Cessationism question

[Biblicist]

No opinion? Do you know Hebrew writing styles? Do you not think it important to be aware of the author's intent?

Even though John was a Jew, where Aramaic (and probably not Hebrew) was the language that he spoke at home and within his community, the book that he compiled was written in Greek and not Aramaic or Hebrew.

Interpreting the Gospel of John, Gary M. Burge (1992) pp.128-29

"For students who do not know Greek, grammatical analysis is especially troublesome. The original meaning John tried to convey is hidden in the Greek text, and those who do not have the ability to read John in Greek are at a severe disadvantage".​

 

[1stcenturylady]

Even though John was a Jew, where Aramaic (and probably not Hebrew) was the language that he spoke at home and within his community, the book that he compiled was written in Greek and not Aramaic or Hebrew.

Interpreting the Gospel of John, Gary M. Burge (1992) pp.128-29

"For students who do not know Greek, grammatical analysis is especially troublesome. The original meaning John tried to convey is hidden in the Greek text, and those who do not have the ability to read John in Greek are at a severe disadvantage".​

John was a Hebrew and knew Hebrew styles of writing. Why do you think John separated 6, 8 and 10?

 

[Biblicist]

John was a Hebrew and knew Hebrew styles of writing. Why do you think John separated 6, 8 and 10?

As for John possibly knowing about Hebrew styles of writing, we do not know if John even understood Hebrew as Aramaic was the language of the ordinary Israelite; for that matter, as John was born and raised in the rustic region around Galilee then he may have had little if any exposure to Hebrew, let alone with Hebrew writing styles.

As for the separation of chapters 6, 8 & 10 chapter 6 is merely a change from a first person account to John's recollection of specific events, where the chapter was certainly not separated by John but by another centuries later. Chapter 8 and 10 were also separated centuries later.

As for the Greek (not Hebrew or Aramaic) text of John which we have contained within the Scriptures, I cannot see any word clues that compel us to start a new chapter, where verses and chapters were not a concept that John would have known about.

 

[1stcenturylady]

As for John possibly knowing about Hebrew styles of writing, we do not know if John even understood Hebrew as Aramaic was the language of the ordinary Israelite; for that matter, as John was born and raised in the rustic region around Galilee then he may have had little if any exposure to Hebrew, let alone with Hebrew writing styles.

As for the separation of chapters 6, 8 & 10 chapter 6 is merely a change from a first person account to John's recollection of specific events, where the chapter was certainly not separated by John but by another centuries later. Chapter 8 and 10 were also separated centuries later.

As for the Greek (not Hebrew or Aramaic) text of John which we have contained within the Scriptures, I cannot see any word clues that compel us to start a new chapter, where verses and chapters were not a concept that John would have known about.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the importance of KNOWING the author.

Lord Byron, romantic poet of the early 1800’s, walked into a pub and sat down at a table by the fire. Sitting at the table next to him he heard the heated conversation of two gentlemen discussing the meaning of a poem – one written by the poet himself. He listened with amusement as they debated over the meaning of the poem, both completely missing the point. Finally, he chimed in with the true meaning of the poem, introducing himself as the author. Even so they stood their ground preferring their own interpretations, and both argued with Lord Byron over the meaning of the poem.

 

[Biblicist]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the importance of KNOWING the author.

That's certainly a fair comment, but what exactly do we know about John as the author of his Gospel?

I have the book that I referred to in my previous post which provides about us much information as can be presented in a 185 page technical dissertation; Burge along with all the other Johannine commentators seem to be in much the same predicament in that we unfortunately know very little about him.

 

[1stcenturylady]

That's certainly a fair comment, but what exactly do we know about John as the author of his Gospel?

I have the book that I referred to in my previous post which provides about us much information as can be presented in a 185 page technical dissertation; Burge along with all the other Johannine commentators seem to be in much the same predicament in that we unfortunately know very little about him.

Well, by recognizing a common Hebrew style of writing used in both chapter 1 and 3, I would say John knew them. Don't you know any? I think you and Hilly would find it fascinating, but more importantly - enlightening.

 

[Biblicist]

Well, by recognizing a common Hebrew style of writing used in both chapter 1 and 3, I would say John knew them. Don't you know any?

From what I can glean from the Johannine specialists, and I am hardly well read on the subject, we know that John regularly referred to events that a Jew would understand but as he wrote in a rather rough Greek style this means that there is no 'Hebrew style' of writing at play in his Gospel.

-- Must go!

 

[1stcenturylady]

From what I can glean from the Johannine specialists, and I am hardly well read on the subject, we know that John regularly referred to events that a Jew would understand but as he wrote in a rather rough Greek style this means that there is no 'Hebrew style' of writing at play in his Gospel.

-- Must go!

Good night.

 

[Hillsage]

When it comes to Paul's use of "S/spirit" I wish that I had your peace of mind; his often troublesome use of pneuma has given scholars, commentators and students headaches for centuries and particularly so in the past 40 or so years due to the move of the Spirit within what was little more than a very tired and powerless worldwide Church. I'm sure that Paul being able to speak Aramaic, Latin, Greek and Hebrew was a great help to him, but it's too bad that he never thought to learn to write in English.

At least we both have the peace of mind that 'we have it'. I once listened to a preacher/teacher say, concerning the baptism with the Holy Spirit; "I don't care if you got it right or got it wrong, I just want to know that you got it." And yet we still have 'unbelieving believers' who are still trying to dot the i's and cross the t's of doctrine before they'll even believe 'in it' let alone believe 'for it'. Don't they realize that they stand in a line that's 2000 years old/long. They were calling us "mad" in the days of Paul. We will always have doubting Thomas's because of a number of false doctrines deeply ingrained for so many centuries.

As you said, when we are assembled together we can certainly all praise the Father in our native language and I would add that we can also praise him in the Spirit if we do so to ourselves or even as a mere whisper when we are in a larger meeting. We also have the ability as you realise to allow the Holy Spirit to speak words of praise to the Father where each one is subsequently interpreted..

Actually I don't 'realize allowing the Holy Spirit (with capitals) to speak to the Father'. It doesn't make sense to me that the Holy Spirit has to even use me to speak to the Father in a language I don't understand. What I do understand though, is that the holy spirit within me can pray to God in its heavenly/angelic language. And I'm assuming that, from all translations I know of anyway, it isn't the Holy Spirit 'yielding to me', in order to to talk to God (something which He already is, also). Why don't translations ever capitalize spirit in the following verses, like you do when referring to your 'doctrinal interpretation' of them? And not 'just you', but obviously others.

1CO 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.
15 What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.
16 Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying?

If 'you' are praying with the Holy Spirit, as you believe, then whose fault is it, when some believer that the scripture says is an "ungifted"/Gr. idiotes, is offended? My question has to be; Am I praying in the Holy Spirit, whom I'm manifesting individually as 'I will', instead of "as He wills"? Or am I praying in the spiritual tongue of my spirit which I have control over, just like the prophets do with their spirits pl., which also isn't capitalized I might add?

1CO 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

For those of us who were able to have even a few brief years in the Lord during the Charismatic Renewal of the 60's and 70's (I just crept in), we would probably both be well aware that most of us presumed that Bible scholars were not so much raised in Seminaries but in cemeteries.

And how is that working out for the church today? What I see is that it's confirmation of that very quote my wife made in the last post IMO. Experts defending every heresy there is with a "It is written" to justify their position. Having said that, I do appreciate that you have weighed in on the Charismatic side of things here. You are a wealth of good stuff....especially for a 'funksional dichotomist' (sic).

 

[Hillsage]

No opinion? Do you know Hebrew writing styles? Do you not think it important to be aware of the author's intent?

I've never heard of Hebrew writing styles in 45 years, so; No, I guess they aren't that important to me. No more important concerning 'your post', anyway, than your lack of response or comment on all I had in my prior post, concerning 'soul salvation', 'eternal/temporal' forgiveness of sin, as well as the difference between Son of God' 'Son of man' differences, as well as the difference between "life" (temporal) versus "and life abundant" (eternal). All of which you never commented on.

So I guess if you're upset with my shortcomings in not responding to your subsequent post, then I guess that's on you. Don't know what else to say.

EDIT; Had to several times because it SENT accidentally with the first sentence I wrote.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I've never heard of Hebrew writing styles in 45 years, so; No, I guess they aren't that important to me. No more important concerning 'your post', anyway, than your lack of response or comment on all I had in my prior post, concerning 'soul salvation', 'eternal/temporal' forgiveness of sin, as well as the difference between Son of God' 'Son of man' differences, as well as the difference between "life" (temporal) versus "and life abundant" (eternal). All of which you never commented on.

So I guess if you're upset with my shortcomings in not responding to your subsequent post, then I guess that's on you. Don't know what else to say.

EDIT; Had to several times because it SENT accidentally with the first sentence I wrote.

I ran into this after meeting Roy Blizzard in the late 70's, a teacher and co-author of the book, Understanding the difficult words of Jesus. It has to do with Hebrew idioms. I was amazed at how much I learned. From there I got interested in the Jerusalem Perspective Magazine as the other author, David Bivin was involved with it.

Luke 14:26 (Greek style) "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

Matthew 10:37 (Hebrew style) "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

You never know, old dogs might be able to learn new tricks, if they aren't too set in their ways, or already think they know it all. We all need to be humble and keep an open mind to the Spirit. He isn't done teaching any of us, including me.

 

[Biblicist]

At least we both have the peace of mind that 'we have it'.

Even though I obviously have a good degree of confidence with my understanding of how Paul has used the Greek word pneuma, there are still a few uncertain nuances at play, which means that my confidence sits somewhere around the 90 percent mark with regard to his use of pneuma within the Scriptures.

When we look at how Paul would have penned the word where he would have written it in capitals (Uncial script), as with PNEUMA, this means that I could tongue-in-cheek suggest that as Paul wrote pneuma in Capitals then we should do the same; but as Paul and every other Greek of the day wrote everything in Uncial script this then means that from a linguistic approach that it would serve no purpose.

I once listened to a preacher/teacher say, concerning the baptism with the Holy Spirit; "I don't care if you got it right or got it wrong, I just want to know that you got it." And yet we still have 'unbelieving believers' who are still trying to dot the i's and cross the t's of doctrine before they'll even believe 'in it' let alone believe 'for it'. Don't they realize that they stand in a line that's 2000 years old/long. They were calling us "mad" in the days of Paul. We will always have doubting Thomas's because of a number of false doctrines deeply ingrained for so many centuries.

Okay, let’s look at this from an adjacent point of view; if we were in dire need of some high end legal (or medical) advice and we went to a website to see who was in town, would we choose an attorney whose motto was “Good enough is close enough” or to one that maybe said “We have a 99 percent success rate”?

Even though the early Pentecostals relied more with experience than they did with doctrine, though it should be said that they relied more on those understandings and teachings that they brought over from their cessationist days as against solid theology; this lack of a good theological model saw some early Pentecostals expecting that tongues could be used for missionary endeavours (contrary to the Biblical evidence) and that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a second experience of the Holy Spirit, which is also not contained within the Scriptures.

Thankfully the early Pentecostals realised that the old cessationist way of thinking could not be applied to the Ministry of the Holy Spirit so they soon began to discard this old and dated notion about tongues. As for the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, since around the 1980’s there are now fewer Pentecostals who still believe that the BHS is intended to be subsequent to our Salvation. As very few Pentecostals (including many AoG members) have any real confidence with the position of subsequence many have sadly allowed the fullness of the Holy Spirit to fall to the wayside. If these same individuals understood that the Scriptures tell us that the BHS is intended for all new Believers, the very moment that they have been Born Again by the Holy Spirit then this would undoubtedly see the Church return to a place of Spiritual power.

Actually I don't 'realize allowing the Holy Spirit (with capitals) to speak to the Father'. It doesn't make sense to me that the Holy Spirit has to even use me to speak to the Father in a language I don't understand. What I do understand though, is that the holy spirit within me can pray to God in its heavenly/angelic language. And I'm assuming that, from all translations I know of anyway, it isn't the Holy Spirit 'yielding to me', in order to to talk to God (something which He already is, also). Why don't translations ever capitalize spirit in the following verses, like you do when referring to your 'doctrinal interpretation' of them? And not 'just you', but obviously others.

1CO 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.
15 What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.
16 Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying?

When we consider the context of 1Cor 14:14-16, if we were to isolate this passage from its preceding context then we could certainly consider it to be a very confusing passage, at least as the question relates to Paul’s use of pneuma. But things change when we not only consider the entirety of Pauline theology but with its preceding context which begins in 1 Cor 12 and particularly with verses 3 through 14.

In these particular 12 verses we find Paul using the terms Spirit of God (1), Holy Spirt (1) and Spirit (9) times, where all of the translations that I have place these ‘S’ in Uppercase. As all the versions to my knowledge (other than with the Bishop’s Bible) have chosen to employ upper ‘S’ throughout 1 Cor 12:1 through 13, then we should undoubtedly being the same where we use either or both Spirit and S/spirit, though the term S/spirit would be end up confusing more people than it would help others.
There is one exception that I am aware of which is with the Bishop’s Bible (1595):

​

If 'you' are praying with the Holy Spirit

, as you believe, then whose fault is it, when some believer that the scripture says is an "ungifted"/Gr. idiotes, is offended? My question has to be; Am I praying in the Holy Spirit, whom I'm manifesting individually as 'I will', instead of "as He wills"? Or am I praying in the spiritual tongue of my spirit which I have control over, just like the prophets do with their spirits pl., which also isn't capitalized I might add?

1CO 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

Even though there are undoubtedly many times when the majority opinion on a given matter can be incorrect, when it comes to the Holy Spirit being the agency or source of tongues, without any doubt, this would be the virtual universal understanding of tongues within Pentecostal and charismatic circles.

With Paul’s use of idiotes, even though it can be rightfully applied to those who do not understand the things of the Spirit (cessationists), his use of this word in 1Cor 14:16 might also be applied even to those who can pray in tongues. As we do not know what is being said to the Father, then we also become one of those who is ‘unschooled’ or ‘unknowledgeable’ about what someone is saying in tongues until they provide an interpretation.

As to praying in the Spirit (tongues), this is always something that we choose to do, the Holy Spirit will never compel us to either pray in the Spirit or to prophesy.

The following graphic which contains three lexical definitions for the Greek word idiotes has been provided for those who want a bit more background:

Spoiler: Lexicon-Idiotes

And how is that working out for the church today? What I see is that it's confirmation of that very quote my wife made in the last post IMO. Experts defending every heresy there is with a "It is written" to justify their position. Having said that, I do appreciate that you have weighed in on the Charismatic side of things here. You are a wealth of good stuff....especially for a 'funksional dichotomist' (sic).

If we are experts, amateurs or newbies to the Word of God, we can all get things both right and wrong along with a mixture of the two.

As the Father has seen fit to establish the Office of the teacher then I am more than happy to avail myself of their services. One of the benefits with referring to Pentecostal and charismatic scholars and commentators is that we can expose ourselves to the brightest of the bright, where we can come away not only with a broad understanding of a given subject but with solid reasons why various positions have any validity or not.

 

[Hillsage]

Okay, let’s look at this from an adjacent point of view; if we were in dire need of some high end legal (or medical) advice and we went to a website to see who was in town, would we choose an attorney whose motto was “Good enough is close enough” or to one that maybe said “We have a 99 percent success rate”?

The problem with 'analogies' is, they are only as much good, as when they are in alignment with scripture. Having said that what scripture supports your analogy? My response to your analogy would be this;

LUK 12:11 And when they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not be anxious how or what you are to answer or what you are to say; 12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."

IOW do I even need expert 'legal counsel/degreed theologians' concerning spiritual things? Not according to this scripture.

Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

I believe I've received things just from spending time with Jesus too.

John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

Here again we are promised that we can be led of the Spirit into the truth.
I know that all these scriptures aren't without a degree of fallibility for me. But then 'which theologian' am I too believe, also brings a 'fallibility factor' of its own.

But, back to your original 'adjacent view' analogy.
If I'm looking for 'fundamental' legal advice, which any lawyer in the world should know, do I need the smartest lawyer in town or will any lawyer do? Personally, I have two lawyers, both of which are patients of mine. One 'cheaper one' for collections for the business, and a 'fancy pants' one, for litigation purposes. And the last time I did a deposition for him in a court case, he was shocked that I have never had a mal practice suit against me in 30 years, which is still true 7 years later.

Even though the early Pentecostals relied more with experience than they did with doctrine, though it should be said that they relied more on those understandings and teachings that they brought over from their cessationist days as against solid theology;

A very good point. The church experienced the same thing when Martin Luther was considered a heretic by "orthodoxy". The Protestant church today, still has RC errors which have never been rooted out of it IMO.

this lack of a good theological model saw some early Pentecostals expecting that tongues could be used for missionary endeavours (contrary to the Biblical evidence) and that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a second experience of the Holy Spirit, which is also not contained within the Scriptures.

I know what you mean....I've had way more than a 'couple' of experiences myself.

Thankfully the early Pentecostals realised that the old cessationist way of thinking could not be applied to the Ministry of the Holy Spirit so they soon began to discard this old and dated notion about tongues. As for the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, since around the 1980’s there are now fewer Pentecostals who still believe that the BHS is intended to be subsequent to our Salvation. As very few Pentecostals (including many AoG members) have any real confidence with the position of subsequence many have sadly allowed the fullness of the Holy Spirit to fall to the wayside. If these same individuals understood that the Scriptures tell us that the BHS is intended for all new Believers, the very moment that they have been Born Again by the Holy Spirit then this would undoubtedly see the Church return to a place of Spiritual power.

Maybe you better give me the definition of 'subsequence' just to make sure I'm thinking correctly.

When we consider the context of 1Cor 14:14-16, if we were to isolate this passage from its preceding context then we could certainly consider it to be a very confusing passage, at least as the question relates to Paul’s use of pneuma. But things change when we not only consider the entirety of Pauline theology but with its preceding context which begins in 1 Cor 12 and particularly with verses 3 through 14.

I look at that a bit different. I think the context of chapter 12 is wholly Holy Spirit. And chapter 14 doesn't differentiate 'which Sspirit is doing what' because Paul lets context determine definition. Unfortunately the first century people understood the context of 12 which gave them the required definition to begin with IMO.


In these particular 12 verses we find Paul using the terms Spirit of God (1), Holy Spirt (1) and Spirit (9) times, where all of the translations that I have place these ‘S’ in Uppercase. As all the versions to my knowledge (other than with the Bishop’s Bible) have chosen to employ upper ‘S’ throughout 1 Cor 12:1 through 13, then we should undoubtedly being the same where we use either or both Spirit and S/spirit, though the term S/spirit would be end up confusing more people than it would help others.
There is one exception that I am aware of which is with the Bishop’s Bible (1595):

View attachment 196021

​

Unfortunately verse 1 isn't highlighted in your bishops edition. Which allows you to skip over the fact that it is a small s is all the translations you have, because it is talking about spiritual brethren and not Spiritual brethren. And yet all those 'manifestations' listed are being accomplished by the Holy Spirit and not the brethren (who are merely vessels for God to work 'through'.

Even though there are undoubtedly many times when the majority opinion on a given matter can be incorrect, when it comes to the Holy Spirit being the agency or source of tongues, without any doubt, this would be the virtual universal understanding of tongues within Pentecostal and charismatic circles.

All I can say is 'might doesn't make right'....kinda like having the 'best mafia attorney' to go to court for you to win even though you're guilty as hell....right?

With Paul’s use of idiotes, even though it can be rightfully applied to those who do not understand the things of the Spirit (cessationists), his use of this word in 1Cor 14:16 might also be applied even to those who can pray in tongues. As we do not know what is being said to the Father, then we also become one of those who is ‘unschooled’ or ‘unknowledgeable’ about what someone is saying in tongues until they provide an interpretation.

Here, we are pretty divided. I say Paul is listing three groups. One who has the BHS which is the only Holy Spirit (giver) baptism of holy spirit (gift) power that one needs to manifest prayer tongues from their spirit, or to manifest any of the 9 listed in chapter 12. The other two groups are those who are born again and therefore have 'A holy spirit' which is one with the spirit of Christ (Or spirit Jesus was born with). And the last group is unbelievers. Neither of which understand or operate in either IMO.

As to praying in the Spirit (tongues), this is always something that we choose to do, the Holy Spirit will never compel us to either pray in the Spirit or to prophesy.

Again we differ. The Holy Spirit doesn't need to pray to God, whom He is. I still think it is for my spirit to communicate with God, who is spirit.

If we are experts, amateurs or newbies to the Word of God, we can all get things both right and wrong along with a mixture of the two.

If history of the church has proven one thing only, it is certainly this point you've just made.

As the Father has seen fit to establish the Office of the teacher then I am more than happy to avail myself of their services. One of the benefits with referring to Pentecostal and charismatic scholars and commentators is that we can expose ourselves to the brightest of the bright, where we can come away not only with a broad understanding of a given subject but with solid reasons why various positions have any validity or not.

And whose to say that all 'teachers', having cemetery degrees, also have the Spirit? A former pastor of ours tells the story of how, when he was in Baptist Seminary...he led his roommate to the Lord, who was also studying to be a pastor.

 

[Hillsage]

The following graphic which contains three lexical definitions for the Greek word idiotes has been provided for those who want a bit more background:

Spoiler: Lexicon-Idiotes

View attachment 196022​

Biblicist, I stand corrected. I just finished reading your attachment and then checking the other applications of the same word. I honestly can't believe that when I first studied that word that I never even looked up every other time it was used in the NT. And I also can't believe I've used that word to describe the 'have nots' here for several years, and not one of them 'idiotes' was astute enough to at least study my accusations and prove me wrong as easily as you just did.

 

[Biblicist]

Biblicist, I stand corrected. I just finished reading your attachment and then checking the other applications of the same word. I honestly can't believe that when I first studied that word that I never even looked up every other time it was used in the NT. And I also can't believe I've used that word to describe the 'have nots' here for several years, and not one of them 'idiotes' was astute enough to at least study my accusations and prove me wrong as easily as you just did.

That's great!! The reason that I often include a lexical analysis of a given word is that most people do not have access to the better lexicons, I use BibleWorks 9 which contains about a dozen Greek lexicons; this does not mean that I am any smarter than anyone else but as I have the resources at hand I value providing this information to others.

The reason that I enjoy using those lovely spoilers is that it not only saves a bit of space but more importantly it hopefully allows me to insert them into a conversation not so much as evidence for whatever position that I hold to, but so that others can gain a better understanding of a Greek word and with how they will generally contain a wide range of meanings. Hopefully people will copy the lexical material that I provide and place it somewhere for future reference.

To give you an example of the power of a program such as BibleWorks (and others), I have been able to post a 3MB PDF attachment which contains 274 pages of lexical information based on 12 Greek lexicons and about a dozen Bible translations for 1 Cor 14:16 (includes both pneuma and idiotes). This is the first time that I have posted a PDF file and I was surprised that we could actually post one that was 3MB as well -- enjoy!
The entire process only took about 15 seconds to perform within BibleWorks.

NB. I have almost finished my reply to your earlier post.

 

[Biblicist]

. . . . . .But, back to your original 'adjacent view' analogy.
If I'm looking for 'fundamental' legal advice, which any lawyer in the world should know, do I need the smartest lawyer in town or will any lawyer do? Personally, I have two lawyers, both of which are patients of mine. One 'cheaper one' for collections for the business, and a 'fancy pants' one, for litigation purposes. And the last time I did a deposition for him in a court case, he was shocked that I have never had a mal practice suit against me in 30 years, which is still true 7 years later.

One of the hurdles that most people quickly encounter when they show an interest with the more scholarly Christian theology, such as with the countless commentaries and lexicons, is where do they start! It can be easy for someone such as myself to spout about how great these resources are and that they can take us to what is essentially new heights, but for most people, where and how do they find these resources.

Then the next hurdle to be encountered is the financial obstacle as these commentaries can be expensive, and of course, if people do not know who the commentators are then they can very easily purchase paper editions of these books that in my view are probably more suited as landfill. As a rule, I would not outlay any money on commentaries that were published before about 1980 as the woeful lack of knowledge regarding the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit by even the finest of scholars of this time period can range from the disappointing to what is little more than being woeful.

Maybe you better give me the definition of 'subsequence' just to make sure I'm thinking correctly.

You would undoubtedly know the doctrine of subsequence under a different name or term, where the classic-Pentecostal (i.e., AoG) deems that the BHS follows on after our initially being Born Again, which is why we refer to it as being of subsequence where the BHS follows on from our initial conversion.

During the 1960’s through to the late 1980’s there was an intense amount of discussion between the various classic-Pentecostal denominations with the Evangelicals and charismatics with regard to how we are to receive the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. As the Pentecostals lacked the theological weight to defend their position, it took many Pentecostals a little while to realise that they could not defend this particular understanding. To make things worse, when they realised that Paul never speaks or even provides a hint that the BHS was intended to follow on after our initial conversion experience, they then came up with a rear-guard defence where it was suggested that even though Paul provides no support for the view of subsequence that Luke still does; this gave rise to the popular field of study amongst classic-Pentecostals known as Lucan-Pauline theology, where they began to pit Luke against Paul. This had the unfortunate outcome where the classic-Pentecostals then inadvertently created a sort of ‘Canon within a Canon’, where they could now freely dismiss Paul as being a theological lightweight when compared to Luke.

To summarise, at this point of time, it seems that few if any outside of classic-Pentecostal circles are interested in this discussion where most deem it to be a closed issue. Hopefully the AoG executive within a decade or so will show the courage to discard this old viewpoint as I feel that even many credentialed AoG ministers struggle to believe that the Scriptures in anyway support the view of subsequence.

Unfortunately verse 1 isn't highlighted in your bishops edition. Which allows you to skip over the fact that it is a small s is all the translations you have, because it is talking about spiritual brethren and not Spiritual brethren. And yet all those 'manifestations' listed are being accomplished by the Holy Spirit and not the brethren (who are merely vessels for God to work 'through'.

The reason that I did not highlight 1Cor 12:1 was that the Greek word found here is pneumatikon and not pneuma.

All I can say is 'might doesn't make right'....kinda like having the 'best mafia attorney' to go to court for you to win even though you're guilty as hell....right?

Yes, I wonder how John MacArthur is going these days!

Here, we are pretty divided. I say Paul is listing three groups. One who has the BHS which is the only Holy Spirit (giver) baptism of holy spirit (gift) power that one needs to manifest prayer tongues from their spirit, or to manifest any of the 9 listed in chapter 12. The other two groups are those who are born again and therefore have 'A holy spirit' which is one with the spirit of Christ (Or spirit Jesus was born with). And the last group is unbelievers. Neither of which understand or operate in either IMO.

Actually, even though I omitted reference to three groups, we probably agree.

1. Those who understand the things of the Spirit
2. Those who do not (typically cessationists)
3. The unsaved​

Again we differ. The Holy Spirit doesn't need to pray to God, whom He is. I still think it is for my spirit to communicate with God, who is spirit.

Even though it is the Holy Spirit who prays to the Father through us, we are still the ones who initiate this prayer, which is why the use of ‘S/spirit’ for pneuma is often a valid choice.

And whose to say that all 'teachers', having cemetery degrees, also have the Spirit? A former pastor of ours tells the story of how, when he was in Baptist Seminary...he led his roommate to the Lord, who was also studying to be a pastor.

When it comes to the field of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek language studies, oddly enough, we can often find more openness and honesty with traditional denominational academics who are openly liberal atheists than we can we some hardcore-cessationist commentators who claim to know Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. Unlike some of these hardcore-cessationist scholars who seem to try and undermine the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit whenever they can, most avowed liberal scholars are not concerned with the Power of the Holy Spirit as they deem them to be mere fables, so they are more than prepared to be honest with the text as they care neither way.

 

[FredVB]

Don't take the scripture of 1 Corinthians 13:8 out of context, read to the end of the chapter. None of the gifts will cease until we see Christ face to face. That is at the second coming. They are for the Church until it is raptured at that time. Not before. The teachers of cessationism are teaching unbelief. Mark 16:17 says these signs are for those who BELIEVE.

As was said, the passage is not about Christ returning, to see him face to face, that will happen, but changes in the believing church and change in ministries and gifts have been happening all along, and we have far more revelation available now with much more access to truth that would be for us to know. There isn't the same level of language barriers in our world now.

As it is said tongues will cease, that has to be true, and differences we see will amount to understanding when that would be. I see the gift of tongues defined a certain way, miraculously distinct from any ecstatic utterances that others would do, and I see it showing that this miraculous occurrence with speech in another human language not known to the speaker but known to a hearer did not continue, evidently stopping at some time, though ecstatic speech is around, including cases where it is called tongues.

 

[Hillsage]

You would undoubtedly know the doctrine of subsequence under a different name or term, where the classic-Pentecostal (i.e., AoG) deems that the BHS follows on after our initially being Born Again, which is why we refer to it as being of subsequence where the BHS follows on from our initial conversion.[/]

A position I admittedly still hold to, not based upon the theological dissection of scholars, but simply based upon my personal experience and subsequent studies (mine/others).

To make things worse, when they realised that Paul never speaks or even provides a hint that the BHS was intended to follow on after our initial conversion experience, they then came up with a rear-guard defence where it was suggested that even though Paul provides no support for the view of subsequence that Luke still does; this gave rise to the popular field of study amongst classic-Pentecostals known as Lucan-Pauline theology, where they began to pit Luke against Paul. This had the unfortunate outcome where the classic-Pentecostals then inadvertently created a sort of ‘Canon within a Canon’, where they could now freely dismiss Paul as being a theological lightweight when compared to Luke.

As for me, I'm not as concerned that Paul/Luke may differ in the eyes of those who think 'they' do. But I do believe that Jesus gave a president for me with the three baptisms which spoke of in the Great Commission. Baptisms which fit hand in glove, for me, with the multiple baptisms espoused in Hebrews 6 for progression into maturity. Unfortunately, none of your 'aids' probably even speak to these 2 'variables'...do they? I'm going to assume not, because as you earlier mentioned, most are dichotomists. So they have a bit of an immediate disadvantage in presenting their 'non triune' POV to me.

To summarise, at this point of time, it seems that few if any outside of classic-Pentecostal circles are interested in this discussion where most deem it to be a closed issue. Hopefully the AoG executive within a decade or so will show the courage to discard this old viewpoint as I feel that even many credentialed AoG ministers struggle to believe that the Scriptures in anyway support the view of subsequence.

I guess this is where my struggle isn't in 'talking it right before you get it wrongly' (if that's even possible with God), as much as it is, as I said before,; "have you got it?" Sadly, these men, which you mentioned, who are struggling so much with the theological language pertaining getting it by the 'letter of the theologian's law' (so to speak) and thereby 'doing it right', have lost the faith to 'do it at all'. Or at least, not nearly to the degree with which they once 'walked' in this experience, as Sspiritual denominations. Of all the visits I ever made to our local AofG, I never heard one tongue...let alone an interpretation or any other manifestation of the Spirit. It's like one brother (Derek Prince) said; "There is no longer a Pentecostal movement, because nothing is moving anymore. And the Charismatics are close to not moving anymore also." That's a 'quote' to the best of my 'poor' memory.

Yes, I wonder how John MacArthur is going these days!

Never could figure out what you were specifically referencing with this quote.

Actually, even though I omitted reference to three groups, we probably agree.

1. Those who understand the things of the Spirit
2. Those who do not (typically cessationists)
3. The unsaved​

I definitely agree Paul was making a great distinction as to three groups here. That was at least one reason for the exhortation of Corinthians.

Even though it is the Holy Spirit who prays to the Father through us, we are still the ones who initiate this prayer, which is why the use of ‘S/spirit’ for pneuma is often a valid choice.

Or......NOT! Sorry bro. my spirit and the Holy Spirit both have a language....IMO. And I control my spirit (like the prophet). And the Holy Spirit manifests Himself individually through us, when He wills....and, we are a 'willing vessel'. I can't make Him pray to God whom He already is, at my command.

When it comes to the field of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek language studies, oddly enough, we can often find more openness and honesty with traditional denominational academics who are openly liberal atheists than we can we some hardcore-cessationist commentators who claim to know Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. Unlike some of these hardcore-cessationist scholars who seem to try and undermine the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit whenever they can, most avowed liberal scholars are not concerned with the Power of the Holy Spirit as they deem them to be mere fables, so they are more than prepared to be honest with the text as they care neither way.

While I understand what you're saying concerning the blinders of indoctrinated translators, there's the flip-side. Even the NIV publishers found a qualified homosexual OT expert, to help them interpret that translation too. Apparently, homosexuality wasn't part of the publishing company's concern, when it came to signing their required 'doctrinal agreement contract'. A contract which all translators with 'qualifying cemetery degrees' have to sign before being hired to translate...the 'infallible word of God'. Right, and just when did it become 'infallible'?

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


I still have to say, that the cry of my heart is that I want to rely more on hearing Him than on hearing the wit of carnal minded theologians. All of which, can talk circles around me in that battle for the mind of doctrinal conquest.

IOW, in speaking to your initially spelled out dilemma for most of us....I've never bought a commentary. I have one Greek lexicon (which doesn't meet your 'requirements' ). I bought it because I was young and hungry and heard there was a book that helped you study the Greek and Hebrew. It was called STRONG'S CONCORDANCE. Only I didn't know that name. But the kind owner of the local "CHRISTIAN" BOOK store 'dusted off', and sold me a copy of Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich's Greek NT Lexicon. Wasn't much good for a new Christian who didn't even speak Greek though? But it's in really good shape if you want to buy it....NOT.

 

[Biblicist]

A position I admittedly still hold to, not based upon the theological dissection of scholars, but simply based upon my personal experience and subsequent studies (mine/others).

As for this understanding, where both you and I, along with millions of others over the years, we share much the same experience in that we all entered into the Fullness of the Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues, days, weeks, months and even years after we were initially Born Again.

So for the many who are aware that the Scriptures do not support this VERY REAL EXPERIENCE as many of us understand it, they of course face a real problem in that even though they may be aware (even reluctantly) that the experience that has been described to us as being the Baptism in the Holy Spirit which is supposedly only received some time after our initial Conversion (subsequence) has no real foundation, this DOES NOT MEAN that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues is invalid.

All that happened to both you and I and with the many millions who experienced much the same thing as we both did, is that we were essentially all robbed of a full Salvific experience, where we should have been told at the onset that we could expect to receive the fullness of the Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues on day one, not merely months or years later.

So what many of us received sometime after our initial Conversion/initiation is something that we should have received when we were initially Born Again, which is what the Scriptures speak of.

When it comes to a lack of Scriptural support for the Baptism in the Holy Spirit supposedly occurring sometime after our initial Conversion, this is an issue that the AoG have been well aware of since at least the 1980's. Once it was pointed out to the classic-Pentecostals (i.e., AoG) that Paul makes absolutely no reference to the BHS supposedly being received at anytime other than at our initial Conversion, this is where they were compelled to build a false contrast between Luke's theology (as found in Acts) as against that of Paul (the Epistles).

This so called "Canon-within-a-Canon" where Luke's historical record supposedly trumps Paul's theology is a further slide away from Biblical orthodoxy; all that the AoG has to do is to toughen up and admit that they got it wrong way back in the early days and move on.

Considering the importance of this point I will keep it seperate from my reply to your post.

 

[Hillsage]

So for the many who are aware that the Scriptures do not support this VERY REAL EXPERIENCE as many of us understand it, they of course face a real problem in that even though they may be aware (even reluctantly) that the experience that has been described to us as being the Baptism in the Holy Spirit which is supposedly only received some time after our initial Conversion (subsequence) has no real foundation, this DOES NOT MEAN that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues is invalid.

I'm not sure as to why you say there is no real foundation in scripture concerning subsequence....if that's even 'exactly' what you're saying.

When Phillip preached the gospel to Samaria, and then 'correctly water baptized' (I'm assuming) the believers, none of them received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Why not? I believe it was for the same reason I did not. I wasn't receiving the Holy Spirit, I was receiving the WORD for salvation;

ACT 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria HAD (past tense) received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they MIGHT (future tense) receive the Holy Ghost:

The only 'bad' assumption one can make here, is to say Phillip didn't know how to get people correctly saved and baptized so they'd get the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Seriously . I believe I'm going to put my money on Phillip's knowledge and all the theologians of today can be dipped.

My spirit, being born anew, became "joined to the Lord is one spirit". IOW, it was not joined 'to God' and His Spirit, it was joined to the Lord Jesus and His spirit. IOW my spirit was gennao/regenerated into the same holy spirit that was in Christ before He received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which came UPON Christ at age 30. I therefore now declare the holy spirit in me to be a salvific spiritual experience prior to the subsequence Holy Spirit experience of miraculous power...just like the pattern Son's experience.

All that happened to both you and I and with the many millions who experienced much the same thing as we both did, is that we were essentially all robbed of a full Salvific experience, where we should have been told at the onset that we could expect to receive the fullness of the Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues on day one, not merely months or years later.

I disagree. FULL SALVIFIC salvation of 'my spirit', came with the full re-birth of my spirit. The baptism of the Holy Spirit wasn't for salvation, it was for POWER.

LUK 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

ACT 1:8 But ye shall (future tense) receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you:

So what many of us received sometime after our initial Conversion/initiation is something that we should have received when we were initially Born Again, which is what the Scriptures speak of.

If you didn't above, explain what Phillip did that is any different than what Billy Graham did. I know Billy didn't know anything experientially about the BHS...but what about Phillip. Don't you think he did?

This so called "Canon-within-a-Canon" where Luke's historical record supposedly trumps Paul's theology is a further slide away from Biblical orthodoxy; all that the AoG has to do is to toughen up and admit that they got it wrong way back in the early days and move on.

I don't see where there is anything needed to "TRUMP Paul". Did Paul say anywhere you absolutely get the Holy Spirit upon first believing? If not then there was just an Acts teaching from Luke which was better clarifying the experience IMO. And is that also just the equivalent of what Priscilla and Aquila did for Apollos. And, who did 'they' learn from? None other than Paul when they were with him creating that most Charismatic church, Corinth (Act 18:1,2). Since Apollos was accurately preaching the things concerning Christ our LORD, and the spirit we receive from that salvific act, what further 'expounding' of the 'way of GOD' and His Spirit, might they have informed Billy Graham....I mean, Apollos of? MY vote is for 'subsequence'

ACT 18:25 This man/Apollos was instructed in the way of the LORD; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently/accurately the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. 26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of GOD more perfectly.

Billy and the Baptists of today still have a good grasp on John's baptism of repentance. But all I received when they baptized me in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. was symbolic of the holy spirit in me. The problem being, that Great Commission is demanding three baptisms and not one, and those aren't names they're titles. And, contextually and definitively, I think 'name' means in the 'power or authority' of each of those titles/entities. That's why, of the five times the disciples themselves 'water baptized' people in scripture, not once did they do so in any name/moniker but "Jesus Christ 2x/Lord Jesus 2x/the Lord 1x". What is your scriptural explanation for that? (Big question IMO, so please answer this one for sure. I understand skipping other stuff because my post is big...like yours, IMA. ). Last one being an exception.

Considering the importance of this point I will keep it seperate from my reply to your post.

Oh, don't bend over for me B. I'm so used to seeing your prevalent POV that I truly just smile every time I see someone thinking they know when to capitalize spirit more correctly than me. Not arrogance....just assurance....I hope.

Hey, BTW, I did get your download. Wow reminded me of the "Christian" bookstore purchase I made long ago. Way over my head. But at least this one was free. I was reading a theologians view of 'The Shack' theology at lunch, and he quoted a verse that fits me perfectly concerning this whole topic;

1CO 2:2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness and in much fear and trembling; 4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

Like I say, did you demonstrate the supernatural POWER of the Holy Spirit? I don't care if the "words of wisdom" from men is right or not. Theologians have fought that battle for centuries, and still no consensus. Thank God, I got it before I got so theologically intelligent, or I still wouldn't have it. 'The Shack theology book' also had another good point. He said; "Since the Enlightenment the church of the West has been locked into an overly rationalistic view of knowledge." AMEN.

Peace, Love, Dove...bro. Suppose we're entertaining anyone else here?