vooks:
Is this applicable for you?

1 Cor 11:6-9 (ESV)
6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

yes.

there is no excuse to disregard church instruction.

Thank you for your response.
Between pastor img and prophecy, which is the higher gift?

shdemidemi:

yes.

there is no excuse to disregard church instruction.

vooks:
Thank you for your response.
Between pastor img and prophecy, which is the higher gift?

Bro how did we get here?

A pastor is a shepherd who guide and feed the flock.

A prophecy signifies speaking the mind and counsel of God.

A pastor must be able to speak the word of prophecy. We have no better word of prophecy than the gospel of Christ, do we?

So which is higher? Prophecy or Pastoring?

shdemidemi:


Bro how did we get here?

A pastor is a shepherd who guide and feed the flock.

A prophecy signifies speaking the mind and counsel of God.

A pastor must be able to speak the word of prophecy. We have no better word of prophecy than the gospel of Christ, do we?

I don't know what you mean by higher.

Sorry, please ignore my question.
Ephesians 4:11 (KJV)
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ
We don't have women apostles in the Bible. Do we have prophets, pastors,evangelists and teachers?

shdemidemi:
I don't know what you mean by higher.

vooks:

Sorry, please ignore my question.
Ephesians 4:11 (KJV)
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ
We don't have women apostles in the Bible. Do we have prophets, pastors,evangelists and teachers?

We did have Apostles, we did have prophets too.

We don't have Apostles in the church today, We don't have prophets either. All we have in the church and more importantly all that is relevant to the body today is the evangelist and the pastor/teacher.

Please, I have some questions : Can someone who doesn't know how to read and write know and please God? Can a Christian who doesn't have any access to the bible...maybe he migrated to live in a locality that disallow the bible know and please God?

My grandfather was a stack illiterate Christian...yet he's the most devout Christian I ever know yet...how's that possible?

How did Enoch walked with God without any special writings?

My bible is my most precious possession....but what if I am thrown into a desert without ascess to my bible....can I still relate with God and grow in him?

Note: I do not support any of the group. I listening and learning

sammied:
Please, I have some questions : Can someone who doesn't know how to read and write know and please God? Can a Christian who doesn't have any access to the bible...maybe he migrated to live in a locality that disallow the bible know and please God?

My grandfather was a stack illiterate Christian...yet he's the most devout Christian I ever know yet...how's that possible?

How did Enoch walked with God without any special writings?

My bible is my most precious possession....but what if I am thrown into a desert without ascess to my bible....can I still relate with God and grow in him?

Note: I do not support any of the group. I listening and learning

Excellent question. I was meditating on the same recently but thank God we have it here. I believe the question is directed at the cessationists here and those like myself who advocate their view. Can an illiterate man know God? The answer is "Yes".

The question is challenging the cessationist position that all that needs to be known of God is written in the bible and he that cannot read, cannot know God. That’s the position but we must understand that the cessationist is not saying bible reading is all the religion Christian does. The cessasionists are saying scriptures are our rule for life and ministry. So anything that cannot find root in scripture must be discarded. So where does the illiterate come in?

First, faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God. For the illiterate to come to saving faith, he must be taught the WORD of God. If his salvation find root in scriptures taught him, his religion will stem from a sound biblical worldview.

Christianity is not so much of what we know but how much of what we know is used by us. The illiterate man might know little but if he practices this faithfully, his godliness will apear to all. In any case, an illiterate is continually humbled by his little knowledge and thus exalted in God's sight.

The godly illiterate has found his religion in a devotion to the preached word - Sola Scriptura. A devotion to scriptures inreases our knowledge, love and service of God.

That’s my take, there might be other views.

shdemidemi:


I agree with you here to an extent.. I believe God speaks clearly and louder to us by disaster. I am sure many atheist-turn-christian found God in disaster.

Interesting you believe that God speaks to us through bad circumstances but not good circumstances. Care to share the scriptural basis for this dichotomy?

WinsomeX:


Now, this is where I might path with Cessationists. Part of the means of comforting the Christian is the Spirit speaking to Christians. Primarily through scriptures and at rare times through impressions, circumstances, providence or the still small voice.

This is where I also part with Charismatics, God is not talkative. The phrase "God told me..." is the most abused phrase among them and it should be discouraged. Charismatics need to be reminded that the scripture is the authoritative word from God and every other is to be tested in its light.

Paul taught us that the Spirit will lead us as Sons of God. Jesus said the Spirit will teach us and guide us into all truth. God through the Psalmist said that he will instruct us in the way we should go, Ps. 32:8. Jesus said that his sheep will gear his voice. Isaiah said we would hear a voice behind us saying this is the way walk in it. The sufficient scriptures makes all these blessings clearer to us.

This is where I think the Cessationist have gotten it wrong. A commitment to scriptures alone with a strong disdain for other means with which God might wish to reach us bc of fanatics. Again God speaks primarily through scriptures but bc he is God and he can use anything to reach us, we shouldn't put him in a box.

I agree with your position on the cessationists. They got it wrong.

On the charismatics, it's becoming clearer to me that some of the disagreements people have here stem somewhat from the circle they travel in. The charismatics I know are hesistant to say God told them anything. Even the pastors among them. I can't query your experience if that's what you've had. But it certainly is not my experience with interacting with charismatics. Now, are there exceptions? of course. But we don't make the exceptions the rule.

nlMediator:


Interesting you believe that God speaks to us through bad circumstances but not good circumstances. Care to share the scriptural basis for this dichotomy?

I am sure you know we generally learn more at difficult times. If any father want the best for his child, he does not give him/her just anything the child demands.
Romans 5
3 Moreover [let us also be full of joy now!] let us exult and triumph in our troubles and rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that pressure and affliction and hardship produce patient and unswerving endurance.
4 And endurance (fortitude) develops maturity of [c]character (approved faith and [d]tried integrity). And character [of this sort] produces [the habit of] [e]joyful and confident hope of eternal salvation.

If I may add the parable popularly known as the 'prodigal son', the bible says the boy came back to himself only after his suffering.

Luke 15:17
"When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death!

If the boy was still in comfort and largesse, would he have ever remember to go back to his good father... I don't think so.

shdemidemi:
I agree with you here to an extent..
I believe God speaks clearly and louder to us by disaster.
I am sure many atheist-turn-christian found God in disaster.

nlMediator:
Interesting you believe that God speaks to us through bad circumstances but not good circumstances.
Care to share the scriptural basis for this dichotomy?

shdemidemi:
I am sure you know we generally learn more at difficult times.
If any father want the best for his child, he does not give him/her just anything the child demands.
Romans 5
3 Moreover [let us also be full of joy now!] let us exult and triumph in our troubles and rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that pressure and affliction and hardship produce patient and unswerving endurance.
4 And endurance (fortitude) develops maturity of [c]character (approved faith and [d]tried integrity).
And character [of this sort] produces [the habit of] [e]joyful and confident hope of eternal salvation.

If I may add the parable popularly known as the 'prodigal son', the bible says the boy came back to himself only after his suffering.

Luke 15:17
"When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death!

If the boy was still in comfort and largesse, would he have ever remember to go back to his good father... I don't think so.

You made a sweeping statement, so nlMediator questioned your dichotomy of positive and negative circumstances
Because of your broad generalization, he asked that you share the scriptural basis that God speaks to us "clearly and louder" by -ve and not +ve circumstances

By the way, Romans 5:3-4 is about welcoming or not shying from tribulations, as tribulations have its benefits.
- the verses have nothing to do with the clarity or volume of God's talk/speech

Of course, after taking leave of "self", we are rest assured that God will be waiting to receive us back with an open arms embrace if/when we decide to come back to "self" (i.e. Luke 15:17)

Though I agree with you, that experience shapes character, character determines action, I think God speaks clearly & louder in midst of -ve & +ve situations.

Also shdemidemi, please be appending the translation(s) version of the Bible verses you quote (i.e. for the benefit of all following the thread)

OASN, I used to turn this thought over in my mind, out of all what's available to use, why use clay (i.e. dust)?
If man is to easily conform, why that type of material to create and/or mould man?
Why didn't God select or choose something else or some other raw material?
Seems God doesn't mind doing things, the hard, difficult, long winding way and then relish enjoying the moment of glory
- the overcome of sin and the challenge of creating man

All I am saying is the Holy Spirit chooses our challenges for us. He also gives us the fortitude to go through whatever tribulation we might encounter as a result. The Holy Spirit comforts us mainly through what we know from scriptures. We seem closest to God at difficult times, God becomes almost palpable at these times. The bible puts it this way "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness."

On the other hand, we have comfort which generally come from money. At a time when we have money or so much money, we should be wary, it is a time where we are spiritually vulnerable. The bible says -
1 Tim 6
9 But those who crave to be rich fall into temptation and a snare and into many foolish (useless, godless) and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction and miserable perishing.

At a time when we are comfortable, it becomes very easy to have false confidence in profane things and lesser confidence in God.

I believe when God really want to get across to a person who would not listen through the word, He sends the message through a disaster. At such time we don't look to man we look up to God.

shdemidemi:
All I am saying is the Holy Spirit chooses our challenges for us.
He also gives us the fortitude to go through whatever tribulation we might encounter as a result.
The Holy Spirit comforts us mainly through what we know from scriptures.
We seem closest to God at difficult times, God becomes almost palpable at these times.
The bible puts it this way "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness."

On the other hand, we have comfort which generally come from money.
At a time when we have money or so much money, we should be wary, it is a time where we are spiritually vulnerable.
The bible says -
1 Tim 6
9 But those who crave to be rich fall into temptation and a snare and into many foolish (useless, godless) and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction and miserable perishing.

At a time when we are comfortable, it becomes very easy to have false confidence in profane things and lesser confidence in God.

I believe when God really want to get across to a person who would not listen through the word, He sends the message through a disaster.
At such time we don't look to man we look up to God.

I would rather subscribe to the fact that God allows stuff to happen, often times bad or negative stuff.
Afterall, experience shapes character, and character determines ones action(s)
God the Holy Spirit, I agree with you, is a Comforter, especially during crisis or challenging times

Pulling out 2 Corinthians 12:9 is committing a misnomer and hyperbole, as it is used out of context here shdemidemi
Paul was asking to be relieved of his weakness, but God declined, saying, lietrally it is for the best
(i.e. God said: "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.'')

We formerly were talking about "God speaks clearly and louder to us by disaster" but here with Paul, it was about a request and a request turn down with reasons/explanations

Local adage says "ti omode ba nse bi omode, agba ama se bi agba" meaning literally "where children/underage maybe inexperienced, well grounded sons/grown-ups won't be"

The adage is in relation to the issue of money you raised, the influence and effect money on anyone will depend if one is a child of God or one is a son of God.
Money to a son of God, is a tool, a servant for the purpose of the Kingdom, and not something a child of God might make a god of, to fritter away or indulge in self-gratification with it.
Riches or money if going to be in the right hands, acquired the right way and is right with God is not to be repulsed or deemed to be offensive

What disaster did God bring towards or unto Abram/Abraham shdemidemi?
Abraham only relented at the 7th time God spoke to him about His promise(s) for Abraham.
God really wanted to get across to Abraham who would not listen but going by your over-generalisation, there is no record of God bringing out His "disaster" card to play on/with Abraham

If you are saying you are generalising, then fair enough, because the fact is God doesnt need "disaster" to get the attention of any
- the burning bush experience is an example

True, true that God is the Apha and Omega, who knows the end from the beginning, so anyone wise, won't look to man but look up to God, always.

Abraham's father Terah had to die before God got Abram's attention.

My broda you are off.

Gen 11:26 (KJV)
And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.

So Terah died when Abraham was 135 years but Abraham circumcised when he was 99 years
Gen 17:24 (KJV)
And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin

35 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin

But God had called him out of his father's house way back in 12:1. Subtract Ishmael's age of 13 and Abram was already following God at least over 50 years before Terah died. Long and short is your claims are bogus.

Difficult times do not necessarily draw people to God, I know one too many Christians who lost their faith over difficult times and I know many non believers who just can't find God in difficulties. The idea that discomfort and pain draws men to God is the whole reason we had Francis of Assisi ascetism. They think material distracts from worship so they rid of it as as much and beyond the practicable.

When God delivered Israel out of bondage, He told them to never forget that it is He who gave them all that not their hard work. But he still prospered them. That's the attitude becoming a Christian, acknowledging God's providence not despising it like Francis

shdemidemi:
Abraham's father Terah had to die before God got Abram's attention.

shdemidemi:
Abraham's father Terah had to die before God got Abram's attention.

^^^
... and what was the meaning or implication of the above?
shdemidemi, you should be above pulling stunts like this one

Terah died at what would be considred a ripe old age

Also, Terah died in Genesis 11, but God spoke about His promises to Abraham 7 times after Terah died
(i.e. twice in Genesis 12, 2nd one in Genesis 13, 3rd one in Genesis 15, 4th in Genesis 17, 5th in Genesis 18-19, and last 6th in Abram, Genesis 21, it was at the last at the 7th time that Abramham relented, after God spoke again when in Genesis 22 Abraham went ahead to sacrifice Isaac)

Mind you, in between all the clear and spoken word of God, Abraham fled to Egypt, committed adultery and lied, out of not believing or not wanting to play game, still God didnt hold it against him (i.e. God just kept hammering on His word & promises to Abraham

^^^
Cant agree more, 110% way off

vooks:
My broda you are off.

Gen 11:26 (KJV)
And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.

So Terah died when Abraham was 135 years but Abraham circumcised when he was 99 years
Gen 17:24 (KJV)
And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin

35 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin

But God had called him out of his father's house way back in 12:1. Subtract Ishmael's age of 13 and Abram was already following God at least over 50 years before Terah died. Long and short is your claims are bogus.

Difficult times do not necessarily draw people to God, I know one too many Christians who lost their faith over difficult times and I know many non believers who just can't find God in difficulties. The idea that discomfort and pain draws men to God is the whole reason we had Francis of Assisi ascetism. They think material distracts from worship so they rid of it as as much and beyond the practicable.

When God delivered Israel out of bondage, He told them to never forget that it is He who gave them all that not their hard work. But he still prospered them. That's the attitude becoming a Christian, acknowledging God's providence not despising it like Francis

^^^
Cant agree more to all above, and he was/is 110% way off

vooks:

My broda you are off.

Gen 11:26 (KJV)
And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.

So Terah died when Abraham was 135 years but Abraham circumcised when he was 99 years
Gen 17:24 (KJV)
And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin

35 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin

But God had called him out of his father's house way back in 12:1. Subtract Ishmael's age of 13 and Abram was already following God at least over 50 years before Terah died. Long and short is your claims are bogus.

My friend, Abram left his father's house after his father's death. I believe Abram must have been born when Terah was 130, which makes him 75 years old when he left.

vooks:


Difficult times do not necessarily draw people to God, I know one too many Christians who lost their faith over difficult times and I know many non believers who just can't find God in difficulties. The idea that discomfort and pain draws men to God is the whole reason we had Francis of Assisi ascetism. They think material distracts from worship so they rid of it as as much and beyond the practicable.

When God delivered Israel out of bondage, He told them to never forget that it is He who gave them all that not their hard work. But he still prospered them. That's the attitude becoming a Christian, acknowledging God's providence not despising it like Francis

My friend you seem to be far from scripture every time. If a difficult time draw your friend away from scripture, then there are two possibilities-

1)He probably did not come for God but for gain in the first place.

2)He probably isn't a tool God wants to use for His work.

Perseverance and endurance in hope of the day of the Lord are tenets of spirituality.

shdemidemi:

My friend, Abram left his father's house after his father's death. I believe Abram must have been born when Terah was 130, which makes him 75 years old when he left.
My friend you seem to be far from scripture every time. If a difficult time draw your friend away from scripture, then there are two possibilities-
1)He probably did not come for God but for gain in the first place.
2)He probably isn't a tool God wants to use for His work.
Perseverance and endurance in hope of the day of the Lord are tenets of spirituality.

Your possibilities again do not reflect the complete picture. The Bible says if you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small. Not that you were never of God or could never be used by him.

And good circumstances can draw people to God as well as draw them away from Him. You can't focus only on one side and be faithful to scripture. When Peter was rescued from prison, he knew God had rescued him and he was able to serve God more as a result. If he had stayed in prison a few years longer, you'd say God kept him there to teach him some valuable lessons. But when God rescues him, you do not seem to see the lesson for him as well.

WinsomeX:


Ok



I agree with you. Experience is a very unsure way of following God in Christianity. What, however, I am pointing out is that our experiences are authored by God for a purpose and while we do not build doctrine on them, we cannot deny them.

Take the minister Wallace. He spoke of how the fire of his devotion died bc of commitment to rigour of study alone. He insinuates that the experience of his child and student illness has rejuvenated his prayer life. Something mere bible study couldn't.

We both believe in providence. What more is God's providence than God working his will into us through the things that happen around us: experiences?



This is where I am with cessionists. No matter how clearly anyone today has heard from God, what he heard is not prophecy. Neither is it scripture. The mere fact that the human flesh, human desires and idiosyncrasies can "polute" this so called prophecy, renders it unreliable. Does this then mean that God cannot speak to us today? No. It simply means that whatever we hear God said has no authority. It is a word to us that must be taken by faith. This is the reason people should not go around flaunting a thus saith the Lord around. We should flaunt the more Sure Word of prophecy. But can keep those words private to ourselves. If they are God, they will materialize. If not, all good. It should never be preached on a pulpit and if it is a private message, it must be relayed with a high degree of uncertainty. IT IS NOT PROPHECY.

The last paragraph above is problematic. You believe there were prophets in the early church who could give reliable word to the public. But those Christians were as subject to the human flesh, human desires and idiosyncrasies that can pollute their prophecies as the rest of us. Or are you saying that somehow God suspended human weaknesses in the early church to get His message across? Any scripture to support this?

BTW, it's because of this human flesh, desires, etc that I reject the cessationist argument that if one makes a mistake in prophecy that person is a false prophet. The NT says the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets. People have control over how they release the message received. And out of fear, doubt or other reason, they may not release the message as received. That does not invalidate their ministry or the fact that God gave them the message.

And if you accept that a message received privately may be useful privately, you have to accept that it may also be useful publicly. You cannot on the one hand accept that it may be God speaking, but then say that a message from God can only be for private consumption. What scripture says God has so limited himself?

All we can do is judge the validity of any message by measuring it against the clear word in the Bible. Peter said the Bible is a more sure word. He didn't say it was the only word from God or even the only sure word from God. Only more sure. We add to scripture when we read that scripture as eliminating divine communication outside the written word.

shdemidemi:


My friend, Abram left his father's house after his father's death. I believe Abram must have been born when Terah was 130, which makes him 75 years old when he left.

On second thought, you are right my broda.
Acts 7:4 (ESV)
4 Then he went out from the land of the Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his father died, God removed him from there into this land in which you are now living.

So Abram left AFTER his dad checked out at 205 years and he was 75 years then (Gen 12:4) meaning he was born when Terah was 130 years.

My friend you seem to be far from scripture every time. If a difficult time draw your friend away from scripture, then there are two possibilities-

1)He probably did not come for God but for gain in the first place.

2)He probably isn't a tool God wants to use for His work.

Perseverance and endurance in hope of the day of the Lord are tenets of spirituality.

the point is you can't possibly claim that difficulties draw men to God better than easier times. That's your imagination

You are full of Wisdom bro, keep preaching Christ

nlMediator:


Your possibilities again do not reflect the complete picture. The Bible says if you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small. Not that you were never of God or could never be used by him.

And good circumstances can draw people to God as well as draw them away from Him. You can't focus only on one side and be faithful to scripture. When Peter was rescued from prison, he knew God had rescued him and he was able to serve God more as a result. If he had stayed in prison a few years longer, you'd say God kept him there to teach him some valuable lessons. But when God rescues him, you do not seem to see the lesson for him as well.

nlMediator:

The last paragraph above is problematic. You believe there were prophets in the early church who could give reliable word to the public. But those Christians were as subject to the human flesh, human desires and idiosyncrasies that can pollute their prophecies as the rest of us. Or are you saying that somehow God suspended human weaknesses in the early church to get His message across? Any scripture to support this?

What is at stake here is the Sufficiency of Scriptures, a doctrine taught by scriptures and emphasised by the reformers, for which majority were cessationist. It is a doctrine that Charismatics do not believe in neither do they teach. My point in the last paragraph you are referring to is that if Paul warned against addidng to scriptures; if Jude encouraged orthodoxy; if John in Revelation speaks against adding to the revealed documented text of scriptures, then scriptures are sufficient and any other thus saith the Lord is not scripture, it has no authority. It doesn't mean God cannot speak to an individual in whichever way he pleases, it is just that what is said not prophesy bc prophetic revelation of God is complete and needs no additions. Whatever else is revealed must be seen as illuminated scriptures and thus has scriptural foundation.

As to human weaknesses influencing revelation, I cannot find any readily but remember how Agabus prophesy was interpreted to mean Paul was not to go to Jerusalem when the meant was a prophetic word to prepare Paul for adversity? Or when John found himself worshipping an angel bc of revelation. These are examples of human idiosyncrasies influencing the prophetic word and to guard this the bible is the sufficient word while any other has no authority.

nlMediator:

BTW, it's because of this human flesh, desires, etc that I reject the cessationist argument that if one makes a mistake in prophecy that person is a false prophet. The NT says the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets. People have control over how they release the message received. And out of fear, doubt or other reason, they may not release the message as received. That does not invalidate their ministry or the fact that God gave them the message.

I think the cessationists made a valid point by saying scripture has only two griuping for prophets: true or false. Nothing in between. A true prophet words will be orthodox, it will come from a life of holiness and it will always come to pass. Anything short of these three renders the man a false prophet; not a wrong proohet or a disobedient prophet but a false prophet under God's judgement.

nlMediator:

And if you accept that a message received privately may be useful privately, you have to accept that it may also be useful publicly. You cannot on the one hand accept that it may be God speaking, but then say that a message from God can only be for private consumption. What scripture says God has so limited himself?

Maybe I should ask you for the scripture that says a private can be a public one. Scriptures is God's public statement to the world. That's the Christian statement too. However, the just shall live by faith. Those that are sons shall be led by the Spirit. Any truly led Christian knows that God's word to him is private and meant for him. If actions are based on such revelation, he takes those action in faith and not bc he is 100% sure it is God leading him. It will be wrong for him to publish to the public what he is not sure of. If he wishes to publish anything, he should publish the Sure word of prophecy. That’s my point.

nlMediator:

All we can do is judge the validity of any message by measuring it against the clear word in the Bible. Peter said the Bible is a more sure word. He didn't say it was the only word from God or even the only sure word from God. Only more sure. We add to scripture when we read that scripture as eliminating divine communication outside the written word.

Do remember what led Peter to say this. He was recounting the events of the Transfiguration. God had spoken to them there. They had seen visions, etc. But he tells us that the scriptures are the Sure Word. Peter is telling us that the written text are Sure; so called visions, revelation and prophecies are not sure. Don't base your life on them. Base it on what is written. To insinuate that there other sure word is to say what scriptures is not saying and to establish a basison which heresies will thrive.

WinsomeX:

What is at stake here is the Sufficiency of Scriptures, a doctrine taught by scriptures and emphasised by the reformers, for which majority were cessationist. It is a doctrine that Charismatics do not believe in neither do they teach. My point in the last paragraph you are referring to is that if Paul warned against addidng to scriptures; if Jude encouraged orthodoxy; if John in Revelation speaks against adding to the revealed documented text of scriptures, then scriptures are sufficient and any other thus saith the Lord is not scripture, it has no authority. It doesn't mean God cannot speak to an individual in whichever way he pleases, it is just that what is said not prophesy bc prophetic revelation of God is complete and needs no additions. Whatever else is revealed must be seen as illuminated scriptures and thus has scriptural foundation.
As to human weaknesses influencing revelation, I cannot find any readily but remember how Agabus prophesy was interpreted to mean Paul was not to go to Jerusalem when the meant was a prophetic word to prepare Paul for adversity? Or when John found himself worshipping an angel bc of revelation. These are examples of human idiosyncrasies influencing the prophetic word and to guard this the bible is the sufficient word while any other has no authority.
I think the cessationists made a valid point by saying scripture has only two griuping for prophets: true or false. Nothing in between. A true prophet words will be orthodox, it will come from a life of holiness and it will always come to pass. Anything short of these three renders the man a false prophet; not a wrong proohet or a disobedient prophet but a false prophet under God's judgement.
Maybe I should ask you for the scripture that says a private can be a public one. Scriptures is God's public statement to the world. That's the Christian statement too. However, the just shall live by faith. Those that are sons shall be led by the Spirit. Any truly led Christian knows that God's word to him is private and meant for him. If actions are based on such revelation, he takes those action in faith and not bc he is 100% sure it is God leading him. It will be wrong for him to publish to the public what he is not sure of. If he wishes to publish anything, he should publish the Sure word of prophecy. That’s my point.
Do remember what led Peter to say this. He was recounting the events of the Transfiguration. God had spoken to them there. They had seen visions, etc. But he tells us that the scriptures are the Sure Word. Peter is telling us that the written text are Sure; so called visions, revelation and prophecies are not sure. Don't base your life on them. Base it on what is written. To insinuate that there other sure word is to say what scriptures is not saying and to establish a basison which heresies will thrive.

Again, Peter never said scriptures are the sure word. He said they're a more sure word. Big difference. There are other sure words of prophecy, but the bible is more sure than those ones. As sola scriptura champions, you and cessationists should stick to the word and not add to or subtract from it. By removing the word 'more' from Peter's statement, you're doing exactly that.

In fact the transfiguration experience confirms, not detracts from, my position. What happened there was true. We do not reject the truth of it because there's a more sure word.

So, when Paul said that the spirit of prophets is subject to prophets, how does that not include the fact that a prophet can relay a right message wrongly? Paul didn't call such a person a false prophet. It's the cessationist doing that, again adding to scriptures.

How people interpret Agabus is irrelevant to the issue of whether he's a prophet. First off, bible calls him one. Second, people interpret the bible itself differently. Does that defeat the validity of the bible?

You keep on making the mistaken assumption that a prophet's revelation means the message is additional to the scripture. If a prophet tells you that it will not rain for one year, how's that adding to scriptures? Are you saying that because scriptures are complete, God or even nature cannot withhold rain for a season anywhere?

Charismatics believe in the sufficiency of scriptures. Or better still, I do. And was taught the same. In fact, one time I wanted not to believe in hell, feeling that since God is so loving, He will find a way to forgive people destined for that place and release them. But I heard an inner voice that told me that if I expect the scriptures to work for me, I should believe everything it says. Accept God's word as it is. Somebody could have gotten the same message by reading the bible. That I got it this way does not negate the sufficiency and finality of God's word. In fact, it confirms it.

It's hard for me to believe that you related with true charismatics. Your statements are strange to my own experience in the Charismatic Movement. Sufficiency of scriptures is like our #1 creed. That's why people like Hagin kept emphasizing that nobody should accept any revelation they relay or statement they make, unless they can support it from scriptures. Hagin even said he told that to Jesus when The Lord told him about the authority of the believer over the devil, asking Him to show that to him from the Bible, which Jesus obliged.

BTW, Hagin was attacked by a sister here for daring to ask Jesus to do that. So, it's a case of crucifying Charismatics for upholding sufficiency of scriptures. And then attacking them with the claim that they do not so uphold them.

vooks:
You are full of Wisdom bro, keep preaching Christ

Thanks, bro. I'm learning from you guys.

WinsomeX:


What is at stake here is the Sufficiency of Scriptures, a doctrine taught by scriptures and emphasised by the reformers, for which majority were cessationist. It is a doctrine that Charismatics do not believe in neither do they teach. My point in the last paragraph you are referring to is that if Paul warned against addidng to scriptures; if Jude encouraged orthodoxy; if John in Revelation speaks against adding to the revealed documented text of scriptures, then scriptures are sufficient and any other thus saith the Lord is not scripture, it has no authority. It doesn't mean God cannot speak to an individual in whichever way he pleases, it is just that what is said not prophesy bc prophetic revelation of God is complete and needs no additions. Whatever else is revealed must be seen as illuminated scriptures and thus has scriptural foundation.

Winsomex, is this statement factual, that charismatics don't believe in sufficiency of scriptures?
This is deliberate mischaracterization by Cessationists on Charismatics. I once said that the main purpose of prophecy is not recording the scriptures. This is why we have one too many prophets whose work is undocumented. If whenever God speaks to man scriptures are supposed to be added and if we believe that since He is no longer adding to scriptures, He is not speaking to individuals, we MUST aks how comes that only a tiny fraction of the prophetic is preserved in the 66 books.
God has in the past (biblical times) and He does speak WITHOUT neither contradicting nor adding to the canon.

As to human weaknesses influencing revelation, I cannot find any readily but remember how Agabus prophesy was interpreted to mean Paul was not to go to Jerusalem when the meant was a prophetic word to prepare Paul for adversity? Or when John found himself worshipping an angel bc of revelation. These are examples of human idiosyncrasies influencing the prophetic word and to guard this the bible is the sufficient word while any other has no authority.

Very true

I think the cessationists made a valid point by saying scripture has only two griuping for prophets: true or false. Nothing in between. A true prophet words will be orthodox, it will come from a life of holiness and it will always come to pass. Anything short of these three renders the man a false prophet; not a wrong proohet or a disobedient prophet but a false prophet under God's judgement.

Agreed. may be I should ask both of you to tell me what you make of this prophecy. Is it a mistake of an outright fraud?
https://www.nairaland.com/2002872/here-prophet-claiming-malachi-4s#28310356

Maybe I should ask you for the scripture that says a private can be a public one. Scriptures is God's public statement to the world. That's the Christian statement too. However, the just shall live by faith. Those that are sons shall be led by the Spirit. Any truly led Christian knows that God's word to him is private and meant for him. If actions are based on such revelation, he takes those action in faith and not bc he is 100% sure it is God leading him. It will be wrong for him to publish to the public what he is not sure of. If he wishes to publish anything, he should publish the Sure word of prophecy. That’s my point.

I partly agree. What makes you think that your preaching is the true word of God? At this rate nobody should ever share a doctrine, they may be wrong. If God gave you a word and you are convinced of the same the same way you are convinced of your faith in the resurrected Lord, speak it.

Do remember what led Peter to say this. He was recounting the events of the Transfiguration. God had spoken to them there. They had seen visions, etc. But he tells us that the scriptures are the Sure Word. Peter is telling us that the written text are Sure; so called visions, revelation and prophecies are not sure. Don't base your life on them. Base it on what is written. To insinuate that there other sure word is to say what scriptures is not saying and to establish a basison which heresies will thrive.

I think Peter's words taken out of context may backfire. There are clear doctrines taught in the NT that you can't find in the OT. If Peter was referring to sure word means sticking to scriptures and not revelations, then on what basis would the first century church follow the apostles like say Paul teaching that the dead in Christ rise first, followed by the living?

But I do agree with you that scriptures is the Most important yardstick for testing any revelation. But it is not the only one. If I said that the Lord showed me an earthquake over the eastern part of Lagos, how do you test that from scriptures? You don't have no Lagos there. You would test my character first, previous prophecies for accuracy, my doctrine and so forth

nlMediator:


Your possibilities again do not reflect the complete picture. The Bible says if you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small. Not that you were never of God or could never be used by him.

And good circumstances can draw people to God as well as draw them away from Him. You can't focus only on one side and be faithful to scripture. When Peter was rescued from prison, he knew God had rescued him and he was able to serve God more as a result. If he had stayed in prison a few years longer, you'd say God kept him there to teach him some valuable lessons. But when God rescues him, you do not seem to see the lesson for him as well.

Bro, Peter came to himself after he was sift as wheat by God through situations and circumstances that surrounded him(devil). The freedom from prison was a by product, even if he was not released from prison his trust in God would not shudder.
Luke 22
31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Peter never understood what Christ was saying, he had false confidence in his flesh- He replied Jesus saying

33 And he said unto him, Lord,[size=30pt] I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.[/size]


But his flesh failed him, at a time of disaster where he was put on the spot to stand for Jesus. The man went back to fishing. I believe this experience humbled Peter, Christ called him back and his thinking changed from the Peter that walked physically with Christ to a new Peter that took over after Christ.

and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren

Paul got converted, his defences was broken, his dependence of himself was shattered and replaced with a dependence in God. This gave Peter the boldness to stand tall to aver the word of God to many who joined the church in the book of Acts.

vooks:


On second thought, you are right my broda.
Acts 7:4 (ESV)
4 Then he went out from the land of the Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his father died, God removed him from there into this land in which you are now living.

So Abram left AFTER his dad checked out at 205 years and he was 75 years then (Gen 12:4) meaning he was born when Terah was 130 years.

I must acknowledge your submission to scripture here. It is a rare occurrence on nairaland. Respect.

vooks:

the point is you can't possibly claim that difficulties draw men to God better than easier times. That's your imagination

Back to the matter.. It is not my imagination but a principle common to anyone God used for His work. It was never a rosy path for anyone, it was a service that required pain to the flesh and a subsequent growth to the spirit.

Most but a few Christians today abhor pain to their flesh so the prosperity, health and wealth gospel sounds better and palatable to them. The true word of God isn't so pleasant so it is rejected by many who love self.

nlMediator:


Again, Peter never said scriptures are the sure word. He said they're a more sure word. Big difference. There are other sure words of prophecy, but the bible is more sure than those ones. As sola scriptura champions, you and cessationists should stick to the word and not add to or subtract from it. By removing the word 'more' from Peter's statement, you're doing exactly that.

In fact the transfiguration experience confirms, not detracts from, my position. What happened there was true. We do not reject the truth of it because there's a more sure word.

So, when Paul said that the spirit of prophets is subject to prophets, how does that not include the fact that a prophet can relay a right message wrongly? Paul didn't call such a person a false prophet. It's the cessationist doing that, again adding to scriptures.

How people interpret Agabus is irrelevant to the issue of whether he's a prophet. First off, bible calls him one. Second, people interpret the bible itself differently. Does that defeat the validity of the bible?

You keep on making the mistaken assumption that a prophet's revelation means the message is additional to the scripture. If a prophet tells you that it will not rain for one year, how's that adding to scriptures? Are you saying that because scriptures are complete, God or even nature cannot withhold rain for a season anywhere?

Charismatics believe in the sufficiency of scriptures. Or better still, I do. And was taught the same. In fact, one time I wanted not to believe in hell, feeling that since God is so loving, He will find a way to forgive people destined for that place and release them. But I heard an inner voice that told me that if I expect the scriptures to work for me, I should believe everything it says. Accept God's word as it is. Somebody could have gotten the same message by reading the bible. That I got it this way does not negate the sufficiency and finality of God's word. In fact, it confirms it.

It's hard for me to believe that you related with true charismatics. Your statements are strange to my own experience in the Charismatic Movement. Sufficiency of scriptures is like our #1 creed. That's why people like Hagin kept emphasizing that nobody should accept any revelation they relay or statement they make, unless they can support it from scriptures. Hagin even said he told that to Jesus when The Lord told him about the authority of the believer over the devil, asking Him to show that to him from the Bible, which Jesus obliged.

BTW, Hagin was attacked by a sister here for daring to ask Jesus to do that. So, it's a case of crucifying Charismatics for upholding sufficiency of scriptures. And then attacking them with the claim that they do not so uphold them.

We must understand God isn't a reactive God today. The bible never promised me God will speak to me outside His word. I think anyone who hear audible voices must check what they are hearing properly. It just might not be God talking.

Hebrews 1 King James Version (KJV)

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,

Hebrews 1 Amplified Bible (AMP)
1 In many separate revelations [[a]each of which set forth a portion of the Truth] and in different ways God spoke of old to [our] forefathers in and by the prophets,
2 [But] in [b]the last of these days He has spoken to us in [the person of a] Son,


God spoke, the bible never said He will speak. Many feel the Word isn't enough so they crave for the supernatural, another move of the spirit, another voice to authenticate their beliefs. I have no confidence whatsoever in such people.