• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured I've Seen John MacArthur In A New Light

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by Oscarr, Jun 9, 2019.

  1. Oscarr

    Oscarr Senior Veteran Supporter

    +6,464
    New Zealand
    Pentecostal
    Married
    It would have been better if he had written out his prophecy and quietly gone up and handed it to Dr MacArthur. The way he went about it destroyed his credibility and made his prophecy ineffective. The fruit of the Spirit is kindness and gentleness. All the guy did was to provide more ammunition for Dr MacArthur against the Charismatic movement and exposed the guy to public ridicule.

    I watched the video series by the pastor of Cedarwood church in Ontario (Youtube) giving his answer to Dr MacArthur's theology about the gifts of the Spirit, and that series had much more effect on me and settled the questions for me admirably.
     
  2. Blade

    Blade Veteran Supporter

    +1,414
    Christian
    Married
    Like so many other preachers.. I listen to them just don't agree with everything they teach. As long as it goes inline with the word. Women, gifts, what have you. So what.. he LOVES Jesus.. and like some said here. I listen.. man I don't have lol the REAL gospel. That man has studied so much more then I have ever have. And I do not follow him. The gospel is being preached.. I look for the good 1st
     
  3. Oscarr

    Oscarr Senior Veteran Supporter

    +6,464
    New Zealand
    Pentecostal
    Married
    I have watched quite a number of Dr MacArthur's messages, and am impressed with his brilliant Bible teaching - when he sticks to the text of Scripture.

    But I pick the meat from the bones when he teaches his own suppositions which are not supported by the Scriptural text. He does exactly the right thing in exposing the excesses and heresies of certain parts of the Charismatic movement, but when he teaches Cessationism and condemns the whole movement, he does not provide Scriptural text to back up that teaching, therefore he is teaching his own opinion and not Bible. It is interesting that in his teaching against some of the gifts of the Spirit and his support for others, he goes nowhere near 1 Corinthians 14. Yet 1 Corinthians 14 is the major, if not the only, passage in the Bible that deals with tongues and prophecy, and yet Dr MacArthur totally ignores that whole chapter. I think that having to study it closely would cut the suppositional ground from under his feet concerning his Cessational approach to these gifts.
     
  4. Oscarr

    Oscarr Senior Veteran Supporter

    +6,464
    New Zealand
    Pentecostal
    Married
    Actually, according to 1 Corinthians 14 it isn't. The Prophets of the Old Testament spoke directly from God and so their prophecies were not judged, but if they didn't come to pass, the Prophet was put to death, so these Prophets needed to make sure that their prophecies really came from the Lord.

    But the role of Prophet ceased under the New Covenant the Apostle took over the role of giving Scripture directly from God. We see this in the letters of Paul, Peter, John, Jude and the Apostle to the Hebrews. Once the canon of Scripture was completed, the role of Apostle ceased, because the foundation of the church was laid.

    This is the sense that the Apostle and Prophet were gifts to the body of Christs. The gifts are the Old and New Testaments.

    But prophecy in the local church is not direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit. A person giving such a prophecy, saying, "This is what the Lord is saying", is lying, because he is purporting to be adding new Scripture. He is trying to usurp the role of Apostle, when that ministry no longer exists.

    So anyone setting himself up as an "Apostle" or a "Prophet" is automatically false because those ministries ceased when the foundation of the church was laid through the completion of God's revelation in the written Scriptures.

    But prophecy in the local church is not Scripture or new revelation, because every prophecy has to be judged and evaluated to see whether it complies with what has already been inspired in the written Scriptures. Local church prophesies are given to exhort, comfort, and build up the believers in the church service. The difference between these prophecies and the preaching of the Word, is that the latter is general teaching from Scripture, whereas the prophetic word is an application of Scripture for a specific situation or purpose for one or more people in the meeting.

    Private, personal prophecies are not supported, because prophecy has to be given in a group situation to enable others to judge it as being true and right according to Scripture.

    So, self-styled "Prophets" like Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, and Bill Johnson giving "The Lord has told me" type prophecies are totally false and their prophecies should be rejected out of hand.

    So, I hope this is helpful in showing the difference between "The Word of God" prophetic words given by the OT Prophets and the NT Apostles; and the local church prophecies given by any ordinary believer in a church meeting which does not carry the tag, "The Lord has told me".
     
  5. High Fidelity

    High Fidelity Well-Known Member Supporter

    +7,462
    United Kingdom
    Baptist
    Private
    John MacArthur is one of the greatest theologians of our time, hands down.

    I'm glad you have seen his work is backed up by scripture.

    It takes a bigger man than most to be open enough to accept what you have, so good for you! Most people end up entrenched in their beliefs even when presented by exposition such as MacArthur's.
     
  6. Oscarr

    Oscarr Senior Veteran Supporter

    +6,464
    New Zealand
    Pentecostal
    Married
    He is brilliant in his exposing of the wacky, extreme Charismatic practices by the cultish areas of the movement. But I don't go along with his teaching about the general Charismatic movement and gifts, because his suppositions about it don't have any Scriptural support at all. He keeps right away from 1 Corinthians 14, because an in-depth study of it would cast a reasonable doubt on his Cessationist suppositions.

    However, having said that, when he sticks to the actual text of Scripture, he is a brilliant Bible teacher who makes the Scripture come alive.
     
  7. swordsman1

    swordsman1 Well-Known Member

    +646
    Christian
    That's not true I'm afraid. MacArthur uses 1 Corinthians 14 and other scriptures extensively to disprove charismatic/pentecostal theology. For example, here is an excerpt from his book where he dispels the theory that Corinthian tongues was a non-human language....

    John Macarthur - Strange Fire

    In defending nonsensical speech, most charismatics retreat to the book of 1 Corinthians— contending the gift described in 1 Corinthians 12– 14 is categorically different from that of Acts. But once again, this assertion is not permitted by the text. A simple word study effectively makes that point, since both passages use the same terminology to describe the miraculous gift. In Acts, Luke uses laleo (“ to speak”) in combination with glossa (“ tongues”) four different times (Acts 2: 4, 11; 10: 46; 19: 6). In 1 Corinthians 12– 14, Paul uses forms of that same combination thirteen times (1 Cor. 12: 30; 13: 1; 14: 2, 4, 5 [2x], 6, 13, 18, 19, 21, 27, 39).

    These linguistic parallels carry added significance when we consider that Luke was Paul’s traveling companion and close associate, even writing under Paul’s apostolic authority. Because he penned the book of Acts around AD 60, roughly five years after Paul wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians, Luke would have been well aware of their confusion regarding the gift of languages. Certainly Luke would not have wanted to add to that confusion. Thus, he would not have used the exact same terminology in Acts as Paul did in 1 Corinthians unless what had happened at Pentecost was identical to the authentic gift Paul described in his epistle.

    The fact that Paul noted “various kinds of tongues” in 1 Corinthians 12: 10 (NASB) does not imply that some are real languages and others are merely gibberish. Rather, the Greek word for kinds is genos, from which we derive the word genus. Genos refers to a family, group, race, or nation. Linguists often refer to language “families” or “groups,” and that is precisely Paul’s point: there are various families of languages in the world, and this gift enabled some believers to speak in a variety of them. In Acts 2, Luke emphasized that same idea in verses 9– 11, where he explained that the languages that were spoken came from at least sixteen different regions.

    Other parallels between Acts and 1 Corinthians 12– 14 can be established. In both places, the Source of the gift is the same— the Holy Spirit (Acts 2: 4, 18; 10: 44– 46; 19: 6; 1 Cor. 12: 1, 7, 11, et al.). In both places, the reception of the gift is not limited to the apostles, but also involved laypeople in the church (cf. Acts 1: 15; 10: 46; 19: 6; 1 Cor. 12: 30; 14: 18). In both places, the gift is described as a speaking gift (Acts 2: 4, 9– 11; 1 Cor. 12: 30; 14: 2, 5). In both places, the resulting message can be translated and thereby understood, either by those who already know the language (as on the day of Pentecost— Acts 2: 9– 11) or by someone gifted with the ability to translate (1 Cor. 12: 10; 14: 5, 13).

    In both places, the gift served as a miraculous sign for unbelieving Jews (Acts 2: 5, 12, 14, 19; 1 Cor. 14: 21– 22; cf. Isa. 28: 11– 12). In both places, the gift of languages was closely associated with the gift of prophecy (Acts 2: 16– 18; 19: 6; 1 Cor. 14). And in both places, unbelievers who did not understand what was being spoken responded with mockery and derision (Acts 2: 13; 1 Cor. 14: 23). Given so many parallels, it is exegetically impossible and irresponsible to claim that the phenomenon described in 1 Corinthians was any different from that of Acts 2. Since the gift of tongues consisted of authentic foreign languages on the day of Pentecost, then the same was true for the believers in Corinth.

    Two additional considerations make this understanding absolutely certain. First, by insisting any language spoken in tongues in the church must be translated by someone with the gift of interpretation (1 Cor. 12: 10; 14: 27), Paul indicated that the gift consisted of rational languages. The word for interpretation is hermeneuo (from which we get hermeneutics), which refers to a “translation” or an “accurate unfolding of the meaning.” Obviously, it would be impossible to translate nonsensical gibberish, since translation requires concrete meanings in one language to be rendered correctly into another.

    Unless the gift in 1 Corinthians 12– 14 consisted of authentic languages, Paul’s repeated insistence on interpretation would be meaningless. As Norm Geisler explains, “The fact that the tongues of which Paul spoke in 1 Corinthians could be ‘interpreted’ shows that it was a meaningful language. Otherwise it would not be an ‘interpretation’ but a creation of the meaning. So the gift of ‘interpretation’ (1 Cor. 12: 30; 14: 5, 13) supports the fact that tongues were a real language that could be translated for the benefit of all by this special gift of interpretation.” 24

    Second, Paul explicitly referenced human languages in 1 Corinthians 14: 10– 11, where he wrote, “There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me.” On the day of Pentecost, there was no need for an interpreter because people in the crowd already understood the various languages that were spoken (Acts 2: 5– 11). But in the Corinthian church, where those languages were not known, a translator was required; otherwise, the congregation would not understand the message and, therefore, would not be edified. The apostle’s later reference to Isaiah 28: 11– 12 (a passage in which the “other tongues and other lips” refers to the Assyrian language) confirms that Paul had human foreign languages in mind (1 Cor. 14: 21).

    When the biblical evidence is considered, there is no question the true gift of languages described in 1 Corinthians 12– 14 was precisely the same miraculous rational speech the disciples spoke in Acts 2— namely, the Spirit-given ability to communicate in a foreign language unknown to the speaker. No other explanation is permitted by the text of Scripture. As Thomas Edgar observes:

    There are verses in 1 Corinthians 14 where foreign language makes sense but where unintelligible ecstatic utterance does not (e.g. v. 22). However, the reverse cannot be said. A foreign language not understood by the hearer is no different from unintelligible speech in his sight. Therefore, in any passage where such ecstatic speech may be considered possible, it is also possible to substitute a language not familiar to the hearers. In this passage there are no reasons, much less the very strong reasons necessary, to depart from the normal meaning of glossa and to flee to a completely unsupported usage. 25
    This conclusion represents a deathblow to the modern charismatic version of glossolalia, which shares nothing in common with the actual New Testament gift, but rather mirrors the frenzied speech of the ancient Greco-Roman mystery religions— pagan practices that Scripture condemns (cf. Matt. 6: 7). 26


    What Are the “Tongues of Angels”?
    Charismatics often point to Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 13: 1, where he mentions angelic tongues. Invariably, they want to claim that the gibberish we hear in charismatic glossolalia is an otherworldly tongue— some sort of holy, heavenly language that transcends human conversation and belongs to the discourse of angels.

    Beyond being an insult to angels, that interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13: 1 falls flat when one considers the context. Notice, first of all, that Paul’s theme in 1 Corinthians 13 is love, not spiritual gifts. And he introduces the subject this way: “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.” Paul is describing a hypothetical scenario. (His subsequent examples in verses 2– 3 indicate Paul was using extreme illustrations and hyperbolic language to emphasize the value of love.) 30 He did not lack love; he is asking the Corinthians to imagine if he did. Likewise, he is not claiming he had the ability to speak angelic languages; he is supposing the imaginary case of someone who could do so, but who spoke without love— without concern for the edification of others. His conclusion? The result would be of no more use than mere noise.

    Ironically, charismatics often focus so intently on the phrase “tongues of angels” that they miss Paul’s real point: any selfish use of this gift violated its true purpose— namely, that it be exercised as an expression of loving edification for other believers. Others are not edified by the mere spectacle of someone speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 14: 17), nor are they edified by hearing unintelligible gibberish. The practice violates everything Paul is teaching the Corinthians in this epistle.

    Of course, even if someone insists on taking the phrase “tongues of angels” literally, it is helpful to note that every time angels spoke in the Bible, they did so in a real language that was understandable to those to whom they spoke. Nothing about the phrase “tongues of angels” in 1 Corinthians 13: 1 justifies the modern practice of irrational babble.

    ….
    What Did Paul Mean When He Said Tongues-Speakers Speak to God, Not to Men?
    Charismatics sometimes cling to this phrase in 1 Corinthians 14: 2 as a justification for their unintelligible glossolalia. But once again, the context belies that interpretation. The entirety of verses 1– 3 reads as follows: “Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men.”

    In those verses, Paul was not extolling the gift of tongues; rather he was explaining why it was inferior to the gift of prophecy. Whereas prophecy was spoken in words that everyone could understand, the gift of foreign languages had to be interpreted in order for others to be edified. Paul defined exactly what he meant by the phrase “does not speak to men but to God” in the very next line, “for no one understands.” If the language was not translated, only God would know what was being said.

    Clearly, Paul was far from commending such a practice. As he had already established (in chapter 12), the purpose of the gifts was the edification of others within the body of Christ. Foreign languages left untranslated did not fulfill that purpose. That is why the apostle put such an emphasis on the necessity of interpretation (vv. 13, 27).​
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  8. Lost4words

    Lost4words Like a puppy, i need guidance. Supporter

    +2,989
    United Kingdom
    Catholic
    Single
    Thanks for posting. Some great info. Your post would be very useful in a 'tongues' thread.
     
  9. Oscarr

    Oscarr Senior Veteran Supporter

    +6,464
    New Zealand
    Pentecostal
    Married
    Good grief man. I know that eating an elephant is best one bite at a time, but being trampled by it?? :)

    You will find that in all the Youtube videos of John MacArthur's teaching, he never does an in-depth teaching of the text of 1 Corinthians 14. He may refer to it in passing, but does not go into it as an in-depth exposition. Also, he is basing his view on tongues and prophecy on his own supposition that these gifts ceased at the end of the Apostolic age. Also, his opposition to the Charismatic movement is based on his observation of the wacky, extreme, kundalini aspects of it.

    Now, having said that, I am no longer part of the Charismatic movement. I left it in 1978. It has been a shock to me to see how it has degenerated from the true gospel of Christ crucified and risen again as the principal doctrinal teaching, to all this positive thinking, confession, guaranteed healing, faith teaching, uncontrolled laughter, and spirit of stupid public babbling in tongues. I don't go along with any of it, be assured of that!

    I think that in previous posts I have been quite definite that the supernatural gifts of the Spirit started to decline after the First Century and once Constantine took over the Latin Church, they ceased altogether. There is no doubt about that.

    But!!! In all our debates (very respectful I must say), we have not found one New Testament Scripture from Jesus or Paul to say clearly that the supernatural gifts were meant to be temporary. Not one word from them to say, "These gifts are just for the setting up of the church and once the church is established there will be no need for them". If that is taught, it is adding to Scripture that is missing from the text, and Proverbs 30:6 has something to say about that.

    So, where are we at today? My view is that the actual incidence of the supernatural gifts is very rare in actual practice, because of the unholy, divided, heresy and occult riddled church of today that believes in the use of the gifts, and the understandable Cessationist views of believers in non-Charismatic churches. I believe that Cessationist teaching came about because of the excesses and misuse of the gifts. Calvin himself said that tongues probably died out because it was being misused. I saw that in his commentary (which I have his whole set on my bookshelf) on 1 Corinthians 14. I understand that perfectly. Most commentators, including the post-Fourth Century church fathers did acknowledge that the gifts had declined and ceased. They gave their theories about why, and their opinions were mixed as to the reasons.

    After reading and viewing Dave Hunt, which I immensely enjoyed and was sad when I had watched all his video messages; and viewing many of Dr MacArthur's messages, which I also enjoyed - even the ones about the Charismatic movement; and also Phil Johnson's message about the Charismatic baby in the bath water which was very instructive. These messages, and the truth of them turned many of my views on their heads! I have to admit that.

    But...there have been instances where healing has taken place, and understandable languages speaking of the great acts of God have been heard when people have spoken in tongues. What we need to do, is to examine the context and the environment where these have happened. I'll bet you that they never happened in the mega-conferences under these superdupers who are making great claims that these things are happening as the result of their ministries!

    I would say that where these things have happened, the people were holy, godly, humble, unassuming, Bible-loving folk who were sincerely seeking God for more of Jesus in their midst, and He honoured them in His own sovereign way. You would never find these groups posting on Youtube because what has happened to them was so holy and sacred to them that they were not willing to put them out into the public domain to cast their pearls before swine to have what was holy and sacred to them be trodden underfoot.
     
  10. Oscarr

    Oscarr Senior Veteran Supporter

    +6,464
    New Zealand
    Pentecostal
    Married
    I have just finished viewing Mr MacArthur's Youtube message on demons and magic that he preached in 1973. It was a brilliant message and the most interesting I have ever heard, even than the ones I heard when I was in Pentecostal churches. I was reluctant to view Dr MacArthur for many years and had spoken against him on CF (as you know), because of his anti-Charismatic views. But I decided to listen to just one of his messages, and I was pleasantly surprised at his sound and interesting Bible teaching.

    This is the same as Calvinistic Puritan teaching being my foundation in the gospel. I don't go along with TULIP which is a major Calvinistic doctrine, but there are many other things that are very sound and foundation-building.

    This means that all theologians, including Pentecostals, have their good and not so good points, and that is what makes them just as human as we are - that the treasure is in earthen vessels.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  11. _Dave_

    _Dave_ Active Member Supporter

    367
    +187
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  12. Oscarr

    Oscarr Senior Veteran Supporter

    +6,464
    New Zealand
    Pentecostal
    Married
  13. Oscarr

    Oscarr Senior Veteran Supporter

    +6,464
    New Zealand
    Pentecostal
    Married
    I stopped listening after the first couple of minutes because he started with the supposition that the Corinthians had replaced the true gift of tongues with a pagan, satanic counterfeit. Paul never said that. Right at the start of 1 Corinthians he said that these people had not come behind in any gift. If they had replaced the true gift with some kind of ecstatic pagan counterfeit, he would have said so. It just proved to me that Dr MacArthur is basing his whole teaching of tongues on a non-Biblical prejudicial supposition which for me corrupts his whole teaching on the gift.

    There is absolutely nothing in the text of 1 Corinthians anywhere that even has the remotest suggestion that any gifts that the Corinthians were manifesting were ecstatic, or pagan, or demonic, counterfeit or chaotic in any way.

    But in the actual text, Paul is quite clear that those who do speak in tongues, although publicly, are giving thanks to God well. Does that sound like a pagan counterfeit to you? Come on! Do you really think that if these Corinthians were speaking a demonic, pagan counterfeit, would he be approving of them speaking in tongues that they were, firstly, giving thanks to God, and secondly that they were doing it well? The truth is that Paul did not recognise that was any kind of chaotic, pagan, demonic tongues being spoken by the Corinthians. Paul wasn't clueless. He knew the difference between a true gift and a counterfeit one.

    For goodness sake! He cast a demon out of a servant girl who was following him around speaking the truth about him and Barnabas! If he could discern a demon in her, don't you think he would discern a false counterfeit tongues in the Corinthians? But he didn't. He approved of the tongues they were speaking. What he didn't approve of was that they were speaking tongues publicly instead of prophesying, the latter which would be more edifying in a language they could understand than a language they couldn't.

    Furthermore, he wished that they all spoke in the same kind of tongues they were already speaking. Does that sound like Paul was approving and recommending they all speak demonic pagan tongues, as Dr MacArthur say they were doing? Paul said he spoke the same tongues more than them all! Does that mean that he spoke a demonic tongue? Of course not.

    And what about Paul's instruction not to forbid speaking in tongues? If the Corinthians were speaking in a demonic pagan tongue would he not say to stop doing it and seek God for the true gift? He didn't. What does that tell?

    In actual fact, he did not criticise or correct the Corinthians for the nature of the tongues they were speaking. He was correcting them in when and where to speak the tongues they were already speaking, and that if publicly, there needed to be interpretation to make what was said intelligible to the group.

    This is what I get from just reading the text of 1 Corinthians, instead of coming from a personal supposition that is not consistent with the text.
     
  14. _Dave_

    _Dave_ Active Member Supporter

    367
    +187
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hello Oscarr, my main theological interest ever since being saved almost 40 years ago has always been eschatology, and I've never given much thought to the tongues/no-tongues issue. And I only responded in this topic in order to show that John MacArthur has indeed done an extensive exposition of the "tongues" chapter in 1Corinthians.

    I must say, however, that after listening to all of his first two sermons on 1Corinthians 14, I believe he does an excellent job of verse by verse exposition of Paul's writing about the Corninthian church.

    Good hermeneutics employs objective standards for understanding God's word -- some of which requires interpreting in light of context, to whom is being written, and taking proper syntax of the words being used.

    I'd be interested in your comments once you have listened to more than a couple of minutes of MacArthur's exposition. Can you take in all four sermons, follow his expositional leading, keep notes, and then get back to us?
     
  15. Oscarr

    Oscarr Senior Veteran Supporter

    +6,464
    New Zealand
    Pentecostal
    Married
    If his basic premise is that the Corinthians tongues were pagan, demonic, and false, then there is no point continuing to listen to his teaching about it. My view is that the Corinthian tongues were genuine, Paul was applying. his correction to how it was being practiced in the church. So, any teaching built on a non-Biblical premises, no matter how correct it appears, is unreliable and would not be of benefit to me. So, we won't go there.
     
  16. swordsman1

    swordsman1 Well-Known Member

    +646
    Christian
    MacArthur has obviously changed his mind since that sermon in 1977. In his latest book on the subject (published in 2013) he makes it clear the tongues spoken at Corinth was from the Holy Spirit as per Acts 2, not pagan ecstatic utterances....

    John MacArthur - Strange Fire

    Other parallels between Acts and 1 Corinthians 12– 14 can be established. In both places, the Source of the gift is the same— the Holy Spirit (Acts 2: 4, 18; 10: 44– 46; 19: 6; 1 Cor. 12: 1, 7, 11, et al.).
    ...
    Given so many parallels, it is exegetically impossible and irresponsible to claim that the phenomenon described in 1 Corinthians was any different from that of Acts 2. Since the gift of tongues consisted of authentic foreign languages on the day of Pentecost, then the same was true for the believers in Corinth.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  17. swordsman1

    swordsman1 Well-Known Member

    +646
    Christian
    It is not MacArthur's supposition that the supernatural gifts ceased, they did cease - it's a historical fact. Didn't you even agree yourself they ceased, albeit for a different reason to the one cessationists give?

    By the same token, there is not a single New Testament scripture that clearly says the supernatural gifts were meant to continue. The fact of the matter is the NT is largely silent on the matter of cessation or continuation. Nevertheless there are a number of verses which state the purpose for the gifts and they strongly point to their cessation eg Eph 2:20 says apostles and prophets were for the foundation of the church; miracles were to confirm the apostles and their message (Acts 14:3, Heb 2:3-4, 2 Cor 12:12); etc

    What is beyond doubt is that the supernatural gifts did in fact cease. Just as 1 Cor 13:8 said they would. And they have never returned. The so called gifts that are claimed to have been restored in the last few decades do not match the biblical descriptions of those gifts.

    That can't be right. The Corinthian church was an "unholy, divided, heresy and occult riddled church" yet they had supernatural gifts in abundance!

    Contrary to popular belief cessationists also believe that God can heal today (in response to prayer). But that is not the gift of healing. If you have to pray for healing it proves you do not have the gift of healing.

    As for today's 'tongues' being real languages, 99.9% of charismatic tongues is the unbiblical "heavenly language" type, and the remaining 0.1% that is claimed to be a foreign language is unproven charismatic hearsay.
     
  18. Oscarr

    Oscarr Senior Veteran Supporter

    +6,464
    New Zealand
    Pentecostal
    Married
    The reality is that we cannot say the gifts are for today, and then we cannot say that the gifts are not, on the basis where the Bible does not make a definite statement either way.

    I fully agree that most of the practice of public tongues accompanied by kundalini manifestations and disorder, because they are being spoken in ways that Paul instructed not to. can be viewed as false.
     
  19. Oscarr

    Oscarr Senior Veteran Supporter

    +6,464
    New Zealand
    Pentecostal
    Married
    I am continuing to view messages by John MacArthur and am enjoying them. He is excellent with his teaching on the foundations of the Christian faith. I also go along completely with his teaching against the excesses and false teaching of areas of the Charismatic movement, because he is fully correct in it.

    I avoid his teaching on tongues, because he sincerely believes the Cessationist view that these things ceased after the Apostolic Age. This is just the result of his Christian education. I know that as a Pentecostal, being trained in that movement by some very godly men for 12 years, it would be very difficult to go from Continuist to Cessationist in the same way that a Cessationist trained for the first 12 years of his Christian life to becoming a Continuist.

    So I accept John MacArthur for who he is, and enjoy the sound teaching he gives in areas where he deals with Biblical text, and I would recommend his teaching to all who need to have their Christian foundations strengthened.
     
  20. corinth77777

    corinth77777 learner

    +328
    Christian
    Private
    Hi, I think when I read Mc Author trying to see if tongues people practiced were real or fake....I stood on his side....only because even if they were suppositions...He made a good argument for them. But I do not even listen to him in the mornting anymore...after listening to one of my favorites recordings on the Radio Vernon Mcgee.....
    Why? Because In my thought I see Him arriving at types of understanding....
    Anyway as for tongues....I guess what I may say is what ever is done to honor God...no matter where we are in how we understand...That God would honor it.....
    But at this time in my own thought... I do believe the devil can mimick many things.
    And yet if the core of what we do doesn't arrive at transformation in love...then is it yet to be empty.....?
    I would have agreed with Mc Author...that the writings to Corinth were full of sarcasm...
    And how He made a distinction between true tongues and false tongues......distinguishing between the terms [tongue "s"] and [tongue]
    And it was obvious through context that there was counterfeit tongues...otherwise...why would it be said "no one speaking by the holy ghost could say Jesus is accursed".. and the tone of the chapter was their carnality. And there is a place in Corinthians that speaks on being able to know who had a true gifts.
    Is there anything new under the sun....
    One also has to remember is, Paul speaks at the level of believers and their mentality...
    Becoming all thing[things even that they think for the time]to all people to win them for Christ.
    Also, we see there are people who practice kandalini Yoga...and also have experiences..Think of the Hindu faith and the different experiences they have.....
    Many experiences indeed brought on my emotions. I believe in tongues in Acts...but recall these were understood by those listening. But in the same way we may believe He made suppositions....so do those who speak in ecstatic utterence... to make praying in the spirit mean tongues[or heavenly language] when nothing suggests it.
    Plus regardless...He suggest...He prays with His mind...with understanding...
    Now if Paul totally shut down their thought[level of thinking]...would they not have listened to him?
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2019
Loading...