Sola Fide

Sola Fide; "Faith Alone" or, the long and short of it, Salvation by grace through faith alone. This is one of the five Solas and, indeed, is a staple to our faith. However, I have heard it sadly said that the "Alone" is nowhere found in Scripture and thusly invalidates this truth. I will here address this heresy.
The specific passage from whence this doctrine comes is this,

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8)

This was a doctrine Martin Luther struggled with for along time, or, that is, didn't understand. Up unto this point, he believed that one must live a complete and holy life. Which is true if we wish to be holy and acceptable before God Almighty. Luther became a monk so as to attain this but found, rightly so, that his righteousness was as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). Everything he did he found was not enough and that to the core, he was a wicked being that had no hope of salvation! That is, until he found Ephesians 2:8. Here we see clearly that our salvation is the gift of God, given us by no merit of our own as Scripture clearly shows! We have done nothing to earn this gift, nay, not even said the word (Ephesians 1:4-6). Though yes, we have responsibility, must keep a healthy balance here, that is for another discussion.
So in summery, our anthem of Salvation by Grace through Faith Alone is merely a summery of Eph 2:8. Salvation by Grace: "For by grace you have been saved". Through Faith: "through faith". Alone: "And this is not of your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Eph. 2:9 added for emphasis).

Soli Deo Gloria

Bibidy Bobidy Boo! Interpretation: "A Blog Post About Spiritual Gifts." :D

Some of you may remember how ardently I was a cessationist (one who believes the miraculous gifts have ceased) in times past. Originally, this was due to my interest in John Macarthur’s Dispensational teachings. However, I have grown to see the weaknesses in my former arguments and have changed my views on the issue. This may grate on some of my friend’s beliefs, especially the Reformed ones, but there is no Biblical support whatsoever for a cessation of tongues or prophecy.

My Former Arguments and Refutation

Formerly, I tried to get around 1 Corinthians 12-14 by dancing around the context and plain meaning of words. Firstly, I avoided the fact that prophecy continues until the eternal state (13:8-13) by saying that New Testament prophecy referred to preaching the word. However, preaching is never called prophecy, and this contradicts the context of the passage (prophecy called “revelation” in 14:30). Thus, if prophecy refers to a personal revelation in the context, 1 Corinthians certainly supports supernatural revelation today. I was troubled, due to my former understanding that this undermines scripture. But Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theologymakes a convincing argument that New Testament prophecy was not understood as equal to scripture or the Apostles. I refer the reader to that work to understand this issue more fully.

The only text that I understood to teach the cessation of tongues was 1 Corinthians 14:20-22.

“In the Law it is written, ‘By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to me.’ So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those that believe.”

In this passage, Paul quotes Isaiah 22 which was a passage pronouncing condemnation on Israel. In it, God declares that foreign tongues would be a sign of destruction for them. This was fulfilled when Israel was destroyed by foreigners. Paul goes on to say that, in the same way, tongues are a sign for unbelievers and prophecy is a sign for believers.

Now, I listened to a certain Dispensational pastor try to teach this passage, and he made a case that this means that tongues is a sign of Israel’s destruction and when they were destroyed tongues ceased. He weaved a complex theological framework that, in the end, resulted in reading about three pages of information into this one passage. The question for his interpretation is simple: Is this how Paul intended to apply this passage? First of all, such an interpretation renders the statement that prophecy is a sign for believers a mystery; having a complex interpretation for tongues as a sign but no apparent meaning to prophecy as a sign. Paul’s true meaning will be evident as we follow Paul’s argument.

The context of the passage is the necessity of interpretation of tongues so that order can be maintained. Whatever Paul’s meaning is, it is consistent with the context. This complex spider’s web of doctrines inserted into 1 Corinthians 14:20-22 is a sad mishandling of the text, for it rips it from its larger context. Let us read on in Paul’s argument and the meaning will become evident.

“Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? But if all prophecy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.”

This is Paul’s application of his citation of Isaiah. I had a lot of trouble understanding what is meant here, but by looking closely at this passage, one sees what is meant. The passage says that if unbelievers enter and all speak in tongues he will “think that [the church] is mad.” This, indeed, is how it is a sign of judgment for unbelievers. It banishes them from the fellowship of the church due to the lack of order and interpretation of the tongues spoken in it. This understanding does justice to the context and provides an adequate response to the cessationist interpretation. Also, in accordance with the context, Prophecy is a sign of God’s favor to believers since unbelievers confess that God is “truly among” the church in which it takes place. The point of the passage is that what is said in the church must be understandable so that all may be edified. To go beyond this understanding is to add to the text.

Conclusion

There is not a shred of Biblical evidence that teaches cessationism. Although I deny the forbidding of tongues and prophecy, I also oppose the abuse of them. One church I was in encouraged the open speaking in tongues during the service and in many Pentecostal churches tongues are used loosely and chaos ensues. These are unbiblical extremes. Tongues and prophecy, when rightly used, leads to true godliness, sober living and orderly and fearful worship. Everything is to be unto edification and love, in accordance to the Spirit and founded upon the Word. Praise God for the many blessings and differing gifts He gives to the body of Christ!

Back in Action

I am sorry I haven't been here to update over often. Its not like I have a life or anything! LOL Anyway, I am back with some interesting thoughts on Scripture as I read just last night. I am currently reading through the book of Luke and, as a gentile by blood, find this a most exceedingly fascinating book! I am currently in Chapter 4 and have three observations I wish to make.
The first is on v. 13,

And when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from him until an opportune time. (Luke 4:13)

This is extremely fascinating because it denotes here that Christ was tempted further on in His ministry. Indeed, I believe that it is infact indicative that, part of Christ's being fully human, meant that all His life He was faced with temptation much as we are... well, except that He was perfect while we were made perfect in His sacrifice only. But we must keep Christ's humanity in mind when it concerns the sacrifice of Christ. Without a human sacrifice, it would not suffice for us, humans, who sinned against God and without the lamb being spotless, it would be a meaningless sacrifice.
My next point would be on God's magnificent gift to us, the chosen. Christ made the people of his home town very angry. Why? Because He made plain His mission, that His dominion (His chosen people) would extend beyond the Children of Israel,

And he said, "Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown. But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land, and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian."(Luke 4:24-27)

Note here please that Christ specifically mentions the nationalities of these individuals in contrast to the widows and lepers of Israel. Notice also Christ's Words. He chooses to say, "Elijah was sent" only to the widow of Sidon. Also of the lepers, "none of the were cleansed but only Naaman the Syrian. Christ is here making plain to whom He has be sent to cleanse. We see here that God chooses the foolish things of the world, these are not some elite blood or some supreme hierarchy but the destitute and broken. Christ came to save the Lost.
Lastly, I wanted to observe v.39,

And he stood over her and rebuked the fever, and it left her, and immediately she rose and began to serve them.(Luke 4:39)

Do we not serve an awesome God that even the fevers obey Him?
Until again, Christ be with you brothers and sisters.

Soli Deo Gloria
Patrick Eklektos