Does the Church still possess miraculous gifts today?

[OzSpen]

By whose standard of evidence are you going by, God's or man's? Mark 16:9ff cannot be written by the mind of man only by God.

Jun2u,

What criteria are you using to determine God's standard of evidence for Mark 16:9ff? Has God given you some special revelation to determine Mark 16:9ff should be IN and not OUT of the NT?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Jun2u,

The point I think Oz is trying to make here (at least one of them) is the reason you do not accept 2 Maccabees or the Gospel of Peter is because (some) early believers did not believe these books were inspired (either due to authorship, date, or content, etc.) Pretty much every scholar attests to the fact that the long ending of Mark did not exist for about 200 years after Mark wrote his Gospel. The long ending was added later. It is not in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts. Thus, it is not inspired or the Word of God because Mark (the inspired author) did not write it. As Oz pointed out, the Bible was not put together by an act of magic, nor did someone trip over an old, dusty book that had all the letters there. It was put together by early believers that recognized the letters were written by those who walked with Jesus or had content that was agreed upon and recognized to be inspired, authoritative and historically accurate. The long ending of Mark, while informative and contains some good information, was just simply not written by Mark and therefore should not be considered inspired. Pretty much every translation made has a footnote that says as much. If I write some additional sentences in the pages of my Bible, it does not, by virtue of being in the binding of the book, suddenly become inspired and authoritative. Someone added the long ending as a footnote hundreds of years later and it is not Scripture anymore than the scribbles and notes handwritten in your Bible are Scripture.

Wormwood,

Bruce Metzger in his excellent assessment of the MSS evidence, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (3rd ed, Oxford University Press 1992) wrote of Mark's long ending:

The long ending in an expanded form existed, so Jerome tells us, in Greek copies current in his day.... The obvious and pervasive apocryphal flavour of the expansion ... as well as the extremely limited basis of evidence supporting it, condemns it as a totally secondary accretion (Metzger 1992:227).

Jerome lived in ca AD 347-420.

Oz

 

[Jun2u]

What criteria are you using to determine God's standard of evidence for Mark 16:9ff?

Only the Bible which is the source Book of Truth.

Has God given you some special revelation to determineMark 16:9ff should be IN and not OUT of the NT?

Most definitely! 2 Peter 1:21 reads:

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

On the other hand, you adamantly argue for so-and-so here and so-and-so there wrote books about the lengthy ending of Mark 16 which they say is NOT part of the Bible but wrote without the benefit of laying down a single scripture reference to support their claim. And these are the scholars you trust?

Let God be true and all man liars!

To God Be The Glory

 

[OzSpen]

Only the Bible which is the source Book of Truth.

Most definitely! 2 Peter 1:21 reads:

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

On the other hand, you adamantly argue for so-and-so here and so-and-so there wrote books about the lengthy ending of Mark 16 which they say is NOT part of the Bible but wrote without the benefit of laying down a single scripture reference to support their claim. And these are the scholars you trust?

Let God be true and all man liars!

To God Be The Glory

Jun,

Do you know what a begging the question logical fallacy is? Well, you've given it here.

Here is an explanation of it:

Fallacy: Begging the Question​

Also Known as: Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.

Description of Begging the Question
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."
Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

Examples of Begging the Question

1. Bill: "God must exist."
   Jill: "How do you know."
   Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
   Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
   Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

This is how you used it in your response to me:

Oz: What criteria are you using to determine God's standard of evidence for Mark 16:9ff?
Jun: Only the Bible which is the source Book of Truth.
Oz asks: So, because the Bible is the source Book of Truth, then Mark 16:9ff has to be in the Bible? Why should I accept your understanding of the Bible as the source Book of Truth?
Jun: On the other hand, you adamantly argue for so-and-so here and so-and-so there wrote books about the lengthy ending of Mark 16 which they say is NOT part of the Bible but wrote without the benefit of laying down a single scripture reference to support their claim. And these are the scholars you trust?
Oz: So you are the one who claims that the Bible is the source Book of Truth but you have not laid down one single rule by which I can determine if Mark 16:9ff should be in the Bible or whether Tobit, Bel and the Dragon, 2 Maccabees, the Gospel of Peter or the Gospel of Thomas should be in the Bible.

Jun, you engage in circular reasoning. We cannot have a logical discussion when you do this. When I ask you for criteria to determine if the Gospel of Peter or Mark 16:9ff should be in the Bible, you come up with the fallacious reasoning (a logical fallacy), that you use the Bible to determine if Mark 16:9ff should be in the Bible. That's a begging the question fallacy which means that you assume a certain view of the Bible when you begin studying the Bible and you conclude with the very same view. It doesn't matter what question I ask or evidence I provide, you still come with your conclusion - which is really your premise before you start.

Oz

 

[Wormwood]

Wormwood,

Bruce Metzger in his excellent assessment of the MSS evidence, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (3rd ed, Oxford University Press 1992) wrote of Mark's long ending:

Jerome lived in ca AD 347-420.

Oz

Yes, he also writes in his A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament,

The whole expansion has about it an unmistakable apocryphal flavor. It probably is the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16:14.

Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 104.

 

[Jun2u]

Wormwood,

I've already given my reasons as to why the books in question was never included with the other 67 books of the Bible but you have not accepted those reasons. You don't have to defend Oz as I understood perfectly well what he conveyed. What I fail to realize/understand is why the more learned individuals do not adhere to those who are unlearned as we all stand on the same ground with other believers. God is not a respecter of people. If a believer is lacking in knowledge, let those that are learned teach them that are unlearned so that they and the church can be edified, but they must teach with scripture references on hand.

You said, “someone added the long ending as a footnote hundreds of years later and it is not Scripture anymore than the scribbles and notes handwritten in your Bible are Scriptures”. This is a ridiculous statement! You're kidding of course and on what basis would anyone write such things and where did this concept come from? Surely man is not capable to invent such things especially Mark 16:17-18. where it states that believers will not be harmed if they handled snakes or that they will not die by drinking poison. Man knows full well not to make such statement for such are scientifically untrue, therefore Mark 16:17-18 has to come from the mind of God.

I've waited this long to give my interpretation of Mark 16:17-18 because I knew you will respond to one of my posts eventually, and because we never got to finish our discussions on the subject about the term “they shall speak with new tongues”.

The reason scholars and Bible students do not think the lengthy ending of Mark 16 is inspired is because they do not understand the contents written therein that the signs is a picture of Salvation and because they do not believe (to some extent some do) that God is really the Author of the Bible. Had they known this they will then have to “accept” and “obey” what was written is true. I will now explain the reasons why I believe Mark 16:17-18 was written by God, (bear in mind that God spoke in parables and without a parable He did not speak), and if we read these literally then there will arise many red flags.

There are five signs and these signs will follow those that believe:

1 “In my name they shall cast out devils” - when we bring the Gospel of Jesus to others and they become saved it's as if we cast out the devil within that individual. In reality it is the power of the Gospel that saved them.

2 “They shall speak with new tongues” - before we were saved we spoke the language of the world. After we have become saved we get to understand the spiritual language of God, the Bible.

3 “They shall take up serpents” - before we were saved we were under the power of Satan. When we became saved we handle Satan and his devils.

4 “If they drink any deadly thing it shall not harm them” - deadly thing is equivalent to poisonous water which in turn means a false doctrine (see De 32:32-33).

5 “They shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover” - spiritually sin-sicked souls. If this means literal, do you know of any believer that go around hospital beds, laying their hands on the sick and they recover?

So you see, Mark 16 can only have been written by the mind of God in view as it is a picture of God's Salvation, therefore rightly belongs where its at in the book of Mark

To God Be The Glory

 

[OzSpen]

Wormwood,

I've already given my reasons as to why the books in question was never included with the other 67 books of the Bible but you have not accepted those reasons. You don't have to defend Oz as I understood perfectly well what he conveyed. What I fail to realize/understand is why the more learned individuals do not adhere to those who are unlearned as we all stand on the same ground with other believers. God is not a respecter of people. If a believer is lacking in knowledge, let those that are learned teach them that are unlearned so that they and the church can be edified, but they must teach with scripture references on hand.

You said, “someone added the long ending as a footnote hundreds of years later and it is not Scripture anymore than the scribbles and notes handwritten in your Bible are Scriptures”. This is a ridiculous statement! You're kidding of course and on what basis would anyone write such things and where did this concept come from? Surely man is not capable to invent such things especially Mark 16:17-18. where it states that believers will not be harmed if they handled snakes or that they will not die by drinking poison. Man knows full well not to make such statement for such are scientifically untrue, therefore Mark 16:17-18 has to come from the mind of God.

I've waited this long to give my interpretation of Mark 16:17-18 because I knew you will respond to one of my posts eventually, and because we never got to finish our discussions on the subject about the term “they shall speak with new tongues”.

The reason scholars and Bible students do not think the lengthy ending of Mark 16 is inspired is because they do not understand the contents written therein that the signs is a picture of Salvation and because they do not believe (to some extent some do) that God is really the Author of the Bible. Had they known this they will then have to “accept” and “obey” what was written is true. I will now explain the reasons why I believe Mark 16:17-18 was written by God, (bear in mind that God spoke in parables and without a parable He did not speak), and if we read these literally then there will arise many red flags.

There are five signs and these signs will follow those that believe:

1 “In my name they shall cast out devils” - when we bring the Gospel of Jesus to others and they become saved it's as if we cast out the devil within that individual. In reality it is the power of the Gospel that saved them.

2 “They shall speak with new tongues” - before we were saved we spoke the language of the world. After we have become saved we get to understand the spiritual language of God, the Bible.

3 “They shall take up serpents” - before we were saved we were under the power of Satan. When we became saved we handle Satan and his devils.

4 “If they drink any deadly thing it shall not harm them” - deadly thing is equivalent to poisonous water which in turn means a false doctrine (see De 32:32-33).

5 “They shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover” - spiritually sin-sicked souls. If this means literal, do you know of any believer that go around hospital beds, laying their hands on the sick and they recover?

So you see, Mark 16 can only have been written by the mind of God in view as it is a picture of God's Salvation, therefore rightly belongs where its at in the book of Mark

To God Be The Glory

Jun,

This would be amongst the most irrational piece of writing I've read in a long while. As I stated above, when you use a begging the question logical fallacy (as you've done again here), we cannot have a logical discussion. Hence, your irrational diatribe here.

And you want to confirm that this kind of behaviour in Mark 16:17-18 is from God? You are promoting irrationality.

(image courtesy christianpublishers.org)

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, he also writes in his A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament,

Wormwood,

My wife today gave me a link to John MacArthur, 'The Fitting End to Mark's Gospel (Mark 16:9-20) John MacArthur' (YouTube). Here he explains in excellent summary form why Mark 16 should end at v. 8 and that vv9-20 are a later addition. If gives sound reasons why these verses are not in the original MSS.

Oz

 

[Wormwood]

Jun2u,

I've already given my reasons as to why the books in question was never included with the other 67 books of the Bible but you have not accepted those reasons.

There are 67 books in the Bible? That's news to me!

As Oz pointed out, the only rationale I have seen you give is circular. Your argument has been:
* I believe the entirety of the text in my personal Bible is Scripture.
* I believe it is Scripture because it is found in my personal Bible.

This is a ridiculous statement! You're kidding of course and on what basis would anyone write such things and where did this concept come from?

Its not a ridiculous statement. We have hundreds of copies and early quotes from the Gospel of Mark. None of our hand-written copies or quotes of Mark that are within 3-400 years of Mark's life contain the long ending. The long ending appeared hundreds of years after Mark lived. Imagine you have a copy of a letter from George Washington. You write an additional ending to that letter, today...hundreds of years after Washington lived. You start to make copies of your letter and spread them around. The people who receive your copy do not know you added the ending to the letter because they dont have the original. Just because they dont know you wrote it and George didnt, doesnt make it authentic. Does that make sense?

Mark 16:17-18. where it states that believers will not be harmed if they handled snakes or that they will not die by drinking poison. Man knows full well not to make such statement for such are scientifically untrue, therefore Mark 16:17-18 has to come from the mind of God.

By that rationale, the Book of Mormon and the Koran are from the mind of God because both of those books have statements that are scientifically untrue. Your reasoning is way off here I'm afraid. Something does not become God's Word because it is scientifically untrue.

The reason scholars and Bible students do not think the lengthy ending of Mark 16 is inspired is because they do not understand the contents written therein

No, if that were the case, most scholars would omit the book of Revelation from Scripture! lol. It has nothing to do with people not understanding what is written. You should read a book on the subject before you accuse scholars of omitting things due to lack of understanding the content.

and because they do not believe (to some extent some do) that God is really the Author of the Bible.

This is nothing but a straw man. You are labeling people you dont agree with so you dont have to deal with the content of their arguments. Every scholar in my library discounts the long ending of Mark and just about every one of them are committed Christians who believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

Even if I were to accept Mark's long ending, I would not accept it as an allegory about the Bible and confronting evil spiritual forces.

 

[Wormwood]

Wormwood,

My wife today gave me a link to John MacArthur, 'The Fitting End to Mark's Gospel (Mark 16:9-20) John MacArthur' (YouTube). Here he explains in excellent summary form why Mark 16 should end at v. 8 and that vv9-20 are a later addition. If gives sound reasons why these verses are not in the original MSS.

Oz

Hey Oz,

Much of my doctoral research project centered around Mark so I spend a lot of time studying it. Ill check out the video at some point and see how it lines up with my own study on the subject. Thanks for the link.

 

[Jun2u]

Wormwood, Oz

I think we have come to the peak of this discussions. I can only lead you to the water trough but cannot make you drink. I have more to say but I believe it will be to no avail. Thanks for putting up with me.

Jun

 

[epostle1]

In order to keep threads on topic, I have created this thread to help channel a discussion on this subject matter. This thread will explore the role of miraculous gifts in the life of the New Testament church and discuss/debate issues such as:

1. Is the Holy Spirit still giving people these gifts?
Yes.

2. Can everyone expect to have particular supernatural gifts and if so, which ones (healing, prophecy, knowledge, tongues, etc.)

No, they are not meant for everybody. They are a spiritual expression of faith for building up the body, but not the only expression.

3. If Christians are to have these gifts, why do some groups/denominations not have them?

Depends on how you define "gifts".

4. If the Holy Spirit is no longer giving these gifts, what texts do you use to support this view?
N/A
Here are just a few areas that should be discussed on this subject. Remember, please keep the debate about doctrine and Scripture and do not attack the individual. If Christ can love and forgive those who were killing him, how much more should we be kind and gracious toward brothers and sisters with whom we disagree on debatable matters.



Different Kinds of Tongues: A Biblical and Linguistic Defense
Here is an excerpt:

• 1 Corinthians 12:30: Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?

Obviously not (Paul was being rhetorical). So, then, if someone doesn’t have the gift of tongues (and I am in their number), fine; God has other gifts for them. But why must the gift of tongues be singled out for unbridled disdain by so many people? It is biblical; it has been possessed by saints, and by well-known and respected Catholics today. What is the problem here? Must people always condemn something simply because they don’t understand it or possess it (as in this case)? On the other hand, this same verse goes against some charismatics who claim that all should speak in tongues....
Scientific Evidence for Miracles <read more here
(1) Miracles are defined as: instances where events happen in such close temporal proximity and in logical connection to religious evocation, such as prayer; said events stand out from what we understand to be the set course of nature; said events cannot be explained through any known natural agency; said events create religious affections in the lives of those connected with them.

(2) Miracles are perceived to be interventions or influences of Supernature upon the lower sphere of nature.

(3) Thousands of such examples have been documented in modern times.

(4) When and if such occurrences affect the life of a believer, the believer is then justified in assuming that some supernatural effect has occurred

(5) If a supernatural effect happens, it is assumed that God works such an effect

(6) Such effects have occurred, therefore, the believer is justified in such a belief.

(7) A justified belief in the action of God is a justification for a rational belief in God. Therefore, the real first hand experience of this type of event, or the credible confidence in such documented cases justifies a rational warrant for belief.



The following is an excerpt from section VIII of the Articles of Observance of the Rule of the Oblates and Missioners of St. Michael, nos. 197-236. It contains a summary of thought about the “charismatic gifts” from the Church and from how we understand a Catholic Worldview. It also gives a list of the research to write this section was conducted at the Seminary Library of Conception Abbey in Missouri, the Scriptorium Library of the Oblates and Missioners of St. Michael, documents from Catholic websites, materials from various sources of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, and field research.

Inventory of Spiritual Gifts 211. The Holy Spirit may bestow many gifts upon us to build-up His Church. Though not intended to be exclusive or exhaustive, the thirty major gifts listed here are all found in one form or another in Scripture.12 The gifts are arranged by Category and include a “brief” definition in parenthesis. Scripture references are listed in brackets:

1) Sacrificial and Consecrating Gifts (10):
Charity …ability to express the love of God to the Church, to neighbor, and to the world in such a way that it becomes a model of perfection of the purity and fidelity of our Lord’s love, and which includes in its expression such selfless ways as to perform Heroic Acts of Charity14, and to sacrifice unto death for one’s neighbor [Jn 14:23; 1 Cor 13; Jn 15:13]

Virtue15 …ability to practice Heroic Virtue: the four cardinal virtues (prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude) [Wis 8:7; 1 Pet 4:7; Lv 19:15; Col 4:1; Ps 118:14; Jn 16:33; Sir 5:2 (37:27-31); 18:30; Titus 2:12] and the three theological virtues (faith, hope, and charity) [2 Pet 1:4; 1 Cor 13:13; Rom 1:17; Gal 5:6; Heb 10:23; Titus 3:6-7; Jn 15:9-12; Mt 22:40; Rom 13:8-10; 1 Cor 13; Col 3:14] in a continuing extraordinary way out of just and worthy service to the People of God and the Church

Martyrdom …ability to willingly and joyfully sacrifice oneself for the cause of Christ in service to others and to the Church, in fidelity to His Truth, in the face of persecution, ridicule, loss of reputation or position, or other sufferings from the world, friends, or family — even unto death [1 Cor. 13:3]

Celibacy …ability to offer to God one’s chastity, with Christ as one’s exclusive Spouse16, and thereby renounce, for the greater glory of God and for His service, one’s right to marriage and family [1 Cor. 7:7; Mt 19:1-12; 1 Cor 7:32]

Poverty …ability to renounce and be unencumbered with the material riches and things of this world, which distract from the sacred things of God, in order to serve others and the Church that others might come to know the wealth of Christ [Mt 19:21; Eph 3:9ff; 2 Cor 8:9]

Obedience …ability to renounce the will and desires of the self to order and direct one’s life and thereby to submit to another’s authority, in the service of God and the Church, so that others might know the freedom of being co-heirs in God’s kingdom [Jn 8:29; 4:34; 14:15,21]

Substantial Silence …ability to be still and know that God is God17 in a manner that quiets the self and thereby reaches profound levels of meditation and 5 contemplation in such a way that others may profoundly come to know the presence of the Lord [Ps 46:10; Zec 2:13]

Substantial Solitude …ability to be alone with God without need of the normal human interaction and social intercourse in such a way that others may come to a profound knowledge of the presence of the Divine Companion [Lk 5:15-16; Mk 1:35; Mt 6:6] Prayer …ability to pray boldly, strongly, and unceasingly for others in such a way that they might experience the divine action of Jesus’ love in their lives [Mt 6:6; Pr 15:8, Phil 4:6; Jas 5:15; Eph 6:18]

Penance/Mortification …ability to live a life of penance and mortification in such a way that others may turn daily to a conversion to Christ and further to be inspired to the perfection that arouses the soul to God [2 Tim 2:4; Mt 5:39-48]18

2) Speaking Gifts (10):
19 Apostleship …ability to minister, evangelize, and pastor in cross-cultural, missionary settings [1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11]

Prophecy …ability to preach or proclaim the Truth of God with clarity and to apply it to a particular situation with a view to correction or edification. Prophecy may sometimes speak to future events, but is primary a supernatural gift of preaching [Rom 12:6; 1 Cor 12:10, 28; Eph 4:11]

Evangelism …ability to effectively communicate the Faith in such a way as to bring people to Christian conversion; and to effectively disciple others into the fullness of the Christ-life [Eph 4:11]

Pastoring/Shepherding …ability to provide spiritual leadership, counsel, food, guidance, and guardianship in group settings and to individuals [Eph 4:11] Teaching …ability to explain effectively the Truth of God in such a way that those being taught not only understand the Truth in a profound way, but are profoundly inspired by the Truth [Rom 12:7; 1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11] 6

Exhorting …ability to counsel or to encourage those in spiritual, emotional, or physical need [Rom 12:8] Word of Knowledge …ability to discover, know, and communicate deep spiritual Truths. In extremely rare instances, such as with St. Padre Pio, this gift may include the ability to “read souls” [1 Cor 12:8]

Word of Wisdom …ability to apply and communicate knowledge wisely [1 Cor 12:8]

Tongues20 …ability to speak in a language not previously learned for the purposes, when interpreted, of prophecy and edification of the Church. This is not a private prayer language21) [1 Cor 12:10, 28]

Interpretation …ability to interpret a language not previously learned into one’s native language for the purposes of prophecy and edification of the Church [1 Cor 12:10]

3) Ministering Gifts (10):
Ministry/Helps …ability to lend a hand or to serve others in a supportive role in a joyful and productive way [Rom 12:7; 1 Cor 12:28]

Hospitality …ability to provide open house and warm welcome to neighbor and for those in need, particularly travelers or others in need of shelter and assistance [1 Pet 4:9, 10; cf. Rom 12:13]

Giving …ability to give of one’s fiscal and personal resources to the Lord’s work with simplicity, generosity, liberality, and delight [Rom 12:8]

Government/Ruling …ability to administer, manage, and lead in God’s work [Rom 12:8; 1 Cor 12:28]

Showing Mercy …ability to be compassionate with strength, cheerfulness, and action to those who are in need as evidenced by Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy22 [Rom 12:8]

Faith …ability to see something that God wants done and to sustain unwavering confidence that God will do it regardless of obstacles [1 Cor 12:9]

Discernment …ability to perceive good and evil spirits; and also to perceive the spirit of truth from the spirit of error in a profound and sublime manner [1 Cor 12:10]

Exorcism …ability to help people, in the face of intimidation from the Enemy, with spiritual afflictions (harassments, bondage, oppression, possession) caused by demonic attachments and forces; to discern the issues and needs required to facilitate healing and freedom for the afflicted through spiritual counseling and if necessary through “simple” or “solemn” rites. [Note: “Solemn” Rites of Exorcism are reserved to a priest designated by a local Ordinary and are conducted only upon the Ordinary’s permission] [Mk 1:25-26; 3:15; 6:7, 13; 16:17]

Miracles …ability to facilitate an event of supernatural power that is palpable to the senses and is accomplished as a sign of divine commission [1 Cor 12:10, 28]

Healing …ability to intervene in a supernatural way as an instrument for the curing of illness and the restoration of health as a sign of divine compassion [1 Cor 12:9, 28]
https://saint-mike.org/library/rule/excerpts/spiritualgifts.pdf