Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I can only define "prophet" from scripture using the OT as the definition. Anything less is not a prophet. And tongues interpreted was its equal.I agree in general. But after the outpouring (and even today, IMHO) it seems that prophecy is much more rhema than logos. (more individualized and less general) I keep coming back to the definition in 1Cor.14
1 Corinthians 14:3
But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort.
Right. I was having the same problem with his past tense claim. This means that there could certainly be apostles and prophets today, just as there are pastors and teachers. All these were given to the church. The whole body needs all its parts.Exactly. You're just proving my point. He GAVE some to be pastors and teachers. Past tense, right? So pastors and teachers have died out, by your logic?
Wow.I can only define "prophet" from scripture using the OT as the definition. Anything less is not a prophet. And tongues interpreted was its equal.
We do not know what a prophet is if not for the OT. That is no doubt how the early Christians thought of them. If we need to change the definition to fit our experience, which is lacking, nothing amounts to anything written in scripture.Wow.
Why would you disregard the NT definition of prophet under the new covenant?
Especially after what you said about the source of the new covenant.
Furthermore, are you not narrowing even the OT definition to fit your ideas?
No rhema words in the OT texts?
Isaiah 7:3-4
Then the Lord said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Launderer’s Field. 4 Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah.
I just remembered something. What about the whole cessationist doctrine that the completed cannon is the 'complete' prophecy and knowledge of 1Cor 13?
That chapter never even MENTIONS a cannon. That goes beyond inference. It sounds like wild speculation!
/At least I look to concepts referenced in the immediate context for most of my conclusions about the gifts. Example. "Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1). So it looks like Paul wanted us to pursue prophecy. Oh, right, I forgot. That's just an ungrounded baseless INFERENCE. I made up this stuff all in my head.
I don't know why your mind cannot CONCEIVE the possibility of multi-generational apostleship and prophethood. A real tunnel-vision there. To counteract this, at post 137 I demonstrated that evangelism is prophetic utterance, and therefore prophecy is indeed multigenerational:
Is Continuationism or Cessationism a hard doctrine to prove?
That argument (unrefuted) used Acts 1:8 as the point of departure. Here, I want to adduce a second argument based on that same verse. "Ye shall be my witnesses" (Acts 1:8). What's a witness? The Greek word there occurs some 120 times in the NT. By and large, it regularly carries the same meaning that we ascribe to "witness" in English today.
A witness – a witness in court for example - is someone who has seen and heard a reality and then testifies (“witnesses”) about it. He bears witness to what is seen and heard. An unacceptable witness is one too far distanced from the event to have witnessed it with accuracy. An excellent witness, therefore, is one who beheld it in face-to-face proximity. Now what precisely is Acts wanting men to witness about? Christ. “Ye shall be my witnesses” (Acts 1:8, ASV, italics added). If the risen Christ has never appeared to a person face to face, he or she is not a witness - not a witness of Christ, and certainly not a witness of His resurrection. Clearly, then, evangelism was supposed to be the domain of prophetic ministry, because visions of Christ fall into that category.
Jesus could have selected a MULTITUDE of alternative terms to refer to evangelism. Instead, He chose the term "witness". HE chose to define the evangelist as someone who has seen and heard Him, and then bears witness to others of what was seen and heard. Still not convinced? Take a hard look at Acts 22:14-15 where God's plan for Paul was that he:
“see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be a witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard” (22:14-15, KJV, italics added).
And again, “I have appeared [visibly and audibly] unto thee [Paul] for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in which I will [later] appear unto thee” (26:16, KJV).
Witnessing (prophetic visions of Christ) is for all generations. Prophecy is multi-generational. Many Christians aren't aware of this fact - but that's what happens when the church tries to create doctrine based on Sola Scriptura, and the opinions of men. They are prone to overlooking all the main elements of truth.
I might expand a little more on this post, if I have time.
knowledgable Pentecostals and Charismatics/ other denominations would point out that there are many counterfeits out there masking the real gift.
usually, the Cessationist will use the worst examples out there to rest their case, while the Constitutionalist will point out that the evidence they showed, only showed the counterfeit version of the gift and not the genuine real gift of the Holy Spirit.
For example from what I heard from a Pentecostal, "Speaking in tongues is not weird babblings, but like speaking a fluent language that no one knows" They do not speak the language through their own power.
They would say there are real tongues, and then there is the counterfeit one.
I haven't studied scripture enough to side with either one, so my position is (I don't know which doctrine is true yet).
But for those who have studied it, is this an easy doctrine to figure out?
I don't want to be missing out on the 9 gifts of the Holy Spirit, but at the same time, I want to be cautious.
The issue with Cessationists is that tongues did cease. It is not necessary to assign blame to anyone or explain how that which happened could be or to like or dislike what happened, but just to take account of what happened. That's what Cessationism means--acknowledging a cessation.The issue of Cessationism is not contained in the tongues debate. Getting tied up in the tongues debate is a distraction that misses the real danger of their doctrine.
The issue is that Cessationists deny that the Holy Spirit is active in the way Jesus said He would be and the way the apostles experienced Him.
This assumes the church has been in the dark until the early 1900s when the highly questionable sources of today's charismatic movement began acting like first century Christians. "Learning" how to speak in tongues, falsely so called. and acting like they had gifts that expired by the end of the first century.The issue of Cessationism is not contained in the tongues debate. Getting tied up in the tongues debate is a distraction that misses the real danger of their doctrine.
The issue is that Cessationists deny that the Holy Spirit is active in the way Jesus said He would be and the way the apostles experienced Him.
Um..It's part of his definition of a church. Prove to me that there are pastors and teachers other than those in the early church.
You'll say, why do I need to prove that? Exactly. It's part of Paul's definition. That's all the proof needed.
Exactly. You're just proving my point. He GAVE some to be pastors and teachers. Past tense, right? So pastors and teachers have died out, by your logic?
Funny how you can infer as much as you want, but when I infer, it's unacceptable.
There you go again.
Good for you. Except none of that was ever in debate here.
Actually I should thank you for bringing up the inference-issue. Just ground for another proof of the need for prophetic revelatoin. Should our doctrines come from God, or from men? From God, right? Which means that Sola Scriptura cannot be God's plan. Here's why. WHERE do you learn Greek and Hebrew?From a lexicon or grammar book. Who wrote it? MEN! Only direct revelatoin has the capacity to liberate us from the opinions of men!
You really think it was God's plan to build his Kingdom on the opinions of men? How dumb do you think He is, anyway?
Exegesis BEGINS with inference, and ends with it as well. You START with the inference that the lexicons and grammar books are roughly correct, and proceed from there. THEN you make inferences regarding the various possible translatoins, as to which one is correct. The whole ENDEAVOR involves inference..
This assumes the church has been in the dark until the early 1900s when the highly questionable sources of today's charismatic movement began acting like first century Christians. "Learning" how to speak in tongues, falsely so called. and acting like they had gifts that expired by the end of the first century.
It's about you dividing yourself off from the body of Christ and thinking you have the inside skinny. And the Church has been in the dark until you came along in the 1900s through some very shaky people.And you're still trying to pretend it's all about tongues. Sorry, I recognize the tactic of using tongues as the stalking horse for the true Cessationist doctrine.
I used to think Cessationists were harmless until I observed how far in these forum debates you went in denying the work of the Holy Spirit. Now I believe that Cessationists are outright dangerous to the Body of Christ.
I wasn't in Corinth 1900 years ago and I'm pretty sure you weren't either. He wrote that to the Corinthians. People who had the gifts. He instructed them on how to use the gifts and what to seek.
That means there is no more. The Gospel was complete and there was no need for further revelation about it.
I am saying that your definition is limited by ignoring the rhema aspect of the OT prophets (as evidenced by scripture) and ignoring the NT definition provided in 1Cor.14 which is all about NT prophecy.We do not know what a prophet is if not for the OT. That is no doubt how the early Christians thought of them. If we need to change the definition to fit our experience, which is lacking, nothing amounts to anything written in scripture.
That's an interesting argument, but it runs up against your other post:
You argue that we need no more prophecy because the gospel is complete, and you argue that the exhortation to prophesy was given to the gifted people of Corinth. Yet, how many people of Corinth contributed to the Gospel? (none) If they were intended to contribute to the message, then they failed. If they were not intended to add to that message, then it means that having a completed canon does not preclude also having prophecy that will not contribute to it. The prophecies of today contribute no more to the canon than the prophecies that the Corinthians were told to seek. Therefore, the completion of one is irrelevant to the continuation of the other.
The same could be said of other prophets mentioned in the Bible (some being close friends of Elisha) who never were recorded in any lasting way. Their message was not, apparently, for all time, but they were still genuine prophets. Their message must necessarily have been for a temporary, limited or local purpose. Having a completed canon still has no effect on the need for prophecy with such a purpose.
Plainly?The gift of tongues was a sign to unbelievers. Paul stated that plainly.
So do you believe the OT prophets were "edifying" like the NT prophets and interpreted tongues?I can only define "prophet" from scripture using the OT as the definition. Anything less is not a prophet. And tongues interpreted was its equal.
That's an interesting argument, but it runs up against your other post:
You argue that we need no more prophecy because the gospel is complete, and you argue that the exhortation to prophesy was given to the gifted people of Corinth. Yet, how many people of Corinth contributed to the Gospel? (none) If they were intended to contribute to the message, then they failed. If they were not intended to add to that message, then it means that having a completed canon does not preclude also having prophecy that will not contribute to it. The prophecies of today contribute no more to the canon than the prophecies that the Corinthians were told to seek. Therefore, the completion of one is irrelevant to the continuation of the other.
The same could be said of other prophets mentioned in the Bible (some being close friends of Elisha) who never were recorded in any lasting way. Their message was not, apparently, for all time, but they were still genuine prophets. Their message must necessarily have been for a temporary, limited or local purpose. Having a completed canon still has no effect on the need for prophecy with such a purpose.
I didn't argue that we don't need prophecy, I argued that we don't need prophecy about the Gospel. I've not argued whether or not the Church needs the gifts today. That's not relevant to the cessation argument. My argument has been the same from the beginning. The gifts were for a sign. The gift of tongues was a sign to unbelievers. Paul stated that plainly. I posted several passages that show that the gifts were to confirm the apostles message.
Obviously he wasn't talking DIRECTLY to us. That discrepancy is precisely why Sola Scriptura is imperfect science incapable of replacing direct revelation. A fact which totally blows cessationism out of the water, obviously.You said, "So it looks like Paul wanted us to pursue prophecy." Why do you say, us? I wasn't in Corinth 1900 years ago and I'm pretty sure you weren't either. He wrote that to the Corinthians. People who had the gifts. He instructed them on how to use the gifts and what to seek. That doesn't mean he's talking about 21st century Christians. This is why I keep harping on the inference issue.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?