The Self-Sufficiency Of Scripture Entails That Sign Gifts Have Ceased

          There has been much heated debate among professing Christians regarding whether certain gifts of the Holy Spirit are still in operation today. The dispute mainly centers on speaking in tongues, prophecy, and miraculous powers to heal. Was the ability to exercise these spiritual gifts terminated by the end of the apostolic age? Further, some on both sides (i.e. cessationism vs. continuationism) uphold extreme positions. While there are people who accuse those who claim to speak in tongues as being demon possessed, others make the claim that those who have never encountered such instances are essentially unbelievers. On the contrary, such notions have no foundation in fact and are only intended to manipulate others into questioning the validity of their own judgment. A study on the sufficiency of Scripture and the purposes of the spiritual gifts in question make it plain that they were to cease after the apostolic era.

          First and foremost, Scripture contains the instructions necessary for salvation (2 Timothy 3:15). It enables the one who serves God to be "adequate" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Paul goes on to define that thought as, "equipped for every good work." Jesus Christ promised the twelve apostles that the Holy Spirit would teach them all things God intended to make known to us (John 14:26; 16:13). The faith has been delivered "once for all" to the saints (Jude 3). Therefore, there are no new revelations from God today. He has given us (in the past tense) everything needed for a life of godliness (2 Peter 1:3-4). As a separate issue, most things in life are not centered around us and what we find to be desirable. We are not to rely on our emotions and personal experiences in discerning truth from error, but rather examine Scripture with a humble, prayerful heart. The testimonial of the apostles and prophets is part of the church's foundation (Ephesians 2:19-20), which logically suggests cessation.

          If a so-called revelatory experience confirms completely to the message of Scripture, then it is simply redundant. If God still gives dreams and visions today, then how can we distinguish truth from error? False messiahs and teachers can arise that perform counterfeit miracles (Ezekiel 13:9; Matthew 24:24; 1 John 4:1-4). How can the canon of Scripture still be considered closed? Tongues were needed to preach the gospel in other languages. Prophets uttered messages from God to give us a fuller picture of His plan of redemption. That ministry exists today only in the sense of edifying people in the faith. We have the more sure word of prophecy recorded in Scripture (2 Peter 1:16-21). He has now spoken fully to man by His Son (Hebrews 1:1-3). The apostles worked miracles for the purpose of establishing the Christian church (2 Corinthians 12:12). Scripture speaks of their performance in the past tense (Hebrews 2:3-4).

           The gifts were given to edify the church, build up the body of Christ, and facilitate the spread of the gospel (Ephesians 4:11-12). As the early church matured and the foundational work of the apostles was completed, the role of these gifts naturally evolved. While the miraculous gifts served as a powerful testimony to the truth of the gospel during the church's formative years, the enduring gifts such as teaching, encouragement, and administration continue to play a crucial role in the church's ongoing mission. These gifts support the daily functioning and spiritual growth of the church community. Some gifts are no longer necessary in their original form. The Spirit of God continually empowers the church through gifts that promote unity, maturity, and effective ministry in accordance with His will.

           Nothing here should be taken to suggest that God does not work miracles or cannot work miraculously today. However, spiritual gifts no longer need be communicated through human instruments because they have fulfilled their designated purposes. We also now possess the Old Testament and the New Testament. Moreover, the gospel is the power of God for salvation to all people who receive it (Romans 1:16). Therefore, those who equate denying the validity of Pentecostal and charismatic claims with denying the power of God fail to grasp the true essence of divine omnipotence. They lose sight of the grander scheme of salvation history with their never ending search for supernatural acts and their need for continued thrill.

          The grace of God is sufficient for all Christians. We ought to accept with humility that His will has things other than what we find pleasurable, possibly even total financial ruin or the loss of family members to terminal illnesses. That many would be prone to frown upon or shy away from such teaching, reflects poorly on the state of Christianity. It can be almost guaranteed that we individually will never have a direct supernatural encounter in this life. This renders hollow the claims of men who have established various sects on the basis of hearing from God. Charismatics and Pentecostals have taken matters too far with their superstitious and childish ideas concerning the divine. They have an endless supply of prophecies that never come to pass. They have an endless supply of healings for which no verification can be given. All of this brings dishonor to the name of Christ.

Dietary Restrictions In The New Testament?

• Defining The Issues:

           -Professing Christian groups such as the Seventh-Day Adventists and Hebrew Roots movement maintain that the New Testament does not abolish the Mosaic distinction of eating clean meats versus eating unclean meats. Those restrictions are listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. However, these dietary laws were intended strictly for Israel. God did not give them to the Egyptians or Canaanites, for instance. This teaching ignores the historical context of dietary restrictions, which was to make the Jews a different people from neighboring countries. They centered around ritual purity.
           -Notice especially the language of New Testament passages discussing Jesus Christ's fulfillment of the Old Covenant such as Romans 10:4, Galatians 3:24-26, Ephesians 2:14-15, and Colossians 2:13-16. He very clearly terminated mandatory observance of Mosaic customs by His crucifixion. That in and of itself eliminates any possibility of us being under compulsion of adhering to dietary regulations. The distinction between Jew and Gentile has been abrogated by God Himself. National boundaries are of no consequence in this regard.

           -This is not a matter of selectively picking which texts to regard as binding over our lives, but properly recognizing their application. It is sound procedure to put the Mosaic dietary restrictions into their rightful context. Moreover, they fit into a broader system of theology, which helps us to appreciate their true significance. While Christianity emerged from Judaism, both remain separate religions. They have different teachings about the Mosaic system. Reintroducing dietary restrictions contradicts every principle on which the gospel stands.

           -Those who desire to reinstate customs of the Old Testament fail to realize that doing so undermines the gospel itself. If we are going to adhere to dietary laws, then why not also revert to performing animal sacrifices? After all, the Law demands perfect obedience (Deuteronomy 27:26; Galatians 3:10-11). No one is able to do so, which is why it condemns us in the first place. The Law of Moses was given as a whole, and was, therefore, intended to be obeyed as a whole (Deut. 6:24; 8:1; 12:28; 27:1; 28:1;58; 31:12; 32:45-47). If Mosaic dietary restrictions are still in effect, then why do the New Testament gospels or epistles never warn us against eating certain kinds of food?

• Jesus Declared All Foods To Be Clean:

           -"because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.) And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man." (Mark 7:19-20)

            *That would logically refer to meat as a general category. Christ was speaking in very broad terms. His point is that corruption stems not from outside us, but from within. The inference to be made from this is that eating meat cannot defile us spiritually. This has been set in stone by God Himself. Thus, no man has the authority or ability to diminish this reality.

• God's Vision To Peter About Cornelius:

           -"But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy. This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.” (Acts 10:10-16, emphasis added)

            *In the vision that the apostle received, God commanded him to kill four-footed animals and eat their flesh. The point being made is that Peter was to be accepting of Gentile converts into the faith. His reaction was one of shock, since he was a Jew. This was obviously something new to him. This text is relevant in that Gentiles do not observe Jewish dietary laws, nor are they to be forced to do so (Galatians 2:13-14).

• The Apostle Paul On Eating Meats:

           -"Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him." (Romans 14:1-3)

            *Those who teach that the dietary laws of the Mosaic system are still in effect have violated the very foundation of gospel teaching. They are not exhibiting a charitable spirit by trying to make other believers act in the same way as themselves.

           -"I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died." (Romans 14:14-15)

            *One may individually choose to forgo eating various meats for the sake of conscience, but cannot legitimately impose such convictions on others. God has given us liberty to choose on this matter. Those who persist in condemning the consumption of meats are doing so not on the basis of divine commandment, but human tradition.
           -"Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense." (Romans 14:20)

            *Obviously, in the Apostle Paul's mind, there are more important matters than what one eats. He focused more on preaching the gospel and godly living. Paul doubles down on his teaching by stressing that there is no food which we may not eat. Compare with 1 Corinthians 8:8.

• Commanding That Others Abstain From Eating Meats Is Heresy: 

           -"But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer." (1 Timothy 4:1-5)

            *Why is this heresy? It calls into question the goodness of God, who created the things that we eat. It reveals a lack of thankfulness on our part, which is an insult to God. He called His creation good, and so did Paul. Further, this gives authority to the apostle's teaching because it shows that he upheld the Old Testament as authoritative. Those who assert that Mosaic dietary restrictions are in place today have fallen into the same error as the early Gnostics spoken of here. Things are made worse when somebody's arrogance is dressed in pious language. It is wicked to denounce as unclean the things that God Himself has sanctioned for us to use.

Identifying The Underlying Causes Of Emotional Pain Is Important

"Rather than seeking to deaden, ignore, or elevate the importance of our emotions, we should allow them to speak to us about our hearts. Because God gave us the ability to experience emotions, we want to be very cautious about ignoring what they may be telling us. We want to carefully consider whether dampening the awareness of our feelings through the use of medication (or alcohol) is the best road for us to take to better health. Medicines or alcohol may make us feel better for a time, even if our "heart problem" is not addressed. For example, we know that morphine dulls the pain of a broken arm. It does not heal or reset the bone, and it does not fix the root cause of the pain. The same is true about medicines and emotional pain. In order to resolve such pain, we need to deal not with the symptoms, but the root cause of the pain."

Elyse Fitzpatrick and Laura Hendrickson, M.D., "Will Medicine Stop the Pain?," p. 32

The Facts About American Slavery

"Politically correct media and school textbooks give the impression that slavery has primarily been a sin committed by white people who enslaved blacks. The fact that only about 25 percent of the Americans in the South had slaves before the Civil War is commonly not mentioned, nor is the fact that (according to the United States census of 1830), for example, 407 black Americans in Charleston, South Carolina, alone owned black slaves."

Alvin J. Schmidt, Under the Influence: How Christianity Transformed Civilization, p. 273

Is It Possible For Christians To Be Possessed By Demons?

          Scripture makes it abundantly clear that genuine Christians cannot be possessed by demons. This truth rests on the foundational reality that believers are owned by God Himself (1 Corinthians 7:23). The sovereignty of God over creation ensures that no power—spiritual or otherwise—can snatch His children from His hand. As Jesus assured, "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand" (John 10:29). Demonic forces, therefore, are utterly incapable of exercising control or dominion over those who belong to God.

          God’s act of redemption is rooted in the unfathomable sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ. Acts 20:28 reminds us that the Church was purchased with Christ’s precious blood—a price of incalculable worth, reflecting the immense value God places on His children. This redemption signifies a divine transaction; we have been bought at an extraordinary price and now belong exclusively to God. As a result, demons have no claim over us. They cannot possess what has been sealed and set apart by the Creator Himself.

          Furthermore, the indwelling presence of God is a profound safeguard against the forces of darkness. 1 John 4:4 declares, "The One who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world." The Holy Spirit’s residence within believers is both a sign of God’s ownership and a shield of divine protection. This Spirit empowers and guides us, affirming our identity as His children (Romans 8:15-16). Demonic entities, as part of the created order, are subordinate to the authority of God. They cannot possess a believer who is indwelt by the Spirit of the Living God. Paul’s assertion in 2 Corinthians 6:16—that believers are the temple of God—underscores this truth. In the sacred dwelling of the Holy Spirit, there is no room for communion with demonic forces.

          Christ’s victory over demonic powers was not merely symbolic but decisive and eternal. Colossians 2:15 vividly depicts Jesus disarming principalities and powers, triumphing over them through His death on the cross. This victory is not confined to history; it actively permeates the lives of believers today. As we remain steadfast in Christ, we partake in His triumph, knowing that the enemy has already been defeated. Through faith, this victory becomes a reality we can claim and live out with confidence.

          The assurance that Christians cannot be possessed by demons carries profound practical implications. It fortifies believers with a sense of security and peace, allowing them to focus wholly on the sanctification process. Freed from the fear of possession, they can pursue growth in holiness, reflecting the character of Christ more fully. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that while possession is impossible, believers may still face demonic oppression or temptation. These attacks, though limited, call for vigilance and reliance on God’s strength.

          Ultimately, the believer’s security in Christ is a testament to God’s unwavering commitment to His people. The triumph of the cross is not only a victory over sin but also a definitive claim of ownership over those redeemed by Jesus. In this truth, Christians can walk confidently, knowing that their lives are securely held in the hands of their Creator—safe from the grasp of any opposing force.

Does God Hate Sinners?

        "The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity." (Psalm 5:5)

        God's Law is perfect. It is a reflection of His character and nature. He cannot allow sin and rebellion into His kingdom. God absolutely despises iniquity. He judges sinners. He punishes sinners. Sin stems forth from the human heart. His wrath is a reality. God cannot simply ignore or overlook our sin. This biblical truth should give rise to a state of concern in people. However, there is good news which counterbalances the bad news of humanity being condemned by God for sin.

        God is gracious, patient, and loving. At the same time, our Creator is holy and just. He is provoked to wrath by our unrighteousness. God's love and hatred are perfect. He hates without sinful intent. To be hated of God means to be under His wrath and judgment. Those whom He loves are those who have found favor in His sight. It was out of His unfathomable love for us that He sent His only begotten Son into this world to make atonement for our sins:

        "but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life." (Romans 5:8-10)

        There exists a debt of sin against God, who is holy, that needed to be settled (Romans 6:23; 1 Corinthians 15:56). No man in his fallen condition could possibly fulfill the necessary demands to make restitution. Thus, Jesus Christ took on human flesh so that we could be reconciled to God. He is without sin. An infinite debt requires a ransom of infinite value, and only God Himself could satisfy that kind of transaction.

        "Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:8-10)

        Jesus is the tangible manifestation of God's love for humanity. He came to bring spiritual life to us. Therefore, those who desire to have fellowship with God must be restored to harmony with Him through faith in Christ. We must have our sins forgiven. We must have our sins removed. God took the initiative to save us, even though we had no merit on our part.

        How can a God of love hate at the same time? God is love, but love is not God Himself. That is not all there is to His character. In fact, there are many aspects of it. He is a complex being. God's provisional love for sinners is not incompatible with His righteous judgment. He has every attribute perfectly. If we are Christians, then God is not only our King but also our Father.

         God does indeed love us, but it is more than warm feelings. He has provided a means for us to escape divine condemnation. The richness of His mercy is unsearchable. He desires reconciliation with sinners, especially those who believe on Christ for salvation. Nevertheless, we should not take these truths lightly. We should abhor sin, just as He does. We should reject it, regardless of the cost. Further, the command for us to love our enemies is rooted in God's provisional love for sinners.

         We are justified by God's grace through faith in Christ. God desires that all men come to salvation (Acts 17:26-31). He wants all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). He has no desire in punishing the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23; 33:10-11). It is not God who sends people to hell. People end up there because that is the eternal destiny they chose for themselves. There is a day coming in which every man will give account of himself to God, so now is the best time to repent of our sins.

How Miracles Illustrate The Foolishness Of Atheism

        Atheists quickly rule out the possibility of miracles because a consistent naturalistic worldview does not allow them to embrace the validity of supernatural realities. They automatically deem false anything that is not observable to the five human senses in their attempts to eliminate God from the equation of life. Following are a number of points that can be used to counter this way of thinking about God and the miraculous: 

        There are indeed rare, yet extraordinary, phenomena, such as recovery from near impossible medical ailments or survival without injury from natural disasters. Further, there has been drastic character transformation in formally malicious people who converted to Christianity. Consider the example of the Apostle Paul, who was a murderer prior to his conversion. It would be more reasonable to attribute such incidents to divine providence than to mere chance.

        We should not make the hasty generalization of dismissing authentic miracles along with counterfeit claims. Authentic experiences serve as evidences for God being at work throughout creation. The real issue is that we lack faith in Him, which is a tendency of our fallen nature. The issue that carries the greatest weight here is whether miracles are even possible.

        Empirical evidence is not the only form of available evidence. There is also eyewitness testimony. One need not assume without proof that the New Testament writings are historically fraudulent, for it has much manuscript evidence favoring its textual veracity. Something is termed miraculous only when no other explanation exists that is scientific.

        Scientific experiments tell us how nature regularly operates under certain conditions, not that miracles are an impossibility. Thus, there exists both natural and supernatural explanations for things that happen. It is because of our scientific knowledge that we can discern whether an occurrence is a miracle. Miracles do not contradict natural laws, but rather transcend them. God has the power to temporarily suspend scientific laws for His own purposes because He created them.

        Furthermore, it is a highly unscientific to assume that God does not exist because such a colossal argument requires that one obtain infinite knowledge about everything. This cannot be done by beings who are finite by design. He is beyond the limited scope of nature. A test-tube will never be capable of coherently explaining the fullness of reality.

        If the God of the Bible does exist (which we maintain that He does), then the case is closed. He can indeed work miracles. Whether one believes in the possibility of miracles is ultimately a matter of underlying philosophical presuppositions about this world. Even if there were no supreme deity governing the universe, atheism would still have no reason to exist or proclaim itself to be true. The concept of moral truths would be no different than our personal appetites.

Human Love Can Become Corrupt

"We may give our human loves the unconditional allegiance which we owe only to God. Then they become gods: then they become demons. Then they will destroy us, and also destroy themselves. For natural loves that are allowed to become gods do not remain loves. They are still called so, but can become in fact complicated forms of hatred."

C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves, p. 8

True Love Entails Self-Sacrifice

"To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket - safe, dark, motionless, airless – it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy, is damnation. The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell."

C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves, p. 121

Is The Office Of The Pope A Fulfillment Of Moses' Seat?

          "After Jesus established His Church and gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, Peter’s chair became the new seat of authority under the New Covenant. This is why, when the Pope officially speaks on a matter of faith and morals with the intention of proclaiming a universal doctrine for the Church (which is rare), we say He is speaking “ex cathedra” (from the “chair”). Jesus’ use of the “chair of Moses” [Matthew 23:1-2] certainly shows a continuum of authority as the New Covenant replaced the Old." (https://www.scripturecatholic.com/qa-seat-moses/)

          A closer examination of Moses' seat reveals a more symbolic and pragmatic role within the framework of theocratic governance. Moses' seat was emblematic of teaching the Pentateuch, the foundational laws of the Hebrew Bible, and encompassed both religious instruction and civil adjudication (Exodus 18:13–27). Those who sat in Moses’ seat wielded authority to interpret and enforce God's laws, but did not possess any mandate to create new doctrines or laws. Their authority was confined to what was divinely established, a key distinction from the idea of papal authority, which purports the ability to articulate new doctrinal declarations under specific conditions.

          Further, if the seat of Moses served as a prophetic precursor to the papal office, it raises questions. Foremost among them: why was the authority of Moses’ seat exercised by multiple leaders simultaneously, rather than centralized under one supreme figure? The distributed nature of this authority contrasts sharply with the Roman Catholic model, which emphasizes the singularity of the pope as the universal shepherd.

          The New Testament provides no linkage between Moses' seat and a “chair of Peter.” Neither does it establish Peter as having successors in an authoritative sense that parallels the imagery of Moses' seat. Even if there were historical evidence of a tradition of succession tied to Moses’ seat (which is absent), it does not logically follow that such succession would extend to the Roman bishopric. Moreover, the Jewish leaders who occupied Moses' seat were never believed to possess infallibility in teaching—a concept central to Roman Catholic dogma concerning the papacy. On the contrary, the gospels portray the scribes and Pharisees, custodians of Moses' seat, as propagators of significant doctrinal errors. Jesus Himself referred to them as "blind guides" (Matthew 23:16) and criticized their elevation of human traditions to divine status (Matthew 15:1–9).

         While Jesus instructed His followers to heed the teachings derived from the Law and the Prophets as communicated by these leaders, He concurrently warned against emulating their hypocrisy and corruption (Matthew 23:3). The religious leaders of Jesus' time prioritized outward displays of piety and public recognition over genuine devotion to God. Their motivations were rooted in human praise, earning them earthly rewards rather than divine favor.

          Significantly, Matthew 23 highlights the dangers of authoritarian leadership when it becomes disconnected from genuine humility and accountability. Jesus rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for using their positions of authority to burden others with heavy, oppressive expectations while failing to offer meaningful guidance or assistance (Matthew 23:4). This pattern of spiritual leadership contrasts starkly with Christ’s model of servant leadership, which prioritizes humility, compassion, and serving others (Matthew 20:25–28). A similar critique can be directed toward the concept of centralized papal authority, which, over the centuries, has at times led to the imposition of doctrines and practices that have weighed heavily on the faithful, sometimes without adequate biblical justification.

          Another key issue lies in the nature of authority itself as described in Matthew 23. Jesus explicitly warned against seeking honorific titles or positions that elevate oneself above others, stating, “You have one Teacher, and you are all brothers” (Matthew 23:8). He admonished the scribes and Pharisees for their desire to be called “rabbi” and for placing themselves in a position of spiritual superiority over others (Matthew 23:8–12). This teaching undermines the hierarchical model of authority embraced by the Roman Catholic Church, where the pope is seen as occupying the highest seat of honor. Such practices contradict the egalitarian ethos promoted by Christ, who emphasized humility and mutual service among His followers.

          Throughout Matthew 23, Jesus condemns the scribes and Pharisees for their focus on external appearances, such as their elaborate garments and public displays of piety, rather than fostering a heart-centered relationship with God (Matthew 23:5–7). This critique resonates today when evaluating the formal and ritualistic elements of the Roman Catholic Church. Even if liturgical practices have spiritual value, they become empty formalities when divorced from genuine faith and devotion. Jesus’ warning against this type of superficial religiosity calls for a return to the simplicity and authenticity of worship that prioritizes God over human traditions. The reliance on lineage and tradition as justifications for papal authority mirrors the claims of the scribes and Pharisees, whom Jesus rebuked for placing undue emphasis on ancestral ties and human traditions (Matthew 3:7–9; Mark 7:7–13). If the leaders occupying Moses’ seat could err so gravely despite their lineage, then historical succession alone cannot guarantee doctrinal purity or divine favor. This continuity of human fallibility offers a stark caution against equating institutional heritage with spiritual authority.