Charismatic pro or con

[zone]

I've seen a lot of immaturity and relatively little maturity in both sides. The question to me is what do you do with the people who have "gifts", meaning abilities that are not usual, but could be part of God's plan? In a cessationist environment there is no training and no encouragement. People are simply told they are imagining things, superstitious, or some such. The Bible is supposed to provide teaching, correction, and reproof to prepare for every good work. The continuationist folks are at last trying to study what the Bible has to say about those.

this is a very interesting observation Ken.

"The continuationist folks are at last trying to study what the Bible has to say about those."

did you mean at least or at last?

"In a cessationist environment there is no training and no encouragement. People are simply told they are imagining things, superstitious, or some such."

that's because we don't believe the activity today is the same as what historically took place.
so it makes sense there wouldn't be any training or encouragement for those activities.
what is more encouraging than The Good News?

we try to teach what actually happened in context, and actually discourage most of the other stuff....not because the love isn't there, but because the Biblical Pentecostal gifts ceased.

That thing about weaning people off the Bible is really crazy. I never heard such a thing. Well, I once had a pastor tell me to shut up about the Bible, because he was hearing from God. Then he called me and my wife Ananias and Saphira, and said unless we stayed in his church we would never have a ministry. Well, that was 8 years ago, last I checked. He is still following some evangelist around waiting for his "big break", and living off his wife and his 75 year old father, pastoring the same 5 people, and my wife had a ministry until the day she went to bed to die, and I still work pretty much full time in the Kingdom. He was a perfect example of Christian immaturity.

yes. much damage there, for sure.
there's alot of that.

eventually that's where this 'gift of prophecy' or 'office of apostle' goes, IMO.
everytime, as far as i can tell.
and of course it would, since the person is supposedly hearing directly from, and speaking for God.
who wants to go against God?

that's why it is so successful.

But then there was the cessationist Catholic priest I worked for many years ago, who preached it's a sin to read the Bible unless he is there to explain it to you; I later heard he sold black market babies.

does the fact he was cessationist have anything to do with either of these?:

"preached it's a sin to read the Bible unless he is there to explain it to you"
"sold black market babies"

no run-of-the-mill cessationist i know would ever say its a sin to read the Bible unless they are there.
quite the opposite. we're trying to read the Bible. individually and together

it's odd how the extremists are actually identical though they appear to be on opposite ends of a non-existent spectrum:

"I once a had pastor tell me to shut up about the Bible, because he was hearing from God. "
"Catholic priest I worked for many years ago, who preached it's a sin to read the Bible unless he is there to explain it to you"

identical.

So I get concerned a lot, too. But, in the long run, it's not about what man you follow who is following Jesus (and thus blocking part of your direct line of sight of Jesus), but about what you do when it's time for you to make your choice.

i agree.
love you Ken
zone

 

[kenisyes]

1. did you mean at least or at last?
2. what is more encouraging than The Good News?
3. everytime, as far as i can tell.
4. who wants to go against God?
5. does the fact he was cessationist have anything to do with either of these?:
"preached it's a sin to read the Bible unless he is there to explain it to you"
"sold black market babies"
no run-of-the-mill cessationist i know would ever say its a sin to read the Bible unless they are there.
quite the opposite. we're trying to read the Bible. individually and together
6. identical.
i agree.

1. I meant al least. It was a typo and neither me nor my spell check caught it.
2. The only thing more encouraging than the Good News is knowing that it applies to every part of your life.
3. This has always been our fundamental disagreement. We have seen different outcomes.
4. Scripture does not go against God.
5. Yes, he often quoted from how far people went astray through personal interpretation of Scripture, and gave examples of people who "heard from God". The black market baby thing is pure coincidence I suppose, although he did preach that mothers were ultimately the most powerful influence in the child (presumably including God's grace). But he was a great example of how cessationists can get off the deep end also. And you're right, he's hardly run-of-the mill.
6. As is my opinion to yours on the subject.

 

[zone]

1. I meant al least. It was a typo and neither me nor my spell check caught it.
2. The only thing more encouraging than the Good News is knowing that it applies to every part of your life.
3. This has always been our fundamental disagreement. We have seen different outcomes.
4. Scripture does not go against God.
5. Yes, he often quoted from how far people went astray through personal interpretation of Scripture, and gave examples of people who "heard from God". The black market baby thing is pure coincidence I suppose, although he did preach that mothers were ultimately the most powerful influence in the child (presumably including God's grace). But he was a great example of how cessationists can get off the deep end also. And you're right, he's hardly run-of-the mill.
6. As is my opinion to yours on the subject.

well, though the priest sounds like an awful person (selling babies), i have to agree that "just me and my Bible" isn't the best alternative either. we need teachers. i know i do.

man, if you knew what it's been like for me to navigate all that stuff....well....

mind you....some ppl have to learn the hard way i reckon

nevertheless;

Matthew 7:7
"Keep asking, and it will be given to you. Keep searching, and you will find. Keep knocking, and the door will be opened for you.

James 1:5
If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.

i enjoy our discussion.

 

[zone]

i said previously: "eventually that's where this 'gift of prophecy' or 'office of apostle' goes, IMO.
everytime, as far as i can tell."

3. This has always been our fundamental disagreement. We have seen different outcomes.

okay Ken.
i know you are sincere.
i respect you very much. i hope you know that.

what i am still unclear on, is that one the one hand you say the renewal is intended to restore the priesthood of all believers.

yet you say we need apostles.

apostles are authoritative and their words are binding. Jesus told Peter that. scripture tells us that.

so what's happened? why the discrepancy?

wouldn't a modern prophet or apostle saying "don't do this or that; or do this or that" debunk the idea of the priesthood of all believers? do we not have a NEW (renewed) hierarchy?

zone

 

[kenisyes]

The steps of the righteous are ordered by the Lord. Ps. 37:23.

 

[kenisyes]

i hope you know that.

what i am still unclear on, is that one the one hand you say the renewal is intended to restore the priesthood of all believers.

yet you say we need apostles.

apostles are authoritative and their words are binding. Jesus told Peter that. scripture tells us that.

so what's happened? why the discrepancy?

wouldn't a modern prophet or apostle saying "don't do this or that; or do this or that" debunk the idea of the priesthood of all believers? do we not have a NEW (renewed) hierarchy?

zone

Of course I do. I am just drawing attention to what I feel is a key point between those who believe in anything in the Church and those who do not. We are all using "by their fruits you will know them", which we should do. A lot depends on whether we have seen more wheat or more tares.

You have given a result of apostleship, not a definition. Look at John 20:21, in Greek. Jesus speaking to the apostles: As the Father has "apostled" me, so I "deputize" you. It looks the same in English, but it's not. The 12 were called apostles because they were sent out (Luke 10, etc.). The word "apostle" means "away sent". The root word means an English "emissary". An apostle, by definition, is anyone who has heard God for a new work in the Kingdom, and has gone into the world and undertaken to do it. The 12 are apostles of the entire church, founded (actually added to by Jesus - see Acts 7:38), and they are his emissaries. Emissaries are created every day. The missionary who preaches the Gospel in Umbuczu (making up a word) is an evangelist. The man who builds the church and it stands is an apostle. That is the definition of the word. RoboOp and company are apostles; they have built a structure of Christian Fellowship with a vision that certainly has come from God. Within this website, their word is law, and it ought to be; it's their vision. In Unbuczu, the church planter's word is law; it ought to be. Without him, there would be no land, no boards or shingles, no governmental approval. An apostle works and suffers for the vision God gave him, and he gets the job done.

The apostle's word is binding only within the structure God commissioned him to create. That's why the written word of the 12 and Paul is binding on all of us; we are part of the structure they were deputized to create by the One who was sent away from His Father to create it. Anything new created in the Body (churches, websites, choirs) must be in keeping with those words, but within that framework new rules are set for the particular work. (See 1 Cor. 12:28 for the process.)

Apostles were often created when people left their church. This is not in Scripture, but is early church history. See I Clement to Corinthians 54, and compare it to what happened to Barnabas, and see the Didache for what these people actually did. A priest (in the Kingdom of priests), as a Levite of old, may function within another's structure, or, if he feels so called by God, may start a work of His own. A priest's job is to manifest God to mankind, and there are lots of ways to do that.

As further proof that there were many apostles: If there were only 13 (including Paul), there would have been no trouble with "false apostles". No one could have ever gotten confused; they'd just check if the new guy in town was on the list or not.

 

[zone]

Ken i don't disagree with much of that at all.
as long as apostles are just people sent to work (i wonder why any would call themselves this though...due to the confusion and danger involved).
why not just say "I'm a Christian, a servant of Jesus Christ", etc?

if we're saying they have Apostolic authority, we're just like Rome and EO.

but this is a good point to pause, as we have much victory in overcoming our communication issues (i feel more aware of your position now).
and i certainly know you love The Lord.

zone

 

[kenisyes]

I thought to add, that "apostle" was a natural term for the 12 who the crowd saw God use for that big conversion event on Pentecost, since they were those who were sent out a year earlier. They certainly needed a special name at that point, as they were suddenly the heads of a massive new movement within Judaism. When the term was used, it basically meant "emissary". But then, when word got around that prophecy had stopped in 300 AD or so, there was no reason to translate either word "apostle" or "prophecy" into Latin for the Catholic Bible. That made those two words seem like technical terms, and that is what we grew up being taught. "Apostles are only those 13, prophets are only those who served those 13" (based on I Cor. 12:28). If those ministries were either discontinued by God and restored, or suppressed and reallowed, the passages that applied to people who start new works, and people who speak God's words by the Spirit, would of course be misunderstood and seem not to apply.

I'm not saying they "have" authority. I'm saying they naturally "are given" authority from anyone who joins their new work. Just like employees obey the boss, and if you join a club, you play by the rules, or you go find another club. If you think about it, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude only have authority because we believe Jesus wants us to give it to them. They paid a price to get where they got to in Jesus' Church. We could always go join Mohammed's club, or Buddha's club instead (not that we would want to, of course). If I go work for that new church builder in Umbuczu, as a music minister, I will probably not play organ, but maybe some form of drum; I will play by his rules, and submit to his authority, because what he has, is building the Kingdom of God, and I want to be a part of it, and he has paid the price to know what works for those people.

Why do people call themselves apostles? Many don't. RoboOp and Co. certainly do not. Most church planters don't. Maybe it's just to build their ego? It's like some people want to get ordained, or want an honorary degree, I suppose. Or like the end of the Wizard of Oz, where the scarecrow gets a diploma, the cowardly lion a medal of valor, etc.

Like any technical term, the main value is in education, in recognizing which Scriptures apply to what, so we can better be prepared for certain good works.

 

[zone]

Hi Ken

I thought to add, that "apostle" was a natural term for the 12 who the crowd saw God use for that big conversion event on Pentecost, since they were those who were sent out a year earlier. They certainly needed a special name at that point, as they were suddenly the heads of a massive new movement within Judaism.....

but we also find that Paul specifically says he was the last Apostle to:
1) see the Lord
2) be called personally and directly by the Lord

and naturally, since it was time for the Gospel to go out into all the world (gentiles).

...I'm not saying they "have" authority. I'm saying they naturally "are given" authority from anyone who joins their new work.....

okay....i agree.
if someone has begun a work, others will need to find out what the organization is and what role they may play in furthering the work.
but this is the Christian life.

i know you are aware that i completely reject that Jesus is appearing to specific men today and calling them as He did with others, and last of all with Paul.

The Lord's last recorded Personal appearance was to Saul.
any appearance we see of Jesus in scripture after Damascus are visions (Revelation, etc).
and those are recorded also.

....Why do people call themselves apostles? Many don't. RoboOp and Co. certainly do not. Most church planters don't. Maybe it's just to build their ego? It's like some people want to get ordained, or want an honorary degree, I suppose. Or like the end of the Wizard of Oz, where the scarecrow gets a diploma, the cowardly lion a medal of valor, etc.

Like any technical term, the main value is in education, in recognizing which Scriptures apply to what, so we can better be prepared for certain good works.

again, i agree.
love zone.

 

[zone]

Hi Ken.
after all that we've shared, now that we understand each other's position a bit better...

what would you say to T. Warren's article here, re the OP: Re: Charismatic pro or con.

Who are the Prophets Today?
-by Tony Warren
Are There Any Real Prophets Today < click source

is this closer to what you believe?
zone.

 

[kenisyes]

Hi Ken
1. but we also find that Paul specifically says he was the last Apostle to:
1) see the Lord
2) be called personally and directly by the Lord
and naturally, since it was time for the Gospel to go out into all the world (gentiles).
2. i know you are aware that i completely reject that Jesus is appearing to specific men today and calling them as He did with others, and last of all with Paul.
.

1. I need your Scriptures to respond properly. I Cor. 15:8 does not say this, it says he was the last to see Christ outside of heaven. It is in the context of seeing, not of being an apostle. Many people see Jesus today, some I know have had Him come over and have coffee. He personally married me and my wife. But, as you say, that is different, as it may be just visions or understandings. I Cor. 4:9 refers to the apostle's position among the executives of the world, and other ministers in the church, and is one of the reasons I do not relish thinking of being one. You may have another Scripture in mind. Also, it is not necessary to see Christ or to be called to be an apostle. I have already documented Barnabas became one, apparently by hanging around with Paul, and doing certain jobs that are not specified in Acts. An "apostle" is one "sent", not one "called". Paul had all three of these good things happen to him: sent, called, and saw Jesus.

2. I would think that would be Jesus' choice. For whatever it's worth, I have never met anyone who had it happen either. You can reject ever having seen it, but do you really want to limit Him for the future?

3. On the other post, I agree, with only two reservations: The difference between a prophet, and a "quoter of Scripture" is the prophet knows, by the working of the Holy Spirit, which of the many Scriptures applies most pressingly to a situation. In normal Christian ministry, a counsellor can use his best judgment, but a prophet feels God has told him to quote or apply this passage or that passage, as the one the person most needs to hear. I believe everyone in ministry receives such revelations from time to time.

My second reservation is that I believe there will be two physical people as witnesses in Revelation. See 11:9, you can't bury a church in a grave.

He is absolutely right about the plagues that come for adding to the Word of God. I know a real prophet, and he is constantly in the fire with God in his prayer. He is called to an extremely high standard. He has learned over years, and will often start with "this is not the Lord speaking, it is my opinion", and then apply Scripture. Other times, his voice is almost like it's not his own, so strong is the conviction. But it's always Scriptural. He is sometimes asked for "a word", and he will always answer "God did not tell me anything about that", and change the subject. And he gives the word he received, and he walks away. It is up to the individual to judge, and to act on it or not.

 

[zone]

1Many people see Jesus today, some I know have had Him come over and have coffee. He personally married me and my wife. But, as you say, that is different, as it may be just visions or understandings.

i don't know what to say about this just now.
Jesus coming over for coffee? really Ken?
i'll come back to this.

maybe you could tell what it was at like your wedding.
did you ask Him to officiate?
how did He answer?
what did He look like?
did He speak?
how long did He stay?
what did He do?
were there witnesses?

i am skeptical. i know you are sincere, and i know you believe this, but i am skeptical (which will not come as a surprise).

ttyl
zone

 

[kenisyes]

I have lost touch with the woman who told me this. It had something to do with being raped previously. It could have been pure hallucination, I suppose, but it really seemed to have helped her and she was quite sincere.

It's a little tough to explain our first wedding. (The second being the church service) Both Anna and I knew God had chosen us for each other, and had given our consent. I was living in New Jersey, she in Utica, NY. I do not drive, so there was a couple hours until the 2AM bus to take me home. We had already bought the rings, and had to wait until June because of church protocol. It was Fab. 25, and I'm sure you understand the weather at that time. Maybe 11AM, we were sitting together discussing the possibility of the wedding and how to plan the service. It was like the air changed, and suddenly we were both reciting vows to each other and exchanging rings. It could have been just for practice, but it didn't quite feel that way. Next day, I was laying on my bed in New Jersey, and I got the conviction that we were married. That evening, Anna called, and said, "I know it seems strange, but I think we're married". I said, yes, I feel it too." Ever since then, we celebrated two anniversaries.

You will ask what changed? We lived together for several months, and literally no one noticed. We were daily communicants at Anna's church. Anna still helped lead the music ministry in her prayer group. I was offered a full-time ministry position in a neighboring suburb, and began doing it. We called the pastor of the church we were to be married in (officially) and announced that the wedding was to be an evangelical outreach, with us leading the music. The pastor said that is impossible. Next morning, he called and stated God woke him up middle of the night and spoke up for us. We were to have whatever we asked for. The wedding reception was to be outdoors, and in the rainiest June ever, we prayed and refused a backup plan. The date was the only sunny day for three weeks.

Specific questions:
We did not ask Him to officiate. Anna had previously had Him show up several times when she was on her own. I was used to Him "being around", but not being around to both of us together.

He did not need to answer or to speak. We just knew what to do. Like I say, it could have been practice, but it was not. That's why I offer the second paragraph. People just acknowledged it, when they should not have, according to all the rules of protocol. We should have been accused of living in sin. His molding of the world around us was His answer.

I did not see Him. I never do. Anna saw Him a lot, in various ways. I just talk to Him and He talks to me.

He stayed just long enough. There were no witnesses other than the passive acknowledgement of two good sized churches, Anna's prayer group, and subsequent history.

I'm skeptical too. I'm trained in science and mathematics. I thought it was just a practice run for 15 hours. And you would ask what good came from it, what harm? There is a certainty that comes with knowing that your marriage transcends a denomination. Anna I were called to stand between denominations to bring them together. It certainly was easier than having to say we were married in one church, that would have been hated by others. There is a certainty in believing that God is in control. If he could make everyone not see that we were "living together" (and that's again hundreds of committed Christians, many in ministry), He could move mountains in how people would see us later. What harm? None that I can see. I mean, suppose it was just a collective illusion between the two of us? Anna and I each made one more card per year, and said happy anniversary 61 times instead of 30. We never told anyone, until now that I said it in my website after she died.

I think the greatest good is the question you have never answered to my satisfaction: are you excited about anything about God? I am to this day, excited to see what God is doing at CC and in my prayer group and in Sheryl's puppet ministry; Anna spent her whole life, from the day she got saved until the day she died, excited about God. I think excitement is the greatest good from all this. Nothing against Scripture, nothing to brag about, just the ability to wake up every morning with "okay God, what marvellous thing are you going to do today?" and then see Him outdo Himself over and over again, and to know He has made you a part of it.

 

[zone]

Ken, this is an amazing post.
and i believe all of it (except actual visitation from Christ who is seated at the right hand of God).

it was not what i expected to hear....your wedding etc.

it is thrilling and heartwarming.
i do not believe The Lord expects a modern formal marriage ceremony such as we have today, though i certainly do not speak against them. far from it.
i am for a formal Christian wedding, whatever that looks like (small or big)
we are to obey the laws of the land in which we live, also, and of course to try not offend the greater body.
the commitment between man and bride before God, as you described is a marriage.
this may be a stumbling block for some, so i won't speak more of it here.

i really like the fact that you chose to make your public ceremony about the Gospel. i see this on occasion, as i do with funerals.

these kinds of experiences and encounters with Our Lord i AM familiar with. i believe most Christians are. The Lord is very real, and very much with us.

The Lord had been very present in my life, and has supernaturally intervened for me many times.
remember the maze?
my story is filled with the certain knowledge of Him working in my life. so we seem to be talking about the same thing.

(the subject at hand for me has always been being specific about Sola Scriptura vs new prophets and apostles; and things like the NAR etc...remember?)

my answer to the question you have asked is YES.
i am excited about everything The Lord has done, is doing and will do!
not only in my life as i see those unbelievers i know beginning to question their former beliefs and now and then venturing to ask me about The Lord.....but in His Church, and His Providence.

what i am not excited about is how many people fall prey to everything they hear and believe MIGHT be from God. we have already agreed there is a counterfeit system at work.

i hope i was clear in my answer.
love you.
zone

 

[kenisyes]

There's not much to respond when we have reached agreement. I am glad to hear you find the work of the Lord exciting, and glad you have experiences with Him you can refer to. He loves each of, after all, and each of us is unique. God arranged, in our marriage, for us both to do it His way, and for us to obey the laws, as you point out we should do.

And I certainly agree, it is one thing to be open to anything God might want to do, quite another to be following things around without even being certain it's God. My brother once pointed out "Signs are supposed to follow the believers, so why are believers following the signs?" That would even go for the ones that ARE God.

I ran across an odd proof text for tongues as gobbledegook syllables. A lot depends on how you read the Hebrew word, 'oze (with an ayin). It can mean praise. Strong's 5797 If you take it literally, Ps. 8:2 implies that praise can be fashioned out of baby language. You'll see it later today as a proof text for that reincarnation thread. Jastrow's dictionary lists it as "strength, majesty, fortitude". The point for us being that baby language can be built by God into strength for service and proclamation, so tongues "builds up the person" for those things.

 

[Abiding]

Come on.....waiting.....have fresh coffee and clean reading glasses.

 

[RickShafer]

Hahahaha!
You're funny Abiding.......
(Funny??...in what way)
You know....just funny.....
(No I don't know,....funny how?)
Just the way you say things,....you're a funny guy

 

[zone]

There's not much to respond when we have reached agreement. I am glad to hear you find the work of the Lord exciting, and glad you have experiences with Him you can refer to. He loves each of, after all, and each of us is unique. God arranged, in our marriage, for us both to do it His way, and for us to obey the laws, as you point out we should do.

And I certainly agree, it is one thing to be open to anything God might want to do, quite another to be following things around without even being certain it's God. My brother once pointed out "Signs are supposed to follow the believers, so why are believers following the signs?" That would even go for the ones that ARE God.

and to the above i am happy to say,
AMEN.

I ran across an odd proof text for tongues as gobbledegook syllables. A lot depends on how you read the Hebrew word, 'oze (with an ayin). It can mean praise. Strong's 5797 If you take it literally, Ps. 8:2 implies that praise can be fashioned out of baby language. You'll see it later today as a proof text for that reincarnation thread. Jastrow's dictionary lists it as "strength, majesty, fortitude". The point for us being that baby language can be built by God into strength for service and proclamation, so tongues "builds up the person" for those things.

as for this, we-e-e-e-l-l-l-l....no, i'm sorry, i don't buy it.
i will look at the reincarnation thread.

love you Ken
zone

 

[zone]

Come on.....waiting.....have fresh coffee and clean reading glasses.

good mikey cuz my gas station reading glasses are a wee bit tired.

maybe coffee will help

that's my car parked under the sign.
it's a gas hog, but ubercool

 

[kenisyes]

and to the above i am happy to say,
AMEN.



as for this, we-e-e-e-l-l-l-l....no, i'm sorry, i don't buy it.
i will look at the reincarnation thread.

love you Ken
zone

I said it depends on how you interpret 'oze.