Why have the Sign Gifts Ended
- Thread starter Guojing
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I have done a lot of scripture memorization out of the KJV and use the terms interchangeably. I have heard both terms in church growing up. I don't think I have ever met anyone who thought it was a big deal.
'Holy Ghost' is used to translate the same Greek word that 'Holy Spirit' is used to translate in another translation. Ghost and spirit do not mean the same thing in English. Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit do mean the same thing. But I will admit that it could be confusing to the uninitiated.
'Holy Ghost' is used to translate the same Greek word that 'Holy Spirit' is used to translate in another translation. Ghost and spirit do not mean the same thing in English. Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit do mean the same thing. But I will admit that it could be confusing to the uninitiated.
-
1
- Show all
Your cessationism seems to be based primarily on an arbitrary bias against the supernatural. The Bible teaches that the Spirit gifts members of the body of Christ with certain gifts. Why would you reject that teaching as true today?
Many testimonies like this involve people hearing the gospel and then having dreams that help them confront the message they heard, or else hearing the message after the dream. If we look in the Bible, is this so unrealistic? Joseph had dreams telling him to marry Mary, to take the family to Egypt, and to leave Egypt. Pharaoh had dreams about cattle. Nebucadnezzar had a dream about future kingdoms. Why should it be so unusual to think that God might use dreams to direct people to faith? Even Gentiles who weren't kings like the baker and cupbearer in prison with Joseph had supernatural dreams. So did someone in a Midianite camp that Gideon overheard, and someone else received the interpretation.
You might say that these individuals had pivotal roles in human history, in redemptive history, or something along those lines. But this would show an anti-supernatural bias.
Is there any reason to think that God warning through dreams might be normative?
Job 33
14 For God may speak in one way, or in another,
Yet man does not perceive it.
15 In a dream, in a vision of the night,
When deep sleep falls upon men,
While slumbering on their beds,
16 Then He opens the ears of men,
And seals their instruction.
17 In order to turn man from his deed,
And conceal pride from man,
18 He keeps back his soul from the Pit,
And his life from perishing by the sword.
(NKJV)
These are the words of Elihu, too, not the three counselors that accused Job. But the younger fellow who disagreed with them.
This was before the Spirit was poured out in Acts 2, a passage which predicts dreams and visions. And these are likely Gentiles discussing, down there in the land of Uz, which at some point in time was Edomite territory. The comment here is about God speaking to 'man', not just kings, Israelites, prophets, or individuals with significant historical roles in redemptive history.
Can you show me any scripture that cancels the principle taught in this passage in Job 33?
I do not know what you think this has to do with the issue? I sure hope you aren't one of those people who holds to the bizare notion that one has to hold to all the detailed theories of Calvinism to be saved.
Many testimonies like this involve people hearing the gospel and then having dreams that help them confront the message they heard, or else hearing the message after the dream. If we look in the Bible, is this so unrealistic? Joseph had dreams telling him to marry Mary, to take the family to Egypt, and to leave Egypt. Pharaoh had dreams about cattle. Nebucadnezzar had a dream about future kingdoms. Why should it be so unusual to think that God might use dreams to direct people to faith? Even Gentiles who weren't kings like the baker and cupbearer in prison with Joseph had supernatural dreams. So did someone in a Midianite camp that Gideon overheard, and someone else received the interpretation.
You might say that these individuals had pivotal roles in human history, in redemptive history, or something along those lines. But this would show an anti-supernatural bias.
Is there any reason to think that God warning through dreams might be normative?
Job 33
14 For God may speak in one way, or in another,
Yet man does not perceive it.
15 In a dream, in a vision of the night,
When deep sleep falls upon men,
While slumbering on their beds,
16 Then He opens the ears of men,
And seals their instruction.
17 In order to turn man from his deed,
And conceal pride from man,
18 He keeps back his soul from the Pit,
And his life from perishing by the sword.
(NKJV)
These are the words of Elihu, too, not the three counselors that accused Job. But the younger fellow who disagreed with them.
This was before the Spirit was poured out in Acts 2, a passage which predicts dreams and visions. And these are likely Gentiles discussing, down there in the land of Uz, which at some point in time was Edomite territory. The comment here is about God speaking to 'man', not just kings, Israelites, prophets, or individuals with significant historical roles in redemptive history.
Can you show me any scripture that cancels the principle taught in this passage in Job 33?
I do not know what you think this has to do with the issue? I sure hope you aren't one of those people who holds to the bizare notion that one has to hold to all the detailed theories of Calvinism to be saved.
Christians who speak Arabic call God 'Allah.' So do speakers of many other languages. This is the case in Indonesia, and perhaps in Bangladesh. Christians in Malaysia do not use 'Allah' in their Bibles because Islamic leaders objected, which is actually a poor reflection on their own view of their own religion. If your church sends missions funds overseas, it may be supporting a preacher who calls God 'Allah, preaching out of a Bible that calls God Allah.
For example, this is from John 1:1 in the Indonesian Bible, Alkitab TB:
1:1 Pada mulanya adalah Firman; Firman itu bersama-sama dengan Allah dan Firman itu adalah Allah.
That might be the case, but there is also evidence of 'Allah being used to refer to the true God also. 'El in the Old Testament is used to refer to the true God and false gods, too. Ugaritic 'el certainly had some characteristics not consistent with the true El-Elyon of scripture, even though the true word is used.
'Allah is believed to be a contraction of Al 'illah. That literally mean 'the god.' 'Illah is believed to be cognate with the Hebrew word 'Eloah, which is the singular of the Hebrew word 'Elohim-- the plural word so often translated 'God' in the Bible. We also see 'El' in the Bible, especially as a morpheme in words like El-Elyon or El-Shaddai. Based on studying both Arabic and Hebrew, I can say that there are a number of cognates.
The pre-Islamic Arab Christians did not leave behind written liturgies or Bible translations from what I have read. But 'there is evidence that 'Abdullah' was a commonly used Christian baptism name prior to Muhammad. Abdullah is a contracted form of Abdul Allah which follows regular Arabic grammatical rules for the contraction. It is very obvious to those who know Classical Arabic that this is the case. Of course, one of the early Christians who brought the Gospel to them was named Abdullah. Christians in other countries didn't usually name their babies Apollos even though there was an early saint with that name. It would seem unlikely Christians would name their kids Abdullah if 'Allah' were exclusively the name of a pagan entity and not the name of the true God.
A licensed tour guide in Israel told me there was an inscription that referred to the God of the Bible as 'Allah' that was preIslamic.
it may be the case that the Sabeans in what is now Yemen worshiped a moon god they named 'Allah and a sun goddess they named 'Allat, but that does not mean that Jews and Christians did not use the term 'Allah. When I studied Arabic and took a course in Islam while attending university, I was told that Arab Jews and Christians at the time used 'Allah to refer to God also. If Muhammad were trying to recruit them as followers to his religion, it seems unlikely that he would have used a different word. My Hebrew professor who was a part of Reformed Judaism said that according to the Semitic Linguistics scholars, Allah derived from Al illah. And again, it certainly seems to be the case that illah is cognate with eloah in Hebrew.
For example, this is from John 1:1 in the Indonesian Bible, Alkitab TB:
1:1 Pada mulanya adalah Firman; Firman itu bersama-sama dengan Allah dan Firman itu adalah Allah.
That might be the case, but there is also evidence of 'Allah being used to refer to the true God also. 'El in the Old Testament is used to refer to the true God and false gods, too. Ugaritic 'el certainly had some characteristics not consistent with the true El-Elyon of scripture, even though the true word is used.
'Allah is believed to be a contraction of Al 'illah. That literally mean 'the god.' 'Illah is believed to be cognate with the Hebrew word 'Eloah, which is the singular of the Hebrew word 'Elohim-- the plural word so often translated 'God' in the Bible. We also see 'El' in the Bible, especially as a morpheme in words like El-Elyon or El-Shaddai. Based on studying both Arabic and Hebrew, I can say that there are a number of cognates.
The pre-Islamic Arab Christians did not leave behind written liturgies or Bible translations from what I have read. But 'there is evidence that 'Abdullah' was a commonly used Christian baptism name prior to Muhammad. Abdullah is a contracted form of Abdul Allah which follows regular Arabic grammatical rules for the contraction. It is very obvious to those who know Classical Arabic that this is the case. Of course, one of the early Christians who brought the Gospel to them was named Abdullah. Christians in other countries didn't usually name their babies Apollos even though there was an early saint with that name. It would seem unlikely Christians would name their kids Abdullah if 'Allah' were exclusively the name of a pagan entity and not the name of the true God.
A licensed tour guide in Israel told me there was an inscription that referred to the God of the Bible as 'Allah' that was preIslamic.
it may be the case that the Sabeans in what is now Yemen worshiped a moon god they named 'Allah and a sun goddess they named 'Allat, but that does not mean that Jews and Christians did not use the term 'Allah. When I studied Arabic and took a course in Islam while attending university, I was told that Arab Jews and Christians at the time used 'Allah to refer to God also. If Muhammad were trying to recruit them as followers to his religion, it seems unlikely that he would have used a different word. My Hebrew professor who was a part of Reformed Judaism said that according to the Semitic Linguistics scholars, Allah derived from Al illah. And again, it certainly seems to be the case that illah is cognate with eloah in Hebrew.
Didn't Barns, the commentator you were relying on who did not seem to understand the definition of 'prophesy' get in trouble with his denomination for promoting the doctrine of free will?
There were people who heard the message in Acts 2 who were saved. We can go through passage after passage where the Gospel was preached without Calvinist distinctives being preached at all... if you can even find one that contains them...where people are saved. If one believes that one has to hold to a particular Calvinistic belief on predestination v. free will to be saved, that is adding to the Gospel. Believing that should also lead one to question whether the apostles preached the gospel rightly and whether those they preached to in Acts were truly saved.
The Gospel gets turned from a message about faith in Christ, the Son of God, who died for our sins and rose from the dead, to one about doctrinal minutia.
There were people who heard the message in Acts 2 who were saved. We can go through passage after passage where the Gospel was preached without Calvinist distinctives being preached at all... if you can even find one that contains them...where people are saved. If one believes that one has to hold to a particular Calvinistic belief on predestination v. free will to be saved, that is adding to the Gospel. Believing that should also lead one to question whether the apostles preached the gospel rightly and whether those they preached to in Acts were truly saved.
The Gospel gets turned from a message about faith in Christ, the Son of God, who died for our sins and rose from the dead, to one about doctrinal minutia.
Good point and thank you for the post.
In a perfect world, every believer would dutifully study the Bible in prayerful dependence upon the Holy Spirit’s illumination. As can be clearly seen, this is not a perfect world. Not everyone who possesses the Holy Spirit actually listens to the Holy Spirit. In the real world today just as 2000 years ago there are "Make-believers' instead of believers as everyone who says he is a born again Christian certainly is not.
There are Christians who grieve God . Ask any educator—even the best classroom teacher has his share of wayward students who seem to resist learning, no matter what the teacher does. So, one reason different people have different interpretations of the Bible is simply that some do not listen to the Teacher—the Holy Spirit. Following are some other reasons for the wide divergence of beliefs among those who teach the Bible.
1. Unbelief .....
Matthew 7:22-24
" Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
2. Lack of training.
2 Peter 3:16
" as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."
3. Poor hermeneutics.
Much error has been promoted because of a simple failure to apply good hermeneutics (the science of interpreting Scripture). Taking a verse out of its immediate context can do great damage to the intent of the verse. Ignoring the wider context of the chapter and book, or failing to understand the historical/cultural context will also lead to problems.
Accepting "Denominational" dogma above written Scripture leads to false understandings.
4. Ignorance of the whole Word of God.
Apollos was a powerful and eloquent preacher, but he only knew the baptism of John. He was ignorant of Jesus and His provision of salvation, so his message was incomplete. Aquila and Priscilla took him aside and “explained to him the way of God more adequately” in Acts 18:24-28. After that, Apollos preached Jesus Christ. Some groups and individuals today have an incomplete message because they concentrate on certain passages to the exclusion of others. They fail to compare Scripture with Scripture.
5. Selfishness and pride.
Sad to say, many interpretations of the Bible are based on an individual’s own personal biases and pet doctrines. Some people see an opportunity for personal advancement by promoting a “new perspective” on Scripture. (See the description of false teachers in Jude’s epistle.)
6. Failure to mature.
When Christians are not maturing as they should, their handling of the Word of God is affected. “I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly” = 1 Corth. 3:2-3. An immature Christian is not ready for the “meat” of God’s Word. Note that the proof of the Corinthians’ carnality is a division in their church (verse 4).
7. Undue emphasis on tradition.
Some churches claim to believe the Bible, but their interpretation is always filtered through the established traditions of their church. Where tradition and the teaching of the Bible are in conflict, tradition is given precedence. This effectively negates the authority of the Word and grants supremacy to the church leadership.
In a perfect world, every believer would dutifully study the Bible in prayerful dependence upon the Holy Spirit’s illumination. As can be clearly seen, this is not a perfect world. Not everyone who possesses the Holy Spirit actually listens to the Holy Spirit. In the real world today just as 2000 years ago there are "Make-believers' instead of believers as everyone who says he is a born again Christian certainly is not.
There are Christians who grieve God . Ask any educator—even the best classroom teacher has his share of wayward students who seem to resist learning, no matter what the teacher does. So, one reason different people have different interpretations of the Bible is simply that some do not listen to the Teacher—the Holy Spirit. Following are some other reasons for the wide divergence of beliefs among those who teach the Bible.
1. Unbelief .....
Matthew 7:22-24
" Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
2. Lack of training.
2 Peter 3:16
" as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."
3. Poor hermeneutics.
Much error has been promoted because of a simple failure to apply good hermeneutics (the science of interpreting Scripture). Taking a verse out of its immediate context can do great damage to the intent of the verse. Ignoring the wider context of the chapter and book, or failing to understand the historical/cultural context will also lead to problems.
Accepting "Denominational" dogma above written Scripture leads to false understandings.
4. Ignorance of the whole Word of God.
Apollos was a powerful and eloquent preacher, but he only knew the baptism of John. He was ignorant of Jesus and His provision of salvation, so his message was incomplete. Aquila and Priscilla took him aside and “explained to him the way of God more adequately” in Acts 18:24-28. After that, Apollos preached Jesus Christ. Some groups and individuals today have an incomplete message because they concentrate on certain passages to the exclusion of others. They fail to compare Scripture with Scripture.
5. Selfishness and pride.
Sad to say, many interpretations of the Bible are based on an individual’s own personal biases and pet doctrines. Some people see an opportunity for personal advancement by promoting a “new perspective” on Scripture. (See the description of false teachers in Jude’s epistle.)
6. Failure to mature.
When Christians are not maturing as they should, their handling of the Word of God is affected. “I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly” = 1 Corth. 3:2-3. An immature Christian is not ready for the “meat” of God’s Word. Note that the proof of the Corinthians’ carnality is a division in their church (verse 4).
7. Undue emphasis on tradition.
Some churches claim to believe the Bible, but their interpretation is always filtered through the established traditions of their church. Where tradition and the teaching of the Bible are in conflict, tradition is given precedence. This effectively negates the authority of the Word and grants supremacy to the church leadership.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Yes, it is easy to make an argument from the Old Testament for these kind of happenings. You could have also included King Abimelech as a good example of communications from God in a dream.
I do not deny the supernatural events of God but that does not mean I believe sign gifts are for today. God still works, what one may call a miracle, today in His Providential dealings with this world. Such as an eight year old boy falling five floors in an old elevator shaft and nary a scratch are broken bone to be found.
Where you and I differ on the subject of sign gifts, is the purpose of these gifts. Scripture teaches they are an accompanying gift, to those believers, whom He has chosen for such and they are present to carry out His purpose. Even our Lord, Jesus Christ, said that He could only do what the Father had given Him to do. Again, fulfilling the purposes laid out by God before hand. As believers, we walk and do the things laid out for us from Eternity.
Psa 81:12 So I let them go after the stubbornness of their heart, That they might walk in their own counsels.
Eze 36:27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep mine ordinances, and do them.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them
I have been around Charismatic believers and been in their churches and what I have beheld over the years in no way demonstrates a purpose laid out by God. The "Prosperity Gospel", is at enmity with the teachings of Scripture. God's people have never been taught to desire the "good things" of this life. Our desire is to put off this mortal body and be with Christ. This we shall do, when we have finished our course. We are to expect, Trials, Temptations and Tribulations along our earthly pilgrimage.
The "Social Gospel", is a worldly invasion into the the "Gospel of Jesus Christ" Jesus did not speak against the rulers of His age; He didn't even speak against slavery. Inside the church, there is no room for earthly matters. The worlds problems and the worship of God do not mix.
This verbal babel, called speaking in tongues and dancing in the isles, subverts the order and discipline of God's Holy instructions. God is a God of order, not some kind of "fleshly" display.
This is why I previously said, our conversation on this subject has run it's course. You will remain in your camp and I in mine. Only the power of the Holy Spirit could change this matter.
I do not deny the supernatural events of God but that does not mean I believe sign gifts are for today. God still works, what one may call a miracle, today in His Providential dealings with this world. Such as an eight year old boy falling five floors in an old elevator shaft and nary a scratch are broken bone to be found.
Where you and I differ on the subject of sign gifts, is the purpose of these gifts. Scripture teaches they are an accompanying gift, to those believers, whom He has chosen for such and they are present to carry out His purpose. Even our Lord, Jesus Christ, said that He could only do what the Father had given Him to do. Again, fulfilling the purposes laid out by God before hand. As believers, we walk and do the things laid out for us from Eternity.
Psa 81:12 So I let them go after the stubbornness of their heart, That they might walk in their own counsels.
Eze 36:27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep mine ordinances, and do them.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them
I have been around Charismatic believers and been in their churches and what I have beheld over the years in no way demonstrates a purpose laid out by God. The "Prosperity Gospel", is at enmity with the teachings of Scripture. God's people have never been taught to desire the "good things" of this life. Our desire is to put off this mortal body and be with Christ. This we shall do, when we have finished our course. We are to expect, Trials, Temptations and Tribulations along our earthly pilgrimage.
The "Social Gospel", is a worldly invasion into the the "Gospel of Jesus Christ" Jesus did not speak against the rulers of His age; He didn't even speak against slavery. Inside the church, there is no room for earthly matters. The worlds problems and the worship of God do not mix.
This verbal babel, called speaking in tongues and dancing in the isles, subverts the order and discipline of God's Holy instructions. God is a God of order, not some kind of "fleshly" display.
This is why I previously said, our conversation on this subject has run it's course. You will remain in your camp and I in mine. Only the power of the Holy Spirit could change this matter.
Ahhh, your words are sweet and so good sounding, I am sure, to those who want their ears tickled.
You chose Acts 2 in your example but you obviously don't believe in textural content. For in this same context of Acts 2 we come across the explanation for these believers:
Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Not a great translation here but the truth still shines through. The Greek word for "saved", is: σωζομενους, ( A Present - Passive - Participial verb, which means: "to Save or to Deliver").
Additionally, "to the church", is not in the original Greek text. So making these corrections, the verse would read as such:
Act 2:47 Praising God, and finding favor with all the people. And the Lord added the ones being saved.
The most interesting thing about this verb is that it's in the "Passive" voice. This means that the ones "being (Present tense) saved (Passive voice), were not active in this action. they were passive. Rather the Lord was acting upon them; trough the Holy Spirit to bring them into a state of salvation. This is in agreement with John 3:8, where being "born" of the Spirit is also in the passive voice. This is how one receives "hearing" ears.
You chose Acts 2 in your example but you obviously don't believe in textural content. For in this same context of Acts 2 we come across the explanation for these believers:
Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Not a great translation here but the truth still shines through. The Greek word for "saved", is: σωζομενους, ( A Present - Passive - Participial verb, which means: "to Save or to Deliver").
Additionally, "to the church", is not in the original Greek text. So making these corrections, the verse would read as such:
Act 2:47 Praising God, and finding favor with all the people. And the Lord added the ones being saved.
The most interesting thing about this verb is that it's in the "Passive" voice. This means that the ones "being (Present tense) saved (Passive voice), were not active in this action. they were passive. Rather the Lord was acting upon them; trough the Holy Spirit to bring them into a state of salvation. This is in agreement with John 3:8, where being "born" of the Spirit is also in the passive voice. This is how one receives "hearing" ears.
One of the problems with cessationism is that it is at odds with the idea of the sovereignty of God. The Bible teaches that spiritual gifts are given as the Spirit wills. But it does teach that the Spirit gives these gifts... as He wills. Going from that teaching to the idea that the Spirit does not give these gifts any more without any justification from scripture is not in line with accepting the sovereignty of God when it comes to spiritual gifts. There is no scripture at all that indicates that God will not will to give out miracles or healing to members of the body of Christ. Paul indicates that one can pray to operate in a gift (I Corinthians 14:13) and encourages believers to earnestly desire spiritual gifts.
There are certain streams within what might be labeled 'Charismatic' that I would not be comfortable with. The Prosperity Gospel stream of things is one of those. There is an unseemly idea about money in some of that teaching. I was raised in Pentecostal churches, churches because I moved around every so many years growing up, and most of those churches didn't have this attitude about money, though there might be the individual here or there who listened to WOF stuff who thought that way.
I am not sure why you brought that up. Most Charismatics do not seem to be 'social gospel' types as far as I can tell. You could probably find the odd example here and there. I skipped through a couple of Raphael Warnock's sermons-- that guy who apparently won a senate run-off in Georgia today. He'd use a verse as a spring board to talk about policies he wanted to see enacted in congress. I saw some Pentecostal preachers comment on that, and they disliked it as well. In one sermon, he wondered allowed why Hagar was excluded from Hebrews 11, and he believed some other names should be added to the 'hall of faith', like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s or Lorretta Scott King's. I saw a couple of sermons from Kamala Harris' church that were the same sort of thing-- read a text, and then find some left-wing political issue and try to draw a parallel to support that. I don't like that stuff either.
But the way you worded that, I think you go to far. Old Testament prophets, John the Baptist, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself spoke about giving, sharing, taking care of the poor. The focus was on the listeners doing what was right, not pressuring a secular government to use its power of taxation to fund social programs. Our giving and sharing is part of being disciples of Christ, so that sort of thing, which does impact 'earthly matters' is appropriate for teaching in church. John and James both included commentary on feeding and clothing those in need in their epistles.
When it comes to dancing, the question is whether practices commanded in the Psalms are acceptable in the church. There are some who hold to the regulative principle who would even be against musical instruments and who might insist on only singing out of a Psalter, but there are Psalms that command praising God with musical instruments and psalms that command dancing also.
It is ironic, though, that proponents of the regulative principle will so often ignore the one lengthy detailed passage that tells us what to do in church, aside from the passage that tells us how not to have the Lord's Supper. I Corinthians 14 indicates that speakers in church are 'every one of you', the speaker in tongues, the interpreter, prophets, one that sitteth by, and 'ye may all prophesy.' What may be spoken (or sung) includes psalms, teachings, tongues and interpretation, and revelations. Prophecy is specifically allowed and the church is commanded to let prophets speak. There is no reference to one elder/priest or bishop or pastor preaching THE sermon behind a pulpit. 'Let everything be done decently and in order' is about the divinely revealed order described in this passage of scripture, not some other order that would be developed 1500 or 1600 years later or so. If instruments or dancing were forbidden because it is not mentioned in the New Testament, then why wouldn't pulpits be forbidden?
I don't see a problem with dancing while singing edifying songs if dancing is appropriate:
If the church is singing Psalm 149:3, I do not see a problem with there being dancing and the sound of the harp along with it.
"Let them praise his name in the dance: let them sing praises unto him with the timbrel and harp."
It is more important that the church obey the teachings of the New Testament for the church than it is to criticize others for doing Biblical things that are not specifically commanded in New Testament scripture. For example, a church should allow tongues and interpretation, prophesying, etc. from members of the body of Christ in an orderly manner in accordance with what is taught in scripture.
There are certain streams within what might be labeled 'Charismatic' that I would not be comfortable with. The Prosperity Gospel stream of things is one of those. There is an unseemly idea about money in some of that teaching. I was raised in Pentecostal churches, churches because I moved around every so many years growing up, and most of those churches didn't have this attitude about money, though there might be the individual here or there who listened to WOF stuff who thought that way.
I am not sure why you brought that up. Most Charismatics do not seem to be 'social gospel' types as far as I can tell. You could probably find the odd example here and there. I skipped through a couple of Raphael Warnock's sermons-- that guy who apparently won a senate run-off in Georgia today. He'd use a verse as a spring board to talk about policies he wanted to see enacted in congress. I saw some Pentecostal preachers comment on that, and they disliked it as well. In one sermon, he wondered allowed why Hagar was excluded from Hebrews 11, and he believed some other names should be added to the 'hall of faith', like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s or Lorretta Scott King's. I saw a couple of sermons from Kamala Harris' church that were the same sort of thing-- read a text, and then find some left-wing political issue and try to draw a parallel to support that. I don't like that stuff either.
But the way you worded that, I think you go to far. Old Testament prophets, John the Baptist, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself spoke about giving, sharing, taking care of the poor. The focus was on the listeners doing what was right, not pressuring a secular government to use its power of taxation to fund social programs. Our giving and sharing is part of being disciples of Christ, so that sort of thing, which does impact 'earthly matters' is appropriate for teaching in church. John and James both included commentary on feeding and clothing those in need in their epistles.
When it comes to dancing, the question is whether practices commanded in the Psalms are acceptable in the church. There are some who hold to the regulative principle who would even be against musical instruments and who might insist on only singing out of a Psalter, but there are Psalms that command praising God with musical instruments and psalms that command dancing also.
It is ironic, though, that proponents of the regulative principle will so often ignore the one lengthy detailed passage that tells us what to do in church, aside from the passage that tells us how not to have the Lord's Supper. I Corinthians 14 indicates that speakers in church are 'every one of you', the speaker in tongues, the interpreter, prophets, one that sitteth by, and 'ye may all prophesy.' What may be spoken (or sung) includes psalms, teachings, tongues and interpretation, and revelations. Prophecy is specifically allowed and the church is commanded to let prophets speak. There is no reference to one elder/priest or bishop or pastor preaching THE sermon behind a pulpit. 'Let everything be done decently and in order' is about the divinely revealed order described in this passage of scripture, not some other order that would be developed 1500 or 1600 years later or so. If instruments or dancing were forbidden because it is not mentioned in the New Testament, then why wouldn't pulpits be forbidden?
I don't see a problem with dancing while singing edifying songs if dancing is appropriate:
If the church is singing Psalm 149:3, I do not see a problem with there being dancing and the sound of the harp along with it.
"Let them praise his name in the dance: let them sing praises unto him with the timbrel and harp."
It is more important that the church obey the teachings of the New Testament for the church than it is to criticize others for doing Biblical things that are not specifically commanded in New Testament scripture. For example, a church should allow tongues and interpretation, prophesying, etc. from members of the body of Christ in an orderly manner in accordance with what is taught in scripture.
They were saved by hearing the Gospel preached, the Gospel we read in the New Testament, not the theological musings and debates of Augustine in the 300s or Calvin in the 1500s.
I do not see how that contradicts anything I have written. You will notice that commentary on what happened was not in the Gospel presented to them in the passage. They heard a message about Jesus is Christ who died and rose again and ascended and is seated at the right hand of the Father, along with an exhortation to repent and be baptized.
I do not see how that contradicts anything I have written. You will notice that commentary on what happened was not in the Gospel presented to them in the passage. They heard a message about Jesus is Christ who died and rose again and ascended and is seated at the right hand of the Father, along with an exhortation to repent and be baptized.
Therefore, within your reply, you deny the proper interpretation of the verse under discussion. You deny, the meaning of the passive voice of this verb. (Passive voice - One receives the action of the verb and is not active in it's action but is acted upon.) You place Conversion ahead of Regeneration or at least you believe in Gospel Regeneration. You deny Depravity and do not believe that we are born dead (spiritually speaking), in trespasses and sin. (Eph. 2:1 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins,). You deny, apart from God's work in the lost, that we are all born without seeing eyes and hearing ears, in regards to spiritual matters and discernment. (Mat. 11:5, 13:15, 16, 15:14, Mark 4:9, John 9:39, 10:21). Scripture says we are born without the ability to see and hear spiritual things. (Acts 7:51 Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always oppose the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye.) So how does one hear the Gospel, when that one cannot hear? Apart from Regeneration of the Spirit, (John 3:1-10), a man can do nothing to please God. (Rom. 1).
BTW, you asked in a previous post, if one was saved even if they knew not the workings of Salvation. The simple answer would be, YES!
The thief on the cross knew nothing about the workings of God in his salvation, he only knew who Jesus Christ was and that he was innocent. A babe in Christ would not know why he has had a change of heart, just that some how he feels differently about the things of God. He now possesses a hungering and a thirsting for the things of God.
Only through proper Bible teaching and study, would that person come to know how saving grace operates. However, it would be unreasonable to assume that a believer of ten or twenty years would not have been led by the Holy Spirit into the proper understanding of how Salvation is brought about. Thus, a young man in Christ should be aware of many or some of the points of grace.
When you boil it all down, the real problem for those who hate the teaching of Salvation, "is all of God", are those who hate the idea that God chose some and passed by others. They claim, that those who believe and teach this from Scripture, are themselves "elitist". This kind of thinking I do not comprehend. How could those chosen for Salvation be "elitist"? If God choosing to show mercy and compassion on some, which is His Sovereign right, has bestowed it on one and not another, the one receiving such a blessing knows not why. We are all equally guilty. While I am thankful for this mercy, it has made me even more painfully aware of how much I deserve punishment for sin. How wretched I truly am and how my righteousness is indeed as tattered clothing. Thanks be to God, that I am clothed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ. However, if God in His decree, had chosen to pass me by, it would have been equally His right to do so. He does as He pleases.
The thief on the cross knew nothing about the workings of God in his salvation, he only knew who Jesus Christ was and that he was innocent. A babe in Christ would not know why he has had a change of heart, just that some how he feels differently about the things of God. He now possesses a hungering and a thirsting for the things of God.
Only through proper Bible teaching and study, would that person come to know how saving grace operates. However, it would be unreasonable to assume that a believer of ten or twenty years would not have been led by the Holy Spirit into the proper understanding of how Salvation is brought about. Thus, a young man in Christ should be aware of many or some of the points of grace.
When you boil it all down, the real problem for those who hate the teaching of Salvation, "is all of God", are those who hate the idea that God chose some and passed by others. They claim, that those who believe and teach this from Scripture, are themselves "elitist". This kind of thinking I do not comprehend. How could those chosen for Salvation be "elitist"? If God choosing to show mercy and compassion on some, which is His Sovereign right, has bestowed it on one and not another, the one receiving such a blessing knows not why. We are all equally guilty. While I am thankful for this mercy, it has made me even more painfully aware of how much I deserve punishment for sin. How wretched I truly am and how my righteousness is indeed as tattered clothing. Thanks be to God, that I am clothed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ. However, if God in His decree, had chosen to pass me by, it would have been equally His right to do so. He does as He pleases.
Why do you lie about me? I have not comment on these topics. Nothing I said leads to any of these conclusions of yours. I believe faith comes from God. What I don't believe is that someone has to hold to a Calvinist confession on doctrine to be saved, or that one has to know all the details behind conversion in order to be saved.
Your response makes no sense at all based on what I have written.
Your response makes no sense at all based on what I have written.
My response was to this comment by you:
"They were saved by hearing the Gospel preached, the Gospel we read in the New Testament, not the theological musings and debates of Augustine in the 300s or Calvin in the 1500s."
You implied the salvation points brought to light by men like Augustine and Calvin were mere "musings". A disrespectful comment to be sure. You also ignored the point I was making, in regards to those saved, being brought in by the Lord. Therefore, I posed the previous questions, in the form of indictments, for you to answer.
A crowd may hear the Gospel preached but only in those God intends, will it have effect.
"They were saved by hearing the Gospel preached, the Gospel we read in the New Testament, not the theological musings and debates of Augustine in the 300s or Calvin in the 1500s."
You implied the salvation points brought to light by men like Augustine and Calvin were mere "musings". A disrespectful comment to be sure. You also ignored the point I was making, in regards to those saved, being brought in by the Lord. Therefore, I posed the previous questions, in the form of indictments, for you to answer.
A crowd may hear the Gospel preached but only in those God intends, will it have effect.