Hello Sandy!
Monday November 10 1997 07:57, SANDY HOOPER wrote to MICHAEL MCREARY:
 MH>> one of your references state that the miracles have ceased.
 SH>  "Miracles" have not ceased.  The "signs of the Apostles" have
 SH> ceased.
 MM>  SH>> Anybody today who claims to have these signs would have
 MM>  SH>> to be "an apostle."
 MM>> You have not proven this point.
 SH>  "SIGNS OF AN APOSTLE." Name the signs of an Apostle.  What were
 SH> they?
YOU tell ME, Sandy.  It is your definition that these signs, or more
correctly, these gifts belong solely to apostles.  I contend that these
gifts are for believers.  These gifts are to them who are afar off.  These
gifts are to as many as the Lord our God shall call.
No, this is your definition.  YOU figure it out.
 MM>> Before I go any further with this thread,
 MM>> why don't you establish ONE thing.  Please PROVE your
 MM>> allegations with scripture.  Show us all where tongues have
 MM>> ceased.
 SH>  First of all.  Tongues have not ceased.  Everybody in this world
 SH> speaks in some kind of tongue, known as "languages."  What has
 SH> ceased is the "gift of tongues."
Alright.  I'll play your game once again.  When did the gift of tongues
cease?  I can read where God gave this gift.  I can read of instructions
on its use.  I can even find scripture that shows it has been abused, yet
I don't see where the gift of tongues has ceased.
So in order to avoid any misunderstanding, I'll word this question
specifically.  When did the gift of tongues cease, Sandy?  It is your
contention that it is no longer for today's church.  I am not asking why
or where.  When?
 SH> That means these apostles were
 SH> able to speak in other LANGUAGES (see Acts 2 for there are
 SH> at
 SH> least, what? 14 languages they were speaking? There's nothing in
 SH> there about UNKNOWN TONGUES.
There is in I Cor 14.  Why do you want to ignore this passage, Sandy?  It
doesn't help your teaching one bit, but it IS the bible.
 MH>> Paul was thankful that
 MM>> he spoke in tongues more than all of the others.
 SH>  But notice he was careful not to say UNKNOWN tongues.  He never
 SH> claimed to speak in "unknown tongues."
He said unknown tongues in I Cor 14.
 MM>> He certainly wasn't anti-tongues.
 SH>  Nor did I say he was.
 MH>> Show me where the signs could only be done by apostles.
 MM>> Show me.  While you're at it, take a gander at Acts
 MM>> 10:45-46, "45  And they of the circumcision which believed
 MM>> were astonished, as many as came with because that on the
 MM>> Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
 MM>> 46  For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify
 MM>> God." These believers in the household of Cornelius were
 MM>> NOT apostles. They weren't Jews for that matter.  They
 MM>> were uncircumcised Gentiles which simply believed on God.
 MM>> Sandy, they spoke with tongues.  The apostles heard it.
 MM>> Fact is, your point concerning apostleship is absolutely
 MM>> incorrect when you read the bible.
 SH>  I tell you what.  I already have written an article on tongues.
 SH> It is revised. I will send it up to you.  Read it all very
 SH> carefully, and look up the passages. I have it written in HTML,
 SH> so I am going to have to go back and get rid of tags.  I would
 SH> really be interested in going over this with you.
First, you are avoiding the issue.  Second, I have little interest in
reading such untrue articles.  What you are trying to do is change the
tactic, Sandy.
 SH> SHooper410@aol.com   "...I had rather speak five words with my
 SH>                      understanding standing than ten thousand
 SH> words
 SH>                      in an unknown tongue."    -1 Cor. 14:19
I Cor 14:39, "39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not
to speak with tongues."
Take care!
Michael McReary
mcreary@oz.net
michael.mcreary@pss.boeing.com
... Every knee shall bow: beat the rush.
---
---------------