Cessationism: Tongues, Prophecy, and the Gift of Miracles Have Ceased.

Jason0047 said:

To all:
My encouragement to all is to check everything with the Word of God and do not be so eager for an experience, but study and pray and ask the Lord for the understanding on this topic before diving in first.

Click to expand...

In both OT and NT, evangelism is prophetic utterance. For example the OT prophet Jonah preached to Nineveh, and they repented. The OT-and-NT prophet John the Baptist was both an evangelist and a prophet in the magnitude of Elijah. Why is prophecy the perfect form of evangelism? Here's two logical reasons.

(1) With 100 billion souls at stake, evangelism must be done correctly (infallibly).
(2) Prophetic utterance CONVICTS (convinces) the audience. First, the Spirit provides feelings of 100% certainty to the prophet as to convict/convince him or her. Then when he speaks, the Spirit ALSO convicts/convinces the audience at 100% certainty. That's effective - it explains how Paul managed - on foot - to be more effective than today's televangelists.

In my next post, we'll look at two biblical statements proving that the NT defines evangelism as prophecy. Moreover, for scholarly books on this topic, see:
(1) Stronstad, The Prophethood of all Believers.
(2) Shelton, Mighty in Word and Deed: The Role of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts

(I'm swamped with work on the job - it's really difficult to keep up with this thread)

Jason0047 said:

You should watch this video series by Pilgrim's Media:

He is a lot more kind and respectful in the way that he speaks involving the topic of Cessationism. He also brings up some really good points, too.

Note: Please watch all the parts of this video series.

Click to expand...

He didn't say much.
I've already addressed most of his comments.

All he brought up was that 1 Cor. 14 was not meant for us today when it says to seek prophecy. I'll repeat what I said and add to it.

Prophecy is also personal foretelling revelation,

Acts 21:
10 And as we stayed many days, a certain prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 When he had come to us, he took Paul’s belt, bound his own hands and feet, and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this belt, and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’” 12 Now when we heard these things, both we and those from that place pleaded with him not to go up to Jerusalem.

I, myself, did hear a foretelling prophecy that came true exactly on the day He said. Not only that but it was a miracle on par with Jesus turning water into wine so it was not a new miracle not in scripture that you might object to. Though I let God be God and do not limit Him to just the examples in Scripture, which were never to be meant to be exhaustive.

John 21:25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

Prophecy is also supernatural understanding of Scripture from the Spirit - Peter in Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. 15 For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16 But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel..."

Jason0047 said:

In 1948, a “revival” broke out in Saskatchewan, Canada, and the teachings of the Latter Rain movement were clarified. Those involved in the revival were convinced that they were on the verge of a new era, one in which the Holy Spirit would demonstrate His power in a greater way than the world had ever seen. Not even the age of the apostles, they said, had witnessed such a movement of the Holy Spirit.

Latter Rain teaching is characterized by a highly typological hermeneutic. That is, the Bible is interpreted in a symbolic, extremely stylized manner. An emphasis is placed on extra-biblical revelation, such as personal prophecies, experiences, and directives straight from God. Latter Rain doctrine includes the following beliefs:

- God has restored all the offices of ministry to the Church, including apostle and prophet

- divine healing can be administered through the laying on of hands

- women have a full and equal ministry role in the Church

- denominational lines will be destroyed, and the Church will unify in the last days

- the “latter rain” will bring God’s work to completion; the Church will be victorious over the world and usher in Christ’s kingdom

Many “apostles” in the Latter Rain Movement also teach the doctrine of “the manifest sons of God.” This is a heretical doctrine which says that the Church will give rise to a special group of “overcomers” who will receive spiritual bodies, becoming immortal.

It is important to note that the Assemblies of God deemed the Latter Rain Movement to contain heresy from the very beginning. On April 20, 1949, the Assemblies of God officially denounced Latter Rain teaching, nearly splitting the denomination in the process. Other established Pentecostal groups have passed similar resolutions.

Today, the term “latter rain” is rarely used, but the theology of Latter Rain continues to exert an influence. Most branches of the Charismatic Movement adhere to Latter Rain teaching. Modern movements such as the Brownsville/Pensacola Revival, the Toronto Blessing, and the “holy laughter” phenomenon are a direct result of Latter Rain theology.

Source:
What is the Latter Rain Movement?

Click to expand...

Seeing as I'm not a denominationalist, I do not coin phrases such as “the manifest sons of God.” Nor do I study movements. I don't really know what they meant. I only know what I mean when I say I am not a sinner, I'm a daughter of God, because it is what Jesus said in John 8:34-36. That is also true in 1 John 3:9 because the seed of the Father is in me. I do not commit willful sin, and haven't since 1977.

Also, I have assurance, because 1 John 3:21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God. 22 And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight.

Also 1 John 5:14 Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him.

Also John 15:7 If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you.

Seeing as my prayer life is 100% fruitful, I am assured that what I do is pleasing in His sight. If my speaking in tongues was of the devil, do you think my prayers would not be answered.

But thank you for this little background. As for "holy laughter" I am not one to limit God, though I've never experienced it. But I have heard reports that many healings took place in meetings where holy laughter broke out. Therefore, seeing as I know that God hates scoffers, I will not take part in this type of discussion, as people who do may just be fighting God. I have an extremely healthy fear of the Lord.

Now if it was casting spells, I would have a problem with that. LOL

Jason0047 said:

A person can say the same thing about animal sacrifices in Matthew 5:24. Animal sacrifice does not apply today and yet the other commands of Jesus at the “Sermon on the Mount” do apply today under the NT.

Click to expand...

Animal sacrifice was part of the old COVENANT, and did not end until Jesus died. That is covenant theology, so does not apply to the new covenant. Learn covenant theology and you won't be a cessationist any longer, my friend.

Jason0047 said:

Church history is not the Word of God.

Click to expand...

No one said that it is. But is it history?

Jason0047 said:

To all:
My encouragement to all is to check everything with the Word of God and do not be so eager for an experience, but study and pray and ask the Lord for the understanding on this topic before diving in first.

Click to expand...

Genuine evangelism is prophetic utterance. Jesus stated:

"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8).

What does a witness do? In large part, he testifies. He SPEAKS. Simple question. Were the disciples mute up to this point? I mean, here He claims to give them power to speak!!!! Wow. Gee thanks God, but I thought they already had that capability?


In a nutshell, the text doesn't even make sense unless what He had in mind was Spirit-inspired speech - prophetic utterance - "It will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of my Father speaking through you."

Now let's look at the FULFILLMENT OF Acts 1:8. Was it in fact inspired speech, as predicted? Was it indeed prophetic utterance?

When the Spirit fell, the 120 began speaking Spirit-inspired utterances in other languages. Peter called it the fulfillment of Joel's promise, "I shall pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and they SHALL prophesy." Notice that Joel did NOT say, 'And they just MIGHT prophesy." No. Those who partake of THIS kind of outpouring SHALL prophesy. Sorry but if you haven't prophesied (I for one certainly haven't) you still haven't tasted of the type of Spirit-baptism thematic to Acts.

Moreover, Acts is encharged with LAYING DOWN A PARADIGM OF EVANGELISM FOR ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS. The cruciality of Pentecost, then, is that God - unless He is an incompetent instructor - HAD to be at pains to make Pentecost - as a sort of birthday for the modern church age - the DEFINITIVE EXAMPLE of evangelism for all generations.

P.S. Sorry to disappoint my Pentecostal brethren, but I don't see the gift of tongues in Acts. Just the gift of prophecy. For two reasons:
(1) The gift of tongues as defined in 1Cor 14 requires the gift of interpretation (at least for public orations). No interpreter is present in Acts.
(2) Luke wrote in the tradition of the biblical historians - a tradition which emphasized prophets, not the gift of tongues. If Luke - suddenly out of the blue - were to radically spring upon us a heretofore undocumented gift, we'd expect a chapter EXPLAINING and DEFINING it for us. Otherwise his readers would feel totally lost. Therefore tongues is NOT what he had in mind. Paul, on the other hand, provides us one whole chapter on this previously undocumented gift, as one would expect, so his readers aren't totally lost.

In the next post, I'll show the 2nd biblical proof that evangelism is prophecy.

JAL said:

Genuine evangelism is prophetic utterance. Jesus stated:

"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8).

What does a witness do? In large part, he testifies. He SPEAKS. Simple question. Were the disciples mute up to this point? I mean, here He claims to give them power to speak!!!! Wow. Gee thanks God, but I thought they already had that capability?


In a nutshell, the text doesn't even make sense unless what He had in mind was Spirit-inspired speech - prophetic utterance - "It will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of my Father speaking through you."

Now let's look at the FULFILLMENT OF Acts 1:8. Was it in fact inspired speech, as predicted? Was it indeed prophetic utterance?

When the Spirit fell, the 120 began speaking Spirit-inspired utterances in other languages. Peter called it the fulfillment of Joel's promise, "I shall pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and they SHALL prophesy." Notice that Joel did NOT say, 'And they just MIGHT prophesy." No. Those who partake of THIS kind of outpouring SHALL prophesy. Sorry but if you haven't prophesied (I for one certainly haven't) you still haven't tasted of the type of Spirit-baptism thematic to Acts.

Moreover, Acts is encharged with LAYING DOWN A PARADIGM OF EVANGELISM FOR ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS. The cruciality of Pentecost, then, is that God - unless He is an incompetent instructor - HAD to be at pains to make Pentecost - as a sort of birthday for the modern church age - the DEFINITIVE EXAMPLE of evangelism for all generations.

P.S. Sorry to disappoint my Pentecostal brethren, but I don't see the gift of tongues in Acts. Just the gift of prophecy. For two reasons:
(1) The gift of tongues as defined in 1Cor 14 requires the gift of interpretation (at least for public orations). No interpreter is present in Acts.
(2) Luke wrote in the tradition of the biblical historians - a tradition which emphasized prophets, not the gift of tongues. If Luke - suddenly out of the blue - were to radically spring upon us a heretofore undocumented gift, we'd expect a chapter EXPLAINING and DEFINING it for us. Otherwise his readers would feel totally lost. Therefore tongues is NOT what he had in mind. Paul, on the other hand, provides us one whole chapter on this previously undocumented gift, as one would expect, so his readers aren't totally lost.

In the next post, I'll show the 2nd biblical proof that evangelism is prophecy.

Click to expand...

JAL said:

(1) The gift of tongues as defined in 1Cor 14 requires the gift of interpretation (at least for public orations). No interpreter is present in Acts.

Click to expand...

If I may interject. What happened IS speaking in tongues as they were all heard magnifying God.

1. This is not the gift of tongues, but the sign of tongues. Even though our prayer language spoken of in Mark 16:16-18 does not require interpretation, as the 1 Corinthians 12, gift of diverse kinds of tongues must, interpretation was manifested on the Day of Pentecost. Read it again and zero in on the word "heard." Each Jew of different languages hear THEM (all of them) speak in his language. God sovereignly gave the devout Jews the gift of interpretation of tongues. God is not the author of confusion, nor does He contradict His own Word. It was impossible that the devout Jews heard the interpretation naturally according to 1 Corinthians 14:2, as tongues is not spoken to man, but to God. Only supernaturally are tongues understood. Acts 2 use of the word "devout" means they were already God's and eligible for this supernatural gift. The mockers were not. This is why we should never mock what God may be doing.

2. There are 2 different manifestations of tongues.

Mark 16 - sign - prayer and praise TO God. Does not require interpretation, but Paul advises us to seek that gift.

1 Cor. 12 - gift - messages FROM God (1 Corinthians 14:6) that require the supernatural gift of interpretation.

The prophetic utterance was spoken by Peter when he supernaturally knew what was happening was prophesied in Joel 2.

JAL said:

Genuine evangelism is prophetic utterance. Jesus stated:

"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8).

What does a witness do? In large part, he testifies. He SPEAKS. Simple question. Were the disciples mute up to this point? I mean, here He claims to give them power to speak!!!! Wow. Gee thanks God, but I thought they already had that capability?


In a nutshell, the text doesn't even make sense unless what He had in mind was Spirit-inspired speech - prophetic utterance - "It will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of my Father speaking through you."

Now let's look at the FULFILLMENT OF Acts 1:8. Was it in fact inspired speech, as predicted? Was it indeed prophetic utterance?

When the Spirit fell, the 120 began speaking Spirit-inspired utterances in other languages. Peter called it the fulfillment of Joel's promise, "I shall pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and they SHALL prophesy." Notice that Joel did NOT say, 'And they just MIGHT prophesy." No. Those who partake of THIS kind of outpouring SHALL prophesy. Sorry but if you haven't prophesied (I for one certainly haven't) you still haven't tasted of the type of Spirit-baptism thematic to Acts.

Moreover, Acts is encharged with LAYING DOWN A PARADIGM OF EVANGELISM FOR ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS. The cruciality of Pentecost, then, is that God - unless He is an incompetent instructor - HAD to be at pains to make Pentecost - as a sort of birthday for the modern church age - the DEFINITIVE EXAMPLE of evangelism for all generations.

P.S. Sorry to disappoint my Pentecostal brethren, but I don't see the gift of tongues in Acts. Just the gift of prophecy. For two reasons:
(1) The gift of tongues as defined in 1Cor 14 requires the gift of interpretation (at least for public orations). No interpreter is present in Acts.
(2) Luke wrote in the tradition of the biblical historians - a tradition which emphasized prophets, not the gift of tongues. If Luke - suddenly out of the blue - were to radically spring upon us a heretofore undocumented gift, we'd expect a chapter EXPLAINING and DEFINING it for us. Otherwise his readers would feel totally lost. Therefore tongues is NOT what he had in mind. Paul, on the other hand, provides us one whole chapter on this previously undocumented gift, as one would expect, so his readers aren't totally lost.

In the next post, I'll show the 2nd biblical proof that evangelism is prophecy.

Click to expand...

.

Jason0047 said:

To all:
My encouragement to all is to check everything with the Word of God and do not be so eager for an experience, but study and pray and ask the Lord for the understanding on this topic before diving in first.

Click to expand...

The OT prophet was sometimes called a seer - a see-er - meaning one who sees visions. "Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions,your old men will dream dreams." Please bear this in mind, during this 2nd proof that evangelism is prophetic ministry. Actually it's just a second nuance of the same verse (Acts 1:8):

"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8).

What's a witness? The Greek word there in Acts 1:8 occurs some 120 times in the NT. By and large, it regularly carries the same meaning that we ascribe to "witness" in English today.

A witness – a witness in court for example - is someone who has seen and heard a reality and then testifies (“witnesses”) about it. He bears witness to what is seen and heard. An unacceptable witness is one too far distanced from the event to have witnessed it with precision-like pinpoint accuracy. An excellent witness, therefore, is one who beheld it in face-to-face proximity. Now what precisely is Acts wanting men to witness about? Christ. “Ye shall be my witnesses” (Acts 1:8). They are witnesses of Christ! Therefore, if the risen Christ has never appeared to a person face to face, he or she is not a witness - not a witness of Christ, and certainly not a witness of His resurrection.

Jesus could have selected a MULTITUDE of alternative terms to refer to evangelism. Instead, He chose the term "witness". He chose to define the evangelist as someone who has seen and heard Him, and then bears witness to others of what was seen and heard. Still not convinced? Take a hard look at Acts 22:14-15 where God's plan for Paul was that he:

“see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be a witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard” (22:14-15, KJV).

And again, “I have appeared [visibly and audibly] unto thee [Paul] for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in which I will [later] appear unto thee” (26:16, KJV).

Clearly, this is prophetic ministry - this is the work of a 'seer' as noted above. And such nuances resonate fairly strong in other verses of Acts. For example we are told that all the OT prophets bore witness to Christ (Acts 10:43).Here's a good list of verses alluding to witnesses of His resurrection and so forth (Lk 1:2; Acts 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 4:33; 5:32; 10:39, 40-41; 13:31; 14:3; 22:18; 23:11; 26:16). Such verses typically refer to people who eye-witnessed the risen Christ. Commenting on Acts 2:32, for example, Robertson's Word Pictures states: "Peter claims the whole 120 as personal witnesses to the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead and they are all present as Peter calls them to witness on the point. In Galilee over 500 had seen the Risen Christ at one time (1Co 15:6)."

Similar comments can be found at Adam Clarke's commentary on Acts 2:32, as well as Albert Barnes' Notes, and John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible.

And we also find some corroboration in other books of the Bible. Scholars Lake and Cadbury intimated that Paul's ministry of witnessing was unmistakably a prophetic ministry in the same sense that Rev 19:10 claims that "The testimony [witness] of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy". Those scholars wrote:

"Paul was to bear witness…and therefore he must receive the Spirit, for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (K. Lake and H.J. Cadbury, The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Part 1. Vol 4 (London: Macmillan, 1933), p. 104).

Notice how Revelation is pretty clear that witnessing is prophetic ministry: "I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days…[until] they shall have finished their testimony [their witness]" (11:3, 7; cf. 1:2, 19:10, 22:9).

1stcenturylady said:

If I may interject. What happened IS speaking in tongues as they were all heard magnifying God.

1. This is not the gift of tongues, but the sign of tongues. Even though our prayer language spoken of in Mark 16:16-18 does not require interpretation, as the 1 Corinthians 12, gift of diverse kinds of tongues must, interpretation was manifested on the Day of Pentecost. Read it again and zero in on the word "heard." Each Jew of different languages hear THEM (all of them) speak in his language. God sovereignly gave the devout Jews the gift of interpretation of tongues.

Click to expand...

No maam. The phenomenology described in 1Cor 14 is a two-phased chronology. First the tongue is spoken, and NO ONE UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS SAID. Then the interpretation is given TO ONE INDIVIDUAL who then relays his understanding to all. Nowhere does Paul say that the ENTIRE AUDIENCE gets the gift of interpretation at once - and nowhere does he reduce it to one phase.

God is not the author of confusion, nor does He contradict His own Word. It was impossible that the devout Jews heard the interpretation naturally according to 1 Corinthians 14:2, as tongues is not spoken to man, but to God. Only supernaturally are tongues understood. Acts 2 use of the word "devout" means they were already God's and eligible for this supernatural gift. The mockers were not. This is why we should never mock what God may be doing.

Click to expand...

I'm not mocking the gift of tongues. I agree with the definition of the gift as understood in modern Pentecostalism (although I question the authenticity of some claimed experiences of it). I'm just pointing out that we shouldn't shoehorn THAT gift, legitimate as it is, into Luke's prophetic motif. Let's not shove it down Luke's throat.

Look, hermeuetics is an imperfect science, very prone to error. Therefore the exegete should form in his mind a pretty solid interpretive framework (foundation), as early as possible, and then let THAT hermeneutic drive his exegesis. What is the foundation for Acts? The spread of the gospel to the nations seems to be his main motif. Speaking the unknown tongue of 1Cor 14 - speaking words that no one understands - isn't LIKELY to be part of his motif.

Now once we've decided on a solid hermeneutic, it should drive the exegesis. As Howard Ervin put it, 'Hermenutics not only informs the exegesis. It dictates the intepretation." It becomes our guiding light that tips the scale in one direction or another, when facing any unclear passages.

Sure if you run into tons of seemingly insoluble passages (i.e. apparent contradictions), then it's time to reevaluate the hermeneutic - look for a better one. But personally I haven't found a better one to date than what I outlined in my last series of posts.

2. There are 2 different manifestations of tongues.

Mark 16 - sign - prayer and praise TO God. Does not require interpretation, but Paul advises us to seek that gift.

1 Cor. 12 - gift - messages FROM God (1 Corinthians 14:6) that require the supernatural gift of interpretation.

The prophetic utterance was spoken by Peter when he supernaturally knew what was happening was prophesied in Joel 2.

Click to expand...

Again, you seem to think I'm repudiating the Pentecostal definition of the gift. I'm not.

JAL said:

No maam. The phenomenology described in 1Cor 14 is a two-phased chronology. First the tongue is spoken, and NO ONE UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS SAID. Then the interpretation is given TO ONE INDIVIDUAL who then relays his understanding to all. Nowhere does Paul say that the ENTIRE AUDIENCE gets the gift of interpretation at once - and nowhere does he reduce it to one phase.

I'm not mocking the gift of tongues. I agree with the definition of the gift as understood in modern Pentecostalism (although I question the authenticity of some claimed experiences of it). I'm just pointing out that we shouldn't shoehorn THAT gift, legitimate as it is, into Luke's prophetic motif. Let's not shove it down Luke's throat.

Look, hermeuetics is an imperfect science, very prone to error. Therefore the exegete should form in his mind a pretty solid interpretive framework (foundation), as early as possible, and then let THAT hermeneutic drive his exegesis. What is the foundation for Acts? The spread of the gospel to the nations seems to be his main motif. Speaking the unknown tongue of 1Cor 14 - speaking words that no one understands - isn't LIKELY to be part of his motif.

Now once we've decided on a solid hermeneutic, it should drive the exegesis. As Howard Ervin put it, 'Hermenutics not only informs the exegesis. It dictates the intepretation." It becomes our guiding light that tips the scale in one direction or another, when facing any unclear passages.

Sure if you run into tons of seemingly insoluble passages (i.e. apparent contradictions), then it's time to reevaluate the hermeneutic - look for a better one. But personally I haven't found a better one to date than what I outlined in my last series of posts.
Again, you seem to think I'm repudiating the Pentecostal definition of the gift. I'm not.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your response.

The "gift" of diverse kinds of tongues and interpretation is one means of prophecy. 1 Corinthians 14 is Paul discussing the difference between the sign of tongues and the gift of tongues with interpretation. They are different manifestations of tongues. Because the sign of tongues is given to all who believe and are baptized, but cannot be understood naturally, it has no profitable use in the church service and is only for use in perfect prayer and praise TO God, so only someone who has been given the gift of diverse kinds of tongues may speak out, and then only 2-3 with that gift, as not everyone is given that gift for receiving messages FROM God. And the person who is known to have the gift of interpretation of tongues must be present to give the interpretation, otherwise they are to remain silent.

I have a question for you seeing as I have only read one of your posts and don't know what you believe, except that we hold different takes on this subject. What do you believe Paul means in 1 Corinthians 14:22 that tongues are a sign to the unbeliever? This verse seems to be a hard one for people to understand correctly and in context.

Jason0047 said:

No. Benny Hinn’s net worth is 42 million. He is a prosperity preacher. However, 1 Timothy 6 and Matthew 19 paint a different picture on how a Christian is to handle money.

Benny Hinn has said that he is a little Messiah. He said heretical things involving Christ and he has made false prophecies that did not come true. In the OT, if a prophet’s predictions did not come to pass, they were to be killed. Granted, we are not under the OT and Christians are not an arm of justice like Israel once was under the Old Covenant, but you get the idea.

See this article on Benny Hinn:

Benny Hinn's False Teachings on God, Jesus and Man .

Now, why would this Christian leader who knew things about you be all chummy with Benny Hinn (who is clearly a false teacher)?

Something doesn’t add up.

Click to expand...

Benny Hinn may have made mistakes, and has admitted being wrong. But I love his heart. When he and his wife remarried each other, my pastor officiated.

I really think you are not understanding him if he said he was a mini messiah. It would have been in the same context as a son of God which is scriptural.

Jason0047 said:

So he has repented in being a prosperity preacher?

Also, see this article here on him:

Benny Hinn's False Teachings on God, Jesus and Man .

Click to expand...

Prosperity is not false in itself.

3 John 1:2
Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers.

Malachi 3:
Bring all the tithes into the storehouse,
That there may be food in My house,
And try Me now in this,”
Says the Lord of hosts,
“If I will not open for you the windows of heaven
And pour out for you such blessing
That there will not be room enough to receive it.
11 “And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes,
So that he will not destroy the fruit of your ground,
Nor shall the vine fail to bear fruit for you in the field,”
Says the Lord of hosts;
12 “And all nations will call you blessed,
For you will be a delightful land,”
Says the Lord of hosts.

Prosperity teachings are based on advanced faith. I also believe when it started it was God breathed. It started out as faith for healing by Kenneth Haigin. Then it went to prosperity, but God has pulled many of them back into line. I have two girlfriends that are still in that church, and have taught one of them the real meaning of John 15:7. They took that to mean God would give them their own will, instead of us being told what God's will is then believe for that.

@Jason0047 Which do you consider worse?

The denominations out of the Reformation, or
Pentecostalism, including Word of Faith.

Good night, my friend.

1stcenturylady said:

Thank you for your response.

The "gift" of diverse kinds of tongues and interpretation is one means of prophecy. 1 Corinthians 14 is Paul discussing the difference between the sign of tongues and the gift of tongues with interpretation. They are different manifestations of tongues. Because the sign of tongues is given to all who believe and are baptized, but cannot be understood naturally, it has no profitable use in the church service and is only for use in perfect prayer and praise TO God, so only someone who has been given the gift of diverse kinds of tongues may speak out, and then only 2-3 with that gift, as not everyone is given that gift for receiving messages FROM God. And the person who is known to have the gift of interpretation of tongues must be present to give the interpretation, otherwise they are to remain silent.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is one means of prophecy. That does not classify it as evangelism. I'm no professor of formal logic (p's and q's) but I think it' clear enough that the following two statement are not the same:
(1) All evangelism is prophecy.
(2) All prophecy is evangelism.

In Acts, we find strong evidence for thesis #1. Thesis #2 is dubious. But that's not even the point, really. My original claim was simply that in Acts we find no credible evidence of the gift of tongues. If you feel that the gift of tongues is an evangelistic tool, you'll need to demonstrate it from OTHER books, it seems to me.

Also, please don't assume that every reference to 'tongues' means the 'gift of tongues'. The Greek word simply means 'languages'. For example Revelation refers to men 'from all nations and of every tongue'.

I have a question for you seeing as I have only read one of your posts and don't know what you believe, except that we hold different takes on this subject. What do you believe Paul means in 1 Corinthians 14:22 that tongues are a sign to the unbeliever? This verse seems to be a hard one for people to understand correctly and in context.

Click to expand...

I have no idea. That verse is perhaps the most unclear statement in the entire epistle. Yet for some reason some people think it's the best one to debate. I think it's the worst choice for debate.

Jason0047 said:

To all:
My encouragement to all is to check everything with the Word of God and do not be so eager for an experience, but study and pray and ask the Lord for the understanding on this topic before diving in first.

Click to expand...

And yet "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing from the Word of God" (Rom 10:17). Paul's chief example is the prophet Abraham's experience of hearing/receiving an outpouring of the divine Word in a vision, at Gen 15. Hearing the divine Word speak promises created within him a feeling of certainty called faith - typically 100% certainty as we shall see.

For 2,000 years the church has counseled us to aspire to bold, DARING faith, i.e. LEAPS of faith often classified as "stepping out on faith' - something less than 100% certainty - and thus on partially blind faith. But this is foolhardy religion, as there is far too much at stake.

Hebrews 11 stipulates 100% certainty as the normative degree of faith for executing the work of God. How so? For example it celebrates Abraham's attempt to slaughter his son as an exemplary work of faith.

Admittedly a psychopath, having a warped conscience, might say, "I'm not 100% sure that was God speaking, but I'm going to kill my son anyway." Hebrews 11 celebrates the behavior of ABRAHAM (a good man), not that of psychopaths. The foregone conclusion is that the Voice endued Abraham with 100% certainty. Hebrews 11 is laying down THAT standard of 'faith' as the goal for all Christians.

After all, do you LIKE having only 99% certainty of salvation? I sure don't.

That standard defines the prophetic experience. After all, the gift of prophecy, in its purest form is infallible. We know this because God was willing to stone the prophets for any errors. This locks in the standard of 100% certainty because:
(1) Whenever a prophet had less than 100% certainty, he would be a fool to tout his message as "The infallible Word of God" because he could get stoned for it.
(2) Whenever he DID have 100% certainty, it would be equally inappropriate for him to qualify it with disclaimers such as, "I'm not sure this is the Word of the Lord" - as such would be an outright lie.

I'm not disparaging sub-100% revelations as worthless. They can be VERY beneficial, but it is very important that the speaker be honest enough to confess his uncertainty to his audience.

1stcenturylady said:

Thank you for your response.

The "gift" of diverse kinds of tongues and interpretation is one means of prophecy. 1 Corinthians 14 is Paul discussing the difference between the sign of tongues and the gift of tongues with interpretation. They are different manifestations of tongues. Because the sign of tongues is given to all who believe and are baptized, but cannot be understood naturally, it has no profitable use in the church service and is only for use in perfect prayer and praise TO God, so only someone who has been given the gift of diverse kinds of tongues may speak out, and then only 2-3 with that gift, as not everyone is given that gift for receiving messages FROM God. And the person who is known to have the gift of interpretation of tongues must be present to give the interpretation, otherwise they are to remain silent.

Click to expand...

One follow up point. I mean Paul does seem pretty clear that prophecy is evangelistic:

" But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. 25 [g]And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you." (1Cor 14).

And since tongues rises to the level of prophecy, when an interpretation is given, it is a reasonable extrapolation to argue that it can be evangelistic. It's just that Paul's confusing language at 14:22-23 tends to obscure this argument, almost to the point of casting doubt upon it.

But since I'm a huge proponent of cogent extrapolations - any form of logical rigor - I favor this one too, as long as we base it on 1Cor 14, not on Acts.