How do we explain apparent use of gifts today?

[au5t1n]

Have any cessationists read Grudem on this subject? I would love to hear their thoughts.

If the gift of prophecy is not that which is seen in the New Testament, correct, it should not be considered as possessing the same authority as Scripture; but then the gift of prophecy is not that which is seen in the New Testament, and hence not biblical.

This is what makes Grudem's argument more plausible. He provides linguistic arguments in an attempt to show that the position of apostle who can say 'thus says the Lord' is the NT equivalent of the OT position of prophet. He then argues, based on the NT usage of the greek word(s?) translated prophet in our english bibles, that the NT prophet has less authority. These NT prophet's never have the right to say 'thus says the Lord'.

I'll try and provide some details after I get back from work but if you're interested you can get his understanding of all the gifts in a free podcast of his Sunday school class where he goes over these topics in greater detail.

"10 While we were staying for many days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 And coming to us, he took Paul's belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’” 12 When we heard this, we and the people there urged him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul answered, “What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be imprisoned but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” 14 And since he would not be persuaded, we ceased and said, “Let the will of the Lord be done.” Acts 21:10-14(ESV)

"Thus says the Holy Spirit" is close enough for me. This passage, among others, proves to me that NT prophecy was not just "I feel prompted to say such and such," as Grudem argues in his Systematic Theology- It was revelation from God to prophet.

 

[Scott1]

"10 While we were staying for many days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 And coming to us, he took Paul's belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’” 12 When we heard this, we and the people there urged him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul answered, “What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be imprisoned but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” 14 And since he would not be persuaded, we ceased and said, “Let the will of the Lord be done.” Acts 21:10-14(ESV)
"Thus says the Holy Spirit" is close enough for me. This passage, among others, proves to me that NT prophecy was not just "I feel prompted to say such and such," as Grudem argues in his Systematic Theology- It was revelation from God to prophet.

__________________

But God worked foundational, revelation through and around the Apostles to establish their mission to build the faith "once and for all delivered" to the saints.

I don't think this supports post apostolic "apostles" or, ordinarily, new revelation equal or above that of scripture coming through unknown tongues and interpretation.

Are you saying it does?

 

[au5t1n]

"10 While we were staying for many days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 And coming to us, he took Paul's belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’” 12 When we heard this, we and the people there urged him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul answered, “What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be imprisoned but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” 14 And since he would not be persuaded, we ceased and said, “Let the will of the Lord be done.” Acts 21:10-14(ESV)
"Thus says the Holy Spirit" is close enough for me. This passage, among others, proves to me that NT prophecy was not just "I feel prompted to say such and such," as Grudem argues in his Systematic Theology- It was revelation from God to prophet.

__________________

But God worked foundational, revelation through and around the Apostles to establish their mission to build the faith "once and for all delivered" to the saints.

I don't think this supports post apostolic "apostles" or, ordinarily, new revelation equal or above that of scripture coming through unknown tongues and interpretation.

Are you saying it does?

I agree. I was arguing against Grudem's "non-revelatory" position on NT prophecy, which he believes continues today. My position is that NT prophecy was roughly the same as OT prophecy, and that it has ceased.

 

[steadfast7]

"prophecies" of future happenings which are of a specific nature are very rare in church wide Pentecostal settings, I've never seen it happen. There is certainly no intention to place spoken words above scripture, for some churches do practice corporate discernment, to see whether the word was of the Lord. Other churches even require that words of prophecy be screened through the senior pastor before being released to the congregation. you'll find that the 'words' are really just echoes of what is found in scripture (this is what i mean by parallel, like in the way the WCF and creeds echo scripture). Also, as Grudem argues, New Testament prophecy did not function like old testament prophecy, in terms of infallibility and authority either. Prophets like Agabus were not completely accurate in their prophecies.

I don't think they are undermining the sufficiency of scripture, they are simply seeking God for a Present Word of edification, and I think this differs only in degree and not substance with our concepts of the Holy Spirit speaking to us personally in his ministry of illumination, conviction, calling, etc.

It's true that many occurences of the gifts, especially interpretation, are fake and/or abused. DA Carson's collegue once rattled off John 1 in Greek during a charismatic worship - the 'interpretation' was a far cry. However, even so, with abuses, excesses and disorder in the Corinthian church, as in the charismatic churches today, Paul does not dismiss them as invalid or condemn its practice, but regulates it for maximum benefit.

In terms of the apparent use of tongues, I have heard reports (not sure of its authenticity) of known languages being spontaneously spoken by people who never learned it. If even one of these occurrences is true, then it demonstrates that the gift has not ceased.

 

[Scott1]

There is a certain appeal to look at the continued revelation aspect of certain gifts beyond Scripture as one of "moderate" v. "extreme." That is particularly understandable since so many of us have been exposed to charismatic/pentecostal influence.

But really, one has to look at this from Scripture, from the standpoint of what the reformers called the "ordinary means of grace" (prayer, Word, sacrament). How does God ordinarily confer grace to His people in light of His Word.

The Word completed by those eyewitnesses (apostles) who saw the completed plan of redemption in Christ and under inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote of it, and established the church upon it.

If by "moderate continuation" we mean that new revelation, equal or above that of scripture continues outside of scripture through unknown tongues and interpretation of unknown tongues but in smaller, more scrutinized doses, we still are saying the scripture is not really complete, that we need it to be supplemented, and base our corporate worship and life on the supplementation.

And while we need illumination from the Holy Spirit to understand it, exhortation from it, teaching of it by those gifted to do so, and while God can do miracles at any time and in any way He pleases, we can say the Word is fully sufficient until our Lord returns because God intends it to be.

 

[Peairtach]

Excellent discussion of Tongues Today? by Palmer Robertson here :-

Tongues Today? by O. Palmer Robertson

Also discussion of prophecy on audio here:-

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=2180472645

and tongues here:-

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=218047284

 

[Philip]

On prophecy:

As a semi-strict cessationist, I would argue that while it's clear that the office of prophet has ceased, I can't make a categorical claim that it is impossible for prophecy to happen. It's not the norm, but I can't discount it utterly. Instead, I have a criterion: does this word that a person has given me point me back to Scripture or does it put itself on a level with or above Scripture? If it's the former, it's from God. If the latter, it's not.

 

[au5t1n]

Scott1, I think I need to clarify. In the post that you quoted of mine, I was trying to demonstrate that Grudem's view of prophecy is incorrect. Grudem teaches that NT prophecy was not authoritative like OT prophecy, and that it continues today. I believe that NT prophecy was an authoritative message from God, and that it has ceased.

 

[Caroline]

"prophecies" of future happenings which are of a specific nature are very rare in church wide Pentecostal settings, I've never seen it happen. There is certainly no intention to place spoken words above scripture, for some churches do practice corporate discernment, to see whether the word was of the Lord. Other churches even require that words of prophecy be screened through the senior pastor before being released to the congregation. you'll find that the 'words' are really just echoes of what is found in scripture (this is what i mean by parallel, like in the way the WCF and creeds echo scripture). Also, as Grudem argues, New Testament prophecy did not function like old testament prophecy, in terms of infallibility and authority either. Prophets like Agabus were not completely accurate in their prophecies.

I don't think they are undermining the sufficiency of scripture, they are simply seeking God for a Present Word of edification, and I think this differs only in degree and not substance with our concepts of the Holy Spirit speaking to us personally in his ministry of illumination, conviction, calling, etc.

It's true that many occurences of the gifts, especially interpretation, are fake and/or abused. DA Carson's collegue once rattled off John 1 in Greek during a charismatic worship - the 'interpretation' was a far cry. However, even so, with abuses, excesses and disorder in the Corinthian church, as in the charismatic churches today, Paul does not dismiss them as invalid or condemn its practice, but regulates it for maximum benefit.

In terms of the apparent use of tongues, I have heard reports (not sure of its authenticity) of known languages being spontaneously spoken by people who never learned it. If even one of these occurrences is true, then it demonstrates that the gift has not ceased.

Well, that's rather the point, isn't is? That's a really big IF. You can use that for a lot of things. IF there is even one more God besides God, then there are two Gods. IF there is even one error in Scripture, then the Bible is not infallible. IF tongues are still ongoing in even one situation, then they have not ceased. The idea that something is theoretically possible doesn't mean that it is so. I have heard lots and lots of people who claim that they have seen the Virgin Mary appear before them. I suppose if even one of them is right, then Mary is appearing.

But in regard to the first paragraph, I have seen many cases of specific prophecies that did not come to pass. And I have seen people actually misquote Scripture in 'prophecies' and 'interpretation of tongues'. My favorite example was when a man gave a 'word from God' that told us to 'be like the five virgins who asked for more oil so that their lamps would not go out'.

But even if something is not OPPOSED to Scripture, that still doesn't mean that God said it. The problem isn't so much with the content (although sometimes there are problems with that too), but the fact that people say, "This is a word from God" when it is not. That's a violation of the third commandment. If something is not a word from God, then it is not a word from God. It doesn't matter if it's a NICE word or an ENCOURAGING word or anything else. For those that claim to be able to discern, I'm not sure how they would do that ... a feeling, I suppose. But then, I have a very strong feeling that it isn't a word from God, so there we are. Who is right? We can't both be right. And it either is from God or it isn't.

 

[Scott1]

On prophecy:

As a semi-strict cessationist, I would argue that while it's clear that the office of prophet has ceased, I can't make a categorical claim that it is impossible for prophecy to happen. It's not the norm, but I can't discount it utterly. Instead, I have a criterion: does this word that a person has given me point me back to Scripture or does it put itself on a level with or above Scripture? If it's the former, it's from God. If the latter, it's not.

I have found "ordinarily" a good word in reformed theology, because we can never exactly restrict God from anything except violating Himself.

Here is the Westminster Confession explanation of what we might call "miracles":

Chapter V
Of Providence

....

III. God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means,[10] yet is free to work without,[11] above,[12] and against them,[13] at His pleasure.

 

[steadfast7]

Well, that's rather the point, isn't is? That's a really big IF. You can use that for a lot of things. IF there is even one more God besides God, then there are two Gods. IF there is even one error in Scripture, then the Bible is not infallible. IF tongues are still ongoing in even one situation, then they have not ceased. The idea that something is theoretically possible doesn't mean that it is so. I have heard lots and lots of people who claim that they have seen the Virgin Mary appear before them. I suppose if even one of them is right, then Mary is appearing.

Yes, it's a big IF. And I'm saying that the numerous accounts of this happening (mostly in the mission field), may lend credence to the IF as being true. Remember that just because it is theoretically possible, doesn't make it IMPOSSIBLE. Granted the onus is on them to prove it, but it's not responsible to throw it out completely.

But in regard to the first paragraph, I have seen many cases of specific prophecies that did not come to pass. And I have seen people actually misquote Scripture in 'prophecies' and 'interpretation of tongues'. My favorite example was when a man gave a 'word from God' that told us to 'be like the five virgins who asked for more oil so that their lamps would not go out'. But even if something is not OPPOSED to Scripture, that still doesn't mean that God said it. The problem isn't so much with the content (although sometimes there are problems with that too), but the fact that people say, "This is a word from God" when it is not. That's a violation of the third commandment. If something is not a word from God, then it is not a word from God. It doesn't matter if it's a NICE word or an ENCOURAGING word or anything else. For those that claim to be able to discern, I'm not sure how they would do that ... a feeling, I suppose. But then, I have a very strong feeling that it isn't a word from God, so there we are. Who is right? We can't both be right. And it either is from God or it isn't.

I agree, there is MUCH to be desired in their operation of the gifts. There are lots of excesses, abuses, and fakes out there. But the trend of Reformed people is to dismiss it completely because it does not accord with reason and certainty. But to dismiss it outright on these grounds is dangerous, especially IF it turns out that the Holy Spirit is actually still operating in the gifts. To dismiss it completely may be to reject something that he may be doing.

 

[Romans922]

Not all spiritual gifts have ceased.

Just five of them, and two offices:-

"Tongues" i.e. languages; the interpretation of tongues; the gift of miracles; the gift of healing, and the gift of prophecy. The offices of Apostle and Prophet are also off the menu.

People who've never seen the genuine article can believe a counterfeit is the real deal, if they've nothing true to compare it with, and if they're told often enough that the Bible says it's for today.

Modern tongues is just people letting go of their tongue and also copying their brothers and sisters. The interpretation of tongues - where it happens, Pentecostalists don't tend to follow the Apostle's rules on tongues - is people having a feeling or hunch inside themselves that this is what it must mean.

God still promises to answer prayers for healing, sometimes miraculously. But miracles, by definition, don't happen that often. The gift of healing was a sign gift to attest new revelation. Modern day "healers" may sometimes get their prayers answered positively as those of us believers who pray for people to be healed may as well. But healings that involve a long process of healing, diseases being healed that can be healed by suggestion and healings going back after a few days, weeks or months do not constitute what we find in the Bible.

We have the complete Word of God, and Christ is the King, Priest, and Prophet unto His Church, so we expect prophecy, words of knowledge and tongues (which was prophecy in a foreign language, and was mainly a sign to unbelieving Jews that the Church was going international - I Cor. 14:20-22) to be part of the childish things that have passed away.

There have apparently been cases of supernatural words of knowledge in the Reformed church. E.g. Alexander Peden was a notable covenanter that seemed to know things that needed to be known when being hunted by the dragoons. But none of these relatively rare examples in the Reformed and Presbyterian churches set themselves up as prophets, tried to compete with God's Word in the pulpit, and sometimes their so-called prophecies failed. So we should be careful not to put the emphasis on "prophecy" that the Pentys have, even when we come accross someone like Peden in a Reformed church.

Many Penty "prophecies" are so general, vague or present-tense oriented, and also often add nothing new to what is already in Scripture, that they could not be tested anyway. They'd be better and more honest to Scripture, preaching a good but short sermon, than pretending to themselves and others that they are prophets.

A lot of Pentecostalism is mutual self-deception and confused and bad Bible-teaching rather than direct demonic activity. Many of these people are genuine believers. Some of them are/may be better Christians than us, apart from Pentyism. Some of them don't know any other teaching on these things.

Jeremiah chapter 23 has a lot on false and true prophecy. I'm not saying all the Penty prophets are as deceiving as the ones Jeremiah was dealing with, but they should be asked how they know they are prophets?, how they know they have a prophecy? and how did they receive the prophecy?

In the light of Jeremiah 23:21-32. If it is something just "laid on their hearts" they shouldn't be calling it prophecy. If they haven't had the calling of a prophet they shouldn't call what they are saying prophecy.

If these "prophets" can't give coherent answers to a few simple Qs from Jeremiah 23, then they should be temporarily excommunicated until they show the fruits of repentance for being false prophets, admittedly often ill-served by their teachers. The same goes for pastor/teachers that preach a false gospel.

Saw this above, and thought we should be clear: THREE offices have ceased (Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist).

Here is a quote from the Westminster Form of Government

Of the Officers of the Church.
THE officers which Christ hath appointed for the edification of his church, and the perfecting of the saints, are, some extraordinary, as apostles, evangelists, and prophets, which are ceased.

Others ordinary and perpetual, as pastors, teachers, and other church-governors, and deacons.

 

[Scott1]

steadfast7

I agree, there is MUCH to be desired in their operation of the gifts. There are lots of excesses, abuses, and fakes out there. But the trend of Reformed people is to dismiss it completely because it does not accord with reason and certainty. But to dismiss it outright on these grounds is dangerous, especially IF it turns out that the Holy Spirit is actually still operating in the gifts. To dismiss it completely may be to reject something that he may be doing.

Your thinking represents a lot of people out there, particularly in "broadly evangelical" (versus reformed) communions.

A few thoughts that have been helpful to me in understanding all this, and the assumptions that underlie are in blue:

I agree, there is MUCH to be desired in their operation of the gifts.

Remember there are many gifts mentioned in Scripture.

Broadly speaking, they include

I Corinthians 12 (charismatic) gifts
Romans 12 (operative) gifts
Ephesians 4 (administrative) gifts

Reformed believes in them all, but that some of the charismatic gifts are fulfilled in the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture.

Charismatic/pentecostal centers its identity and focus on especially two or three of the charismatic gifts and explicitly or implicitly assumes new revelation equal to or above that of scripture still comes through them.

There are lots of excesses, abuses, and fakes out there.

Yes.

But the trend of Reformed people is to dismiss it completely because it does not accord with reason and certainty.

Again, reformed does not dismiss any of the range of gifts above (including the administrative and operative ones) but does say at least that new revelation equal to that of Scripture does not come through them now that Scripture is complete, and the prophets and apostles have laid the foundation for our faith.

But to dismiss it outright on these grounds is dangerous, especially IF it turns out that the Holy Spirit is actually still operating in the gifts. To dismiss it completely may be to reject something that he may be doing.

Reformed theology also recognizes miracles (see Westminster III), because it is the very nature of God to not have any limitations with anything He has created.

But, that's not the same thing as believing that ordinarily, new revelation equal to Scripture comes through speaking in unknown tongues, and interpretation of tongues during corporate worship.

Charismatic/pentecostal communions center their identity on it.

 

[Peairtach]

Cases of prophecy/words of knowledge in the Reformed church e.g. John Knox(?), Alexander Peden, others (?) do give one pause for thought as a Reformed cessationist.

These may be the exceptions that prove the rule or just tales written by over-enthusiatic or deceitful Covenanters.

It wasn't the norm even in their lives, and they were living in abnormal times.

Alexander Peden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ver&dq=peden+the+prophet#v=onepage&q=&f=false

-----Added 10/3/2009 at 03:07:39 EST-----

Not all spiritual gifts have ceased.

Just five of them, and two offices:-

\"Tongues\" i.e. languages; the interpretation of tongues; the gift of miracles; the gift of healing, and the gift of prophecy. The offices of Apostle and Prophet are also off the menu.

People who've never seen the genuine article can believe a counterfeit is the real deal, if they've nothing true to compare it with, and if they're told often enough that the Bible says it's for today.

Modern tongues is just people letting go of their tongue and also copying their brothers and sisters. The interpretation of tongues - where it happens, Pentecostalists don't tend to follow the Apostle's rules on tongues - is people having a feeling or hunch inside themselves that this is what it must mean.

God still promises to answer prayers for healing, sometimes miraculously. But miracles, by definition, don't happen that often. The gift of healing was a sign gift to attest new revelation. Modern day \"healers\" may sometimes get their prayers answered positively as those of us believers who pray for people to be healed may as well. But healings that involve a long process of healing, diseases being healed that can be healed by suggestion and healings going back after a few days, weeks or months do not constitute what we find in the Bible.

We have the complete Word of God, and Christ is the King, Priest, and Prophet unto His Church, so we expect prophecy, words of knowledge and tongues (which was prophecy in a foreign language, and was mainly a sign to unbelieving Jews that the Church was going international - I Cor. 14:20-22) to be part of the childish things that have passed away.

There have apparently been cases of supernatural words of knowledge in the Reformed church. E.g. Alexander Peden was a notable covenanter that seemed to know things that needed to be known when being hunted by the dragoons. But none of these relatively rare examples in the Reformed and Presbyterian churches set themselves up as prophets, tried to compete with God's Word in the pulpit, and sometimes their so-called prophecies failed. So we should be careful not to put the emphasis on \"prophecy\" that the Pentys have, even when we come accross someone like Peden in a Reformed church.

Many Penty \"prophecies\" are so general, vague or present-tense oriented, and also often add nothing new to what is already in Scripture, that they could not be tested anyway. They'd be better and more honest to Scripture, preaching a good but short sermon, than pretending to themselves and others that they are prophets.

A lot of Pentecostalism is mutual self-deception and confused and bad Bible-teaching rather than direct demonic activity. Many of these people are genuine believers. Some of them are/may be better Christians than us, apart from Pentyism. Some of them don't know any other teaching on these things.

Jeremiah chapter 23 has a lot on false and true prophecy. I'm not saying all the Penty prophets are as deceiving as the ones Jeremiah was dealing with, but they should be asked how they know they are prophets?, how they know they have a prophecy? and how did they receive the prophecy?

In the light of Jeremiah 23:21-32. If it is something just \"laid on their hearts\" they shouldn't be calling it prophecy. If they haven't had the calling of a prophet they shouldn't call what they are saying prophecy.

If these \"prophets\" can't give coherent answers to a few simple Qs from Jeremiah 23, then they should be temporarily excommunicated until they show the fruits of repentance for being false prophets, admittedly often ill-served by their teachers. The same goes for pastor/teachers that preach a false gospel.

Saw this above, and thought we should be clear: THREE offices have ceased (Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist).

Here is a quote from the Westminster Form of Government

Of the Officers of the Church.
THE officers which Christ hath appointed for the edification of his church, and the perfecting of the saints, are, some extraordinary, as apostles, evangelists, and prophets, which are ceased.

Others ordinary and perpetual, as pastors, teachers, and other church-governors, and deacons.

On what biblical basis did the divines say that evangelist had ceased? Why do many Reformed denominations - if not having "evangelists" - have foreign missionaries, which are evangelists to foreign climes by another name?

You'd better start another thread if we want to explore this.

 

[Caroline]

Well, that's rather the point, isn't is? That's a really big IF. You can use that for a lot of things. IF there is even one more God besides God, then there are two Gods. IF there is even one error in Scripture, then the Bible is not infallible. IF tongues are still ongoing in even one situation, then they have not ceased. The idea that something is theoretically possible doesn't mean that it is so. I have heard lots and lots of people who claim that they have seen the Virgin Mary appear before them. I suppose if even one of them is right, then Mary is appearing.

Yes, it's a big IF. And I'm saying that the numerous accounts of this happening (mostly in the mission field), may lend credence to the IF as being true. Remember that just because it is theoretically possible, doesn't make it IMPOSSIBLE. Granted the onus is on them to prove it, but it's not responsible to throw it out completely.

But in regard to the first paragraph, I have seen many cases of specific prophecies that did not come to pass. And I have seen people actually misquote Scripture in 'prophecies' and 'interpretation of tongues'. My favorite example was when a man gave a 'word from God' that told us to 'be like the five virgins who asked for more oil so that their lamps would not go out'. But even if something is not OPPOSED to Scripture, that still doesn't mean that God said it. The problem isn't so much with the content (although sometimes there are problems with that too), but the fact that people say, "This is a word from God" when it is not. That's a violation of the third commandment. If something is not a word from God, then it is not a word from God. It doesn't matter if it's a NICE word or an ENCOURAGING word or anything else. For those that claim to be able to discern, I'm not sure how they would do that ... a feeling, I suppose. But then, I have a very strong feeling that it isn't a word from God, so there we are. Who is right? We can't both be right. And it either is from God or it isn't.

I agree, there is MUCH to be desired in their operation of the gifts. There are lots of excesses, abuses, and fakes out there. But the trend of Reformed people is to dismiss it completely because it does not accord with reason and certainty. But to dismiss it outright on these grounds is dangerous, especially IF it turns out that the Holy Spirit is actually still operating in the gifts. To dismiss it completely may be to reject something that he may be doing.

I do not know what the general trend is in regard to Reformed people's reasons for rejecting modern tongues and prophecy. I rejected it before I became Reformed. There are many things that I reject. I don't keep an open mind about Mormonism, for example, even though a lot of people believe in it. I don't believe that aliens are abducting people for experiments in spacecrafts that hover undetected above the Earth, even though lots and lots of people say that they have experienced it. If something has a lot of evidence against it, then it is irresponsible to ignore that. If we are going to continue to weigh the possibility of something merely because a lot of people believe it, then I suppose we all should consider the possibility that Islam is the one true religion--but obviously, we don't do that.

The 'what if you are wrong' thing is a common Pentecostal tool. 'You don't want to reject God, do you?', etc. The interesting thing is that there is no evidence provided. It's merely implanting a doubt and a fear. "Well, what if you are wrong? You don't want to miss out on God, do you? You don't want to reject the Holy Spirit, right?"

But once someone gets started down the 'but what if you are wrong' line, then there really isn't anything you can say to convince them. If I point out that I was a Pentecostal for seventeen years, they will say that I wasn't going to the right churches to see the real tongues, etc and that I only saw the fake ones. Obviously, if I go to the right church, etc, etc. But I suppose, by that logic, we can't reject anything. I mean, sure, this guy may be lying about his alien abduction and there are a lot of fakes and false experiences, but how do you know there's not someone out there who really did experience it? And you know (), if aliens really are abducting people for experiments, they may be planning a takeover of the Earth, so it would be highly dangerous to discount it ... IF it were really happening.

 

[Romans922]

Not all spiritual gifts have ceased. Just five of them, and two offices:-

Saw this above, and thought we should be clear: THREE offices have ceased (Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist).

Here is a quote from the Westminster Form of Government

Of the Officers of the Church.
THE officers which Christ hath appointed for the edification of his church, and the perfecting of the saints, are, some extraordinary, as apostles, evangelists, and prophets, which are ceased.

Others ordinary and perpetual, as pastors, teachers, and other church-governors, and deacons.

On what biblical basis did the divines say that evangelist had ceased? Why do many Reformed denominations - if not having "evangelists" - have foreign missionaries, which are evangelists to foreign climes by another name?

You'd better start another thread if we want to explore this.

On the basis of the modern day's flawed definition of an Evangelist. Well, not on the basis of that, but modern day definitions of evangelist is wrong. There is no Office of Evangelist, the descriptions are found below with credible information concerning Evangelist as being a gift which was extraordinary at the same time of the Apostles, which has now ceased.

John Gill Commentary on Ephesians 4:11:

and some evangelists; by whom are designed, not so much the writers of the Gospels, as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, some of which were also apostles; as preachers of the Gospel, and who yet were distinct from the ordinary ministers of it; they were below the apostles, and yet above pastors and teachers; they were the companions of the apostles, and assistants to them, and subserved them in their work; such were Philip, Luke, Titus, Timothy, and others; these were not fixed and stated ministers in anyone place, as the following officers be, but were sent here and there as the apostles thought fit:

So because the Apostles have ceased, obviously so have the Evangelists.

Matthew Henry on Ephesians 4:11:

The officers which Christ gave to his church were of two sorts--extraordinary ones advanced to a higher office in the church: such were apostles, prophets, and evangelists. The apostles were chief. These Christ immediately called, furnished them with extraordinary gifts and the power of working miracles, and with infallibility in delivering his truth; and, they having been the witnesses of his miracles and doctrine, he sent them forth to spread the gospel and to plant and govern churches. The prophets seem to have been such as expounded the writings of the Old Testament, and foretold things to come. The evangelists were ordained persons (2 Tim. i. 6), whom the apostles took for their companions in travel (Gal. ii. 1), and sent them out to settle and establish such churches as the apostles themselves had planted (Acts xix. 22), and, not being fixed to any particular place, they were to continue till recalled, 2 Tim. iv. 9. And then there are ordinary ministers, employed in a lower and narrower sphere; as pastors and teachers.

Missionaries, do not hold the office of Evangelist (or at least shouldn't, because it doesn't exist)

 

[David J Houston]

If the gift of prophecy is not that which is seen in the New Testament, correct, it should not be considered as possessing the same authority as Scripture; but then the gift of prophecy is not that which is seen in the New Testament, and hence not biblical.

This is what makes Grudem's argument more plausible. He provides linguistic arguments in an attempt to show that the position of apostle who can say 'thus says the Lord' is the NT equivalent of the OT position of prophet. He then argues, based on the NT usage of the greek word(s?) translated prophet in our english bibles, that the NT prophet has less authority. These NT prophet's never have the right to say 'thus says the Lord'.

I'll try and provide some details after I get back from work but if you're interested you can get his understanding of all the gifts in a free podcast of his Sunday school class where he goes over these topics in greater detail.

"10 While we were staying for many days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 And coming to us, he took Paul's belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’” 12 When we heard this, we and the people there urged him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul answered, “What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be imprisoned but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” 14 And since he would not be persuaded, we ceased and said, “Let the will of the Lord be done.” Acts 21:10-14(ESV)

"Thus says the Holy Spirit" is close enough for me. This passage, among others, proves to me that NT prophecy was not just "I feel prompted to say such and such," as Grudem argues in his Systematic Theology- It was revelation from God to prophet.

A great point austin! I wonder if Grudem deals with that...

I have a question for those of you who have been arguing against prophecy and speaking in tongues today because it is too subjective... would your arguments be just as effective at casting doubt during the time of the apostles? If they would be then I think that we might have to tighten up our arguments or possibly drop some of them.

 

[Peairtach]

Saw this above, and thought we should be clear: THREE offices have ceased (Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist).

Here is a quote from the Westminster Form of Government

Of the Officers of the Church.
THE officers which Christ hath appointed for the edification of his church, and the perfecting of the saints, are, some extraordinary, as apostles, evangelists, and prophets, which are ceased.

Others ordinary and perpetual, as pastors, teachers, and other church-governors, and deacons.

On what biblical basis did the divines say that evangelist had ceased? Why do many Reformed denominations - if not having "evangelists" - have foreign missionaries, which are evangelists to foreign climes by another name?

You'd better start another thread if we want to explore this.

On the basis of the modern day's flawed definition of an Evangelist. Well, not on the basis of that, but modern day definitions of evangelist is wrong. There is no Office of Evangelist, the descriptions are found below with credible information concerning Evangelist as being a gift which was extraordinary at the same time of the Apostles, which has now ceased.

John Gill Commentary on Ephesians 4:11:

and some evangelists; by whom are designed, not so much the writers of the Gospels, as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, some of which were also apostles; as preachers of the Gospel, and who yet were distinct from the ordinary ministers of it; they were below the apostles, and yet above pastors and teachers; they were the companions of the apostles, and assistants to them, and subserved them in their work; such were Philip, Luke, Titus, Timothy, and others; these were not fixed and stated ministers in anyone place, as the following officers be, but were sent here and there as the apostles thought fit:

So because the Apostles have ceased, obviously so have the Evangelists.

Matthew Henry on Ephesians 4:11:

The officers which Christ gave to his church were of two sorts--extraordinary ones advanced to a higher office in the church: such were apostles, prophets, and evangelists. The apostles were chief. These Christ immediately called, furnished them with extraordinary gifts and the power of working miracles, and with infallibility in delivering his truth; and, they having been the witnesses of his miracles and doctrine, he sent them forth to spread the gospel and to plant and govern churches. The prophets seem to have been such as expounded the writings of the Old Testament, and foretold things to come. The evangelists were ordained persons (2 Tim. i. 6), whom the apostles took for their companions in travel (Gal. ii. 1), and sent them out to settle and establish such churches as the apostles themselves had planted (Acts xix. 22), and, not being fixed to any particular place, they were to continue till recalled, 2 Tim. iv. 9. And then there are ordinary ministers, employed in a lower and narrower sphere; as pastors and teachers.

Missionaries, do not hold the office of Evangelist (or at least shouldn't, because it doesn't exist)

Well if this is it, it's a matter of definition. Missionaries are sometimes moved around where there needed, preaching the Gospel as they go.

In Britain today we need Reformed domestic missionaries ("evangelists") to go here and there with the precious Gospel, as well as pastor-teachers that stay in one place over their flock. And also "doctors" that are based in colleges. As regards ordination, these are all types of elders/bishops. We also have the "humble" elderelder or "ruling elder"

-----Added 10/3/2009 at 06:14:10 EST-----

Quote from David J Houston

A great point austin! I wonder if Grudem deals with that...

Grudem's ideas about prophecy in his Systematics are crazy, in an otherwise quite good read.

Preaching can have errors not true prophecy Let's not confuse people, Wayne!!

 

[Romans922]

On what biblical basis did the divines say that evangelist had ceased? Why do many Reformed denominations - if not having "evangelists" - have foreign missionaries, which are evangelists to foreign climes by another name?

You'd better start another thread if we want to explore this.

On the basis of the modern day's flawed definition of an Evangelist. Well, not on the basis of that, but modern day definitions of evangelist is wrong. There is no Office of Evangelist, the descriptions are found below with credible information concerning Evangelist as being a gift which was extraordinary at the same time of the Apostles, which has now ceased.

John Gill Commentary on Ephesians 4:11:



So because the Apostles have ceased, obviously so have the Evangelists.

Matthew Henry on Ephesians 4:11:

Missionaries, do not hold the office of Evangelist (or at least shouldn't, because it doesn't exist)

Well if this is it, it's a matter of definition. Missionaries are sometimes moved around where there needed, preaching the Gospel as they go.

In Britain today we need Reformed domestic missionaries ("evangelists") to go here and there with the precious Gospel, as well as pastor-teachers that stay in one place over their flock. And also "doctors" that are based in colleges. As regards ordination, these are all types of elders/bishops. We also have the "humble" elderelder or "ruling elder"

Where do you get your definition of a missionary, what they are to do, and how they are to do it? Why do we need missionaries to go here and there?

If these are all types of elders/bishops, instead of calling them missionaries, why not call them elders?

 

[Caroline]

I have a question for those of you who have been arguing against prophecy and speaking in tongues today because it is too subjective... would your arguments be just as effective at casting doubt during the time of the apostles? If they would be then I think that we might have to tighten up our arguments or possibly drop some of them.

I'm honestly not sure who on the thread this is referring to, but I think this is an excellant point. The apostles had lots of miracles that they performed in front of everyone--God confirmed His Word.

If modern-day tongues and prophecy guys could so much as raise a hamster from the dead, I would seriously re-evaluate my position. I'm not sure that I would definitely change it, because there are warnings about false prophets that perform miracles. But there was a certain objectivity to the words given in the book of Acts that is sorely lacking among modern-day practitioners of 'tongues and prophecy'. In Acts, someone would have to be ignoring everything they were seeing with their own eyes to NOT believe that something supernatural was occuring. In modern times, we would have to ignore everything we are seeing with our own eyes to think that something supernatural IS occuring. That's a pretty big difference, I think.

 

[ewenlin]

I have a question for those of you who have been arguing against prophecy and speaking in tongues today because it is too subjective... would your arguments be just as effective at casting doubt during the time of the apostles? If they would be then I think that we might have to tighten up our arguments or possibly drop some of them.

Are we not taking into account that we have the New Testament now, upon which we base our allegations against charismania? Unless you have in mind in your question those who argue purely on a subjective notion.

Richard Gaffin has a good point in his essay in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? 4 Views, published by Counterpoints, Zondervan.

1. The designation of the view I have been asked to represent
in this symposium suggests only that I am against something.
So, before anything else, let me try to be clear about what
I am for in the ongoing debate about the work of the Holy Spirit
in the church today. As much as anything, I am for the truth
expressed in John 3:8, the truth that in his activity the Spirit is
like the blowing wind, sovereign and ultimately incalculable.
Any sound theology of the Holy Spirit, I take it, will be left with
a certain remainder, a surplus unaccounted for, an area of mystery.
The cessationist view I hold is least of all driven by a rationalistic
desire to have everything about the work of the Spirit
tied up in a tidy, comfortable little package.

At the same time, we ought not to embrace a kind of
“whimsy of the Spirit.” The Spirit-wind of John 3:8 does not
move in a vacuum. Scripture as a whole teaches that in his own
sovereignty the Spirit has seen fit to circumscribe his activity and
to structure it according to the patterns revealed there. Those patterns,
not what the Spirit may choose to do beyond them, ought
to be the focus and shape the expectations of the church today.

Typically, the cessationist view is reproached with something
like trying to “put the Spirit in a box.” But according to
Scripture, as I will try to show below, the Spirit has sovereignly
chosen to “box” himself in; the ardor of the Spirit, we may say, is
an “ordered ardor” (cf. 1 Cor. 14:33, 40).
25

2. The context of John 3:8—Jesus’ interchange with Nicodemus
about the new birth—prompts another observation. At
issue in this symposium is not whether the Spirit of God is at
work today in a powerful, dynamic, supernatural, and direct
way. No work of the Spirit, I hold, is more radical, more impressive,
more miraculous, and more thoroughly supernatural than
what he does—now, today—with people who are nothing less
than “dead in . . . transgressions and sins” (Eph. 2:1, 5). Beyond
any human capacity—rational-reflective, intuitive-mystical, or
otherwise—the Spirit makes them “alive to God in Christ Jesus”
(Rom. 6:11).

This activity, as Jesus later in John’s Gospel (e.g., John 5:24–
25; 11:25–26) and Paul (e.g., Eph. 2:5–6; Col. 2:12–13) make plain,
is nothing less than a work of resurrection—no less real, no less
miraculous, no less eschatological than the future, bodily resurrection
of the believer at Christ’s return. The cessationist view I
and many others hold will yield to no one in stressing that the
present activity of the Holy Spirit in believers is of “incomparably
great power . . . like [on the order of] the working of [God’s]
mighty strength, which he exerted in Christ when he raised him
from the dead and seated him at his right hand” (Eph. 1:19–20).

To put it mildly, then, one ought not simply suggest that all
cessationist positions result from captivity to “common sense”
realism,1 or are “an intellectualized quasi-deism” (with the hardly
subtle suggestion that it falls under the annihilating indictments
of Jesus in Matt. 22:29 and Paul in 2 Tim. 3:5),2 or betray an “antisupernatural
hermeneutic” in interpreting Acts,3 or are so bound
up with an unbiblical, outdated Enlightenment worldview that,
though “incensed at Bultmann’s ‘rationalism,’” they have
nonetheless “adopted their own brand of rationalism.”4

 

[Bern]

I must admit, this was a somewhat larger response than I expected to the original question. All replies were very interesting and I shall be studying the recommended reading, however, the original question still stands... how do we explain the apparent use of these gifts?

Is it simply the flesh? Or as armourbearer suggested, that it can be Satanically inspired?

How do we explain people who "spoke in tongues" on conversion who had never even been told about gifts, or witnessed anyone "speaking in tongues"? Several people have told me that this was their experience simply on their own in their room.

Personally I am of the view that they have ceased, but I would like to know what causes these experiences that people have.

 

[Caroline]

I guess I really don't believe those people, Bern.

It's not even like I think they are conscious of the fact that they are lying (or they are, but way down deep and they keep pushing it away whenever the thought surfaces).

They picked it up from somewhere and they got emotional, like the rest of us. But there is tremendous pressure on Pentecostals and Charismatics to produce evidence of spiritual gifts. I think Reformed people have difficulty grasping how much pressure there is. It is easy to start reinterpreting things to fit the 'I've got the Holy Ghost, look at me!' scenario.

The one that really sticks in my mind is that my mother's Big Healing Story was about a woman named Mrs. Vu. We had gone to see her, and she was sick, supposedly with a heart ailment. My mother got really anxious to see her healed and organized a forty-day fasting thing--but like a relay race, where first one person fasts for a day or so, then the next person, etc, for forty days. Then we went to see her, and she seemed to be much better, came out to say hello, etc. SHE WAS TOTALLY HEALED!!!!

Or that's the way that we told it.

Problems with that story (and these are things that we never, ever told anyone when we were telling the story):

(1) We never knew for sure that Mrs. Vu had heart problems.

(2) Even if she did, we had no way of knowing that her heart problems were what was bothering her when we saw her and she was sick. She didn't speak a word of English, and we didn't speak Vietnamese, so we aren't sure what symptoms she was having. For all we knew, maybe she had a migraine.

(3) Even if she had heart problems AND was suffering from them the day that we saw her, we don't know that she was healed. Some problems can flare up at times and then improve. Also, we don't know if she maybe saw a doctor or started a new medication.

"But hey, let's not quibble over trivialities. We've got a miracle story here, and the last three guys that we prayed for all died, and people are starting to look at us funny, and we have to prove that we really do have the Holy Ghost." Well, I mean, people won't say that directly, but that's how it works out.

 

[Peairtach]

Quote from Andrew

Where do you get your definition of a missionary, what they are to do, and how they are to do it? Why do we need missionaries to go here and there?

If these are all types of elders/bishops, instead of calling them missionaries, why not call them elders?

What's your definition of a missionary and do we need them? In Presbyterian churches those who lead in mission work are often ordained ministers or elders. But they often do a different sort of work to the pastor-teacher. I.e. whether at home or abroad church-planting and evangelism. Sometimes they are settled in one place and act as settled pastor-teacher in that area.

People from the sending-church who help them with such things as medical work or school-teaching and other things are also sometimes loosely called missionaries.

The "evangelist"/"missionary" (domestic or foreign) I have in mind is not someone with special powers that accompanied the apostles. This type of evangelist is long gone.

If you can think of another word for peripatetic or itinerant Calvinist preachers who mainly aim to bring the Gospel to the "unchurched" and unsaved, than evangelist, that'll be good. Or may be you think this type of ordained elder shouldn't exist? Maybe people like Whitefield had this problem?

-----Added 10/4/2009 at 11:46:47 EST-----

Quote from Bern

Is it simply the flesh? Or as armourbearer suggested, that it can be Satanically inspired?

I think it's largely not directly Satanic although some manifestations may be.

It's largely poor teaching, self-suggestion, suggestion by others, and the strong belief that this has to be for today because the NT teaches it, doesn't it?

It's certainly confusion and confusing, unbiblical, and a large red herring. It also (often) brings Christ's name into disrepute.

The focus is on the Spirit, or manifestations that people believe are of the Spirit, when the Bible says that the Spirit that indwells believers didn't come to glorify Himself or draw attention to Himself, but to the Father and the Son, through the Word given by the Spirit.

Having said that, it's ironic that there may be many Pentecostalists/charismatic people out there who in spite of all this, are more godly, more zealous, more sanctified and do more with their real giftsthan many/some of the Reformed.

How could this be?

Knowing and believing correct and accurate doctrine is different from having your heart filled with it and Christ and living it out.

 

[Caroline]

By the way, Bern, just so you know ... there are Bonus Points in Pentecostal Testimony time for 'I-had-never-even-heard-of-this-before-but-it-came-upon-me-while-I-was-sitting-alone-in-my-room'.

I've heard it before, and I've used it myself. And, yes, I was lying. Again... not consciously lying so much as wanting so much to believe something that I sort of convinced myself and pushed all the doubts about it out of my mind. It took a long time, even after I left Pentecostalism, to admit that I had fallen that much to suggestion and pressure and to evaluate those experiences objectively.

I remember when I was sixteen or so, my little sister (who was maybe fourteen) said that she got the HG and spoke in tongues alone in her room, and everyone applauded. Then she came to me later, crying, and admitted that she had made it up because she wanted so much to get the baptism and never could. I told her to stop giving in to the doubts and the lies of Satan and hold on to her experience and that it was real and she was going to heaven now.

There's not a day goes by that I am not sorry for saying that. That and a lot of other things. May God forgive me. I didn't know what I was doing.

 

[Peairtach]

By the way, Bern, just so you know ... there are Bonus Points in Pentecostal Testimony time for 'I-had-never-even-heard-of-this-before-but-it-came-upon-me-while-I-was-sitting-alone-in-my-room'.

I've heard it before, and I've used it myself. And, yes, I was lying. Again... not consciously lying so much as wanting so much to believe something that I sort of convinced myself and pushed all the doubts about it out of my mind. It took a long time, even after I left Pentecostalism, to admit that I had fallen that much to suggestion and pressure and to evaluate those experiences objectively.

I remember when I was sixteen or so, my little sister (who was maybe fourteen) said that she got the HG and spoke in tongues alone in her room, and everyone applauded. Then she came to me later, crying, and admitted that she had made it up because she wanted so much to get the baptism and never could. I told her to stop giving in to the doubts and the lies of Satan and hold on to her experience and that it was real and she was going to heaven now.

There's not a day goes by that I am not sorry for saying that. That and a lot of other things. May God forgive me. I didn't know what I was doing.

Well it's interesting to hear it from "the horse's mouth", so to speak; someone who has been there, done it and worn the T-shirt.

It's also interesting to look at the history of Pentecostalism.

John Wesley was the great grandfather of Pentecostalism with his insistence on a second experience of the Spirit called "entire sanctification" which rendered one sinless - or near sinless?

This eventually by twists and turns fed into Pentecostalism when it got going properly in 1906 under the ministry of W.J. Seymour, a holiness preacher, that believed tongues as recorded in the historical, rather than doctrinal, Book of Acts were evidence that a person has been baptised in the Holy Spirit. A former Methodist church at 312 Azusa Street, Los Angeles, was the epi-centre of the movement.

Pentecostalism is a new kid on the block compared to Protestantism, Greek Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Only 103 years old. It's the fact that the Bible contradicts it that is the crux, though.

By all acounts, and I have here an account by Stanley M. Horton, Prof. Emeritus of Bible and Theology at Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, the movement was born in a lot of confusion.

Edward Irving, a Church of Scotland minister, who was one-time assistant to Thomas Chalmers, is sometimes looked upon as the grandfather of Pentecostalism.

Arnold Dallimore has an interesting and not too long or taxing account of his life, published by Banner of Truth. His proto-Pentecostalism seems to have died out in London sometime during the nineteenth century. I don't know if there was any clear link with Asuza Steet.

The Life of Edward Irving: Fore-runner of the Charismatic Movement: Amazon.co.uk: Arnold Dallimore: Books

 

[historyb]

I must admit, this was a somewhat larger response than I expected to the original question. All replies were very interesting and I shall be studying the recommended reading, however, the original question still stands... how do we explain the apparent use of these gifts?

Is it simply the flesh? Or as armourbearer suggested, that it can be Satanically inspired?

How do we explain people who "spoke in tongues" on conversion who had never even been told about gifts, or witnessed anyone "speaking in tongues"? Several people have told me that this was their experience simply on their own in their room.

Personally I am of the view that they have ceased, but I would like to know what causes these experiences that people have.

Are you just talking about tongues or all gifts? I can attest in my own life miracles that have happened to me

 

[Scott1]

I must admit, this was a somewhat larger response than I expected to the original question. All replies were very interesting and I shall be studying the recommended reading, however, the original question still stands... how do we explain the apparent use of these gifts?

Is it simply the flesh? Or as armourbearer suggested, that it can be Satanically inspired?

How do we explain people who "spoke in tongues" on conversion who had never even been told about gifts, or witnessed anyone "speaking in tongues"? Several people have told me that this was their experience simply on their own in their room.

Personally I am of the view that they have ceased, but I would like to know what causes these experiences that people have.

This is difficult to say because many of us have seen what we would understand to be an impostor.

I'm very hesitant to attribute the motives and causes of this pretense. It's not the new revelation of God as it was in the Corinthian church before the Scripture was completed.

I'm sure many people who do or follow after these practices as part of corporate worship do so sincerely, and with good intentions. But, to quote a maxim, "One doesn't have to eat garbage to know it is garbage."

While the practice may end up is some, or even many cases roughly paralleling concepts in Scripture or even repeating Scripture mixed with other things, it is not the revelatory gift it pretends to be, and not a basis of the corporate worship of God's people, whether done out of ignorance or malice.


For me, whether God may give a supernatural gift of an unlearned language in another context is another question, but not the question here.

We are talking in this thread about new revelation of God coming through an unknown tongue, then being translated into a known tongue, a part of corporate worship.

What happens in modern charismatic/pentecostal communions today not only violates all the Apostle Paul's admonitions in I Corinthians 14 (not a high priority gift, not the center of worship, used as a sign to unbelievers) for its use back in that context...

but, it is not valid in substance today in light of the completed canon of Scripture, that is God's revealed will given in our (known) language, until He returns.

 

[ewenlin]

God does heal today, at times even miraculously - contradicting all natural laws. No one doubts that God can, may, or even does do that.

But according to Scripture, He doesn't give us healers today who have the gift of healing to the degree of the apostles & co. That is the gift of healing, which has ceased along with the revelatory gifts.

Tongues and seemingly prophetic messages in today's charismania subverts Scripture. That is the truth no matter how you dice it.

Amazon.com: Charismatic Chaos (0025986575724): John MacArthur: Books

This is THE book to read on this issue. At least a primer.

 

[rpavich]

PS If anyone is interested in my own view of the why and how these 'miracle' stories get started though, I posted a couple of things about it several years back:

Postcards from Heaven

How to Fake a Healing

Caroline,
These are two very "spot on" articles. I come from a Pentecostal church and your descriptions in both were eerie; they were so close to my experience.