Some reasons why cessationism has become a dead worldview

[Biblicist]

Wow, this really did shock me.

I’m sorry about that, I will try to be more careful next time!!

Your percentages shocked me too. Though I know it's all purely speculative. But I suppose I'd have given much greater credit to him hearing more specifically. I'd also say I think John and the book of the Revelation had to be a higher percentage than Paul....I guess. But who knows for sure? I don't.

In Paul’s early days, when he changed from being a Jewish theologian to one who was about to produce what we now know as New Covenant theology, where N.T. Wright even aptly suggested that “Paul invented Christian Theology”, we can gather from what Paul has told us is that he had spent an amount of time with both the Lord and the Father (whether in the body or out of the body). So we can certainly deem this to be revelation but unlike the rest of us where the Holy Spirit has to speak to us, Paul was able to meet with the Lord face to face where it seems that both the Lord and the Father had some direct face to face impact into Paul’s life.

For a theologian such as Paul, I would imagine that most of his teachings would have been reflective where for Paul he would have been able to join the dots where his earlier interactions with the Lord would have most likely enabled him to work out his theological framework as the situation demanded. Over the years, did he have to spend some periods of time in prayer asking the Lord about what he should say, well this could have happened but I would be more inclined to believe that the groundwork that was given to him would have been enough for him to develop a workable systematic Christian theology.

So even though Paul had an incredible amount of time with the Lord, particularly in his first 14 years, where he even met with both the Lord and it seems with the Father, I would take the position that Paul would have been able to build on this incredible amount of revelation (or maybe) instruction where his theological prowess would have most likely been enough for his to write as he did.

 

[swordsman1]

I believe that 'the spirit which carries the words in scripture' is more important than the words of ink written on paper. You are very correct, in that I think, what we carry around today has a bit too much distortion and a bit too little faithfulness to the original Greek. But I do believe that God can still use bad translations to achieve his Sspiritual purposes with the bibles we do have. But when it comes to theology....well that's why it's all over the board with smart guys and bible verses supporting every false doctrine there is.

So the words penned by the apostles and prophets in the ancient Greek (or Hebrew) are the true words of God? But the words got distorted in the various translations and our modern bibles cannot be totally trusted?

First Biblicist shocks me, and now you do. Do you not know that what is said in the book of the Revelation is in reference to 'the book of Revelation' and not 'the bible'? God never voted on what books were included or the order of their numerical insertion. That was done, again I say, during a time when you believe God never even spoke to man. So in the words of Frank Sinatra...almost;
'They did it their way.'

So in your view the canon is open and can be added to? And the prophecies you receive and write down are such additions?

I prefer to think God speaks to me through the Sspirit and it comes to my conscious mind. Feelings may be included, but are not really a definitive part IMO. I do believe that scripture confirms feelings are also of the Sspirit.

So what is the nature of your revelations? Are they audible words that only your hear? Are they words that just pop into your head but are definitely God's words and not your own? Strong feelings or compulsions that you put into your own words?

Do you share them with the church seeing as prophecies are meant to be for the common good?

The fruits of the spirit are all 'feelings' aren't they?

Yes, but they are not God speaking to us in divine revelations.

No I don't presume to believe that I can't make a mistake in what I'm hearing 'spiritually speaking'. But that doesn't bother me any more than it bothered Paul when he said;
YLT 1CO 14:29 And prophets - let two or three speak, and let the others discern, Paul teaches us to 'discern/weigh/judge' words which have been spoken in a prophetic setting.

Paul told them to judge what was said because there were false prophets in the early church. Just as there are today.

1 John 4:1 "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world"


It doesn't bother you that your prophecies may not be accurate, and therefore false? Are you not phased by warnings such as:

Deuteronomy 18:20 "But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’"

Jeremiah 14:14-16 "The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds...Those same prophets will perish by sword and famine..... I will pour out on them the calamity they deserve....for I will pour out their own wickedness on them"

 

[swordsman1]

I’m sorry about that, I will try to be more careful next time!!


In Paul’s early days, when he changed from being a Jewish theologian to one who was about to produce what we now know as New Covenant theology, where N.T. Wright even aptly suggested that “Paul invented Christian Theology”, we can gather from what Paul has told us is that he had spent an amount of time with both the Lord and the Father (whether in the body or out of the body). So we can certainly deem this to be revelation but unlike the rest of us where the Holy Spirit has to speak to us, Paul was able to meet with the Lord face to face where it seems that both the Lord and the Father had some direct face to face impact into Paul’s life.

For a theologian such as Paul, I would imagine that most of his teachings would have been reflective where for Paul he would have been able to join the dots where his earlier interactions with the Lord would have most likely enabled him to work out his theological framework as the situation demanded. Over the years, did he have to spend some periods of time in prayer asking the Lord about what he should say, well this could have happened but I would be more inclined to believe that the groundwork that was given to him would have been enough for him to develop a workable systematic Christian theology.

So even though Paul had an incredible amount of time with the Lord, particularly in his first 14 years, where he even met with both the Lord and it seems with the Father, I would take the position that Paul would have been able to build on this incredible amount of revelation (or maybe) instruction where his theological prowess would have most likely been enough for his to write as he did.

Really? You don't beleive all of Paul's words were divinely inspired? And that for the most part he was just 'joining the dots' from his own human reflections? And he was merely 'developing a workable systematic theology' as he went along? Have you not read "All Scripture is inspired by God" (2 Tim 3:16)?

 

[Hillsage]

So the words penned by the apostles and prophets in the ancient Greek (or Hebrew) are the true words of God? But the words got distorted in the various translations and our modern bibles cannot be totally trusted?

I would say the original autographed writings were the 'true inspired words of God', but that does not mean that every word they wrote came from the mouth of God. And the tweaking of scriptures by 'denominational indoctrination' has been with 'the scriptures' ever since. Even in the OT the original was tweaked by the various Jewish sects, such as the Deuteronomists, Masoretics, Yahwheists. And then when the NT started arriving the same thing happened. That's why we have so many theologians trying to play detective and figure things out thousands of years after the 'fact'.

Jeremiah 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.

So in your view the canon is open and can be added to? And the prophecies you receive and write down are such additions?

The canon was closed by man. Show me where God closed it. Part of the definition of 'canon' is; "They contain the whole supernatural revelation of God to men." That is simply not my experience.

So what is the nature of your revelations? Are they audible words that only your hear? Are they words that just pop into your head but are definitely God's words and not your own? Strong feelings or compulsions that you put into your own words?

I've never heard God audibly, though I have heard and felt a demonic manifestation a couple times. I have heard testimonies from others who say they have heard an audible 'word' and I have no reason to doubt them. Others I do doubt, because my spirit doesn't bear witness in those cases.

Usually it's been words or visuals in my mind. Probably the biggest occurrence though, is simply when the Holy Spirit, or my holy spirit 'quickens' a word from scripture. One time I had, what I'll call an open vision, where I was sitting on my bed and all of a sudden it was like someone threw a bucket of blood at my face from out of nowhere. I actually reacted quite physically recoiling away to keep from being hit, which was impossible. After it happened I said; Lord what was that all about." The words which came to me were; "If you're in hand to hand combat you will get blood on you." I believe it was a prophetic warning to prepare me for an up coming battle I faced...spiritually not physically.

Once I was reading scripture in the morning and after reading a verse I heard a 'word' saying; "Read it again." So I did. Then the word came to me again, and again. But after reading it three times....nothing. The verse was;
Luke 9:22 Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.
So I went about my day. That afternoon I got a phone call from an elder wanting me to meet with him and the other elders and the pastor/chief priest. That verse immediately came to mind and I heard; "You are a son of man, do not meet with them today or you will be slain, wait until the third day." I told the elder that I couldn't meet today that it would have to wait. He said we have to do this today because elder Dan was going to be out of town for 'three days'. My heart jumped, and I immediately said I will not meet until Friday...the third day. I won't make this any longer unless you want the whole story, but I have no doubt I would have been kicked out of the church because of a misunderstanding that the pastor had at that point. But during the next three days, after the word about 'our meeting' coming up, several people went to the elders and pastor.

Would anyone get out of that verse, what I did, without the Holy Spirit of God revealing it in a way I certainly could have never come up with? What is your explanation of this event Swordsman?

These are some examples of how it can and has worked in my life.

Do you share them with the church seeing as prophecies are meant to be for the common good?

The ones that were for 'the body' I always tried to share with them after giving it to the pastor or an elder for confirmation and permission. Sometimes they would not give permission some times they did.

Yes, but they are not God speaking to us in divine revelations.

No, but they are proof that interaction with the Holy Spirit doesn't have to be devoid of 'feelings'. Where is your biblical support for saying you can't FEEL the Holy Spirit?

Paul told them to judge what was said because there were false prophets in the early church. Just as there are today.

This is the verse which just 'came to mind'.

LUK 11:47 Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.

Might want to think about it and see if it applies to you. To get started, just ask yourself if this scripture means the Jews killed 'good' guys because 'they' didn't like their false prophecies.

1 John 4:1 "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world"

I practice this verse and have already shared that in this post. You on the other hand can't test the spirit, you can only compare what you see with the book of canon which "contain the whole supernatural revelation of God to men."....right? How do you test a spirit Swordsman?

It doesn't bother you that your prophecies may not be accurate,

Of course it does. Just like it bothers me that 'the bible' has inaccuracies also. But I don't let the fear of making mistakes (which I have) keep me from doing things in faith, that I might grow in the supernatural things of the Spirit.

 

[Hillsage]

Really? You don't beleive all of Paul's words were divinely inspired? And that for the most part he was just 'joining the dots' from his own human reflections? And he was merely 'developing a workable systematic theology' as he went along? Have you not read "All Scripture is inspired by God" (2 Tim 3:16)?

I know you addressed B, but he's probably asleep in Aussie-land so I'm going to jump in.

"1CO 7:25 Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. "

Do you really believe that God told Paul to say this is Paul's opinion because God didn't even tell him what to write...for the next 15 verses? If you do, then you believe what Paul doesn't even believe IMO. Paul doesn't even know if his "opinion" is THE WORD OF GOD, he only thinks his opinion is "trustworthy" and not 'THUS SAITH THE LORD'. This example is foremost IMO, but the number of prison epistles where Paul writes he's going to get out and fellowship with the brethren he's writing to, again indicate to me that the Holy Spirit sure wasn't giving him 'those words in scripture' from God.

 

[swordsman1]

I would say the original autographed writings were the 'true inspired words of God', but that does not mean that every word they wrote came from the mouth of God. And the tweaking of scriptures by 'denominational indoctrination' has been with 'the scriptures' ever since. Even in the OT the original was tweaked by the various Jewish sects, such as the Deuteronomists, Masoretics, Yahwheists. And then when the NT started arriving the same thing happened. That's why we have so many theologians trying to play detective and figure things out thousands of years after the 'fact'.

Jeremiah 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.

But the words that appear in your New Testament are 100% Gods word (in the original Greek), right?

Unless you are fluent in Koine Greek then you have no choice but to use an English translation. You quote them often enough so I presume they must be acceptably authoritative to you. Modern translations such as the NASB and ESV are generally regarded as being very good translations of the original texts.

The canon was closed by man. Show me where God closed it. Part of the definition of 'canon' is; "They contain the whole supernatural revelation of God to men." That is simply not my experience.

The canon is closed because only the apostles had authority to write words of Scripture, an authority that was on a par with the OT scriptures:

2 Peter 3:2 "I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles."

Peter here clearly says the writings of the apostles are to be regarded as commands from the Lord, and equal to the OT scriptures. A few verses later Peter declares Paul's writings are also to be regarded as scripture in 1 Peter 3:15-16.

Hebrews 1:1-2 also says the scriptural writings of prophets are a thing of the past and now the only source of scripture is Christ (of whom the apostles were appointed spokesmen). "In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son"

The words of scripture had to be written by an apostle or someone directly authorized by them. When they had finished their work, and the last of them died, there is no more that could be added with the same divine authority. The canon was closed. Which is why God, speaking through the apostle John, makes the severe warning at end of Revelation. It is no accident that this statement appears at the end of the last chapter of the last book in the bible. It applies not only to adding to the book of Revelation, but seeing as John was the last apostle alive, also to the whole of scripture.

The only thing that has been debated by man over the centuries is whether certain ancient books were written by an apostle or not, and whether they should be included in the canon. There has never been any debate about the criteria required for a book to be canonical, it has always been apostolic authorship. As there are no more apostles no new writings can be added.

The words which came to me were; "If you're in hand to hand combat you will get blood on you." I believe it was a prophetic warning to prepare me for an up coming battle I faced...spiritually not physically.

So you didn't actually hear a voice say those words, they just sort of popped into your mind, right? How do you know they are the very words of God, and not something from your imagination?

If this was a genuine prophecy how come it was a message only for you? I thought the gift of prophecy were messages from God to give to others, for the common good. 1 Cor 14:3 "But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort."

If these are the very words of God as you claim, then shouldn't they be equal in authority with the rest of scripture? Is that why you record them in a book?

I heard; "You are a son of man, do not meet with them today or you will be slain, wait until the third day."

Again a message just for yourself, not the church? You heard a voice mis-quote a verse from scripture!?

What is your explanation of this event Swordsman?

It doesn't sound like it is was God given prophecy to me.

I always tried to share with them after giving it to the pastor or an elder for confirmation and permission. Sometimes they would not give permission some times they did.

Why was that? Surely if it was a divine revelation from God to the church it is vital that the message be conveyed?

Part of the definition of 'canon' is; "They contain the whole supernatural revelation of God to men."

Which verse of the bible is that from?

How do you test a spirit Swordsman?

I don't believe there are any true prophets today to test (only false ones). I believe the gift of prophecy was only for the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20), necessary to guide the early church in the absence of the New Testament. Like OT prophecy it was infallible and authoritative. It was a highly important gift, second only to apostleship (1 Cor. 12:28). Once the canon of scripture was complete the gift disappeared ("For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears" 1 Cor 13:10). There were no instructions in the epistles to keep the gift of prophecy going, instead Timothy was urged to "guard the good deposit" of the apostle's teaching (2 Tim 1:13-14) which was "once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). In the completed canon we have "everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him" (2 Peter 1:3) and we are "thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:17)

 

[swordsman1]

I know you addressed B, but he's probably asleep in Aussie-land so I'm going to jump in.

"1CO 7:25 Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. "

Do you really believe that God told Paul to say this is Paul's opinion because God didn't even tell him what to write...for the next 15 verses? If you do, then you believe what Paul doesn't even believe IMO. Paul doesn't even know if his "opinion" is THE WORD OF GOD, he only thinks his opinion is "trustworthy" and not 'THUS SAITH THE LORD'. This example is foremost IMO, but the number of prison epistles where Paul writes he's going to get out and fellowship with the brethren he's writing to, again indicate to me that the Holy Spirit sure wasn't giving him 'those words in scripture' from God.

Well, for a start most translations render the word as 'judgement' not 'opinion'.

It simply means he wasn't given any specific revelation from the Lord on that matter. As an apostle his judgement would still have carried divine authority. Otherwise there would be a contradiction with 2 Tim 3:16 which says all scripture is inspired by God.

In any case Biblicist said only 10% of Paul's writings were inspired(!!), not 99.99%.

 

[Biblicist]

Really? You don't beleive all of Paul's words were divinely inspired? And that for the most part he was just 'joining the dots' from his own human reflections? And he was merely 'developing a workable systematic theology' as he went along? Have you not read "All Scripture is inspired by God" (2 Tim 3:16)?

In any case Biblicist said only 10% of Paul's writings were inspired(!!), not 99.99%.

Hillsage made a good point in post #305 with his reference to 1 Cor 7:25 where at times Paul did provide an opinion on a matter where even Paul himself recognised that he did not have any authority from the Lord to demand obedience . . . though as Paul said, considering his relationship with the Lord and that he knew him well that we should all be taking heed of what Paul says even when he is speaking without the Lord's authority.

As for Paul's words being inspired, whenever he speaks as an Apostle-of-Christ where he is writing to a Church in the Lord's name, then his words are certainly binding where they carry the full authority of the Lord. Whenever we either consciously or even unwittingly stand against Paul's teachings then we will do so to our peril where the Lord himself will be our judge; which is why many quasi-cessationists have chosen not to directly engage on the spiritual matters as the more prudent quasi-cessationist, who for probably pragmatic reasons, might be prepared to leave the things of the Spirit alone but at the same time they can be savvy enough to realise that to make a hard aggressive stand against the Holy Spirit could be a dangerous thing.

So when it comes to Pauls authority, the hard-core cessationist will essentially try and undo his teachings particularly on the spiritual matters, where many Pentecostals and charismatics will be offended by the controls that he has established and of course many egalitarians will falsely and maliciously deem Paul to be a woman hater.

Other than with passages such as 1 Cor 7:25 and with others where he has stated that he would like to do something but where it did not occur then ALL OF PAUL'S WORDS CARRY THE FULL AUTHORITY OF THE BOTH THE LORD AND THE FATHER.

The point that I was making earlier is that Paul did not sit down in a trance where the Holy Spirit supposedly moved Paul's hand to write, where he was even supposed to have used a form of Holy Spirit Greek, but that both the Father and the Son chose the Jewish Theologian Saul over that of the less educated Twelve to compile most of what we know to be the New Testament or at least with most of the Didactic portions of the NT.

When Paul stood before a congregation or before a group of Elders where he was being asked (or more likely grilled) over a given theological question, Paul did not need to say "wait a minute, let me go and pray about it" but as he was by nature a theologian and where he had spent who knows how much time before both the Lord and the Father, then he would always be well able to present a solid doctrine in a systematic manner - which is the methodology that Paul employed as a Systematic Theologian.

 

[swordsman1]

I'm glad to see you've changed your mind from Paul's writings being only 10% inspired, back to 100% inspired as he says in 2 Tim. At least I think that is what you are saying from what I could decipher.

Whenever we either consciously or even unwittingly stand against Paul's teachings then we will do so to our peril where the Lord himself will be our judge; which is why many quasi-cessationists have chosen not to directly engage on the spiritual matters as the more prudent quasi-cessationist, who for probably pragmatic reasons, might be prepared to leave the things of the Spirit alone but at the same time they can be savvy enough to realise that to make a hard aggressive stand against the Holy Spirit could be a dangerous thing.

Although not without some sabre-rattling it seems. But like the classic 'you are blaspheming the Holy Spirit' scaremongering that is sometimes wheeled out when errors in pentecostal/charismatic doctrines are exposed, it fails to intimidate because it is in fact nonsense and therefore best ignored.

 

[Hillsage]

But the words that appear in your New Testament are 100% Gods word (in the original Greek), right?

Unless you are fluent in Koine Greek then you have no choice but to use an English translation. You quote them often enough so I presume they must be acceptably authoritative to you. Modern translations such as the NASB and ESV are generally regarded as being very good translations of the original texts.

If you don't know that there are multiple different Greek texts out there you need to go study up on it. And being 'fluent in Koine Greek' is what all who argue at 'that' level are qualified in, to do. Hence, 200 different BIBLE translations (conservatively speaking). And, as I have already said, By His Spirit, God can use any translation to reveal HIS WORD which proceeds from HIS MOUTH to accomplish HIS WILL. So I am more concerned with Him doing that with me, than thinking I've got 'the translation that is 'the WORD OF GOD'.

The canon is closed because only the apostles had authority to write words of Scripture, an authority that was on a par with the OT scriptures:

2 Peter 3:2 "I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles."

Peter here clearly says the writings of the apostles are to be regarded as commands from the Lord, and equal to the OT scriptures. A few verses later Peter declares Paul's writings are also to be regarded as scripture in 1 Peter 3:15-16.

Clearly he does. So where does he clearly say therefore the canon is closed when we die? He doesn't and that litmus was again made by nonspiritual men fighting in a corrupt political/religious church so wrought with wrong, it is historically dispicable.

Hebrews 1:1-2 also says the scriptural writings of prophets are a thing of the past and now the only source of scripture is Christ (of whom the apostles were appointed spokesmen). "In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son"

Well there you go, even the apostles are left out then based upon this verse. And your parenthetical inclusion was added, because why? Because the text is jaded by your pretext forming your false context conclusion.

The words of scripture had to be written by an apostle or someone directly authorized by them. When they had finished their work, and the last of them died, there is no more that could be added with the same divine authority. The canon was closed. Which is why God, speaking through the apostle John, makes the severe warning at end of Revelation. It is no accident that this statement appears at the end of the last chapter of the last book in the bible. It applies not only to adding to the book of Revelation, but seeing as John was the last apostle alive, also to the whole of scripture.

Revelation was a book on its own, just like every other 'book' of the bible. It was relevant for the several hundred years it was in there, and the rest is just extra biblical opinion.

So you didn't actually hear a voice say those words, they just sort of popped into your mind, right? How do you know they are the very words of God, and not something from your imagination?

I guess you had to be there and dodge the bucket of blood too. Of course I'm sure you will say I imagined that too.

If this was a genuine prophecy how come it was a message only for you? I thought the gift of prophecy were messages from God to give to others, for the common good. 1 Cor 14:3 "But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort."

Who said it was a prophesy? EDIT Forget that question. For the record that 'word' to me did provide "strengthening, encouragement and comfort". So what would you have called it? That is, if you believed people could actually have fellowship 'with God' that is, and not just 'a book about God'?

If these are the very words of God as you claim, then shouldn't they be equal in authority with the rest of scripture? Is that why you record them in a book?

What for, you want to buy a copy? I thought not. When the 'books' are opened in heaven I hope you don't find out yours ended up as a leaflet from the day you 'heard' the 'call' and got saved.

Again a message just for yourself, not the church? You heard a voice mis-quote a verse from scripture!?

Being unlearned/ungifted in spiritual things is truly a disadvantage for you. I do feel for your inability to relate.

Why was that? Surely if it was a divine revelation from God to the church it is vital that the message be conveyed?

Maybe it was because they honestly thought I missed it. Or maybe they were as dumb as you are starting to sound

Which verse of the bible is that from?

The bible doesn't define canon, stupid men did. And I googled the definition from 'one' of them.

I don't believe there are any true prophets today to test (only false ones). I believe the gift of prophecy was only for the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20), necessary to guide the early church in the absence of the New Testament. Like OT prophecy it was infallible and authoritative. It was a highly important gift, second only to apostleship (1 Cor. 12:28). Once the canon of scripture was complete the gift disappeared ("For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears" 1 Cor 13:10). There were no instructions in the epistles to keep the gift of prophecy going, instead Timothy was urged to "guard the good deposit" of the apostle's teaching (2 Tim 1:13-14) which was "once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). In the completed canon we have "everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him" (2 Peter 1:3) and we are "thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:17)

I do feel sorry for your walk. You make me so thankful for that which I have.

 

[Hillsage]

Well, for a start most translations render the word as 'judgement' not 'opinion'.

If you need something to do, we have a lot of feedlots here and you can pick the 'fly spots' out of the 'pepper'. IOW you're proving yourself to be a non serious contender here, with punch drunk comments like that.

It simply means he wasn't given any specific revelation from the Lord on that matter.

Which is YOUR DEFINITION OF scripture being THE WORD OF GOD. "EVERY WORD" I believe was your stated comment. Obviously Paul missed the meeting where "unlearned/ungifted" guys made a decision which has become an odious "tradition and commandment from men", but never from God. And that's the scripture I'm standing on to evaluate your opinions.

 

[mikedsjr]

Hillsage, there are not tons of different versions of scripture due to different viewpoints. It's due to economics and copyrights laws. Each publisher wants to have several versions to use at will.

There is no need but for one English translation. That's it.

Do you believe in the Trinity? Or are you a oneness? How do you determine doctrine?

 

[Hillsage]

Hillsage, there are not tons of different versions of scripture due to different viewpoints.

1/4 ton?

It's due to economics and copyrights laws. Each publisher wants to have several versions to use at will.

Right, for their 'economics' first, which is more insured if they 'copyright'...that's for sure.

There is no need but for one English translation. That's it.

I've heard two men considered prophets in the church, both say; "The bible doesn't need to be re-wrote, it needs to be re-read." And though I do agree with that statement...welcome to 'the church'. Therefore I have many printed bibles at home and 6 'main' ones in my software program. Amazing how inconsistent the infallible WORD OF GOD can be. Therefore I don't worship the 'book of God', I worship the 'God of the book'. Unfortunately many just believe in, as I said before, the Father Son and Holy Bible because they certainly don't believe in the Holy Spirit I know.

Do you believe in the Trinity? Or are you a oneness? How do you determine doctrine?

Oh oh, here we go. I'm different....SURPRISE! I believe that in the beginning was THE WORD, not Jesus. The WORD did "not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped and "emptied Himself"....of what? Being GOD to become a spirit, soul and bodied man....Jesus....."Made like unto his brethren IN EVERY RESPECT"...so if he was God, I guess I am too....NOT. Then Jesus, who was Son of God in his spirit, and Son of Man in his body, by virtue of his souls obedience on this earth attained 'equality with God' or the "name above all names"... a position of authority which happened AFTER he was resurrected. So, I believe there was a trinity, there wasn't a trinity, there is a trinity...But I wouldn't fight that POV with anyone, it just works for me and my understanding of things. Hope that helps.

I "determine doctrine" (whatever that really means) based upon its definition in part;
Current Strong's def. 1322 didache: instruction (the act or the matter)

An older Strong's had a bit different definition which I'd memorized long ago, though. It said the "instruction" (The function or the information of religion)." The first time I read it, the Holy Spirit made 'function' jump off the page for me.

For me, "the function" is the walk you see someone walking. And "the information" is the talk you see someone talking. On the day of judgment I believe God is going to judge your WALK and not your TALK. So I look to the fruit of anything claimed to be 'doctrine'. If it's something to just fight about....like your trinity question...then I don't worry about it much. Even though I obviously have an opinion. If believing or not believing in the trinity affected how I walked with God or my fellow man, it would be important, but 'if not' it 'is not' really that important to me. Does that make sense?

 

[mikedsjr]

Hillsage, so are you saying all charismatics believe God judges a person's walk, not by repentance and being baptized?

 

[Biblicist]

Hillsage, so are you saying all charismatics believe God judges a person's walk, not by repentance and being baptized?

When it comes to the charismatic movement, depending on the sources that we look at, their number could easily be around 400 million worldwide, where a Baptist charismatic would view some things differently to say a Methodist charismatic and so forth.

 

[mikedsjr]

When it comes to the charismatic movement, depending on the sources that we look at, their number could easily be around 400 million worldwide, where a Baptist charismatic would view some things differently to say a Methodist charismatic and so forth.

Would you say all charismatic groups are Christian?

 

[Biblicist]

Would you say all charismatic groups are Christian?

The safe reply to this question would be that providing that each "charismatic group" (or more properly with that of its members) have the Holy Spirit residing within them then the answer would be yes. This does not mean that every charismatic or Pentecostal congregation that has a sign out front saying that they are either a charismatic or a Pentecostal congregation are necessarily Born Again - as with all other congregations each would need to be assessed on their own merits.

As there are so many charismatics and charismatic congregations, it simply becomes problematic when we try and fit them into the same basket; there would undoubtedly be as many differences between say a Baptist charismatic congregation and a Roman Catholic charismatic congregation as there are probably types of shirt buttons. For that matter, are all Baptists and Baptist congregations Christian?

 

[mikedsjr]

Biblicist, what qualifications govern a congregation as saved or has the Spirit?

 

[Extraneous]

18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all;

 

[Hillsage]

Hillsage, so are you saying all charismatics believe God judges a person's walk, not by repentance and being baptized?

You asked my opinion and I gave you that. I do not speak for any group, though I consider myself as mostly charismatic. But scripture is pretty plain that the walk/works of all will be judged. And the judgment of your walk includes multiple baptisms as one progresses in God. Repentance and water baptism are two. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is three. And NO!...all charismatics don't believe 'that' either.