Well the church wasn't split on the issue of gifts until the Pentecostal/charismatic movement started.
The church has been spilt for centuries - with different denominations emphasising different things, like baptism, female clergy, gifts of the Spirit, liturgy etc etc.
The church today is nothing like the church of the NT - where the believers were united, prayed together about any problems (Acts 15) and shared all their possessions. Paul criticised the Corinthians for having different groups following different people.
There has been plenty of life and growth in the Church since the apostolic age. I wouldn't say my Christian life or that of my church is lifeless and dull!
Glad to hear it, but the church is not as powerful as it was in the days of the Apostles - you know, that time after Pentecost when they spoke in tongues, performed miracles, raised the dead, made disciples and used, and walked in, the gifts of the Spirit.
And like I said, yes, that is a generalisation. But several denominations are reporting decreased numbers of members, lack of clergy and are struggling to keep churches open.
Future from the time of Paul's writing. It does say when - when completeness comes.
There's nothing to say WHEN completeness will come, or even what that is - your interpretation.
Sure charismatics and pentecostals claim to speak in tongues, but that doesn't make it true. Especially when you examine their tongues compared to the tongues of scripture.
It doesn't mean that it's not true either.
Seems to me that if a Christian testifies to God's goodness and gifts and says "I speak in tongues", your response is "don't believe it, you may be mistaken".
If you want to question what God is doing in someone else's life and doubt their testimony; that's up to you. If you want to insist that something has to be exactly as it was in Scripture before you will accept it; that's up to you too.
It doesn't mean that your view is the correct one and all others who testify to having heard/used tongues are mistaken.
How do you know they are not mistaken?
How do you know you're not?
Scripture says all beleivers are baptized in the Spirit:
1 Cor 12:13 "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit."
If you are not baptized in the Spirit you are not part of the body of Christ.
Depends how you define baptism in the Spirit.
Many, many people seem to testify today that their baptism was accompanied with speaking in tongues. If that is what baptism is, I, personally, have not received it - and you don't even seem to believe in it.
Whereas Christians are converted and born again due to the work of the Holy Spirit, and may ask, daily, to be filled with the Spirit - without actually being baptised in the Spirit.
Scripture says that without the Holy Spirit we are not children of God, don't belong to God and cannot declare that Jesus is Lord. But having the Spirit and being baptised - or immersed - in the Spirit do appear to be two different things.
There is only one description of tongues in scripture, Act 2:4-11 - it was miraculously speaking a foreign human language you have never learned. There are no other scriptures giving us an alternative description.
There are a number of other Scriptures which say that people were converted and spoke in tongues.
We are not told what the tongues were, or involved.
In the absence of any re-definition it must be presumed that all the other tongues are the same. Otherwise you are reading something into scripture that isn't there - the fallacy of eisegesis.
The opposite.
If Scripture doesn't teach on, or give details,about, a subject, then it doesn't. To claim Scriptural practice, teaching or authority for something that isn't there IS reading into it.
Scripture says that believers were filled with the Spirit and spoke in tongues. YOU insist that these tongues had to be like those described in Acts 2 - Scripture doesn't.
Because in the absence of a redefinition that is sound hermeneutics. It is a warranted assumption. What is dangerous is an unwarranted assumption where you claim it is something else but there is no evidence of it being so.
There is no evidence that every tongue that was spoken by a believer was a known, recognisable language.
But Paul rebuked that kind of prayer where people prayed aloud but nobody understood.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that it was never used and no one had the ability to pry that way.
I said "Today's prophecies are feelings that are verbalized and presumptuously declared to be 'a word from the Lord';"
You replied "I think it rather presumptuous to declare that they are NOT a word from the Lord."
So I said "Where in scripture does it ever say prophecies come from a feeling?"
I ignored what you said about a prophecy being a feeling, because you cannot prove that and have no right to make the judgement.
I was responding to what you said about the declaration that the prophecy was a word from the Lord. You seem to think it presumptuous to say that - I am saying that it is rather presumptuous to dismiss that.
I don't automatically assume that everyone who says "the Lord told me ....." is correct; they may believe that they are, but have mistaken his voice for something else. On the other hand, I don't respond to people who say "the Lord told me ....." by saying "you may be mistaken" or "prove it".
Regarding doctrine, the Holy Spirit will not contradict what has been revealed in Scripture and taught by Jesus.
But the fact is that the Spirit may give people personal words that cannot be tested in Scripture. Scripture does not tell us which job we should take/house we should buy/person we should marry/how many kids to have/what church to go to etc etc. So if someone says, "the Lord has told me I should take this job" or whatever; how will you test that they are mistaken?
Prophecy in scripture is not preaching or teaching. It's God speaking actual words to a prophet who then relays that message to others in the form "Thus says the Lord....<insert words here>".
It's proclaiming God's words to others - correct.
But those words don't always have to be about some future event, they don't have to be new words that the Lord has never spoken before, and they don't have to be preceded by "thus saith the Lord". Someone may proclaim God's words, or will, and not even realise they are prophesying.
When Caiaphas said that it was better for one man to die for the people than the nation should perish, John 11:50; that was a prophecy, John 11:51. He didn't know it, but it was.
OT prophets often proclaimed "thus saith the Lord", without realising that their words were a prophecy about Jesus.