There's lots of made-up 'history' among the P/Cs. I call it 'urban legends.' Yet, there are many who cite early church fathers saying those gifts ceased. Yet, the debate rages on...
Can you give me some actual examples? I know there is a quote from a theologian who had not researched the issue in the 1800s who said there was no reliable evidence for miracles after the apostles or the first century or something along those lines. Some authors will repeat this, as if it proves something, instead of examining church history for themselves. Some of them will also quote Warfield, apparently without having finished his book, because they do not even mention the fact that Warfield had to grasp at straws to try to figure out how to make Ireneaus, champion of historical orthodoxy, still be sincere while reporting miracles. Warfield had his own doctrine not taught in scripture related to the cessation of certain charismata. There are numerous websites you can go to for lists of examples of spiritual gifts.
I know of two late men who get labeled with the grandous title 'church fathers' who either reported not experiencing speaking in tongues or came up with reasons while it was for the past-- Augustine and Chrysostom, both kind of late to be given the title. As far as any of them saying 'those gifts ceased', including miracles, prophecy, etc., please produce a source for any respected church leader during the era who made the argument. It is easy to use church history to prove your case when you make up what church history says or just repeat authors who have done the same.
I've poked around this online book from the 1800's that does a bit of a historical study of the topic: <
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Suppressed_Evidence.html?id=JkopAAAAYAAJ>. Most of it is in English. You may need to be a bit of a polyglott to read all the quotes. I've already mentioned Burgess _The Spirit and the Church: Volume I-- Antiquity_ which deals with the era. I saw this one back in high school so it has been a while. An account of Athanasius prophesying comes to mind.
I am not an expert in this stuff, but The Shepherd of Hermas, whether you like the theology or not, mentions the fact that prophets prophesied in the church, and this was probably mid-second century. I have mentioned Irenaeus testified to brethren operating in spiritual gifts: prophecy, foreknowledge, healing, tongues, etc.
In subsequent centuries there are the miracles of St. Martin of Tours. St. Partrick is also another one to look at. Numerous healings, even resurrections of the dead, are attributed to him. Within the two works that historians recognize as his own share his testimony of being directed to escape to freedom from Ireland by a vision and being instructed to return to Ireland, his field of ministry, by a supernatural voice. There many other examples.
Are you trying to say that tongues is NOT miraculous? Based on your past responses, I'm sure you're not.
It's supernatural, but it's confusing terminology if there is a list of spiritual gifts, one of them is called 'working of miracles' and you call them all 'miraculous gifts.'
So then, it appears this response is somewhat disingenuous, unless you're confessing that you're actually confused.
I think you are confused and you have a hair trigger on the character attack button.
Major Pentecostal denominations like AOG and Apostolics still declare it as official doctrine. So you must be talking about minorities.
They don't usually call themselves Charismatics, though, not in the US at least. 'Apostolics' have different soteriology, considering tongues as a sign of salvation.
Here again, our paths diverge. You ASSUME that modern tongues is a spiritual gift, I say it's not.
The Bible says divers tongues is among the manifestations of the Spirit given as the Spirit wills. Do you agree with that? Do you have any reason to decree that the Spirit does not will to give this now? Do you have any reason to think that those in the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements are not recipients of the grace of God?
You miss the point. History supports it. Since the Bible does not address what happens in that regard after the 1st Century, we have to determine from history what has actually happened. That's the reason for the debate. Therefore, to discount or disregard history is a fool's errand.
You are the one disregarding history. Numerous accounts, small percentage-wise perhaps, of individuals healing, performing miracles, prophesying, seeing visions, etc. is evidence for continuation. But Biblically, there is no reason to believe doctrines or the way scripture reveals God acts in the church expired after the first century.
Is okay to murder? It's after the first century. The most recent teachings against murder we have in the Bible were in the first century? What about fornication? First century again. Can drunkard bishops/overseers be appointed? Well, that restriction on bishops/overseers was in the first century. Does God still save through faith in Jesus' Christ? Those verses you read about that are from the first century. Does that make them not valid?
I can't find an expiration date at the end of any of these books of the Bible.
A quote from the below website: "In spite of the fact that Scripture says that a true prophet must be held to the standard of 100% accuracy, modern prophets simply ignore that standard, being content with the fact that their prophecies contain hundreds of mistakes. (Mike Bickle even admits that modern prophecy has about an 80% failure rate.) "
Ok, 80%, but I think it's a conservative estimate, since I heard 80-90%.
https://thecripplegate.com/strange-fire-modern-prophecy/
Skimming that, it looks like he is talking about a couple of movements. The Bickle quote I saw does not say that 80% is normative. He may believe it is, or he may not. I don't know. I also did not see an actual source for the Bickle. Some of the quotes about prophets making 'mistakes.' The context of the quote needs to be clear. One might say that Moses or Elijah made mistakes. Moses was slow to circumcise Gershom. Elijah may have allowed himself to be overtaken by despair. That's not the same as false prophecy. I know for a fact that not all people who claim to be prophets and not all Pentecostals think that less than 100% prophecies are acceptable.
Another site has this quote: "Mike Bickle is the pastor of the Kansas City Prophets and, you know, the founder of IHOP, The International House of Prayer, the guy who says that in his entire experience, over 40 years, I think he said, in the Charismatic Movement, 80 percent of the phenomenon he’s seen, he knows its faults. And he’s saying that not as a critique of the Movement, but he’s saying that to say to people it’s okay, it’s okay if some of the stuff is false, it’s all right. "
https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/70-37/strange-fire-qa-answering-the-critics
I've heard and read some stuff from John MacArthur. He may be accurate or inaccurate in his explanation. But I wouldn't trust him to rightly convey the understanding or intention of someone explaining spiritual gifts, certainly not the apostle Paul's. The last I checked, he still has a sermon up on his website suggesting that Paul was addressing the issue of the Corinthians speaking in 'pagan' tongues. He promoted the linguistic nonsense theory that the singular Greek word rendered 'tongue' referred to pagan tongues while the plural referred to the real thing in I Corinthians 14. That would have Paul instructing the Corinthians in verses 27-28 to allow an interpreter to interpret a pagan tongue for the congregation. I've seen some of the arguments he made about quotes from other preachers in his books, too.
If 80% of prophecy in the Charismatic is true prophecy, then that's something to consider.
An exaggerative statement in response to what I wrote is the same as attributing it to what I wrote. It indicates that you assumed that I meant that prophets who decided to keep silent or speak as they chose were making it up. Otherwise, why would you say such a thing? I think you're being dishonest here.
I considered that might be a possibility. But I don't know your mind. Try not to be too sensitive. In context, why would you make the comment you did unless you wanted your reader to suspect that is what you meant?
To get specific, then: when the apostles spoke the languages of the people in Acts 2, it was miraculous. When people learn the languages of the world and speak the gospel in those languages, it's secondary means, or providence. Some of the gifts listed in 1 Cor. 12:28 are miraculous, and some are providential. Apostles, teachers, helps, and governments are providential, the others are miraculous. Except today, languages are providential, since they are learned.
Paul doesn't break them down into these categories. I do not see why supernatural, non-mundane gifts would be excluded from the category of 'providence', so I do not see how the categories are that helpful.
Then you'll be back here to testify how good it is. (and probably of some bumps and bruises as you make mistakes).
