Goal or Gateway ? Empowering of the Holy Spirit

[Guojing]

No, I do believe that it is, based off many things. I may have posted on it on this site before, if so, it's out there to read. I drew attention to that to bring up the distinction in the "how" and purpose, which you filled in a tiny piece on the puzzle for me. I was aware there was a distinction, but couldn't quite pinpoint it and it was a cool feeling the Lord probably working that way. At times it is frustrating that I can't see it all on my own "working out my own salvation" but of course, he made the body (church) for a reason.

But my main concern on this site when interacting with your post is that the Lord will not do any miracles by the power of his Spirit poured unto believers in his name. Debate can be had about it, but I do think it is reasonable to leave the door open for the Lord to work if he so chooses in such a way.

Nothing I have read leads me to believe miracles cannot occur in this present time, but rather their "purpose" is different than Revelation 11, which we could discuss...but it is enough for me to know that "that" particular purpose will be carried out yet in the future but that the present purpose the Lord is moving in doesn't necessarily preclude mighty works prior to that time and after the time of the Apostles. Plain (clear) enough?

Yes, no one is denying here that God can still do miracles today. But whenever you hear someone declare that signs and wonders are for the church today, they should at least understand the difference between miracles and signs and wonders.

All signs are miracles but not all miracles are signs. Without understanding how the term signs and wonders are related to Israel and the gospel of the kingdom, one will wrongly believe it is still applicable today.

 

[Scribe]

Exodus 4, 1 Kings 18:36-39 and John 10 all explained what signs to unbelieving Jews meant.

I will just quote the last passage

24 Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, “How long do You keep us in [d]doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.”

25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”

33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and [f]believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.”

That is what signs for unbelieving Jews meant, from scripture. A Jew requires signs, and is unwilling to believe you by faith. You show him signs that you are sent by God, so that they can believe those signs, and believe you are sent by God.

I still don't see how you are connecting this to Romans 12, 1 Cor 12-14 and ministry gifts of the Holy Ghost.

 

[Guojing]

I still don't see how you are connecting this to Romans 12, 1 Cor 12-14 and ministry gifts of the Holy Ghost.

I was just trying to address that question you posed on what does sign to unbelieving Jews meant, using scripture.

Once one finally understood that, his understanding of what Paul was actually saying in 1 Cor 12-14 would be more balanced.

If one still want to insist that the same tongues in Acts are also for today, well, no one can stop them but at least they might entertain the perspective that, hey, could I have been misinterpreting?

 

[Scribe]

I was just trying to address that question you posed on what does sign to unbelieving Jews meant, using scripture.

Once one finally understood that, his understanding of what Paul was actually saying in 1 Cor 12-14 would be more balanced.

If one still want to insist that the same tongues in Acts are also for today, well, no one can stop them but at least they might entertain the perspective that, hey, could I have been misinterpreting?

Understanding what Paul was actually meaning in 1 Cor 12-14 is certainly the goal. That is my goal. I believe that if we keep that as our goal and use the rules of hermeneutics we will be able to discover it.

 

[Guojing]

Understanding what Paul was actually meaning in 1 Cor 12-14 is certainly the goal. That is my goal. I believe that if we keep that as our goal and use the rules of hermeneutics we will be able to discover it.

You do agree, however. that the term signs for unbelieving Jews have a specific application as stated on the ot, as well as the during the 4 gospels?

 

[Nehemiah6]

I know that proof of people speaking in tongues through the ages has been provided.

The writings of the Early Church Fathers (1st to 4th century) are called "patristic evidence", and they refute your understanding.

"Thus, the patristic evidence supports a rational foreign language as the proper and normal manifestation of tongues. Conversely, unintelligible babblings and irrational gibberish are never associated with the gift...The patristic writings further evidence that all Christians did not speak in tongues. Not only did none of the church fathers claim to speak in tongues personally, they consistently expressed their belief that not every Christian receives that gift (or any one gift, for that matter)...The church fathers also viewed tongues-speaking as a supernatural gift. No amount of human exertion, initiation, or training could aid in acquiring what was endowed only by the Holy Spirit..."

https://mariancatechist.com/files/documents/3PentecostalismGiftOfTonguesBusenitz.pdf

 

[Scribe]

The writings of the Early Church Fathers (1st to 4th century) are called "patristic evidence", and they refute your understanding.

"Thus, the patristic evidence supports a rational foreign language as the proper and normal manifestation of tongues. Conversely, unintelligible babblings and irrational gibberish are never associated with the gift...The patristic writings further evidence that all Christians did not speak in tongues. Not only did none of the church fathers claim to speak in tongues personally, they consistently expressed their belief that not every Christian receives that gift (or any one gift, for that matter)...The church fathers also viewed tongues-speaking as a supernatural gift. No amount of human exertion, initiation, or training could aid in acquiring what was endowed only by the Holy Spirit..."

https://mariancatechist.com/files/documents/3PentecostalismGiftOfTonguesBusenitz.pdf

None of the early church writers were of the same caliber as the writers of scripture. Their interpretations are faulty. Some of them were obvious heretics even critical of Paul. That means you have to take what they said with the same critical analysis of any other writer. They get attention mainly because they are the only writers we have in extant from the centuries closest to the beginning so we try to glean from them some kind of idea what people were discussing but they are not authorities. The scripture is the authority. Why would someone who does not speak in tongues personally be able to explain the gift of tongues? They can't. They will only give their own guesses and speculations. Go to the source, the scriptures.
One thing we learn from reading the early church writers and church history is how messed up their understanding was about many things. They got some things right but boy they were really off on others. This should make you take what they said with a grain of salt not as an authority of the subject of tongues.

 

[lenna]

The writings of the Early Church Fathers (1st to 4th century) are called "patristic evidence", and they refute your understanding.

"Thus, the patristic evidence supports a rational foreign language as the proper and normal manifestation of tongues. Conversely, unintelligible babblings and irrational gibberish are never associated with the gift...The patristic writings further evidence that all Christians did not speak in tongues. Not only did none of the church fathers claim to speak in tongues personally, they consistently expressed their belief that not every Christian receives that gift (or any one gift, for that matter)...The church fathers also viewed tongues-speaking as a supernatural gift. No amount of human exertion, initiation, or training could aid in acquiring what was endowed only by the Holy Spirit..."

https://mariancatechist.com/files/documents/3PentecostalismGiftOfTonguesBusenitz.pdf

I think you must consider yourself among them, latter day church fathers LOL! After your remarks on women I could never take you seriously as that attitude is not found in the Bible yet you seem to want to advise us all of your superior biblical knowledge. Not.

The church fathers are dead and the abusive power they wielded is well known. Now you appeal to them, to those whose desire was to control, not surprising therefore that they find favor in your sight.

The Bible refutes your understanding and you are free to walk away from the testimony of those IN Scripture who teach the opposite of what you wish to spread, which, actually amounts to heresy since you deny the words of scripture are true. I am not interested in the heretical leanings of those who want a form of godliness but choose to deny the power of God Himself through His Spirit.

I would rather spend one day in God's presence than have a book in my hand for eternity which is nothing but bones without the Holy Spirit. The essence of God is spirit and there is no other. I do not worship a book and do not kow tow to those who wish to lead by the spirit of man.

The Bible is a snare for those who deny the power of God through His Spirit.

 

[CS1]

Goal or Gateway? Empowering of the Holy Spirit



I know there has been much taught about gifts of the Holy Spirit and the debate on they are not needed for today and such, however, the empowering of the Holy Spirit has not changed now that we have the Bible as some suggest.

This is a very important point because you would have to agree the very words Paul, Peter, John spoke were not as powerful as they are today because they were written in a book. i.e. Bible means books.
You mean to tell me the word of God given to Paul and Peter and John and those who preached the word of God, the Holy Spirit only confirmed their words with signs & wonders but will not do the something HE did then because it is not needed?

I guess the sinner today is different than they were then? I guess when Jesus said the Comforter who I will send who will be with you forever was only with the Apostles who are now dead? I guess forever really doesn't mean forever?

The Holy Spirit still confirms the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ today and HIS word with signs & wonders.

That is because Jesus said they would follow those who believe. Paul doesn't remove what Jesus said, nor did Paul say that in 1corinthians chapter 13:8-10

Jesus said These signs will follow them that believe. MARK 16:17-18

Then in verse 20

it ends with this "And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs. Amen."

it does not matter if it was directly from the mouth of the Apostles or from the mouth of preacher today who is speaking what is written in the word of God. The word will be confirmed.

• demonstrated
• accomplished
• save
• heal
• deliver
• witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead

That is the gateway to show a lost and dying world The Living God. Who has risen from the dead!

Who still today saves, heals, delivers, and confirms HIS word through the believer with signs and wonders.

 

[49]

Goal or Gateway? Empowering of the Holy Spirit



I know there has been much taught about gifts of the Holy Spirit and the debate on they are not needed for today and such, however, the empowering of the Holy Spirit has not changed now that we have the Bible as some suggest.

This is a very important point because you would have to agree the very words Paul, Peter, John spoke were not as powerful as they are today because they were written in a book. i.e. Bible means books.
You mean to tell me the word of God given to Paul and Peter and John and those who preached the word of God, the Holy Spirit only confirmed their words with signs & wonders but will not do the something HE did then because it is not needed?

I guess the sinner today is different than they were then? I guess when Jesus said the Comforter who I will send who will be with you forever was only with the Apostles who are now dead? I guess forever really doesn't mean forever?

The Holy Spirit still confirms the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ today and HIS word with signs & wonders.

That is because Jesus said they would follow those who believe. Paul doesn't remove what Jesus said, nor did Paul say that in 1corinthians chapter 13:8-10

Jesus said These signs will follow them that believe. MARK 16:17-18

Then in verse 20

it ends with this "And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs. Amen."

it does not matter if it was directly from the mouth of the Apostles or from the mouth of preacher today who is speaking what is written in the word of God. The word will be confirmed.

• demonstrated
• accomplished
• save
• heal
• deliver
• witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead

That is the gateway to show a lost and dying world The Living God. Who has risen from the dead!

Who still today saves, heals, delivers, and confirms HIS word through the believer with signs and wonders.

It is amazing that some folk seem to think certain Scripture only applied/applies to such and such people, and that it has no bearing today. Unbelievable.

God nor His Word has changed, and never will. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Just because times and mentalities have changed, doesn't mean God has. And He won't.....

 

[Guojing]

It is amazing that some folk seem to think certain Scripture only applied/applies to such and such people, and that it has no bearing today. Unbelievable.

God nor His Word has changed, and never will. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Just because times and mentalities have changed, doesn't mean God has. And He won't.....

You still believe in the necessity of circumcision for salvation? Had God changed from Genesis 17?

 

[notuptome]

Goal or Gateway? Empowering of the Holy Spirit



I know there has been much taught about gifts of the Holy Spirit and the debate on they are not needed for today and such, however, the empowering of the Holy Spirit has not changed now that we have the Bible as some suggest.

This is a very important point because you would have to agree the very words Paul, Peter, John spoke were not as powerful as they are today because they were written in a book. i.e. Bible means books.
You mean to tell me the word of God given to Paul and Peter and John and those who preached the word of God, the Holy Spirit only confirmed their words with signs & wonders but will not do the something HE did then because it is not needed?

I guess the sinner today is different than they were then? I guess when Jesus said the Comforter who I will send who will be with you forever was only with the Apostles who are now dead? I guess forever really doesn't mean forever?

The Holy Spirit still confirms the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ today and HIS word with signs & wonders.

That is because Jesus said they would follow those who believe. Paul doesn't remove what Jesus said, nor did Paul say that in 1corinthians chapter 13:8-10

Jesus said These signs will follow them that believe. MARK 16:17-18

Then in verse 20

it ends with this "And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs. Amen."

it does not matter if it was directly from the mouth of the Apostles or from the mouth of preacher today who is speaking what is written in the word of God. The word will be confirmed.

• demonstrated
• accomplished
• save
• heal
• deliver
• witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead

That is the gateway to show a lost and dying world The Living God. Who has risen from the dead!

Who still today saves, heals, delivers, and confirms HIS word through the believer with signs and wonders.

The long ending of Mark lacks manuscript authority. It is inconsistent with the rest of Mark and the whole of scripture. It is likely that the real ending of Mark was lost and the ending we have was added at a later date.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[CS1]

The long ending of Mark lacks manuscript authority. It is inconsistent with the rest of Mark and the whole of scripture. It is likely that the real ending of Mark was lost and the ending we have was added at a later date.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

if the ending of Mark 16 was lacking as you SAY, Then rip out of your Bible. But I would ask you why is it there, in Mark 16:15-18
AND in the KJV , NIV, NASB, RSV, and the ASV all have is so, why?

And if it is not there what about the words that are written?

5 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the [c]gospel to the whole creation. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. 17 And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with [d]new tongues; 18 they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Was anything here that was added as you are suggesting not Biblical?

Do any of the other Gospel writings say contextually what is here in Mark 16:15-18?

Did Jesus say anything similar in any other Gospel?

You believe that Mark chapter 16 end at verse 14 with these words:

"Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. "


Well, let's look at if Mark 16:15-18 that can't be found in the manuscripts, can be found in other writings of the Gospels, shall we.
Scripture interprets scripture.

1. Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
2. Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
3. Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
4. Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Your comment is very telling as to why you have a bias and I might add and error in your biblical understanding.

You look at Mark 16:15-18 and say "It is inconsistent with the rest of Mark and the whole of scripture. "

NO, IT IS NOT. You look at the word of God to discredit and support your bias, but did not ask in the light of all the other translation why is it still there?

Because Mark 16:15-18 does not take away from the context of the word of God and The Apostles did do everything that Jesus is believed to have said in MARK 16:15-18 AND YOU CAN FIND IT IN THE BOOK OF ACTS.

So, you go right ahead and rip out Mark 16:15-28, and if you level it is you are a hypocrite with bias and if you take it out you know more than all the other translations that left it. Which makes you prideful and foolish.

 

[Chester]

Which makes you prideful and foolish.

Really? I don't agree with notuptome either, and I think you write a good response, but call him "foolish"?

 

[CS1]

Really? I don't agree with notuptome either, and I think you write a good response, but call him "foolish"?

Thank you chester but foolish is in context to his action not his being I too have been called foolish and I may agree I have been too

 

[Chester]

Really? I don't agree with notuptome either, and I think you write a good response, but call him "foolish"?

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with hisbrother without a cause shall be in danger of thejudgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca,shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shallsay, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matthew 5:22

 

[CS1]

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with hisbrother without a cause shall be in danger of thejudgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca,shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shallsay, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matthew 5:22

calling some one foolish is not the same as saying you area fool. I have said foolish things as i am sure most of us have As you know notuptome has purposely responded to my Thread only to bring debate. The term Foolish is used many times in Proverbs & Psalms

 

[Chester]

calling some one foolish is not the same as saying you area fool. I have said foolish things as i am sure most of us have As you know notuptome has purposely responded to my Thread only to bring debate. The term Foolish is used many times in Proverbs & Psalms

OK, in the context you are saying it and what you mean I understand.

But my mother never allowed us to call anyone or anything "foolish" - so that is how I was brought up! LOL!

I have had my run-ins with a certain person as well and found it best to just stay quiet - but I am in full agreement that the OP who starts the thread has a right to defend the thread and keep it on target to his thoughts.

 

[CS1]

OK, in the context you are saying it and what you mean I understand.

But my mother never allowed us to call anyone or anything "foolish" - so that is how I was brought up! LOL!

I have had my run-ins with a certain person as well and found it best to just stay quiet - but I am in full agreement that the OP who starts the thread has a right to defend the thread and keep it on target to his thoughts.

But I will apologies if I have offended you .

 

[Chester]

But I will apologies if I have offended you .

No, you did not offend me.