that engaging you in discussions amount most often to repeating oneself thus necessitating my abandoning our discuss all the time and moving unto another thing. Right now I will go unto the summary of the last presentation and then post the next presentation. Hopefully, by the end of it all, you will understand the position of the Cessationists. But if you don't, I will still be hoping you will leave with one or two things so that the thread is not totally useless for you.

But if it is, I will still be hoping that someone will find the thread useful, somewhere.

Sorry for not completing the thread. The elections ate taking all my time. I trust God to complete it after the elections.

I think most of you should be advised to look into the origin of reformed theology. It stems from Calvinism and teaches the 5 points of Calvinism (TULIP). Which are T- total depravity, U- unconditional election, L- limited atonement, I- irresistible grace, and P- perseverance of the saints. If you open the bible and read it in light of this philosophy, you will twist so many scriptures in order to conform the Bible to the Calvinistic philosophy. That's basically Calvinism and what Calvinists do. There is no free-will in Calvinism, because according to the U (unconditional election), God has already chosen those that He wants saved and no one can make a decision to go to God because of the T (total depravity). So even as you read the views of these cessationists, know that their ideology and theology is tainted with Calvinism.

If you go back and study church history, you will realize that John Calvin got most of his work from St. Augustine. Read about John Calvin and St. Augustine's history and make your own conclusion. In addition, reformed theology has a view of salvation called penal substitutionary atonement. Go back in church history and see the conflicts that arose between penal sub atonement and the christus victus view of atonement. It is actually understood that the christus victus view of the atonement was what was prevalent among the early church fathers who had made commentaries on the manuscripts that are today the new testament. It should also be noted that in order for Calvinism to work, Jesus has to be God, which directly is against scripture. Please familiarize yourselves with the history concerning the trinitarian doctrine. The early church fathers even noted that as the Bible says; there is only one God, and that Jesus was indeed a man (God's son). There is no trinity. It so happened that those that believed in the trinity began killing and attacking those who did not believe in it. Again read up on the history.

Having expressed all of this, I think it is fair to say that the opinions of these men at the conference can be so easily debunked by a simple look into history. Reform theologists are always talking about how the 'truth' should be preached and that the gospel should preached the 'right way'. But what they don't tell you is that 'that way' is Calvinism. According to Calvinists, everything that happens is ordained and predestined by God. So to them, if a woman loses a child during labor, it was God's 'sovereign' will. If a young man is addicted to fornication, it's God's 'sovereign' will. Apparently, sin is God's 'sovereign' will too. Run and run fast.

Flawless2015:
It should also be noted that in order for Calvinism to work, Jesus has to be God, which directly is against scripture. Please familiarize yourselves with the history concerning the trinitarian doctrine. The early church fathers even noted that as the Bible says; there is only one God, and that Jesus was indeed a man (God's son). There is no trinity. It so happened that those that believed in the trinity began killing and attacking those who did not believe in it. Again read up on the history.

I confess that though I agree not with you in all your submission here, it is a submission made from a very informed position.

Your above quote reveals that you do not believe in the Trinity. As you would have us think of the Cessationists, I also could conclude that you do not believe the bible because the bible teaches Trinity and not Unitarianism. This thread is not meant to debate Trinity and so I would not go further than that.

Let me however explain to you that the Cessationists did not hide the fact that they are Calvinist. Neither do I. Calvinism is Protestant theology laid out in a systematic manner. Protestantism on the other hand is the rediscovery of sound biblical theology that was spurred on by the rejection of idolatry in Roman Catholicism. So your effort to vilify Calvinism with some extreme Calvinist views is simply petty because not all Calvinists see the bible in that light.

For example am Calvinist in theology but I know very little about Tulip. I believe what the bible teaches about the utter depravity of man. I do not think that that doctrine is taught to justify the sinful man's ways but to amplify the fact that only God is responsible for the salvation of men. True Calvinists still call all men to repentance and faith.

I believe in the Sovereignty of God. I do not see God as my errand boy. I am his servant. And God is actively working in his world, he is not powerless. I carry out all my responsibility with a strong sense of duty but I trust God for all things.

Free will is very debatable. But scripture clearly shows that no one can resist God's will. Romans 9.

Of all theological point of view, I find Calvinism to approximate the most to what the bible teaches. Calvinists give one a perspective into the Pauline doctrine like no other does. It is strictly Trinitarian, like you also mentioned. And most importantly, it exalts Jesus Christ the most of all Christian theologies.

What else does one want?

Flawless2015:
I think most of you should be advised to look into the origin of reformed theology. It stems from Calvinism and teaches the 5 points of Calvinism (TULIP). Which are T- total depravity, U- unconditional election, L- limited atonement, I- irresistible grace, and P- perseverance of the saints. If you open the bible and read it in light of this philosophy, you will twist so many scriptures in order to conform the Bible to the Calvinistic philosophy. That's basically Calvinism and what Calvinists do. There is no free-will in Calvinism, because according to the U (unconditional election), God has already chosen those that He wants saved and no one can make a decision to go to God because of the T (total depravity). So even as you read the views of these cessationists, know that their ideology and theology is tainted with Calvinism.

If you go back and study church history, you will realize that John Calvin got most of his work from St. Augustine. Read about John Calvin and St. Augustine's history and make your own conclusion. In addition, reformed theology has a view of salvation called penal substitutionary atonement. Go back in church history and see the conflicts that arose between penal sub atonement and the christus victus view of atonement. It is actually understood that the christus victus view of the atonement was what was prevalent among the early church fathers who had made commentaries on the manuscripts that are today the new testament. It should also be noted that in order for Calvinism to work, Jesus has to be God, which directly is against scripture. Please familiarize yourselves with the history concerning the trinitarian doctrine. The early church fathers even noted that as the Bible says; there is only one God, and that Jesus was indeed a man (God's son). There is no trinity. It so happened that those that believed in the trinity began killing and attacking those who did not believe in it. Again read up on the history.

Having expressed all of this, I think it is fair to say that the opinions of these men at the conference can be so easily debunked by a simple look into history. Reform theologists are always talking about how the 'truth' should be preached and that the gospel should preached the 'right way'. But what they don't tell you is that 'that way' is Calvinism. According to Calvinists, everything that happens is ordained and predestined by God. So to them, if a woman loses a child during labor, it was God's 'sovereign' will. If a young man is addicted to fornication, it's God's 'sovereign' will. Apparently, sin is God's 'sovereign' will too. Run and run fast.

The 5 points of Calvinism, like all other forms of classification, seeks to present a logical order for God's dealing with man particularly with regards to the issue of sin. 

Over the years many have come up with their own form of LAPSARIANISM. One thing common to many if not all of these categorization is the total depravity of man. Areas of differences include Limited Atonement which addresses whether Christ's work covers ONLY those to be saved or the entire humanity. 

I believe the biblical position for this (limited or unlimited atonement) is clearly brought out in passages like:
1 John 2:2 - "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and NOT ONLY for ours BUT ALSO for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD"
1 Timothy 2:6 - "who gave himself a ransom FOR ALL MEN... ..."
Titus 2:11 - "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to ALL MEN"

Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for ALL but ONLY those who, in the exercise of their freewill, express faith in his finished work become beneficiaries of his work - John 1:12, John 20:31,etc. 

In addition, it would be good to know from you where Jesus being God is directly against scripture.

WinsomeX.. Well, obviously not all Calvinists are 5-point Calvinists. Some people do believe in all the 5 points (TULIP) and others believe in 2. It is vital to understand that Calvinism is merely a man-made philosophy. It's roots stem from Greek mythology to be precise. If you study history you will see that Greek mythology had a great influence on Calvin. The whole concept of total depravity is no where to be found in the bible. It all stems from Gnosticism which believes that all matter is evil. Do some research before you blindly follow men. I challenge you to provide scriptural evidence that shows TOTAL depravity. Obviously you will use week points that you have interpreted according to your Calvinistic worldview.

Regarding the Sovereignty of God, true Calvinists take an extreme view that suggests that God is completely in control of everything that happens in this world. Therefore, if a woman gives birth to a baby who dies hours later, guess what, God was in control.

How may say Calvinism exalts Christ, but it sure does a good job at vilifying God. What kind of God would kill His own Son because He cannot look over man's sins? If God can't look at us because of our sins and has to super-impose Jesus on us in order to look at us or have anything to do with us, then why was he looking for Adam and Eve after they had sinned? What type of God forgives by passing on the punishment to someone else? That simply makes the impediment to reconciliation God's wrath, and not sin (as the bible teaches). Sin is the impediment, and it is what Jesus Christ came to defeat. He conquered the power of sin and death on the cross. Calvinists say Christ had to endure the wrath of God upon that cross. Again I ask, what kind of God does that? It is only when you remove the Calvinist tinted glasses that you will see that Calvinism is simply philosophy.

Oh my daysssssssss
CALVINISM ON NAIRALAND!!!!
This is amazing!!!

I'm a biblical christian who identifies strongly with John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Piper, Tim Keller and other Calvinists.

Pls pls pls if anyone knows a good reformed church, kindly let me know on my thread:

https://www.nairaland.com/2144689/does-anyone-know-reformed-churches

God bless you

Oh wow, I am so excited. I scrolled through and it seems there's loads of theological debate on this thread. I'll take my time and read through it after work tomorrow.

One observation though, whether Arminian or Calvanist, we are all still Christians. We are only debating on the theological interpretation of scripture and its appliance to our faith.

Sola Gratia
Goodnight everyone

trustman:
[size=6pt][/size]

The 5 points of Calvinism, like all other forms of classification, seeks to present a logical order for God's dealing with man particularly with regards to the issue of sin. 

Over the years many have come up with their own form of LAPSARIANISM. One thing common to many if not all of these categorization is the total depravity of man. Areas of differences include Limited Atonement which addresses whether Christ's work covers ONLY those to be saved or the entire humanity. 

I believe the biblical position for this (limited or unlimited atonement) is clearly brought out in passages like:
1 John 2:2 - "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and NOT ONLY for ours BUT ALSO for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD"
1 Timothy 2:6 - "who gave himself a ransom FOR ALL MEN... ..."
Titus 2:11 - "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to ALL MEN"

Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for ALL but ONLY those who, in the exercise of their freewill, express faith in his finished work become beneficiaries of his work - John 1:12, John 20:31,etc. 

In addition, it would be good to know from you where Jesus being God is directly against scripture. 

Yes, however, Calvinism is against freewill and the belief is that the atonement was only limited to those that God unconditionally chose. The Bible on the other hand explicitly states that the atonement was for all. The criteria of course is to believe in that free gift of salvation.

Concerning Jesus being God, there is no scripture that explicitly states that Jesus was God. What's evident from scripture is that Jesus was a man who had the Spirit of God in Him. The bible explicitly states that God cannot be tempted by evil (James 1:13) yet, Jesus was tempted by the devil. There other scriptures where Jesus describes himself as a different entity from God. No where in the Bible does Jesus say He is God. The closest Jesus came to that was in John 17:21 when he said 'let them be one just as you and I are one'. Notice He didn't say 'just you, me and the Holy Spirit are one' (trinity). Now the concept of us being one does not mean we are the same people, just as it doesn't mean God and Jesus are the same. It is the minds of fallible men that invented the trinity and made Jesus, God. If you study history you will see that as Calvinism gained ground in Rome, those that did not believe in the trinity were beheaded or burnt, John Calvin himself was at the forefront of these punishments. It was a cycle of how philosophy had gotten to the heads of men that any divergence from their views was deemed a punishable offense.

JahzaraAde:
Oh my daysssssssss
CALVINISM ON NAIRALAND!!!!
This is amazing!!!

I'm a biblical christian who identifies strongly with John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Piper, Tim Keller and other Calvinists.

Pls pls pls if anyone knows a good reformed church, kindly let me know on my thread:

https://www.nairaland.com/2144689/does-anyone-know-reformed-churches

God bless you

I replied you on your thread.

Flawless2015:
WinsomeX.. Well, obviously not all Calvinists are 5-point Calvinists. Some people do believe in all the 5 points (TULIP) and others believe in 2. It is vital to understand that Calvinism is merely a man-made philosophy. It's roots stem from Greek mythology to be precise. If you study history you will see that Greek mythology had a great influence on Calvin. The whole concept of total depravity is no where to be found in the bible. It all stems from Gnosticism which believes that all matter is evil. Do some research before you blindly follow men. I challenge you to provide scriptural evidence that shows TOTAL depravity. Obviously you will use week points that you have interpreted according to your Calvinistic worldview.

Regarding the Sovereignty of God, true Calvinists take an extreme view that suggests that God is completely in control of everything that happens in this world. Therefore, if a woman gives birth to a baby who dies hours later, guess what, God was in control.

How may say Calvinism exalts Christ, but it sure does a good job at vilifying God. What kind of God would kill His own Son because He cannot look over man's sins? If God can't look at us because of our sins and has to super-impose Jesus on us in order to look at us or have anything to do with us, then why was he looking for Adam and Eve after they had sinned? What type of God forgives by passing on the punishment to someone else? That simply makes the impediment to reconciliation God's wrath, and not sin (as the bible teaches). Sin is the impediment, and it is what Jesus Christ came to defeat. He conquered the power of sin and death on the cross. Calvinists say Christ had to endure the wrath of God upon that cross. Again I ask, what kind of God does that? It is only when you remove the Calvinist tinted glasses that you will see that Calvinism is simply philosophy.

Again, every line of thought you pursue here is filled with errors and it is difficult to know where to start correcting you from.

There is a rule on Nairaland: do not derail the thread. This thread is not discussing Calvinism but the execeses of the Charismatics. If you wish to pursue the Calvin argument further, open a fresh thread on Calvin and Calvinism and I will make time, God willing, to offer you information. Although, if I find you're already set in your thinking, as I suspect you are, I will leave the thread.

If you however have any objection to the positions against Charismatics here, you are free to express them here.

Flawless2015:


Yes, however, Calvinism is against freewill and the belief is that the atonement was only limited to those that God unconditionally chose. The Bible on the other hand explicitly states that the atonement was for all. The criteria of course is to believe in that free gift of salvation.

Concerning Jesus being God, there is no scripture that explicitly states that Jesus was God. What's evident from scripture is that Jesus was a man who had the Spirit of God in Him. The bible explicitly states that God cannot be tempted by evil (James 1:13) yet, Jesus was tempted by the devil. There other scriptures where Jesus describes himself as a different entity from God. No where in the Bible does Jesus say He is God. The closest Jesus came to that was in John 17:21 when he said 'let them be one just as you and I are one'. Notice He didn't say 'just you, me and the Holy Spirit are one' (trinity). Now the concept of us being one does not mean we are the same people, just as it doesn't mean God and Jesus are the same. It is the minds of fallible men that invented the trinity and made Jesus, God. If you study history you will see that as Calvinism gained ground in Rome, those that did not believe in the trinity were beheaded or burnt, John Calvin himself was at the forefront of these punishments. It was a cycle of how philosophy had gotten to the heads of men that any divergence from their views was deemed a punishable offense.

The gospel of John clearly show the pre-existence of Jesus Christ. 
Starting with chapter one it leaves one with no doubt as to the fact that the man Jesus is God. 

Certainly his audience understood clearly what he meant by his words that we find their reactions pointing this out like in 
John 5:18
"This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."
Or
John 10:
30 I and the Father are one."
31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?"
33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."
And this:
John 8
"58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple."
The entire discuss speaks for itself. You may need to read all of it. 
The 'I am' of verse 58 was very clear to Jesus' audience and should be clear to us too. He was telling them that he is Yahweh, the God of Israel.  It was unmistakable. There was no ambiguity. So, over and over again, Jesus did say that he is God. Yet he was also true humanity and so could speak as different from God the father. He had to come as true humanity for the plan of incarnation necessary for mankind's salvation to be fulfilled.  

That Jesus Christ is God is not an invention of man but a clear declaration of Scripture.