INTRODUCTION
Perhaps one of the most asked questions in current Christian circles has to be: Is this "Toronto blessing" from God? Before assessing this issue, it will be important to examine some historical background regarding this movement. In addition, I will define terms and individuals affiliated with this alleged revival. Although I do not consider this paper to be a complete work on the subject (and possibly lacking in areas of discussion since the entire movement carries considerable influences from other movements beyond the scope of this work), I will present both sides of the issue concerning the "Toronto blessing."
In this paper you may cover information both uncomfortable and even distressing. However, I believe that the Bible mandates believers to examine doctrinal issues.(1) Positive ones are to be praised and negative ones are to be rejected and dismissed. Credence ought not be given to a position whose goal is to assimilate the Christian faith either directly or indirectly. Upon the presentation of the issue at hand, a fair treatment of both sides will be given.
Why this paper now? The answer to the question is quite profound and leads me to two
primary contentions. First, there is no good evidence to suggest that the "Toronto blessing" is a
true revival. Second, there is good evidence to suggest that Scripture is in opposition to the
activities involved in this movement. Due to the fact that the rise of the "Toronto blessing" is
relatively new, the availability of data is minimal. Thus, this discussion will only serve as a
preliminary study to the alleged new revival. The need for a work such as this one is escalating as
I continue to witness friends and affiliates becoming involved in this supposed move of God. The
goal of this paper is not to separate or divide but to, in the words of Christian scholar D.A.
Carson, offer a plea for realism.(2) In the opening sections I will define terms, present individuals,
and present the apologetic for this alleged revival. Following will be an assessment of the
apologetic of the "Toronto blessing" and an overview of the truth of the Christian faith.
WHERE DID IT ALL BEGIN?
The main proponent and widely disputed minister of the "holy laughter" movement has to be Rodney Morgan Howard-Browne. Born June 12, 1961 in Port Elizabeth, South Africa, Howard-Browne was to become the most influencing factor of the now-called "Toronto Blessing." What do the terms holy laughter and Toronto blessing mean? "Holy laughter" might properly be defined as the manifestation of immense joy-producing-laughter presumably bestowed upon a Christian who is being overcome or deeply infilled with the Holy Spirit. The "Toronto blessing" is the utilization of "holy laughter" and other alleged manifestations (e.g. barking, growling, trembling, etc. . .) in order to cause internal satisfaction and an overwhelming sensation ultimately leading the one "blessed" into a motivation for preaching the gospel (more on the "Toronto blessing's" origin in a moment). This is all accomplished, of course, in the name of the Holy Spirit and His "signs and wonders" promised the Church.(3) Howard-Browne himself became a minister at the age of 18, doubling the age he was when he was "baptized by the Spirit." After having graduated from Rhema Bible Training Center(4) and subsequently becoming pastor of Full Gospel Church of God in Molteno (Cape Province), he, his wife Adonica (married October of 1981), and three children found themselves on the road to Tampa, Florida where Rodney's ministry took a turn for the worst. . ."holy laughter." Thanks to pioneers such as pastor Karl Strader of Carpenter's Home Church in Lakeland, Florida who have allowed Howard-Browne to invoke this mess called "holy laughter," he has succeeded immensely in spreading this event to Churches both national and international. Now, since 1993, the "holy laughter" movement has taken off. Howard-Browne's church services can be seen on the renowned Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) headed by Paul and Jan Crouch.(5) The "holy laughter" has now entered practically every major city in the United States and Canada. Opponents, however, are blocking its spread.
In 1993, pastor Randy Clark of the Vineyard Church in St. Louis, Missouri ventured to witness Rodney Howard-Browne's "spiritual anointing" at a meeting at Rhema Bible Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma. There, Clark swallowed up the "holy laughter" move and began envisaging it for his own church back home. Back at his Vineyard church, the phenomena launched a resounding echo into the curious ears of Toronto Airport Vineyard pastor John Arnott.(6) Arnott invited Randy Clark to put on a four-day conference at the Vineyard in Toronto on January 20, 1994. Needless to say that this phenomenon became successful. In fact, by the month of October, an approximation of 100,000 people (including 6,000 pastors) have sought this "blessing."(7) Further, this "blessing" spread to Britain's Vineyard churches beginning May 29, 1994. This move is accredited to Eleanor Mumford who presented it to Holy Trinity Brompton (a charismatic Anglican church in the Knightsbridge neighborhood in London).
With a widespread influence on churches in America, opponents of the "Toronto blessing" have manned their battle stations in a desperate attempt to halt this rapidly spreading movement. Author of Christianity in Crisis and host of nationally syndicated Christian program "The Bible Answer Man," President Hank Hanegraaff of the Christian Research Institute has waged war against what he calls "the counterfeit revival." Hanegraaff believes that this movement "[gives] Christianity a black eye."(8) As he travels the U.S., he continues to plea to Christians everywhere that this "blessing" is a fraudulent move without anything whatsoever to do with the Holy Spirit. Needless to say, the protagonists and antagonists of the "Toronto blessing" have divided churches all over the world in an attempt to sway Christians to each's side. Hanegraaff presents us with a challenge that this paper will attempt to incur.
Now that we have seen major proponents of each side, their influence appears to be quite
profound. I believe history is in the making with the "Toronto blessing" and the "holy laughter"
movement as we continue to see its rise into the following years. The question before us is this:
Who is right? Now I will turn to arguments offered in support of the movement. Following will
be responses to each in an attempt to defend the position I personally hold. I invite the reader to
reach a decision based on the facts presented and not on emotional criteria in a desperate attempt
to reconcile division. If this movement is not of God then the division is justified. I believe that
the antecedent to this claim can be answered in the affirmative as will be defended below.
ANSWERS TO ARGUMENTS FOR THE "TORONTO BLESSING"
Before beginning with the arguments in favor of the "Toronto blessing," I believe it is
important to begin with a disclaimer. Perhaps some individuals may dismiss my paper because of
its attempt to "put God in a box." Let me just make a couple of quick points. First, it would not
be putting God in a "box" if God Himself precludes the "holy laughter" phenomena. Second, God
is limited by the constraints that He puts on Himself. That is, there happen to be things that God
cannot do. As examples, God cannot lie or cease to exist. This isn't because God is put in a
"box" but rather because these acts contradict His nature and His Word (the Bible). Thus, one
must wrestle with the arguments given and not with question-begging precepts (for more, see
heading #3 below).
1. The major characteristics of past revivals demonstrate that "holy laughter" is of the Holy Spirit. One of the main thrusts of the "laughing evangelist" Rodney Howard-Browne and other affiliates is the constant allegation that these phenomena occurred in the Great Awakening of the 1740's and the Second Awakening in the early 1800's. Julia Duin, editor of the Daily News in Farmington, New Mexico, in an interview with Howard-Browne admits that, "a key element in his apologetic . . . [is] that 'holy laughter' happened during the Great Awakening . . . and the Second Awakening . . ."(9) Indeed, there were recorded manifestations of laughing, grunting, dancing, barking, and so forth. Further, names of predominant Church leaders have been used by advocates of "holy laughter" in order to attest credibility to these phenomena. For example, "Howard-Browne reels off the names of famous American evangelists Charles Finney, Peter Cartwright, George Whitefield, and Jonathan Edwards to bolster his case . . ."(10) This has led "holy laughter" advocates to believe and teach that early revivalists endorsed such a practice.
Essentially two arguments are presented here. First, it is alleged that "holy laughter" phenomena were present and accepted during the historic revivals. Second, it is assumed that the predominant figures of the revivals endorsed such practices. As convincing a position that his may seem, it ultimately distorts the facts concerning the true historiographical information. When one examines the background and belief system of each individual cited, the evidence precludes any endorsement of the "holy laughter." Jonathan Edwards himself, for example, was opposed to charismatic or "involuntary" manifestations extant today. In addition, Charles Finney only mentioned having "indescribable joy" through the placement of his handkerchief over his head.(11) Any emotional phenomena (which he called "religious affections") were strictly taboo. This is not to say that he opposed all spiritual manifestations but rather only the bizarre species of them. Secondly, history records accounts of people attempting to exorcise or "cast out" demons from the very individuals who were laughing and barking. Perhaps while revival was occurring there were manifestations taking place comparable to "holy laughter." However, it would be a post hoc fallacy to assume that the Holy Spirit was the cause. Let me provide an example of a post hoc. Suppose I hold up a sign that says, "LAUGH WHEN I TELL JOKES." Now, after I tell jokes then the crowd before me begins to laugh. It would be superficial to assume that the crowd laughed only as a result of the sign's instructions. It may be that the crowd actually laughed at my jokes because they were funny. Likewise, the presence of "holy laughter" may not be a result of the Holy Spirit but rather as a result of the revival itself invoking intense emotional stimuli.
Thirdly, the biblical descriptions of masses coming together under widespread conversions in the name of the Holy Spirit do not entail "holy laughter" phenomena.(12) In fact, following the genuine blessings bestowed upon those involved on the day of Pentecost these same individuals made valuable contributions to the ministry of Jesus Christ by distributing to people's needs.(13) The clear executions of difficult decisions contextually demonstrates that these individuals were not laughing themselves into emotional bliss whereby conscious and rational decisions could not have been made.(14) Therefore, the very element involved in early Christian manifestations is that of control and rational decision-making, not hysterical nonsense and mindless madness.
Perhaps someone may object by emphasizing that the disciples engaging in Holy Spirit phenomena in Acts 2 were "drunk in the Spirit."(15) But surely this is unreasonable. First, the antagonists of the Acts 2 blessing were hearing unidentifiable languages (vv. 11-12) where claiming insanity may be warranted had the experience not have been from God. Secondly, in the manifestations of the different dialects there were clearly cogent messages being spoken (vv. 4-6). This is what led the ethnic groups mentioned in verses 9-11 to react favorably to the utterances (cf. 47). Lastly, the Apostle Peter continued his message to a very captive audience that sought answers to their inquiries (v. 37). This could not have been accomplished had the individuals been in "holy laughter."
Therefore, I do not find any reputable source of historical information that suggests that "holy
laughter" existed in any of the early revivals in the manner that Howard-Browne suggests.
Further, not even the very first "revival" (for lack of better terms) included such manifestations.
We must conclude that Howard-Browne's attempt to appeal to history has failed to sustain "holy
laughter."
2. There are countless biblical passages that demonstrate the presence of "holy laughter." Howard-Browne argues that the Bible mentions the presence of "joy" in the Holy Spirit manifestations. He says that this "joy" or "laughter" emanates from believers who are infilled with the Spirit.(16) As involved as each passage is, there remains to be several problems with the argument itself.
Philosophical problems
First, the argument itself equivocates the two words "joy" and "laughter" and juxtaposes them for the purposes of demonstrating the presence of laughter when joy is mentioned. This is to say that "joy" and "laughter" are fundamentally different and it would be absurd to suggest that the presence of joy automatically produces laughter. Indeed, one can have joy and never be prompted to laugh. Consider the Christian who declares that God has bestowed upon them the immense feeling of joy moments before crying. True contentment means that one has a proper attitude concerning a current activity or event. Certainly when a man proposes to his fiance there is exceeding joy (granting that her answer is positive). However, it would be wrong to assume that she is on the verge of laughing. Perhaps if the groom-to-be heard his fiance laugh just after his proposal, he might even have reservations on whether or not she has taken the question seriously. Secondly, it would be more accurate to define joy in terms of happiness. Consider Medieval Christian philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas who said, "the essence of happiness consists in an act of the intellect; but the delight that results from happiness pertains to the will. In this sense Augustine says that happiness is 'joy in truth', because, to wit, joy itself is the consummation of happiness."(17) Interesting, there appears to be a correlation between happiness and joy. In fact, he believes, with Augustine,(18) that joy epitomizes happiness. Again, just because someone is happy it does not mean that laughter will definitely follow. Further, Aquinas also declares that "happiness consists in an act of the intellect" which demonstrates that whatever this happiness or joy might be, it's not a "mindless" manifestation resembling drunkenness.(19)
Theological problems
The fact that "joy" cannot mean "laughter" is evident in etymology, or word-meaning. The Greek word for joy ("cara" or "chara") refers exclusively to "delight" or "cheerfulness." Any allusion to "laughter" or "holy laughter" is solely an invention of the interpreter. Remember, Peter forbids the private interpretation of biblical passages (2 Peter 1:20), and he was under the impression that Christians (especially new ones) were to "desire the sincere milk of the word" (1 Peter 2:2) and not some dubious, feel-good experience.
It must also be noted that the words laugh, laughed, laughter, laugheth, and laughing, do not appear in the Book of Acts. Although an argument from silence is fallacious in regard to argumentation, an argument from a significant silence carries considerable weight. The fact that all of the passages in regard to spiritual manifestations are significantly silent as to the presence of any laughter, any reference to it is clearly supplied.
Finally, Jesus personally condemns laughter with an improper attitude (Luke 6:25). In fact,
Jesus declares, "Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep" (NIV). Indeed, one
needs to have a proper attitude about a fervent heart motivation for the things of God. After all,
there is "a time to weep; and a time to laugh" (Ecclesiastes 3:4). Further, James tells us that we
need to "change [our] laughter to mourning and [our] joy to gloom" (James 4:9). While such an
alteration remains to be unappealing, its intent is to humble the unworthy sinner. It seems that the
Scriptures veer away from laughter only because it promotes the wrong spirit in regard to any
submission to God.
3. Who are we to suppress the anointing of God? If God wishes to override our theological biases then so be it. The constant allegation against evangelicals when it comes to questioning specific manifestations of the spirit is the idea that one is somehow "putting God in a box." It is argued that God can do whatever He wants to whenever He wants to however He wants to. Proponents of this argument would like to dismiss any criticism of the "Toronto blessing" on the grounds that it limits God (which is a legitimate concern). So supporters will attempt to defend this movement based on the concern that God cannot be limited (Job 40:2).
There are at least two things that can be given as a response. First, it is certainly the case the God cannot be limited by our philosophical or theological assumptions. In fact, we are told explicitly that God can do all things (Mark 10:27). So, what's the problem? The problem is that there are reasons to believe that although men cannot limit God, God Himself can. There are two ways God as limited Himself. First, God created the laws of logic. One of these laws (called the law of non-contradiction) asserts that a statement cannot be true if it is internally inconsistent. For example, if I were to ask, "Who is married to that bachelor?" I would be guilty of asking the impossible by definition. Alleged assertions such as our "married bachelor" are not things at all but rather words assimilated in such a way as to make a grammatically correct sentence with no meaning. It is self-refuting. In this manner, when we realize that God cannot lie or cease to exist, we do not mean that God is being limited by men but rather He is being limited by the laws of logic he created. Second, God is limited by what He decrees and promises. The Lord, for example, stated that He would never judge the world again with water (a flood).(20) Now God has restricted Himself by not allowing a world-wide flood to destroy all men. Thus, if I were to declare in a lecture on biblical theology that God cannot judge all of the inhabitants of the earth with water again I would not be limiting God. I would only be demonstrating that which God has already decreed. The issue is not whether or not God can be limited, it is whether or not God is limited and by whom is He limited? We know that God is not limited by Man. But we do know that God is limited by His own Word for He would never contradict Himself. So if the manifestations of "holy laughter" are in conflict with God's Word (as has been clearly shown), then God has exercised His jurisdiction not to nullify His own declarations.
Secondly, even if God did include "holy laughter" manifestations in the outpouring of the Spirit, it still does not mean that He is involved in the ones that we are seeing today. In other words, if we are to put aside our "theological biases" and quit "monitoring God," then we would not know if the manifestations we do see are authentic. Christians have still ignored God's Word which challenges us and mandates us to examine all things an hold fast to that which is good.(21) We cannot possibly be held in contempt of judging manifestations based on God's own Word. In fact, this is precisely what God would have us do!(22) To use the Bible in order to defend "holy laughter" and to claim that "God's power cannot be limited" when questioned is Scriptural hypocracy and self-defeating. If I am accused of "limiting" God because I go to the Bible, then the "Toronto blessing" advocate is also "limiting" God for going to the Bible. Only using the Bible when it suits your needs and crying, "God-limiter" when things do not meet your needs is simple hypocracy. It must be that all things are to be tested by God's Word with or without your approval.
Therefore, I believe that this argument only attacks sincere evangelicals personally and does
not attempt to face the issue. Remember, God will not contradict Himself.
4. Opponents of the "Toronto blessing" must be anti-charismatic. Still, others have attempted to dismiss any criticisms of "holy laughter" manifestations on the presupposition that the opponent is anti-charismatic.
A charismatic is one who believes that the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit continue to exist in the present age. This view is opposed to what prominent scholars such as John MacArthur, Jr. believe. "Anti-charismatics" reject the idea that the gifts of the Spirit are for the present age. The gifts were solely for the Apostolic era and eventually ceased at the close of the canon of Scripture around 90-95 A.D. The newspaper journalist and ex-Pastor James R. Spencer upholds this argument as legitimate grounds for dismissing critics of heresy.(23)
It must be said that the issue of whether or not one is a charismatic is irrelevant. Both
charismatics and fundamentalists(24) challenge the alleged manifestations of the Spirit today
whether it be "holy laughter" or "holy promiscuity" as was seen in the life of the false prophet
David Koresh. Also recall the horrible ending Jim Jones orchestrated when he instructed his
followers to drink poison-laced punch. The issue is not whether or not the gifts of the Spirit are
extant today but rather whether or not what Jones did was in accordance with God's word.
Charismatics reject the prostituting of God's power. Therefore, this type of ad hominem attack
must be rejected as well.
WHAT IS THE PROPER CONDUCT OF THE CHURCH?
After noting the problems with the ways of the "Toronto blessing," it is now necessary to see how God actually expects us to conduct ourselves. Below are some guidelines as to the proper etiquette in a church atmosphere which preclude any overbearing atrocities found in "holy laughter" phenomena. The question we are essentially asking is, "What are some rules to consider while being in church?"
1) Anything attributed to the Holy Spirit must be conducted in an orderly manner. In matters pertaining to the gifts of the Spirit, we are to observe certain restrictions. Consider 1 Corinthians 14:8 which states, "For if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" The implication is that engaging in a gift solely for the purpose of doing it is discouraged since some Christians and even nonbelievers may not understand what is occurring. Indeed, the purpose of a spiritual gift is for the edification of the saints.(25) The Apostle Paul puts regulations on the manifestation of the gift of tongues so that "barbarianism" is not implied (1 Cor. 14:11). Further, Paul encourages the gifts that edify the church over personal edification (v. 19). The point I am driving home at is simply that God desires order in spiritual manifestations, something that "holy laughter" does not.(26)
2) One purpose of church services is to feed our souls with the Word of God. The explicit mandation of the body of Christ is to be fed by the counsel of God (Acts 20:27-28). This cannot occur if overpowering phenomena are taking over our sensibility in exchange for self-enlightenment. Peter himself made sure that the church was of a sound mind when the "food" of God was being administered. Consider his statement, "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind" (1 Peter 5:2; emphasis mine). The purpose of church, aside from the obvious requirements of prayer, fellowship, and so on, is to be receptive to God's Word. This cannot occur if "holy laughter" phenomena are present.
3) One fruit of the Holy Spirit is having self-control. Most of us are familiar with the fruits of the Spirit given in Galatians 5:22-23. However, one important fruit that we must emphasize is "temperance" or "self-control." This is clearly being violated in the out-of-control phenomena found in the "Toronto blessing."
4) The need to be sober-minded precludes any "holy laughter" phenomena. Scripture reminds us to be sober-minded throughout our Christian life (Titus 2:4-6; 1 Peter 1:13; 4:7; 5:8). The claim that there is a being "drunk" in the Spirit flies right in the face of being sober! Likewise, "holy laughter" is detached from anything sober. Since Scripture forbids it, why do it?
It seems to be clear that there are reasons to believe that "holy laughter" manifestations are
contrary to Holy Writ. The above points merely scratch the surface on the need to view the
"Toronto blessing" as a counterfeit revival. The Lord desires mercy and sacrifice over personal
problem-solving.(27) Therefore, it has been demonstrated by the above four points that the Bible
clearly places regulations on activities of the Spirit and functions of the church that curb the
presence of "holy laughter" phenomena.
CONCLUSION
In a desperate need for a spiritual revival, one has made its way into our present-day churches.
Affectionately called the "Toronto blessing," it claims to be a move of God invoking spiritual
manifestations such as "holy laughter." It has been shown that the arguments in favor of this
revival fail at the scrutiny of Scripture and common sense. Let me just declare to the reader that
Christianity is not a "self-help" way of life to assist you in getting what you desire. Christianity is
a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ that is unmerited on our part. Jesus did not promise
health, wealth, and well-being so that we may enjoy happiness. Rather, Jesus came to "break up"
our pursuit towards pleasing ourselves (cf. Romans 8:1-3). The Christian is not to look toward
getting happiness out of life. Indeed, Christ promised tribulation and persecution to those who
follow Him (Matthew 5:11-12; John 16:33). Clearly, the testimony of God's Word is self-sacrifice
for the Christian (Romans 12:1; Philippians 1:21-24) and not self-gratification. If we are looking
for ways to be happier in our present life, then we have focused on the wrong goal (cf. Matthew
6:25, 33-34). I would be incorrect, however, to think that Christians cannot have happiness or to
acquire nice things in order to make life more tolerable. We should take these things with
moderation while always glorifying God in everything that we do. Christ wants us to enjoy our
pursuit to love and obey Him, but He absolutely forbids us to make it our prime goal to pursue
self-love and self-gratification. We need to remember that we are to love God and obey his
decrees. This is holy.
1. cf. Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1-4.
2. The phrase "a plea for realism" is existent in the title of his book, The King James Version Debate.
3. cf. Joel 2:28-30
4. An affiliation with Word-Faith guru Kenneth Hagin.
5. Paul and Jan Crouch televise Word-Faith teachings by predominant ministers Benny Hinn, Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Essek William Kenyon, Frederick K.C. Price, John Avanzini, Robert Tilton, Marilyn Hickey, Paul Yonggi Cho (David Cho), Charles Capps, Jerry Savelle, Oral and Richard Roberts, Morris Cerullo, et al. As a side note, Crouch has declared that poor people ought to give to the 500 million dollar Trinity Broadcasting Network regardless "if you're broke, if you're at your wit's end, if you're out of a job, [or] out of work" ("Praise the Lord" program on TBN, July 21, 1992).
6. The Toronto Airport Vineyard is located in Mississauga, Ontario.
7. These approximations are taken from the Christian Research Journal, (Winter 1995), p. 5.
8. Hanegraaff's comment on the "holy laughter" movement to his interviewer Peter Jennings on the news broadcast, "In The Name of God," February 1995.
9. Journal, p. 44.
10. ibid.
11. ibid.
12. Acts 2:1-21 to name one famous example.
13. v. 45.
14. It must be mentioned that no manifestations of laughter could be present since the apologetic cited (the Joel 2 passage) does not even mention laughter or joy! Therefore, there was no need of a defense for any alleged hysteria.
15. Some "holy laughter" advocates have pointed out that there must have been a close relation between what the disciples were experiencing with what drunkards experience (Acts 2:13). Consequently, there must have been similar attributes of irrational manifestations. In fact, due to this confusion, Howard-Browne calls himself the "Holy Ghost bartender" whereby men and women may step up to be filled with "new wine."
16. Acts 2:28; 8:8; 13:52; 15:3; Romans 15:13; 1 Peter 4:13.
17. Arthur Hyman and James Walsh, editors, Philosophy in the Middle Ages: The Christian, Islamic, and Jewish Traditions (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co., 1973), p. 560. The quote translated by Hyman and Walsh can be found in Aquinas' work, Summa Theologiae (I, II, Question III, Fourth Article).
18. St. Augustine (ca. 354-430 A.D.) was the last of the early Church Fathers who Aquinas esteemed highly.
19. In fact, all manner of drunkenness is universally rejected by God in 1 Corinthians 6:10, not just wine drunkenness which is singled out as being wrong in Ephesians 5:18.
20. Genesis 9:15
21. Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21
22. 1 John 4:1
23. Heresy Hunters: Character Assassination in the Church (Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1993) pp. 75-82.
24. The name anti-charismatic seems to promote a sense that some people are opposed to God operating today and this may appear misleading. Instead, I have chosen the word fundamentalist as the person who believes the view that the gifts of the Spirit have ceased.
25. 1 Corinthians 14:12
26. Verses 27-28 even limit the quantity as well as the quality of the gift of tongues.
27. Don't get me wrong. Jesus promises to alleviate certain problems in our lives as long as they are in accord with His will. Yet, we are to pursue the commandments of God to love Him and others over ourselves whereby our own needs will be met (Matthew 6:33).
Atheism | Theological Issues | Ethical Issues | Debates | About the Author | Links | Home
Copyright © 1995 Shandon L. Guthrie