The following exchange began when someone "spammed" me with a dozen e-mail messages in three days, In fact, hs first e-mail on Thursday was actually pretty good. I simply replied with, "Very good... I agree". His first e-mail can be read at:
God Was With Him?
However, near the end of our discussion, after John had "spammed" me with a dozen e-mails in three days, he began to forward part of our correspondence to several others on my Links page, in which he called Berean Dispensationalists "Liars". Many of these people then responded to John, and forwarded their responses to me; and I have created a link to their responses at:
http://www.oocities.org/hyperdispensationalism/John.html
Anyway, after my initial reply that his first e-mail was "very good", he then sent me the following:
Victories Of The Cross
My response was:
To begin with, tongues were only a temporary gift, and are no longer for today. Scripturally, tongues were only spoken when Jews were present, unlike the way they are used in the charismatic churches today:
http://www.oocities.org/benwebb.geo/tongues.html
As far as healings are conerned, they were also only temporary, and faded out as Paul neared the end of his ministry. In his last epistle, Paul did not heal Trophimus, but left him sick at Miletum, according to 2 Tim. 4:20 -
Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick.
Likewise, Paul also had a "thorn in the flesh" that the Lord refused to remove, according to 2 Cor. 12:7-9 -
7: And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
8: For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.
9: And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in
weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ
may rest upon me.
This guy then began "spamming" me with e-mails. I am posting them below, in the order I received them. But in some cases, it is hard to tell which e-mail(s) I responded to; because by the time I had responded to one, I would have two more in my Inbox. The reader, then, can try to sort out which e-mail I was responding to (these are the titles he attached to them):
Re: Nope; I must disagree. But I have been healed many times over supernaturally by God
Re:The bible says Tongues is a prayer language and a sign for Unbelievers not for the Jews or believers
Was Jesus Wealthy or Poor?
Sola Scriptura?
Re:Is the devil greater than God? If you ask him for a stone will he give you a serpent?
Was The New Testament Written In Hebrew?
Re: Sola Scriptura?
Re: Sola Scriptura? Did you lie or twist or add to scriptures. It's evident that you did!
Re: Two items You HAVE NOT BASIS TO SAY THAT TONGUES HAVE CEASED
Re: liars because you lied and your words have proved it
And as I stated before, I will not give out his e-mail address. My responses were as follows:
Re: Nope; I must disagree. But I have been healed many times over supernaturally by God
John, you say you have been healed many times over, supernaturally. Well, I don't deny God's
ability to heal people today. He can do so if He chooses to. But He can't go against His word.
As far as your own healings - don't you realize healings are not always of God? Since the devil
has power to cause sickness, he also has power to remove the sickness, thereby deceiving people
into giving God the credit for something He did not do.
Are you familiar with Voodoo? Healings take place all the time in that "religion". Is God behind
all of those healings? I don't think so. Maybe He chooses to heal some of those folks; like I
said, that is His prerogative. But if Satan can deceive the practitioners of Voodoo into believing
that God is behind all their healings, he can also deceive Christians into believing that God is
behind those, as well.
Let me tell you a true story - I once knew a young lady who believed in healings and speaking in
tongues. One day, she had a vision from the "Jesus" who was behind them. And this "Jesus" told her
that she was too fat! He said it was a sin that she was fat, so she had to lose weight. Well, she
almost killed herself trying to obey that "Jesus". She had to be hospitalized! That's when I began
to realize that there is "another Jesus" (2 Cor. 11:4) behind a lot of tongues and healings.
Plus, don't you know that despite all these miraculous healings, the death toll is still one
apiece? We all die, eventually. Faith healers, along with those they have "healed".
Let me tell you another true story. I met an old farmer at a Bible Camp down south, who had gone
to some of those "healing" services they have on the coast. He had stopped in at one of those
healing services, and saw lots of people being healed. However, although he knew many of the
people around those parts, he didn't recognize anyone who was being healed. But he shrugged that
off. Later, when he had some business many miles down the coast, in a different part of the state,
he came upon another tent revival that was having healing services on the beach. Again, he stopped
in, and saw the same people being healed of the same diseases!
Of course, some people may argue that these people were simply "shills" that were used to entice
other people to go down front (the Billy Graham Crusade does the same thing); but this is nothing
more than flagrant dishonesty. And God will not bless the fruits of dishonesty. I personally know
a preacher who was involved in one of Billy Graham's "crusades", and he was on a team that was
responsible for setting up those "shills" among the audience. He now regrets that he was ever
involved in such a deceitful practice.
And a personal testimony of my own. Several years ago here in Arizona, I attended a church down in
Benson called "Grace Chapel", where they endorse speaking in tongues and healing. I had mostly
been attending Tuesday Night Bible Study; but one Sunday, I went to Sunday services. The worship
services were rather informal, so that the congregation could ask questions as the pastor
delivered his message. I liked that forum, which allowed interaction from the congregation. Well,
the pastor was speaking on Paul's conversion in the book of Acts, when one of the members of the
Tuesday Night Bible Study spoke up, and stated that the pastor had just proven that the Bible
really does contain errors, because Acts 9:7 states that the men who journeyed with Paul heard a
voice; while Acts 22:8 states that they did not hear the voice of the One Who spoke to Paul. And
the pastor never rebuked that man; nor did he disagree with that statement! Of course, I see no
contradiction whatsoever - Acts 9:7 states that the men heard "a" voice; it was just not the voice
of the One Who spoke to Paul, according to Acts 22:8. But I never went back to that church. Nor
will I go back to any other church, if it claims that God has errors in His book.
My point in all this is that Satan casts doubt upon God's word whenever he can. But God honors His
word, and will never go against it. So, based upon the above evidence, I know that not all tongues
and healings are of the Lord. As I stated earlier, God can heal whoever He wants to heal. But He
is not behind all healings; and He just may not be behind the ones you are witnessing. If these
people use trickery to get people down front, or claim that the Bible has errors in it, God cannot
be behind the "healings" and tongues you are involved in. Satan would be behind them. Since he has
the power to make people sick, he also has the power to take that sickness away.
Yes, it is true that many Christians are also sick and die as part of God's judgments. But you
can't take passages which are for Israel, and apply them to the church today. For example, many
people love to quote James 5:14-16 ("Is any sick among you?...And the prayer of faith shall save
the sick...and pray one for another, that ye may be healed"). But they totally ignore the fact
that James was writing to the twelve tribes of ISRAEL, according to James 1:1 -
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered
abroad, greeting.
And Paul stated that James agreed to confine his ministry to Israel, in Gal. 2:9 -
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given
unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the
heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Yes, the Lord is indeed the same yesterday, today, and forever. And one thing He will not do is go
against His word.
Nor did Paul dislike women, as you stated. The things Paul wrote were simply the commandments of
the Lord, according to 1 Cor. 14:37-38 -
37: If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things
that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38: But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
So, when Paul wrote in 1 Tim. 2:15 that the woman "shall be saved in childbearing", he was writing
none other than the things the Lord wanted him to write. And he was NOT referring to eternal
salvation, which we have in Christ Jesus. No, he was referring to the fact that the woman shall be
saved from her tendency to be deceived, if she and her husband "continue in faith and charity and
holiness with sobriety". Look at the passage in context. 1 Tim. 2:11-15 -
11: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13: For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14: And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15: Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and
holiness with sobriety.
In the context of the above passage, Paul is referring to the fact that the woman was in the
transgression, because she was deceived. Gen. 3:6 -
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and
a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also
unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
So, when Paul states that the woman "shall be saved in childbearing", he means just what he wrote.
There is no dislike of women here. Women do indeed have a tendency to be deceived. By contrast,
men have a tendency to be seduced. So, through her childbearing, if the woman and her husband
"continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety", she will indeed be saved from her
tendency to be deceived. And you know what? I also believe that in turn, the man will also be
saved from his tendency to be seduced.
And finally, Paul criticized some of the other apostles because they were indeed hypocrites. What
do you call it when Peter and Barnabas eat with Gentiles as long as James is not present; but as
soon as James arrives, they withdraw themselves, to hide those actions? (Gal. 2:11-14)
So Paul was indeed correct in his actions, while Barnabas and Peter were definitely in the wrong.
And Paul had a perfect right to criticize them for what they did.
Gotta go. Think on these things.
I'll try to answer your other e-mails later, if I have time. But that may be awhile.
Ben
Re: Sola Scriptura?
John, you need to stop inundating me with lengthy e-mail arguments. I barely replied to the first
of your three e-mails last night; and already my inbox contains three more lengthy e-mails from
you this morning - PLUS another one from someone else who believes as you do.
I do not have time to enter into an extended debate with you over this matter. I am already
involved in one extended debate over Modalism vs Trinitarianism; a second extended debate over
Universalism; and an extended discussion concerning the identity of the angel of the LORD. I have
only a very limited amount of "computer time", so I can only reply to a limited number of e-mails.
On my site, I have laid out the Five Fundmentals I hold to; and if you believe those, I consider
you a brother in Christ.
But I will address a couple of your statements here. For starters, God's word shows the inaccuracy
of your statement, "Although God's word has never stated that the place and position in the church
of Jesus Christ today of Apostles, prophets and gifts of the Spirit, including miracles, healing
and tongues, has ceased because the church has not ceased, fallible false men have dispensed with
such things". God's word does indeed state that tongues and other gifts of the Spirit are to
cease, in 1 Cor. 13:8 -
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues,
they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
Your statement, then, is inaccurate, and God's word is true. But from what I read, you don't seem
to accept the New Testament as being authoritative. Yes, I realize the church fathers did not
agree on certain issues. Nor do we today! But our New Testament today is certainly every bit as
accurate as the Old Testament scriptures. For starters, Peter, by inspiration, equated Paul's
epistles with OTHER SCRIPTURES, in 2 Peter 3:15-16 -
15: And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul
also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard
to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other
scriptures, unto their own destruction.
And Paul, in turn, refers to the book of Luke as SCRIPTURE, in 1 Tim. 5:18 -
For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The
labourer is worthy of his reward.
The second part of the above passage is a quote from Luke 10:7 -
And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is
worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.
So, we can indeed trust the accuracy of the Old Testament. The writers of it bear witness among
themselves as to its accuracy. If Peter is right (and I believe he is), the epistles of Paul that
were canonized by the church fathers are indeed accurate and infallible. And so forth.
Concerning your statement that "...Jesus taught us to trust the Old Testament Scriptures...", you
must tell me which Old Testament scriptures you believe He was referring to. There are two
different versions: the Masoretic Text, which forms the basis for most Bibles today; and the
Septuagint, which is different from the Masoretic Text. From the evidence I have seen, I have
concluded that the Masoretic Text is accurate and infallible. But there are certain factions who
call themselves "Christian"; yet they don't believe certain teachings that are found in the New
Testament scriptures. These people cast doubt upon God's word by referring to the Septuagint in
support of certain unscriptural doctrines. If you are one of those, this conversation is at an
end.
Yet you state, "But in reality did the words that Paul write proceed from God? The problem with
'Verbal Inspiration' of scriptures is that it sounds wonderful in theory but in fact we do not
have any original manuscripts to show what the very words of the scripture were given to the
writers of the New Testament"
The problem with your above statement is that we don't have any original manuscripts to show what
the very words of the OLD TESTAMENT were, either. Nor did Jesus and His apostles. Yet we still
believe that God inspired the Old Testament writers to write down His words inerrantly, and that
they were accurately preserved in copies until the time of the Lord and His apostles - even though
small portions of the Old Testament scriptures were written in Chaldee, and not Hebrew! How can we
trust God to preserve His words in the Old Testament, and doubt His ability to preserve His words
in the New Testament?
Yes, all Christians are indeed an epistle of Christ. 2 Corinthians chapter 3 says we are. And I
also agree that we should depend on the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit never casts doubt upon
the word of God. Throughout the Bible, no man of God ever cast doubt upon the written word of God.
Not one. But Satan did. And he still does today.
Nor did any man of God ever question His ability to guide them in translating His words. Which is
why many New Testament quotations of the Old Testament do not match word-for-word. The thought is
the same, but the words are different. You and I both agree that these men of God who wrote the
scriptures were all led by the Spirit of God. Your question, as I understand it, concerns whether
or not the individual words themselves were inspired. Well, since you and I are only fallible men,
and not apostles or Bible writers, we must base our facts upon the already-written word of God. So
I do believe in the Divine plenary verbal inspiration of scripture. 1 Peter even states that the
prophets did not even understand the things they were writing! Why, then, should they be left to
choose the words, when they didn't even understand what they wrote? This shows the inaccuracy of
your statement, "In other words in theory the writers were not left to choose the words". This is
not a theory. This is a fact, confirmed by Peter himself.
As far as translation itself is concerned, we know that God can lead men to accurately translate
His word, because the New Testament writers did so. But again, since you and I are only fallible
men, we do not have the supernaturally-given understanding that the New Testament writers had when
they quoted the Old Testament scriptures. Thus, we should now rely on the formal equivalence
(word-for-word) method used by the King James translators. If a translator fails to understand the
actual meaning of a passage, he will translate it incorrectly. if he uses the dynamic equivalence
(thought-for-thought) method, as the translators of the NIV did. (For example, see Eph. 3:6, where
the NIV translators took it upon themselves to add the words "with Israel", even though those
words are not found in any manuscript on planet earth.) But if the translator sticks to the formal
equivalence method, the words are accurately translated, and the reader is allowed to depend on
the Holy Spirit for guidance and understanding. So, if the translators of the NIV are incorrect in
their understanding of Eph. 3:6 (and I believe they are), their erroneous view actually becomes a
misleading doctrine for the readers of the NIV.
This also shows the danger of basing doctrines on writings outside of scripture, as you have done
in your e-mail. You depart from scripture, and refer to Clement and Origen, in your denial that
Paul wrote 1 Tim. 2:11-15 by inspiration. Don't you see a problem here? But then, you compound
your error with the statement, "If Paul wrote his epistles in Hebrew and Luke translated them into
Greek it's a fact that things always get lost in the translation process". Well, if things always
get lost in translation, why didn't the New Testament writers say so? They were translating Hebrew
scriptures into Greek.
Concerning my belief that Paul wrote 1 Tim. 2:11-15 by inspiration, you also claim that only the
Holy Spirit can validate what Paul meant, and that I am not the Holy Spirit. Of course I realize
that I am not the Holy Spirit. But if you question the accuracy of 1 Tim. 2:11-15, why don't you
also question the accuracy of those passages you depend on for healings and tongues? You are so
quick to quote Mark 16:17, Acts 2:3-11, Acts 10:46, Acts 19:6, 1 Cor. 14:2-6, etc., in support of
your belief. While you're in 1 Cor. 14, why don't you also quote verses 34-35? And what about
verse 37? If you consider yourself to be spiritual, you are required to acknowledge that the
things Paul wrote are indeed the commandments of the Lord.
Let me tell you another true story. My first major encounter with an anti-dispensationalist like
yourself was in the 1980s, after we moved out here to Arizona. This fellow started out as a true
friend, and he was very sincere in his beliefs. But as our debate over dispensationalism
developed, he actually began to claim that he was an apostle of Christ. He claimed that he was
receiving revelations from "Jesus", who told him that his purpose was to prove me wrong. So, in
his attempt to do so, this guy simply re-translated every passage of scripture that I used in
support of my doctrine. In most cases, he couldn't even find a modern version that supported his
re-translation, so he would fall back on a concordance. But after I pointed out that it is God's
word that is inspired, and not some concordance, he didn't have anything else to fall back on,
except his "revelations". In fact, this guy also believed in the same "Jesus" who told the young
lady that being fat was a sin. They both had very similar beliefs. Yet she almost died from trying
to please that "Jesus"; and he never did accomplish the purpose his "Jesus" assigned to him.
Let's hope you don't follow in this man's footsteps.
Gotta go, John.
Ben Webb
http://www.oocities.org/benwebb.geo/links.html
Berean Dispensationalist
http://www.oocities.org/benwebb.geo/
and
King James Bible, Dispensationally
http://www.oocities.org/kjvdispensational/
Subject: Two items
John -
First of all, I have never claimed "that which is perfect" is the bible. I don't know what it is; nor does it matter. It has not come yet. But that is only when tongues and the like shall be permanently done away with. Currently, they have only ceased temporarily. Prophecy, at least, will start up again at some point in the future, because Revelation 11:3 speaks of two future witnesses, who will prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days. 1 Cor. 13:8 is referring to the present temporary cessation, not the permanent doing away with. You can read more about what I believe on this subject at:
http://www.oocities.org/benwebb.geo/tongues.html#3
Item number 2: Peter does indeed state that the prophets did not understand the things they wrote, in 1 Peter 1:10-12 -
10: Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
12: Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
In the above passage, verse 12 plainly states that it was revealed to the prophets that the things they ministered are NOW reported by them that preached the gospel. They did not understand the things they wrote. Paul also states that the princes of this world never knew that Christ had to die; otherwise, they would not have crucified Him, in 1 Cor. 2:7-8 -
7: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
And again, you can read more about why neither the prophets nor the disciples understood many of the things they wrote, at:
http://www.oocities.org/benwebb.geo/basics.html#2
Again, gotta go.
Ben
Re: liars
John, why are you using inflammatory rhetoric, and calling me a liar? I must have hit a nerve, for
you to react this way.
I never said the two witnesses have anything to do with tongues. I stated, and I quote:
Prophecy, at least, will start up again at some point in the future, because Revelation 11:3
speaks of two future witnesses, who will prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days. 1
Cor. 13:8 is referring to the present temporary cessation, not the permanent doing away with. You
can read more about what I believe on this subject at:
http://www.oocities.org/benwebb.geo/tongues.html#3
Nor did I claim that 1 Cor. 13:8 says tongues have ceased "IN THE PRESENT". That is just my own
viewpoint. I only said that your statement was inaccurate. I stated, and I quote, "God's word does
indeed state that tongues and other gifts of the Spirit are to cease, in 1 Cor. 13:8 -
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues,
they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
Your statement, then, is inaccurate, and God's word is true."
And that's what I said. Why, then, am I a liar? As far as Paul's commandment not to forbid
speaking in tongues is concerned (1 Cor. 14:39), it is useless to forbid something that God is not
doing today. It is my view that tongues have ceased, because they are not being used today in the
scriptural way they were intended. Tongues were given as a sign to unbelieving Israel, according
to Isaiah 28:11-12 -
11: For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12: To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the
refreshing: yet they would not hear.
And in the context of the above passage, the words "this people" are a reference to Israel, and
not to Uncircumcised Gentiles that believe today. Here, the Lord promised to use tongues as an
instrument through which He would speak to the children of Israel, who "would not hear". And Paul
quotes this prophecy in context, in 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 -
21: In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this
people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22: Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but
prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
The context of this passage must remain the same as that of Isaiah 28, from which the quotation is
taken; otherwise, Paul would be guilty of taking Isaiah's prophecy out of its context. In verse
22, Paul states that tongues were for a sign to "them that believe not", which is a direct
reference to those who would not hear in verse 21 (unbelieving Israel). So when he states that
tongues are for a sign to them that believe not, he must be referring to unbelievers in Israel,
rather than unbelieving Gentiles. After all, even though a small number of individual Israelites
did believe, the nation of Israel did not. This is the context of the passage in Isaiah; so this
must also be the context of the passage in 1 Cor.14:21-22. Those who interpret this passage to
mean that tongues are for a sign to "Gentiles" that believe not must take the passage out of its
context in order to support such a belief.
That is my belief, John. And I can back it up with scripture. If I do not understand the passages
correctly, then I am wrong. If they mean what I think they do, then tongues have indeed ceased (1
Cor. 13:8). Why, then, am I a liar, for backing up my beliefs with scripture?
Ben
Click here to read the replies of others to whom John sent copies of our correspondence
Return to Berean Dispensational Site