#F.F. Bruce | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

blindtaleteller · 4 years

Text

PROMPT: OOC Interview with [X] Lokiverse's 'Charmer' aka Tony Stark

MORE BELOW THE CUT==- " Obviously this is not your first ever interview, Tony? So we can skip that one maybe? " Tony: Oh, no; definitely not my first. Sometimes wish. Politics suck in particular: just getting that out there. As readers might be able to guess, and we've discussed since it hit the inbox though? Doing this little bit would've been -way- premature if we'd done it before finishing off the Civil War Arc. Should probably refer to me as Charmer though; with three more of me running around 'n' peeking in while we're at it. Nickname annoyed me at first, but Lolo's Coven-double Lisan is hard to say no to.

" What do you think about the split from the original timeline? "

Charmer (Tony D8): (chuckling a little and rubbing at one brow with a forefinger) Wow, (he sits back) right into the almost uncomfortable, huh? (and settling from a quick near grin) I was just kinda circling the table during DREAMS start, and wasn't sure how we were actually gonna work this at the beginning. We’d been doing a lot of LoHawk and what folks call Stony for years on F.F. from what I guess could be called a generic..? Yeah pretty generic now anyways, direction. But..! I have to say, sitting at the table planning the basic outlines, and then borrowing your fingers to get it out there with the other guys after we've piled in the car; I'm not sure I expected it to go the way it has after that? But it's been fun. Amazingly fun and so surprising as a result. The infinite possibilities are a lot clearer to me now, I guess. I can hardly wait to see what Lisan's doppelganger brings in when we get far enough into GROUNDED and DREAMS to pull him in with Redbird, -and- start towards what Gin's building in the other room.

“ You’ve been really watching Slipskin. “

Charmer (Tony D8:) Ah, yeah Universe slash Door 5. I’m gonna call it right now and say that I don’t think there’s a version of us in any universe that isn’t at least curious when completely in character, or in the deep end of the pool as Clint’s put it. And when we’re not? Can confirm, every single one of us has been watching. Slipskin (small pause, and almost huffing breath out) ..he’s probably got the most drastic, immediate shift to our character, in the most backwards of ways compared to the rest of us; because of his situation after a flubbed New York nuke handling near what would be the end of the first Avengers canon. He and Gin have taken my and Lolo’s relationship and completely flipped it around in circumstance and with what I’ve seen of it so far and how it works even before you get into the short but amazing ‘Skin of the Ghost’ they popped out for platovember..? (exaggerated chef’s kiss) ..and I mean it. Kudos on the brave there too, hitting up so many twists on so many relationships.

I think the ‘funny’ bit is, that every other Rogers mirror around has been trying to stick their heads in there and catch a peek too, if on a sort of cringe expression? Mostly because Cap over there goes really dark. Not quickly, mind you, but good god and ‘that rendition of him scares me,’ kind of dark. Their story is a very, very different shade; much less forgiving in a lot of respects right out the door: and somehow, they still manage to pull that shit off and give you these complete moments and make it work so well you sometimes don’t even realize what the hell is happening until it actually comes to a head. Which is pretty cool and incredibly fascinating. At least in my opinion? So that’s a huge contributor to, why so many muses try to peek in their door. (chuckling again) Including me.

" Speaking of, is there anything you'd change about your current story? "

Charmer (Tony D8): (ticks his brow up slightly mid rub, crossing an ankle over one knee and thinking about it before he shakes his head) There are parts we cut that, I hope we can get out there soon..? Whole sections of the chapters I know Loke and Bruce, and even Clint and I were especially excited to put out there? But at this point I think I'm just enjoying the fun of exchanging following for leading and then even reading and listening, when the other guys get their turn at the keyboard.

Since the first time we did this; we’ve done a lot in Extras and platovember especially that make me happy. Stuff with our Jelly Bean --Parker-- early in on platovember but technically just a little past where we are now that, while short: were still just plain fun. We have a bunch more coming yet, it’s just been a little bit of extra to untangle the crossover pieces; because and in part, a lot of folks don’t really realize just how far back this is actually set in the multiversal timeline. They haven’t met MASTER yet. They haven’t had that big event in Nepal. They’re JUST getting to the very first Celestial Calamity in GROUNDED: where, by the time DREAMS hits in that multiversal time and storyline: they’ve already experienced a couple of Quills going nuclear, with varied results including Leadsprite and Grey’s. So yeah.. we have a ways and a skip or two to go yet, still being back in 2016 in Door 8.

" Anyone in particular you like to watch or get into reading over their shoulder when they're at it? "

Charmer (Tony D8): Well Lolo aka Loke, -my- Loki is definitely one. I like Laufeyson, I do; and the other dopplegangers in the Lokiverse Coven, but yeah. Among the different vesrions of him hanging around? Loke is still my favorite. That might be the personal attachment that building this new universe creates though?

" If you had to pick three of your absolute faves though? "

Charmer (Tony D8): Ooh.. that -is- rough. Much as I love watching the 'masters' at work, I’ve already said my bit about Gin and company I think. So, top of the list in three's been Clint, Pepper and well, actually Thor when it comes to poking my head over the back seat while the guys have been at DREAMS. My dopple there is dead --not that it stops him from showing up and sassing everyone anyways-- and with where the story picks up in their universe post-Endgame, Thor brings some interesting insights and external views sometimes. He's the awkward and guilt-ridden outsider trying to find out where Ragnarok and everything that's happened since leaves him and his relationship with his brother. The connection between the family Laufeyson had in the past and the family he's building there that, I dunno, makes me smile even when he's taking after -my- universe's Thunder-bimbo and being an utter ass early on.

That whole.. being the dick older brother, who is also trying to look good in front of the rest of his friends while doing it.. (cups his hands for the stage whisper) ..and just making his asshole traits more obvious!! (resettles and follows that up with) It's interesting to see as a kind of side story how they go back and forth between dealing with that connection, behavior, and their past while trying to move forward in the spaces between Laufeyson, Clint and Peter: and still make room to do what they do as a group.

" How about those universes? You know a few of them, more than our few readers. Which is your favorite upcoming group from the books/portions of Mixology aka the Lokiverse at large? And which are you most curious about? "

Charmer (Tony D8): *grins and lets his ankle slide down to cross them together, hands hooking up behind his head* That's an easy one at current. Might change though. There's what..? We said, -twenty- doors, leading to the current Coven's universes in the Mare? And that doesn't even include Hvedrungr, the eldest Loki present. (rubbing his hands over the back of his head) Hm. If we're not including mine and Slipskin’s; cause, again: already mentioned them as an obvious candidate..?

Right now, my favorite upcoming is actually Leadsprite's --ah, that's my double with the Ego-centrics; that's what we're calling them right now I think anyways-- portion of the Lokiverse. I've been peeking in on him a lot and what their group has been up to looks really interesting. I'm super curious about his relationship with Loge, too. Seems like the boys don't always adhere to their own rules as much as they probably should, which.. okay and yeah. Loki, aka most rules are made to be bent, broken or made fun of? But yeah; that and his apparent standing ahead of his Loki at the Covenant table and his knowledge of magic enough to mention it is super curious to me.

" Okay, so if that's the favorite and you're that curious; what's the one you're MOST curious about? "

Charmer (Tony D8): Oh, definitely Gin. I mean even the ones who share headspace in here; we know -very- little about him, where he keeps mostly to himself and his Natasha: but some of the stuff I have seen does raise my eyebrows. I didn't even know if my doppleganger died over there, which is super weird by comparison. I'm mostly happy to let the guy have his space though; their world is still unfolding behind his door but the feel of it is so drastically different from the universes we've peeked at so far already that it's hard -not- to be waiting on pins and needles for when Gin does bust out swinging and tossing that bottle on the screen.

" I put you guys through a lot of shit in the name of storytelling. Any parts you have complaints about? "

Charmer (Tony D8): I mean, when you slip -- that's what we're calling it for now when you go from this particular overseer mode, to actually diving into that moment? God yes. (looks around and at the cracked door briefly squinting in that direction, looking pretty sure he might have summoned several someones with that three letter word before he shrugged and continued) Anyway! Not so much otherwise. I almost wish my dopple had more of a part in DREAMS, but I think in that universe, his presence has more weight -because- he's gone. Sparkles' reaction and clue-in when I greet him at their door to the Vestibule in particular, is a good example of that. The instant guilt of not taking as much more time as he could to look for the next win in line, and realizing that he had a direct influence if not straight up hand at his back in ushering my doppel up for his death made me cringe a little, but needed touching.

Especially diving into that particular scene where, suddenly you’re literally face to face with all the decisions you never made and maybe think you should have; or decisions you did make yourself too: but went very differently because of other differences having been mixed in. I mean; the Stephens and I talked about that a lot before they present, and I’ve found one question that helps them center is: how do you handle that? Making a child an orphan, and a wife a widow; not knowing with absolute certainty if there were other ways he just hadn’t seen yet as options? And then have the facts that yes, it was possible not to have to sacrifice that life; and yes there was more or even less you could have done to prevent Thanos from taking even one more just.. thrust right in front of you in living, breathing color? Because, that’s going to happen in Lokiverse. Eventually, you’re going to met us, and that version of you that got there or got worse where you didn’t.. and you’re going to have to deal with that, from your own perspective, from your own unique Universe.

On that note..? Hell, Clint in the opening chapter made me smile a little in that static struggle of depression he opened with too, giving a very personal touch to the feel of the Earth and universe at large they were trying to paint with and for, well; all of the readers we do have.

" You know that each book has a theme, and each chapter a song. What do you think about the music and the way those themes fit so far? "

Charmer (Tony D8): I think we're doing okay with those. I agree that some could have multiple titles as far as chapters, without the Bonus Tracks, but. Pete had been an amazing presence as Lokiverse DJ, and even if he can't always make up his mind; the general has been a pretty good way to pick out a mood or set of lyrics that apply really well to what's going on both on the surface and somewhat under it. Wouldn't have it any other way even if he isn't in my own universe yet as anything but a sideways mention of the Kree going after the Power Stone. I mean.. Who better to have first pick than the guy in the group whose biggest and most amazingly underappreciated feature is the broad, glowing breadth of his soul?

" The next question is obvious to -me- cause I know where you guys are even when on idle but, for the prompt; out of all the other characters, who would or do you hang out with the most? "

Charmer(Tony D8:) (laughs outright) ..yeah! You would know that. That's easy but, prompt interview right? (he nods that of with a raise of his chin, hands still hooked behind his head) When we're on idle, we hang out in the car you know? And occasionally --okay, no.. almost all the time in there-- we toss story stuff back and forth. But mostly it's us just making those awkward commentaries at everything else: and yeah, sometimes we get some inspiration off of that, or get a feel for certain scenes we might have been struggling at hitting the right angle for. It's usually me in the driver's seat, with Loki behind me so he can be chauffeured and also keep the option of occasionally leaning over it to jerk the wheel in one direction or another; Peter next to him back there picking out or sharing music, and the second most evil of us all; Clint, leaning on the door in his now permanent place in shotgun. Charmer (Tony D8): (adds on before the last question) Oh yeah and Thor in the trunk. I swear he's talked strange into expanding it into a luxury lounge back there. (grinning wide, he scrunches his nose) The lazy almond muncher.

" Okay, last question is supposed to be from another character; and it's mostly from Gin -- " Charmer (Tony D8): (lets his head fall back) Oh man.. I had to say the G word, didn’t I? Makes me wonder how many more of ‘em are at the door..

" --but it's more for what you just said not being common knowledge. Give an example of Clint being the second most evil, because in a whole Coven of Loki? That would sound to those of us who don’t know your idle like it's a feat. Also he's slightly annoyed that title isn't his in your eyes. "

Charmer (Tony D8): HA! (before bringing his head up again to watch Gin smile wickedly at him on his way back out the interview room door) Sounds like him! Uh.. ..hm. (still chuckling before he sits up and pushes his glasses back with a middle finger towards said door) Okay, if we're gonna say; I am not breaking the rules for it's mention though. -The supermarket.- Pretty much anything Clint says or does in your head while there. He’s so quiet most of the time, but I swear. The grocery store in particular is Clint's Vegas: as in .. what happens in there? Stays in there. For reasons. Especially since most of what he pulls out his ass while in there is ONE: almost never below explicit rating? TWO: usually instigated by one of the Coven of Lolo, and THREE: Totally given more ideas for the next trip from pretty much any version of Quill watching or present. If not ALL of them. It's the best sort of irreverent, inappropriate nightmare, as you're walking in and through there with your cart. And sometimes walking out. Duct tape, as a reminder..?

" ..okay, yeah; and we're done! We're not talking about the duct tape thing.. "

#prompts #character interview #don't ask about the duct tape incident #tony stark #Charmer #GROUNDED #Mixology #Lokiverse #writing exersizes #Gin is evul #Lokiverse (Mixology)#OOC interviews #Charmer/Tony D8 #Door/Universe 8 #tony does like to talk #Loki #Loki fanfiction #tony stark fanfiction #iron man

4 notes · View notes

goconservativechristian · 4 years

Text

Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutationby

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The printed version of this article in this month’s issue of

Reason & Revelation

is the

abbreviated

form of a much more comprehensive study of this topic. To view the unedited version,

click here

.]Numerous religious groups commonly claim the assistance of the Holy Spirit in their lives. Famed religious television personalities boldly announce the active influence of the Holy Spirit even as they speak. Supposedly, the Holy Spirit talks to them personally, heals viewers instantaneously, and enables them to babble uncontrollably in an “unknown tongue.” All of this, then, is claimed to be “proof positive” of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Do miracles still happen? Can people speak in tongues today? Does God, in the twenty-first century, supernaturally countermand the laws of nature and heal people miraculously?“Come now, and let us reason together,” Isaiah said (1:18). It is absolutely imperative that we examine

Scripture

—not our feelings, not what someone else says happened to them, and not our own experience. The only sure and certain approach is to ask: What does the Bible teach? The reader must ask: “Do I honestly believe the Bible to be the Word of God?” One must be honest, and willing to go where the evidence takes him. If you had to choose between what you genuinely think you have

experienced

or seen firsthand, and what the Bible

actually says

, which would you choose? You must ask yourself: “Will I honestly accept God’s written Word on the matter of miracles?” If you will, I invite you to join me in an examination of what the Bible teaches pertaining to miracles.

THE DEFINITION OF MIRACLES

First of all, what exactly is a “miracle”? How does

the Bible

use the word? The three central terms used in the Bible to designate a supernatural (as contrasted with a natural) manifestation are: (1) “miracle” (

dunamis

); (2) “sign” (

semeion

); and (3) “wonder” (

teras

). All three terms occur together in Acts 2:22, Hebrews 2:4, and 2 Corinthians 12:12. Related terms include “work” (

ergon

) and “mighty deed” (

kratos

). The occurrence of a miracle in the Bible meant that God worked

outside

the laws of nature. W.E. Vine, whose Greek scholarship, according to F.F. Bruce, was “wide, accurate and up-to-date” (Vine, 1952, Foreword), stated that the word “miracle” (

dunamis

) is used in the New Testament of “works of a

supernatural

origin and character, such as could not be produced by

natural

agents and means” (1952, p. 75, emp. added). Otfried Hofius noted that a “sign” (

semeion

) “contradicts the

natural

course of things” (1976, 2:626, emp. added) and, similarly, “wonder” (

teras

) was used to refer to events that “contradict the ordered unity of

nature

” (2:633, emp. added).Thus, a miracle in the Bible was not just an event that was astonishing, incredible, extraordinary, or unusual (e.g., the birth of a baby or the narrow avoidance of an accident). A miracle in the Bible was a

supernatural

act. It was an event that was contrary to the usual course of nature (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 755). The miraculous must not to be confused with the

providential

, where God operates

in harmony with

the usual course of nature.

THE DESIGN OF MIRACLES

Second, it is absolutely imperative that one recognizes the

purpose

of the miraculous. Miracles in the New Testament served the singular function of

confirmation

. When an inspired speaker stepped forward to declare God’s Word, God

validated

endorsed

the speaker’s remarks by empowering the speaker to perform a miracle. Many New Testament passages articulate this fact quite plainly. For example, the apostles “went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and

confirming

the word by the

signs

that followed” (Mark 16:20, emp. added). The writer of Hebrews asked:

[H]ow shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation; which having at the first beenspoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard; God alsobearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders, and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 2:3-4, emp. added).

Referring to the initial offering of the Gospel to the Samaritan people, Luke stated: “[A]nd the multitudes gave heed with one accord unto

the things that were spoken

by Philip when they heard and saw the

signs

which he did” (Acts 8:6, emp. added).These passages, and many others (e.g., Acts 4:29-30; 13:12; 14:3; 15:12; Romans 15:18-19; 1 Corinthians 2:4; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; cf. Exodus 4:30), show that the purpose of miracles was to

authenticate

the oral/spoken word as God’s Word. Miracles

legitimized

and

verified

the teachings of God’s messengers, as over against the many false teachers (like Simon in Acts 8:9, or Pharaoh’s magicians in Exodus 7:11) who attempted to mislead the people. Greek lexicographer Joseph Thayer noted that “sign” (

semeion

) was used in the New Testament “of miracles and wonders by which God authenticates the men sent by him, or by which men prove that the cause they are pleading is God’s” (1901, p. 573). Even the miracles that Jesus performed were designed to back up His claim (i.e., spoken words) to be deity (John 3:2; 14:10-11)—a pattern that is repeated in the New Testament many times over (e.g., John 2:23; 5:36; 6:14; 7:31; 10:37-38,41-42; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22). In other words, Jesus performed signs and miracles to prove His divine identity and thereby authenticate His message. His message, in turn, generated faith in those who chose to believe His teachings (cf. Romans 10:17). Here is the consistent sequence presented in Scripture:

Signs → Word → Faith

. (1) Signs confirmed the Word; (2) the Word was presented to hearers; and (3) faith was created (by the Word) in those who received it.An excellent demonstration of this process was provided by Luke in his report of the conversion of the Roman proconsul, Sergius Paulus. Elymas the sorcerer tried to thwart Paul’s effort to teach Sergius the Gospel. So Paul performed a miracle and struck Elymas blind. Luke next recorded: “Then the proconsul, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the

teaching

of the Lord” (Acts 13:12, emp. added). One might well expect the text to have said that Sergius was astonished at the

miracle

that Paul performed. But Luke was careful to report the situation with precision. The miracle that Paul performed captured Sergius’ attention, causing him to recognize the divine origin of Paul’s Gospel message. The Gospel message, in turn, generated faith in the proconsul—in harmony with Paul’s later affirmation to Christians in Rome that faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Over and over again in the New Testament, a close correlation is seen between the performance of miracles and the preaching of the Word of God (cf. Mark 6:12-13; Luke 9:2,6).But some maintain that there are other reasons for instances of divine healing and tongue-speaking. Tongue-speaking is said to be a sign that the tongue-speaker is super-spiritual. Others say that miraculous healing serves the purpose of making the believer well—a simple act of mercy to relieve his pain and suffering. They say God does not want us to suffer, and so He will heal us just to ease our pain in this life because we are His children.Regarding the first claim, Paul insisted that the person who possessed the ability to speak in tongues

was

not spiritually superior

to the one who had no such ability (1 Corinthians 14:6,9,12,19). Tongue-speaking was simply one miraculous capability among many bestowed by God without regard to a member’s spiritual status, let alone his spiritual

superiority

over another member (1 Corinthians 12:7-11,28-30).Regarding the second claim, certainly, the compassion of God was evident when people received miraculous healing in New Testament times. And, surely, relief from suffering would have been a side effect of being healed. But the Bible teaches that

relieving suffering was not the purpose of miracles

. Such a purpose would contradict—even thwart—the divine intent of this created Earth as a place where hardship exists to prepare us for eternity (see Warren, 1972). Death and sin entered the world due to human choice. God allows the circumstances caused by human decisions to take their course. He does not interfere with the natural order of things to show partiality to some over others. The Christian is subject to the same diseases, tragedies, and physical death that befall non-Christians: “...for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return” (Genesis 3:19). Christians can

expect

all sorts of hardship and suffering (e.g., 1 Corinthians 10:13; 2 Timothy 3:12; 1 Peter 4:12-17). Commenting on the purpose of miracles, J.W. McGarvey wrote:

[T]o say that they were wrought for the single purpose of showing divine compassion toward the sick, and those oppressed by the devil, would be to ignore a purpose which is easily discerned, which is openly avowed by Christ himself, and which is of much greater importance (1910, p. 354).

That purpose was “to support his proclamation...a necessary proof of the claim of Jesus” (pp. 355-356).If God’s intention was to exempt individual Christians from sickness and disease, He certainly has fallen down on the job, since the vast majority of Christians throughout the last 2,000 years have experienced the exact same afflictions suffered by unbelievers. If miracles in the first century had as their object the improvement of the health of the recipient, then Jesus and the apostles were dismal failures, because they left untouched a lot of sick folk! Jesus healed a

minority

of the sick people of Palestine, and healed

none

outside of that tiny geographical region (an exception being the Canaanite woman’s daughter). In fact, one would be forced to conclude that God’s compassion did not extend to

everybody

. But the Bible affirms that

God loves the entire world of humanity

(John 3:16; Romans 5:8). Hence, miracles did not have as their central purpose to show God’s compassion, nor to ease pain and suffering. McGarvey noted:

[U]nlike these modern advocates of “divine healing,” the apostles were never known to go about exhorting people to come forward for the healing of the body. They effected miraculous cures in a few instances, “as a sign to the unbelievers,” but they never proclaimed, either to saints or sinners, that the healing of all diseases was a part of the gospel which they were sent to preach. These so-called faith-cure churches, therefore, and the preachers who officiate in them as “divine healers,” or what not, are not modeled after the apostolic type, but are misleading the people by humbuggery (p. 351).

The usual rebuttal to these observations is that the reason some people do not receive a miracle is because “they do not have sufficient faith.” But this objection is likewise unscriptural. It is true that some individuals in the New Testament were commended for the faith that they possessed

prior

to being the recipient of a miracle (e.g., Mark 5:34). It does not automatically follow, however, that faith was a

necessary

prerequisite to miraculous reception. Many people were

not

required to have faith. For example,

all

individuals who were raised from the dead obviously were not in a position to “have faith” (e.g., John 11:44). Nor did those possessed by demons, since they were not in their right mind (e.g., Luke 9:42; 11:14). The man who was blind from birth actually showed uncertainty regarding the identity of Jesus (John 9:11-12,17,25,35-36). The man who was healed by Jesus as he laid beside a pool of water, in fact, did not even know who healed him (John 5:13). On one occasion, Jesus healed a paralytic after observing, not

his

faith, but the faith of

his companions

(Mark 2:5). Additional texts indicate that many who received the benefits of miracles were not required to have faith (Luke 13:12; 14:4; Acts 3:1-10).The opposite was true as well. There were individuals who possessed faith, and yet were not healed of their ailments. Timothy was a faithful and effective servant of the Lord. He had “frequent illnesses” and stomach trouble of such severity as to warrant Paul referring to it by inspiration. But rather than simply healing him, or telling him to “pray for healing,” Paul told him to use “a little wine” as a tonic (1 Timothy 5:23).Actually, John settled this question for the unbiased inquirer when he wrote that “many other

signs

therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written,

that ye may believe

that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in His name” (John 20:30-31, emp. added). John said that belief occurs

after

the miracle—not before, in order to receive a miracle! The New Testament teaches the very opposite of those who claim that miracles occur today. They say a person must have faith

before

he or she can receive a miracle. The New Testament teaches that miracles were performed to authenticate the divine origin of the speaker’s message and/or identity. The message, in turn, generated faith in the hearer (cf. Romans 10:17). Hence,

miracles preceded faith

THE DURATION OF MIRACLES

These observations bring us to a third extremely critical realization: once God revealed the entirety of the information that He wished to make available to mankind (later contained in what we call the New Testament), the need for miraculous confirmation of the oral Word came to an end. Now, people can sit down with a New Testament and, with honest and diligent study, conclude that it is God’s Word. Since the purpose of miracles has once and forever been achieved, the miracles, themselves, have ceased. I repeat:

the Bible teaches that miracles are no longer necessary

. Spiritual maturity is now within the grasp of every single individual who chooses to access the means to maturity—the written Word of God.In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul argued that love is a more excellent attribute than miraculous gifts. After all, miraculous gifts (i.e., prophecy, tongue-speaking, supernatural knowledge, etc.) were going to fail, vanish, cease, and be done away (13:8). These gifts are identified in the text with the expression “in part” (13:9-10). The “in part,” or miraculous, would cease when the “perfect” had come. But to what does the “perfect” refer?The Greek word translated “perfect” is

teleios

. The term does not refer to “perfect” in the sense typically understood by the modern English reader, i.e., to be sinless. Following this faulty notion, some have concluded that the “perfect” refers to Jesus—since He has been the only perfect person. Other interpretations apply “perfect” to heaven (the only perfect place), or Christian maturity and perfect love (the perfect condition or quality). But, in context, Paul was not contrasting qualities or places. He was contrasting quantities, i.e., those things that were incomplete and partial (miraculous gifts) with that which would be total and complete (the fully revealed Word of God). The inaccuracy of these interpretations is seen further in the Greek definition of

teleios

. The word refers to totality, that which is whole, brought to its end, finished, and lacking nothing necessary to completeness (Delling, 1972, 8:73; Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 816; Thayer, 1901, p. 618). Used in its neuter form, Paul was referring to a thing—not a person—something that, when completed or finished, would replace the incomplete or partial, i.e., the miraculous gifts—which had only temporary significance. Commenting on the abolition of the miraculous gifts of prophecy and supernatural knowledge (mentioned in vss. 8 and 9), W.R. Nicoll correctly observed that “these charisms are

partial

in scope, and therefore temporary: the

fragmentary

gives place to the

complete

” (1900, 2:900, emp. added). Kenneth Wuest agreed: “In I Corinthians 13:10, the word means ‘complete,’ and is contrasted to that which is incomplete” (1943, pp. 117-118). The exegete is forced to conclude that Paul’s use of “perfect” referred to the completed revelation or totally revealed New Testament Scriptures. The revelation of God’s will was completed in its entirety when the final book of the New Testament, Revelation, was written by John prior to A.D. 100.Paul offered a useful illustration to clarify his point. When the church possessed only small bits and pieces of God’s will, as revealed through scattered miraculous gifts and the gradual production, between approximately A.D. 57 and A.D. 95, of the written documents from the inspired writers of the New Testament, it could not achieve full spiritual maturity. It therefore was like a child (13:11). It lacked the necessary elements to reach spiritual adulthood. However, when the totality of God’s will, which became the New Testament, had been revealed, the church then had the means available to become “a man” (13:11). Once the church had access to all of God’s written Word, the means by which the Word was given (i.e., miraculous gifts) would be obsolete, useless, and therefore “put away” (13:11). Notice that Paul likened miracles to “childish things” (13:11). In other words, miracles were the spiritual equivalents of pacifiers that were necessary while the church was in a state of infancy. Since we now have access to “all truth” (John 16:13), the use of tongue-speaking and other miraculous enhancements in the church today would be comparable to an adult man or woman who continued to use a pacifier!Paul then explained his point by comparing the initial necessity of miracles to reveal and confirm God’s Word, with the idea of looking through a clouded mirror (see Workman, 1983, p. 8). Once the entire contents of the New Testament had been revealed, the miraculous gifts no longer would be necessary. Having all of God’s revealed Word would enable one to be face to face with that Word, rather than “looking through a clouded mirror,” i.e., having partial access. Paul wrote (13:11):

Now I know in part [i.e., my knowledge of God’s revelation is incomplete and partial due to limited access via the miraculous element—DM], but then [i.e., when all of God’s Word is finally revealed—DM] shall I know fully, even as also I was fully known [i.e., I shall be made to know or taught thoroughly (which is the figure of speech known as heterosis of the verb in which the intransitive is put for the transitive—see Bullinger, 1898, p. 512)—DM].

Paul made the same point to the Ephesians. Miracles—the “gifts” given by Christ (Ephesians 4:8)—were to last “

till

the unity of

the

faith and

the

knowledge of the Son of God” (Ephesians 4:13, emp. added). Two significant observations emerge from this latter verse. First, the word translated “till” (Middle English for “until”) is

mechri

, and was used as a conjunction to indicate the

terminus ad quem

[finishing point] of the miraculous offices (mentioned in vs. 11) bestowed as gifts by Christ. [For treatments of the use of

mechri

in this verse, see Thayer, 1977, p. 408; Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 517; Moulton and Milligan, 1982, p. 407; Blass, et al., 1961, pp. 193-194; Robertson, 1934, pp. 974-975; Dana and Mantey, 1927, p. 281; see also the use of the term in Mark 13:30 and Galatians 4:19]. Nicoll observed:

The statement of the great object of Christ’s gifts and the provision made by Him for its fulfillment is now followed by a statement of the time this provision and the consequent service are to last (1900, 3:332, emp. in orig.).

Paul was “[s]pecifying the

time

up to which this ministry and impartation of gifts are to last” (Vincent, 1890, p. 390, emp. added).Second, the phrase “the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God” often is misunderstood to refer to the eventual

unifying

of all believers in Christ. But this conclusion cannot be correct. Both Scripture and common sense dispel such a notion. Complete unity within Christendom will

never

occur. Those who profess affiliation with Christianity are in a hopeless state of disunity. Catholicism and Protestant denominationalism are fractured into a plethora of factions and splinter groups—literally thousands of divisions and disagreements. Nor will unity ever be achieved even within churches of Christ. Even

first-century

congregations did not attain complete internal unity.In contrast with this interpretation, notice the use of the articles in the phrases: “

the

faith” and “

the

knowledge.” Contextually, Paul was referring to

the system of faith

alluded to so often in the New Testament. Jude urged his readers to “contend earnestly for

the

faith” (Jude 3). Paul referred to himself when he quoted others as saying, “He that once persecuted us now preacheth

the

faith of which he once made havoc” (Galatians 1:23). Luke reported that “a great company of the priests were obedient to

the

faith” (Acts 6:7). Elymas the sorcerer sought to “turn aside the proconsul from

the

faith” (Acts 13:8). The early disciples were exhorted to “continue in

the

faith” (Acts 14:22). As a result of Paul’s repeat visits to Lycaonia, “the churches were strengthened in

the

faith” (Acts 16:5).So “the faith” and “the knowledge” refer to the

completed body of information

that constitutes the Christian religion. Indeed, eight verses earlier (Ephesians 4:5), Paul already had referred to “the faith” as the summation and totality of Christian doctrine—now situated in the repository of the New Testament. An honest exegete is driven to conclude that once the precepts of New Testament Christianity had been revealed on Earth, the miraculous element no longer was necessary. Miracles lasted until “the faith” was completely revealed. They had served their purpose, in the same way that scaffolding is useful while a building is under construction. However, once construction is complete, the scaffolding is removed and discarded as unnecessary and superfluous paraphernalia.

THE DISPLAY AND DISPOSITION OF MIRACLES

Fourth, the actual exercise of miraculous gifts by Christians is addressed in 1 Corinthians 14. In this context, Paul used the term “gifts” (

charismata,

from

charisma

) in a technical sense (like

pneumatika

) to refer to miraculous abilities, designated by Thayer “

extraordinary

powers...by the Holy Spirit” (1901, p. 667, emp. added; cf. Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 887). Hans Conzelmann stated that the term indicated that “[t]he operations are

supernatural

” and of “

supernatural

potency” (1974, 9:405, emp. added). [The word is so used in the Pauline corpus in ten of its sixteen occurrences (Romans 1:11; 12:6; 1 Corinthians 1:7; 12:4,9,28,30-31; 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6). The only other occurrence of the word in the New Testament was Peter’s comparable use, i.e., to refer to supernatural ability (1 Peter 4:10)—see Moulton, et al., 1978, p. 1005]. Several relevant points occur in regard to the gift of tongue-speaking that help one to understand both the

temporary

nature of miracles, as well as their

irrelevance

to a contemporary pursuit and practice of New Testament Christianity.Tongue-SpeakingFirst, the term “unknown” (in regard to tongues) is italicized in the KJV because it does not appear in the original Greek text (14:2,4,13-14,19,27). By inserting this word into their translation, the translators were attempting to aid the English reader. They undoubtedly were hoping to convey the idea that the languages to which Paul referred were

unknown

to the speaker, i.e., the speaker had no prior training by which to learn or know the language. He spoke the language strictly by God’s miraculous empowerment. “Unknown” certainly was not intended to convey the thought that the tongues were unknown

to all humans

and, as such, were non-earthly languages.Second, the events reported at the very beginning of the Christian religion (Acts 2) set the precedent for understanding that tongue-speaking entailed no more than the ability to speak a foreign human language (which the speaker had not studied) to people from a variety of geographical locales (e.g., Parthians, Medes, Arabians—Acts 2:9-11). The unbiased Bible student must conclude that what is described in some detail in Acts 2 is the same phenomenon alluded to in 1 Corinthians 14. All tongue-speaking in the Bible consisted of known human languages (ideally, known to the very audience being addressed) that were unknown (i.e., unstudied, unlearned) by the one who was speaking the language.Third, there is simply no such thing as an “ecstatic utterance” in the New Testament. The tongue-speaking of 1 Corinthians 14 entailed

human language

—not incoherent gibberish. A simple reading of the chapter demonstrates that known human languages are under consideration. For example, Paul paralleled tongue-speaking with the use of the trumpet in warfare. If a bugler sounded meaningless noise, the military would be thrown into confusion. It was imperative for the bugler to blow the proper notes and tones, i.e., meaningful musical “language,” so that the army would understand clearly what was being communicated (whether to charge, engage, or retreat). “Sound without sense” fails to achieve the very purpose of tongue-speaking. Paul stated:

So likewise ye, unless ye utter by the tongue speech easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye will be speaking into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without signification. If then I know not the meaning of the language, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh will be a barbarian unto me (1 Corinthians 14:9-11, emp. added).

Obviously, Paul was referring to human languages—those that exist “in the world.” He envisioned a scenario where two individuals, who spoke different languages, are attempting to communicate with each other. If one speaks in Spanish and the other in German, as they attempt to speak to one another, each would be a “foreigner” to the other. Neither would be able to understand what the other was attempting to say. Hence the need for tongue-speaking, i.e., the ability to speak human language unknown to the speaker but known to the recipient. Again, an examination of 1 Corinthians 14 yields the result that no contextual justification exists for drawing the conclusion that the Bible refers to, let alone endorses, the notion of “

ecstatic

” speech.Fourth, Paul clearly stated that tongue-speaking was a sign to

believers—not to believers (14:22). Tongue-speaking was to be done in

their

presence, to convince

them

of the truth being spoken, i.e., to confirm the Word. The tongue-speaking being practiced today is done in the presence of those who

already believe

that tongue-speaking is occurring and, when an unbeliever, who is skeptical of the genuineness of the activity, makes an appearance in such an assembly, the claim often is made that tongue-speaking cannot occur because of the presence of unbelief. Once again, the New Testament teaches the very opposite of those who claim the ability to speak in tongues today.Fifth, the recipient of a miraculous gift in the New Testament could control himself (14:32). He was not overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit so that he began to babble or flail about. Tongue-speaking today is frequently practiced in a setting where the individuals who claim to be exercising the gift are speaking uncontrollably at the very time that others are either doing the same thing or engaging in some other activity. This overlapping activity is in direct violation of three of Paul’s commands: (1) that each individual take their turn one at a time; (2) that no more than three tongue-speakers speak per service; and (3) that tongue-speakers remain silent if no interpreter is present (14:27-28).The claim by many today to be able to speak in tongues is simply out of harmony with New Testament teaching. Anyone can babble, make up sounds, and claim that he or she is speaking in tongues. But such conduct is no

sign

today. It is precisely the same phenomenon that various pagan religions have practiced throughout the centuries. During New Testament times, however, no one questioned the authenticity of tongue-speaking. Why? The speaker was speaking

a known human language

that could be understood

by those present

who knew that language and knew that the speaker did not know that language beforehand. As McGarvey observed about Acts 2:

Not only did the apostles speak in foreign languages that were understood by the hearers, some understanding one and some another, but the fact that this was done by Galileans, who knew only their mother tongue, was the one significant fact that gave to Peter’s speech which followed all of its power over the multitude (1910, p. 318).

If and when self-proclaimed tongue-speakers today demonstrate that genuine New Testament gift, their message could be accepted as being from God. But

no one today has demonstrated that genuine New Testament gift

.Holy Spirit BaptismWhere, then, does the baptism of the Holy Spirit fit into this discussion? Today’s alleged practitioners typically associate the expression “Holy Spirit baptism” with the phenomenon that enables the believer to speak in tongues, heal someone, or work other miracles. In other words, Holy Spirit baptism is simply a generic reference to miraculous empowerment. Anyone who can speak in a tongue or perform any other miraculous action is said to have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. He is said to be “Spirit filled.” However, it might surprise the reader to learn that the Bible alludes to Holy Spirit baptism in a very narrow, specialized, even technical sense. Just because a person could speak in tongues or work miracles did not necessarily mean he had been baptized in the Holy Spirit.The very first allusion to Holy Spirit baptism in the New Testament is John’s statement: “I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me...

will

baptize

you

in the Holy Spirit

” (Matthew 3:11, emp. added). From this statement alone, one might assume that Christians

in general

would be baptized in the Holy Spirit. But this assumption would be a premature conclusion. John was not addressing a Christian audience. He was speaking to Jews. Nothing in the context allows the reader to distinguish John’s intended recipients of the promise of Holy Spirit baptism—whether all humans, all Jews, all Christians, or merely some of those in one or more of these categories. The specific recipients of this promise are clarified in later passages.Just before His ascension, Jesus told the apostles to wait in Jerusalem until they were “clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49). In John chapters 14-16, He made several specific promises to the apostles concerning the coming of the Spirit—the “Comforter/Helper” (

parakletos

)—upon them, to empower them to do the peculiar work of an apostle (i.e., to recall the words Jesus had spoken to them, to speak and write by inspiration, and to launch the Christian religion). If these verses apply to all Christians, then all Christians ought to have been personally guided “into all truth” (John 16:13), and thus would have absolutely no need of written Scripture (John 14:26). However, in context, these verses clearly refer to

the apostolic office.

Jesus further clarified the application of Holy Spirit baptism when He told the apostles that the earlier statement made in Luke 24:49 applied to

them

, and, in fact, would come to pass “not many days hence” (Acts 1:4-5). Jesus also stated that the “power” that they would receive would be from the Holy Spirit, which would enable them to witness to the world what they had experienced by being with Christ (Acts 1:8). Notice carefully that on this occasion, Jesus made an explicit reference to the very statement that John had uttered previously in Matthew 3: “For John indeed baptized with water; but

[apostles—DM] shall be

baptized in the Holy Spirit

not many days hence” (Acts 1:5, emp. added). Jesus explicitly stated that the Holy Spirit baptism He would administer (in keeping with John’s prediction) would occur within a few days, and would be confined to the apostles.All one need do is turn the page to see the promise of Holy Spirit baptism achieve climactic fulfillment in Acts 2 as the Spirit was poured out only upon the apostles. The antecedent of “they” in Acts 2:4 is “the apostles” in Acts 1:26. The apostles were the ones who spoke in tongues and taught the people.

They

were the recipients of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as is evident from the following contextual indicators: (1) “are not all these that speak

Galileans

?” (2:7); (2) “Peter, standing up with

the eleven

” (2:14); (3) “they...said unto Peter and the rest of

the apostles

” (2:37); (4) Peter quoted Joel 2:28-32, and applied it to that occasion as proof that

the apostles

were not intoxicated; and (5) the text even states explicitly that the signs and wonders were “done

through

the apostles

” (2:43). This pattern continues in the book of Acts: “And by the hands of

the apostles

were many signs and wonders wrought among the people” (5:12); “the Lord, who bare witness unto the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by

their hands

” (14:3); “what signs and wonders God had wrought...through

them

” (15:12).The next direct reference to Holy Spirit baptism consisted of Peter describing the experience of the Gentiles in Acts 10. Referring to their empowerment to speak in tongues, Peter explicitly identified it as being comparable to the experience of the apostles in Acts 2. Note his explanation:

And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us [apostles—DM] at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit. If then God gave unto them the like gift as he did also unto us [apostles—DM]... (Acts 11:15-17, emp. added).

Peter unmistakably linked the baptism of the Holy Spirit predicted by John in Matthew 3:11, and applied by Jesus to the apostles in Acts 1:5, with the unique and exclusive bestowal of the same on the first Gentile candidates of salvation. If the baptism of the Holy Spirit had occurred between Acts 2 and Acts 10, why did Peter compare the Gentiles’ experience with the experience of the

apostles

—rather than comparing it with many other Christians who allegedly would have received it at some point during the intervening years? The answer lies in the fact that the baptism of the Holy Spirit did not occur during those intervening years. Baptism of the Holy Spirit was a unique and infrequent occurrence that came directly from Deity.This understanding harmonizes with additional facts. The great prophecy of the Old Testament, which made special reference to the coming New Testament era as the dispensation of the Spirit, incorporated a most noteworthy expression. God had declared: “I will pour out my Spirit upon

all flesh

” (Joel 2:28, emp. added). Peter repeated it on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17). “

All flesh

” was a technical expression used by the Jewish writers of the Bible, who frequently divided humanity into

only two

racial groupings, i.e., Jew and non-Jew (Gentile). The reader is urged to study carefully Isaiah 40:5 (cf. Luke 3:6) and Isaiah 66:23 as well as Paul’s use of “we” vs. “they” and “both,” “all,” “none,” and “no flesh” (Romans 3:9-20). “No flesh” and “all flesh” were technical allusions to the two