Have the New Testament Charismatic gifts ceased?

[ember]

I think I just heard something in my spirit that God spoke into it:

Come in...don't stand outside...I tore the curtain...I am here and I want you to come in

Don't stand outside in the outer court...I made a way...it's now and forever...come in to the Holy of Holies and worship Me

see...God encourages us every day...He is alive and here we sit and rip it all apart...He is not in some tomb ...he got up and walked out...He wants you to get up and walk out too

 

[valiant]

show me a man today who has the gifts that the Apostle had, to heal ALL that came to them

Then perhaps they can heal my wife?

 

[God4me]

some points i want add to my posts
1. You can only come to the second baptising with the Holy Spirit if you create an own theologie about that.

2. You are right it is more important what the bible says then people. But it has to be proofed. The doctrine from 2nd baptising with the Holy Spirit is man made. If it would be from God, we would find plenty records in church history teachings. But we do not. And of course Churchfathers and Reformators are people like you and me. But they worked out the word of god and createt the meanings which led to different churches and denominations. And I am shure non of them is 100% rigth.
But non of them taugth the Baptising with the Holy Spirit has to be completet in a second baptising for to get the powers to fulfill the task of a christian. Nowhere the bible is teaching that every beliver can speak in tongues.
This teaching came up in 1900 AD!! around 1800 years after John the last apostel died.
What between? You simply ignore this fact! And you stamp all believers before 1900 AD and all non pentecostal/charismatic believers to incomplete believers, because they/we dont had/have the baptising with the Holy Spirit, according the doctrine which began with the Pentecostal movement from Azusa street. Only some years later this movement has splittet and today we find various teachings. So what is then true?
In 60ties and 80ties charismatic movements came along with much more different teachings and practicing which reminds to spiritism. What then is true?
I would believe in the 2nd baptising of the Holy Spirit, if it would be clear in the scripture. But you have to create a doctrine with mankind thoughts to combind verses togehter out of the context and meanings.
I claim to have the Holy Spirit and he was given to me in that moment i was born again! And he is saying me that this doctrine is wrong!

a third point
I believe that the same Holy Spirit is today in action as in the day of the apostles. And he healings and wonders are today existent, no question, but not bound to any specific persons but to the prayer of believers. And yes this occurs in the missionfield more than in the churches ore in our western world.
The advise we find in 1. Corinthians are for churchlife! In churchlife we all today have the word of god in our hands, so we dont need a prophet. We dont need a healer, because this should be the Job of the eldest according James 5;
So we see a different which we should not mix together.
And about the tongues, we find this "gift" in sects like Mormons and New apostolic church. And also in pagan groups. So where is the different.
In 1. Cor. 14,8, it says that speaking in tongues will cease. But it says not when. Thats right.
the following verses are speaking about prophecie and wisdom, but not about tongues.
Speaking in tongues was mentioned in the first centuries, but also used from the Monatanistmovement till the 6th century.
This movement was realy big and was foundet from a false Prophet.

So God is given healings and wonders today, too and they are 100% effectiv. (mostly in mission field).Today healers ore prophets in churches are not able to heal 100% of the people which come to them to be healed. Also the propheties which are given, some pentecostal leaders claim 40-60% are coming true. What is this for a weak witness for God?

The gifts which people got to established the church they got from God through the Holy spirit when they was born again, ore when the got a special task from God to do. But this is no 2.nd baptising with the Holy Spirit. This is however a false doctrine. I know the most will not agree with this. But maby you think and pray a little about it.

The Bible clearly teaches the second blessing, The first being the rebirth, and the second being the baptism in the Holy Ghost, as I have proved by scriptures.
You are going by your own opinions rather than what the Bible says.
Please note, I have given scriptures to prove that the Baptism in the Holy Ghost is a separate experience, whereas, You haven't given one scripture that say there aren't two experiences.

I know the gifts and the power are still in the Church today, and so are tongues, as nowhere does the Bible say they will cease this side of eternity, And Paul tells when they will cease, 1 Cor 13: 8, When we know as we are known, when we no more see through a dark glass, when we see Jesus face to face.

 

[presidente]

That which we know we know through the word of God. Paul only had part of the word of God. The early church preached Christ from the OT scriptures because the NT was not perfect as in complete.

You still wiggle and you still deny. Christianity is all about Christ and nothing about men. Pentecostals and charismatics are all about self and what they demand God do for them. Just like the two malefactors crucified with Christ the one mocking Jesus and trying to manipulate Him the other only seeking His mercy. Well you know the outcome.

Your posts seem to me to be a lot about self, your ideas, your opinions, even when they don't make sense and contradict the Bible.

The New Testament canon wasn't complete when Paul wrote I Corinthians 13. So what? That doesn't prove that the canon was what Paul had in mind when he wrote about the perfect in I Corinthians 13. The idea that it does doesn't fit the context and contradicts I Corinthians 1:7. You are not allowed to just make a text mean anything you want it to mean without regarding the context.

 

[presidente]

Once again, how did you get from "will cease" to "have ceased"? (1 Cor 13:8)

Matthew Henry is usually my GO-TO commentary, and he concludes that "perfection" is achieved in Heaven--not on Earth.

Here's an exerpt from his commentary on the verse(s):

"I. From its longer continuance and duration: Charity never faileth. It is a permanent and perpetual grace, lasting as eternity; whereas the extraordinary gifts on which the Corinthians valued themselves were of short continuance. They were only to edify the church on earth, and that but for a time, not during its whole continuance in this world; but in heaven would be all superseded, which yet is the very seat and element of love. Prophecy must fail, that is, either the prediction of things to come (which is its most common sense) or the interpretation of scripture by immediate inspiration. Tongues will cease, that is, the miraculous power of speaking languages without learning them. There will be but one language in heaven. There is no confusion of tongues in the region of perfect tranquility. And knowledge will vanish away. Not that, in the perfect state above, holy and happy souls shall be unknowing, ignorant: it is a very poor happiness that can consist with utter ignorance. The apostle is plainly speaking of miraculous gifts, and therefore of knowledge to be had out of the common way (see ch. 14:6), a knowledge of mysteries supernaturally communicated. Such knowledge was to vanish away. Some indeed understand it of common knowledge acquired by instruction, taught and learnt. This way of knowing is to vanish away, though the knowledge itself, once acquired, will not be lost. But it is plain that the apostle is here setting the grace of charity in opposition to supernatural gifts. And it is more valuable, because more durable; it shall last, when they shall be no more; it shall enter into heaven, where they will have no place, because they will be of no use, though, in a sense, even our common knowledge may be said to cease in heaven, by reason of the improvement that will then be made in it. The light of a candle is perfectly obscured by the sun shining in its strength." (Source: https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/mhc/1Cr/1Cr_013.cfm?a=1075008)

I never cared much for Matthew Henry commentaries, lots of flowery words, rather than specifics about the Greek text. Lot's of 'Oh, how wonderful it is to..." My dad had a copy on the shelf when I was a teen. I didn't realize that it was a collection of sermons.

I don't see why you'd share this quote. It's Matthew Henry's opinion and commentary, not some evidence for what the text actually means. One of the things that irritates me about it is stuff like 'it may be said to cease in heaven.' At least it is informative that the trend to focus on dying and going to heaven instead of focusing on being resurrected at the return of Christ was a theme in Reformed writing in the 1800's. This wrong emphasis of folk Christianity has been a problem for a long time, and I'm sure the Reformed inherited it from the Catholics.

The New Testament focus is on the return of Christ and the resurrection, not dying and going to heaven. Tongues ceasing in heaven? How is that even on the same wavelength with Paul, who said, 'because of the resurrection of the dead, I am in these chains.' He was chained for his belief in the resurrection of the dead, and of Christ as the firstfruits of it.

 

[valiant]

The Bible clearly teaches the second blessing, The first being the rebirth, and the second being the baptism in the Holy Ghost, as I have proved by scriptures.
You are going by your own opinions rather than what the Bible says.
Please note, I have given scriptures to prove that the Baptism in the Holy Ghost is a separate experience, whereas, You haven't given one scripture that say there aren't two experiences.

you cannot prove that there is a 'second experience' called 'the baptism in the Holy Spirit'

In the New Testament there were many experiences of the Holy Spirit, but never a specific 'second experience'.

 

[ember]

show me a man today who has the gifts that the Apostle had, to heal ALL that came to them

Then perhaps they can heal my wife?

sounds like you are hurting valiant

did flesh and blood heal or does the Spirit of God heal?

even so, are all healed? even Jesus removed Himself from one area and did not many miracles because of the lack of faith

 

[notuptome]

Your posts seem to me to be a lot about self, your ideas, your opinions, even when they don't make sense and contradict the Bible.

The New Testament canon wasn't complete when Paul wrote I Corinthians 13. So what? That doesn't prove that the canon was what Paul had in mind when he wrote about the perfect in I Corinthians 13. The idea that it does doesn't fit the context and contradicts I Corinthians 1:7. You are not allowed to just make a text mean anything you want it to mean without regarding the context.

1 Cor 1:7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:

There is no contradiction here.

Of course Paul had the canon of scripture in mind or the Holy Spirit did.

1Co 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

The OT was a shadow of things to come. The NT revealing that which was only partially seen in the OT. After the completion of the revelation of Gods word there was no more need for signs and extraordinary knowledge or prophecy. The Holy Spirit now present with the completed word of God provided all the pieces for God to save souls through preaching.

1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Tongues have always been a sign of impending judgment to Israel. When they were disobedient they were taken into captivity by nations whose languages they did not understand.

Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

Do you think this is what God has in mind for the church?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

I guess the question has no definite answer.

Or, perhaps, it has two answers: 1. The gifts remain today -or- 2. The gifts have ceased.

It makes more sense, to me, that the gifts remain and "perfection" is not reached until Heaven.

 

[ember]

you cannot prove that there is a 'second experience' called 'the baptism in the Holy Spirit'

In the New Testament there were many experiences of the Holy Spirit, but never a specific 'second experience'.

Here is an example of receiving the Holy Spirit, AFTER believing in Christ and being baptized

14When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit,

16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

so from the above, we can easily see that people had come to faith in Christ, but had NOT received the Holy Spirit and did not, until Peter and John prayed for them

we are sealed with the Holy Spirit at salvation, but there is also the second experience as recorded in the book of Acts in several places

 

[ember]

I guess the question has no definite answer.

Or, perhaps, it has two answers: 1. The gifts remain today -or- 2. The gifts have ceased.

It makes more sense, to me, that the gifts remain and "perfection" is not reached until Heaven.

cessationists believe that the 'perfect' is the Bible...but this is what we are actually looking at

But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

so then common sense if nothing else, tells us that knowledge has not passed away at all...prophecies have not yet all been fulfilled...so 2 out of 3 suggests that tongues have not ceased either

they will also state that the other gifts are valid...it's just tongues they want nothing to do with

if I Corinthians 13 is read in context, it becomes clear that Paul is NOT saying anything has passed away...that, is a FUTURE event

you really have to make the scripture jump through a hoop and twist it, to make it seem it says something else

Paul was emphasizing that no gift without God's love means anything....even the gifts are given because of God's love

1If I speak in the tongues[SUP]a[/SUP] of men or of angels, but do not have 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 do not have love, I am nothing.

3If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[SUP]b[/SUP] but do not have love, I gain nothing.4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

5It does not dishonor others, 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 completeness comes, what is in part 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 the ways of childhood behind me.

12For now we see only a 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.

The chapter above very plainly states that we do not see things clearly and we will not see things clearly nor will we understand until we see Christ face to face

 

[valiant]

sounds like you are hurting valiant

did flesh and blood heal or does the Spirit of God heal?

even so, are all healed? even Jesus removed Himself from one area and did not many miracles because of the lack of faith

Jesus healed ALL who came to Him, He did not heal those who did not come. The Apostles healed ALL who came to them. Modern man is full of excuses.

 

[valiant]

Here is an example of receiving the Holy Spirit, AFTER believing in Christ and being baptized

14When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit,

16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

so from the above, we can easily see that people had come to faith in Christ, but had NOT received the Holy Spirit and did not, until Peter and John prayed for them

we are sealed with the Holy Spirit at salvation, but there is also the second experience as recorded in the book of Acts in several places

you are in error. The Samaritans did not receive the Spirit because God was showing that all had to look to the Apostles. Otherwise they would have formed a separate church. They received the Spirit the FIRST time from the Apostles.

You people always build your false doctrines on special cases,

 

[ember]

you are in error. The Samaritans did not receive the Spirit because God was showing that all had to look to the Apostles. Otherwise they would have formed a separate church. They received the Spirit the FIRST time from the Apostles.

You people always build your false doctrines on special cases,

oh dear

valiant, you sound upset and that may be clouding your judgement

I am not in any kind of error here...you are sadly in denial

everyone had to look to the Apostles? there is no scripture to support that notion

that is the equivalent of saying we need a priest because we don't have Jesus

I'm not arguing with you ; however you cannot simply deny what those verses say

 

[ember]

Jesus healed ALL who came to Him, He did not heal those who did not come. The Apostles healed ALL who came to them. Modern man is full of excuses.

Jesus did...but we are not Jesus and to suggest we do all that He did is misapplying or misunderstanding

the Apostles all died as well as does all human flesh...it is appointed that each person dies

it appears that it is actually yourself that is full of excuses sir...I would never grovel at someone's feet...but I have grovelled at God's feet more than once and expect I shall in the future

It is to Him you need to take your case

 

[ember]

Valiant...I would suggest respectfully, that you consider the case of Paul

God refused to take away whatever it was that Paul asked Him to

We neglect the will of God when we state things like the Apostles healed everyone...we do not know that for a fact..we know that they did heal some...that, is a fact

I have already made note of the following, but here it is again

1 He went away from there and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. 2And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. 4And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.” 5And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. 6And he marveled because of their unbelief. Mark 6:1-6

Please note that is talking about JESUS...apparently, the less than joyous reception in His hometown...He only healed a few and did no great work

I do not intend to add to nor do I intend to take away from scripture and it is good to acknowledge what is actually written

 

[valiant]

oh dear

valiant, you sound upset and that may be clouding your judgement

I am not in any kind of error here...you are sadly in denial

everyone had to look to the Apostles? there is no scripture to support that notion

that is the equivalent of saying we need a priest because we don't have Jesus

I'm not arguing with you ; however you cannot simply deny what those verses say

I think it is YOU who is in denial. Both in the case of the Samaritans and the disciples of John (Acts 19) the Spirit was given through Apostles to ensure that all remained one church. To liken them to priests is nonsense. They were once for all events,

You are desperate to prove a doctrine which is unscriptural. So you pluck at any straws.

 

[ember]

I think it is YOU who is in denial. Both in the case of the Samaritans and the disciples of John (Acts 19) the Spirit was given through Apostles to ensure that all remained one church. To liken them to priests is nonsense. They were once for all events,

You are desperate to prove a doctrine which is unscriptural. So you pluck at any straws.

ok...I consider this a personal attack and not a difference of opinion

therefore, I think it best we give you a time out

the scripture is simple and easily understood...it is your choice what you wish to believe about it...however, it is MY choice whether or not I am going to allow you to take out your anger on me

so I'm done talking to you for the moment

 

[valiant]

Valiant...I would suggest respectfully, that you consider the case of Paul

God refused to take away whatever it was that Paul asked Him to

who said it was an illness?, A messenger of Satan to buffet him sounds more like an opponent,

We neglect the will of God when we state things like the Apostles healed everyone...we do not know that for a fact..we know that they did heal some...that, is a fact

you never hear of them failing to heal anyone after the cross. why didn't they say so? 2.43; 4.12. Indeed they claimed 'they healed every one' 5.16.

I have already made note of the following, but here it is again

1 He went away from there and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. 2And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. 4And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.” 5And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. 6And he marveled because of their unbelief. Mark 6:1-6

Please note that is talking about JESUS...apparently, the less than joyous reception in His hometown...He only healed a few and did no great work

And what is that saying, That Jesus COULD NOT HEAL? It is rather saying that He did not heal because they did not come to Him for healing, I cannot imagine Jesus FAILING TO HEAL. The Son of God?. Can you?

I do not intend to add to nor do I intend to take away from scripture and it is good to acknowledge what is actually written

but you did not know what was written. And you have misinterpreted some. It is not what is actually written. It is YOUR version of it,

 

[valiant]

Charismatics always run away when they are beaten