"Unity without doctrine is hypocrisy, while doctrine without unity is arrogance."

"Unity without doctrine is hypocrisy, while doctrine without unity is arrogance."

Benny Hinn -The Healer?

What I will share here is not to judge or prove someone like Benny Hinn is right or wrong. As a brother in Christ and a committee member serving in the same Armenian Evangelical church I would like to warn my brothers about false healers who claim themselves to be healers but who lack the Scriptural support for their ministry.
I used to watch Benny Hinn and have read his book called 'Good Morning Holy Spirit'', what opened my eyes were few things which I will list here below.

1) CBC’s The Fifth Estate challenged his claims of miraculous healings and described his lavish lifestyle of fancy cars, a 7,000-square-foot ocean-front mansion and luxury travel to five-star hotels on a private jet. You can read/watch CBC’s The Fifth Estate movie here:
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/19050/benny-hinn-10

2) He has also been criticized by a number of Christian watchdog groups for not joining the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability . The Council is the leading accreditation agency that helps Christian ministries earn the public’s trust through adherence to seven standards of accountability. It has over 1,100 members, including Billy Graham. Benny Hinn refuses to join. Although most major American churches and ministries release financial information voluntarily, there are no public records for how much the Hinn ministry makes or how that money is spent. Read the whole report here:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/main_miracles.html

I do believe in miracles because I believe in God. However, if one is drawing one's knowledge of God out of the Bible, one needs to be aware of exactly what the Bible teaches on miracles.
Those people who claim themselves to be healers, they prepare their healing meetings by creating the right atmosphere for healing by praise songs, heightening peoples’ feelings, emotions, just before healings start.

-Where do we find in the New Testament that the apostles were preparing the atmosphere for healing? In Acts chapter 3 we read that Peter and John were going up to the temple, on the steps up to the temple was a crippled man to whom Peter said, "Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk."

-Why all these so called healing meetings happen in closed stadiums, arenas and not in shopping malls for everyone to see and praise God as the apostles did?

The fact is: A thorough knowledge of the Scriptures will show that miracles are not as common in them as so many continue to believe; they 'cluster' around certain important events/ministries: Creation, the delivering of the Old Covenant at Sinai, the ministries of Elijah and Elishah and - especially - the ministry of Jesus, and then the first century apostolic ministry. If one left those vital events/ministries out of the picture, then the Bible contains almost no accounts of the miraculous! In a real sense, everything in the Old Covenant points to Jesus, but the ministries of Elijah and Elishah, and then our Lord's ministry, followed by the apostolic ministry especially point to Jesus and to salvation through Him.

It was granted to the apostles and to the '70' to perform mighty works, even to the degree that the people believed that the very shadow of Peter passing over people would cause them to be healed (Acts 5:15). The miracles of Jesus 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 disciples) were specifically required to be witnesses to the ministry of Jesus and were empowered for this purpose. They lived during the same time as Jesus and could provide direct testimony of the incredible things which they witnessed - none of us can claim that today. 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; Acts 15:12; 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.

I am not fully 'cessationist' and do not believe that miracles are now impossible, but in everything I have seen of modern-day 'healing evangelists' I remain unconvinced that any of them have been granted particular gifts of healing - this does not surprise me since I feel that the fullest manifestation of this Gift has now passed. After all, why look for what the New Testament refers to as 'the signs of an apostle' in an age in which the apostles have long since departed?
But (it could be asked), are not some sick people still healed in a sudden and possibly dynamic way? Undoubtedly, but I tend to put that down to the faith of the sick person, or to the faith of the person praying for the sick person, or to the faith of a group of people involved in such prayers - but that in itself still does not necessarily mean that the 'Gift of Healing' has - in our day - been granted to any one person or to any one ministry! If it had been, this would surely grab the attention of even this sceptical world; Just think of it: every child and adult with 'down's syndrome' dramatically healed, every blind person receiving sight, every cancer sufferer instantly healed! Every amputee finding a new arm or leg miraculously reappearing! Yes, I really mean 'every'- not just claims by a tiny minority who attend 'healing meetings.' I have heard of the desperate sadness and depression of hundreds (Did you, literally? :-) of mentally and physically handicapped persons leaving typical large charismatic healing meetings. These people had been told that they would be healed “as long as you have the faith” and since no healing occurred then people who had thought themselves to be rich in faith, leave in a doubly depressed state. Truth is: they had fallen victims to some pretty poor biblical teaching. This teaching blames the failure for God to heal on a lack of faith - but this is entirely wrong. If such people lacked faith they almost certainly would not have attended the healing meeting in the first place! No - The problem is that the theology is wrong in the first place.

There is no doubt in my mind that the overwhelming majority do not receive supernatural healing in our age simply because the extensive presence of that particular Gift only accompanied the apostolic age. The New Testament seems to frankly tell us that, so why not just believe it? Some like to only read their preferred Scriptures on the topic of healing when it has always been a cardinal rule of good biblical interpretation to take all scriptural teaching on any doctrine into account before deciding what the correct scriptural teaching really is.

So, to conclude, sincere or not this man seems quite representative of a long line of charismatic preachers who hold a view of divine physical healing which lacks Scriptural support.

In Christ,

Khoren

Baptism of the Holy Spirit

It's ironic that Christians have argued so much about the baptism of the Spirit, when the apostle Paul used it as one of his main arguments to prove that we are all united in Christ!

Some churches believe that the baptism of the Spirit is an experience different than initial salvation. They see it as a second experience that gives a person much greater spiritual power and boldness, and the ability to live a more victorious Christian life. Some groups teach that the baptism is accompanied by such signs as speaking in tongues.

The Bible does not actually use the term "baptism of the Spirit" very often. John the Baptist predicted that Jesus would come and baptize with the Spirit and with fire (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33). In Acts 1:5, Jesus recalled John's words, and told His followers that they would be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from then. The spectacular events of the day of Pentecost ten days later seem to be the obvious fulfillment of His words (see Acts 2). The only other mention in Acts (11:16) refers back to Pentecost, explaining that Cornelius, the first Gentile convert, had an experience very similar to the Pentecost manifestations.

While these passages make it clear that the believers in Acts 2 experienced a baptism of the Spirit, we do not find a clear explanation of what that baptism means. Nor do we know whether there were other works of the Spirit that were happening at the same time.

The clearest explanation of the baptism appears in I Corinthians 12:13. Paul is dealing with a situation where the Corinthian church was splitting into factions over the issue of spiritual gifts. Overemphasis on certain spectacular gifts had led to the attitude that some people had the most desirable gifts, while others were deficient. In response, Paul exclaims, "We're all one! Don't divide up into cliques!" And to prove his point, he explains, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit" (I Corinthians 12:13).

His main point? All believers share the reality of being baptized by the Spirit.

What does it do? It makes us part of the body of Christ, the Church.

When did it happen? If every believer has been baptized in the Spirit, then it must happen at the moment you accept Christ and become a Christian.

Great Christians down through the years have often experienced dramatic encounters with God after salvation. There is no reason to deny that this is a genuine way that God works with His people. It is also true that equally devout, effective Christians have gone through life without such a "second work" of grace.

We may use whatever words we want to describe our experiences with God. But it is most accurate to say that the Bible uses "baptism of the Spirit" to refer to one of the wonderful things that God does for us the instant we trust Christ and enter His family!

Author: Dr. John Bechtle.

					'

"Women pastors / preachers? What does the Bible say about women in ministry?"

www.GotQuestions.org

Question: "Women pastors / preachers? What does the Bible say about women in ministry?"

Answer: There is perhaps not a more debated issue in the church today than the issue of women serving as pastors / preachers in ministry. As a result, it is very important to not view this issue as men versus women. There are women who believe that women should not serve as pastors and that the Bible places restrictions on the ministry of women - and there are men who believe that women can serve as preachers and that there are no restrictions on women in ministry. This is not an issue of chauvinism or discrimination. It is an issue of Biblical interpretation.

1 Timothy 2:11-12 proclaims, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” In the church, God assigns different roles to men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created (1 Timothy 2:13) and the way in which sin entered the world (2 Timothy 2:14). God, through the Apostle Paul’s writing, restricts women from serving in roles of spiritual teaching authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors, which definitely includes preaching to, teaching, and having spiritual authority over men.

There are many "objections" to this view of women in ministry / women pastors. A common one is that Paul restricts women from teaching because in the first century, women were typically uneducated. However, 1 Timothy 2:11-14 nowhere mentions educational status. If education was a qualification for ministry, the majority of Jesus' disciples likely would not have been qualified. A second common objection is that Paul only restricted the Ephesian women from teaching (1 Timothy was written to Timothy, who was the pastor of the church in Ephesus). The city of Ephesus was known for its temple to Artemis, a false Greek / Roman goddess. Women were the authority in the worship of Artemis. However, the book of 1 Timothy nowhere mentions Artemis, nor does Paul mention Artemis worship as a reason for the restrictions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

A third common objection is that Paul is only referring to husbands and wives, not men and women in general. The Greek words in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 could refer to husbands and wives. However, the basic meaning of the words are men and women. Further, the same Greek words are used in verses 8-10. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger and disputing (verse 8)? Are only wives to dress modestly, have good deeds, and worship God (verses 9-10)? Of course not. Verses 8-10 clearly refer to men and women in general, not only husbands and wives. There is nothing in the context that would indicate a switch to husbands and wives in verses 11-14.

Yet another frequent objection to this interpretation of women pastors / preachers is in relation to Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Priscilla, Phoebe, etc. - women who held positions of leadership in the Bible. This objection fails to note some significant factors. In relation to Deborah, she was the only female judge amongst 13 male judges. In relation to Huldah, she was the only female prophet amongst dozens of male prophets mentioned in the Bible. Miriam's only connection to leadership was due to her being the sister of Moses and Aaron. The two most prominent women in the times of the Kings were Athaliah and Jezebel - hardly examples of godly female leadership.

In the Book of Acts, chapter 18, Priscilla and Aquila are presented as faithful ministers for Christ. Priscilla's name is mentioned first, likely indicating that she was more "prominent" in ministry than her husband. However, Priscilla is nowhere described as participating in a ministry activity that is in contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:11-14. Priscilla and Aquila brought Apollos into their home and they both discipled him, explaining the Word of God to him more accurately (Acts 18:26).

In Romans 16:1, even if Phoebe is considered a "deaconess" instead of a "servant" - that does not indicate that Phoebe was a teacher in the church. "Able to teach" is given as a qualification for elders, but not deacons (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). Elders / bishops / deacons are described as "husband of one wife," "a man whose children believe," and "men worthy of respect." In addition, in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9, masculine pronouns are used exclusively to refer to elders / bishops / deacons.

The structure of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 makes the "reason" perfectly clear. Verse 13 begins with "for" and gives the "cause" of what Paul stated in verses 11-12. Why should women not teach or have authority over men? Because - "Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived." That is the reason. God created Adam first and then created Eve to be a "helper" for Adam. This order of Creation has universal application to humanity in the family (Ephesians 5:22-33) and the church. The fact that Eve was deceived is also given as a reason for women not serving as pastors or having spiritual authority over men. This leads some to believe that women should not teach because they are more easily deceived. That concept is debatable...but if women are more easily deceived, why should they be allowed to teach children (who are easily deceived) and other women (who are supposedly more easily deceived)? That is not what the text says. Women are not to teach or have spiritual authority over men because Eve was deceived. As a result, God has given men the primary teaching authority in the church.

Women excel in gifts of hospitality, mercy, teaching and helps. Much of the ministry of the church depends on women. Women in the church are not restricted to public praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5), only to having spiritual teaching authority over men. The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians chapter 12). Women, just as much as men, are called to minister to others, to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), and to proclaim the Gospel to the lost (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15).

God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers, or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is not the case). It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership – in their lives and through their words. Women are to take a less authoritative role. Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children. The only activity women are restricted from is teaching or having spiritual authority over men. This logically would include women serving as pastors / preachers. This does not make women less important, by any means, but rather gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with how God has gifted them.



© Copyright 2002-2007 Got Questions Ministries.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Printer/women-pastors-PF.html

"I feel led.... God Told Me...."

"I feel led.... God Told Me...."

http://reformationinprogress.blogspot.com/2007/05/i-feel-led-god-told-me.html

One of those issues that has gotten under my skin for a long time is the issue that I call the "God told me" syndrome. People who suffer from this problem often experience symptoms such as, but not limited to:

* Weak theology
* Self justification of sin
* Gratification of the flesh
* A rejection of Sola Scriptura and the Sufficiency of Scripture

I myself, a former charismatic, have suffered from this condition. Yes it's true, there was a time when I would often say things like, "God told me..." or "God led me to do this" or "I think God is leading me to..." I would use these catch phrases to justify something I wanted to do. I sometimes genuinely convinced myself that God had really said something to me, but Got frustrated when it did not happen. I've had other experiences where friends would tell me that God told them something. I had a girlfriend in High school break up with me because God told her to. I had a friend that told me God told him that I shouldn't get married to the person who is now my wife of almost 4 years (whom I love and God has blessed our marriage). I couldn't figure out why God would tell my friend that, and not me. Maybe I wasn't listening, or maybe I was right that my friend just wasn't happy with the relationship I had with my fiance' that moved to quick for most people. (I asked Susan to marry me one day less than a month after meeting her.) So I have been guilty of this disease and I have suffered from the symptoms of others as well. But let me ask you this, when can we actually say that God told us something?

I submit to you that the only time we can confidently say "God told me..." is when we can follow it up with something like "...In John chapter 10..." After all, the only way we can know for sure the will of God is through his word. 2 Timothy 3 :17 tells us that Scripture makes the man of God "...competent, equipped for every good work."
Therefore when we come to a difficult decision or we are needing some guidance on any given issue, where should we turn? Do we stop and listen to that inner voice? No. We go to the Scripture that is sufficient to make us competent, and equipped for every good work.

When a person says that God told them something, my response is always, "What did God sound like? I mean if you heard from God, tell me what He sounds like, I'm eager to know!" Of course, that's not what they meant. They did not hear the audible voice of God. So then they might say, "Well, I feel God leading me to do this." Then of course I can't help but ask, "Really? How does it feel when God leads you?" About that time they are tired of my questions.

But here is the point, what do people mean when they say "God told me..." or "God is leading me..."? How does God do this to them? They just feel it in their heart? But Jeremiah 17:9 says,

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?"

The problem here is that we are sinners. We have been seriously marred by sin. And even if you are a new creation in Christ, the Scripture tells us that we will struggle to defeat the flesh (our sinful old nature) for the rest of our earthly existence. So can we trust our feelings? Absolutely not. Our feeling are subjective. Think, right now as you are reading this, how many ungodly thoughts and feeling have you had this month, this week, today? If you're honest you will say, "I've had a whole lot." I know I have. Why? Because I'm a jacked up sinner in need of God's grace every moment I draw another breath.

So when I have a decision that needs made, or I need guidance, what do I need to do? I need to pray and go to the word of God. It is a dangerous thing that is being taught that people should merely pray, ask God for answers and sit quietly and listen for his voice. That is not how God tells us He operates. Who knows what you might here? You might hear your own desires saying "Yeah, do this" or perhaps a demon might speak to you and you think it's God! How do you know? What does God sound like?

I'm certainly this is where someone will say to me, "But the book of James tells us that 'if anyone of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given to him.'" (James 1:5) Well, yes it does. But it says wisdom and not knowledge. Wisdom, biblically speaking, is the application of knowledge. So Scripture is not saying, if you don't know something, ask God to tell you, rather, if you know the truth but don't know how to apply it, ask God for wisdom in how to do so.

How then do we let God lead us? Obviously it is something we want to do. We must let God take control. Take Ephesians 5:17-21 for instance:

"17Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, 19addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, 20giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ."

Being filled with the Spirit is contrasted with being filled with too much wine. Wine controls in a negative way when a person become drunk, but the Spirit controls in a good way when people immerse themselves in Him. We are to give ourselves to the worship of God, the study of the Scripture, the fellowship of other believers, and other things that we are told bring glory to God. This is how we give control to the Spirit and let Him lead us, by doing what He tells us to do, being obedient to the word of God.

When Jesus talks about the coming of the Holy Spirit he tells His disciples that the Spirit will teach them all things and bring to remembrance the things that Jesus taught. This is how God speaks to us today also. As we worship God, pray to Him for guidance and wisdom, and seek Him in the Scriptures, the Spirit will bring to remembrance the things God has told us, in His word.

When we make decision about buying a home or a car, God might remind us about the parable of the talents and being a good steward with the money He gives us. We pray and think and then make a decision that we believe most honors the Lord with what He has given us. This doesn't make our decision inerrant, but it's a much better approach then just doing what we want and saying "God told me." The same is true for any circumstance. Dating for instance. Should I date this person or not. Well the Bible tells us to be evenly yoked, is she a Christian? Does she hold my conviction about the Bible and things that matter to God? Seek the word of God in Scripture, pray about it and make the decision that you think honors God.

Scripture alone is our authority that equips us for every good work. Trust God's word, not inner voices and urges, you do not know who those voices belong to.

Hebrews 1:1-2

"1Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world."

We have the word of Christ in written form. You need seek nothing else for answers. Ask God for wisdom as you read His truth that is already revealed.

Here is a link on this same issue that I appreciated by Pastor Steve Cornell:
http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2007/05/26/do-inner-promptings-reveal-gods-will/

You're probably a cessationist, too

You're probably a cessationist, too

http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.com/2006/01/youre-probably-cessationist-too.html

If you believe any of the miraculous spiritual gifts were operative in the apostolic era only, and that some or all of those gifts gradually ceased before the end of the first century, you are a cessationist.

If you believe all the spiritual gifts described in the New Testament have continued unabated, unchanged, and unaltered since the initial outpouring of tongues at Pentecost, you are a continuationist.

It's pretty hard to find a real continuationist. Absolute non-cessationists exist only at the bizarre fringe of the charismatic movement. They are the sort of people who like to declare one another "apostles," claim (and inevitably abuse) all the apostolic prerogatives, sometimes invent fanciful stories about people raised from the dead, and twist and corrupt virtually every category of doctrine related to the gospel, the atonement, or Christian discipleship and self-denial.

But evangelical charismatics (especially the Reformed variety) do not really believe there are apostles today who have the same authority as the Apostles in the early church. Some may use the term apostle, but they invariably insist that the apostleship they recognize today is a lesser kind of apostleship than the office and gift that belonged to the apostles in the first century.

Now, think through the implications of that position: By arguing for a lesser kind of apostleship, they are actually conceding that the authentic, original New Testament gift of apostleship (Ephesians 4:11) has ceased. They have in effect embraced a kind of cessationism themselves.

Note: There is no more or less biblical warrant for this view than for any other kind of cessationism.

Nonetheless, every true evangelical holds to some form of cessationism. We all believe that the canon of Scripture is closed, right? We do not believe we should be seeking to add new inspired material to the New Testament canon. We hold to the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3)—delivered in the person of Christ, and through the teaching of His apostles, and inscripturated in the New Testament. We believe Scripture as we have it is complete. And those who do not believe that are not really evangelicals. They are cultists and false teachers, who would add to the Word of God.

But notice this: if you acknowledge that the canon is closed and the gift of apostleship has ceased, you have already conceded the heart of the cessationist argument.

That's not all, though. Most leading "Reformed charismatics" go even further than that. They freely admit that all the charismatic gifts in operation today are of a lesser quality than the gifts we read about in the New Testament.

For example, in Wayne Grudem's book The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Wheaton: Crossway, 1988)—probably the single most important and influential work written to defend modern prophecy—Grudem writes that "no responsible charismatic holds" the view that prophecy today is infallible and inerrant revelation from God (p. 111). He says charismatics are arguing for a "lesser kind of prophecy" (112), which is not on the same level as the inspired prophecies of the Old Testament prophets or the New Testament apostles—and which may even be (and very often is) fallible.

Grudem writes,

there is almost uniform testimony from all sections of the charismatic movement that [today's] prophecy is impure, and will contain elements which are not to be obeyed or trusted.


Jack Deere, former Dallas Seminary prof-turned charismatic advocate, likewise admits in his book Surprised by the Power of the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), that he has not seen anyone today performing miracles or possessing gifts of the same quality as the signs and wonders of the apostolic era. In fact, Deere argues vehemently throughout his book that modern charismatics do not even claim to have apostolic-quality gifts and miracle-working abilities. One of Deere's main lines of defense against critics of the charismatic movement is his insistence that modern charismatic gifts are actually lesser gifts than those available in the apostolic era, and therefore, he suggests, they should not be held to apostolic standards.

Again, consider the implications of that claim: Deere and Grudem have, in effect, conceded the entire cessationist argument. They have admitted that they are themselves cessationists of sorts. They believe that the true apostolic gifts and miracles have ceased, and they are admitting that what they are claiming today is not the same as the charismata described in the New Testament.

In other words, modern charismatics have already adopted a cessationist position. When pressed on the issue, all honest charismatics are forced to admit that the "gifts" they receive today are of lesser quality than those of the apostolic era.

Contemporary tongues-speakers do not speak in understandable or translatable dialects, the way the apostles and their followers did at Pentecost. Charismatics who minister on the foreign mission-field are not typically able to preach the gospel miraculously in the tongues of their hearers. Charismatic missionaries have to go to language school like everyone else.

If all sides already acknowledge that there are no modern workers of signs and wonders who can really duplicate apostolic power, then we have no actual argument about the principle of cessationism, and therefore all the frantic demands for biblical and exegetical support for cessationism are superfluous. The real gist of our disagreement boils down only to a question of degree.

In a very helpful book, Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996), Thomas Edgar writes,

The charismatic movement gained credence and initial acceptance by claiming their gifts were the same as those in Acts. For most people this is why they are credible today. Yet now one of their primary defenses is the claim that [the gifts] are not the same [as those in the New Testament.] Faced with the facts, they have had to revoke the very foundation of their original reason for existence. (p. 32)


As for biblical arguments, in Scripture itself, there is ample evidence that miracles were extraordinary, rare events, usually associated in some significant way with people who spoke inspired and infallible utterances. It is obvious from the biblical narrative that miracles were declining in frequency even before the apostolic era drew to a close. Scripture says the miracles were apostolic signs (2 Corinthians 12:12), and therefore by definition they pertained specifically and uniquely to the apostolic era.

Phil Johnson

Do inner promptings reveal God’s will?

Do inner promptings reveal God’s will?

http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2007/05/26/do-inner-promptings-reveal-gods-will/

Posted on May 26th, 2007.

Should we appeal to inner promptings or feelings to lead us into God’s will? Have you ever heard someone profess to feel God’s leading toward something that you doubted to be His will? I have repeatedly cautioned people against appealing to inner promptings as indicators of God’s will. Many times, these inner impressions are assigned to the work of the Holy Spirit. “I feel led by the Spirit…,” someone will say. Yet how can we tell whether impressions are from God or from another source?

“This is a critical question.” wrote Garry Friesen, ”For impressions could be produced by any number of sources: God, Satan, an angel, a demon, human emotions (such as fear or ecstasy), hormonal imbalance, insomnia, medication, or an upset stomach. Sinful impressions (temptations) may be exposed for what they are by the Spirit-sensitized conscience and the Word of God. But beyond that, one encounters a subjective quagmire or uncertainty. For in nonmoral areas, Scripture gives no guidelines for distinguishing the voice of the Spirit from the voice of the self or any other potential `voice’. And experience offers no reliable means of identification either (which is why the question comes up in the first place). Tremendous frustration has been experienced by sincere Christians who have earnestly but fruitlessly sought to decipher the code of the inward witness. Impressions are real; believers experience them. But impressions are not authoritative. Impressions are impressions. Call them `spiritual’ or attribute them to the Holy Spirit, and they are still the same just impressions. Impressions by any other name confuse the issue and confound the believer in the process of decision making.” (Garry Friesen, Decision Making and the Will of God, pp. 130-131.)

Does Romans 8:14 teach us to look to inner promptings from the Spirit for guidance? This verse says, “Those who are led by the Spirit are the sons of God.” In context, the reference to being “led by the Spirit” does not refer to inner “voices” or any such experience, but to mortifying known sin and not living after the flesh!

“The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit will lead us, but we are never told He will do this by some inner urge. It is interesting in this connection that when Jesus told His disciples that He would send the Holy Spirit and that the Spirit would lead them into all truth, He said, `He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you’ (John 14:26). Here the leading is bringing to mind Jesus’ statements. The mind of each disciple is the instrument the Spirit will use, not some non-rational, mystical factor.” (Arthur L. Johnson, Faith Misguided: Exposing the Dangers of Mysticism.)

Many respected Bible teachers offer strong warnings about following inner impressions. Consider some of their statements:

“The idea of a life in which the inward voice of the Spirit decides and directs everything sounds most attractive, for it seems to exalt the Spirit’s ministry and to promise the closest intimacy with God; but in practice this quest for super-spirituality leads only to frantic bewilderment or lunacy. Yet the true way to honor the Holy Spirit as our guide is to honor the Holy Scriptures through which He guides us. The fundamental guidance which God gives to shape our lives the instilling, that is, of the basic convictions, attitudes, ideals and value judgments, in terms of which we are to live is not a matter of inward promptings apart from the Word but of the pressure on our consciences of the portrayal of God’s character and will in the Word which the Spirit enlightens us to understand and apply to ourselves.” (J.I. Packer, Knowing God, p. 235.)

“Most of the biblical passages that deal with the will of God focus on holiness, living in harmony with one’s family, obeying God and the like. The kind of determining of God’s will that utterly depends on voices, internal promptings, `burdens’, and the like can indeed prove far too subjective, especially when such experiences are invested with an authority that challenges the criteria of Scripture or the consensus wisdom of mature, spiritually-minded Christians.” (D.A. Carson, Letters Along the Way, pp. 132.)

“Scripture never commands us to tune into any inner voice. We’re commanded to study and meditate on Scripture (Joshua 1:8; Ps. 1:1-2). We’re instructed to cultivate wisdom and discernment (Prov. 4:5-8). We’re told to walk wisely and make the most of our time (Eph. 5:15-16). We’re ordered to be obedient to God’s commands (Deut. 28:1-2; Jn. 15:14). But we are never encouraged to listen for inner promptings. On the contrary, we are warned that our hearts are so deceitful and desperately wicked that we cannot understand them (Jer. 17:9). Surely this should make us very reluctant to heed promptings and messages that arise from within ourselves. Those willing to heed inner voices and mental impressions may be listening to the lies of a deceitful heart, the fantasies of an overactive imagination, or even the voice of a demon. Once objective criteria are cast aside, there is no way to know the difference between truth and falsehood. Those who follow subjective impressions are by definition undiscerning.” (John F. MacArthur, Jr. Reckless Faith, pp. 189-193.)

Paul Little, in his helpful pamphlet entitled, “Affirming The Will Of God,” offered a relevant illustration. “Several years ago I knew a girl who had signed a contract to teach. In August, she received another offer from a school closer to where she wanted to live. So she broke the original contract. Had she acted on the biblical principle in Psalm 15:4, where God says that He is pleased with a person who swears to his own hurt and does not change, she would not have done that. The department chairman who told me about the Christian girl’s action said her justification was `I have a peace about it,’ and he commented rather sardonically, `Isn’t that lovely? She’s got the peace and I’ve got the pieces.’

I believe that girl missed the will of God. She violated a principle which, if she had been alert and had applied it to her situation, would have given her clear guidance in this specific detail of her life. God guides, then, through His Word and its principles.“This is one of the most neglected dimensions of guidance today. It sounds terribly spiritual to say `God led me,’ but I am always suspicious of a person who implies that he has a personal pipeline to God. When no one else senses that what the person suggests is the will of God, then we had better be careful. God has been blamed for the most outlandish things by people who have confused their own inverted pride with God’s will. Occasionally I hear of a guy who, in the name of spiritual guidance, rushes up to a girl and says, `Susie, God has told me you’re to marry me.’ I have news for him. If that is the will of God, then Susie is going to get the message too. If she does not, somebody’s radar is jammed, and it’s not hard to tell whose.”

The collective wisdom of these teachers should caution believers against allowing inner impressions to lead them as a final voice from God. The potential for subjective, self-serving, misguided or even Satanic influences is strong.

In summary, God works in the whole person: intellect, emotion and will. God clearly uses conscience to restrain and protect us. But conscience like inner urges must be yielded to the objective truth of Scripture. We cannot debate another person’s feelings or inner impressions, but we can evaluate those impressions based on objective considerations. Be a good (and obedient) student of Scripture rather than your feelings and you will flourish in God’s will (Deuteronomy 8:3-5; Psalm1; 19:7-11; 119; II Timothy 3:16-17).

Pastor Steve Cornell

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