Biblical justification for cessationism? (cc)

[6packofun]

I have always heard that cessation of certain gifts is attributed to the closing of the complete canon of Scripture.

 

So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers, but to those who believe. (1 Corinthians 14:22)

 

Because the apostles did not yet have the complete Word of God, He used those gifts to accomplish his goals. The scriptures now fulfill all of the purposes of the "temporary" gifts. That which is perfect (for accomplishing God's work here on earth) is the Word of God, God's revelation to humanity is complete (through Christ's life, death and resurrection AND the scriptures), so those specific gifts which are ceasing or being done away with, are the ones that Scriptures *replace*.

 

I'm not commenting with my own thoughts here, just explaining the view I'm familiar with.

Edited May 30, 2012 by 6packofun
add

[Lab1]

I've never heard of that theory. I feel the Bible supports them and they still exsist today. I know many religious and not religious people with amazing spiritual gifts!

 

ETA: I believe there are gifts that are given when you need them to bless others and gifts we are born with. The born with gifts we need to develop most of the time. My personal gifts were evident when I was young. My DH is realizing his as an adult. My kids haven't shown any yet that I have recognized.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Lab1

[milovany]

That's one of those myriad of things that if you look solely at the Bible, you can justify both approaches (that the gifts have ceased, and that they have not). People can post Scriptures saying they prove one thing, others can post Scriptures proving the opposite approach. I've seen it done. So I'm not much help, but just want to share in your eventual frustration LOL.

 

 

See? :D

 

How do you decide? Who's the final arbiter? Both views can't be right. Either the gifts like tongues and healing are for today, or they're not. Hasn't this been figured out yet? It's been 2000 years. This is what can drive me nutso. (Speaking for/in myself, not into anyone else's situation/beliefs, not to the conversation on the board!)

Edited May 30, 2012 by milovaný

[Onceuponatime]

I think tongues is mistranslated = obviously what it meant in the Pentecoast was languages. In at least one language, the word for tongue and language is the same. I don't know any ancient languages so have no idea if it is the same in them.

 

I am with Heather in NC that it has passed. HOwever, that belief of mine is not one of the main ones, like was discussed in a recent thread.

 

This is what our church teaches: Peter and the apostles spoke in foreign languages that they had not learned and those from other nations could understand what he said in their own language. This is clear in Acts the second chapter. It is taught that "tongues" means recognizable languages, that the gift later was give by the laying on of hands by the apostles, that when the apostles died no one else could transmit this gift.

While some had this gift, it was expected that what they said would be translated or "interpreted."

[Aelwydd]

Could somebody explain to me the biblical reasons for cessationism? Most of the arguments I have heard for it are experiential or otherwise extra-biblically based.

I expect everyone in here to remain respectful of people who share a different point-of-view than your own. :001_smile:

 

Note to folks of Jewish and other faiths:

This is a classical interpretation, and it's not meant as a political or theological mandate, although it has certainly been used as such, and for the oppression and murder of many, to the shame of all Christians everywhere.

 

Here's a very logical, Reformed view:

 

Just as the old covenant was a shadow of the new, so it was with the signs and miracles of the old and the new. After the Hebrews left the slavery of Egypt for 40 years, they were presented with the Law, and the covenant with God. However, instead of immediately entering the possessing the new land (type of God's Kingdom) they wandered the desert, they were shown signs and wonders, such as the water from the rock, and manna from heaven. Yet, they were disbelieving, and so they died in the desert, and did not enter into the promised land, and so seal the covenant.

 

After Jesus' death and resurrection in in the time period of 30 to 33 A.D. At that time, the Gospel was at first, and mostly, preached among the Jewish people. For 40 years, miracles and diverse signs and wonders were shown them, and many did believe, but others rejected the new covenant. This correlates to the 40 years of trial and testing in the desert.

 

[Extra-Biblical, but still historical] Then, in 70 A.D., the Romans surrounded Jerusalem, as Christ had warned would happen, and the Christians fled in a tiny period of time before the blockades were set. According to Josephus, almost a million inhabitants died there, and the place was ransacked, the Temple burned and destroyed.

 

I tend to interpret that as the closing of a final chapter on the old testament, and its emphasis on an earthly, political, theocratic country, and the opening of a new era. Those Christians who fled Jerusalem spread out, and the Gospel was no longer tied or linked simply to one physical place. The Kingdom of God is not a place on a map, but resides in the hearts of humankind, and Jesus, who sits at the right of God, rules the heavenly Jerusalem, that is described in Revelation.

 

So, all of that to say that for me, the biggest argument for cessationism (and good lord has long as it been since I encountered that term?!) is Paul's repeated arguments in Galatians and Romans, that the physical is now overshadowed by the spiritual, the old by the new. Hebrews is the culmination of this argument, and that the old covenant was full of types and shadows for the new.

 

 

Hebrews 12:18-28

 

 

 

8 You have

not

come to a mountain

that can be touched

and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; 19 to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, 20 because they could not bear what was commanded: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned to death.†21 The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, “I am trembling with fear.†22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, t

he heavenly Jerusalem

. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

 

25 See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven? 26 At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.†27 The words “once more†indicate the removing of what can be shaken —that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain.

 

28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, 29 for our “God is a consuming fire.â€

 

 

 

 

The reason why the author of Hebrews, and Paul, and other writers were continually exhorting the new converts not to turn back to the old covenant, was that they perceived the old covenant was quickly nearing the days when it, and those who rejected the new, were to be "shaken" and removed from earth. Jesus had said, in the last days that it would be as the days of Noah. Well, who got removed from earth? Was it Noah and his family? Or those who were deemed wicked?

 

 

 

 

Jesus said that the meek (righteous) shall inherit the earth. When he goes to separate the wheat from the tares, the wheat is not taken or whisked away--it is the chaff that is removed and consigned to fire. This message is repeated throughout the Gospels and the epistles over and over and over again.

 

 

 

 

Thus, why the Apostles feared for the fate of their spiritual charges. The writer of Hebrews warned of the danger of turning back to reliance upon the old testament, because the curtain had been rent. God had made his decree. Now, they were in the midst of that "between time" of wonders and signs, before those who rejected the New would die in the metaphorical desert, and those who embrace it would flee the old city (who Paul equated to Hagar in his epistle to the Galatians-- he said that the physical city, Jerusalem, and her children are in "bondage," but those who are in the New covenant are children of Sarah--the free woman, and theirs is a heavenly Jerusalem).

 

 

 

Old Jerusalem = Hagar / physical Israel / Jews who embraced the old covenant

 

 

 

New Jerusalem = Sarai / spiritual Israel (the Church)/ Jews and Gentiles who embraced the new covenant

 

 

 

Moses = High priest/prophet, arbiter of old covenant

 

 

 

Jesus = High Priest, arbiter of new covenant

 

 

 

Egypt = represented physical bondage in the old testament, and spiritual bondage in the new

 

 

 

40 years in the desert = represented tests and trials of the People of God in the old testament, so that only those who believed would inherit the land

 

 

 

40 years between Jesus' ascension and the fall of earthly Jerusalem = time of miracles and wonders, to teach and preach, so that those who believed would go forth into the world and germinate, inheriting the Kingdom of God

 

 

 

For the Kingdom of God is a small seed, that when it grows, its branches fill the whole world, and birds of the air sit upon its branches.

 

 

 

 

Christians = Jews of the Old testatment

 

 

 

World = promised land which they are to possess and to "fill" with the fruitfulness of the Spirit

Edited May 30, 2012 by Aelwydd

[Elinor Everywhere]

]

 

Someone who has the *ministry* of speaking in tongues is the one you can count on to give a message in tongues during a prayer service of some kind, which would be followed by an interpretation, either by the person who gave the message or by someone else.

 

Not all believers have the *ministry* of speaking in tongues. All believers can speak in tongues as part of their own prayer, and sometimes God gives the gift of speaking in tongues on a one-time basis. This is true of healing (someone can have the ministry of healing, and someone can have a one-time gift of healing for a specific circumstance) and the other gifts.

 

So, no, not all have the *ministry* of tongues, healing, etc., but all can have the gifts as needed.

 

Of course, if you aren't a member of a group which believes that the gifts are operative at all today, then you won't agree with this at all. You'll believe that the "perfect" is the Bible, and that since we have the Bible, we don't need the gifts. I believe that the "perfect" is Jesus, and since He has not returned, you bet we still need the gifts and they have definitely not ceased. :-)

 

This. My mom has the gift of tongues, although she will not speak it unless she has confidence there is someone there who can interpret (she cannot). Some of you may find it interesting that she is Roman Catholic. I know my dh does. :D

[Elinor Everywhere]

Why cessationists believe that the sign gifts have ceased:

 

1. Experience

2. What they were taught (like me, growing up Baptist)

3. First Corinthians 13:

1If I speak in the tonguesa of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,b but have not love, I gain nothing.

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

 

Cessationists focus on Verse 10, assuming this means that when the Bible, the perfect, comes, the imperfect, which they assume are sign gifts, disappear. They ignore verse 12, which indicates that "then (when the perfect comes), we shall see face to face" but now we see dimly.

 

If the Bible were the "perfect", then we'd clearly already be seeing face to face. We don't, because the perfect - which I believe is the return of Jesus, when the church age closes - has not come yet, hence, we still "see through a glass darkly" (the RSV version that I remember).

 

:iagree::iagree: Would that we could see face to face! Until then, we are in the same earth as the apostles, most definitely not seeing "the perfect".

[J-rap]

I WANT to believe those gifts still exist, and I believe the verse referenced about the gifts ceasing refer to the day when this Earth has passed and we are all in the perfect presence of Christ. So, that would mean that these spiritual gifts still exist.

 

Still, I've never personally seen a healing...I mean a real undeniably miraculous healing.

 

I have heard a prophet, however. It is the only miraculous-type gift I have ever personally observed in a person. It was quite amazing...the things he said that came to pass, very specific things that you would NEVER guess about the person. And I am by nature a very skeptical person!

 

Heather, the link you listed was really interesting. Thank you! I thought this line was interesting:

 

"Most cessationists believe that, while God can and still does perform miracles today, the Holy Spirit no longer uses individuals to perform miraculous signs."

 

I'm not sure what I believe. In any event, miracles certainly do not seem as prevalent today. Darn.

[EthiopianFood]

Yes, what people call speaking in tongues has a cadence - that has nothing to do with whether or not it is gibberish. It happens, interestingly enough, in religions besides Christianity, cadence and all.

 

link?

[Celia]

Note to folks of Jewish and other faiths:

This is a classical interpretation, and it's not meant as a political or theological mandate, although it has certainly been used as such, and for the oppression and murder of many, to the shame of all Christians everywhere.

 

Here's a very logical, Reformed view:

 

Just as the old covenant was a shadow of the new, so it was with the signs and miracles of the old and the new. After the Hebrews left the slavery of Egypt for 40 years, they were presented with the Law, and the covenant with God. However, instead of immediately entering the possessing the new land (type of God's Kingdom) they wandered the desert, they were shown signs and wonders, such as the water from the rock, and manna from heaven. Yet, they were disbelieving, and so they died in the desert, and did not enter into the promised land, and so seal the covenant.

 

After Jesus' death and resurrection in in the time period of 30 to 33 A.D. At that time, the Gospel was at first, and mostly, preached among the Jewish people. For 40 years, miracles and diverse signs and wonders were shown them, and many did believe, but others rejected the new covenant. This correlates to the 40 years of trial and testing in the desert.

 

[Extra-Biblical, but still historical] Then, in 70 A.D., the Romans surrounded Jerusalem, as Christ had warned would happen, and the Christians fled in a tiny period of time before the blockades were set. According to Josephus, almost a million inhabitants died there, and the place was ransacked, the Temple burned and destroyed.

 

I tend to interpret that as the closing of a final chapter on the old testament, and its emphasis on an earthly, political, theocratic country, and the opening of a new era. Those Christians who fled Jerusalem spread out, and the Gospel was no longer tied or linked simply to one physical place. The Kingdom of God is not a place on a map, but resides in the hearts of humankind, and Jesus, who sits at the right of God, rules the heavenly Jerusalem, that is described in Revelation.

 

So, all of that to say that for me, the biggest argument for cessationism (and good lord has long as it been since I encountered that term?!) is Paul's repeated arguments in Galatians and Romans, that the physical is now overshadowed by the spiritual, the old by the new. Hebrews is the culmination of this argument, and that the old covenant was full of types and shadows for the new.

Hebrews 12:18-28

 

8 You have

not

come to a mountain

that can be touched

and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; 19 to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, 20 because they could not bear what was commanded: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned to death.†21 The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, “I am trembling with fear.†22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, t

he heavenly Jerusalem

. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

25 See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven? 26 At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.†27 The words “once more†indicate the removing of what can be shaken —that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain.

28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, 29 for our “God is a consuming fire.â€

 

 

The reason why the author of Hebrews, and Paul, and other writers were continually exhorting the new converts not to turn back to the old covenant, was that they perceived the old covenant was quickly nearing the days when it, and those who rejected the new, were to be "shaken" and removed from earth. Jesus had said, in the last days that it would be as the days of Noah. Well, who got removed from earth? Was it Noah and his family? Or those who were deemed wicked?

 

 

 

 

Jesus said that the meek (righteous) shall inherit the earth. When he goes to separate the wheat from the tares, the wheat is not taken or whisked away--it is the chaff that is removed and consigned to fire. This message is repeated throughout the Gospels and the epistles over and over and over again.

 

 

 

 

Thus, why the Apostles feared for the fate of their spiritual charges. The writer of Hebrews warned of the danger of turning back to reliance upon the old testament, because the curtain had been rent. God had made his decree. Now, they were in the midst of that "between time" of wonders and signs, before those who rejected the New would die in the metaphorical desert, and those who embrace it would flee the old city (who Paul equated to Hagar in his epistle to the Galatians-- he said that the physical city, Jerusalem, and her children are in "bondage," but those who are in the New covenant are children of Sarah--the free woman, and theirs is a heavenly Jerusalem).

 

 

 

Old Jerusalem = Hagar / physical Israel / Jews who embraced the old covenant

 

 

 

New Jerusalem = Sarai / spiritual Israel (the Church)/ Jews and Gentiles who embraced the new covenant

 

 

 

Moses = High priest/prophet, arbiter of old covenant

 

 

 

Jesus = High Priest, arbiter of new covenant

 

 

 

Egypt = represented physical bondage in the old testament, and spiritual bondage in the new

 

 

 

40 years in the desert = represented tests and trials of the People of God in the old testament, so that only those who believed would inherit the land

 

 

 

40 years between Jesus' ascension and the fall of earthly Jerusalem = time of miracles and wonders, to teach and preach, so that those who believed would go forth into the world and germinate, inheriting the Kingdom of God

 

 

 

For the Kingdom of God is a small seed, that when it grows, its branches fill the whole world, and birds of the air sit upon its branches.

 

 

 

 

Christians = Jews of the Old testatment

 

 

 

World = promised land which they are to possess and to "fill" with the fruitfulness of the Spirit

 

I find this very interesting. I've often reflected on the symbolism of the exodus to the promised land, and all the types that are within it. Of course there's far more detail in it that could be expounded on and it just gets more and more fascinating. And I do believe that the Kingdom of God is on earth, but you made a few points concerning that which I've not considered before. Thanks for that! I have some new things to ponder. :)

[Candid]

I have always heard that cessation of certain gifts is attributed to the closing of the complete canon of Scripture.

 

So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers, but to those who believe. (1 Corinthians 14:22)

 

Because the apostles did not yet have the complete Word of God, He used those gifts to accomplish his goals. The scriptures now fulfill all of the purposes of the "temporary" gifts. That which is perfect (for accomplishing God's work here on earth) is the Word of God, God's revelation to humanity is complete (through Christ's life, death and resurrection AND the scriptures), so those specific gifts which are ceasing or being done away with, are the ones that Scriptures *replace*.

 

I'm not commenting with my own thoughts here, just explaining the view I'm familiar with.

 

This is basically what I have read. They use the end of the book of Revelation to say that the canon is closed and argue that if people are still being given revelation then it should be added to the Bible.

 

To be honest, my experience with people who have gifts is that they want to be everybody else's Holy Spirit so I am highly skeptical. Maybe there are those who just have gifts that don't manipulate others, but if so I have not met them in my real life.

[momma aimee]

IMHO -- Hebrews 13:8. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today and for ever. KJV -- thus is God was the same then, is now and ever will be, then the gifts of the Spirit are still "real" -- there is no v erse or site saying they STOPPED at a certain point, so they have not. JMHO

[tntgoodwin]

I just wanted to thank everyone for being so respectful and considerate of those with other views! I am learning a lot, and it is very interesting...

[Ellie]

Again, not arguing whether the modern phenomenon is what the Bible referred to, but just to the referenced point, what I think is clear is that not all are to speak in tongues. Not every Christian.

But that's not what I said. :-)

 

Every Christian *can* speak in tongues as his own prayer language. We see this in several places in Acts where Christians were baptized in the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues, and there was no interpreter; the first time is in the 2nd chapter of Acts on the day of Pentecost.

 

Paul lists the gifts of the Spirit; he doesn't imply at all that they will stop being operative.

 

What not all Christians do is have the ministry of speaking in tongues, which Paul says are "given in the church." That's what not everyone has: the gift of tongues, the gift of healing, the gift of interpretation, etc., to be used in ministry to the body of Christ.

 

It's disturbing to see speaking in tongues considered the test of true Christianity or something that every Christian should do, and that is what I was talking about. I did not say that speaking in tongues is 'clearly' taught against, but rather that the idea that every Christian should do it is 'clearly' taught against.

Although ITA that speaking in tongues should not be the litmus test for whether someone is a Christian or not, I strongly disagree that there is any "clear" teaching against all Christians being able to speak in tongues in prayer, or in occasional group settings. I believe that *all* of the gifts of the Spirit are in operation today--healing, teaching, miracles, knowledge, etc.

[6packofun]

I think the reasoning is more implicit through several scriptures and *ideas* given in the Word so there aren't 1 or 2 verses that will be a slam dunk as proof. (Kind of like the Trinity is a concept implicit (IMO) in Scripture but with the evidence spread out even more thinly over several passages!)

 

Still not sure where I stand, though!

[Celia]

double post

Edited May 30, 2012 by Celia
double post

[Celia]

IMHO -- Hebrews 13:8. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today and for ever. KJV -- thus is God was the same then, is now and ever will be, then the gifts of the Spirit are still "real" -- there is no v erse or site saying they STOPPED at a certain point, so they have not. JMHO

 

This reasoning doesn't stand. Look at the way it's used through out Scripture. Men and women were given the Holy Spirit to carry out tasks which they would otherwise be unable to. Here's some examples:

 

 

 

Ex. 31: 1-6And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, See, I have called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah: And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, To devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass, And in cutting of stones, to set them, and in carving of timber, to work in all manner of workmanship. And I, behold, I have given with him Aholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan: and in the hearts of all that are wise hearted I have put wisdom, that they may make all that I have commanded thee;

 

Judges 3: 9-11 when the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, the LORD raised up a deliverer to the children of Israel, who delivered them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother.And the Spirit of the LORD came upon Othniel, and he judged Israel, and went out to war: and the LORD delivered Chushanrishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand...

 

Judges 13:25And the Spirit of the LORD began to move Samson at times in the camp of Dan between Zorah and Eshtaol.

 

Judges 14:6And the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon Samson, and he rent him as he would have rent a kid, and he had nothing in his hand...

 

19And the Spirit of the LORD came upon Samson, and he went down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men of them....

 

14And when Samson came unto Lehi, the Philistines shouted against him: and the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him, and the cords that were upon his arms became as flax that was burnt with fire, and his bands loosed from off his hands.And he found a new jawbone of an ass, and put forth his hand, and took it, and slew a thousand men therewith.

 

I could provide more examples, but this is enough to show that the reason that the Holy Spirit came upon someone was always to carry out the work of God. The Spirit was given to men, but not for men – it was always given so they could work for God, to establish his purpose, doing what they would have otherwise been unable to do.

 

The other thing to notice is that the Holy Spirit was given for a set time only. For the duration of the work for which the individual had been chosen. The time in the above examples are all short. Here’s references to where it’s for a longer duration:

 

Numbers 11:16And the LORD said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee. And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them...

 

1 Samuel 16:13Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward...

 

Also consider Joshua (Num 27) Saul (1 Sam 16:14), Elisha (2 Kings 2:15),Elijah (2 Kings 2:9)

 

These examples also agree with the ones of a shorter duration, in that the Holy Spirit came upon them for the purpose of carrying out God’s will, so the men could do what they would not have otherwise been able to, with the duration appropriate to the mission.

 

Why do these examples matter? Because they establish the principles on which the Holy Spirit was given to men and women through the ages, and we’ll find that every instance establishes the same principles.

 

The New Testament follows the same principles, but it’s on a wider scale.

 

We’re told precisely what the purpose for this is.

 

John 14:36 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

 

 

John 16:And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:… he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

 

 

So the Holy Spirit would

 

-teach them all things

-cause them to remember Christ’s words

-discern between sin and righteousness, and execute judgement

-provide inspired guidance

-show them the future

 

 

It becomes clear that the purpose for giving the Holy Spirit was for extending the gospel message, accurately and authoritatively. That's one of the main reasons Christ was given the Holy Spirit without measure - to show that he was of God. And the disciples were given understanding of how the Scriptures spoke of him (see Luke 24) - perfect understanding. And it's important to note that this didn't make the independant of the Word, but were still dependant upon it.

 

Spreading the word about Christ and his fulfillment of the promises wouldn't have been an easy task, and without the Holy Spirit gifts, growing the numbers within the 1st century church probably wouldn't have happened. We now have the Scriptures to help us understand the gospel, but not so at that time. The new testament holds a lot of commentary to help us understand the OT, and the purpose of the gifts was to help people to understand it, and unify them in their faith. (Eph 4:11-16) Now we have the complete scriptures to help us with that, as so many verses will attest to.

[milovany]

Spreading the word about Christ and his fulfillment of the promises wouldn't have been an easy task, and without the Holy Spirit gifts, growing the numbers within the 1st century church probably wouldn't have happened. We now have the Scriptures to help us understand the gospel, but not so at that time. The new testament holds a lot of commentary to help us understand the OT, and the purpose of the gifts was to help people to understand it, and unify them in their faith. (Eph 4:11-16) Now we have the complete scriptures to help us with that, as so many verses will attest to.

 

There's a lot of interpretation going on in this summary. The Bible says the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, not the written Scriptures. If the Bible was going to be the foundation of the faith, wouldn't Christ or Paul have mentioned it, the coming canon, somewhere? Wouldn't that have been Job #1 for the early church? Better yet, wouldn't Christ Himself have written it, and interpreted it for us? That sure would have solved a lot of problems, wouldn't it? And yet, the church survived quite well -- withstood a great persecution, thrived, grew -- for a few hundred years without an established canon of Scripture. It's possible to be the church without the written word. We do have it now as a gift of God, given through the church, and so need to receive it as such, but it's not the foundation of the Christian faith and if there were no Bibles, the church would still survive (except that the reason for there being no Bibles might concurrently mean life for the church is presently quite challenging).

 

What are your thoughts on the 300-400 years of church history after the apostles, and before there was a canon of Scripture? Were these spiritual gifts in question active then? And speaking of the Scripture you are inferring is "complete," what of the deuterocanonical books that were part of the Scriptures for 1500+ years, but are not part of most English translations today? Can an incomplete Bible created without the deuterocanonical books be considered complete?

 

There are just a lot of unanswered questions when there's any kind of effort by individuals to conclusively summarize what the Bible means. I'm not singling you out with that statement; if you've seen my other posts in this thread, you can see I have had a general frustration in this respect.

Edited May 30, 2012 by milovaný

[TranquilMind]

Celia: This reasoning doesn't stand. Look at the way it's used through out Scripture. Men and women were given the Holy Spirit to carry out tasks which they would otherwise be unable to. Here's some examples:

 

 

 

I could provide more examples, but this is enough to show that the reason that the Holy Spirit came upon someone was always to carry out the work of God. The Spirit was given to men, but not for men – it was always given so they could work for God, to establish his purpose, doing what they would have otherwise been unable to do.

 

 

Yes, but you are giving a partial picture here, stopping with the Old Testament. In Acts 1, Jesus tells the apostles themselves - and Mary, his mother, and the others of the 120 in the upper room to stay and wait until the Holy Spirit has come upon them - and gives them the reason - they NEED the POWER To do what He has called them to do.

 

Acts 1: 4 Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,†He said, “you heard of from Me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now

 

 

Reason:

8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.â€

 

But wait: It isn't just for them. How do we know this:

 

Acts 2: 38-39 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

 

(Fonts are weird-sorry)

So, whatever happened to them, should be happening to us.

 

The other thing to notice is that the Holy Spirit was given for a set time only. For the duration of the work for which the individual had been chosen. The time in the above examples are all short. Here’s references to where it’s for a longer duration:

 

 

That would be a lifetime duration, for them, for us, and for all whom God has called, for our duration of our "job" in the Kingdom is here and now.

 

Numbers 11:16And the LORD said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee. And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them...

 

1 Samuel 16:13Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward...

 

Also consider Joshua (Num 27) Saul (1 Sam 16:14), Elisha (2 Kings 2:15),Elijah (2 Kings 2:9)

 

 

Right. All OT references. This is clearly how God did things with them prior to Jesus and the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the believers.

 

 

Why do these examples matter? Because they establish the principles on which the Holy Spirit was given to men and women through the ages, and we’ll find that every instance establishes the same principles.

 

 

Through the ages...prior to Christ and his direction to the Apostles in the Upper room. Now there is a New testament pattern, invoked repeatedly all the way through, with notable instances in Acts 1, 2, 18, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians.

 

John 14:36 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 16:And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:… he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

 

Yes, and the power to do the work He has given the Apostles and "all who are afar off, even as many as the Lord God should call" - which would be all of us who are in Christ.

 

So the Holy Spirit would

 

-teach them all things

-cause them to remember Christ’s words

-discern between sin and righteousness, and execute judgement

-provide inspired guidance

-show them the future

 

 

 

Yes, that's the same as it is in the New Testament.

It becomes clear that the purpose for giving the Holy Spirit was for extending the gospel message, accurately and authoritatively. That's one of the main reasons Christ was given the Holy Spirit without measure - to show that he was of God.

One reason, but not the only reason. He also demonstrates God's nature, and God is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Spreading the word about Christ and his fulfillment of the promises wouldn't have been an easy task, and without the Holy Spirit gifts, growing the numbers within the 1st century church probably wouldn't have happened. We now have the Scriptures to help us understand the gospel, but not so at that time.

 

It still isn't an easy task, and there is absolutely no biblical support for the fact that the Holy Spirit sign gifts just suddenly stop because someone prints a Bible in scripture, but the others remain. That line of demarcation simply isn't there.

Someone else said that the Holy Spirit couldn't still be in operation through men as in the NT because it would "have to be added to scripture." Not true. Even scripture says that everything that happened then - all of the events characterizing the nature and work of Jesus - weren't included because there simply wasn't room. Also, every time someone "knows the future" or speaks a word in guidance or discerns between good and evil, it isn't included in scripture. It's just part and parcel of how the church operates, for everyday purposes. So long as the works are still in the nature and character of Jesus, then they will still happen. You will know them by their fruits.

[Bluegoat]

link?

 

You can find lots of stuff on the internet about it from good sources. I'll give you a link to the Wiki article - it is consistent with what I've seen elsewhere. The section on non-christian examples says:

 

 

Other religious groups have been observed to practice some form of theopneustic glossolalia. It is perhaps most commonly in Paganism, Shamanism, and other mediumistic religious practices.[57] In Japan, the God Light Association used to practice glossolalia to cause adherents to recall past lives.[58]

Glossolalia has even been postulated as an explanation for the Voynich manuscript.[59]

Certain Gnostic magical texts from the Roman period have written on them unintelligible syllables such as "t t t t n n n n d d d d d..." etc. It is conjectured that these may be transliterations of the sorts of sounds made during glossolalia. The Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians also features a hymn of (mostly) unintelligible syllables which is thought to be an early example of Christian glossolalia.[citation needed]

In the 19th century, Spiritism was developed by the work of Allan Kardec, and the phenomenon was seen as one of the self-evident manifestations of spirits. Spiritists argued that some cases were actually cases of xenoglossia.

Glossolalia has also been observed in the Voodoo religion of Haiti,[60] as well as in the Hindu Gurus and Fakirs of India.[61][62]

Edited May 30, 2012 by Bluegoat

[Celia]

There's a lot of interpretation going on in this summary. The Bible says the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, not the written Scriptures. If the Bible was going to be the foundation of the faith, wouldn't Christ or Paul have mentioned it, the coming canon, somewhere? Wouldn't that have been Job #1 for the early church? Better yet, wouldn't Christ Himself have written it, and interpreted it for us? That sure would have solved a lot of problems, wouldn't it? And yet, the church survived quite well -- withstood a great persecution, thrived, grew -- for a few hundred years without an established canon of Scripture. It's possible to be the church without the written word. We do have it now as a gift of God, given through the church, and so need to receive it as such, but it's not the foundation of the Christian faith and if there were no Bibles, the church would still survive (except that the reason for there being no Bibles might concurrently mean life for the church is presently quite challenging).

 

What are your thoughts on the 300-400 years of church history after the apostles, and before there was a canon of Scripture? Were these spiritual gifts in question active then? And speaking of the Scripture you are inferring is "complete," what of the deuterocanonical books that were part of the Scriptures for 1500+ years, but are not part of most English translations today? Can an incomplete Bible created without the deuterocanonical books be considered complete?

 

There are just a lot of unanswered questions when there's any kind of effort by individuals to conclusively summarize what the Bible means. I'm not singling you out with that statement; if you've seen my other posts in this thread, you can see I have had a general frustration in this respect.

 

I agree with you that my summary was pretty incomplete. I wasn't happy with it and wanted to add more, but I ran out of time (it's this homeschooling while potty training thing.... not a nice combination!)

 

I do have some thoughts regarding your comments, but I'll have to wait until Mr. Peepants is in bed, or my carpet will suffer more!

[pfamilygal]

I don't get it.

 

Clearly the Bible says these things continue: Acts 2:17 "‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams."

 

I think the I Corinthians part about them ceasing means that at the end of days, when Christ rules and this earth is renewed, we will have no need for these things because we will be face to face with Him.

 

I, personally, have prophetic giftings. I have dreamed or had visions of things/people that I had no way of knowing. And then they came true. Or I have prayed over people and seen very vivid images in my mind. When I spoke them out to the person, they would begin to weep because it was exactly what they needed to hear.

 

My husband speaks in tongues. I don't do it often, but have occassionally. I don't believe it is necessary for salvation or evidence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But I absolutely believe it exists.

 

Jesus gave His followers the ability to do greater things than He did, and backed that promise with the Holy Spirit and authority. Of course we should be seeing miracles and manifestations of the Holy Spirit moving in power. The church in Acts did!

[Heidi]

I know y'all are just dying to know what the Latter-Day Saints believe on the topic. ;)

 

"We believe in the gift of tongues, prophesy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth." Article of Faith #7

 

 

The reason the gifts are not manifest more readily today is explained in the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.

 

"18. And who shall say that Jesus Christ did not do many mighty miracles? And there were many mighty miracles wrought by the hands of the apostles.

19 And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.

20 And the reason why he ceaseth to do miracles among the children of men is because that they dwindle in unbelief, and depart from the right way, and know not the God in whom they should trust." Mormon 9:18-20

[milovany]

I agree with you that my summary was pretty incomplete.

 

I didn't think your summary was incomplete, necessarily. My point was kind of that any summary that solely uses the Scriptures is incomplete. What you wrote was your interpretation of the Scriptures on the issue, that's what I was saying. Other people have different interpretations of the same Scriptures. This issue, and many like it, can't be solved solely by looking at Scripture.