.

[Albion]

Seems like if God says we WILL do it, would mean that's His Will?

Uh, no. Leaving aside the "problem" of will as a verb and will as a noun, the point was that if it is predicted that some actions will take place, it doesn't mean that everyone is expected to perform them.

If I say, for instance, that "they will take up snakes and not be hurt by them" is this a command that every believer is expected to perform? Brian and I said, "no." It's just a phenomenon that will occur, not an order or an expectation that every one of us will engage in it.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Uh, no. Leaving aside the "problem" of will as a verb and will as a noun, the point was that if it is predicted that some actions will take place, it doesn't mean that everyone is expected to perform them.

If I say, for instance, that "they will take up snakes and not be hurt by them" is this a command that every believer is expected to perform? Brian and I said, "no." It's just a phenomenon that will occur, not an order or an expectation that every one of us will engage in it.

Part of the issue is in who is being addressed. Many Christians read themselves into every verse. My assertion is that that is not the correct way to read the Bible. Some of the NT is history; some is instructive to the apostles, and some is didactic teaching aimed at all Christians. Understanding who the audience is is the first step to proper interpretation.

 

[Albion]

Part of the issue is in who is being addressed. Many Christians read themselves into every verse.

I agree with that, although this particular one, John 14:12, seems so unspecific that I don't know how we could consider it to be a directive anyway.

 

[sunlover1]

Uh, no. Leaving aside the "problem" of will as a verb and will as a noun, the point was that if it is predicted that some actions will take place, it doesn't mean that everyone is expected to perform them.

If I say, for instance, that "they will take up snakes and not be hurt by them" is this a command that every believer is expected to perform? Brian and I said, "no." It's just a phenomenon that will occur, not an order or an expectation that every one of us will engage in it.

Maybe I should have said, if He "desires" it, then wouldn't that mean that it's His Will for us.
No, not each thing that each Apostle did (John the Revelator for example)
But we will (or should be doing) some Kingdom stuff for the world to see
and to bless His creation.
We should be healing the sick, regardless of how its done, (I have no problem
believing God would use similar means as then) we should be sharing the gospel,
we should be fasting and praying and casting out, prophesying, and anything else
God wants to do through us.
THIS is what it's all about!
Jesus didn't die so we could go to a building weekly.
He died that we might have LIFE, and POWER.
This is going to be a LONG ride,, we've only just begun!
(IMO)

 

[Albion]

Maybe I should have said, if He "desires" it, then wouldn't that mean that it's His Will for us.

I'd think so.

We should be healing the sick, regardless of how its done, (I have no problem
believing God would use similar means as then) we should be sharing the gospel,
we should be fasting and praying and casting out, prophesying, and anything else
God wants to do through us.

Absolutely, but, in those cases, you're referring to unequivocal admonitions or instructions given by Jesus--at the Sermon on the Mount, for example. By comparison, when we read “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father'' no particular action is indicated, and it clearly reads as a statement about what will happen in the future rather than as a command.

What "greater things" ought we to do if, for the sake of argument, we were to think of it as an instruction? And how would we even know how to rank what's greater or lesser than the works Jesus himself performed?

 

[sunlover1]

I agree with that, although this particular one, John 14:12, seems so unspecific that I don't know how we could consider it to be a directive anyway.

I added commentary to help us study it, meditating on it would be the best plan though,
Meditation on Scripture often seems to bring revelation. I for one, don't spend enough time
there or in His presence .. the things of the world, bleh!

Verily, verily, I say unto you, (emphasis)
He that believeth on me, (ALL Christians)
the works that I do (THE works that HE does, what works does He do?)
shall he do also; (ALL christians SHALL do)
and greater works than these shall he do; (And even greater works)
because I go unto my Father. (REASON we WILL do these works)

Since HE will be gone, and we (filled with God) are left to "be as Christ is, in the
world" then it would follow that we, his "many MEMBERED body" would 'do' those
things that He did when He was here in His earthly one membered body.
I think that's what He's saying by the last line. That because HE is leaving, now WE
will carry on His Work for the world.

IMO

 

[sunlover1]

What "greater things" ought we to do if, for the sake of argument, we were to think of it as an instruction? And how would we even know how to rank what's greater or lesser than the works Jesus himself performed?

Gosh, there are a LOT of theories out there!
Some say it means greater in number ...
but that doesn't seem right in context (IMO)
Some say that it's "greater" because it's done
even in His "absence" so to speak.
Trying to remember some of the other theories
i've heard over the years. Although, I'm sure
we will hear some right here in GT too.
And yes, how would we know how to rank +or-?
Good questions!
Only thing I know for sure is that it's exciting to
think about and discuss!! Gives me butterflies! lol
(been a while since I've had those )

 

[Extraneous]

The baptism of fire is one subject on which there was not an early consensus. Gregory of Nazianzen, among others, equated the baptism of fire to hell-fire. That is to say that in the texts where John the Baptist ascribes the baptism of the Spirit and of fire to Jesus' authority, there is an implied divide - some in the audience would receive one and some the other.

Your comments on Pentecost need further elaboration because as they are laid out above they are rather anomalous. Pentecost represented the apostles being empowered to teach the masses, not an individual revelation to believers by the Spirit.

I agree, but there are no apostles anymore. However, we all have the spirit inside us still.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Can we expect what was normative for the Apostle Paul, or other prominent figures during the initial stages of building the church to be our personal experience today?

Are we to read historical accounts as prescriptive instruction? In other words, just because something happened in history does that necessarily mean it will continue to happen, and happen to us? Are we to read this as history, or are we to write ourselves into the texts?

Some examples:

• Peter walked on water, so I can walk on water.
• Tongues of fire came down upon the apostles, so tongues of fire should come down on me.
• People were healed by touching a piece of cloth that Paul had touched, so I can pray over a handkerchief and people will be healed by touching it.

What concerns me is the way you doctored (is that the proper term? padded?) the question.

You chose a few miracles that we all know are very likely not to happen these days and if they did, we'd likely not know about them, and you left out things that could very well happen today. Then you suggest if those things you picked out you know we won't see today, it may mean none of what happened back then should apply to today or be taken as instruction.

It looks as though you are trying to create an answer that agrees with what you want to believe.

I'll leave it at that until I get some input on my thoughts there.

 

[klatu]

Can we expect what was normative for the Apostle Paul, or other prominent figures during the initial stages of building the church to be our personal experience today?

Are we to read historical accounts as prescriptive instruction? In other words, just because something happened in history does that necessarily mean it will continue to happen, and happen to us? Are we to read this as history, or are we to write ourselves into the texts?

Some examples:

• Peter walked on water, so I can walk on water.
• Tongues of fire came down upon the apostles, so tongues of fire should come down on me.
• People were healed by touching a piece of cloth that Paul had touched, so I can pray over a handkerchief and people will be healed by touching it.

When we examine historical accounts that include many miracles, one might infer that during that, pre theological/institutional church period, finding examples or direct evidence, even proof that God had started 'something' with the Incarnation especially profound were there for those looking for them. Two thousand years on, there are no such unambiguous examples readily at hand to suggest a God active in the world. The fact that God appears to have withdrawn his potential demonstrations of omnipotence from the modern world suggests there might be a considerable difference between any "prescriptive instruction" of those early times, probably passed on as an oral teaching-tradition and the grand theological constructs of dogma and doctirne that make up the 'church' today. My question is what 'prescriptive instruction' did Christ offer to men that may very well have depended upon a direct divine intervention? For the Resurrection of Jesus was itself an event of divine intervention responding to the perfect faith of the man prepared to do the will of God!

 

[jimmyjimmy]

What concerns me is the way you doctored (is that the proper term? padded?) the question.

You chose a few miracles that we all know are very likely not to happen these days and if they did, we'd likely not know about them, and you left out things that could very well happen today.

The question was pretty clear, and the examples were chosen intentionally to make it easy, even for those slow of learning, to answer correctly.

Why are these examples not likely to happen today, yet others (that you have not named, but I have a good guess about) will?

How would we not know about them?! There are millions in mega churches: Charismatic, Word of Faith, and Pentecostals, many who claim the identical miraculous powers of the apostles, and they all have smart phones with video.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

What "greater things" ought we to do if, for the sake of argument, we were to think of it as an instruction? And how would we even know how to rank what's greater or lesser than the works Jesus himself performed?

I would say that some are reading Jesus incorrectly. Who has cast a mountain into the sea? Did I miss it?

 

[Kenny'sID]

The question was pretty clear, and the examples were chosen intentionally to make it easy, even for those slow of learning, to answer correctly.

Why are these examples not likely to happen today, yet others (that you have not named, but I have a good guess about) will?

How would we not know about them?! There are millions in mega churches: Charismatic, Word of Faith, and Pentecostals, many who claim the identical miraculous powers of the apostles, and they all have smart phones with video.

Are you really asking me why these things are not likely to happen today?

• Peter walked on water, so I can walk on water.
• Tongues of fire came down upon the apostles, so tongues of fire should come down on me.
• People were healed by touching a piece of cloth that Paul had touched, so I can pray over a handkerchief and people will be healed by touching it.

When you said Can we expect what was normative for the Apostle Paul, or other prominent figures during the initial stages of building the church to be our personal experience today? It appeared to me you weren't just talking miracles.

I could name those things "that I have not named" the ones you mention but I'm just talking about normal stuff that could actually happen like his take oh head covering just as a for instance. Just because the things you mentioned don't happen today (I've never seen them happen anyway) doesn't mean many of Paul's non miracles or teachings shouldn't apply.

Anyway, I think the man bears listening too, he's there in the Bible for a reason. Was there something in particular he teaches that you are opposed too? A few things? Things you'd rather do that he says not to do? I ask because others seem to feel the same as you at least seemed to me to feel about Paul and some of his teachings...in that they shouldn't matter so much.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Are you really asking me why these things are not likely to happen today?

• Peter walked on water, so I can walk on water.
• Tongues of fire came down upon the apostles, so tongues of fire should come down on me.
• People were healed by touching a piece of cloth that Paul had touched, so I can pray over a handkerchief and people will be healed by touching it.

When you said Can we expect what was normative for the Apostle Paul, or other prominent figures during the initial stages of building the church to be our personal experience today? It appeared to me you weren't just talking miracles.

I could name those things "that I have not named" the ones you mention but I'm just talking about normal stuff that could actually happen like his take oh head covering just as a for instance. Just because the things you mentioned don't happen today (I've never seen them happen anyway) doesn't mean many of Paul's non miracles or teachings shouldn't apply.

Anyway, I think the man bears listening too, he's there in the Bible for a reason. Was there something in particular he teaches that you are opposed too? A few things? Things you'd rather do that he says not to do? I ask because others seem to feel the same as you at least seemed to me to feel about Paul and some of his teachings...in that they shouldn't matter so much.

You've mistaken the intent of the OP. I'm not against Paul. Far from it. I love the guy!

 

[Kenny'sID]

You've mistaken the intent of the OP. I'm not against Paul. Far from it. I love the guy!

No, wouldn't go so far as to say you were against him, just seemed to me you didn't think some of his teachings should apply today, or did I misunderstand?

 

[civilwarbuff]

No, wouldn't go so far as to say you were against him, just seemed to me you didn't think some of his teachings should apply today, or did I misunderstand?

Well, there was that part about women remaining silent in church, keeping their heads covered, asking their husbands questions about teachings they don't understand (not sure how the single women do that....Keep a list for later?)...so yes, there are some teachings that I would say do not apply to this day.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

No, wouldn't go so far as to say you were against him, just seemed to me you didn't think some of his teachings should apply today, or did I misunderstand?

You've misunderstood. It's about the average Christian thinking that they are no different than the apostle Paul in his ability to perform miracles works, and have a life full of the same experiences that he and the other 11 did.

 

[com7fy8]

One item I notice is how the disciples were in prayer and one accord when the Holy Spirit came like fire and had them speaking in tongues; and I consider that they did not know they would speak in tongues. But now we have people who say to expect to speak in tongues, like the early church . . . when in fact the disciples seem like they did not expect it. And certain ones promoting tongues do not spend hours and days together, like it seems the disciples did; ones seem to just expect someone to get filled and speak, more like an individual, than in prayer and one accord with the others.

And - - now . . . there are groups who are not prayerful and of one accord in the Holy Spirit, and these can be quite busy with defending themselves against tongues and signs and wonders, instead of becoming prayerful and one, and then discover what God does while they obey Him.

So, I consider it can be misleading to reject or to promote what will happen if we truly obey God. When Peter and those with him went to Cornelius and preached to them, the disciples were surprised that the Gentiles spoke in tongues. They were simply obeying Jesus, not dictating what would happen. So, I can see it is not scriptural to dictate what the Holy Spirit will do if we obey Him . . . if those early church leaders didn't.

And I think it is not wise to try to dictate what the Holy Spirit will not do. Like I say, ones can be not obedient to God in His peace; and instead of getting real correction they can be busy with fighting against people of other groups and beliefs . . . while they keep on having emotional troubles which don't go away, and can't get into agreement even with ones of their own groups.

The disciples, I can see, prayed until they were of one accord, then they discovered what really was God's will. But I see in various places, how ones just come into churches and talk and do not start in submission in prayer to God. Ones of various beliefs about gifts do this, the same way . . . though we see how the early church people would meet in prayer and become of one accord in order to discover what God did.

But God is not limited to some outward way of praying and being of one accord.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

One item I notice is how the disciples were in prayer and one accord when the Holy Spirit came like fire and had them speaking in tongues. Now there are groups who are not prayerful and of one accord in the Holy Spirit, and these can be quite busy with defending themselves against tongues and signs and wonders, instead of becoming prayerful and one

OK. That's a good point, so people like me have no chance of this type of thing happening to us because we are too busy refuting it. That would obviously mean that spiritual people, like yourself, have been in one accord, and have had visible tongues of fire on their heads.

Would you mind taking a picture of that the next time that you are all in one accord? Thank you!

 

[com7fy8]

Brain, what I mean is the disciples prayed and became of one accord before God did what He planned with them. I do not mean to say that when we do things in prayer we will always have the same results. Later, in the post, I offer how the disciples were not expecting to speak in tongues. And so, like them, be together in prayer and one accord, but do not expect and dictate what God will do while we so obey Him as one.