Some arguments against the Pre-Trib view of the rapture.

All Scripture quotes are in bold and taken from the ESV

After studying my Bible and reading multiple books from different angles, I have come to the conclusion that the Bible does not teach a Pre-Trib Rapture. I see some excellent points from the Post-Tribulation view in their responses to the Pre-Trib view, but there are also some flaws in their view that I can see as well. I don't plan on focusing on those since this note is focusing on why I don't believe the Pre-Trib view, and why I do believe the Pre-Wrath view. I don't mean to pick on the Pre-Trib view, but that is what I grew up with and that is what most people I know believe.

Why did I even start looking into this? I always saw contradictions in the Pre-Trib view. No one could ever show me any passage in Scripture that solidly defended the Pre-Trib view of the rapture and so I started to study the matter. I was somewhat surprised to find that one of the great proponents of the Pre-Trib Rapture, Dr. John F. Walvoord in his book The Rapture Question, said "neither posttribulationism nor pretribulationism is an explicit teaching of Scripture. The Bible does not, in so many words, state either."

First of all, let me say that all of the views teach in accordance with 1 Thessalonians 1:10 and 5:9 that we as believers will be delivered from the wrath of God. But there is also disagreement on this topic as well. Pre-Tribbers for the most part seem to believe that the entire 7-year period of the tribulation is the wrath of God. However, Pre-Wrath, Mid-Trib and Post-Tribbers believe that there are two separate wraths in Daniel's Seventieth Week - the wrath of man/Antichrist (or the wrath of Satan) and the wrath of God. Nowhere in the Bible can we find any Biblical support that backs up the claim that the entire time is the wrath of God. I ask anyone that wants to defend the Pre-Trib view to show me if they know of one.

THE PRE-WRATH RAPTURE

Let me first give a very brief summary of the main premise of the Pre-Wrath view. Daniel's Seventieth week will begin, and then there will be 3.5 years of peace. Then the Antichrist begins his persecution of Christians - the Great Tribulation. Somewhere near the end of his 3.5 years of persecution, his time is cut short - Matthew 24:22 - for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. How is the persecution cut short? With the Rapture - he no longer has Christians to persecute. The Christians are in heaven at this point and the remnant of Israel will be protected. This gives enough time for God's wrath (the rest of the Seventieth week) to be poured out on the earth, the one-third remnant of Israel prophesied by Zechariah, and it gives time for some of the others who refused to take the mark of the Antichrist to be saved. I know this isn't very thorough, but it gives you the main gist of the view.

DEALING WITH SCRIPTURE

1 Thessalonians 5:2 - "For you yourselves are fully aware that the Day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night."
Revelation 3:3 - "Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you."
2 Peter 3:10 - "But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up."

Pre-Tribbers will say that these verses teach that the Day of the Lord immediately follows the rapture, so the entire seventieth week has to be the Day of the Lord or the wrath of God. They are correct that this passage teaches us that the Day of the Lord is the time of the Wrath of God. However, they are reading into these verses the idea that the rapture begins the Seventieth week. But I believe their logic is correct that the Day of the Lord immediately follows the rapture. But who is Christ coming to like a thief? Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 5:4, "But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief." So, he will not be coming as a thief to us.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 - "Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the Day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God."

This passage of Scripture says very plainly that the Day of the Lord will NOT BEGIN until after the Antichrist is revealed and sits in the temple claiming to be God. So building on 2 Peter 3:10, we see that Christ comes as a thief in the night AFTER the Antichrist is revealed. So any talk of Christ's Pre-Tribulation coming like a thief CONTRADICTS Scripture. 1 Thessalonians tells us we WON'T be surprised like a thief. In Matthew 24:32-33, Christ says, "From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates." A few verse later in verse 36, he goes on to tell us that we don't know the day or the hour, but in 1 Thessalonians 5:1, Paul tells us that we DO know the times and the seasons.

THE OLIVET DISCOURSE

Grab your Bible and turn to Matthew 24. Please read that chapter before continuing because I am not going to write out the entire chapter. Pre-Tribbers try to explain this passage away saying that because Christ was talking to the disciples, he was speaking to Jews, and since this passage contradicts the Pre-Trib view, it MUST only apply to Jews, meaning that that there are now 2 Second Comings, but there is no mention in Scripture of Christ coming secretly to rapture and then coming back again seven years later with the Church (all believers) in tow. There are over 20 parallels between Matthew 24 and 1&2 Thessalonians showing that these are speaking of the SAME coming. When Jesus is speaking to his disciples right before his ministry on earth ends, he tells them to go and teach others ALL that he had told them. So, I would say that this passage would fall under that all.

Now to discuss Matthew 24. In verse 3, the disciples ask Jesus what sign they will see that will signify his coming and the end of the age. Verse 6 speaks of wars and rumors of wars and that these must take place before the end. Then in verse 7 there will be nations rising against nation and famines and earthquakes. Verse 8 says these are just the beginning of the birth pains meaning that these may be bad, but it is going to get worse. In verse 9, Jesus tells them they will be delivered up to tribulation and put to death and hated by ALL nations. Then in verse 10 people will begin to fall away and verse 11 brings false prophets. Verse 12 speaks of lawlessness being increased. Verse 13 tells us that those who endure to the end (assuming based on other Scripture that this will be the ones that don't take the mark of the beast and live) will be saved. Verse 14 speaks of the gospel being proclaimed throughout the world, and then the end will come.

In verses 15 and following, he expands on what he just said. He tells them that when you see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, flee to the mountains. For then the great tribulation will come - worse than anything before it, and he states that THERE WILL NEVER BE ANYTHING WORSE THAN THIS LATER. (This refutes those that say this is speaking of persecution that came late in the first century.) Then in verse 22, those days of the tribulation are cut short for the sake of the elect. He then warns of false teachers. Verse 27 states that his coming will be very noticeable (not secret) because it will be like lightning that comes from the east but it shines to the west.

Verse 29 says that immediately after the tribulation of those days (the wrath of Antichrist), the sun will be darkened, and the moon will be dark and the stars will fall from heaven. Then the world will see Christ coming on the clouds of heaven with power and glory and the angels will be sent out with a loud trumpet call and gather the elect from all over. If that isn't the rapture, I don't know what is. But notice that Christ tells them they will go through the Great Tribulation of the Antichrist.

Now on to verses 36 and following. Verse 36 is where Christ says that we will not know the day or hour Christ will come. Then he begins to compare the end times with the days of Noah. The world is extremely wicked at the time, and the unbelievers were unaware of their follies until the day when Noah entered the ark. He says his coming will be just like this. This brings us to another sub-discussion before we continue on in Matthew 24. When did Noah enter the ark, and when did the judgment of God begin?

Read Genesis 7:1-16 before continuing on. In verses 1-3, God tells Noah to gather the animals and in verse 4 he continues the discussion by telling Noah that in seven days, God will send the rain. Verses 5-9 tell us that Noah went out and gathered the animals and then entered the ark with his family. Verse 10 says that after seven days the waters of the flood came upon the earth. Many Pre-Tribbers say that if you look at verses 4-10, they say that Noah entered the ark seven days before the rain began which symbolizes Christians being taken to safety for the seven years. However this argument falls flat on its face.

Verse 10 doesn't say that seven days after Noah entered the ark, the floods came. It just states that what God told him came true. God told him when he commanded Noah to gather animals that after 7 days, the flood would begin, and verse 10 verifies that it happened. Verses 11 and following prove that Noah wasn't on the ark 7 days before the rain started. Verse 11 tells us the exact day of Noah's life that the floods started. Verse 12 tells us the rains continued for 40 days and nights. Verse 13 is the key here. It says "On the very same day Noah and his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah's wife and the three wives of his sons with them entered the ark." On the very same day that the flood began, Noah entered the ark. So there goes that symbolism argument. Instead realize that if this is supposed to be symbolic, Noah was taken to safety on that seventh day, but we are not told what time of day. This would symbolize Christ rapturing his elect sometime during the seventh year, but we don't know the day or hour. This fits Scripture.

Back to Matthew 24. Verses 40-41 tell of people being together and all of a sudden one is not with them. And Jesus speaks again of the coming of a thief and that we must be ready.

So, from this quick look at Matthew, you can see why Pre-Tribbers want to throw this passage out of the mix. It completely refutes the idea of a Pre-Trib Rapture. Here is a fun test I learned from some other Pre-Wrathers. Ask a Pre-Trib believer when Christ is coming back. How will he/she respond? We can't know the hour or the day that he is returning. Now where did they get that idea from? Matthew 24:36&44. But I thought Matthew 24 wasn't speaking of the rapture but was speaking only to the Jews that would be present during the Tribulation. Here you see what I like to call the Pre-Trib Double Standard. You take a passage that you say doesn’t apply, but there are a couple verses that you like the sound of, so you use them to defend your point of view. Is that a good way of doing things?

HOW LONG IS THE GREAT TRIBULATION?

You hear it taught as the seven years of the tribulation in many Pre-Trib circles. Ask yourself where this is taught in the Bible. Yes Daniel speaks of the Seventieth week. But this doesn’t say the whole time is the tribulation. Instead, we know that there will be peace for 3.5 years - hardly tribulation. Then at the mid-point of the Seventieth week, we have the abomination of desolation. Then begins the Great Tribulation. If the Antichrist reigns for the full 3.5 years, then we would know the exact day of the Day of the Lord - 3.5 years after the abomination of desolation. But Christ says that we can't know the exact day. Jesus also tells us that those days will be shortened. So, the only thing we can say about the length of the tribulation is that it is less than 3.5 years, not 7.

DOES JESUS COME WITH HIS SAINTS OR FOR HIS SAINTS?

Pre-Tribbers tell us that the Rapture of the Church and the Second Coming of Christ are 2 different events. They say that at the rapture, He is coming FOR His saints, and at the second coming, He is coming WITH His saints. They used Jude 14 to try to support this. Jude 14 tells us, "Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousands of His saints." Pre-Tribbers tell us that this means he is coming after the tribulation with his raptured saints. However, Jude 14 is quoting Enoch. Pre-Tribbers also teach that the Church is a mystery not revealed in the Old Testament. See a contradiction? Enoch is actually speaking of Christ coming with his "holy ones." What else could his "holy ones" be? If you look at Matthew 24, he comes with his angels and gathers the elect and the Day of the Lord begins. I believe Jude 14 is speaking of the angels. So, the answer is that Christ comes WITH his angels FOR us.

IMMINENCE

Pre-Tribbers tell us that the coming of the Lord is imminent - He can come at any moment, and that this has been taught from Paul until now. They then go on to say that there are signs that precede the coming of Christ, such as the reestablishment of national Israel. Now, how could Christ's coming be imminent before the reestablishment of Israel? CONTRADICTION! Matthew 24 tells us that Christ will come after the cosmic disturbances.

DOESN'T REVELATION 4 CONTAIN THE RAPTURE?

This is one of the things that has really bugged me every time I was taught about the Pre-Trib Rapture. I was told that Revelation 4:1 was the rapture. What does that verse say? "After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, 'Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.'" Why does God calling John up into heaven have to be the rapture? There is no mention of the resurrection of the dead, he does not meet Jesus in the air, no angels are present, and no ceremony takes place in heaven. Later on, when John goes back to earth long before Armageddon, why doesn’t this speak of Christian coming back to earth? That would be consistent. The fact that John goes back and forth does serious damage to his idea.

Revelation chapter 6 describes something that sounds exactly like the cosmic disturbances in Matthew 24 that occur right before Christ comes with his angels and gathers his elect and the Day of the Lord is ushered in. Notice that in Matthew 24, the angels gathered the elect from the 4 corners of the earth. Revelation chapter 7 starts out with the four angels at the four corners of the earth. They seal the 144,000 of the tribe of Israel that will be protected on earth during the wrath of God, then verse 9 and following shows us a great multitude that no one can number from every nation standing before the throne of God and rejoicing about their salvation. One of the elders present asks who this multitude is. The answer in verse 14 is "these are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." Therefore, I believe, and the Pre-Wrath view teaches, that the rapture occurs in Revelation 7, not 4.

But others argue that since the word "Church" isn't used after Revelation 3, then the church must not be present. Notice that the word Church is only mentioned when John is giving a direct quote of Jesus and then he isn't talking in a universal sense. Now, leaving out only where he quotes someone else, when does John say the word Church in all of his writings? Nowhere. He speaks of the saints and sometimes the elect. And also, John describes events in heaven as well, but doesn't mention the church. By the Pre-Trib logic, the church can't be in heaven at this time either. Where are they? So you see the argument that the word Church isn't mentioned does not hold water and I think it is really quite a stretch.

DOESN'T SCRIPTURE SAY WE WILL BE SPARED FROM WRATH?

Revelation 3:10, 1 Thessalonians 5:9, and Isaiah 26:19-21 say that we will be spared from wrath or the testing to come. Pre-Tribbers say this is the entirety of the seventieth week. Where is the basis for this? There is none in Scripture. It is entirely consistent with Scripture to say that this wrath or testing is the same as the Wrath of God.

CONCLUSION

Well, I haven't given every response against Pre-Trib that I can think of. That would require a book. This is just a short summary of a few of the things that I have issues with in the Pre-Trib view and how they don't contradict the Pre-Wrath view of the rapture.

If you want to comment on any of my arguments or throw out any other arguments for the Pre-Trib view that I have not already raised, feel free. I will take a look at them and get back to you on what you write. See, I am trying to be like the Bereans - searching the Scriptures daily to see if these things are true. I urge you to do the same. Don't just believe something because it is what you have been taught all your life. Search the Scriptures and if you don't understand something seek out help. But if you look to books, don't just look at those that agree with what you already believe. See what the responses are to what you believe, and if you can defend it or if someone else can. That is what makes you stronger in what you already believe or points out your errors.

If you want to research the PreWrath view further, please check out this site.

Or purchase this book.

The Gospel of Judas

So, I've had 2 people at work already throw the "Gospel of Judas" in my face saying that my Bible is wrong. So I thought I'd write about Judas today.

The first thing that aggravates me about this "gospel" is that they have known about this for a while, even had time to do a National Geographic documentary on it, and yet they didn't put it into the headlines or news until a couple weeks before Easter. If it isn't a tv sitcom making a blatant mockery of Christ, the cross, or Christianity in general right before Easter, it's got to be something else. Mainstream media hates Christianity and has to do anything it can to try to "disprove" it and turn people away from it. Judas is just another example. And yet they don't try to mock Islam or Hinduism, or any other religion right before one of their holy days. And when Islam gets mocked by a cartoon, they talk about banning the cartoon from the papers. Christianity gets mocked by political cartoons and sitcoms several times a week, and there is no public outcry about banning these things. The only time Christians cry out about it is around Easter. And I'm getting off the subject now.

The "Gospel of Judas" is not a true gospel. It is a gnostic gospel written in the second century - probably around 150 or a little earlier. But people are trying to make it sound like it is the accurate writing even though it contradicts the Bible so much. Why should this be the "accurate" one, when the 4 canonical gospels all agree with each other? Because the world hates Christianity. Even in the early writings of Irenaeus (around 182-188), this "gospel" was known of and it was considered heretical gnostic fiction. I had already responded to one of the people at work about how this "gospel" is so different from Biblical Christianity that it shouldn't even be considered relevant to the Bible, when I checked out my favorite website http://www.aomin.org and found what James White had to say about this. I close with the following quote from James that would be a good response to anybody that tries to throw Judas in your face:

So should someone come up to you at work going, "Hey, Bob, I know you are a Christian, but how about that Gospel of Judas! Sure throws your Bible into a tailspin, doesn't it?" just smile and respond, "Hey, I heard about that. I've been wondering all morning how a work of fiction written more than a century after the fact by a writer seeking to promote a completely different religion than that of Christ and the Apostles that doesn't have a shred of historical foundation to stand on could possibly get so much major air time. You think they'd give the same amount of attention to something that reflected badly on Mohammed? Nah, probably not. So, did you hear anyone actually talking about the vast differences between the real gospels and this work of fiction this morning?"

Are modern day tongues the tongues of the New Testament?

This is a post on tongues that I made on the xanga site not_blind_faith which is basically a theology discussion blog. Anyway, I thought I'd slightly revise it and put it on here.

Let me say first that I am a noncessationist. I don’t believe that tongues have completely ceased, but rather are lying dormant, and very rarely does God still use them. What is going on in many churches today is not New Testament tongues.

This has two parts. The first part is more of a preachy section from Scripture, and the second is more from personal experience of myself and some friends. In the first section, I have 4 main points, and if anybody here has read “The Final Word” by O. Palmer Robertson (which I highly recommend if you haven’t read it), then you’ll recognize these 4 points from the section on tongues. And some of this is quotes from the book because some places I can't put any better or clear than Robertson has, but I’m not using quotation marks for the quotes from the book because I don't have the time. If I had the time, I’d just retype the whole section of the book.

1. New Testament tongues were revelational.

Unless a person is willing to allow for continuing revelation beyond the Scriptures, the “tongues” heard today cannot be the same as the tongues of the New Testament. In I Corinthians 14:2 Paul says, “He who speaks in a tongue utters mysteries.” The meaning of the word mysterion in the NT inherently includes the idea of the communication of divine revelation. A “mystery” in the NT is a truth about God’s way of redemption that once was concealed but now has been revealed. If you don’t include I Cor. 14:2, mystery appears 27 times in the NT, and each time it is speaking of something once hidden but now revealed (Matthew 13:11; Rom 11:25, 16:25; I Cor. 2:1&7, 4:7, 13:2, 15:51, Eph 1:9, 3:3-4&9, 6:19-20 just to name a few). In this case, one who “utters mysteries” is communicating truth that has been made known to him by divine revelation.

I Corinthians 14:4-5 says that prophecy is greater than tongues because it edifies the church, unless the speaker of the tongues interprets which brings it up to equality with prophecy. Tongues, like prophecy are a verbal gift and verbal gifts edify by communicating understanding. So it is understanding that edifies, and the hearers of tongues won’t be edified by it, unless it is interpreted. I tongues are equal to prophecy when they are interpreted, then they would have an equal purpose. What was the purpose of prophecy? The intent was to communicate his verbally-inspired, infallible and inerrant Word to his people. By speaking in tongues, a person was delivering the very Word of God, completely infallible and inerrant.

For this reason, the tongues being spoken today in the Pentecostal/Charismatic churches cannot be the same as the New Testament tongues without saying that God’s revelation is not complete.

2. New Testament tongues were foreign languages.

Acts 2:6, where tongues first appeared, says “Each one heard them speaking in his own language.” There is no indication anywhere in Scripture that the tongues being spoken in the church after Pentecost had changed. Acts 10:47 says that the Gentiles who had spoken in tongues did so because “the Spirit came on them just as it did on us at the beginning.” This is evidence that the tongues had indeed not changed. So, the tongues being spoken in Acts 2:6 by the apostles is the same as in Caesarea by the Gentiles – speaking in a foreign language never studied by them. So, one would assume that these same tongues were the ones being spoken in Acts 19:7 when they were at Ephesus. Paul visited Corinth before this visit to Ephesus, so the tongues that he would be talking to the Corinthians about must be the same as in Acts 2.

Both in Acts and I Corinthians, tongues are spoken of as “other tongues.” The Greek here is may be translated as “other languages.” The tongues in I Corinthians were translatable, which suggests that they were actual foreign languages. Because the tongues of the first century were foreign languages, the tongues of today, which do not appear to be foreign languages, must be regarded as a phenomenon not endorsed by the New Testament Scriptures.

3. New Testament tongues were for public consumption, not private use.

All gifts of the Spirit were for the benefit of Christ’s church. By a gift of the Spirit, one person is enabled to minister to others. In I Corinthians 14:18-19, Paul thanks God that he speaks tongues more than all of the Corinthians. He is contrasting his experience in speaking in tongues, which was for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom in general, with the practice of tongues that were going on in Corinth because they were putting too much emphasis on speaking in tongues. He says the in a church setting, among the body of believers, he would rather speak 5 words they could understand than speak ten thousand words in tongues. Paul shows here that the emphasis should be on the edification of the body of believers which he said earlier in the chapter can’t be accomplished without an interpreter. New Testament tongues were never meant for private consumption. If tongues are a gift for the church, they should be brought out into the open for the benefit of the church.

I Corinthians 14:28 states that if no “interpreter” is present to provide the meaning of what someone has said in a tongue, then the speaker must keep silent in the church, and must “speak to himself and to God.” This doesn’t endorse a private gift that doesn’t function publicly in the church. The whole point of this passage is to provide orderly control of multiple gifts as they function in the church. “Two or at the most three” should speak in tongues, and someone must interpret according to I Cor. 14:27. The question here is not whether or not tongues are private or public. Instead, the question is when tongues may function in the assembly, and the answer is that tongues may function properly in the church only when there is an interpreter present.

4. New Testament tongues were a sign.

In Acts 2:16-21, it is indicated that by speaking in tongues they were fulfilling Joel’s prophecy. Joel said that sons and daughters would prophecy. He doesn’t say anything about speaking in tongues, but if the apostles’ act of speaking in tongues is truly a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, then speaking in tongues is a form of prophecy.

Tongues is mentioned explicitly 3 times in the Old Testament (Isaiah 28:11; Deut. 28:49; Jeremiah 5:15). These three passages indicate that tongues are a sign of covenantal curse for Israel – when foreign languages overrun Israel, they will be a sign that God’s judgment has come. Paul explains the passage from Isaiah. He says that tongues are a sign (I Cor. 14:22). In this case, tongues function as a sign in the history of redemption indicating that God is making a change. God was indicating that he would no longer speak a single language to only one single people. Before this time, God had only spoken to Israel. By the gift of tongues at Pentecost, God indicates that He intends to speak in many languages to many peoples. Tongues signified a distinctive judgment for Israel. Jesus speaks of this same judgment when he says in Matthew 21:43, “The kingdom shall be taken from you and given to a people bringing forth the fruit thereof.” Tongues served as a sign of judgment for Israel, but also as a sign of the great blessings of God to all the nations of the world, including Israel. The new covenant was for people of all nationalities, not just for Israel. Tongues marked the transition to a truly world-wide gospel.

Think of a road sign that tells you a sharp turn is coming up so you need to be careful. That road sign is helpful and you are thankful for it. But once you pass that sharp turn, you don’t need the road sign because it doesn’t help you anymore. Tongues were a sign to indicate a change of direction, and that change has been taken, and just as that road sign, they are not needed anymore.

Tongues were a revelation from God of His divine truth. But we now have the Bible which is the perfect revelation from God, so there is no further prophetic word that is needed from tongues. The divine mystery is now fully revealed in Scripture. So, instead of speaking in tongues, we are now to use the Bible. Just as tongues were “a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers (I Cor. 14:22),” the Scripture is what we need to proclaim to unbelievers. Paul goes on to say that prophecy (Scripture) not tongues is what will ultimately make believers out of unbelievers.

Like I said earlier, the second section of my response is from personal experience. I have visited a couple churches before that had “tongues” speaking going on and they definitely weren’t anything near what the New Testament talks about. I was at a church that was a “non-denominational” church but was pretty much a Pentecostal/Charismatic church. I was sitting there listening to the sermon, and about every 5 or 6 minutes the preacher would speak some gibberish that sounded pretty much like the same 10 or 12 words being spoken over and over again and people started yelling out praise God because the pastor was speaking in “tongues.” It was not edifying, but actually more distracting than anything else. And then people around me started speaking gibberish, all at the same time as each other. The Bible says that no more than 2 or 3 should speak in tongues, and not at the same time, and only with an interpreter. There was no interpreter, so they basically violated all the rules about speaking tongues within a church even if tongues were around today.

A missionary in South America that I know knew many languages and dialects from the region in which he was ministering. He visited a church, and people started speaking in “tongues” and the missionary got out as fast as he could. The people were actually saying demonic chants praising Satan and cursing Jesus. Now, I’m not saying that all churches where they speak “tongues” are praising Satan, but you kinda gotta wonder about it.

The reason I am a noncessationist is because of one other person that I know that was sitting in a Baptist church that was completely anti-tongues, and all of a sudden one of the deacons stood up and started speaking something that none of the members of the church understood. An oriental couple was there visiting because they had been invited by another couple that had been trying to witness to them. They understood what the person was saying because he was speaking the dialect of the area that the oriental couple had come from. The couple proceeded to accept Christ because this man that never had studied any other language than English had spoken the gospel in their language. That story was told to me by someone that I would trust with my life, so that’s why I don’t think tongues have completely ceased. But they are more likely in a dormant state, and God uses them every now and then. And besides, early church fathers around the second and third centuries were puzzled when they read of tongues, because apparently tongues-speaking was not occurring that they knew of.

Sorry this is so long, but that’s all for now.

Semper Reformanda - the main idea is that we are always reforming. We can never allow ourselves to get bogged down in our traditions. We need to be open to what God's Word teaches us. So many times, Christians don't want to believe what the Bible shows is true. Why? Because they are stuck in their traditions. Their church always told them this, but the Bible says that. Surely the Bible can't be contradicting what their pastor told them. But of course it can - pastors are fallible men; the Bible is the perfect Word of God. But people get so caught up in traditions of men. You tell them this, and they say they have no traditions. But as James R. White says "It's those who claim to have no traditions that are most enslaved by them."