The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his122/gifts1.lzh/GIFTS1.TXT

Text File | 1991-09-14 | 89.0 KB | 1,613 lines

MOV:Modern Day Signs, Miracles, and Wonders  by Keith L Fifield

   Preface

   At the time of this writing I have been walking with the Lord Jesus
Christ five years and one months. My relationship with God as my Father
has been ever growing, and always I am striving to get closer with Him,
as it is indeed so easy to let oneself drift away. I want to grow,
mature, and be a useful tool for my Savior. This desire in me is
strong; there is nothing I want more than to be the best son I can be
for my Father. I want to please Him in every way, to submit every facet
of my life to His will, and to allow Him to mold me into the Christian
He wants me to be. I know that the best way to achieve this is to apply
2 Timothy 2:15: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman
that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

   I'm sure you must know that in order to really get close to God,
you've got to know the truth, the EXACT truth, from His Bible. I want
to know that truth. I want to know beyond a shadow of a doubt what the
correct doctrines are. I do not want to miss out on any blessings
through ignorance of God's holy word.

   However, I am aware that the test of how much a man really wants the
truth is NOT how diligently he seeks for it, but what he does with it
when he finds it. Some people search long and hard for the truth, but
if they find that it does not conform to what they already believe,
they attempt to twist it, (at which time it ceases to be truth), rather
than admit their error and change their beliefs to fit that truth.

   As humbly as I can, I say that I am not one of those. I have
searched for the truth about modern day signs, miracles, and wonders. I
have spent long hours studying, digging, praying. To my great dismay,
what I found did not fit what I believed.

   So I changed what I believed.

   That simple.

   I am absolutely dedicated to serving my Father in every way I can,
by His grace and mercy. As much as lieth within me, I will not
compromise the truth for the sake of convenience. Knowing, too, that
God has called me to preach His word, I must take on the responsibility
of not stating anything as being "Biblical" until I have searched it
out with prayer and study, and am prepared to defend it and stand firm
on the solid ground of God's preserved Word. However, if it is shown to
me that I am indeed wrong still, I must instantly admit my error,
correct it, and then proceed on with my pursuit of holiness. I must not
be "...carried about by every wind of doctrine." (Ephesians 4:14).
Rather, I must "...receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is
able to save [my soul]." (James 1:21).

   With all of this in mind as you read the ensuing composition, I wish
you to realize that it is the result of one aspect or stage of my
search for truth. I have here recorded my findings after many weeks of
intense study, and even at that, I am sure I have not uncovered all of
the Devil's subtleties pertaining to the subject matter. However, in
the interests of continuing on with other, more profitable studies, (I
speak here of the "...more excellent way." of 1 Corinthians 12:31), I
have chosen to compose what I have discovered in a comprehensive
statement of fact designed not necessarily to persuade, but to provide
the groundwork for a questioning soul who wishes, as I do, to find the
truth. To be sure, there is enough scriptural evidence here to convince
me of the truth of the findings.

   It is my hope that you, as the reader, will benefit from these
findings. If you are caught in the snare which I will describe in this
composition, I urge you to extract yourself quickly. If you are a child
of the Living God, and have a sincere desire to know and understand the
truths of God's word, and more importantly, to obey them, then take an
objective view of the materials I will present. Be sure to pray first
each time you open God's word to study these issues, and take John 7:17
as God's promise to show you His truth, providing you meet the only
requirement: "If any man will do his will...".

   Whatever you do with this material, I urge you to please remember
these two very important declarations from God's word:

   "Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Happy is he which
condemneth not himself in the thing which he alloweth. And he that
doubteth is damned if he eat, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
(Romans 14:22,23)

   "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him
it is sin." (James 4:17)

   Introduction

   In today's Christianity, there are multiplied numbers of
denominations, and literally thousands of sub-denominations, not to
mention the many inter- and non-denominations, and the outlying cults.
Each of these is a little bit or a whole lot different from the rest. A
special friend of mine once said: "Two things that are not the same are
not equal." Which are the true churches? Which hold to "...all the
counsel of God..." (Acts 20:27)? What is the "counsel"? These questions
will only be answered by intense, thorough, and methodic Bible study of
specific subjects. It must be realized that although a wide reading of
the scriptures is very profitable, only in-depth study will ever
provide the sure footings of doctrinal grounding. Just as a lawyer
studies the particular portions of his lawbooks pertaining to the
specific law he is researching, so must the prayerful child of God
search out what the inspired authors of the Bible wrote on specific
subjects in order to understand how it all fits together. This manner
of planned searching will reveal to the seeker which churches are
espousing true doctrine, and which false.

   This is exactly the approach I have taken in researching the matter
of modern day miracles and tongues-speaking. As a new Christian, I was
subjected to the Charismatic doctrine of "baptism in the Holy Ghost"
with the "initial evidence" of speaking in tongues. Not wishing to be
thought spiritually inferior to my Christian peers, I sought this
experience. Of course, it was given to me. There is one who is always
ready to give the untaught child of God a "spiritual experience". I
spoke in the incomprehensible "ecstatic" speech which comprises the
so-called "heavenly" language. Being ungrounded in Scripture, I was
absolutely convinced that any who did not do the same were deceived and
were missing out on one of God's biggest blessings.

   Then one night it was brought to my attention, through convincing
arguments, that what I was doing was NOT Scriptural. During the
discussion, I became chagrined at my inability to quote supporting
scriptures for my doctrinal position, and I went to my Bible to search
for them.

   I was disappointed when I could not find them.

   Nobody likes to admit that they are wrong. I did not want to give up
what I thought was a blessing from above, but as I have previously
stated, the test of how much one desires the truth lies in what he does
with it once he has found it.

   I have arranged the results of my study in nine sub-topics. These
are separate areas of doctrinal teaching all interlocked under the
general topic "Modern Day Signs, Miracles, and Wonders". I have
attempted to lay out these segments in a logical progression which will
allow the reader to absorb the general overview, which is essential to
the proper understanding of this area of great controversy. As you
proceed now to the bulk of the text, I want to make one more point
absolutely clear. ALL scripture references in this composition are
taken from the Authorized King James Bible, and any deviation therefrom
is not intentional. I take that Book as the absolute and sovereign
authority over ANY other source, including but not limited to ANY Greek
or Hebrew manuscripts no matter how "accurate" they may be.

   With this in mind, let us proceed...

   Chapter 1: The Cessation of the Sign Gifts

   The first thing I want to point to is 1 Corinthians 13 as a whole
and its one-verse preface in particular, chapter 12:31. In chapter 13
of this book, Paul describes the "...more excellent way..." which is
alluded to in chapter 12:31. This "way" is that of unfeigned love (2
Corinthians 6:6; 1 Peter 1:22). Here Paul puts forth the
characteristics of charity, especially its pre-eminence over the
spiritual gifts. The word "charity" is important, because it carries
with it the overtones of Christian giving, which set it apart from
"love", which could be anything from lust to covetousness. The
pre-eminence of charity is important, for it is with this thought that
Paul enters the discussion of the temporary spiritual gifts (verses
8-13).

   Paul, in chapter 13 of 1 Corinthians, was trying to show the
gift-obsessed Corinthian church the folly of placing so much emphasis
in the area of gifts, for most of them were to be short- lived. He
states in verse 8 that charity is eternal, while all the other things
would one day fail, cease, or otherwise vanish away. Just WHEN these
things would pass by he does not say specifically, but by looking into
other portions of the Bible, we can pinpoint this more exactly. In
order to properly understand this matter of cessation, we must first
divide the list of gifts given in 1 Corinthians 12 into two groups,
which cease at different times. These two groups are: 1) sign gifts,
and 2) spiritual gifts. The only group that we will be concerned with
in this composition are the sign gifts, as these are the only ones
which have as yet passed away, the reason for their existence having
disappeared, as we will see.

   These gifts are identified in Mark 16:14-20. Here the Lord Jesus
Christ is speaking with His disciples just before His ascension, giving
them instructions on what they were to do to establish the Christian
church. Note the phrase in verse 17: "And these signs shall follow..."
Our Lord then lists for us the gifts that are identified by Him as
"sign gifts". These are power over devils, speaking with new (not
"unknown") tongues, immunity, and healing.

   The Bible says in Isaiah 28:9-13 that if we are to understand
doctrine (vs 9), we must compare precept with precept, and line with
line (vs 10). In keeping with this, then, look now at 1 Corinthians
1:22. Here God gives us even more details as to the matter of signs.
Note the phrase "For the JEWS require a sign...". Now look at 1
Corinthians 14:22. (What a coincidence that the verse numbers
coincide!) Notice what the scripture says there: "Wherefore tongues are
for a sign, NOT to them that believe, but to THEM THAT BELIEVE NOT."
Now we can see that the gift of tongues was a gift designed to convince
UNBELIEVING JEWS that Jesus Christ was (is) the Messiah of the
prophecies. It will be noted in a later chapter how this gift was used
in the book of Acts.

   Look now at 1 Corinthians 10:32. This very important verse gives us
the three classes of people which God deals with in the Bible, and
every person that has ever lived or will live falls into one of these
three categories. They are the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Church. This
can be brought out even more by comparing this verse with John 1:11-13.
Notice there in John that verse 11 says "He came unto his own, and his
own received him not." This refers to The Lord Jesus Christ's own race
of people, which are the Jews. Now look at verse 12. "...as many as
received him gave he power to become the sons of God..." This is a
reference to the Gentiles, which could never be included in God's
people, unless "...gave he power..." for them to enter. This brings us
to verse 13, which states: "Which were born...of God." This refers to
the Church, made up of Jews and Gentiles that are born-again by the
Holy Spirit. These are the three classes of people with which God
deals, and it is important to make these distinctions in order to
properly "divide" (2 Timothy 2:15) God's word. One cannot take what
applies to the Jews and apply it to Gentiles, nor can he take what is
meant for the Gentiles and apply it to the Church. It is EXACTLY this
"mixing up" of God's word that has led to the many cults and false
churches plaguing us today.

   Look now, if you will, at Matthew 11:1-6. We see here an account of
two of John the Baptist's disciples who came to Jesus with a message
from John. Verse 3 gives us this message, which was really a question:
"Art thou he that should come, or should we look for another?" They
obviously were inquiring as to whethor or not He was really the
Messiah. The answer that the Lord Jesus Christ gave these men is
extremely important. He said in verse 4: "Go and shew John again those
things which ye do hear and see:" He then lists the miracles that He
had been performing before the people, and gives them as PROOF that He
was who He said He was. Look at Isaiah 35. Read this chapter. It is a
prophecy of the coming Kingdom, in which The Lord Jesus Christ will
reign as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Note verse 4: "...behold,
your God will come with vengeance..." This is the Second Coming of
Jesus Christ, which the Jews were looking for first. They did not
understand the concept of a suffering Messiah; they wanted a reigning
Messiah. Note especially verses 5 and 6. Here is found a list of signs
exactly like those in Matthew 11:5. These are the signs of the Kingdom;
in other words, the prophet Isaiah was telling the Jews that one day
their sorrows would end. One day a King would come, and save them, and
"...sorrow and sighing shall flee away." (Isaiah 35:10). How would they
know Him when He came? BY THE SIGNS HE WOULD PERFORM. "For the Jews
require a sign..." (1 Corinthians 1:22) "Wherefore tongues are for a
sign..." (1 Corinthians 14:22)

   By laying all this side by side in this fashion, it is very apparent
what the purpose of the signs given in Mark 16, the same ones as in
Matthew 11 and Isaiah 35, was: i.e., to show the JEWS (NOT the
Gentiles, OR the Church), that Jesus was the Messiah. Why do that? you
ask. Look closely now. IF THE JEWS HAD NOT REJECTED THE MESSIAH, THIS
VERY SAME KINGDOM WOULD HAVE COME TO PASS, AND THE CHURCH WOULD HAVE
BEEN SKIPPED.

   What I am trying to show you here is that the reason for the signs
precludes their continuing use once God had given the Jews enough
chances to accept Jesus as their Messiah, in which event, the rest of
the prophecies concerning the Messianic Kingdom would have immediately
come to pass. You see, God is indeed a just God. He is indeed a
merciful God. He knew how it would have worked out if it had not worked
out like it worked out, and He of course made provision for every
possible occurrence, even though He knew exactly what would in fact
occur. God gave the Jews more than enough chances while the Lord Jesus
Christ was on the earth, and yet He didn't stop there. In the book of
Acts, after His ascension, He gave them three more.

   Look if you will at the book of Acts. This book is a history of the
transition from Judaism to Christianity, from the law to grace, and it
also shows us how the gift of salvation passed from the Jews to the
Gentiles because of their rejection of their Messiah. Knowing that the
signs are a sign of the kingdom to the Jews, over which it was
prophesied that the throne of David would be established as an
everlasting throne (Ezekiel 37:24,25; Hosea 3:5), it is significant
that these same signs were given to the apostles. This was done in
order that the Jews would have yet another chance to bring in this
kingdom without having to go through the "...time of Jacob's trouble;"
(Jeremiah 30:4-9). By tracing the signs through the book of Acts, it
can be seen that there are four instances in which the Jews are given a
chance to receive the kingdom, and don't, and in each of these
instances the signs cease in that area of the of the world, until
finally they are gone from the entire scene.

   Look first at Acts 6:5 - 7:60. Read this passage. Here you have the
account of Stephen's great persecution. The place is Jerusalem. His
sermon lays out the truth of their rejection of their Messiah very
clearly, so clearly that in verse 54 the Bible says that they were
"...cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth." They
"...stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord," (verse 57),
and they took him out and stoned him to death. After this event, THERE
ARE NO MORE SIGNS PERFORMED IN JERUSALEM.

   Look now at Acts 13:44-52. Here is an account of Paul and Barnabas
contending (Proverbs 28:4) with the Jews in Asia-Minor. Note verse 45:
The Jews, being "...filled with envy...spake against...contradicting
and BLASPHEMING." As a result of their actions, Paul states in verse
46: "...seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of
everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." AFTER THIS EVENT, NO
MORE SIGNS ARE PERFORMED IN ASIA-MINOR.

   Look now at Acts 18:1-6. Note verse 5: "...Paul was pressed in the
spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ." Verse 6 says:
"...they opposed THEMSELVES, and BLASPHEMED..." Paul then "...said unto
them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: [Ezekiel 33:5-9]
from HENCEFORTH I will go unto the Gentiles." (verse 6). AFTER THIS
EVENT NO MORE SIGNS ARE PERFORMED IN THE EUROPEAN MAINLAND.

   Look now at Acts 28:17-29. Note especially verse 28: "Be it known
therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the
Gentiles, and that they will hear it." AFTER THIS SAYING NO MORE SIGNS
ARE EVER AGAIN PERFORMED ANYWHERE, AND WON'T BE UNTIL DURING THE GREAT
TRIBULATION, IN WHICH GOD WILL JUDGE THE JEWS FOR THEIR REJECTION OF
HIM.

   It is very important that this matter of cessation be understood,
for it is the root of the whole problem. This is why I have dealt with
it first. It forms the "stepping off point" into all the rest of the
issues I will deal with in further chapters. Let me restate for you
what we have just gone over, then, so that there will be no question
about it. The sign gifts are identified in Mark 16:17,18. (See previous
footnote.) They were EXCLUSIVELY for the Jews, as a sign of the
Messianic Kingdom. They were NOT for the Church, nor for the Gentiles,
because the Messiah was not for the Church or the Gentiles. God NEVER
promised to the Gentiles that a Messiah would come to save them. That
promise was given ONLY to the Jews, and hence the signs accompanying it
were ONLY to the Jews. It can be clearly traced through the records of
the Gospels and the book of Acts that the Jews were given chance after
chance to accept Jesus as the Christ, to which office He proved Himself
by the use of these signs. When the Jews rejected Him, the signs were
taken away, because there was no longer any need for them. Acts 28:28
was God's final ultimatum to the Jews, and from that point until He
returns to take His Church home, He does and will not deal with them
again as a nation. Now God is dealing only with His Church, at least as
far as salvation is concerned. (see Galatians 3:26-29). When He comes
back the second time for His church, He will again take up where He
left off, with the Jews, and at that time, the signs will again be in
force (Revelation 11:1-11).

   If the account of the Bible is not enough for you, then there is
also this to consider: Church history attests to the cessation of the
sign gifts. From Acts 28:28 until the early 1900's, there is absolutely
NO legitimate record of ANY of these gifts being used. Why else, but
that there is no need for them? They have only been resurrected in
these last years of the Church age, and I would assure you that God has
not changed His mind about things. If God said the signs were for the
Jews (1 Corinthians 1:22), and someone else says they aren't, who are
you going to believe? If God said that the signs would cease (1
Corinthians 13:8), and someone else says they won't, who are you going
to believe?

   The question of why these signs have been resurrected, and who is
behind their resurrection, I will leave for a future section. One
further note I will make, and then we will go on to the next section. I
said earlier that the gifts listed in 1 Corinthians 12 are divided into
two groups, and I showed you why that is so. Please note that ONLY the
sign gifts have as yet ceased. The others are still in force. The
matter of the interpretation of just what each of these gifts are, I
will leave to your own study. Let Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 13:13
suffice for now: "And NOW abide..." The three gifts contained in this
verse, along with the fruits of Galatians 5:22-26, are all we need
concern ourselves with for practical Christian living, which is what
it's all about anyway.

   Chapter 2: The New Testament Gift of Tongues

   I will now address the issue of tongues-speaking, which is probably
among the hottest issues of controversy in the Church today. In fact,
this issue is so divisive, that all of Christianity can be separated
into two categories: Those that "speak with tongues", and those that
don't. By far and above, people in Christian circles argue more about
the subject of tongues than anything else, and the reason for this can
be none other than ignorance of God's word on the matter. If people
would not take a man's word for something, but would check it out for
themselves, half of the problem would be eliminated. As it stands,
Christians are now to the point of making up pet doctrines to fit their
beliefs, lest they should have to admit their error and give up their
fleshly ways. In order to properly examine the subject, I will divide
it into seven portions, and these are:

   1) What is meant by the word "tongues"?

   2) Did tongues as a gift of the Spirit cease?

   3) Are tongues the "initial evidence" of baptism by the Spirit?

   4) Are tongues as important as men say they are?

   5) What two things are not found in Acts 2?

   6) What rules for tongues should be observed?

   7) What were tongues for?

   1) What is meant by the word "tongues"?

   Naturally, in order to determine just what the Bible says about the
matter, we must first examine just what Paul and others referred to
when they spoke of "tongues". Even this simple subject is a matter of
considerable debate. Paul used the word "tongue" 21 times in 1
Corinthians 12-14, and three times in his other epistles. Each of these
other uses was either a quotation from the Old Testament, (Psalms 5:9
in Romans 3:13; Isaiah 45:23 in Romans 14:11), or an allusion to it,
(Isaiah 45:23 in Philippians 2:11). In all three instances, the word
"tongue" is used to represent the actual member of our bodies, in a
figure of speech for the statements made. The same may be said of its
usage elsewhere in the New Testament. It was used literally of the
physical organ, (Mark 7:33; James 3:5; Revelation 6:10), and
figuratively of human languages, (Acts 2:11; Revelation 5:9; 7:9;
10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15).

   Did you notice anything? Did you see any references hinting at some
kind of "ecstatic" language? Can you find ANYWHERE in the Bible outside
of 1 Corinthians 14 where tongues mean ANYTHING other than the physical
organ or a KNOWN language? Why then would they mean something else in
that chapter alone? I've no doubt that in order to answer that question
one turns to the book of Acts to make a case. Let's look there too,
then, for there are only three places where they are mentioned. First,
in Acts 2. Might as well go on, for there are no unknown tongues there.
All the languages spoken were understandable by someone present. How
about Acts 10:44-47? Notice verse 46. The hearers knew that the
speakers were magnifying God. How could they know, unless they
understood the language? Some say that their spirit bore witness, but
the Bible doesn't say that. You mustn't try to defend your position
instead of heeding John 7:17. Let's look now at Acts 19:1-7. If you
want to base your case on this passage all by itself, you are
committing one of the grossest follies possible in Bible study. Never
base a doctrine on a single portion of scripture. The fact that it
doesn't say here that the people understood what was being said cannot
be conclusive proof that they didn't.

   Just what, then, is meant by the word "tongue", or the phrase
"unknown tongue", and such verses as 1 Corinthians 14:2,14? To state it
plainly, in the light of all the scripture on the subject, none of
which supports the theory of "ecstatic" languages but rather known
ones, we must come to this conclusion:

   "Unknown tongues", or the gift of "tongues", was the ability to
speak in languages that one had not learned.

   For example, if I was to begin to speak in fluent German, with
absolutely no prior schooling or experience with the language, then I
would be speaking with an "unknown tongue". My understanding would be
unfruitful, for I would not know what I was saying, nor would anyone
else, unless he was German. That would certainly be an unknown tongue
to me, would it not? Thus, too, for any hearer who was not German to be
edified, it must be interpreted, just as Paul declares again and again
in 1 Corinthians 14.

   That, then, is what is meant by the word "tongue" in the Bible. One
other thing I would have you to notice before I move on, is the use of
the words "spirit" and "Spirit" in 1 Corinthians. Notice in 1
Corinthians 12:3,4,7,8,9,13. The word is "Spirit". IT IS NOT FOUND ONE
SINGLE TIME IN THE ENTIRE 14TH CHAPTER! There is a vast difference
between the two. "Spirit" is the Holy Spirit, while "spirit" is man's
spirit, as Paul states clearly in 1 Corinthians 14:32,14: "...MY
spirit..."

   2) Did tongues as a gift of the Spirit cease?

   This question has already been answered in the previous chapter but
for the sake of convenience, I will briefly restate the answer again.
Tongues are among the sign gifts as stated in Mark 16, which gifts were
strictly and exclusively for the nation of Israel, to validate the
coming of the Messiah. The Israelites rejected their Messiah, and when
this decision of theirs was final, (God gave them chance upon chance to
change their minds), the signs ceased to be exercised. Once the purpose
for the gifts was fulfilled, they were taken away. Now, as to the
specific gift of tongues, it is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13:8, where
it is succinctly stated that it would most definitely cease. God's
hindsight was no doubt in play here, as He looked back and saw how men
would twist this matter all out of shape. Think of it like this: God
said that tongues would cease. Church history attests to this fact. No
record of tongues speaking can be found until the early 1900's. For 18
full centuries, no one spoke with tongues, or claimed the gift of
healing. THE PROPHESY WAS FULFILLED. Why then do people insist on
claiming these things and bringing them back? I'll let you search your
own heart for the answer.

   3) Are tongues the initial evidence of baptism by the Holy

   Spirit?

   There are many who say "yes" to this question. However, there is
absolutely NO scriptural support for this assumption. The subject of
the baptism of the Holy Spirit will itself be discussed in a later
chapter, where we will see that ANY person who is saved is baptized by
the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13 with Romans 8:9 and Galatians
3:27; see page for details.) Therefore, if you are not baptized by the
Holy Spirit, you are not saved. Take the argument one step further: If
the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is tongues, and
you don't speak with tongues, then you are not saved. Also consider
Acts 2. This is where the record is of the first giving of the Holy
Spirit in the New Testament sense. Can you point out for me what the
"initial evidence" was? I can guarantee you that it assuredly was NOT
speaking with tongues.

   4) Are tongues as important as men say they are?

   There are many who emphasis the gift of tongues far above other
aspects of Christian living, and in doing this, they shift attention
from the Lord Jesus Christ to themselves (see Romans 16:17,18). If you
believe that tongues are very important to Christian living, then I
would like you to seriously consider the following questions:

   1) If tongues are so important, why do they appear at the BOTTOM of
the lists of gifts? (1 Corinthians 12:8-10; 28-30)

   2) If tongues are so important, why weren't they mentioned in the
list of works that the first church performed? (Acts 2:41-47)

   3) If tongues are so important, why aren't they mentioned more than
three times in the entire book of Acts? (Acts 2,10,19)

   4) If tongues are so important, why are they only mentioned in six
chapters out of 260 in the New Testament? (Acts 2,10,19; 1 Corinthians
12-14)

   5) If tongues are so important, and are the source of so much
alleged "power", why didn't such great men of God as Charles Spurgeon,
John Wesley, John Huss, D.L. Moody, Martin Luther, Billy Sunday, Oliver
B. Greene, M.R. DeHaan Sr., Bob Jones Sr., Charles Finney, etc., speak
with them?

   6) If tongues are so important, why didn't the Lord Jesus Christ
Himself ever mention them more than one solitary time? (Mark 16;17)

   7) If tongues are so important, why did Paul say that not all men
would speak with them? (1 Corinthians 12:30)

   If you can answer all those questions honestly before God (Proverbs
21:2; 24:12), and still proclaim that tongues are one of the most
important aspects of Christian living, then see 1 Timothy 4:2.

   5) What two things are not found in Acts 2?

   1) There are no "unknown" tongues in Acts 2. Notice that all of the
languages in verses 9-11 are known to someone present, WITH NO
INTERPRETATION, (Acts 2:8). Nothing in this chapter has even a remote
connection with the "spontaneous language" that Charismatics claim
today. In addition to this, it is well to note just who was actually
speaking with tongues in this chapter. In order to do that, it must
first be determined just how many people are denoted by the word "they"
in verse one. Many hold that the "they" refers to the 120 disciples in
chapter 1:15. However, this just cannot be, for "God is not the author
of confusion..." (1 Corinthians 14:33), and there can be no doubt that
if there 120 people all speaking in different languages, there would be
mass confusion. Notice verse 7: "...Behold, are not all these which
speak Galilaeans?" To say that all of the 120 disciples were of the
city of Galilee would be a ridiculous assumption. Notice also chapter
1:26, and the last four words: "...with the eleven apostles." Then 2:1:
"...they were all..." The "they" in verse 1, along with the "they" in
chapter 1:14,23,24, all refer to the apostles, who were the only ones
speaking with tongues in Acts 2.

   2) The "initial evidence" of "speaking with tongues" is not found in
Acts 2. Notice in verse 2 that the initial evidence was the sound of
rushing wind. Why don't the Charismatics claim that as the initial
evidence instead of the gift of tongues? Simple. The rushing wind
CANNOT BE IMITATED. (2 Corinthians 11:12-15)

   It seems that many men today are pulling their support for their
doctrine from the second chapter of Acts, and claiming such things as
we have seen do not exist here in this chapter. The events recorded
here are unique, one-of-a-kind occurrences, just like Jonah and the
whale and the crossing of the Red Sea and the Passover and Mt. Sinai.
The rushing wind and the tongues of fire were for one specific purpose
only: to validate for UNBELIEVING JEWS the giving of the Holy Spirit as
God had promised. (See Acts 2:16.) That is why these things have not
since occurred outside of Satanic imitations. Please don't claim part
of it if you will not claim it all.

   6) What rules for tongues are to be followed?

   Taking the hypothetical assumption that tongues ARE for today, (I do
not take that assumption, but for the sake of argument, bear with me),
what rules would govern their use? In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul sets down
four such rules:

   1) Not more than three people were to speak with tongues in the
church at a time. (14:27)

   2) These three were not to speak out all at once, but by turns.
(14:27)

   3) NO ONE was to speak in tongues if an interpreter was not present.
(14:28)

   4) Women were not to speak with tongues in the church. (14:37)

   I have yet to see an occasion where these rules were adhered to
among those churches that claim to possess such gifts. (Proverbs 25:14)

   7) What were tongues for?

   This question is very easy to answer, and has already been answered
in previous pages. 1 Corinthians 14:22 states that tongues are for a
sign, while 1 Corinthians 1:22 states that the Jews require a sign.
Thus it quite easy to see that tongues were for a sign to unbelieving
Jews. But just what did the sign attest to? In Isaiah 28:11 we have the
prophesy of "...another tongue...". Looking further in the passage,
down to verse 16, we see that the context is that of the coming of the
Messiah. Putting that with Joel 2:28-32, which is the passage quoted by
Peter in Acts 2:16-21, it is apparent that the gift of tongues was a
sign to the Jews that the Messiah HAD come, and the Holy Spirit was
given just as God had promised hundreds of years before. The tongues
were a visible manifestation of fulfilled prophecy, and served as an
undeniable attestation to the Jews of the validity of the message of
salvation through Jesus Christ preached by the apostles. EVERY time
tongues were spoken in the book of Acts, Jews were present. When the
Jews rejected their Messiah for the last time in Acts 28, there was no
longer any need for the gift, and it most likely began to fade away at
that point, as prophesied by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:8.

   Following is a table by which it may be seen how tongues were used
in the book of Acts.

   ╔═════════════╦═══════╦════════╦════════╦═══════════════════════╗
║AS RELATED TO║PASSAGE║SPEAKERS║AUDIENCE║ PURPOSE ║ ║ SALVATION ║ ║ ║ ║
║ ║═════════════╬═══════╬════════╬════════╬═══════════════════════╣ ║
║ACTS 2 ║ ║UNSAVED ║ TO VALIDATE FOR THE ║ ║ AFTER ║1 - 14 ║APOSTLES║
JEWS ║ JEWS THE GIVING OF THE║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ HOLY SPIRIT ║
╠═════════════╬═══════╬════════╬════════╬═══════════════════════╣ ║
║ACTS 1 ║ ║ SAVED ║ TO VALIDATE FOR JEWS ║ ║ SAME TIME ║ 44-47
║GENTILES║ JEWS ║ THAT GOD WAS ACCEPTING║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ THE GENTILES. ║
╠═════════════╬═══════╬════════╬════════╬═══════════════════════╣ ║
SAME TIME ║ACTS 19║ABOUT ║ SAVED ║ CONFIRMATION OF PAUL'S║ ║ ║1 - 7 ║12
JEWS ║ JEWS ║ MESSAGE ║
╚═════════════╩═══════╩════════╩════════╩═══════════════════════╝

   Chapter 3: The Book of Acts as a Transitional Book

   In this section I want to treat the subject of the book of the Acts
of the Apostles, and its transitional nature. This is very, very
important to understand. Many cults and false religious systems have
arisen out of the improper handling of this book, and ALL of the
Charismatic doctrine concerning tongues-speaking and healing and such
things is a result of a wrong interpretation of this book. Contrary to
what most people would have us to believe, there is a right way and a
wrong way to interpret God's Word, and as I have said before, the right
way will only be found through prayer and application of John 7:17,
coupled with intense, methodical Bible study of the Authorized King
James Bible. As I am sure that you want the truth (if you don't, you
probably would have thrown this dissertation into the garbage long ago,
and missed out on one of God's greatest blessings: a fruitful
understanding!), we must consider this book in the light of the
circumstances of its writing.

   The book of Acts tells the story of how God founded His Church
through the obedience of His apostles. There are events recorded in its
pages which, because of its transitional nature, do not occur in the
Church today through the auspices of the Holy Spirit, although there
are many counterfeits abounding. The book of Acts is a history, written
by Luke the physician, who was with Paul during his whole ministry (for
reasons we will discover later). In this book, we see how it was that
salvation came to the Gentiles, through the unbelief of the Jews. What
I purport to do in this section is to take a brief but concise trip
through the book and touch on some of the more outstanding events that
are most often confused. Some groups use some of these transitional
events as doctrinal foundations for their false teachings, and I will
try to bring these to your attention as we come to them. Please note
that this is NOT a commentary on the book of Acts, but only a brief
exposition.

   There are two things I want you to keep in mind as we go. First, as
you read the book, observe how the frequency of accounts of miracles
and supernatural events diminishes. They occur less and less as the
book progresses, because the Jews are continually rejecting their
Christ. Also note this additional transitional feature:

   Peter to Paul

   the apostle to the apostle to

   the Jews to the Gentiles

   (Acts 1-12) (Acts 13-28)

   With this in mind, let us proceed:

   The first, and most significant, of the events recorded in the book
of Acts, is, of course, the day of Pentecost. Some people would say
that "Every Christian should experience his own day of Pentecost." To
the extent that every Christian must be born again from above this is
true (see John 3:1-8). However, nine times out of ten, this is not to
what they refer when stating this. Usually, they mean something to the
effect that all should speak with tongues, which they claim to be the
"initial" evidence of the "baptism of the Holy Ghost". This is absolute
folly, for the "initial" evidence was NOT speaking with tongues. Read
the passage. What was the "initial" evidence? Look at verse 2: "And
suddenly there came a sound..." The first evidence that Holy Spirit had
fallen on men as The Lord Jesus Christ had said He would (John
14:15-20,26; 16:5-14), and as the prophets had foretold (Isaiah 32:15;
59:20,21; Ezekiel 39:28,29; Joel 2:28-32), was the sound of rushing
wind. Even at that, some of the more foolhardy claim that even these
evidences will be given to the Christian when he "receives the Holy
Ghost". This, too, is folly. NOWHERE else in the entire book of Acts is
there ever again a mention of rushing wind and "...cloven tongues like
as of fire..." (Acts 2:3). NONE of the men mentioned in the book of
Acts in further chapters EVER experienced these things. They only
occurred ONCE, and for a specific reason. They served to pinpoint
exactly and tangibly to all the world the instant of the fulfilling of
the prophecies concerning the giving of the Holy Spirit. Without those
visible signs, it would not have been known just what had happened that
day, for the Spirit Himself did not show Himself to men.

   On that day, the disciples became apostles in truth, with all the
signs of an apostle (2 Corinthians 12:2), and were empowered for
battle. 3,000 people were saved that day, during the world's greatest
revival (Acts 2:41). It is interesting to look at the follow-up verses
on what this baby church did AFTER their salvation. Look at Acts
2:41-47. They continued in the apostles' doctrine, fellowship,
communion, prayers, DAILY in the temple (they were very thirsty for
God's Word-1 Peter 2:2), praising, giving, rejoicing in their
salvation, and witnessing throughout the countryside. NO mention is
made of speaking in tongues. If tongues were as important as they are
professed to be today, surely they would have been included! THEY
WEREN'T! Also notice in verse 43 that the Bible says that signs and
wonders were done by the apostles. It specifically says "...by the
apostles." It specifically does NOT say that anyone else did such
things.

   Moving on, we come next to chapter 3:1-16, where we find an account
of a lame man being healed. Why was he healed? For a SIGN to those JEWS
who saw him healed (3:9-11; 4:16,21,22).

   Next comes a curious event in chapter 5:1-11. Peter, operating in
some kind of gift of discernment, knew Ananias was lying about his
giving. (Most likely, Peter's knowledge of Ananias' giving was no
supernatural thing. He probably kept track of the giving of his church
members, as any good, responsible pastor would do.) When confronted,
Ananias died on the spot. The same thing happened to his wife. This is
a good example of the transitional nature of the book of Acts. Such
things as this are unheard of today, because it had a specific purpose
in a specific time period for a specific people: the JEWS. It served as
a strong attestation to God's authority and to the truth of the message
preached by the apostles (verse 11). Besides, anybody who tries to
cheat God out of His money deserves what he gets!

   We next come to Acts 5:12. Here again we find a mention of the
apostles doing signs and wonders. God is again careful to specify that
it was the apostles who were doing such things. No one else is
mentioned in connection with the performing of miracles. The specific
purpose for these signs is stated in verse 14, where it is seen that
unbelieving JEWS were being converted (see 1 Corinthians 1:22).

   We come now to Acts 5:17-32. This is one of many accounts of the
apostles being thrown into jail, and then being miraculously released.
Here are a few things to think about in connection with these events:
Many Charismatics, especially those who proclaim the "health and
wealth" gospel (see Galatians 1:6-9) tell us that if we have enough
faith, we can do the same things as did the apostles, but there are
numerous Christians in prisons all over the world because of the faith
they proclaim in the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no doubt in my mind
that these persecuted brethren have a better quality and quantity of
faith than these shallow, worldly, wishy-washy, lovey-dovey American
Christians sitting in their warm homes with Bibles all over the place
and money in the bank and refrigerators stuffed, talking about what a
great faith they have that they will never get sick and will always
have plenty of money. They have the nerve to accuse these persecuted
brethren of having too little faith? That if they had enough faith they
could "believe" themselves out of prison and into a mansion? Friend,
these brethren of ours that are in prisons are there because THEY
REFUSE TO DENY CHRIST NO MATTER WHAT IS DONE TO THEM!!! Let some of
these American "spiritual giants" have their children taken away and
all their Bibles taken away and all their money and all their food and
their wives and homes and jobs and cars and R.V.'s and boats and Rolex
watches and glass churches, and then let them get thrown into a dirty,
filthy, violent, dark, 3'X3' concrete cell with no clothes and no heat
and no where to lay down except in their own excrement, and see if they
don't start signing anything that is put in front of their faces. God
NEVER promised that people wouldn't suffer for His name! Quite to the
contrary, look at passages like 1 Peter 4:12-16; James 5:10-12; 1
Thessalonians 1:4. Look at 2 Corinthians 11:23-33. Note especially
verse 23, and the words "...in prisons more frequent..." Are you going
to tell me that Paul, the greatest Christian that ever lived, who wrote
two- thirds of the New Testament, did not have sufficient faith?
Although God does sometimes arrange for an early release for this saint
or that saint, He only does it when it suits His inscrutable plan, not
man's insignificant will, and it is never in such bodily manifestations
of power as we see here in Acts 5:19 and other occasions yet to be
seen. The reason for this is that the book of Acts is a transitional
book, and the events recorded in it occurred for specific, immediate
purposes, which, when fulfilled, did not require any further
demonstrations of power or authority. "And NOW abide...these three..."
(1 Corinthians 13:13).

   Next we come to Acts 6:8, where we see Stephen performing signs and
wonders. Note that he did not do these things until AFTER the apostles
had laid hands on him.

   Then comes Acts 8:5-17. Philip performs some signs and wonders, and
then there follows an account of the follow-up work that was done. This
passage is very significant, and is another clear picture of the
transitional nature of the book. Look at verse 16. When you compare it
with Romans 8:9, it is immediately clear that these people were not yet
saved. Although they had heard the word of God, and had believed it,
and had been baptized in water (verse 12), they nevertheless were NOT
saved until Peter and John arrived from Jerusalem. Some would say that
these men WERE saved, and that verse 17 shows that there was a second
act of grace involved in which they received the Holy Ghost, and that
this is true for all believers. This is folly. There were very specific
reasons for this delay, which interestingly enough, does not EVER
happen again (there goes the idea of all Christians going through
this!). The delay served several purposes:

   1) The coming of Peter and John and the subsequent laying on of
their hands confirmed Philip's ministry among the Samaritans.

   2) The message Philip preached was validated by a VISIBLE coming of
the Holy Spirit (verse 18), which was a mark of the coming kingdom
(verse 12, with Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:23-27; Joel 2:28-32).

   3) Perhaps the most important aspect of God's withholding of the
Holy Spirit until Jewish apostolic representatives arrived was to
prevent schism. Because of the natural propensity of division between
Jews and Samaritans, it was essential for JEWS to welcome the
Samaritans into the Church. Note the very interesting contrast between
John's attitude here and that of Luke 9:52-54.

   God has a reason for everything He does. The gray area during the
transition from the dispensation of law to the dispensation of grace is
what the book of Acts covers, and such strange events as this, that
occur only ONCE, for specific reasons, are abundant. The next event in
this chapter provides even further testimony to this.

   Look now at Acts 8:26-40. This is the familiar account of Philip's
witnessing to the Ethiopian eunuch. Note verse 39: "...the Spirit of
the Lord caught away Philip..." Philip was translated from Gaza (verse
26), to Azotus (verse 40), twenty miles away up the coast of Judea,
INSTANTLY! Philip and the eunuch were coming out of the water side by
side, and "...the eunuch saw him no more..." (verse 39). Let's see Oral
Roberts or Kenneth Copeland or Kenneth Hagin try THAT one!

   In Acts 9:1-22, we have the account of Paul's conversion. It was
most certainly what one might call a "dramatic" conversion, to say the
least. When was the last time that God ever condescended to display
such a physical manifestation of force to get one man saved?

   Also in Acts 9:17, we have the only specific record of anyone other
than the apostles and Philip, (possibly Stephen), healing. Ananias,
under a direct command from God Almighty, laid hands on Paul's eyes and
became God's instrument in the healing of Paul. It was then that Paul
was baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ and was
born-again.

   Acts 9:32-35 is the account of the healing of Aenas, which was a
sign to those in Lydda that the God Peter served was alive and well.

   Now, in Acts 9:36-43, we have the account of the raising of Tabitha,
which throws some light on the false doctrine which teaches that, even
though a man of God may have the gift of healing, the recipients of the
healing must also exercise their own faith as well. This will be
covered in detail in a later section, but in passing I would like to
observe how this thing works. Note verse 40: "...and turning him to the
BODY..." I ask you: can a dead body exercise faith of any sort? Then
was she healed? Why? BECAUSE ANY MAN WITH THE "GIFT OF HEALING" CAN
HEAL ANYBODY, REGARDLESS OF THEIR FAITH. Nowadays, if you went to one
of our so-called "healers" for healing, and didn't get healed, they
would tell you that you didn't exercise enough faith. What strange
things these "men of God" preach!

   Then we come to the Tenth Chapter of Acts. This chapter is extremely
important in God's plan of things. If you have never studied Bible
numerics, you are missing out on a great blessing. In the Bible, the
number "10" is the number of the Gentiles. What a coincidence that here
in Acts 10 the Gentiles (which means us!) get in on salvation! Note
verses 44-48. The whole motive behind Peter's reluctance to preach to
Gentiles and the Jew's subsequent astonishment at the Gentile's
inclusion in God's blessing is that the Jews believed that they were
the only ones God would ever deal with, at least in the matter of
blessings. (God had previously showed Himself to be no respecter of
persons when it came to punishing sin!). This conclusion they did not
draw from the Scripture, but from their EXPERIENCE, which had shown
them that they were God's favorites. However, experience proved wrong
in this case, as it does very often when it comes to things of God. The
lesson is obvious: Forget what you see, hear, taste, or feel, and go
with what GOD SAID! Verse 46 is often used by Charismatics to show the
purpose for speaking in tongues: to "magnify God". This is true, but
not for us, for here again, being the second time that "tongues" are
specifically mentioned in the book of Acts, we see that Jews are
present, and that the tongues served as a sign that salvation was
passing from them to the Gentiles because of their rejection of the
Lord Jesus Christ. (Note my use of the words "was passing". This is
what the book of Acts is all about--the transition.)

   Then we come to the next manifestation of physical power, in Acts
12:1-11, where we find Peter, imprisoned by Herod, bodily removed from
captivity. This, again, is a circumstance that is unheard of in our
day, because such things had specific purposes. Indeed, if God was
still in the jail-break business, He would no doubt be kept busy
producing earthquakes and fire and angels in the freeing of persecuted
Christians all over the world.

   In Acts 13, we see the entrance of Saul, made Paul. In verses 4-12,
we find a rather strange account of his blinding a man that opposed
him, one Elymas. There are many lessons which may be drawn from this,
but I would like to make at this time only one observation, and that is
this:

   How many "healers" go around blinding their enemies?

   None.

   Now don't get the impression that this is because they are such
spiritual giants that they hardly ever harbor any ill feelings toward
their fellow men. I am sure that, if they are at all human, there would
be times when they would gladly wish to demonstrate such power at their
fingertips. I know that for myself, there are times when, frustrated at
peoples' casual use of the name of my Savior as a cuss word, I would
smite them with blindness if I could, if so be that they might see that
they need the very Jesus against whom they blaspheme to restore their
sight. I can't, however, and neither can any "healer", which is why
they don't.

   Now notice Acts 14:1-4. Here, the purpose of sign gifts is stated,
as we have already noted in the previous chapter. The sign gifts (Mark
16:14-20), were for unbelieving Jews (verse 3, 1 Corinthians 1:22).

   In the same chapter, verses 8-11, we find a passage often quoted in
support of the fallacious doctrine that one must have faith in order to
be healed by a healer. However, in this passage, it must be noted that,
although Paul most certainly had the gift of healing, he did not in
this instance execute it. The words "...and perceiving that he had
faith to be healed..." (verse 9), tell us that the man in question did
not need Paul to heal him, he needed only that some act be done which
would knock his faith from his head down to his heart. Paul only
provided an encouragement to him. This is not to say that any man may
be healed in this manner, if only he has enough faith. "If we ask
anything according to his will, we have it." (1 John 5:14) must apply.
Many times, God's purposes are better served by a person remaining
afflicted, yet still praising Him for His goodness. Such a testimony is
powerful among the unsaved.

   Acts 16:23-36 is another description of God in the jail- break
business, in which He acts in a completely tangible, solid, and bodily
demonstration of power which cannot be expected in this day, nor is
ever heard of.

   Then comes Acts 19:1-7. (Notice how sparse the super-natural
activities are becoming as we progress.) This is a significant passage.
Paul came to Ephesus and found people who are termed "disciples". These
were unregenerate believers. They were NOT saved, in spite of the
teaching of many that they were. Note the following:

   1) The term "disciple" was a term applied to the twelve BEFORE their
regeneration. AFTER, they were called "apostles".

   2) In Romans 8:9, Paul says clearly that "...if any man have not the
Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Acts 19:2 sets forth the fact
that these disciples did NOT have the Spirit.

   3) These people were rebaptized. This is the ONLY instance of
rebaptism in the Bible, which shows that John the Baptist's ministry
was anticipatory, while Christ's was the fulfillment.

   This passage is also the third and last reference to tongues in the
book of Acts (even though we are only barely past the midway-point of
the book). Here they come as a sign to the twelve Jews, overcoming
their unbelief. This confirms Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 14:22.
Acts 19:11,12 show how God used Paul in a healing ministry. There are
those who claim this ability, but they have never been able to back it
up with actions. If they can, I would invite them to send handkerchiefs
to all the AIDS victims in the hospitals and the insane people in the
asylums.

   Acts 28:1-6 is the account of Paul's immunity to snake venom and the
fulfillment of the Lord Jesus Christ's prophecy in Mark 16:14-20. This
was a sign to those on the beach, as was the healing in verses 7-11.

   This brings us to the end of the book of the Acts of the Apostles. I
have tried to expose some of the common errors of our time, letting
God's word speak for itself. The book of Acts is a very special book,
and is very unique. None of the other books in the Bible are like this
book. Did you notice how the manifestations of God's power diminished
as the book progressed? Did you notice also that there were Jews
present EVERY TIME TONGUES WERE MENTIONED? There are people who use the
book of Acts as a doctrinal foundation for their teachings of
Spirit-baptism, and tongues, but this is folly. The Spirit was hardly
given in the same way twice, and there are no "unknown" tongues in
Acts, They were all known languages that the speakers had never
learned, as in Acts 2. There are many events and miracles described in
the book of Acts which people would not think of claiming today, such
as Philip's translation from Gaza to Azotus, Paul's blinding of Elymas,
the many times they were released from prison by God, and the raising
of Tabitha and Eutychus from the dead. Why then do they claim the
other, less difficult gifts to imitate, such as tongues, healing,
prophecy, when they would not think of claiming the rest? Such is not
consistent Bible interpretation.

   With this overall view of the book of Acts, it is perfectly clear
that it is a transitional book, telling of the rejection of the Messiah
and how God established the Christian Church upon the foundation of the
apostles. I will close this chapter with this final remark, which, to
some, may seem trivial, but to others, will be startling.

   NEVER IN THE BOOK OF THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN
THE BIBLE FOR THAT MATTER, WAS ANYONE EVER KNOCKED DOWN WHEN THEY
RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT. THE ONLY ONES THAT WERE THROWN TO THE GROUND
IN THE BIBLE WERE THROWN THERE BY UN-HOLY SPIRITS.

   Chapter 4: The Apostle Paul: A Charismatic Ensample

   I have chosen to examine this man Paul for a number of reasons, the
foremost of which is that he was certainly the greatest Christian that
ever lived, aside from the Lord Jesus Christ, and he, by the grace of
God, made such a big contribution to God's plan of salvation that it is
topped only by the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus
Christ Himself. Paul was a man of God, possessed of many gifts, and if
ever there was a "charismatic", it was Paul. He was one of God's
principal instruments in the founding and establishing of God's church,
and he performed many mighty deeds right in keeping with 2 Corinthians
12:12. For example:

   He caused a man to become blind because he opposed the gospel of the
grace of God. (Acts 13:4-12 - note that Elymas exercised NO faith!)
Would any "healer" today dare to try that?

   He performed signs and wonders. (Acts 14:3)

   He healed a man born crippled. (Acts 14:6-10)

   He demonstrated his faith in the casting out of the evil spirit in
the damsel of Acts 16:16-18.

   He was the instrument of special miracles. (Acts 19:11,12)

   Evil spirits recognized his authority. (Acts 19:15)

   He rose Eutychus from the dead after a high fall. (Acts 20:7-10)

   He took up a viper and was not harmed, except for a bite that in
itself was most likely only slightly painful. (Acts 28:1-6)

   He healed the father of Publius, which resulted in the healing of
many, (perhaps all!), of the sick and diseased on the island of Melita.
(Acts 28:7-10)

   He spoke with tongues. (1 Corinthians 14:18)

   He was a man of great courage and faith and boldness for God, and he
lists his achievements and the vast amount of suffering that he went
through for the Lord Jesus Christ in 1 Corinthians 4:9-13; 2
Corinthians 6:4-10; 7:5; 11:22-33.

   From this listing of Paul's greatness in the eyes of God, it comes
to me as a striking contradiction that any Christian would even think
of accusing Paul of not having enough faith to believe himself out of
jail. Yet that is exactly what many so-called "men of God" in
Charismatic circles do; men who haven't the merest fraction of the
faith and grit that Paul had; men who haven't even dreamed of going
through the things that Paul did; men who, from the comfort and
financial security of their big churches, would place themselves above
Paul when it comes to faith. (see Job 38:2; 40:8)

   However, I would have you to notice something else about Paul. How
do we account for the fact that the greatest "healer" that ever lived,
(he did everything Jesus did, short of feeding the multitudes, raising
himself from the dead, and living a sinless life), had a "thorn in the
flesh", and could not heal himself? That he could not heal two close
brothers in Christ? This is a strong testimony of the temporary nature
of such gifts as were manifested through him.

   Paul's "thorn in the flesh" is first mentioned in 2 Corinthians
12:7-10. This reference comes right after he had listed the many things
he had suffered for the Lord Jesus Christ. He says in this passage that
his "thorn" was to keep himself and others from taking too much pride
in him apart from God: "...lest I should be exalted above measure..."
(verse 7). He prayed three times for this affliction to be removed
(verse 8), but the Lord refused. "My grace is sufficient for thee..."
(verse 9).

   Just what was this "thorn"? There are those who, to defend their
position, claim that the "thorn" was not a physical affliction, but a
spiritual one. They say that the words: "...a messenger of Satan..."
(verse 7), refers to the "hindering" of Romans 15:22 and 1
Thessalonians 2:18. In other words, they proclaim that Paul was
perfectly healthy, and that his "thorn" was a devil that opposed him.
However, I would call your attention to the words here in 2 Corinthians
12:7: "...in my flesh..." NOT A SPIRITUAL AFFLICTION. A PHYSICAL ONE.

   Now notice Galatians 4:13-15. Look at verse 14: "And my temptation
which was IN MY FLESH..." It can't get much plainer. If a person didn't
need to twist that to make it fit his erroneous doctrine, he wouldn't
have any trouble at all with it. This passage in Galatians gives us
even more information, as well. Notice verse 15, and the word "eyes".
The Galatian Christians would have given him their own eyes. Why eyes,
unless that was his particular need? Compare that with chapter 6:11.
Knowing as we do the epistle to the Galatian church is not a long one,
the only other conclusion that may be drawn from this verse is the
literal one. In other words, the actual LETTERS were written in a large
style, which bears out the fact that Paul had trouble with his eyes
(see Acts 9:18). Halley gives a very plausible analysis of this
affliction in his Handbook, stating that it most likely was a disease
of the eyes known as "chronic ophthalmia", which is not extremely
painful, but which at times makes one repulsive in appearance. This
fits the passage beautifully.

   Why couldn't Paul heal it?

   Notice Paul's first letter to Timothy, whom Paul considered to be a
son (Acts 16:1-3; 1 Corinthians 4:17). In 1 Timothy 5:23, Paul tells
Timothy to take wine for his stomach infirmity. Without muddling about
seeking an excuse for alcoholism, I would like you to consider this
question: If Paul loved Timothy so much, why did he not heal him?
Surely they both had the faith!

   Look now at Paul's second letter to Timothy. Notice 2 Timothy 4:20:
"...Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick." He didn't heal him. He left
him there, sick. There can be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that if
Paul could have, he would have healed him.

   Why didn't he?

   It all fits together when you examine the chronology. The books of
the Bible are not arranged in order of writing. God put them in an
order which pleased Him. 1 Timothy was written in A.D. 63, while 2
Timothy was written in A.D. 66. Contrast that with the date of the book
of Acts--A.D. 61. Everything in the book of Acts was years in the past
when the two letters to Timothy were written, showing that the signs
had already gone out by this time. These epistles were Paul's last
contribution to the New Testament.

   Thus it is that there is only one possible explanation that fits all
the facts; both these, and the ones we have examined in previous
chapters. It must be that, while it was God who would not allow Paul
himself to be healed, (Paul's infirmity served a variety of purposes,
such as reminding him of his own weakness without God, or showing how
divine power is best displayed against the backdrop of human weakness,
or to test the heart and motives of those to whom he preached, etc.),
Paul's gift of healing had already served its purpose when the letters
were written, and so Paul had ceased to exercise it (or it had been
taken from him). The gift was a sign, to the Jewish nation, with a
clear, temporary nature. If you desire to know the truth about the
things going on in Christianity today, please do not turn to
"scholarship" or "dynamic personages" for the answer. The answer can
ONLY be found in God's preserved Bible. I urge you, reader, if you find
yourself in disagreement with the things I write, to pray and ask God
to help you know, and to study, study, study. If you will do this
according to John 7:17, there is no doubt in my mind that you will come
to the same conclusions. Don't take my word for it. Check it out for
yourself.

   Chapter 5: The Baptism and Filling of the Holy Ghost

   In this section, I would like to deal with the subject of the
baptism and filling of the Holy Spirit. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost"
is a phrase which Charismatics and Pentecostals toss about very easily.
This doctrine, in the form taught by these people, is, aside from
tongues-speaking, the most unscriptural of their doctrines. The
"filling" of the Holy Spirit is quite often taken as synonymous with
the "baptism", which it certainly isn't. In order to examine this
matter, I have divided it into two sections:

   The Baptism

   We need to get this understood right from the beginning--If a person
is not baptized in the Holy Ghost, he is NOT saved. This baptism occurs
at the INSTANT of salvation. Look up these verses and observe these
portions:

   "Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born-again." John 3:7

   "...is passed from death unto life." John 5:24

   "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." Ephesians 4:5

   "For by one spirit we are all baptized into one body..." 1
Corinthians 12:13

   "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."
Galatians 3:26,27

   "Now if any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his."
Romans 8:9

   The Bible says that you MUST be born-again in order to enter the
kingdom of God. By what means are you born-again? By the Holy Spirit of
God. Notice Titus 3:5,6: "...are we saved, by the washing of
regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." It is that very
"renewing" that describes how you are born-again into the family of
God. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the
sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." (John 1:12). It is
the baptism of the Holy Spirit, (the washing and renewing), that
accomplishes the "renewing" of your dead spirit and places you into
God's family, the body of Christ. Notice that verse listed above in
Ephesians 4, that says "one baptism". Notice the next verse, in 1
Corinthians 12, that says we are "baptized" into the body of Christ. If
you are not in the body of Christ, you are not saved. How do you get
into the body of Christ? By a "baptism". In what are you baptized? The
Holy Spirit of God, according to God's own words.

   This is unmistakably clear.

   Now, according to the Pentecostal doctrine of the "baptism of the
Holy Ghost", the evidence of the baptism is speaking in tongues. They
say that if one does not speak in tongues, he has not been baptized in
the Spirit. But we have just seen that if one is not baptized by the
Spirit into the body of Christ, he is still in his sins. So, according
to the Pentecostal doctrine, if one does not speak in tongues, he is
not saved! This is absolutely unscriptural. The baptism of the Holy
Ghost occurs at the moment of salvation. Titus 3:4-7 says: "...by the
washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost...we should be
made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Tongues have nothing
to do with it. To say that you must be baptized in the Spirit AFTER you
are saved is utter folly, for you cannot even GET saved without it."

   The Filling

   The filling of the Holy Spirit is not a "second act of grace"
subsequent to salvation in the sense that it does not occur
instantaneously. Ephesians 3:16-19 is a clear passage referring to
spiritual maturity. Note verse 19: "... that ye might be filled with
all the fullness of God." This passage shows that this "filling" is a
gradual process, and tells us in verse 17 that in order to make verse
19 a reality, one must have Jesus in his heart, through faith in God's
word. The filling is directly proportionate to our submission.

   Another example of this is in Galatians 5:16-26. Verses 22 and 23
are the evidences of a spirit-filled Christian. No tongues! "Gifts" are
not evidences of being filled with Holy Spirit. "Fruits" are. If
gift-obsessed Christians would give that much emphasis to the fruits,
God could really do a work in these latter days. The power in a
Christian's life comes from the level of his "filling" of the Holy
Spirit. There are very many Christians who are saved and going to
heaven, and have never been filled with the Spirit.

   Colossians 3:14-17 is yet another description of this filling. Note
the words "put on", "let", "do". These tell of OUR responsibility in
this process. Note also the very close similarity with Ephesians
5:17-20. Here again, "be ye", "be not", "be filled". These are
references to our submission, to obedience. Through submitting our
lives to God are we filled. Submission MUST come FIRST! The type of joy
mentioned in these passages is not to be had instantly, but comes as we
grow spiritually. It is not instantaneous, in some "moving" of a
supernatural nature. It does not come by the "laying on of hands". So
many times I have seen Christians who do not live for God in the least
way claiming to be "filled" with the Holy Spirit. They won't get out
and preach on the street, or pass out a tract, or witness to their
neighbors, or knock on doors, or any of those things which require
personal courage and the power of the Holy Spirit. Why? Because they do
not have the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives. Anybody can
imitate the gifts. NO ONE CAN IMITATE THE FRUITS. The "filling" of the
Holy Spirit and the "baptism" of the Holy Spirit are two very separate
and distinct functions which the Holy Spirit performs for the child of
God, and if one is ever to really be used by God, he must understand
and live in the light of both of them. The New Testament NEVER tells us
to anticipate or to seek a dramatic, post-salvation experience. We are
justified, we receive the new birth, and the permanent, indwelling
presence of the Holy Spirit of God ALL at the moment of faith. See 1
Corinthians 6:11,19; 1 Peter 1:22,23; Galatians 3:26-28.

   Chapter 6: Modern Day Healers and New Testament Healing

   There are many men and women in the world who claim the gift of
healing. This is, according to the Bible, not true. What follows in
this section is an identification of the gift of healing, as opposed to
"divine healing", and some observations on the so-called "healing"
going on in Christian circles today.

   Before the crucifixion, Jesus gave His disciples "...power against
unclean spirits...and to heal all manner of sickness..." (Matthew
10:1). This is the gift of healing. In Matthew 10:8, He gives a
command: "Heal the sick...freely ye have received, freely give." One of
the common teachings of those who profess to have this gift is that
their ability to heal is dependent on the recipient's faith. If this
gift was so dependent, then the 12 would have been prone to
disobedience of a direct command, through no fault of their own. Our
Lord will NEVER put us in such a position. He will NEVER ask us to do
something we are not able to do. (1 Corinthians 10:13)

   It must be understood that in this instance the gift was given ONLY
to the 12, who are named (Matthew 10:2-4). The gift itself, however, is
the same as that narrated in Mark 3:13-19, included in the signs of
Mark 16:14-20, and numbered among the spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians
12:7-11, 29-31.

   In Acts 3:1-10, we see an example of this gift in the hands of
Peter. Some would say that this man needed faith, because in verse 5
the record says that the man was "...expecting to receive...",
indicating that he had faith in either Peter or God. This is not so.
The man was there for alms (verse 2), and asked Peter for them. He was
expecting alms, not healing. This is supported by what Peter said.
"Silver and gold have I none..." (verse 6). In verse 7, Peter lifted
the man up, and immediately the man was completely healed. This is the
same healing ability that Jesus Himself demonstrated time and again.

   The gift of healing does not require faith on the part of the one
being healed. This is evidenced further by the occurrence in Acts
5:12-16. In verse 16, note that every single person of the sick and
demon-possessed were healed. Some of these, the more severely sick, and
definitely the demon-possessed, were surely unconscious, or at least in
no mental condition to be exercising faith.

   Paul healed by virtue of simply touching handkerchiefs to his body
and sending them to the sick (Acts 19:11,12). He healed again on the
island of Melita (Acts 28:7-10) There is no mention of faith in either
of these passages. The record simply states that Paul healed.

   This same gift of healing, through which people are healed
regardless of their faith, is demonstrated time and again by the Lord
Jesus Christ. Two of the most notable occurrences are in Mark 6:1-6,
and John 11:1-46.

   In Mark 6:1-6, Jesus healed in spite of their faith. It seems that
no other wonders could be done (verse 5), which shows that healing and
the casting out of demons (the two are closely related throughout the
Bible), are gifts which operate independent of the recipient's faith,
while others do not.

   In John 11:1-46 we find the raising of Lazarus. Paul, (Acts
20:7-12), and Peter, (Acts 9:36-43), performed similar acts. Surely
this is healing at its finest, and of a certainty, the recipients were
in no position to exercise faith! That is the gift of healing,
perfectly clear to all who believe the Bible to be God's Word and the
final authority in their lives. Now, if it is NOT the final authority
to you, and you wish to add other things to it, such as experience or
tradition, beware of 2 Thessalonians 2:7-12.

   This is contrasted to instances where GOD heals, and not empowered
disciples. In James 5:14,15 we see this. This is NOT the gift of
healing. There is a great difference between the gift of healing, and
the healing referred to in this verse. This healing comes directly from
God, and depends on the faith of the recipient. This is consistent with
many occurrences in the Gospels where Jesus says "Thy faith hath made
thee whole." An example of this principle of divine healing is found in
Acts 14:8-10. Paul saw that this man had faith to be healed, and gave a
simple command, as an aid to the man's faith. Notice that nowhere in
this passage do the words "Paul healed" occur, as in the instances
where he used his gift. Paul simply told the man to stand. Through
faith, the man made the effort, and God met the need. It is the faith
principle, and not the healing itself, which exemplifies James 5.

   Comparing this incident with that of Acts 3:1-10, we see that in
verse 7 of Acts 3, the man's bones received strength as Peter lifted
him. The man himself made no effort to stand on his own. This is the
use of the gift. In Acts 3:16, Peter says that this man's faith made
him strong. The man did not have this faith at the time of the healing,
but when the reality of verse 7 sunk in, verse 8 shows how he received
his faith. He was praising God!

   The passage in James 5:13-20 is a revealing of the power of prayer.
Such power is very much dependent on faith and persistence. See James
1:5-8; Matthew 21:22; John 11:22; 15:7; Acts 16:25,26. The "divine
healing" of which I am speaking in these paragraphs is directly related
to these very things.

   In conclusion, I would like to make several observations which are
important to think about as you search for the truth in this matter of
healing:

   In John 5:1-16, Jesus did a work of healing at the pool of Bethesda.
Verse 3 states the fact that there were multitudes of people there at
the pool. Yet the Master only healed one man. This demonstrates that
the primary purpose of the gift of healing is not merely to heal,
contrary to what many would have you to believe. It is for a sign, to
demonstrate a particular aspect of God's character. In the case of the
man at the pool, it is the third of the recorded miracles in the book
of John, (out of seven), showing Jesus' authority over the sabbath
(John 5:10,16-18), and presenting Him as the Restorer of humanity (John
5:6,9,14). Our Lord's purpose was NOT simply to heal, or he would have
healed the whole multitude rather than just one man. This type of
pattern can be followed throughout His entire ministry, and in Acts
also. The gift of healing was a sign, to show God's power, and was not
manifested for the sole purpose of healing. If it was, why didn't He
heal everyone in the entire world? If God's purpose was just to heal,
would He be limited by the locality in which He walked? Could He not
have simply spoken a word, and healed the entire world instantaneously?
Of course He could. But He didn't. Such things must be thought through.

   In the New Testament, no person with the gift of healing ever
"missed". No: "Well, you need to build your faith.", or: "Pray for
faith and we'll try again." If anyone had missed, like people do today
ALL THE TIME, they would have failed the test of Deuteronomy 18:20-22,
like people do today, ALL THE TIME!

   ALL the healing in the New Testament was instantaneous, not a
gradual getting better over a period of time, or a two or three day
delay, both of which are indicative of divine healing.

   If people today have the gift of healing, what are they doing
stripping people of their money at big churches and tent meetings? Why
aren't they at the hospitals and mental wards and Ethiopia? What a
fabulous tool for winning people to Christ it would be, and they would
waste it in places where most people already know Him. I challenge you
to tell that to a "healer", and invite him to Napa, or to New York's
busiest hospital. Watch how he reacts, and you'll see exactly what I
mean.

   Chapter 7: Scriptural Immunity

   Mark 16:14-20 is the primary passage of scripture concerning the
giving of sign-gifts and certain other similar practices. These signs
were promised to "...them that believe..." (verse 17), which promise
was fulfilled, as we saw in the book of Acts. It should also be noted
that these signs authenticated the faith they proclaimed, and not the
personal faith they exercised. Such is the meaning of the term "sign"
in this context, and is what verse 20 says. The signs confirmed "the
word" that was preached.

   In this section, the subject is the divine protection mentioned by
Jesus in verse 18. There are many people who believe that they have
some kind of immunity to poisons and such. From this misinterpretation
have come many deaths of people who found out too late that they
didn't. It is interesting that, although people will claim and practice
the gift the tongues, most never go so far as to try to practice this
"immunity", even though both signs are given in the same verse and
context. I have asked several people who believe they are speaking with
unknown tongues if they believed in "immunity". At their affirmative
reply, I have asked them if they would demonstrate it for me. The most
common reply I have received is that this would be "tempting God". I
then ask them if they believe in tongues. When they answer "yes", I ask
them to demonstrate THAT gift. This, they are more than happy to do. If
practicing "immunity" is "tempting God", why isn't speaking in
"tongues" also "tempting God"? The answer is simple, and is the same
answer that explains all the other inconsistencies that are similar.
"Tongues" are easily imitated. "Immunity" isn't. Thus, the excuse that
it is "tempting God".

   Looking back into the Old Testament with this topic of protection
and immunity to various diseases in mind, I found many examples in
Exodus connected with the leading out of the people of Israel from
their bondage to Egypt. In every instance, it is a sign attesting to
God's power. The most notable example is the sign of the Passover,
which we know to be the precedent for Jesus' sacrifice on the cross of
Calvary, and exemplifies God's protection over Israel. (Exodus
12:1-14). See also Psalms 91:7.

   If we follow the literal interpretation of what Jesus says, (which
is ALWAYS best to do if possible), "...they shall take up serpents...",
we come to Acts 28:1-6, where Paul does this very thing. This is the
ONLY other place in the New Testament where immunity is mentioned. It
is not in any of the lists of gifts given by Paul. Here in Acts 28, it
is clearly a sign of Paul's authority.

   However, there is another way of seeing the significance of what
Jesus was saying. In Numbers 24:4-9, Israel was afflicted with the
bites of serpents because of their disobedience. At God's instruction,
a serpent was fashioned of brass and placed atop a pole in the center
of the camp. All who looked upon it were healed of their snakebites.
This is symbolic of sin, and Jesus, who came to take away our sins. He
was lifted up, and all who look upon Him are healed of their spiritual
afflictions, the "snakebites of sin", as it were. (John 3:14, 12:32).
Now, in Mark 16, Jesus said "...they shall take up serpents..." Why
specifically name serpents? Because the Jews would know to what He
referred. It is the fulfillment of the symbolism. It seems that the
taking up of the serpent, in Numbers, John, and Acts, is a sign of the
statement "...the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew
16:18).

   Chapter 8: Ecumenism and Ecclesiastical Separation

   The Charismatic movement is bringing many denominational extremes
together--Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian,
Lutheran; people of all these different persuasions are meeting
together to share their "spiritual experience" which they all have in
common: Holy Ghost baptism with the evidence of speaking in tongues.
This in itself throws light on the question of whethor or not this
spiritual experience is from God.

   In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, the Thessalonian Christians are told to
stand fast in the traditions they have been taught. This thought is
carried through into chapter 3, on down to the end. In chapter 3:6,
they are told to withdraw from any who do not walk after the tradition
received from Paul. In verses 7-15 we are given the context. In these
verses Paul gives the example he set (verses 7-10), then identifies the
specific problem he is addressing: The people in the church who were
idle, gossipers, sluggards, not earning their own keep (verse 11). He
then gives a command by his authority in Jesus (verse 12) and in verses
14,15 tells the Thessalonians to note those who do not obey and to have
no company with them. They were not to hate those people, but to
admonish them as brothers, with love (verse 15).

   Though Paul was speaking of a specific problem, the words
"disorderly" and "traditions" (verse 2:15; 3:6), imply that this same
concept may be applied to other problems. When fellow brothers are
disobeying direct commands and are not walking according to scriptural
guidelines, we are first to withdraw, then to lovingly admonish. This
concept is also found in Galatians 6:1. The last part of the verse
which says "...considering thyself..." indicates the withdrawing, while
"...restoring such an one in the spirit of meekness..." is the
brotherly love aspect.

   In Paul's epistle to the Romans, right in the middle of his list of
"good-bye's", comes a passage regarding separation from those who
"...cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have
learned." (Romans 16:17-20). We are to avoid them. Those who do these
things are not serving Jesus, but themselves (verse 18).

   How then can a Catholic and a Baptist fellowship? "Can two walk
together, except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3). "If any teach otherwise
and consent not to wholesome words...and to the doctrine which is
according to godliness...from such withdraw thyself." (1 Timothy 6:3-5).

   I do not condone the many different denominations. To breach these
would be a good thing. I also do not think to set forth a definite
statement of who is right and who is wrong. However, in the passages
I've quoted, notice the word "doctrine". It is doctrinal disagreements
which have set us all apart. Therefore, it can only be doctrinal
agreements which can bring us back together. This, after all, is one of
the purposes of the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16). Certain doctrines of
certain denominations are in DIRECT conflict with the Word of God, and
according to this doctrine of Ecclesiastical Separation, those barriers
cannot be breached unless those false doctrines are cleared up. No mere
spiritual experience, which is itself in controversy, can overcome
these conflicts. We must agree upon the Bible, because the Bible
transcends ANY experience.

   Then, too, what of those people in those unscriptural denominations
who are experiencing this "baptism"? If this is the Holy Spirit, why
aren't these people led out of these false organizations? Catholics who
are Charismatics claim that speaking in tongues confirms and reinforces
their devotions to Mary-worship and mass. If this is so, then it is
definitely NOT the Holy Spirit who has baptized them. What spirit is it
then? (2 Chronicles 18:18-22).

   Chapter 9: Satanic Counterfeits in the Last Days

   In this final section of my composition, I would like to comment on
a subject which throws a little more light on the whole thing.

   The Anti-christ will have the apostolic signs. Jesus clearly stated
this in Matthew 24:24 and Mark 13:22,23. In Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus
again says this, but in a different way. Prophesy, casting out of
devils, and many wonderful works are done in His name, but still He
says: "...depart from me..." (verse 23).

   This theme is taken up in 2 Thessalonians 2:8-12. Remember in the
Gospels: "...deceiving, if possible, the very elect."? That is exactly
the subject of these verses. In verse 9 is the phrase "...lying
wonders." That word "lying" means counterfeit; false. Verse 10 says
that those who do not love and earnestly seek out the truth leave
themselves open for deception. Because of that lack of love for the
truth, God will send them a "strong delusion", (verse 11). Unless one
digs and searches God's word, he is very susceptible to the deceptions
mentioned here.

   The word used to describe the delusion is "strong". Take heed of
that word. It fits exactly the theme of 2 Corinthians 4:4; 11:13-15.
Satan and his ministers are transformed into "...angels of light..."
(verse 14), and "...ministers of righteousness..." (verse 15). How else
can Satan hope to deceive the very elect? He must put on a very
convincing show. The strong delusion WILL deceive people; God
GUARANTEED it! (2 Thessalonians 2:11,12). Even the most ignorant of
Christians knows enough to detect the obvious satanic influences such
as lust and occultic practices. Thus, Satan must be very devious to get
the more mature ones deceived. A person who seeks the "baptism of the
Holy Ghost", leaves himself wide open to devils. Such seekers are after
an experience, instead of the truth, and Satan is more than happy to
give out experiences. Notice in 2 Peter 1:12-21, Peter states that the
written word of God is more sure than a physical witnessing of the Lord
Jesus Christ Himself! (verse 16,19). This word is magnified above God's
very name (Psalms 138:2)! The Bible is complete and perfect (James
1:25; 2:12). It needs no experience or tradition to support what it
says. You must either believe it, or not believe it. The choice
(Deuteronomy 30:19) is yours.

   ANY EXPERIENCE WHICH DOES NOT CONFORM ITSELF TO THE WORD OF GOD IS
NOT FROM GOD, REGARDLESS OF ITS SEEMING REALITY. The Bible transcends
ANY experience. To claim anything other than this is to throw
accusations of incompleteness and invalidity at the words of God.

   TAKE HEED!!!

   Conclusion

   It can be clearly seen from this material that God has a specific
plan for His church, and that this plan is being carried out. Every
born-again believer is offered an active role in this plan at the
moment of his salvation. For him to be effective in this role, however,
requires that he have the proper equipment. That's what Ephesians
6:10-18 is all about. Notice that the Word of God is mentioned more
times than any other piece of spiritual armor (verse 14,15, 17). In 2
Timothy 2:15, we are given the solemn instruction to study. Study.
Study. In addition, notice that in the armor, the Word of God is the
ONLY offensive weapon. ALL the rest are defensive.

   Christian friend, would you be willing to serve your King as ably as
you can? If so, you must know the Bible. I mean KNOW it, not read it.
And yet, knowing it is not enough. You must LIVE it. Obey. 1 John 2:3-6
tells us how to spot a hypocrite: One who SAYS he is a Christian, and
makes no effort to obey God's commandments. James 1:21-27 is an
exhortation to DO. Not to obtain salvation, or to keep it, but to
please God.

   Therefore, to continue in false doctrines after having been shown
the truth is sin compounded (James 4:17). I have attempted to show why
I believe that the entire Charismatic movement is completely
unscriptural. It is my prayer that through these efforts, you will see
the truth in what I say from the word of God. There is a lot of
material that I have not covered. I have but scratched the surface to
reveal the leaded interior beneath the cheap gold plating. What I HAVE
stated is more than enough for me. I want to go on, and practice the
"...more excellent way," that Paul spoke of without wasting any more
valuable time on such things as these.

   If you are caught up in this mess of tongues and healings and
"revelations", I urge you to do a methodical, thorough study of the
Bible. You will be led OUT of the Charismatic movement by the Holy
Spirit, as I have been.

   Don't take my word on it. Call me a liar, if you will.

   But I challenge you to prove it.

   Copyright (C) 1991 by Keith L Fifield

   The author gives permission for the reproduction of all or part of
this dissertation, provided it is not sold.

   Bound hardcopies are available from the author free of charge.

   The author can be reached for questions, comments, or requests for
hardcopies at the following addresses:

   Keith L Fifield

   CompuServe: Keith L Fifield, 73130,765 GEnie: KFIFIELD His Board:
Keith Fifield