In the gospel accounts the disciples experienced the life of Christ. Peter is recorded as saying that the Historical Christ was benefacting; that is, giving gifts and mercy as would a ruler to his subjects. He said that God preached peace to Israel through Jesus Christ. Peter describes himself (and certain others – i.e., the disciples) as “witnesses” of all Jesus had done, including His hanging from a tree, His resurrection on the third day, and his command to preach the good News. Peter mentions, speaking from the Jewish Scriptures, that all who believe receive forgiveness of sins in the name of Jesus (Acts 10:34-43). Where Peter sees followers as “witnesses” to the life of Christ Paul calls us “expressions” of His death.

Obviously, for Paul, the life of Christ is an historical fact; but, for Paul, the life of a follower of Christ begins at the Cross of Christ. In his letter to the Romans (6:3-5) he states that anyone identifying with Christ through baptism (the “Christian” identity) has been baptized into His death – the Baptism of Death. The Cross of Christ is the point where we abandon our fallen identity and embrace our new identity in Christ. This identity, however, necessitates a death like His; which death then brings a resurrection in the same power as His. Not because we are a certain few; not because we magically become Jews; but because we have buried, and then died with Christ (don’t miss the burial then death).

In his letter to the Colossians (2:11-14) Paul explains that believers are pierced from within. The “circumcision of Christ” is the killing of the flesh on His cross. As we are crucified with Christ (Gal. 2:20 – See my “The Cruciform” essay), not in a literal sense for Paul, neither is this spiritual jargon, but in a mystical union with Christ has our flesh, too, been nailed to the cross. As we mystically experience the death of our evil desires on the killing cross, God, through faith, raises us up with Christ from the dead. The fact of forgiveness of sins comes not only in the resurrection of Christ but in the resurrection of believer as well.

According to Chapter 3 of Colossians (1-4) this resurrection is not just an eschatological (last things; end times) event, but also a fact of life for the believer today. It is by the resurrection of Christ that we believe we will be resurrected as well (1Corinthians 15), and it is by this future resurrection that we experience the resurrection power in this life, as the Church of Christ. Today, we are not to attempt to follow Christ in our flesh (Eph. 2:3-7), but we are to experience the killing Cross of Christ and live a resurrected life in Christ (Eph. 2:8-10).

Writing to the Philippians (3:10-11) Paul gives us the clearest definition of what it means to express Christ. To “witness” of Christ is to speak of the things He has done, but to “express” Christ is to experientially know Him, to experience the power of His resurrection, being willing participants in His suffering (Col. 1:24) by becoming like Him in His death (dead in the flesh), and finally attaining to the future resurrection of the dead. This is no self-help ideology. Nor is it a kind of self-denial in the name of Christ. But this is an experiencing of the resurrection life, right now, today! This resurrection power in the present life is the equipping of the church as the full expression of Christ on earth. This resurrection power is a guarantee of the future great resurrection of the body. And it is the reason for the raising from the dead of Jesus Christ, bodily, in resurrection life.

When I was trucking about 10 years ago these words came to me while in a local town in NC. I was noticing how religious all the drivers were when it dawned on me how odd the thought was, seeing I was not in a religious setting. That is when I heard, “The spirit of religion is the spirit of the world.” In fact, everywhere (whether we know it or not) is a potential religious setting. Religion and the world (in a “secular” sense) are products of the same motivation, the same presupposition, if you will. The worldly make attempts to find their own way in life and so do the religious. Neither is how God has determined (which is by faith). Both are by works and self-satisfaction (which has nothing to do with faith). And both, logically, ultimately have their own gods.

Religion is the counterfeit to the necessity of faith instituted at the Cross of Christ. It neither needs a living savior nor does it take into account the human frailty. The so-called (or supposed) irreligious – the worldly – are under the same delusion. They, too, reject the theology of the cross. Without Christ there is a lack of faith and a lack of urgency identifying a need for said savior. Even more interesting, because of the lack of faith, both grope on opposite ends of the same darkness, both have self-made symbols and signs of vitality, and both are hopelessly and helplessly locked in a vicious cycle.

The seducer that withholds truth from the world is the self-same seduction that manipulates the religious. For both, an idol is made of the appetite – whatever is pleasing in my sight; whatever in sight that pleases me. Either has a god (or gods) that are fashioned after their own image. Each is able to practice self-denial, and each does it for self-satisfaction. One is a form of slavery, the other bondage. The two are bloated with self-help, and self-destruction.

By design, the only escape from this spirit is by faith; a “religionless Christianity” (Bonhoeffer).

We must be careful not to adopt the overly simplistic philosophical ideology of “flesh” being universally bad and “spirit” as being universally good. Gnostic Dualism is the technical name of this notion. Basically, this concerns a person being divided between two natures – flesh (bad) and spirit (good). Plato instituted this philosophy long before Christianity, Gnostics adapted it to Christianity, and Christians today have accepted the thought as biblical and good practice.

This dualistic understanding is a basis for the doctrine that, since the flesh is bad, anything that pleases the flesh is bad as well. Likewise, since the spirit is good, anything that pleases the spirit must be good, too. Thus, specifically in medieval times, we had the onset of Asceticism (a complete separation from the world and worldly things, and a complete focus on the spirit and spiritual things).

The issues with this thinking are, initially, that it is based on a fundamental flaw. God made humanity of flesh and, therefore, it cannot be bad. Secondly, Christ “became flesh” and lived among us (John 1:14). He had a different nature, but the same flesh as we do (Rom. 8:3), was perfect and, therefore, not bad.

The confusion is founded (once again) in a miss-translation of the Pauline letters. First, we often mistakenly believe that Paul spoke English and that his writings and words carry with them English definitions. Second, the question of what Paul means when he uses the word sarx (“flesh”)? And thirdly, Paul draws a distinction between “flesh” and “Spirit” (with a capital “S”), which leads to something completely different in the human “spirit” (with a lowercase “s”).

Sarx, in Paul’s usage, has at least three (and as many as six) different meanings. Sometimes he uses it to speak generally of physical matter (1Cor. 15:39). Other times, he is speaking of the human body itself (1Cor. 6:16). Then again, the human race in particular (Gal. 2:16; 1Cor. 1:29) is in view. Now, he also uses it to speak of Christ’s human lineage over against His divine existence (1 Tim. 3:16; Phil. 2:9-11). He also speaks of the value system of fallen humanity (1Cor. 1:26; 2Cor. 10:3-4; Phil. 3:3-4). But his most characteristically common use of sarx is as that which stands in opposition to God (Rom. 5:12-21; Chapter 8; Gal. 3:2-3; 5:22-26).

The point for Christians (and the Church) is that the flesh, because of the fallen nature of humanity as a whole, seeks its own (and not God). The guilt of sin and the punishment of death are housed in the flesh. The flesh can never please God and it can never do enough “good works” to change that fact. The new nature has nothing to do with the flesh and everything to do with the Spirit. It is the Spirit of Christ which mingles with the human spirit which brings about a “new creation.” It is not because it is “spirit” that it is good, but because it is the work of the Holy “Spirit” in us for good (Rom. 8:1-11). Faith has nothing to do with the flesh. Doing the best we can has nothing to do with faith, but entirely flesh. And the flesh has been crucified with Christ (Rom. 6:6; Gal. 2:20).

Incidentally, if Christianity were about the flesh, then why is there a resurrection of the dead (1Cor. Chapter 15)?

“Salvation” is a word often thrown around by the church. But what does the word mean, biblically speaking? What is the significance of “salvation?” What, exactly, happens to institute “salvation?” What is God…Christ…humanity doing in the work? Until the church as a whole can sufficiently articulate what “salvation” is, the word will continue to be a code for something one person, perhaps, has over another. It will continue to be a cuss-word in the mouth and on the lips of the haves over against the have-nots.

The biblical word “salvation,” in the Greek is, “soteria” – “safety, deliverance, preservation from danger of destruction; rescued.” In the New Testament the word is used to describe a rescue from a present negative situation or circumstance (Luke 19:9; Rom. 1:16; 2Cor. 7:10; Phil. 1:28; 1Thes. 5:8-9; 2Tim. 2:10 for example). We have only twice that Jesus (Himself) used the term: Luke 19:9, where salvation is a present experience within a person (Luke 17:20-21); and John 4:22, where salvation has something to do with proper worship of God. Yet, Jesus also spoke about this salvation eschatologically, where it carries one beyond natural death and on into eternity (Luke 16:22; 20:37-38; 23:43).

Johannine (the Apostle John’s) Theology considers salvation as a sort of present and final eschatological experience – where the future event effects the present situation (John 5:24, 28; 6:44, 47; 6:51, 54; 10:28; 11:25-26; 1Jn 2:28; 3:2; 4:17). John also speaks (and has Jesus speaking) of salvation as a kind of rebirth (John 3:3; 1Jn 3:9; 1Jn 5:1).

Pauline (the Apostle Paul’s) Theology also speaks of salvation as eschatological (Rom. 13:11; 1Thes. 4:17), where there is a redemption of the physical body (Rom. 8:23; 1Cor. 15:50-52). But, salvation is a present reality where one is freed from and, in fact, died to, sin (Rom. 6:2), crucifying the flesh with its sinful desires (Gal. 5:24), where a new creature is created (2Cor. 5:17). For Paul, salvation is a mystical union with Christ where one walks out in the present a future guarantee (Rom. 8:24; 1Cor. 1:18; 2Cor. 2:15). Salvation is reconciliation with God (Rom. 5:1) where we have been received as His children (Rom. 8:14-15). Another concept that Paul articulates is the idea of a consummated redemption of all creation (Rom. 8:19-23; 1Cor. 15:26, 28).

The overwhelming thing to recognize concerning salvation in Pauline thought is that it refers to what Christ has done in His great saving act for sinners; all of Pauline Theology revolves around this Christological understanding, and it bears heavily on his own understanding on the point and purpose of the church (1Tim. 1:15). Salvation is a word which speaks of God’s rescuing of humanity, in Christ, from their desperate state of sin. We have been destined for salvation, not wrath (1Thes. 5:9-10). That this salvation has a distinct structure is clear (Rom. 10:10). That, in Christ, salvation is sufficient for all humanity, but efficient only for those who believe is equally as clear (Titus 2:11). It is in no way on part of humanity that salvation has come, but to believe that God is who He says He is (Rom. 4; Eph. 2:5, 8-10; 2Thes. 2:13; Titus 3:5).

A final notion concerning salvation in Pauline Theology should be of inertest; that is, the idea that salvation, in essence, is the reasonable mental exchange (either instantaneous or by process) of exiting out of ignorance and into the “epignosis,” “the knowledge of the truth” (Rom. 2:20; 1Tim. 2:4; 2Tim. 2:25; 3:7; Titus 1:1; Heb. 10:26). For Paul, as usual, salvation, first, is a working of the mind. Where someone without salvation is ignorant, salvation itself is true knowledge (literally speaking). And I think it is here where we find the real form for understanding the ideology of “salvation,” which the church so needs to apprehend.

It would appear that there is a stream of thought in certain Christian circles which claims that Satan (or the devil) does not have any strength or power to harm or otherwise torment humanity. The argument is that the suffering and death of Christ on the cross has disarmed the enemy and, in essence, made him impotent. While it is true that Christ defeated Satan on the cross, theologically speaking, that sentence has not yet been carried out, practically speaking; and while it is also true that we now (“in Christ”) have the right to say “no” to Satan, it does not necessarily follow that he is neither powerless nor a non-threat. I would argue, in fact, that it is precisely the might of the enemy which makes this certain Christian thought possible! He has lulled some of us to sleep and caused us to believe the lie.

Reason dictates that, since Satan is not in “Hell” (for there is no biblical principle for thinking he is) – in fact, he is the “prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:2) and “the ruler and authority in heavenly places” (Eph. 3:10) – he is still very much able to do harm.

Experience speaks to the fact that the enemy is still a very real power that works against humanity in our expression of Jesus Christ on earth. While many things are produced by our own darkened hearts, the enemy is at war against us as “we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12). This invisible entity is made visible through the workings of the depravity of humanity.

The traditions of the Universal Church – from the Apostles, through the Ancient Church Fathers, the Medieval Church, the Reformation, and to the present era – state that Satan (and his angelic warriors) are the enemy of the human being and the human soul; whose single purpose is to kill, steal, and destroy anything and everything which is of humanity.

The Scriptures demand that we know and understand that these things are true:

Peter makes us aware of the fact that “Satan is a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour” (1Pet. 5:8). Paul say for us “not to be ignorant of the schemes of the devil” (Eph. 6:11). How are we “tempted by Satan” if he is without power (1Cor. 7:5)? How does he get “an advantage” over us (2Cor.2:11)? How does he “transform himself into an angel of light” (2Cor.11:14)? How did Satan have “messengers to buffet” Paul (2Cor. 12:7)? How is it possible Satan “hinders us” if he is without power (1Thes.2:18)? And what, then, does Paul mean when he says that antichrist is according to “the working of Satan with all power…” (2Thes. 2:9)? Not to mention that we can be caught in the “snare of the devil” (1Tim.3:6-7), that he has the “power of death” (Heb. 2:14), and how the “works of the devil” are yet to be “destroyed” (1Jn. 3:8).

It is a truth statement: “He who is in you is greater than he who is on the world” (1John 4:4), but does that not necessitate that there is one in the world who is great?

It is with, by, and through the local church that God meets the needs of the community. Thus, it is the universal church whereby humanity finds it’s Healer, Redeemer, Maker, and it’s Lover of their souls – Jesus Christ. This was originally the model which founded many western civilizations (including America). But like anything else the ends get lost in the means and the means become an end in themselves.

A misconception of the church today is that it is to be a place of (what I call) Free Social Entitlement. The misunderstanding comes in the misinterpretation of the primitive (apostolic) church. The problem, here, is the understanding that the first century churches simply handed out food, clothing, and whatever else, expecting absolutely nothing in return. Today, nations are built on the ideology of, at best, “welfare states;” and, at worst, “nanny states.” This condition comes out of the misconception of the primitive church. It has been proved throughout history that, if entitlement is the ends then laziness and rebellion are the means to that end. The old adage rings true: Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat the rest of his life.

In 1Timothy chapter 5 (VS 3-15) we see a perfect example of the actual first century thinking when we note Paul’s instruction concerning “Widows” and “Widows indeed.” Because a woman was a widow it did not necessitate that she would receive a “free ride” or a hand-out in any way. Notice Paul’s qualifiers, first, for widows: If a widow had children (or grandchildren) of her own it was their responsibility, not the churches burden, to care for her. If she was without an immediate family, she then takes a step closer (if you will) to church support. Yet, if she did not live the lifestyle of a “Christian” by definition but, rather, sought to please only herself and live the way of the unsaved, then she would receive nothing of help for her situation from the church. If, according to Paul, she satisfies these qualifications, next she must be at least 60 years-old (assumedly, past the age of “sensual desires” and child bearing). This way she could devote herself to Christ and His ministry. But if she was a younger widow, Paul suggests that she remarries and contribute to the vision in that way.

Now here is where it gets interesting: If a widow is, according to these qualifications, a “widow indeed,” and unless she is physically and/or mentally able to do so, she exchanges her daily bread for the work of ministry, as it were (I have not even mentioned the qualifiers of verse 10). In this, there is no victim role and no such thing as entitlement. There is not a free ride, nor a hand-out. Dignity is spared, because the widow is still a contributing member of society and a functioning member of the church. There was no such thing as “retirement” in the ancient church, because one’s responsibility is for others and not oneself (even as a widow).

Incidentally, it bears mentioning that, the accounts of collections, free rides and hand-outs was concerning the Jerusalem church and their persecution. They could not, for the most part, go out in public and, thus, earn a living to contribute to responsibilities. Therefore, the Gentile churches cared for their Jewish brothers and sisters, but in no sense can or should this be interpreted as entitlement.

Likewise, the church today should not confuse equipping dignity with enabling entitlements. Those who are unable to care for themselves should be taken care of by the church. But even in its many social ministries, the church is simply and only handing out fish and not actually and respectfully teaching people to fish.

Can you say more about “Paradigm shifts?”

[The following is an outline from a recent leadership event at Solid Rock.]

Paradigm

Norman Shawchuck – A paradigm is an upward view of God and an inward view of oneself.

A paradigm is an accepted norm in the way we think about and approach subjects.

A paradigm is an accepted norm for the way things are done.

Paradigm Shift

A paradigm shift, then, is a change from one way of thinking about and approaching subjects to another.

A paradigm shift is a change in the way of doing things.

World Dictionary – a paradigm shift is a radical change in underlying beliefs or theories.

Thomas Kuhn – “[a] series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions”, and in those revolutions “one conceptual world view is replaced by another”.

A paradigm shift is a transformational and revolutionary reformation in the way things are thought of and in the way things get done. It is a radical change in the upward view of God and in the inward view of oneself.

Past Paradigm Shift – From the Old Testament to the New

The Agent of Change: John the Baptist (Matt. 3:1-12; Mark 1:2-8; Luke 3:2-18; John 1:15-36)

Vision of Change: Transformation of religious thought from empty ritual to self-reflection and realization.
-He challenged Israel in its hypocrisy.

Agents of Change: the stagnation of Judaism
-social margins
-a gulf between religious leaders and the people
-a dissatisfaction with the status quo
-God idolized into stone-and-mortar and gold, the Temple and its rituals have become God and the building a marketplace
-talk about God and not talking to, for, or forth Him
-talk about what God did as if He were long-since dead
-God has been re-formed into a graven images
-political unrest
-the broken cry out to God

Point of the Paradigm Shift: Herald the Coming of Christ

Present Paradigm Shift – from Christendom to the New Paradigm

The Agent of Change: The Church (flesh-and-blood, rather than brick-and-mortar; an organism, rather than an organization)
-transformation of religious thought from empty ritual to self-reflection and realization
-challenges humanity in its hypocrisy

Agents of Change: the stagnation of Christianity
-social margins
-a gulf between religious leaders and the people
-a dissatisfaction with the status quo
-Christ idolized into brick-and-mortar and money, the church and its rituals have replaced the Temple and the building a business
-talk about Christ and not talking to, for, or forth Him
-wonder “what would Jesus do” as if he were long-since dead
-Christ has been re-formed into our own images
-political unrest
-the broken cry out to God

Point of the Paradigm Shift: Herald the Second Coming of Christ

So, the Old Testament was about works-righteousness and the New is about faith?

Absolutely not! While it is true, the Nation of Israel, perhaps, made that which God introduced a kind of works-righteousness, it was never the intention of the system. And what is it about faith that makes us righteous? Faith in what…And faith in whom? If this is simply about God doing it one way in the past and a different way today, then what gives us confidence that He will not change it again?! “No,” I say, it has always been about faith.

Way back in Genesis (if we can think of the individual books as a case-study in history) God shows up and speaks to a pagan, idol worshipping, wretched Gentile called Abram (later called, Abraham). God says to Abram, “Get up, go over yonder to a place you’ve never seen, let alone been; leave everything you know, and do as I say, and I will make you a great nation.”

Abram “believed God” and was made to be in right-standing-with-God (righteous) because of it. What was it that Abram believed about God that made him righteous? It was not because he was going to be a great nation (which he never saw in his own lifetime) and it was not even that God promised him something (amazing as that is in and of itself), but it was that Abram believed that God is, by definition – that God is who He says He is. Because God spoke to him and called him did Abram believe, and that belief is called “faith,” which is what made him to be in right-standing-with-God.

As time goes on, humanity is not living out of the faith which Abraham utilized, and God called Abraham’s grandson, Jacob, to be another instrument of faith. Upon changing Jacob’s name to Israel, the Nation of Israel was born, which partially fulfills God’s promise to Abraham. Yet, because Israel’s children did not have the faith of Abraham, God instituted the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments). These soon – in Leviticus and Numbers – became over 600 and included sacrifices, and a Temple to be the center of religious activity. Now watch this: These institutions were never a replacement of faith, but evidences of it. One must “believe God,” as Abraham did, in order to expect that laws and sacrifices would please God. The act of law and sacrifice was an outward expression of an inner reality. They showed that the person “believed God.”

Later, Israel replaces the faith these acts were supposed to exhibit with a religion that was neither socially nor individually righteous, and the faith of Abraham was again without expression.
In Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, Jesus is on the scene as the Person of Faith. He, like Abraham before Him, “believes God” is who He says He is and carries with Him that faith to His cross. By the time we get to ‘The Acts,’ the letters, and Revelation, this faith carries us, not to Moses, but back to “Father Abraham” (Genesis) and fulfills completely the promise made to Abraham by God. And as Abraham “believed God” so we “believe God” in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, history reveals that faith has always been the means by which one is found to be in right-standing-with-God. This fact has not changed and will never change until the end of time (when faith is no longer needed).

Incidentally, this historical faith conversation could have begun at the Garden, where Adam and Eve could have simply “believed God” about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil!

What do the Scriptures have to say about mediums (people who contact the dead, foretelling the future, etc)?

In Acts (16:16-18) a servant-girl, who made a lot of money for her master, had a “spirit of divination.” This phrase, “spirit of divination,” according to the Greek philosophers of the first century of the Common Era, was applied to ventriloquists. The idea forwarded was that a person would speak in the voice of another – i.e. a spirit from the underworld. In the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) the word “ventriloquists” is precisely the term used for “mediums” (Lev. 19:31; 20:6, 27; 1Sam. 28:7). The apostle Paul took for granted that this was nothing more than an “evil spirit” and in the name of Jesus Christ called for it to come out of the girl, which it did.

Other than warnings to either abandon or otherwise having nothing to do with this sort, both the Old and New Testaments do not reveal much at all about this dark art. Many today feel secure in discounting any and all supposed contact with the dead (or any other kind of fortune telling). Yet, the Scriptures are clear and experience demands that, while there certainly are counterfeits in this field, there are some who are especially sensitive to the things of the “spirit world.”

One who is especially sensitive to the voices (which we all hear, but most do not realize it) can easily, without a sense of good theology, mistake these voices for the spirits of those since passed. Also, these sensitive ones can mistake for God’s voice that which is actually the voice of the enemy. Concerning the former, the enemy hi-jacks the memory of beloved family members (for example) that have passed, the “medium” (the especially sensitive one) has contact with this spirit (the enemy), and both convey messages as though it is the soul of the beloved family member. Spirits are not bound by space and time. They are privy to “private conversations” between humans. And they not only heavily influence the unsuspecting mind, but they know the mind of the same. Incidentally, “hauntings” work according to this same principle. Both, the peaceful “loving” visitation by a family member and the violent invasion by “another,” are not human spirits roaming the earth (or haunting the chapel). They are, if you will, a counterfeit of the essence of residual energy left by those humans (the basis for this argument is based on every account of Jesus’ and His disciples’ interaction with demons/spirits). Concerning the latter, many well-intentioned people have communicated messages, which they thought were from God, but were actually the “other” voices of that “world” (based in both Old – see 1Kings 22:22-23 – and New Testament accounts of prophecy).

In the 1Samuel account listed above, the witch of Endor attempts to enchant the spirit of Samuel. By all accounts of the text – including her reaction to the apparition, the conversation between Saul and the apparition, and the very words of the apparition itself (VS 16), etc – this was not actually Samuel which was conjured. The Acts account speaks to the ability to foresee the future. The girl was not gifted by God for this and, therefore, had a counterfeit (called, “a spirit of divination”). It should be noted that, though it was counterfeit, it told the truth about who Paul and his traveling companions were. But not being from God, it was a point of confusion, contention, and agitation and, therefore, called out by Paul.

A logical consideration should be, here, made concerning the spirits of the dead: Those who claim to believe in the spirits of the dead, but deny the existence of God are self-contradicting. How does one not believe in He who is pure spirit, but yet believe in those which are lesser spirit? Further still, if there is no “God” (First Source, First Cause, Uncreated Creator), then there are no spirits (because they are immaterial, and therefore not of the material evolution, but must come from “without” the material order – where “God” would be if He existed). Likewise, if “God” does exist, then what kind of a “God” would He be if He simply let spirits roam the earth (which is completely illogical since they are not bound by space and time)? Furthermore, if “God” does exist, then His Word is the first principle concerning His existence, and it plainly states that the souls of the living are exclusively in one of two places after death; which of the two depends on what one does with Jesus Christ (or not).

I heard, while listening to (name removed) on the radio the other day that the gifts of the spirit are no longer given. What do you think?

Talk of the “gifts of the Spirit” is found only in Pauline Theology (1Cor. 2:12, 14; 12:4, 9; Heb. 2:4). A brief list of “gifts” for the building up of the church is found in the letter to the Ephesians (4:11). Extended dialogues on “gifts” for the common good can be found in 1 Corinthians (Chapters 12 – 14) and in Romans (12:6-8) as expressions of faith as members of the Body. The “gift” of prophecy concerning Timothy is spoken of in 1Timothy (4:14). The gift or gifts or the Spirit Himself are spoken of as given by “the laying on of hands” (Acts 8:18; 1Tim. 4:14; 2Tim. 1:6; Heb. 6:2). Mark (16:17) mentions “signs” that accompany believers. And “Tongues” are mentioned in the Book of Acts (2:3) and “speaking in tongues” is twice mentioned (10:46; 19:6).

Scripture, in none of these passages (or anywhere else for that matter), even alludes to a removing of the gifts from the church for any reason or at any time.

Tradition, other than a few early church fathers, has always taught that the “gifts of the Spirit” are to be exercised, especially when we’re talking about the brief list in the letter to the Ephesians. As of recent times there are “pastors and teachers” (ironically, one of the “gifts” listed in Ephesians) who deny the gifts of the Spirit since Scripture is complete and canonized. Again, there is no biblical precedent for this “teaching.”

Experience dictates that the gifts of the Spirit are still active. I, personally, have experienced the gift of tongues (on one occasion I was alone in the house, with no one to impress or otherwise seduce for any reason). If I have experienced this – certainly it wasn’t I alone out of all humanity of the 21st century – then others are experiencing it today, also.

Reason demands that the gifts are still given and active, if for no other reason but simply for the building up of the church and for the common good and as the expression of faith (the 1Cor. And Rom. accounts). As mentioned above, there still are “teachers and pastors,” and if those then other gifts also. The notion that the completion of Scripture brought the ending to the gifts is self-contradicting for the same reason as mentioned above. The argument concerning the end of spiritual gifts is actually less rational than reasonable; namely, because there are abuses of so-called “gifts,” then all “gifts” are counterfeit, so the argument goes. By this logic, because there are fake $100 bills, all $100 are fraudulent. At issue for these arguments is, quite honestly, the gift of “tongues.” Certainly these would not argue that there are not “pastors and teachers,” so to relieve us of any other gift would be self-defeating. It is theological suicide to believe anything to the contrary. [As an aside, there is a difference between “speaking in tongues” and “praying in tongues.” One is a “gift” and one is, technically, not, but that is another conversation].