SIGNS AND WONDERS; DON'T BELIEVE EVERY CLAIM!

The Three Positions on the Spectacular Gifts in Today's Church

Have you wondered about 'Signs and Wonders' in the Church today? Have you wondered about 'Gifts of the Spirit'? Should Christians expect divine healing from every illness? How about Cessationism? (the belief that the spectacular signs concluded with the conclusion of the mission of 'the 70' and the completion of the Bible canon).

---

As David Wells has pointed out (God, the Evangelist) there are really only three possible positions to adopt on the spectacular signs, or, 'signs and wonders' in today's Church. We will list the three, then I will make a few comments upon each. But, first of all, it should be noted that all of these positions allow for - and hopefully expect - answered prayer - this includes the 'cessationist' position.

Here are the three positions;

1. Cessationism.
This teaches that the spectacular Gifts ceased with, or soon after, the time of the apostles. The more spectacular Gifts were only given to the Church in order to celebrate Christ's arrival and to highlight the work of the original apostles. In this way, the name of Jesus Christ quickly gained fame; otherwise, in a world without today's fast media communications, it would have taken considerable time for the news of Christ to have travelled very far. The early Church needed to quickly gain notoriety - this is how God chose to do it! After all, news of miracles will always travel fast! The spectacular miracles (tongues, prophecy, outstanding healings etc) were, according to this, the Signs of the Apostles. Before any should reject this teaching too quickly, we should just note that the Signs of an Apostle teaching appears to be backed up by the following Scriptures; Acts 5: 12-16, Acts 14: 3, Acts 19: 11, 2 Cor 12: 12 & Hebs 2: 3-4. But one Scripture which has been used, 1 Cor 13: 8-10, has come under considerable fire in recent years as not being supportive of the position. Cessationists say the 'perfect' of 1 Cor 13: 10 refers to the completed Bible canon, after which there would be no further purpose in miracles. The problem, though, is that this 'perfect' appears to refer to Christ's second coming, which obviously has not yet happened; therefore those things which verse 8 said would cease (prophecies, tongues etc) should still be occurring. This 'cessationist' position has had the greatest following within the Reformed movement, but it is not correct to say that all Reformed people hold to it - they certainly don't.

2. The 'Faith position'.
This position would say that all the Gifts should still occur today. After all, did not Jesus say that His followers might be expected to do even greater works? And in Mark 16: 17-18, Jesus appeared to expect His followers to continue to perform great wonders.
But the testimony of the 'Church Fathers' of the early centuries is interesting here; for while they spoke of miracles still occurring, overall they noted something of a diminution in their frequency. The faith position would say that all of the Gifts should still occur today but often do not because we lack faith. This appears attractive at first, after all, did not Jesus say, 'When the Son of Man returns, will He find faith upon the earth'? However, upon careful meditation and contemplation one can see quite sizeable problems here! One is that upon our consideration of the lives of great men and women of faith such as Hudson Taylor and George Muller, one may note little or no exercising of the spectacular Gifts.
All of us who have read about George Muller, for example (and I am his greatest admirer) have noted some of the amazing answers to prayer which he experienced and yet, I believe that I am correct in saying that he only saw a very small number of divine healings - even in his very long life of 93 years!
So we have the situation that many of the most faith-full who have lived in comparatively modern times, have not received these Gifts, nor apparently even seen the need of them.

Secondly, this position has led to enormous judging of one Christian by another within congregations. If one is not dramatically healed upon anointing by a 'healing evangelist' is this necessarily because one lacks faith?

Thirdly, this position - in actual practise - promotes Gifts to a status which they simply do not enjoy in the New Testament. This position has been the classic Pentecostal/charismatic position. And yet, it is encouraging that an increasing number of these groups are now starting to distance themselves from it. The position - taken to an extreme - has been the classic 'health, wealth and prosperity gospel' approach. Within this schema, faith is hijacked from the biblical model and becomes something which requires God to give us everything we want, whether it is ever-radiant health, financial affluence or that spectacular Gift to impress fellow-believers! If we do our bit, then God must act! The approach also appears to be overly concerned with the 'here and now'- yet, biblically, we are encouraged to look to eternity.
In fact, biblically faith is very much tied up with God's sovereignty and His choice in that. Sometimes we may want something but His answer is No; just as it was when Paul wanted to be healed of his famous 'thorn in the flesh'.

Finally, this 'faith' position toward the spectacular Gifts has sometimes led to a demanding approach where God is begged to 'send down' the Gifts - these people rarely seem interested in those less spectacular gifts such as knowledge, faith, giving, teaching and encouragement although they greatly outnumber the showy Gifts in the various New Testament lists of the Gifts. But the apostle Paul seems to make it clear that it is God - not us - who decides which Gift goes where!

3. The balanced approach.
The balanced approach would avoid extremes and insist on recognising God's complete sovereignty in whether or not He might allow a miracle to occur, or any spectacular Gift in any particular scenario. Indeed we might term this 'balanced approach' a biblical approach. It would question the categoricalism of the first two approaches. One might say that these Gifts can occur today in scenarios in which the Lord wills them to occur, but it is entirely within His jurisdiction.
Neither can we ever demand any particular Gift; perhaps it is the Lord's will that we are equipped with a quieter Gift! Any talk of 'claiming the promises on faith' must take full account of all scriptural teaching - not just favourite bits!
God alone decides where the more spectacular Gifts are needed for the equipping of the Body of Christ. This third position is, perhaps, mid way between the extremes of the first two, and concerned to avoid their extremes.
God has obviously granted some of these Gifts afresh during periods of Revival as even most Reformed people will admit. But then, it appears, suddenly withdrawn them again - we cannot question His decision and choice in this.

There is also very strong evidence that the Gifts are granted wherever God considers the proclamation of the gospel to be going into new areas for the first time! This would certainly explain some of the miracles we have heard about when the gospel has been taken into fresh areas of places like China and Nepal!! We at Museltof wholeheartedly support this third position as being eminently sensible. It also means that we can say that positions 1 and 2 are not wholly incorrect, just somewhat biblically unbalanced. For example, the teaching that the early spectacular miracles were the 'Signs of an Apostle' appears to be backed up by Scripture (Acts 5: 12-16. Acts 14: 3. Acts 19: 11. 2 Cor 12: 12. & Hebs 2: 3-4.) How else would the name of Christ have spread so quickly?
Yet this is not to say that some of the more spectacular Gifts can never re-occur, in fact most would agree that they have; some would say only in periods of Revival, many others would say rather more often than that - but only where God has granted them!
On the 'faith' side, one might say that a lack of faith is indeed occasionally a problem, but perhaps not the problem that some of the more extreme charismatic 'healing evangelists' would insist! Maybe some of these guys - who have frequently built up quite a following, should go back and carefully and prayerfully reconsider some of the Scriptures which they have thrown at people! No, I don't cast them all together, but I have occasionally been very concerned at things which one has been told.

A very experienced Pentecostal minister, now retired, told me privately that during his long ministry he had seen some 'Gifts' which were emotionally induced and he knew of other manifestations which he strongly suspected were due to demonic activity!! Yes, he also saw a few that he believed were genuine. This came from a vastly experienced Pentecostal minister!!
We are to 'try the spirits', we really do need to be careful.

So when people ask me if God heals today, I say, Yes, but we see a reduced, or restricted healing ministry. Yes, I have prayed for people and seen them dramatically healed at times but God does not treat me like the apostle Peter where his very shadow falling over sick people caused them all to be healed! Why? Because I am not the apostle Peter!! Let us employ a little humility in recognising some of these things!
Moreover, to stage a 'healing meeting' in which a few hundred people are invited and to announce to them, 'Tonight you can all be healed - but only if you have enough faith!' is - to me - the very height of spiritual irresponsibility! It is also inexcusable since it betrays a somewhat restricted understanding of Scripture. Too restricted, perhaps, for one to have set oneself up as a 'leader'! One may also imagine that the collection baskets are soon passed around!
Frankly, brothers and sisters in Christ, such behaviour by a few has brought terrible shame on all of us who call ourselves by the name of Christ!!

In bringing this to a close, I wish to quote some very wise words from G.C. Berkhouwer and Adrio Konig. The words come from Konig's 'The Eclipse of Christ in Eschatology';

"In the past it was too glibly taught by some that 'the age of miracles is past' and the miracles occurred in the first century to effect a rapid and thorough establishment of the Church...G.C. Berkhouwer has gone into this in depth and shown what was the legitimate motive for miracles; they were aimed at founding and extending the Church throughout the world. He levels severe criticism at overzealous attempts 'in faith' to exert power which cannot with certainty be identified with the triumphant revelation of God's kingdom. He also, on the other hand, repudiates the restriction of miracles to the first centuries. We find nothing in Scripture to suggest a specific age of miracles and a specific age without them. The numerous signs which followed Pentecost should make us cautious about setting boundaries to God's wonderful deeds... there is nothing in the New Testament to prevent God from making use of miracles and signs today in order to extend and establish the Church. He who genuinely believes that miracles no longer happen, must ask himself if he takes God's power seriously or has secretly capitulated to determinism... it is therefore wrong in principle to deny their possibility or to neglect asking the Lord for them. Yet it is clear from Acts and the rest of the New Testament witness after Pentecost that things may take a more natural course. This does not suggest that Jesus' working through the Spirit has been discontinued; simply that He is working in more ways than miracles only...we must recognise that the Spirit distributes His Gifts separately to each individual 'as He wills' (1 Cor 12: 11) - and that we cannot demand miracles as if they were God's only way of dealing with our problems! We must respect the Lord's freedom to give the Church those Gifts and miracles which He sees fit"
(The Eclipse of Christ in Eschatology, Konig, p156, pub;Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1989)

There is one book which we would strongly recommend on healing, discussing such matters as anointing with oil, it is 'Miraculous Healing' by Henry W. Frost. First published in 1931 but reprinted in 1999 by Christian Focus (UK). Try to get a copy!
Robin A. Brace

SHOULD BELIEVERS SPEAK IN TONGUES?

We recommend that this article is studied alongside The Truth About 'Speaking in Tongues' At Last

It has been claimed that Mark 16: 17 indicates that today's Christians should be expected to speak in tongues. But is this what this Scripture is really saying? Lets read it:


"And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues" (NKJV throughout)

Certainly, on the face of it, that appears to be clear enough. However, a cardinal rule of good scriptural exegesis is that all Scriptures on any given subject must be taken into account before there can be any sound attempt at establishing doctrine. This means that verses like this one should only be considered alongside any other Scriptures which discuss not only tongues but the Gifts of the Spirit in general. Moreover, since - without question - the apostle Paul wrote the bulk of New Testament theology, we especially need to check any relevant references from his writings. But the starting place must be context; we need to fully take into account the verses surrounding any Scripture which is to be scrutinized!
Now, in looking at this particular Scripture, the first thing which we need to do is to get the whole quote! To get the full sequence, we need to start in verse 15:

"And He said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover"(Mark 16: 15-18)

Now we have the full sense of this quotation we can start to consider it a little more deeply. The resurrected Christ was about to be taken up into heaven (the very next verse) and the final verse of this book states that the disciples did indeed go out and commence their post-resurrection ministry of preaching the gospel with,
"...the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs. Amen"

So the signs appeared immediately at that time.

Now please let us notice that there are three distinct sections to this:
1.The gospel is to be preached to every creature. (Verse 15)
2.Those who believe will be baptized and saved, but those who reject the message will be condemned. (Verse 16) (Incidentally, as an aside, please notice that those to be condemned are those who reject the message, not those who never hear it, i.e, the unevangelised. Modern evangelicalism has unwisely insisted on glossing over this difference).
3.The signs will - please note - follow- believers. The classical Pentecostal position actually turned this on its head by picking on just one of these signs (tongues) and by claiming that this sign identified true believers. So this one sign attained a paramount importance which is not the case in the Scripture. It tended to say, 'No sign - no believer'. But in Mark 16: 15-18, tongues are just one thing which would tend to follow believers (at least at that time). The Scripture already establishes the believer's presence; it does not say that if the believer does not do this or does not do that, then they are no believer! Moreover this one sign (tongues) is apparently no different to the other ones, so if one should say, 'Today the believer will be found to be speaking in tongues' - I could answer, 'Today the believer will be found to be drinking deadly substances and surviving', or, 'Today the believer will be found to be getting bitten by venomous snakes and surviving' . But any attempt to do any of these things would plainly amount to tempting God. (Matthew 4: 7). Indeed, let us also note that none of these things are things which one would necessarily seek, rather, they are things which would be evidenced among believers! In an ideal scenario, who would choose to cast out demons? No. It is best not to encounter them (in our day we witness the sad spectacle of ministers apparently affected by spiritual vanity who ignore biblical advice and develop "deliverance ministries" going out of their way to seek confrontations with demons). Who would choose to encounter sick people who are in need of healing? No. It is best not to encounter sick people. We don't like to see sick people. Who would wish to be bitten by a venomous snake? Who would wish to take poison? No.The whole point is: these things will be evidenced among God's people! To 'evidence' something, or to notice it, is not the same as to seek it.

We have a very good example of the protection against venomous snakes which was granted to the apostles in Acts 28: 3-6;

"But when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat, and fastened on his hand. So when the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to one another, 'No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he has escaped the sea, yet justice does not allow to live.' But he shook off the creature into the fire and suffered no harm. However, they were expecting that he would swell up or suddenly fall down dead; but after they had looked for a long time and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god"

Now did Paul actively seek this encounter with the viper (adder)? Of course not. To have done so would amount to tempting God. And of course exactly the same principle would apply to the drinking of deadly substances. We begin to see, then, that there is a big difference between things evidenced among believers and things to be sought after.

So, at least in the day of the apostles, tongues would be one of the things which would tend to be denoted among the followers of Jesus. In other words, there would be times when - in a less than ideal situation with people from several nationalities present - God would miraculously grant the Gift of being able to speak/understand 'other tongues.'

Do we begin to understand why Paul would place tongues at the bottom of a list of desired Gifts? (See 'Tongues'). It was an important Gift in some situations, but not as important as prophecy, for example, as Paul clearly shows.
This is why Paul could say;

"Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe." (1Corinthians 14: 22)

Hopefully the reader is beginning to understand how absurd it is for any to insist that one should 'seek a tongues experience' in our day. Is that saying that tongues experiences no longer occur? Not necessarily. But to say that one should seek a tongues experience in order to 'prove' that one is a believer is - from what we have seen - a bit like insisting that one should seek a poisonous liquid experience. No, I am not saying that they are the same. Tongues - if it is of the Holy Spirit - would be a wonderful Gift of God. But the point is, these were things which would be evidenced - not sought after!

Tongues, then, would tend to attract the attention of unbelievers, while prophecy (the broad Greek word 'prophetes' includes inspired preaching) would be of more interest to those genuinely walking with God.

Why, then, do we usually not see these 'signs to follow' today?
The testimony of the early 'church fathers' is important here, since they obviously lived very close to the time of the apostles. They remarked on the diminishment of these signs during their day and an 'age of miracles' which was then passing away.

If one looks very closely at the Bible one finds that God has mostly only used an abundance of miracles to mark out important biblical eras, and the coming of Jesus and the ministry of the apostles was paramount among these.

The teaching that frequent spectacular miracles marked the 'signs of an apostle' (an apostle being a direct witness to Jesus' earthly ministry), has good biblical authority. Look up; Acts 5: 12-16, Acts 14: 3 Acts 19: 11 2 Corinthians 12: 12 and Hebrews 2: 3-4.
However, recognising this fact should not then lead us to the extreme position of cessationism (cessationism would say that no spectacular Gifts/miracles should be expected between the completion of the biblical canon and the events immediately preceding Christ's return to earth). In fact, there is abundant evidence that while the age of the apostles has now obviously past, God has occasionally revived some of these spectacular Gifts, especially during some of the great Revivals, and also (apparently) where the gospel has gone into areas of the world formerly completely closed to it.

Cessationism is a very biblically dubious position to adopt and I have occasionally been concerned to note that some cessationists even, at times, seem to doubt examples of clear and outstanding answers to prayer. They are sceptical of anything which could be miraculous; this is a position which is seriously close to the scepticism of unbelievers!

So Mark 16: 17-18 should not necessarily be seen as a 'norm'; these signs tended to follow, or be noticeable around, the preaching of the gospel in the first century and have occasionally been apparent since. To insist that these (and other spectacular signs) must follow is not a prerogative which is ours to take! That is in God's hands alone. What we must do is the first part; preach and publish the gospel to every 'creature.'

If the reader has not already done so, I would now also recommend the reading of my other article on this topic; The Truth About 'Speaking in Tongues' At Last!

Robin A. Brace http://www.ukapologetics.net/tongues2.htm

More About Tongues

1- Biblical Tongues are known world languages, and only known languages, as evidenced in and by Acts 2.

2- God used world tongues (unknown to the speaker and even most of times to hearers which needed interpretation), along with sign, wonders, and miracles to substantiate the proclamation of the gospel during the church's infancy and subsequent growth - Heb. 2: one of the first verses in that chapter.

3- Therefore, once the church got going, there is no more "dependant" need for such gifts in the same way they were needed in the first century.

4- God sovereignly grants Spirit-gifts (1 Cor. 12:8 I think). You never ask for a gift to receive. This verse alone should put an end to all unnecessary confusing teachings about tongues being ecstatic utterances. We can never ask for a gift since He distributes them to us as He wills. No one can "learn" how to speak in tongues. There are no steps or prayers of request that can be said to "receive it." We desire to have gifts, and nothing wrong with that, but that does not mean our desires will eventually match what God sovereignly bestows.

5- God can still use miracles, signs and tongues if and when He wanted to, even though it is clear that such gifts are not normative anymore. I mean, such gifts does not necessarily mean that they have fully stopped, but that they have stopped in the sense of not being as common as the other gifts. If they occur, they are rarities.

6- 1 Corinthians is the only place outside of the narratives of Acts where this gift is mentioned. These Corinthians were mostly carnal. Therefore, speaking in tongues was not necessarily a sign of spirituality as far as they were concerned, though Paul spoke too in tongues. Emotionalism should not to interpreted as spirituality.

7- Jude 1:20 does not mean you may pray in tongues. To do so is an exegetical violation of the text. It simply means to pray in line with the will and leading of the Spirit. Otherwise, if praying in the Holy Ghost were to mean praying in tongues as a private prayer language, then what does the command "walk in the Spirit" in Eph 5 mean? Walking in tongues?

8- Romans 8:26 is not a reference about praying in tongues since it is the Holy Spirit who is doing the intercessory praying on our behalf, and not us doing the praying. Then what about the "groanings which cannot be uttered?" Tongues are uttered!!!

9- There is no such a thing in the Bible as prayer in tongues being a private prayer language. 1 Cor. 14 does not teach anything like that, neither the preceding verses above in points 7 and 8.

10- We know Paul said it is better to speak 5 words in normal language than to speak 10,000 in tongues.

11- Human and angelic languages are known languages (1 Cor. 13:1). Please notice the use of the plural for both groups of beings. Keep also in mind that each time the angels spoke in the Bible, it was a known world language to the hearers.

12- Tongues were always at the foot of the gifts-list, as evidenced by Paul's writings.

13- Tongues as related to the Baptism of the Spirit were the sign of the Spirit's being officially received by different groups (Acts 2 Jews, 10 Gentiles, 19 OT saints - John's followers - who had not yet believed in Christ). In fact, in chapter 8, when the Spirit was inaugurated among the Samaritans (half-Jews, half-Gentiles), there no indication of speaking in tongues.

14- The Baptism of the Spirit is a deposit in the believer at the moment of salvation or else he is not Christ's (Rom. 8:9; Eph. 1:13-14). In 1 Cor. Paul mentions that we were all baptized in or by the Spirit - 12:13 I think. To teach otherwise is to bring in a teaching which divides believers into two categories, something foreign to scripture.

15- Tongues were meant for unbelievers only 1 Cor 14:22, spoken as a reminder of the coming condemnation if they do not believe, and meant for Jews especially, as foretold by Peter in Acts chapter 2:14-40 where he quotes from Joel 2:28-32 in the partial fulfillment of this prophecy at Pentecost. God used the tongues of different nations to rebuke in particular His own Jewish nation whose Messiah they had rejected, and to call them to repentance before the great judgment day of the Lord comes (Joel 2:31-32).

O.B

THE CRISIS IN THE LOCAL CHURCH

There is a crisis in the local church. Local churches are increasingly struggling to continue going along in the same old way.
Why is there a crisis? What are the problems? And how have we reached this sad state?

Let us take a closer look at this.

When The 'Good News' Can No Longer Truthfully Be "News"

The greatest (of several) problems which confront local churches is that they are finding it difficult to continue going along in the enthusiastic assumption that there are thousands out there who - once exposed to the truth of the gospel - will seize it with both hands, just as a child from an impoverished African country might eagerly seize a brightly-coloured candy bar which he or she had never seen before! In the early years of the New Testament Church, Christians knew that they were taking out a message which was genuinely new and different - after all, the very word 'gospel' means 'good news' - and this really was news! Wherever the first evangelists went they discovered a hunger to hear and learn more of this exciting message that a Saviour who was God incarnate had come to earth and had died a horrible death upon a cross in order to reconcile a straying humanity to Himself! Even in a world which was steeped in religion, and even in religious claims, this was somehow very different. Indeed, just in case people did not know how different this message was, God Himself allowed dramatic miracles to accompany the preaching of the message by the original Apostles and the original 70 Evangelists! (Notice Luke 10, for instance).
We sometimes forget today that many of these miracles caused an absolute sensation - for example, read through the first 2 or 3 chapters of Mark and note the huge crowds who wished to follow Jesus everywhere He went because of the miracles which they witnessed - then notice that on that very first post-resurrection Pentecost an amazing 3,000 people were baptized in just one day (Acts 2:41). Sometimes historians seem unsure as to what caused Christianity to so shake up all the known world in the first century AD - the reason is that it was surrounded with some amazing occurrences of the supernatural and the miraculous!! The effect was that people simply could not ignore it.

We have to admit that - except to a lesser extent during a few periods of Revival - such things do not happen today (actually, there is compelling evidence that many of the supernatural signs again occurred when the gospel first went into new areas of the world such as China, Burma and Nepal in the last century).We call ourselves "evangelicals" - and it is a good enough name for us Bible-believing Christians - but here in the West, which has been steeped in the Christian gospel for well over a thousand years, we really need to re-think some of the assumptions involved in that word 'evangelism'.

There is a growing feeling that - while, of course, the flock must continue to be fed - we may well be living in a post-evangelistic age. Even the most enthusiastic evangelists - when operating here in the West - are finding that its not so much that people "desperately need the message of the gospel" but that those people are already familiar with the claims of the message of the gospel and are either completely indifferent to them or they purposefully reject them. Do we then pressurize acceptance of this message? There is no New Testament mandate for doing so. The problem is that the gospel has lost the 'news' part - over a thousand years of Christian history means that the gospel of Jesus Christ can no longer be 'news', except to children. For the rest, it is either indifference or rejection!

The Failed Experiment of Restorationism

In response to this situation, many have sought "restoration" through the Restorationism of Pentecostalism and the various phases of the charismatic movement. Alas, even whilst applauding the sincerity of many people involved in these movements, this now appears to be a failed experiment. All too often, the lack of the active involvement of the Holy Spirit has led to emotional extremes of behaviour being used (even frequently by the most sincere of people) as some sort of a Spirit-substitute (even if entirely unconconsciously). Even worse, since Restorationism has mostly stepped outside previously accepted Christian worship patterns, it has become a hotbed and a fertile ground for countless false apostles, false prophets and hundreds of money-motivated preachers! Some extremes of what I can only call 'charismania' have even (and shamefully) led to demonic involvement in some "church services." I have also been hearing of Restorationist leaders who have attempted to contact the dead! If these reports are true, this would seem to underline the final utter failure and desperation that a movement which once promised so much has finally only led into a spiritual cul-de-sac.
So why has Pentecostal/charismatic Restorationism failed?

Restorationism, in its various phases and fashions, has failed because it has not understood that our Lord, and the apostles, never promised that the stunning and miraculous would always be the 'norm' for the New Testament Church of God! Please note 1 Corinthians 12:4-6. The Holy Spirit is perfectly capable of working in a quieter way among believers. Paul is quite clear that our Lord alone decides which Gifts of the Spirit go where; 'Pleading (and screaming) down the gifts' will make no difference! The testimony of the record of Scripture itself is also often ignored by these naive people; Scripture clearly indicates that the abundantly miraculous only accompanied certain vital stages in God's Plan - most notably, of course, the ministries of Jesus and the apostles. At other times our Lord prefers to work with people through the laws of nature which He Himself so carefully designed and now upholds.
The miracles of Jesus, on the other hand, provided clear evidence for his identity: His miraculous ministry was a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (Matthew. 11:3-5). Jesus Himself cited his utterly unique miracle ministry as one of the evidences for his Messiahship (Matthew. 11:3-5; Mark 2:9-11; John. 5:36; 10:37,38).
For their part, the apostles (and the 70 evangelists) were specifically required to be witnesses to the ministry of Jesus and were empowered for this purpose. Just note Matthew 10:1; Matthew 10:8; Mark 16:20; Luke 9:1-2; Acts 2:43; Acts 5 12-16; Acts 14:3; 2 Corinthians 12:12 and Hebrews 2:3-4. Indeed, the New Testament writers usually referred to the miraculous 'signs of an apostle' in the past tense - this alone tells us a whole lot.

The first century is now a closed chapter. It cannot recur, just as we cannot make the Gospel message a new proclamation all over again.

None of this means that genuine miracles are now impossible - indeed, I have personally witnessed several dramatic and unlikely healings after prayer was offered and several amazing answers to prayer as well but we have to recognize that this is not the way that our Lord usually works with us in our day - the emphasis is not on the supernatural and it can be spiritually dangerous to continue to look for that at all times.

Today's Widespread Disaffection and Disillusionment Within Local Churches...

Okay, apart from the difficulties of taking the 'good news' to a society which has already heard that news but is indifferent to it and the failings of charismania, what are some of the other problems in too many modern congregations which have led to thousands of Christians joining the swelling ranks of the 'unchurched' (that is, preferring not to regularly attend any place of worship):

• Too much ritualism in which elaborate rituals, lavishly expensive gowns and golden altars are somehow almost seen as a substitute for real living faith.

• Too much informality in the shape of services. This is the other side of the above coin! A few evangelical places are just too informal - this is very common here in the UK. No attempt is made to encourage reverence for God, its all just somehow too 'loose' and 'sloppy' - its good, for example, when people are encouraged to sit quietly before services and meditate on the greatness of the God whom they are coming before! Also great to occasionally say some of the great Christian creeds in unison.

• Too much concern with money. At its extreme we have the prosperity money-men but, even aside from that, many other congregations also seem to have pastors and ministers who somehow just talk a little too much about money! This is valid as a general and separate point but it is also involved in some of the points below.

• The encouragement of tithing. This is still far too widespread and many Christian leaders should be more outspoken in attacking this practice which is so open to abuse and so open to giving believers the impression that they can buy themselves into the kingdom of God and buy security in their local church!

• Doctrinal lukewarmness which warmly welcomes gays and lesbians, deems abortion to be okay and presents brief, politically-correct sermons which can offend no one - yet which also means that absolutely nothing of any real substance is communicated!!

• The tendency towards mega-churches of several hundred (and sometimes several thousand) people. As a regular weekly place of worship, these places can never be the answer. Sometimes members die in these places but nobody even knows who they were! Smaller churches should have been planted at regular intervals but one strongly suspects that this does not happen because of the desire to hold all funds central!

• The use of "marketing growth strategies" which have a financial base and usually include a huge appeal to young people with the heavy use of pop-style worship songs (rather than hymns) - frequently 'image' becomes all-important in these places and only young faces are promoted within the congregation. Older people are (for obvious reasons) starting to abandon these places.

• Doctrinal Rigidity- this is the other end of the pole. Too often gifted preachers are ignored (or only ever sarcastically referred to) because they may come from an opposing Christian tradition, maybe Arminian or a Reformed (Calvinist) tradition. The age of denominationalism has just about past and this is a relic from that age. Its not that the issues are unimportant but that modern evangelicals are usually happy to work among differing groups concentrating on the gospel whilst refusing to argue over the peripheral areas.

• The pressurizing of people to commit to becoming 'members' of specific local churches. This might have once been something of a 'norm' but it is no longer seen as tenable or reasonable in the modern world by many newer Christians - neither does any Scripture support the practise.
  

Keeping the Balance...

Of course, we really need to keep some balance here; despite all the foregoing, there are still many excellent places to attend Christian services. There are places which are a sensible size (less than 80-100 people), places where there is real loving fellowship,
Places where people have attended for a long while and not been pressurized into becoming 'members' or into tithing and where the preaching is always biblical.
Places where the right balance between being too informal and being overly strict, staid and legalistic is carefully maintained.
Places which guard against divisive growth tactics/strategies including the current 'youthfulness is all' strategy.
Places which while being clearly evangelical do not spurn/condemn Christians of other backgrounds and are prepared to patiently work with them to increase their knowledge and understanding where necessary, and
Places in which there is genuine loving support and pastoral care (rather than attenders being apparently forgotten about if they miss a few services due to illness).

Keep Your Eyes on the Main Goal!

In all our considerations of the difficulties of local churches, let us never forget that all Spirit-led Christians are - in any case - members of the Eternal Church of Jesus Christ whose names are written in the Book of Life. This is the true, although currently invisible, spiritual Church of all the ages. We may, understandably, get frustrated with the visible and temporal manifestations of that but let us never get so bogged down with such difficulties that we take our eyes off our ultimate goal, that wonderful coming day when we all sit down to the glorious wedding feast of the Lamb! Read Romans 8:28-39 and Revelation 19:1-9 !!
Robin A. Brace, 2006.

The Truth About 'speaking in tongues'

The subjects of 'Speaking in Tongues', 'Baptism of the Holy Spirit', 'Glossolalia' and questions on that momentous Pentecost come up regularly. If you have ever wondered about some of these subjects, the following article is essential reading!

The subject of speaking in tongues has probably caused more debate in the Church during the last 50 years or so, than any other subject.
Pentecostals (and charismatics too) have sometimes claimed that if one does not speak in 'tongues' there is no evidence that one has been 'baptized by the Holy Spirit'.
Is this really true? Let us consider the matter of 'tongues' in this article.

I propose to approach this article from the general viewpoint of the Pentecostal/Charismatic (assuming that 'tongues' is a supernatural gift and that the modern phenomenon of 'tongues' conforms to what we see in the Book of Acts, however, many deny this and there is no question that the relevant texts could be explained differently, for instance in Robert Zerhusen's fascinating approach).

But before we even look at the New Testament we need to remind ourselves that a manifestation of 'tongues', or, speaking in an unknown language, has not been confined to the Christian religion. The phenomenon has also - quite widely - occurred among other religions. It is said, for instance, that when the priestess, or, Oracle, of Delphi became 'divinely inspired' she would speak in tongues. This signalled - to those present - the presence of a supernatural spirit which was giving her guidance.
I think that this fact alone should warn us to proceed with caution. From the presence of tongues in other religions we should begin to realise that tongues are not necessarily a sign of the presence, and guidance of, the Holy Spirit of God!

I would hope that the article reader would actually read all the Bible quotes in this article. After all, my intention here is to bring you clear biblical teaching.

In the New Testament, the arrival of tongues was a sign that God was about to start working with the Gentiles, Isaiah 28: 11-12, as well, of course, as being partly a fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel 2: 28-29.
But let us, first of all, stand back for just one moment and consider the Gifts of the Spirit in general;

The four primary lists of the Gifts in the New Testament are in
Romans 12: 6-8, 1 Corinthians 12: 8-10, 1 Corinthians 12: 28 and
1 Corinthians 12: 29-30. Yes, they are mentioned elsewhere too, in
Ephesians 4: 11 and in 1 Peter 4: 11, but these do not appear to be the same sort of organised lists. It is important to notice that the section in 1Corinthians 12: 29-30 is actually another list, as the apostle Paul asks a rhetorical question about the list which he had just delivered. The first list of Gifts in Romans 12 does not mention tongues at all. The second three (all in 1 Corinthians 12) appear to list the Gifts in some sort of order of importance. The intelligible communication Gifts (how else is the Gospel ever received except through clear communication?) are now at the top of the list, with Prophecy having an important place (In the Greek, prophecy is a broad term, yes, it might include the clear interpretation of a tongue, but it would certainly include passionate preaching). But the important thing to note is that in these 3 lists of the Gifts - with an apparent descending order of importance - tongues comes last on all occasions! This really sets the scene for Paul's approach to tongues. I am continually very disappointed that many of those who shout the loudest about the importance of tongues, have never closely studied the writings of the apostle Paul in detail. Here, after all, is the New Testament writer who gives consideration to the subject in some detail!
While Paul makes it clear that he himself had spoken in tongues, in general he appears somewhat less than enthusiastic about this particular Gift. We should note his comments in 1 Corinthians 14, for example;
"Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy (again, the Gk for 'prophesy' is broad and would include powerful and persuasive preaching; my insert) For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. I wish you all spoke with tongues but EVEN MORE (my emphasis) that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification" (Verses 1-5).

So Paul also makes it clear that God alone decides which Gifts go where and that we cannot demand any particular one! Carefully read 1 Corinthians 12: 4-11 !!
Now, we have to ask, how does this square up to the claim by some that if one has not spoken in tongues there is no sign that one has received the 'Spirit's Baptism'?? Indeed according to the New Testament it is the FRUITS of the Spirit, rather than the Gifts, which are a better indicator of ones standing before God! According to several Scriptures, it is only those who produce fruit who will enter God's Kingdom! But no similar promise is ever given with regard to the Gifts! (See Matthew 7: 15-19, Matthew 12: 33-37, Matthew 13: 24-30, 36-43, Mark 4: 26-32, Luke 8: 5-8, 11-15, Luke 13: 6-9, John 4: 34-38, John 15: 1-8, 16. Romans 7: 4-6, Galatians 5: 22-23).

So we begin to learn the real place of the Gifts in the New Testament which places tongues at the bottom of 3 descending lists.
Paul then sets a limit of no more than 3 being involved in tongues during any worship service (1 Corinthians 14: 27). Moreover, these 3 are to make their contribution in sequence and not all together (1 Corinthians 14: 27,30). But before any worshiper decides to speak in tongues (this is something which the speaker has complete control over in the New Testament) he is to ensure than an interpreter is available. Quite obviously, if you are going to be able to secure an interpreter, you know that you are going to be speaking a human language. The miracle being that the congregation will be aware that this is a language which the speaker had not learned, and in this language, God is being praised. But the rule is: No interpreter - no tongue! If there is a tendency for too many to want to speak in a tongue, some of those who would speak should, instead, pray for the power to interpret (1 Corinthians 14: 13).
When the tongue has been interpreted it becomes a prophecy, but it must then be evaluated by the leaders who are able to 'discern between spirits'. Since God is not the author of confusion, it would follow from this that where a congregation's leaders are not present, tongues should not occur!
From all of this, and from the occasions of tongues recorded in Acts, especially the first Pentecost manifestation - see Acts 2: 1-10 - the conclusion starts to become pretty inescapable that these were definite human languages in just about every case! Notice how often these tongues occurred in a scenario in which 'Gentiles' are mentioned. Several languages could have been involved here.
In fact, only two things (although, I agree, they are not necessarily minor things) suggest that they might occasionally not be recognisable human languages:

a. The modern pentecostal/charismatic phenomenon.

b. Paul's highly enigmatic comment in 1 Corinthians 13: 1.
He said this;
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become as sounding brass or a clanging cymbal" (By the way, all quotes from the NKJV).
What on earth did Paul mean? What are 'the tongues of angels'?
The short answer is; Nobody knows!
Now, of course, I am aware that some will be screaming at me here, saying something like; 'I know what Paul meant - he meant...' But wait; can you really establish that from New Testament Greek, or is it just the tradition of your denomination? I am always prepared to change how I explain things , but I need scriptural authority first! Museltof Countercult and Apologetics are non-denominational; we do not exist simply to 'rubber stamp' what denominations have said! We insist upon examining everything in the light of Scripture, indeed I have even been prepared to upset a few of my reformed friends by pointing out that we can now say that Calvin (great man that he was, and I remain his staunchest admirer) was nevertheless undoubtedly wrong in one or two areas. (As an example of this, the reader may wish to read our two hell articles on our OurChurch site).
But back to this tricky Scripture of 1 Corinthians 13: 1;
There are certainly strong advocates for the argument that Paul was simply using hyperbole here. That is, he was using an exaggeration in order to make a point. Its a bit like the wife who accused her husband of loving his 3 cars more than loving her. He makes an exaggerative response in order to assure her of his love; 'I not only love you far more than my 3 cars, but I love you more than every car in the universe!' The comment is only meaningful as a reassurance. The man is never going to be able to test every car in this world, never mind any imaginative cars of the universe! This comment by Paul comes at the start of the 'love chapter' - 1 Corinthians 13. He could have meant something like, 'Though I speak with all of the tongues in the world - and even any tongues outside of the world - if I do not have love, it would all be meaningless'. That is possible, though - to be frank - 'the jury is still out' on this one. We don't know exactly what he meant.

Of course, many claim that Christians should expect a 'second blessing' after an earlier committment to Christ and that this so-called 'second blessing' will lead to speaking in tongues. Some see this 'second blessing' or 'baptism with the Holy Spirit' occurring in Acts 2 on that momentous Pentecost. They argue that these people were not really commissioned to go forth with the Gospel until that Pentecost. In that much, they are right, since that is when the Holy Spirit first empowered the Church. But this was the starting of the mission of the Church under the New Covenant; this was always going to be a momentous occasion! This was no 'second blessing', which we must also seek today. We do not stand at the beginning of the New Testament Church era as they did! Others say that we see this need of the 'second blessing' in the Book of Acts where followers of John the Baptist had not yet received the Holy Spirit (The reader may wish to look up Acts 19: 1-6, as an example of this). But this is no 'second blessing'. These people had been disciples of John the Baptist and they had repented under his ministry of looking forward to the coming of Christ, but they were apparently ignorant of much of what had happened since. Paul decided to re-baptize. He undoubtedly explained all about Christ. They received the Holy Spirit. John the Baptist was something of a unique figure. He was both the final prophet of the Old Covenant and also the inaugurator of the New Covenant. (Although, of course, the New Covenant did not really commence until that curtain was torn). There was undoubtedly a problem among a few who had been John's followers, but who were somewhat ignorant of what happened later. This was the particular problem. Paul did NOT say, 'Oh, you just have to hang on for the second blessing' No. He explained what had happened since, undoubtedly talking about Jesus and the coming of the Spirit, and decided to re-baptize.
If advocates of the 'second blessing' teaching were correct, Paul would surely have carefully explained this point in his highly theological epistles. On the contrary, he says that there is 'One Baptism':
"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Ephesians 4: 4-6).
There is only one body of Christians. These do not all belong to any one denomination, of course, nor do they need to. They are already genuinely unified through all being led by the Holy Spirit of God. None of them are perfect - yet they remain one group in the sight of God, since - at some time - they have committed themselves to God by personally appropriating Christ's sacrifice. There are not first class and second class Christians with the first class ones having received a 'second blessing' - a teaching which is nowhere upheld in Scripture! Those who may try to convince you of this will - of course - place themselves in the superior group, which already tells you that pride may well be a problem for some of them. The other thing I have noticed about this is that those who try to push this point are usually generally not very knowledgeable about the Scriptures in general. In other words, one can quickly perceive that they argue from a weak theological base.

But don't many - if not all - Christians have occasional incredible experiences of a sudden deep closeness to God, perhaps accompanied by an incredible feeling of peace and assurance, in short, do not many Christians have ecstatic experiences? Yes. They surely do. Even in his prison cell, Richard Wurmbrand the Lutheran Pastor imprisoned for his Christian beliefs in iron-curtain Rumania, shouted and jumped for joy and sang hymns when he realised that an angel was with him! These experiences of a sudden ecstasy of God's closeness are, in the light of the New Testament, best described as being 'filled' with the Spirit. We cannot legislate for such occasions. Sometimes they come suddenly and unexpectedly. Those present at Pentecost in Acts 2, were filled with the Spirit (Acts 2: 4), Peter was filled with the Spirit as he began addressing the Sanhedrin in Acts 4: 8, the apostles were filled with the Spirit when they prayed for boldness in the face of persecution in Acts 4: 31, Ananias prayed for Saul to be filled with the Spirit at the beginning of his work for God in Acts 9: 17, and Paul was suddenly filled with the Spirit when he confronted Elymas the sorcerer in Acts 13: 9. And Paul certainly encourages us to seek to be filled with the Spirit in Ephesians 5: 18. (Again, one would like to think that the reader is checking these scriptural references; after all - my opinion is unimportant, we seek to establish good New Testament doctrine here).
Surely fillings by the Spirit were especially prevalent during some of the great Christian Revivals of more recent centuries. I believe that fillings by the Spirit can account for certain things which pentecostals and charismatics have seen and experienced - but probably NOT for all of their experiences! These are not 'second blessings' which must occur if we are to be genuinely converted. Some deeply converted Christians don't seem to have them. During some of the great Revivals, some who apparently became filled with the Spirit had been Christians for many years!

A final point which I need to cover is the widespread belief among those who are opposed to the pentecostal and charismatic movements, that only what sounds like unintelligible gibberish occurs when speaking in tongues happens in their meetings. I have it on good authority that this is incorrect and that, quite often, recognisable human languages are indeed spoken by those who are known never to have studied those languages! Moreover, an interpretation does follow. This is promising. It is so easy for all of us to level criticism at others when that criticism is based on extreme and untypical behaviour. We all really should try to check our facts. Having said that, however, I am also informed that an ungodly bedlam of yelling and shreiking does also break out in some such meetings and the presiding minister, lamentably, allows it to continue! This only brings shame on any who would call themselves by the name of Christ!! Again, 1 Corinthians 14: 33 tells us that 'God is not the author of confusion'.
If you are a leader in such a congregation let me strongly urge you right now to read through the apostle Paul's guidelines regarding tongues; everything is to be done decently and in good order with only one such speaker active at a time! If nothing is being interpreted, an immediate halt should be called to the proceedings! I am here assuming, of course, that the tongues experience of today is always the same as the experiences which Paul was familiar with. But, most likely, it is often not the same!

A vastly experienced Pentecostal minister, now retired, had a very interesting conversation with me about two years ago. According to this man, tongues can take three forms and he had witnessed all three during his ministry;
a. Emotionally-induced tongues. (No, I don't have a clue what that means, I am simply quoting the man).
b. Tongues due to demonic activity.
c. The genuine Spirit-led activity.
This man was able to recount a clear example of class 'b';
During a service, a man had yelled out on odd accasions in a 'tongue'. It was assumed that it might have been a shout of joy or a praise of God in a tongue.
When the service had finished and the man had left, another man approached the minister and said, 'I think you should know that that man was yelling out in my own native language and he was cursing God for all he was worth!!'
Such instances should caution all of us to be careful. The very fact that tongues are not unknown in other religions should warn us that they could be due to demonic activity - yes, apparently even during a Christian service!
The above example also shows that a tongue in a recognisable human language is not necessarily of God!

So, in the light of the points raised in this article, let me attempt to draw some conclusions (though I fear in the case of this particular subject, that will not be easy).
I think that we can fairly confidently make the following 8 assertions;

1. 'Unknown tongues' is not a purely Christian experience; similar occurrences have also occurred in non-Christian religions, especially during periods of frenzy.
2.In the New Testament, tongues appear to signal both the arrival of the Holy Spirit to empower the Church, and the commencement of God's active working with the Gentiles.
3.There are strong indications that most (indeed, if not all) New Testament instances of tongues refer to definite human languages which a Spirit-filled individual could suddenly speak/understand despite (apparently) never having studied the language (obviously, some would question this).
4.Tongues were/are one of the Gifts of the Spirit, yet possibly quite low on a list of most desired Gifts, according to Paul.
5.We cannot claim or demand any particular Gift. God alone decides which Gift goes where.
6.While the various Gifts enable the Church to function, it is the fruits of the Spirit which are a better indication of one's walk with God.
7.A 'second blessing' or, second stage of conversion, accompanied by tongues, is not taught in the Scriptures, though a 'filling of the Spirit' during which Gifts could be more in evidence, does appear to be taught.
8.Any assertion that tongues were intended as proof that one has received the Holy Spirit is completely unbiblical.

These, then, are eight conclusions which one can surely draw from the scriptural evidence.
But what of the reader of this article who may be actively involved in tongues experiences right now - what advice would we give?
This part is simpler because the apostle Paul has given some good advice which should be followed. Does your minister scrupulously observe these guidelines?
Are there no more than 2 or 3 such speakers in any service? Do they only speak in sequence?
Are things done decently and in order and without confusion? If interpreters of the tongues are not active, is the whole thing immediately wound up?
Are tongues continually sought at the expense of preaching etc? (Don't forget Paul shows that prophecy is a greater Gift than tongues!). Is your service prone to descend into a noisy chaos? Are you - personally - more interested in seeking a 'tongues experience' than you are in increasing your Bible knowledge or in other areas of Christian development?

In honestly answering these questions - and then committing the matter to God in prayer - the reader should hopefully be able to make a wise decision.
We must all realise that we are all ultimately responsible for how we handle the priceless knowledge of the gospel which has been entrusted to us.
Frankly, there may be times when we may need to move away from a particular fellowship, if we feel that biblical standards are not being applied.
What if the reader has never spoken in tongues? This is easier: Don't seek them! There is no reason to seek a particular Gift which God has chosen not to freely give you! Always remember that in the list of Gifts in the New Testament, the spectacular ones are in a great minority!


Robin Brace http://www.ukapologetics.net/tongues.htm

ARE THERE REALLY PROPHETS IN TODAY'S CHURCH?

Prophets, prophecies, prophesying, modern-day prophets...Many are asking us questions on these topics.
Here is my answer to a simple question which we were asked:

'Are There Prophets in Today's Church? A Growing Number Seem to be Claiming to be Prophets!'

We witness a mushrooming of 'prophets' in today's more charismatic congregations. One whole group of the new prophets will be found within the 'positive confession' and prosperity churches, and another group in the new 'restorationist' congregations.

Some of these new prophets have made some quite amazing prophetic statements and claims - lamentably cult watchers are already filling books with failed prophecies. We could detail those here, but I don't want to do that since others have done it. I simply want to question the whole concept of modern-day prophets within the Church. Lets do that.

The age of the great Old Testament Prophets has, of course, now past. There are no Isaiahs, Jeremiahs or Ezekiels around today. Hebrews 1:1-2 plainly tells us that we now live in a new era:

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. (NIV).

The age of the Prophets who were undoubtedly famous men within their own societies has now past. The great Hebrew Prophets could claim an audience before kings and princes and were undoubtedly famous men indeed. And yet, Scriptures such as Romans 12:6, 1 Corinthians 12:10 and 14:29-32, show that a gift of prophecy can be expected to be witnessed in the New Covenant Church of God!

It seems quite plain from a consideration of Acts and 1 Corinthians 14:29-32 that the New Testament gift of prophecy is quite different to the Old Testament conception of 'prophet' - The new prophets can be expected to be active within church congregations and not necessarily in any way famous beyond that. One of the difficulties for us in understanding the conception of prophet in our day is partly due to the fact that the Greek word translated prophet (propheteis) is really much broader than the English word 'prophet', which tends to have quite a specific ring. Truthfully, the Greek word can - just as easily - mean 'inspired speaker', or 'encouraging speaker', and some of the New Testament references don't necessarily go beyond that. Yet some Scriptures obviously speak of 'prophecy' in a predictive sense. Scriptures to consider here are Acts 11:27-30, Acts 13:1-3, Acts 15:32-34 and Acts 21:10-11. Moreover, the Holy Spirit's action of warning Paul and his companions against speaking in Asia may well have come through a congregation prophet (Acts 16:6-7). The reference to the prophet Anna (Luke 2:36) does not need to be taken into our consideration of the New Covenant office of prophet since Anna prophesied well before Christ's sacrifice upon the cross making her one of the very last Old Covenant prophets.

A consideration of these Scriptures quickly shows that these congregational prophets were just that, that is, they prophesied of conditions which would affect church congregations or leaders. In Acts 11:27-30, Agabus prophesies that a famine would spread over 'the entire Roman world' - this would obviously affect congregations of Christians. The text clearly tells us that this occurred 'during the reign of Claudius' (Verse 28).
In Acts 13:1-3, we again see prophets mentioned. At first this might appear to be a looser use of 'prophet', but it seems they are only mentioned here because a message to set apart Paul and Barnabas is received (Verse 2).
When we come to Acts 15:32-34, there is mention of Judas and Silas being prophets but the use here could well denote the encourager and inspirer sense of prophet, since no predictive prophecy is mentioned. Notice it:

Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers
(Verse32)

In other words, this might mean little more than, 'Judas and Silas who themselves were very encouraging and inspiring speakers said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers'

We now come to Acts 21:10-11. Agabus is again involved here. He utters a predictive prophecy regarding Paul. By the way, this was probably around 15 years after the Acts 11:27-30 occasion.

So we can see that there were indeed New Covenant prophets, but they bore little resemblance to the Old Testament Hebrew prophets who had been national figures warning of various national calamities which would befall Israel and Judah if the people did not turn from their wicked ways!

But the New Testament office only appeared concerned with Christian congregational life and with the protection of Christian leaders.

We now need to look more closely at 1 Corinthians 14, which tells us something about the use of both 'tongues' and prophecies in first century congregational life.
First of all, a careful consideration of verses 27-33 reveals that confusion was forbidden within the congregation. Two people were never to speak at once! Regarding tongues (which we are not discussing in this article), if there was to be no interpretation, the one who might wish to speak was to be quiet (verse 28). Corinth was a thriving seaport in which people of several nationalities could be present; it would be natural for some of these people to praise God in their native tongue, but Paul points out that the edification of the whole congregation was important. Then the text discusses prophets. Two or three could speak but, again, never at the same time! - maintaining orderly conduct without confusion was obviously deemed very important (verse 33). Paul writes that,

The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets
(Verse 32).

In other words, prophets have no automatic right to go too far or to go beyond their moment of inspiration! There seems little doubt that this is a looser sense of prophet than the sense in which Agabus was a prophet, since whatever a prophet said was to be evaluated (verse 29), presumably such an evaluation would come from the congregation's Elder (or, minister). These people were obviously not allowed free reign to say whatever they wanted without evaluation!! Paul obviously recognised that prophecy could be a gift, but this is unquestionably a looser sense of prophecy in which a Christian might receive a moment of inspiration, rather than any sense that the early church was simply filled with prophets of the stature of Agabus!

Yet Paul's quite stern warning against disorderliness and confusion being allowed to occur, obviously shows that reports had reached him of some confusion during services at Corinth! Extreme charismatic churches should take warning!! Obviously speaking primarily to those who occasionally spoke in tongues or uttered prophecies, Paul goes as far as to say,

If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored
(Verse 38)

Again, these people were obviously not uttering prophecies like Agabus' warning, through the Holy Spirit, that a famine would effect the entire Mediterranean area.

So we surely have to conclude that this 1 Corinthians 14 sense of 'prophecy' is quite a loose sense (don't forget that the Greek word for prophecy is rather broad), and may be closer to 'a moment of inspiration which could be of divine origin' sense. My own careful consideration of Romans 12:6 and 1 Corinthians 14:29-32 leads me to believe that 'prophesy' here means, 'to speak inspirational/encouraging words in public' deriving from a conception of 'prophet' which (in these verses) would mean, 'One able to speak inspiring, encouraging or revelatory words to others in public' - we would now call this 'the gift of preaching'. It is particularly clear from 1 Corinthians 14:29-32 that Paul felt that these 'prophecies' might emanate from any part of the congregation, amounting to even three occasions during a service! But people like Agabus whom the Holy Spirit directed to utter predictive warnings to the Church were undoubtedly rare. Again, any careful evaluation of Paul's words in these verses shows that he is not talking about congregational prophets of the stature of Agabus! We must ensure that we don't go beyond what the inspired text actually says.

CONCLUSION

The great national prophets of Israel and Judah, like Hosea and Isaiah have now gone; their mission concluded with the arrival of the New Covenant (Hebrews 1:1-2).

The New Testament indicates the presence of, probably a very few, Congregational Prophets. These prophets appear to have been granted a gift of predictive prophecy in order to protect Christian leaders and congregations.

But within the New Testament there are surely strong indications that the words 'prophet' and 'prophecy' are not always used in exactly the same way. Agabus was obviously a major congregational prophet and there were undoubtedly a few others. But Paul often does not use the word prophet in that particular sense, for example in 1 Corinthians 12:10, 1 Corinthians 14:29-32 and Romans 12:6. Here without question a looser sense of this broad Greek word was being employed, perhaps more akin to 'moment of inspiration', or, 'encouraging and inspiring speaker'.
My opinion, for what it is worth, is that we have no prophets like Agabus in today's Church of God! But we may have very many in the much looser sense of prophet. But even if we did have people of the stature of Agabus, it seems clear to me that - in this age of the Church - they would confine themselves to being congregational prophets - and yet today's new breed of (very often self-proclaimed) 'prophets' have been unabashed about making the most amazing national predictions concerning countries like America and Israel even though Hebrews 1:1-2 appears to tell us that those kind of prophets have now simply gone!

But the New Testament does warn of false prophets who have always been around. Consult Acts 13:6-10 and Revelation 2:20. Also lets look at Matthew 7:

Watch out for false prophets. They shall come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognise them...
(Matthew 7:15-16)

Robin A. Brace http://www.ukapologetics.net

WHO/WHAT WERE THE APOSTLES AND ARE THERE ANY AROUND TODAY??

The basis of the Greek word translated 'Apostle' (apostulous) is 'One sent forth' and the word has an implication that the one 'sent forth' has been granted extra power by God. The first Apostles were witnesses of the ministry of Jesus and were undoubtedly granted additional strength/power to lay down the first and primary foundation of witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ far and wide in the first century AD.

There is a looser sense of what Paul calls our 'Apostleship' which can be applied to all who accept the truth of the gospel and are then appointed by God and 'sent forth' to witness for Christ (Romans 1:5)- this applies to every one of us! Yet this should not blind us to the fact that the original apostles were granted additional power and authority to lay the very foundation of Christian witness. It was vital that this was done correctly since the first century AD had no means of mass communication as we do today and, in order to be a truly effective 'message' the good news of Christ needed to spread fast. We now know that this was certainly accomplished!

How far did the original Apostles travel? Anything we say here is sheer speculation since nobody knows, but the tradition that Thomas reached India is just too strong to ignore, we may say fairly confidently that the original apostles probably reached much of southern Europe, getting as far west as Spain, possibly into southern France, and there is certainly some sort of tradition that even the British Isles were reached. Meanwhile Asia was probably reached as far east as India and there seems little doubt that there must have been apostolic activity in parts of north Africa.

So What Can We Confidently Say About the Office of Apostle?

Christ pre-eminently called "The Apostle"

Hebrews 3:1.

They are ordained by Christ

Mark 3:14; John_15:16.

They receive their title from Christ

Luke 6:13.

THEY ARE CALLED BY GOD

1Corinthians 1:1; 1Corinthians 12:28; Galatians 1:1; Galatians 1:15-16.;

CHRIST

Matthew 10:1; Mark 3:13; Acts 20:24; Romans 1:5.

And THE HOLY SPIRIT

Acts 20:24; Romans 1:5.

AND NOW LET US NOTICE THREE OR FOUR ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT POINTS ABOUT THE BIBLICAL OFFICE OF APOSTLE:
(These points are important in order to thwart the claims of modern "Apostles" - if one is truly an Apostle, the following points should apply).

1. They had seen Christ in the flesh:

Luke 1:1-2; Acts 1:21-22; 1Corinthians 9:1; 1 John 1:1.

2. They had been witnesses of the resurrection and ascension of Christ (Acts 1:2-9 here perhaps especially significant):

Luke 24:33-53; Acts 1:2-9; Acts 10:40-42; 1 Corinthians 15:3-9.

3. They were specifically empowered to work miracles, often of a most spectacular sort (2 Cor 12:12 here perhaps especially significant):

Matthew 10:1, 8; Mark 16:17-20; Luke 9:1-2; Act 2:43; Acts 5:12-16; Acts 14:3; 2 Co 12:12; Hebs 2:3-4.

4. They were to rely entirely on God for their material needs!

Matthew 10:8-10; Luke 6:38; Luke 9:3-4.

What more can we say about the Apostles? (and some of these points - not all - can be applicable to us):

They were ordinary/unlearned men

Acts 4:13.

They were selected from obscure stations

Matthew 4:18.

They were sent, first of all, to the house of Israel

Matthew 10:5-6; Luke 24:47; Acts 13:46.

They were sent to preach the gospel to all nations

Matthew 28:19-20.; Mark 16:15; 2Timothy 1:11.

Christ always present with them

Matthew 28:20.

They were warned against a timid profession of Christ

Matthew 10:27-33.

The Holy Spirit was given to them

John 20:22; Acts 2:1-4; Acts 9:17.

Guided by the Spirit into all truth

John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:13.

Specifically instructed by the Spirit how to answer adversaries

Matthew 10:19-20; Luke 12:11-12;

Specially and specifically devoted to the office of the ministry

Acts 6:4; Acts 20:27.

Humility urged upon them

Matthew 20:26-27.; Mark 9:33-37; Luk_22:24-30.

Self-denial urged upon them

Matthew 10:37-39.

Mutual love urged upon them

John 15:17.

Equal authority given to each of them

Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18; 2 Corinthians 11:5.

They were not of the world

John 15:19; John 17:16.

They were hated by the world

Matthew 10:22; Matthew 24:9; John 15:18.

Persecutions and sufferings would come to them

Matthew 10:16; Matthew 10:18; Luke 21:16; John 15:20; John 16:2.

Robin A. Brace http://www.ukapologetics.net

What Is Restorationism, and the Restoration Movement?

Should You Join a Restorationist Bible Study?

A Consideration of Third Wave Charismatics and the Restoration Movement

The Restorationist movement claims that the office of Apostle still exists today in exactly the same powerful first century AD form which we find in the New Testament. So within Restorationism various charismatic individuals can be found who claim to hold this office. They also claim that the Old Testament office of Prophet still exists today although they would deny that this is an Old Testament office, pointing to the 'prophets' of the New Testament such as Agabus.
The movement emphasizes the belief that God's miraculous working in the Gospels and Acts describes the normal Christian life which all true believers should still experience in our day. Restorationists therefore seek to restore today's church to reflect that perspective. Interestingly, the group frequently referred to as 'Restorationist' usually do not use that particular term for themselves yet often recognise themselves as “Third wave charismatics.”

Three "waves" of restorationism can be detected through the 20th century, and ongoing into the 21^st century, and it is probably fair to say that all 3 groups are still around. Before preceding, let us just briefly pause to identify these groups:

1. Classical Pentecostalism (from the beginning of the 20th century): Mainly believing that speaking in tongues is a necessary evidence of personal salvation and that physical healing should always be appropriated by faith (the physical healing included within the atonement teaching). This group mostly formed themselves into specific Pentecostal denominations, including Elim Pentecostal. Some of these denominations are now less insistent of the need for tongues and are less fiery than they once were.

2. The Charismatic Movement (started from around the middle of the 20th century): They believed that a second act of grace or of being "Baptized in the Holy Spirit" is necessary after conversion, and that tongues should be expected as evidence of this. This group are highly experiential and continually stress the importance of personal experience, whereas the older Pentecostals were actually more interested in doctrine. Spiritual gifts in general (especially the more miraculous ones) are stressed rather than tongues-speaking in particular. The influence of this group (which was non-denominational) spread to affect many denominations even including parts of the Roman Catholic Church, this is largely because this group were mostly disinterested in Christian doctrine.

3. "Third Wave Charismatics" (from the late 20th century): This is the "Signs and Wonders" movement, including the Vineyard churches founded by the late John Wimber. This group want all churches to experience what they consider to be the full power of the Holy Spirit, and they see a need for most evangelical churches (as well as non-evangelical churches) to experience a new reformation to bring them back to the standards evidenced within the Book of Acts. They often don't hold to a second act of grace, tongues as evidence of salvation, or even the 'healing included in the atonement' teaching, although there are many variations. There is often an emphasis on modern 'prophecy' and worship is often 'loud' with a youth emphasis.

One of the central planks of third wave restorationist belief is that we should see evidence of miracles all around us in today's church, and if we don't see that it just proves how far the church has departed from God. However, the evidence of the Holy Bible is that miracles only accompanied the major events in God's plan for Mankind – most notably the ministry of Jesus and the Apostles! The Bible seems to show that miracles were 'clustered' around these important events.

Jesus was the Messiah, and therefore we would expect Him to do some very special things. We cannot make everything that Jesus said and did the normal standard for all Christians of all ages!

In the first place, His miracles provided evidence for his identity: His miraculous ministry was a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (Matthew. 11:3-5). Jesus Himself cited his utterly unique miracle ministry as one of the evidences for his Messiahship (Matthew. 11:3-5; Mark 2:9-11; John. 5:36; 10:37,38).

Like the miracles performed by Jesus in the gospels, when Jesus later leaves this earth to return to Heaven, the miracles we read about in the Book of Acts are performed by a uniquely called people (the Apostles) during a unique time (the beginning of the New Testament Church). Okay, so how and why were the first century Apostles unique?

1. They saw Christ in the flesh.

Luke:1:2; Acts:1:22; 1Corinthians:9:1; 1John:1:1.

2. They were witnesses of the resurrection and ascension of Christ.

Luke:24:33-41; Luke:24:51; Acts:1:2-9; Acts:10:40-42; 1 Corinthians:15:7-9.

3. They were specifically empowered to work miracles, often of a most spectacular sort.

Matthew:10:1; Matthew:10:8; Mark:16:20; Luke:9:1-2; Acts:2:43; Acts 5:12-16; Acts 14:3;

2 Corinthians 12:12; Hebrews 2:3-4.

4. They were authorized to write Holy Scripture

Matthew 10:40; John 14:26; 15:26,27; 16:13.

I think I am correct in saying that no modern 'third wave' “apostle” claims that points 1, 2 and 4 apply to themselves, yet they enthusiastically claim point 3.

The Apostles were a unique group of men who were ordained of God to confirm what happened during the ministry of Jesus and were granted special gifts and powers for this purpose. Notice how this is confirmed in Hebrews:

'How shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard Him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to His will.'

(Hebrews 2:3-4, NIV, my emphasis).

Notice here that this clearly tells us that the purpose of the signs and wonders in the early church were for the intention to confirm and testify “this salvation” as “first announced” by the Lord. 2 Peter 3:2 also speaks in the past tense about these men, and notice how Acts 2:43 and Acts 5: 12-16 confirm that the miraculous 'signs and wonders' were for the ministry of the first Apostles:

'The apostles performed many miraculous signs and wonders among the people...'

(Acts 5:12)

Again, both these texts are written in the past tense. 2 Corinthians 12:12 specifically confirms that 'signs and wonders' denote an apostle and also places these things in the past tense: '...were done among you...' (Of course, a few claim that John 14:12 says that later believers should do greater wonders than Jesus did, GO HERE for an explanation of that Scripture).

That deals with the office of Apostle which, in a true New Testament sense, cannot recur at the present time therefore, I believe, the office should be respectfully left alone and not arrogantly claimed by any!

For more specific information about the office of 'Prophet' which is being repeatedly claimed by 'Third Wave Restorationist' leaders please refer to my article, Are There REALLY Prophets in Today's Church?

Plus Points of Restorationism

First of all I would say that most “third wavers” do not amount to being a cult (although, be wary!). They loosely genuinely stand in the traditions of the great evangelical 'faith of our fathers'. The 'Third Wave' has also shown a refreshing willingness to challenge the errors of earlier charismatics and of Pentecostalism. Several restorationist writers are very positive towards developing more doctrinal understanding, and keen to challenge the excesses within their own group. They have to be praised for this. They also can be praised for challenging many of the assumptions of denominationalism.

But a Warning!

The charismatic enthusiasm for the spectacular is always dangerous. Countless lives of true Christian faith over the centuries, for instance, have often been marked by amazing answers to prayer (George Muller is just one of many examples), but have otherwise shown little concern or interest in the spectacular gifts, yet restorationism would tend to denigrate such men and women for standing within denominationalism rather than having a passion to embrace a first century 'supernatural restoration'.

But many of us would say that evidences of the supernatural frankly prove nothing and could even denote the presence of evil influences, whilst the Holy Spirit works where He wills and often just as much in quiet unassuming lives of faith!

What about joining a 'Third Wave' Bible Study? Are more mainstream evangelical Christians likely to encounter problems?

These groups will sometimes be found to be extreme and “prophecy” will usually play a part in their meetings. Despite this I have little doubt that some 'third wave' Bible study groups are not all bad. It will be up to the judgment of the individual whether such groups would be good places to attend. My own judgment? Be extremely wary! There will be serious doctrinal misunderstandings in these groups despite their sincerity (such as the misunderstanding of the correct doctrinal approach towards miracles and the office of Apostle which I have briefly considered here, to say nothing of their acceptance of modern “prophets” some of whom have made highly unbiblical claims). I can only say that I would not personally attend such a group nor could I recommend attendance of such a group.

Robin A. Brace http://www.ukapologetics.net