Cessationism: Have the gifts ceased?

[SnuP]

soli, I am not call to be a prophet, to stand in the office of a prophet.  And I will not promote myself as such. 

 

[Andrew]

Keep on preaching and teaching SnuP! I enjoy your testimonies!

 

[Thunderchild]

You seem to know a lot about things that you have never for yourself witnessed - and don't even believe can occur, Cougan. I can accept the possibility that a healing of such a nature can occur because I have seen for myself that miracles still are performed.

But then, what is the real life verification of the truth of scripture against the words of people who set themselves up as teachers of matters they do not understand?

 

[Thunderchild]

Snup: Who told you that you are not called to be a prophet? Or is it fear that you will be called self promoting and puffed up/conceited/haughty/thinking more of yourself than you should that makes you believe this to be the case?

 

[Thunderchild]

Ok you want to rehash the pastor apostles thing again. The purpose of the apostles and prophets were to reaveal this new doctrine we call the NT and to grow the body of Christ.

No such statement in the Bible. What the Bible DOES say of the apostles, prophets, preachers and teachers is that they are appointed to guide and guard the new believer until such time as the new believer is mature enough to follow the Christ without human assistance.

becasue the HS will give them the word to say compared to the pastors and teachers that we have today that are not miracelouly being told what to say by the Holy Spirit.

The pastor isn't worth a pinch, who is not guided by the Holy Spirit in what to teach so that his congregation will receive direct and immediate benefit . The pastor who gets up and addresses his congregation on matters that are significant to the immediate needs of particular members of his congregation will be doing his proper job, and that is not possible unless the pastor looks to God for guidance in what matters need to be addressed - and that fact will definitely be witnessed to by God himself. How do we know that a person is sent by God? - the fact bears God's personal testimony.

 

[SnuP]

thunderchild, no one told me.  I know what my calling is and it isn't to be a prophet.  I choze not to say what my calling is because I don't want to promote myself, I want God to promote me when the time is right.  I am nothing but a child of God right now, I still have a lot of maturing to do, but one day I will be what I was called to be.

 

[cougan]

Cougan> An apostle is not just someone sent out, but sent out as a representative. In the very passage you pointed out, we know PRECISELY who Barnabas was sent out as a representative of - Act 13:1 - 2 quote:
Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
You might say that in appointing Barnabas to the post of apostle, God promoted him.

Just as a side note this is a very good passage to show that the HS is a person or being sepearate and apart from Jesus and the father. He says seperate to ME. Then you see in Jn 16:13 that the HS will not speak on his own authority which means he does have his own will as stated in 1Co 12:11.

Well now to the point at hand. Does the fact that the HS here says to seperate Paul and Barabus for work to which I have called them make Baranabas an Apostels like the 12/ Paul. I dont think that it does. I see nothing to indicates this new title. Now I would agree that you could call them Apostles in the general sense as one sent out the HS. I see no reason why you cant say that Paul was sent out as an apostle and barnabas was sent out as a prophet. In fact verse 4 says So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus. So you believe that being sent out by the HS makes someone an apostles like the 12 or Paul? Well how about Philip in Acts 8 was he not sent out to do a work by the HS? Does that make him an apostle like the 12 and Paul? If not why not.

TC I want to test your spirit. I want you to pray or whatever it is that you do and ask for the HS to reveal this answer to you. Do you have to be baptized into christ in order to be saved? And is water the substance we are suppose to be baptized in?

Now I am not trying to start a new topic on this thread. This is very releavent to this thread and will be made know how it is relevant depending on how you answser the question. Andrew I want you to do the same and ask for guidience and answer the questions. In fact the anyone on this thread that beleives that the HS is still guiding you unlocking or makeing clearer the scriptures please answer my 2 questions only by what the HS tells you are guides you to say.

You guys already know that I do not think that anybody is lead or guided by the HS in a miracelous way. I belive that HS can lead guide convict convert all by the word of God that he established and guided miracelously through those apostles, prophets etc in the 1st century. I can already tell you that there will be divison amoung you on your answers, even though you will claim that you are being guided by the HS. If you are truely being guided by the HS then all of your answer will be the same.

Step up to the challenge and answer these 2 easy questions. I feel very confindent that I know the answer to these question based off my continual study of Gods word. Yes I would even go as far as to say that I have been lead by the HS via the word of God to the answer to these questions.

 

[Andrew]

cougan, even if TC and I had disagreements does not prove cessationism. Paul opposed Peter and had to correct him. Christians do miss the leading of the Holy Spirit, but that in no way proves cessationism.

also not sure what you are asking? Water baptism to be saved? or Holy Spirit baptism as in Acts 2?

 

[SnuP]

when you say 'baptized in Christ' are you refering to being baptized into salvation, spiritually baptized into the body of Christ, baptized in the name of Christ, metaphoricaly baptized into relationship, etc.

 

[Thunderchild]

TC I want to test your spirit. I want you to pray or whatever it is that you do and ask for the HS to reveal this answer to you. Do you have to be baptized into christ in order to be saved? And is water the substance we are suppose to be baptized in?

Very well. According to Acts - people who had been baptised into the name of Christ Jesus had not been baptised into the Holy Spirit. Again, according to Acts in another passage - People who were baptised into the Holy Spirit were then commanded to be baptised into the name of Christ Jesus - and the text shows that water was used for that purpose. "How can water be refused, for these who have received the Holy Spirit even as we, that they be not baptised." In baptism we die to sin, are buried, are raised to new life with Christ Jesus. That baptism is baptism in water. And as 1 Peter 1:21-22 (I think it is) declares that "the saving of Noah and family through the flood is the antitype of the baptism which now saves us" There can be no doubt that baptism is part of the process of salvation.

 

[Thunderchild]

Prior to Barnabas being set aside - Barnabas is called a prophet. Subsequent to that event, Barnabas is called an apostle. Who was Barnabas an apostle of? According to the Bible, he was an apostle of God. My statement that Barnabas was an apostle is based on one simple fact - the Bible says he was an apostle.

 

[cougan]

First of all Andrew Paul was correcting Peter because he was sinning. This has nothing to do when the HS Leads someone. When the HS was working through these men when they were proclaiming the word of God no contridition is found. Peter was not doing this sinful thing because the HS told him to, it was because of his own fear of the Jews. Surely you will not try and proclaim that the HS can say one thing in one person and say completely the oppisite in another. That would make an awfully wishy washy HS now wouldnt it. Now TC has answered the questions. Remember is being lead by the HS Just as the rest of you claim. I can tell you that only about 15% or 20% of christians hold this view he has presented. It is by no means the most popular view.

I dont see how you could possible misunderstand my questions Snup and Andrew. Let me try and make it clearer. Do you have to be baptized in water in order that your sins are washed away and that you are put into christ? I am not talking about HS baptism. Again pray or whatever it is you do to be guided by the HS and answer this question. TC has put his cards on the table stop bluffing and show your hands. I will reveal my answer to these questions when you guys answer the questions. I am very curious of the outcome.

If your answer is different than TC than someone is not being lead by the HS. Then that would futher mean that someone is not really doing miracles by the means of the HS. Don't quit on me now guys just because this discussion has takin a new turn.

 

[Thunderchild]

First of all Andrew Paul was correcting Peter because he was sinning. This has nothing to do when the HS Leads someone. When the HS was working through these men when they were proclaiming the word of God no contridition is found. Peter was not doing this sinful thing because the HS told him to, it was because of his own fear of the Jews. Surely you will not try and proclaim that the HS can say one thing in one person and say completely the oppisite in another.

The question remains, why do people think that an apostle can't make mistakes?

 

[Thunderchild]

If your answer is different than TC than someone is not being lead by the HS. Then that would futher mean that someone is not really doing miracles by the means of the HS. Don't quit on me now guys just because this discussion has takin a new turn.

I would question drawing a conclusion based on that basis. It would seem that there was a gentleman who was quite persuasive regarding the gospel, though he knew no more than the baptism of John. In fact, a dozen people who had accepted the Christ's lordship, but who had only received John's baptism were later baptised into the Holy Spirit and into Christ Jesus, by Paul when he encountered them.

The fact that the truth of certain doctrines are unknown to a person does not mean that his teaching on other doctrines will be invalid - no matter how dedicated and loyal a person is, he isn't going to get everything right first time round, nor maybe at times on the fifth round. But a sincere person will eventually be brought to a point where he can acknowledge the truth. Which is why, Cougan, neither Andrew nor I have considered it necessary to wipe the dirt from our feet with regard to you. Even if one of us should prove to be wrong about the requirements of baptism - the fact remains: it is demonstrated that Andrew has responded to you with love - and it is the demonstration of the fruits of the Spirit, neither the gifts nor sound doctrine, which determine a person's position with regard to the Christ.

 

[SnuP]

I was going to post something of this affect earlier.

But I must agree with thunderchild that you belief in the doctrin of baptism has nothin to do with whether or not you can opperate in faith.  The truth is that we all have false doctrines of some type and it is the leading ot the Spirit that corrects such doctrines, in His own time.  I myself have just recently had such an experience, after I acknowledged my doctrine with just a one word answer, I was imediately placed under conviction.  I had placed an unbeliever under condemnation.  When I discovered the truth I appologised and corrected the situation.

read all of this carefully, before you get angery:

There are three workings of salvation.  The salvation of the spirit gained by an act of faith.  The salvation of the soul, worked out with much fear and trembling through repentence.  And the salvation of the body, at the last resurrection.  The only requirement for heaven is the salvation of the spirit because Christ covers the soul with grace.  But the salvation of the soul is required for the experience of having an intimate relationship with God.  The salvation of the body is needed for physical relationship with God.  (I'll be very glad when that happens.)  Water baptism is the first act of obedience for the salvation of the soul.  In it also you come into agreement with Christ and His crusifiction, that your flesh is dead to sin and is no longer the ruler in your life, but rather the resurrection life of Christ is the ruler.  In water baptism, you therefore gain an annointing from God to resist the temptations of the enemy since you have come into agreement with God in this area of your life.  Remember that this is a concept not a doctrine, so some of the words may not be the right ones but they should convey the correct idea.

 

[Andrew]

No, I disagree with TC on the baptism thing. ie I do not believe that water baptism has any part to play with regards to salvation. But I do believe that a person who us truly saved will want to get water baptised sooner or later as the Holy Spirit in him guides. So if you want to call that part of the "salvation process" that's fine with me. But if you are saying that one more thing besides the cross is needed to get saved, then no.

Yet as mentioned I dont see how our disagreement proves cessationism or proves that the Holy Spirit doesnt guide Christians into truth.

Where the gifts of the Holy Spirit and miracles are concerned, we've come to agreement and moved out of the dark ages. Even the Catholics and Methodists now have charismatic services.

I might also ask, if you have a disagreement with a brother in your cessationist church, can I then say that cessationism is not true? makes no sense to me.

 

[Thunderchild]

Andrew - I am working on a Bible study regarding baptism, derived strictly from scriptures, multiple choice reading comprehension format. No - and I do mean NO - commentary. Exhaustive over-view of every passage relevant to baptism in any form. I would appreciate it if, when it is finished, you would undertake that study. There are points I may be missing that you could make known to me, or it may be that you could find a way to clearer understanding. (One of us is clearly mistaken here - it would be advantageous to lock this one down.)

The first few points are located at http://pub43.ezboard.com/fwayrunnersfrm16.showMessage?topicID=10.topic Until now, I have been trying to get a full and proper Study Bible with extended Greek exposition concurrent with the project, but I think it would be better to drop that project in favour of a more speedy development.

 

Same to you Snup - it would do no harm to form a small study group, seeing as how it is that we agree on some of the more elementary matters.

 

 

 

 

[Andrew]

Sure TC. I'll print it out and read over it. hope it's not too deep coz i aint the 'intellectual' sort.

 

[Thunderchild]

Thanks Andrew... much appreciated.

 

[SnuP]

I'm interested also, I need to gather my study on the baptism issue and I'd like the two of you to look at it also.