• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Cessationism: Tongues, Prophecy, and the Gift of Miracles Have Ceased.

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by Jason0047, Jan 3, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JAL

    JAL Veteran Supporter

    +203
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    And if God honored that statement, you'd lose your salvation. How so? Salvation is not the acceptance of a doctrine. It isn't bible scholarship. In fact John the Baptist didn't know any doctrine when he was filled with the Holy Spirit from the mother's womb. Admittedly, if he had been saved as an adult, the Inward Witness would have ADDED some doctrinal knowledge to his salvation, as He did for every OT and NT saved-adult.

    What is salvation, then? What is the new birth? The Jehovah Witnesses pray to 'God'. Mormons pray to 'God'. Muslims pray to 'God'. Abraham prayed to 'God'. Noah prayed to 'God'.

    WHICH of these people prayed to the true God? Answer: Only those who KNEW Him personally, that is, those to whom Yahweh has APPEARED. Once again, I remind you that Paul's paradigm of saving faith in both Romans and Galatians is Abraham's vision of God at Gen 15. And Paul also adduced HIMSELF as an example (Gal 1:12), because HE TOO WAS SAVED BY A VISION OF GOD. Let's see why.

    The mind can worship only that which the mind's eye sees. Unfortunately it is impossible for the human mind, on its own, to properly conceive an ineffably holy God. Therefore he can only worship the WRONG GOD (a conceptual idol), that is, UNTIL the Inward Witness imparts an accurate vision of God - as Calvin and other scholars have rightly concluded. If you are saved,then you see Christ, albeit less clearly than the prophets. Salvation is thus rightly defined as "meeting the Lord", and maturation is the gradual intensifying ('loudening') of the vision until, like Moses, we see Him face to face (Num 12:8).

    I suggest you withdraw your statement:
    firstly because faith IS indeed a feeling (at minimum a feeling of certainty but also the sensory experience of a vision) and because it flatly contradicts both the new birth AND sanctification. By disparaging experience, it leads the sheep astray, sending them in a direction DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to sanctification.

    Perhaps in my next post I'll elaborate on sensory experience, and what it means to know the Father.
     
  2. Jason0047

    Jason0047 Give in secret & you will be rewarded openly. Supporter

    +4,273
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    It’s not a poor argument. It’s the context.

    “Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.” (Acts of the Apostles 8:19-24).

    God knows the future and the hearts of men. Simon’s heart was not right with God.

    Also, Philip noticed something different.
    Philip sent for Peter and John because the Holy Ghost did not fall upon these Samaritans like in the usual manner.

    “Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)” (Acts of the Apostles 8:14-16).

    In other words, why would the Bible stress this fact if it was the normative function of things?
    ‭‭
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2019
  3. NBB

    NBB Well-Known Member

    +472
    Uruguay
    Christian
    Single
    I disagree with that view, in other parts of the bible, people prayed or waited or someone laid hands on them to receive the holy spirit like in here, some may had been filled when converting but the majority won't. This is receiving the Holy spirit like in pentecost, they were already believers and baptized there too, you can't say they converted in pentecost that is totally wrong.

    You agree that they received the Holy spirit because apostles prayed for them? Nowhere is said that the new birth is when someone prays for you, this is something personal with God, but receiving the Holy spirit yes totally it can be.

    You need to skew a lot of things to make fit to saying that receiving the holy spiirt (filling etc) like the bible says happens at new birth.
     
  4. Saint Steven

    Saint Steven You can call me Steve

    +1,704
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    What was "the usual manner"?

    - In Acts two the Spirit fell on the 120 in the upper room and then those who were baptized (the 3000) received the Spirit when they were baptized.
    - The Samaritans were baptized but did not receive the Spirit. (so the Apostle laid hands on them)
    - In Acts chapter four another 5000 believers are added to the church. Hopefully they didn't have to lay hands on them.
    - The Spirit fell on the gentiles in the house of Cornelius.
    - Ananias (not an Apostle) laid hands on Saul and he received the Spirit.
    - The believers in Ephesus received the Spirit when Paul laid hands on them.

    So, what was "the usual manner"?
     
  5. JAL

    JAL Veteran Supporter

    +203
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Jesus summarized the unbeliever's plight:

    "You have never heard the Father's voice, nor seen His shape, nor does His word dwell in you" (John 5:37).

    Gordon Fee considered 2 Cor 3:18 an exegetically undeniable vision of the Lord.

    Catch-phrases such as 'spiritual experience' and 'spiritual relationship with the Father' convey nothing and are thus meaningless. To qualify as an EXPERIENCE, an event must be a CONSCIOUS experience (after all I won't taste of it if I'm dead to it), and so we really need to ask, What is consciousness?

    Answer: Loudness. Consciousness is sensory experience. Consider these two theories running through my mind:
    (1) Light is a stream of particles.
    (2) Light is waves of energy.
    First, I must HEAR those words. To prove thought is a hearing, sing the words, in your mind, to your favorite tune. And then, in order to COMPREHEND them, I must VISUALIZE their meanings. I must have VISIONS more or less vivid/distinct (loud).

    Since all conscious thought is sensory experience, ANY influence of the Holy Spirit upon my mind counts as visions and voices from God. Thus, for example, the best way to comprehend an angel is too see a God-given vision of an angel. Until then, the angel is somewhat of a vague concept - sort of like trying to make out objects in a fairly dark room. A clear vision of angel is like turning on a lightbulb in the room, now suddenly the room is ILLUMINATED enough for us to see the angel clearly.

    Paul recognized that illumination causes the mind's eye to see visions:

    "I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you." (Eph 1:18).

    After all, how do I REALLY know what I'm hoping for? In order to REALLY know the hope of a heavenly city, I need to SEE IT CLEARLY IN VISIONS, whereby the prophet Abraham 'looked forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God' (Heb 11:10). These prophets "did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance [in visions]" (11:13) even as Moses "saw him who is invisible" (11:27).

    You'll note those last 3 verses were from Hebrews 11, the same chapter where you cited verse 1:
    Here's the PROPER understanding of that verse:
    "Faith is the 100% feeling of certainty about things hoped for, based on our having seen the unseen realm in visions." (The Greek word for substance can also mean certainty).

    In fact I DEMONSTRATED in an earlier post that verse 17 (Abraham's attempt to slaughter his son) HAD to be based on 100% certainty.

    Too much ground to cover! Maybe I can wrap it up in the next post.
     
  6. Jason0047

    Jason0047 Give in secret & you will be rewarded openly. Supporter

    +4,273
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    To all:

    To those who say salvation is not in a doctrine:

    The Bible says:

    “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” (2 John 1:9).
    ‭‭
     
  7. JAL

    JAL Veteran Supporter

    +203
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Our lack of CLEAR visions is a PROBLEM. Why so? What happens when an object is too far in the distance to be seen clearly? Inevitably our mind, in its effort to see and comprehend it better, will fill in some of the details. The result is conceptual idolatry. And we know that an idol-worshiper is NOT a mature believer. Therefore spiritual maturity MUST be understood as correlated to the clarity of our visions of God (Num 12:8). Which is precisely Paul's argument at 1Cor 13:

    "[In our immaturity] we know in part, and we prophesy in part..Then [in maturity] we shall see face to face."

    And I want to be perfectly clear on how to properly DEFINE an intimate relationship with the Father. Please be aware that 'fellowship with God' is an explicit NT theological category (1Cor 1:9; Phi 2:1; 3:10; 1Jn 1:3, 6). The following conversation will pave the way to an understanding:

    A man says to his comrade, “Guess what? I have recently been enjoying incredibly intimate fellowship with a woman. Indeed we are in love.” “Oh really? Tell me all about it! Is she beautiful?” “Well, I‟ve never actually seen her.” “No? Ok. In that case, I‟ll bet she has a wonderfully feminine voice.” “Well, honestly, I‟ve never actually heard her voice.” “No? How exactly do you know her, then?” “Well, actually she died 2,000 years ago nailed to a cross, but she left behind a book of laws and rules for me to obey.” “Wait a minute, I thought you boasted intimate fellowship with her!” “Yes I did. It‟s a spiritual relationship.”

    Sorry to burst that guys bubble, but what he just described was NOT fellowship. Fellowship between two parties (1Cor 1:9; Phi 2:1; 3:10; 1Jn 1:3, 6) can ONLY be defined as a mutual exchange of sensations more or less distinct (loud and clear). The broader the spectrum of sensations, the more intimate the fellowship. Even if the the Father WANTED to omit some components of that spectrum, it would backfire in the sense of cognitive idolatry whenever our mind instinctively fills in the missing details. Therefore He even needs us to eat and drink of Him, as at the Last Supper (but please don't assume this is happening in today's Eucharists unless you've been able to authenticate it).

    ANY type of sensory exchange with the Father counts as fellowship with Him. For example He might bless you with feelings of joy that are more or less distinct(loud and clear). Or feelings of peace that transcends all understanding. The more experience, the more maturity. The absence of experience from the Father defines the unsaved, reprobate state. It is literally impossible, then, for your statement to be farther off the mark:

     
  8. JAL

    JAL Veteran Supporter

    +203
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Church history would boast a lot more sound doctrine if people simply checked themselves for logical consistency before jumping to an interpretation. For heaven's sake, it's such an EASY litmus test. Why don't people do it? I'll never understand it. And so we end up with insane doctrines in the church, such as Sola Scriptura.

    In your case, all you had to do was ask yourself: Do I believe that infants, the mentally handicapped, and pre-biblical saints can be saved? Yes. Therefore 2John 1:9 (if we are to be logically consistent) CANNOT be taken to mean that salvation is the acceptance of doctrine.

    What makes it so bad, is that I already GAVE you a counterexample - I said that John the baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit even from the mother's womb.

    Since your reading of 2 John 1:9 is at variance with your own beliefs, it is YOUR responsibility to find a different interpretation. The following translation suggests one possible alternative:

    Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

    This sounds like a description of Judas, that is, a description of AN ADULT WHO CAN UNDERSTAND TEACHING. It doesn't refer to infants and the mentally handicapped. It doesn't prove that salvation is acceptance of a doctrine. It merely confirms what I just posted, namely that, if you are saved as an adult, you WILL accept some doctrine in virtue of the Inward Witness.
     
  9. JAL

    JAL Veteran Supporter

    +203
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    "The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend" (Ex 34:11). See that word 'friend'? That's fellowship. That's intimacy. That's sensory experience.

    I want to make one final argument for the primacy of visions. While this argument might not be water-tight, I feel I've laid enough groundwork on this thread to warrant the conclusion. And I'll lay additional groundwork as the argument proceeds.

    What conclusion? Most Christians end prayers like this, "We pray all these things in Jesus' name". Except that's NOT what Jesus meant by 'prayer in my name' (John 16). That phrase is actually code-language (veiled language) for a face-to-face vision of the Father. Since Jesus confessed to using veiled language, I can't fault theologians for overlooking it.

    Now for the argument. Every writer has a set of emphases. Turns out that John had visions as one of his emphases. The most obvious example is the Book of Revelation recording visions seen on the island of Patmos. No other NT writer handed us a book of visions. Also John's gospel recorded several additional vision-related verses not found elsewhere, such as John 5:37. He further attested that "everyone who sees the Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life (Jn 6:40). Particularly relevant is John's recap of Isaiah's vision in the temple (Jn 12:40-41). When Isaiah saw God face to face in the temple, what was the IMMEDIATE EFFECT upon him?He suddenly realized that everyone around him was spiritually blind. That is to say, spiritual blindness is an inability to see God clearly. John summed it up like this:

    "Isaiah [spoke of blindness],because he saw Jesus's glory" (12:41).

    Elisha had already defined spiritual blindness for us. When his manservant was unable to see the armies of God, he prayed, "Open his eyes, that he may see." Let's be perfectly clear on what he's asking for. He's not asking for a special gift, something out-of-the-ordinary. He's just asking for ORDINARY SIGHT - simply the ability to see. He's implying that the NORMATIVE state of the believer is clear vision. Spiritual blindness is a HORRIBLE STATE FOR US TO BE IN. Equally noteworthy is the REMEDY for the blindness. Prayer. Elisha prayed for him.

    Here's another vision-related verse found only in John:

    "You shall see greater things that. I tell you the truth, you shall see the heavens open and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man' (Jn 1:51).

    That verse is forecasting, for the Twelve, and for others, a LIFESTYLE of seeing visions. Let's jump right into John 16, bearing in mind his emphasis on visions. Again, here Jesus confesses to using veiled language:

    "These things have I spoken unto you in riddles but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in riddles, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father [in visions!] (Jn 16:25).

    As John Gill observed, he's promising them the same eminence ascribed to Moses at Numbers 12:8, namely that God spoke to Moses in plain language and in clear visions, whereas immature prophets were often consigned to riddles and enigmas.

    Verses 23 to 27 bring the crucial thesis into focus. The intimation is that when we are standing face to face with the Father, it suddenly becomes awkward, even inappropriate, to route our petitions through the Son. It's like standing in a room with a man and his son, but instead of addressing the man directly, we speak only to his son, waiting for him to relay the message to his father. That's silly, isn't it? Why not just talk to the father directly, since he's right there in the same room with us? Which is precisely the whole point of the passage:

    "And in that day [of Pentecost] ye [apostles] shall ask me nothing [!!!!!]. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. These things have I spoken unto you in [riddles]: but the time cometh,when I shall no more speak unto you in [riddles], but I shall shew you plainly of the Father. At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you. For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me (16:23-27).

    Verse 16 is illuminating as well, “Ye shall see me, because I go to the Father”. See the point? If not, allow me to explain. Suppose you see a vision of the Father on His throne, up close and personal, as though you were standing right in front of Him. In such proximity, who or what would you see seated at His right hand, in your peripheral vision? The Son! Stephen‟s experience drives the nail into the coffin, because it is a clear example of peripheral vision. He “looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God” (Acts 7:55). (The OT sometimes used the phrase “glory of God” for the human-like Figure who spoke to prophets face to face).

    Let‟s now back up two chapters to Jn 14:

    "Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye [apostles will] see me" (14:19)

    Several evangelical scholars admit that both 14:19 and 16:16 refer to an ongoing vision of Christ for the Twelve. A few of them also read verses 14:21-23 in the same way.

    Jesus promised that prayers offered in His name - prayers addressed to the Father face to face - will always be granted. How could He guarantee this? Because at that level of illumination and inspiration, your prayers will spring from direct revelation, and thus will ALWAYS be granted.

    I'm not saying that the apostles enjoyed this degree of revelation every single moment of every day. But starting from Pentecost - probably the greatest revival in church history - they saw quite a bit of this sort of thing.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2019
  10. 1stcenturylady

    1stcenturylady Spirit-filled follower of Christ Supporter

    +4,079
    United States
    Charismatic
    Celibate
    US-Republican
    Not extra biblical at all.

    1 Corinthians 14:I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.

    I will pray at home alone, and I will pray at church with understanding/supernatural interpretation. I will sing praises to God at home alone, and I will sign praises to God at church with the understanding/supernatural interpretation.

    Epheshians 6:18 praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints.

    The chapter is on tongues, not our normal prayer life using our own language. This chapter also shows that the understanding comes supernaturally from the gift of interpretation of tongues.

    Therefore, it is probable that this verse is saying I will PRAY in tongues, and I will pray with the understanding meaning supernatural interpretation. I will SING PRAISES in tongues, and I will praise God with the supernatural interpretation. IOW, Paul wants those who have only their prayer language they use alone of Mark 16:17 to pray for the interpretation. Otherwise they pray well, but their minds are not edified - only their spirit is edified. And if they were in church, definitely pray for the interpretation for others - the profit of all. The gift of interpretation would be able to interpret either the prayer language (sign) not just the (gift) of diverse kinds of tongues. That is what happened on the Day of Pentecost. Though the 120 were praising God in the lesser sign of tongues of the individual of Mark 16, the devout Jews were given the interpretation of the higher gifts for corporate use of 1 Corinthians 12. That is the difference.

    ALL WHO BELIEVE - lesser signs - Individual prayer and praise TO God
    Mark 16:16-18 - receive all signs

    CORPORATE - higher gifts - FROM God, for the profit of all
    1 Corinthians 12 The Spirit passes out these as He wills, at least one, but you can pray for more.

    The sign authorities, and the corporate authorities each includes a form of speaking in tongues, the difference being the sign is individual prayer and praise language; the gift is diverse kinds of tongues from God being interpreted as v6. by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2019
  11. JAL

    JAL Veteran Supporter

    +203
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    @Jason0047

    I want to comment on Steven's post:

    That's a beautiful summary. He's just shown you that, whatever you might imagine to be the 'norm', ALL the evidence in Acts contradicts it. It is therefore incumbent upon you to postulate a different norm.

    What's the norm? Earlier I demonstrated that Acts emphasizes the Spirit of prophecy for inspired-speech (witnessing). That gift isn't necessarily received at the time of the new birth. If anything, the norm would be subsequence. On the other hand, since Pentecost was probably the greatest revival in history, I wouldn't be totally shocked if some people, in those days, received it at conversion.

    Inasmuch as Cornelius' household was comprised of believers (Acts 10:2), there too the Spirit of prophecy fell subsequent to conversion. And as Howard Ervin astutely observed of Acts 19, the QUESTION, Did you receive the Spirit when you believed, is to be understood in terms of the sequel, "The Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in languages and prophesied" - which is not the sort of thing expected at initial conversion. Even Howard Ervin himself, despite being a staunch Pentecostal, speculated that Acts possibly focuses on the Spirit of prophecy.

    As I recall, you've talked about a New Covenant. If you believe such was in effect,wouldn't all believers receive the Spirit of regeneration at conversion? Certainly. There would be no need for exceptions. Give God some credit after all (He's actually a bit more professional, on-point, and on-time than you give Him credit for). Personally I hold to a version of Covenant Theology in the Reformed sense but I'm just extrapolating YOUR views. Acts isn't emphasizing regeneration. From the day of Pentecost onward, Acts emphasized primarily Joel's promised Spirit of prophecy, which is not necessarily received at salvation, in neither the NT nor the OT.
     
  12. Saint Steven

    Saint Steven You can call me Steve

    +1,704
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Thanks.
    I find the same thing true of Jesus' healing ministry.
    There is no formula.

    If we just look at healing the blind, we see Jesus being directed differently each time.
    This is the critical point. Jesus LOOKED to SEE what the Father was doing and joined with Him.

    - One time he spat in the eyes and laid hands on him.
    - Another time he spat in the dirt to make mud and applied it.
    - He prayed for another. (no spit)
    - He prayed twice for one who saw men like trees walking around. (interview technique)
    - Two blind men were asked, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?”
    Then he touched their eyes and said, “According to your faith let it be done to you”.

    There is no formula, except to follow God's leading.
    This is why the accusation against todays healing ministries is wrong.
    The critics assume that those in the ministry have the power to heal.
    In reality only God can heal. Even Jesus did not have healing ability beyond what God was doing through him. He was showing us how it is done. God the Father was healing people through Jesus' humanity not his deity which had been set aside.

    Philippians 2:6-7
    Who, being in very nature God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
    7 rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2019
  13. JAL

    JAL Veteran Supporter

    +203
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    I agree, but I just wanted to add my (humble) opinion that, while it is true we cannot specify an exact formula, for example we cannot force God's hand to send us a revival, I think we can form a reasonable theory as to best practices. I earlier mentioned James Shelton's scholarly book on redaction criticism, "Mighty and Word and Deed, the Role of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts". He observed, for example, that:
    (1) Luke wrote 25% of the NT
    (2) Luke wrote more about prayer than anyone.
    (3) Luke seems to insinuate that prayer preceded every Spirit-endowment in Acts (notably the outpouring on Pentecost as the primary paradigm for all future generations of believers).
    (4) Luke was the only writer to record that Jesus received the Spirit via prayer.
    (5) Luke was the only writer to record that an angel came to strengthen Jesus during His tribulation, in response to His prayers (Lk 22:43)
    (6) Luke was the only writer to record Christ's statement, "How much more will the Heavenly Father give the Spirit to those who ask Him" (Lk 11:13) - and the context indicates He was teaching us how to pray DAILY.
    (7) Luke was the only writer to record that Christ's Transfiguration was in response to prayer (and personally I regard such outpourings of the divine Light-quanta as an outpouring of the Third Person).

    Thus while we have no exact formula that will guarantee results or dictate results, nonetheless it's reasonable to theorize that - generally speaking - prayer, praise, and worship probably constitute the best posture for receiving divine blessings. Also we can look to other related verses such as Mat 7:11 and 17:21 for further corroboration.

    Cheers!
     
  14. JAL

    JAL Veteran Supporter

    +203
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Although I feel that I defended authoritative conscience well enough on this thread, I did want to tie up one loose end.

    Namely I want to allay one concern. Some will worry, "If a church leader doesn't have the written Word as the only final authority, how will he proceed? Must he admit anyone into his church doors and into co-leadership? Jehovah's Witnesses? Mormons? Must he tolerate all doctrines?

    Understandably all advocates of Sola Scriptura will feel tremendous trepidation at this specter, given that evangelicalism, especially for the last five centuries, has brainwashed us all to believe that Sola Scriptura is a do-or-die axiom, that the church simply cannot survive without it.

    What's my answer? What's the prognosis for church leaders, if they recant that silly axiom? Business as usual! Why so? Because a leader's conscience will simply CONTINUE to force him to draw the line SOMEWHERE. Consider the situation today:
    (1) A leader cannot expect everyone in his congregation to agree with him on every doctrine.
    (2) Therefore he tries to draw a line in good conscience, i.e. he makes a decision as to which doctrines are too egregiously in error to tolerate. (When excommunicating someone, however, he should nonetheless have enough humility to concede that he himself, being a fallible exegete, might be the one in the wrong).

    Take me for example. I simply cannot pray or fellowship with a Mormon in good conscience. The last time I admitted one of their door-to-door evangelists into my apartment, I found myself getting sick to my stomach (literally felt inclined to vomit) after just a few minutes of conversation.

    Business as usual.
     
  15. Saint Steven

    Saint Steven You can call me Steve

    +1,704
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I agree.
    There is a level of predictability within the unpredictable nature of these things.
    And your post reminded me of this often overlooked instance.

    Acts 4:31
    After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.
     
  16. 1stcenturylady

    1stcenturylady Spirit-filled follower of Christ Supporter

    +4,079
    United States
    Charismatic
    Celibate
    US-Republican
    I felt the same way after reading only 2 pages of the book, Strange Fire. Such hatred is unnatural, almost demonic!
     
  17. Saint Steven

    Saint Steven You can call me Steve

    +1,704
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    That's good.
    Your post reminded me of this scripture below.
    Oftentimes evangelicals will quote verse nine as proof that we cannot know (see) the eternal things. But verse ten tells us that THESE are the things God HAS revealed to us by his Spirit. Verse eleven goes on to tell us that God's Spirit within us gives us access to these things.

    1 Corinthians 2:9-11
    However, as it is written:
    “What no eye has seen,
    what no ear has heard,
    and what no human mind has conceived”—
    the things God has prepared for those who love him—
    10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.
    The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.
    11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them?
    In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  18. Jonathan Mathews

    Jonathan Mathews Active Member

    426
    +241
    Christian
    Single
    Tongues and Prophesy will not cease until Jesus returns. I am a testimony to that. I speak in tongues and there is interpretation.
     
  19. JIMINZ

    JIMINZ Well-Known Member

    +1,314
    United States
    Charismatic
    Married
    Just because the use of Tongues is used out of order, does not mean it is an evidence of it being Ceased.
     
  20. JIMINZ

    JIMINZ Well-Known Member

    +1,314
    United States
    Charismatic
    Married
    For everything you have mentioned there is causation, reasons not just Cessation.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...