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.
Paul can be understood according to the letter of the law or the spirit of the law. I disagree to his application of the letter of the law (if that was indeed him) but I agree completely with the spiritual application to which allegories as shadows are used to understand the former, therefore throwing a pebble of Christ on the ground for greed/pride/lust to trip over, not to mention the bus with whose your daddy written all over it.Paul says that what he writes should be regarded as the Lord's commands. Do you disagree with Paul? Do you only accept the words of Jesus in the four gospel alone and discount everything else?
It would have to be a malleable faith that trusted that the lamp would continue to light the path. jm2cBut true biblical faith or biblical belief is unwavering faith or certainty. If not, it is not really faith or a belief or trust in God. Can you say that a believer's faith in Jesus is only based on a percentage of certainty? Is a person's faith in the Bible only based on a percentage of certainty? Mine isn't. I believe the Bible is 100% true. I believe Jesus is my Savior 100%. Are you saying that this is not the case for other true genuine born again believers and that is normal?
Scripture is inherently infallible and authoritative. The Bible is true whether I believe it or not. My conscience is not the determiner of truth, God's Word is. I recognize truth by examining the truth, not by deciding if it's the truth.So then Scripture is clear enough? No need to worry, then? I take it, then, that you read Scripture infallibly? Fallibility was my concern, right?
Let's be clear. If exegesis left me 100% certain of my exegetical conclusions, then I would have to claim to be infallible on those conclusions. 100% certainty on a given question means that I basically can't even cogitate the possibility of being mistaken on that issue. Therefore I could only see myself as infallible, at that moment, on that issue.
So let's be clear. Does exegesis leave you 100% certain on some issues? If so, why then don't you claim infallibility on those issues? Tell us which issues you are currently infallible on - and I hope it includes the issue of how to properly evangelize, since 100 billion souls are at stake. That is WHY we need infallibility.
Thanks for reminding me of that thread. I actually was a participant who soundly refuted all your cessationist conclusions.While God can work miracles directly Himself, I believe the miraculous gifts given to the apostles have ceased. I made some excellent points in Scripture to prove this.
Simply check out this thread here (to learn more):
Cessationism: Tongues, Prophecy, and the Gift of Miracles Have Ceased.
This was one of the unsatisfactory arguments addressed at length on that thread. To begin, it draws a conclusion based on empirical observation and therefore throws Sola Scriptura out the window. That's a methodological contradiction. Secondly it's like arguing, 'All the men in the trade of home-based forging of swords have died out. Therefore it's impossible for such forgers to arise in contemporary generations'. The conclusion simply doesn't follow.Besides, show me a people that are working exactly like they did in the early church days. You won't find them. At least, I have not found them. If you find them, let me know.
(Sigh). 250 posts in this discussion (starting from another thread), I have yet to see anyone post a clear exception to the rule of conscience. There are no exceptions.Scripture is inherently infallible and authoritative. The Bible is true whether I believe it or not. My conscience is not the determiner of truth, God's Word is. I recognize truth by examining the truth, not by deciding if it's the truth.
Truly?(Sigh). 250 posts in this discussion (starting from another thread), I have yet to see anyone post a clear exception to the rule of conscience. There are no exceptions.
Paul can be understood according to the letter of the law or the spirit of the law. I disagree to his application of the letter of the law (if that was indeed him) but I agree completely with the spiritual application to which allegories as shadows are used to understand the former, therefore throwing a pebble of Christ on the ground for greed/pride/lust to trip over, not to mention the bus with whose your daddy written all over it.
Paul was a self acclaimed Pharisee. At best that’s all anyone can be or perhaps the worst.
It's not that God's revelation in Scripture is insufficient. The problem is that I have no direct access to Scripture, only to my fallible interpretations of it.
Thanks for reminding me of that thread. I actually was a participant who soundly refuted all your cessationist conclusions.
Thanks for reminding me of that thread. I actually was a participant who soundly refuted all your cessationist conclusions.
This was one of the unsatisfactory arguments addressed at length on that thread. To begin, it draws a conclusion based on empirical observation and therefore throws Sola Scriptura out the window. That's a methodological contradiction. Secondly it's like arguing, 'All the men in the trade of home-based forging of swords have died out. Therefore it's impossible for such forgers to arise in contemporary generations'. The conclusion simply doesn't follow.
You said:Cessationism misconstrues the NT as a horrible instruction manual, it makes God look like an incompetent instructor. Why so? The NT is so highly saturated with charismatic manifestations that I could probably find 20 in the first chapter of Mark alone. The NT is mostly charismatic in emphasis - but all this became obsolete in 50 years? Why would a supposedly competent instructor SATURATE and DOMINATE Scripture with a concept doomed to perish in 50 years? Worse yet, the NT wasn't even widely circulated until 1500 years later. Most of the material was then 1500 years obsolete? Doesn't make sense.
You said:Consider Pauls charismatic definition of a church:
'God has appointed first of all apostles, then prophets, then teachers, workers of miracles..." (1 cor 12:28).
You said:Cessationists do NOT accept Paul's definition because they think it's obsolete (so much for Sola Scriptura). Where then did they get THEIR present-day definition? It's man-made !!!! I fail to see how a rejection of Scripture constitutes Sola Scriptura.
You said:They will respond, 'The gifts passed away per chapter 13'. That is NOT Paul's argument in 13 (quite the opposite actually) but even if that were the case, it would be PAUL'S job - not ours - to supply us with a new, updated definition of the church. A passing away of the gifts is no warrant for men formulating their own definition of a church and church government and shoving it down God's throat. That is eisigesis, not exegesis, and it's unsatisfactory behavior on the part of so-called 'advocates of Sola Scriptura'.
If God was wise enough to write an OT legal system valid for 1,000 years, why was He so incompetent as to write a NT document mostly obsolete after 50 years?
You said:Cessationism misconstrues the NT as a horrible instruction manual, it makes God look like an incompetent instructor. Why so? The NT is so highly saturated with charismatic manifestations that I could probably find 20 in the first chapter of Mark alone. The NT is mostly charismatic in emphasis - but all this became obsolete in 50 years? Why would a supposedly competent instructor SATURATE and DOMINATE Scripture with a concept doomed to perish in 50 years? Worse yet, the NT wasn't even widely circulated until 1500 years later. Most of the material was then 1500 years obsolete? Doesn't make sense.
You said:Consider Pauls charismatic definition of a church:
'God has appointed first of all apostles, then prophets, then teachers, workers of miracles..." (1 cor 12:28).
Cessationists do NOT accept Paul's definition because they think it's obsolete (so much for Sola Scriptura). Where then did they get THEIR present-day definition? It's man-made !!!! I fail to see how a rejection of Scripture constitutes Sola Scriptura.
They will respond, 'The gifts passed away per chapter 13'. That is NOT Paul's argument in 13 (quite the opposite actually) but even if that were the case, it would be PAUL'S job - not ours - to supply us with a new, updated definition of the church. A passing away of the gifts is no warrant for men formulating their own definition of a church and church government and shoving it down God's throat. That is eisigesis, not exegesis, and it's unsatisfactory behavior on the part of so-called 'advocates of Sola Scriptura'.
If God was wise enough to write an OT legal system valid for 1,000 years, why was He so incompetent as to write a NT document mostly obsolete after 50 years?
Would you be able to show me without a shadow of a doubt how and why the Bible is 100% accurate and 100% true?
Methodological contradiction. Advocates of Sola Scriptura have no right to make empirical arguments. What happened to doctrine based on the Bible alone?So you can point me to a believer or believers who can heal 100% of the time?
You can point me to a believer whose prophecy is 100% true every time in regards to his future predictions?
That's putting the cart before the horse. As today's churches are not proper apostolic churches, I'm not sure Paul's tongues-regulations properly apply to us. Let's work on recovering the apostolic church first, then we can talk about how to regulate it.Does your church follow the rules of 1 Corinthians 14 in regards to tongues?
It's not misconstruing the NT. The Apostles and Prophets were merely the foundation built upon the foundation of Jesus. “For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone;” (Ephesians 2:18-20). We are said to have access by one Spirit unto the Father that is build upon the “foundation” of the apostles and prophets. Being an apostle is a gift (See 1 Corinthians 12:28-31). The qualifications of being an apostle was to have seen the risen Lord Jesus Christ (See Acts of the Apostles 1:22-26). Paul said he met the qualifications as being an apostle because he had seen the risen Lord. 1 Corinthians 9:1 “…Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” Paul called himself the “last prophet.” (1 Corinthians 15:8-9). Paul says that God has set forth the apostles last (1 Corinthians 14:9)...This verse proves my point on Cessationism because it talks in context about how the apostles and prophets are the foundation (that we are built upon).
Paul is misinterpreted by those into the letter of the lawThat to me is illogical. There is no point in believing the Bible if it is full of holes (i.e. it is a holey bible). The Bible is called the HOLY BIBLE because it is divine in origin.
Have doubts God's Word is divine?
Just check out my Blogger article here:
Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God
Besides, the Bible is either all true, or it's not true. I choose to simply believe all of God's Word (the Bible) even when it is something I don't like because I have too much to lose if I don't believe it. Also, some have suggested that the Pharisees obeyed the letter of the Law and not the spirit of the Law, when this is not even the case. Jesus condemned the Pharisees because they ignored the weightier matters of the Law like faith, love, justice, and mercy (See: Matthew 23:23, and Luke 11:42). So I have a problem when folks mention the spirit of the Law vs. the letter of the Law because it reminds me of this popular false statement that is not true.
Furthermore, we have to be born again not only by the Spirit, but we also have to be born again by water. The "water" is the Word of God (Scripture) (See: The phrase "the washing of the water of the Word" in Ephesians 5:25-27). For faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God. We have to receive God's Word as if they were the very words of God Himself.
"This is why we constantly thank God, because when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you welcomed it not as a human message, but as it truly is, the word of God, which also works effectively in you who believe."
(1 Thessalonians 2:13).
23 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." (1 Peter 1:23-25).
Fallible doesn't mean I'm necessarily wrong. Even as a fallible person, I can claim that water boils at high temperatures, and still be right about it. And if you tell me that 2 + 2 is 5, I'll say there is a flaw in your logic. I can do this as a fallible person.So if your interpretations of Scripture are fallible (as you stated here in the OP), then why should we trust your interpretation on Scripture that refutes Sola Scriptura?
Profitable to whom? Paul didn't write that verse to the church. He wrote it to a 'man of God' named Timothy. The expression 'man of God' was an OT rubric for a prophet.Paul says that all Scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness so that the man of God (not Timothy) may be perfect unto ALL good works (and not some good works). What need is there of anything else if ALL Scripture is profitable for being perfect unto ALL good works? There is no need of anything else. Yes, God is the natural revelator of Scripture, and He abides by His Word. For all Scripture is given by inspiration of GOD.
You're mixing apples with oranges. Even if I were to agree with you that a proper apostolic church has no holy kiss (and I don't see why I should), such a minute distinction is no comparison to the monumental claim of the extinction of the early church governmental system.The Biblical command to greet one another with a kiss is not applicable in most cultures of the world today. We also do not generally wear the same kind of clothes that they did. So yes, some things have passed away. We have to realize that we are in a different time than in the past, and things can change.
This is forced language. You're trying so hard to force your cessationism down Paul's throat that you torture his metaphor and end up with gibberish. How so? Paul speaks of one foundation on which the building is built. Here you are speaking about building a foundation on top of a foundation?It's not misconstruing the NT. The Apostles and Prophets were merely the foundation built upon the foundation of Jesus.
Authentication doesn't corroborate cessationism but rather continuationism.God never intended the gifts to last forever. They were merely to authenticate the messengers of the NT were from God. This was the standard practice of all the miracle workers in the Bible beforehand. The miracles authenticated the messenger of God.
What about evangelism? Has that ceased too? Because it's easy to demonstrate that Scripture defines evangelism as prophetic utterance, as a number of scholars have come to gradually acknowledge over the past century. Here's one argument to that effect - and I can supply several:God never intended the gifts to last forever. They were merely to authenticate the messengers of the NT were from God. This was the standard practice of all the miracle workers in the Bible beforehand. The miracles authenticated the messenger of God.
Here is a 2nd biblical proof that Scripture defines evangelism as prophetic ministry:God never intended the gifts to last forever. They were merely to authenticate the messengers of the NT were from God. This was the standard practice of all the miracle workers in the Bible beforehand. The miracles authenticated the messenger of God.
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?