₦airaland Forum

shdemidemi:
May I start on this premise- 2 Tim 3:16,
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

inspired means that Scripture is God-breathed, i.e., God Himself speaking. It does not mean God merely assisted the writers. It means that the words of the Bible are the words of God Himself. Every word of Scripture was breathed out by God.

Would it be right for anything that isn't scripture or in perfect harmony with scripture to be regarded as God's voice?

How can we be made perfect/mature if the voice we hear isn't scripture?


Baba G... Have you heard God's audible voice outside scripture? This is no joke, I will really like to know.

From the above, it means you accept the OT is also the Word of God. Which is the same as Jesus. Yet, after the OT, God continued to speak to people outside the written scriptures. That contradicts your claim from Hebrews that God has spoken to us through His Word and thus need not speak in any other way, besides pain. BTW, your adding pain as a means of communication also contradicts your assertion about Hebrews. Pain was not added there. If you could add pain, so can we add other things.

And nobody said an audible voice is the only way God speaks outside the Bible.

Besides, do you believe the devil speaks to people today? Have you ever asked the people that hear the devil and his demons what voice they used - man's, woman's, child's?

RikoduoSennin:
Melchizedek king of Salem and priest of the Most high God is a MAN/HUMAN who lived in the time of Abraham. Read Hebrew 7:1-28

References to that Fact:

Melchizedek means "King of Righeousness" and he is the King of a place called "Salem" which means "Peace". This place was later named "Jerusalem".
Read Hebrew 7:2

Melchizedek is a Man: Hebrew 7:6 " THIS MAN who "has not their GENEALOGY receive tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises"

Jesus is the second Melchizedek just like he is the Second Adam--- Hebrew 7:15,28 " This becomes even more evident when ANOTHER PRIEST arises in the LIKENESS of Melchizedek....Indeed, the law appoints men of weakness as high priests, but the word of oath WHICH CAME LATER THAN THE LAW appoints A SON who has been made perfect forever"

Jesus was appointed a king and high priest after he was made perfect forever

Argument points:

Hebrew 7:3 "He is without Father and Mother"-
Since every "Man" after from Adam and Eve was given birth to (even Jesus was), Melchizedek had a Father and Mother who was NOT MENTIONED

"He is without genealogy"- His genealogy is not mention yet he remain a priest.

"He has neither beginning of days"- His day of birth is not known.

"He has neither end of life"- His date of death is not known.

"He continues a priest forever"--- He was not succeeded by his descendants (Hint: No mention if he continues as King forever since he is both King and Priest at the same time, So he can't remain a priest forever without still being a King forever).

I can see holes in your submission.

1. There are many people in the Bible whose parents are not mentioned. But Bible never describes them as without father or mother.

2. Similarly, Bible never describes any person other than Melchizedek as having no beginning of days, even when their birthdays are not mentioned.

3. Also, there are many people in the Bible whose days of death are not known or mentioned, yet they're never described as not having the end of life.

4. Saying that one continues a priest forever means he's not succeeded by his descendants seems to injure the meaning of that phrase. Besides, not all priests were succeeded by their descendants, .e.g. Eli's sons, and nobody says they continued a priest forever.

5. You quoted the verse that says that the Law appoints men of weakness as priests. But that's not said of Melchizedek or Jesus. Since, we know Jesus was not a man of weakness, it suggests that Melchizedek was in that category of being without weakness.

That said, some other points are also cogent in tending to point to Melchizedek as a man.

Perhaps, we'll never know for sure who Melchizedek was!

Goshen360:
Bidam, your heart is hardened and you are not ready to learn. One big thing I keep seeing in you is, your mind is made up in reading into the text or giving a religious interpretation to scriptures. You don't want to investigate the text by YOURSELF and accept the truth of God's word. That verse you quoted has nothing to do with BEFORE marriage....it has EVERYTHING to do with IN A MARRIAGE and it agrees with Jesus' meaning of fornication.
It didn't say COURTSHIP is honourable, it says MARRIAGE is honourable: simply put, honour your marriage when you are in one, don't go out of your marriage and have sex....that is adultery, fornication and whor.ing. That's the second statement explaining...but fornicators and adulterers, God will judge.
# I will be preparing for work now, and might attend to this discussion later if need be. But you need to drop scripture interpretation of what we have been taught in the institutionalized church and study the word by yourself with the Spirit. You will be amazed what you will learn #

Since you always believe in apostolic teachings and condition your acceptance of any practice in church on whether the apostles or NT writers talked about or practiced it, can you show us just ONE apostle that taught or practiced what you're teaching here that sex between engaged couples is not sin? If you can't show it, you have no basis for rejecting other teachings in the church not taught or practiced by the apostles or the early church.

WinsomeX:
That Charismatics do not preach nor believe in the sufficiency of scriptures is an unfortunate statement but it is true. It is a fact I have gathered from my long association with them. Anyone is free to disagree with it. I, however, think Cessationists take the doctrine to an unhealthy extreme. God's words are fully documented in scriptures but a wonderful and personal God has chosen to walk with us mere mortals and to relate to us as friends. A friend will speak to his friend, only that what God will say us within the limits of scriptures. How this relates to specific prophecies is not what I can explain at the moment. However, a doctrine of Sufficient Scriptures help guard against all sorts of error. Example:
1. Not tithing is anathema in Nigeria because supposed popular preaching heard God say to them that those who do not tithe are either cursed are headed to hell. It is not very difficult to discern the spirit speaking here; a self serving, merchandizing spirit
2. A Pastor friend told how their Pastor instructed to double their tithe for that year. By the following year, he had to be reminded if God's instruction subsisted or not.
Etc.
A perfect example of what I am talking about. God does speak but most of those speaking for God today are false prophets.
I like the way the cessationists distinguish BTW foretelling and forthtelling. Fourth telling is preaching. God can give a word and that word can be preached. The listeners have the right to judge what the preacher is saying and decide whether it is God or not. The same right is given to them in foretelling, which is popularly called prophecy.
That is why they were apostles. They could teach doctrines that are "new" so to speak. No one after them can and that why the apostolic office in that sense is ceased. If the apostolic office will cease, we mist then agree that some apostolic gifts too can cease. This is the point of the cessationists.
Exactly.
There are three test for true prophecy:
1. The Word or orthodoxy.
2. Fruit or character.
3. Prophetic fulfillment.
No matter the prophet all the three must fit. So you predict an earthquake over Lagos. If you have predicted five prophecies in the past and all but one failed, you are a false prophet and the Lagos prophecy should not be believed.
If all your prophecy has come to pass but your wife accuses you of "inappropriate relations" with female members of staff or you are a aerial divorcee, you are a false prophet and you are not to be believed.
If you scale the two above but you preach a prosperity gospel, you are a false prophet and you are not to be believed.
In 1965, Dr D M Lloyd Jones was speaking at the Centenary celebrations of the building of the Westminster chapel, London. He is Reformed in doctrine and a cessationists. He spoke of how at the height of the Second World War God gave him a witness (a prophetic word) that that building will not be bombed. He told a story of how all building around it were leveled save for the church. That's a prophecy one can believe.
Lloyd Jones was orthodox; he was not flippant so you can never accuse him if "prophelying" and so you could not point him to unfulfilled prophecies. He was not the type that will say in a sermon God told me. What was a prophecy in WW2 was revealed long after the war; and lastly he was an upright man.
That's was a man of God and that the sort of prophecy God can give today. It is still not authoritative. And if Lloyd Jones were to rise from the dead and say a church will not be bombed in a war, I as a member of that church will Stoll watch my back during service.

I'm not sure I understand your position on the sufficiency of scripture. The tithe examples you gave undermine your case. The people that believe in tithing base it on their understanding of scripture. I have read a number of teachings on this, including Bible commentaries, and people disagree on the applicability of tithing to the Christian. BTW, not all the people involved in the debate are charismatics. You cannot say that because you're on one side of the debate on any doctrinal issue, that those that disagree do not believe in the sufficiency of scripture. They simply have a different interpretation or understanding of scripture from you and that has nothing to do with sufficiency of scripture.

On your specific example 1, the pastor that believes non-tithers will go to hell is basing it on his view of a particular chapter in the Bible. So, even if he says God spoke to him, he's saying that what God spoke is consistent with the written Word - the same approach YOU take. The second example again can be supported from scripture. God can ask people to do anything that does not contradict His Word. You believe in giving. God can ask you to double your normal giving. That's not adding to scriptures or rejecting its sufficiency. Where does scripture say that people cannot double their giving or tithes(for those who believe in the latter)?

On prophecy, you have to make up your mind. Has the gift of foretelling ceased or not? Here, you are accepting prophetic utterance from a British preacher while still claiming that nobody has such a gift or that it should be used privately. Of what use is the message from God if the man kept it to himself?

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.
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.

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.
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:
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.

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?

BabaGnoni:
I think vooks' and nlmediator's postures or stances are quite and crystal clear (i.e. I dont think either will come out flogging a dead horse)

The former is pro- & forthtelling, but insists that foretelling has turned spurious, with fake prophets abound. he also agrees that Agabus was the last recorded NT bible foretelling prophet

The latter, on the other hand,foretelling gravitates towards forthtelling, and hints that foretelling metamorphosed into word of knowledge, word of wisdom and discerning of spirits

PS: Personally dont think Agabus got it wrong as well, as his prediction came to pass.
As a matter of fact, the prophecy (i.e. the foretelling) wasnt even a warning to Paul, rather it was an affirmation that something is about to happen to him, which to Paul's credit and glory to God, he took it on the chin (i.e. didnt complain that something bad is about to happen to him, instead he chided and told off those feeling sorry and weeping for him)

You pretty much summed up my position. You seem like a smart person. Seriously.

One error on the OP's part is that because he stumbled on some of these issues recently, he thinks it's the same with the rest of us. We've heard these arguments before, evaluated them and know what our position is. We don't need to change that position simply because of rehashed arguments.

BabaGnoni:
Hold the fire. You chose a wrong battle, there aren't any battleground here, the battlefront likely is elsewhere

Ease off nlMediator, OP said "...MacArthur has been a face of American Evangelicalism for over 40 years..."
and not "MacArthur the face of American evangelicals" as you make
- notice the difference in OP's "a face" and yours "the face"

Considering the thread is about MacArthur or the 2013 Strange Fire Conference and not about Jack Hayford or Foursquare, it is understandable any harping about John MacArthur and no one else
- favouritism is bound to happen, and the star of the thread, John MacArthur, bounds to get the favors, you cant hold that against OP

Ok. But that still does not justify the claim he's making.

It appears he has made up his mind about cessationism and MacArthur that he sees or hears no evil about them. For him to conclude that because a handful of cessationists he knows have no public scandal, somehow cessationism has better fruit than charismatics, especially when he judges the charismatics by a few public scandals. BTW, where does he classify Ted Haggard who was the president of the National Association of Evangelicals when his issue arose?

For some good critiques of cessationism, I commend the following links:

https://bible.org/article/uneasy-conscience-non-charismatic-evangelical

http://samstorms.com/enjoying-god-blog/post/not-all-cessationists-are-of-macarthurs-spirit

Read also the comments in the second link.

Wisdom is known by its fruit. We'll get to know how wise those creating and perpetuating all these divisions in the Body of Christ have been.

WinsomeX:
Abuse is an argument for cessationism but it is not the strongest. There are hundreds of arguments against the Charismatics but I will share mine. BTW, like BBG, I have archived the pdf for future read.
My strongest argument against Charismatics is the fruit of their lives. I have observed the lives of leading Charismatics and Cessasionists, their followers and what one could call the average lifestyle of the two groups and must agree that the Charismatics make a poor testimony for Christianity. The case in points are unending. Now, I have been heavily critical of Charismatics here and have revealed the ministers I respect on this forum. The natural thing would have been to locate the skeleton in their lives but no one has even tried bc they will find nothing. John MacArthur has been a face of American Evangelicalism for over 40 years and no one can trace a scandal or a foolish talk to him or his associates. That's fruit. That's how to commend doctrine: by the way we live, not by tongues or miracles. Jesus' words come to play here:
Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

This is one of the most ridiculous posts you've ever written. So because you know a handful of cessationists and they have good fruit, that concludes that cessationists leaders generally have good fruit? I doubt that among Christians who know what they're talking about that John MacArthur would hold a candle to Jack Hayford in terms of integrity, intellectualism and length of service.

You're really doing a lot of damage to Christianity with your ignorant posts here. There's absolutely no truth to the claim that cessationists whether among the leadership or rank and file have better fruit than charismatics. In fact many, if not most, Christians with rotten lives are cessationists because they do not let the Holy Ghost work in their lives. And some Charismatics' interest in the anointing helps them to lead clean lives so as not to soil the gift they have.

And why do you suggest that American evangelical and American cessationist are synonyms? Prompting you to call MacArthur the face of American evangelicals? Obviously, you don't know what you're discussing.

I'm sorry but yours is an annoying post that makes me question the value of this thread. I'm sure you'll interpret my observation as an insult. But that's neither my interest nor intent. The truth is.

WinsomeX:
Continued:

If the Spirit were still gifting believers today with the miraculous gifts, they would be the same gifts that we find in the New Testament. However, the Charismatic gifts claim today bear almost no resemblance to their New Testament counterparts. Consider, for example, the gift of tongues. According to Luke in Acts 2, the New Testament gift was the capacity as manifest at Pentecost to speak in a known human language. Listen to Acts 2, verses 7 and 8, “They were amazed and astonished saying, ‘Why are not all these who were speaking Galileans and how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?’” Our own dialect, these were known languages, the languages to which they were born.

You come to the second occurrence that’s recorded in the book of Acts. In Acts 11:15 when Peter reports on the gift of tongues that was given to Cornelius and his household after his conversion, this is what Peter says in Acts 11:15. “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning.” It’s the same thing. Peter says it’s exactly what happened to us. So what happened in Cornelius’ household is exactly what happened at Pentecost, and what happened at Pentecost is clear.

When Luke reports of a third episode of tongue speaking in Acts 19, there is absolutely nothing in the context there to indicate that it was any different than what had already happened in Acts 2 and Acts 10. And think about what Luke knew. Luke when he wrote the book of Acts, he knew what Paul had written six or seven years earlier in 1 Corinthians 14. He knew what was actually happening at Corinth, and yet Luke still defines speaking in tongues as we hear them in our own language, or our own dialect. No mention of anything ecstatic. That was the New Testament, gift, speaking in a known language or a known dialect. Compare that with today’s tongues which are ecstatic speech. It’s not the same thing.

Also, the New Testament gift of tongues, including 1 Corinthians 14, was a public gift meant for at one level the edification of others. There had to be someone to interpret. Today’s tongues, on the other hand, are primarily a private prayer language.

So today’s speaking in tongues has almost nothing in common with the New Testament gift except the word “tongue.” Or consider the nature of the gift of prophecy. This too is different. The New Testament gift in today’s manifestation are two different things. Contrary to Charismatic doctrine, nowhere does the New Testament distinguish the Old Testament prophets from the New Testament prophets. Instead, the New Testament equates Old Testament prophecy with New Testament prophecy. There is no difference in the terms that re used…and let me just admonish you to do this, go through the book of Acts and notice every time the word “prophet” or “prophecy” appears, and you will see that the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament prophets, they are interspersed with not even a hint of difference between them. That means that just as the Old Testament prophets spoke direct infallible revelation from God, so did the New Testament prophets. Just like the Old Testament prophets, their words were to be evaluated against previous revelation, but once it was approved, as we saw in Acts 2, their prophecies were added to the teaching of the Apostles to form the foundation of the church. Ironically in Acts 21 verse 11, one of the favorite texts of Charismatics to defend the idea that New Testament prophecy is different from Old Testament prophecy, the prophet Agabus used exactly the Old Testament prophetic formula when he says, “This is what the Spirit says…” No difference.

So New Testament prophecy then is direct, infallible revelation. That is not what is called prophecy in the twenty-first century Charismatic Movement. The most capable defender of today’s Charismatic prophecies, Wayne Grudem, admits that prophecy as it is practiced in the Charismatic Movement should not be prefaced with “Thus says the Lord.” Instead, he suggests that prophecies in the Charismatic church today should begin with, quote: “I think this is what the Spirit might be saying.” That is not the New Testament gift of prophecy.

Consider another example, the gift of healing. In the New Testament when someone with the New Testament gift of healing used his gifts, the results were complete, immediate, permanent, undeniable, every kind of sickness, every kind of illness. The purported healings of today’s faith healers are the antithesis of those biblical miracles. They are incomplete. They are temporary, at best. And they are unverifiable.

So the displays that are today called the miraculous gifts are just not the same as the New Testament gifts. And it’s interesting, even many Charismatics agree with that. For example, on the issue of prophecy, Wayne Grudem wrote, “No responsible Charismatic believes that today’s prophecy is infallible and inerrant revelation from God.” Grudem went on to say, “There is almost uniform testimony from all sections of the Charismatic Movement that today’s prophecy is impure and will contain elements which are not to be obeyed or trusted.”

Now, we appreciate our brother but if that were the standard, if that happened in the Old Testament times, the prophet would be dead. Third Wave theologian Jack Deere admitted in his book Surprised By the Power of the Holy Spirit, that modern Charismatics do not claim to have apostolic quality gifts and miracle working abilities.

When Charismatics do claim that their miracles are on the same level as the New Testament gifts and there are those, such as the wild claims of limbs restored, or of resurrections, for example, they are almost always hearsay and if they’re not hearsay, they’ve not been verified. So the nature of the gifts practiced by today’s Charismatics is simply not the same as that of the New Testament gifts and that’s because they are not the New Testament gifts.

A fifth argument for cessationism is the testimony of church history. Now let’s start with New Testament church history. You see, the practice of the miraculous gifts declines even during the apostolic period. Pentecost and the events of Acts 2 happened within ten days of our Lord’s ascension, after ten days. The second mention of tongues in Acts 10:46 occurs sometime within the next fourteen years before the death of James in 44 A.D. The third mention in Acts 19:6 occurs early in Paul’s ministry at Ephesus. That’s in the early fifties A.D.

First Corinthians, the only book outside of Acts that speaks about tongues was written in 55 to 56 A.D. Now if you align the New Testament letters based when they were written, 1 Corinthians was only the fourth inspired letter that Paul wrote, following Galatians and 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Paul would write nine other canonical letters after 1 Corinthians to six different churches. There is never a mention of the gift of tongues again.

In the pastoral epistles in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, the books written near the end of Paul’s ministry as permanent directives for the post-apostolic ministry of the church, there is no mention of the miraculous gifts.

You see this come to its climax in the book of Hebrews. Turn with me to Hebrews chapter 1, verse 1, “God after He spoke long ago to the fathers and the prophets in many portions and in many ways, our Old Testament, in these last days,” an expression the Jews had for the times of the Messiah, “in these last days He has spoken to us in His Son.” God’s last word is His Son and those whom He appointed. That’s why when you come to chapter 2 verse 1, the writer of Hebrews says, “For this reason,” because of who this message comes from, “we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard.” And he goes on to argue that if the penalties for disobeying the first covenant ministered by angels was severe, how much more severe to disregard this new Covenant message by the Lord Himself? Far superior to angels.

Verse 3, “How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?” Now let me remind you that this book, the book of Hebrews was written almost certainly just before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. That gives you a time frame. I want you to notice how the writer of Hebrews refers to the miraculous. He says it was first, that is the message of salvation, this final word from God, it was at first spoken through the Lord—there’s generation number one, the Lord Himself. Then there’s a second generation in this verse, “It was confirmed, that message was confirmed to us by those who heard.” There the Apostles. The writer of Hebrews is putting himself in a third generation, us. And he says of the second generation, the Apostles, “God also testifying with them…not with us…both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.” Already before…just before 70 A.D., the writer of Hebrews is saying that was then, this is now. That was something the Lord and the Apostles did and we witnessed.

So in the chronological flow of the inspired New Testament history of the church, you find that even before the Scripture was complete, the miraculous gifts had already begun their decline. The miracles that were intended to confirm the apostles and their message had already began to die out. That’s the reality of the New Testament historical record.

When we leave New Testament history, we discover that the testimony of the church after the New Testament era, was exactly the same, in both what was taught and practiced. It was that the miraculous gifts ceased with the Apostles. Here are just a couple of examples from different periods of church history. Here’s John Chrysostom, the great exegete in the 300’s. This whole place, speaking about 1 Corinthians 12 and the gifts there, is very obscure but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place. Augustine, writing in the late 300’s, early 400’s, said, “In the earliest times, the Holy Spirit fell upon them that believed and they spoke with tongues which they had not learned as the Spirit gave them utterance.” That thing was done for a sign and it passed away.

The penultimate and last paragraphs show the inconsistency, if not outright duplicity, of the cessationists. They want to have it both ways. On the one hand, they claim the canon is complete and there's no truth outside the canon. On the other hand, they rely on experience and human wisdom, like the positions of Chrysostom and Augustine they referenced, to reject what is clearly written in the Bible. Paul wrote that God has given spiritual gifts for the profit of all. Neither he nor any Bible writer ever said these gifts have ceased or will even cease before Jesus' return. James said sick people in the church should call on the elders to pray for them to get well. Cessationists reject these clear statements of scripture in favor of human opinion. No, if they're faithful to their claim, they'd accept what the Bible says regardless of what our experience says. What would they say if some of us did the same with other parts of scripture and state that the fact we are not seeing it occur in our lives, e.g. Being blessed feeding on the Word of God, means it has ceased? Would they accept it or would they respond that reading the Bible blesses them and it's my fault if I don't get similar blessing? Well, healing and miracles scriptures work for me and it's the Cessationists' fault if they don't work for them.

I also notice that while those who teach that God prospers His children financially do not refer to their message as the prosperity gospel, the cessationists and others hang that label on them. Then turn around to claim that since it's called prosperity gospel, it's another gospel. How convenient. And completely fatuous!

WinsomeX:
Well, I am happy to learn you agree with something John said at least. Like I promised, this will only be one response. Hopefully you may respond to my post here and we could proceed to another summary.



I agree with John here. Satan’s preoccupation is introducing false beliefs into the world and distorting the truthin men minds. That's why renewing our mind is a leading responsibility of all Christians; there is no scripture that says we should seek deliverance as part of our sanctification. I agree that the root of sin, the father of lies and the progenitor of all evil is satan but in the day to day walk of the Christian, the Christian flesh is his contention against sin not satan. The Christian however must beware of Satan’s deception, which is ultimately an assault on our thinking.

In the matter of Jesus, Peter and Satan one can dispute that it was not the issue of the flesh but of the mind. When the same Peter had understood Christ better, he didn't deny him anymore despite greater persecution.



This is one place we must agree to disagree. Jesus went about doing good and healing all. Christ healing ministry pointed to his peculiar mandate of being God's prophet. The healing pointed to his authenticating Jesus. After the message is authenticated, there is no need for it. God does heal today but at his own time, will and plan. There is no one who operates Christ or his apostles sort of healing ministry today. All those who claim such today have failed the slightest verification.

Christians should go about doing good. Goodness born from the fruit of the Spirit. If our efforts are blessed with the miraculous, we thank God. If not, we press on.



He spoke of a Christ centred life and the glory that come from it. There is no evidence in scripture or real life that say a life radiating Christ centredness will attract people. What I suspect will happen is that it repel the carnal which most people are. MacArthur is right, the Pentecostal theology is essentially self centred and naturally cannot be Christ centred at the same time. Of course, again, we can disagree here too.



Unfortunately, it is true that an emphasis on the Spirit detracts from the person of Christ. It's not a point I expect you to accept that easily since we have debated it before. The central figure of the Christian gospel is JESUS. It is in exalting him that God the Father and the Holy Spirit are truly honored. It is a truth of course that Unitarians and Pentecostals will find hard accepting.



I think you should be the one to go find out the tremendous similarities btw catholic charismatics and pentecostals. While these Catholics still profess the errors in their creed. What association should light have with darkness? That a few of them are persecuted in their fold does not justify their errors.



Here we have the Prosperity Gospel in a nutshell. Sorry to be this blunt with you: the moment anyone succeeded in appending that word "prosperity" to the gospel these men claim to preach, it clearly has been shown that that gospel is another gospel. It is at best false, and at worst demonic.



Joel Osteen is a false prophet. That is even putting it mildly. That we have these sort of debates among Christians is the pervasive influence his teachings are having on Christians minds.



Now, we are getting to the poing. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not a health and wealth gospel. In the gospel, the sin trouble was solved. So regardless of the Christian state, he may be poor or rich, sick or healthy; it doesn’t matter. What matters is that he has a living faith in Jesus, his finds grace in him to walk in holiness daily, and he has learnt to put his hope both in this life and the one to come in Christ. That's a Christian.

However, God who is ever wisd and faithful is rich in his blessings to us. So if certain minimum are reached, a Christian will prosper. They include hard work, faithfulness and faith in God. There is also the issue of the Christian country. I see that God has connected our individual prosperity to that of our nation. So a wealthy America is likely to have more prosperous Christians than a corrupt and backward Nigeria. This is the reason I am particularly concerned with replacing the present evil and clueless leadership of Nigeria with someone who might even be Muslim. Becausd in Nigeria prosperity, will we all prosper. The last factor is God. Regardless of whom, it pleases God to give wealth to people. Everyone trusted with much is expected to give much.

I am happy however that you acknowledge the prosperity of cessasionists here, who mostly are non tithers. It shows at least that they have found solution to the devourer trouble.



They do. A Pentecostal confims this here: http://questiontradition./2013/10/24/a-pentecostal-in-general-support-of-the-strange-fire-conference/:

The cessationists are free to believe that human beings no longer have the power to heal. What they cannot legitimately dispute is that sicknesses and diseases are real even today. I also hope they are not making any absurd claim that demons or evil spirits no longer operate on earth. If they accept that those beings exist, it means that they continue with their activities of possessing, oppressing and influencing human beings. When demons or agents of satan invade people’s lives, they cause them to do bad things. Those bad things are called sins. Whether it is prostitution or robbery or murder. To say that it’s all about working on such people’s minds evidences spiritual blindness.

I’m not sure I understood you regarding Peter. What’s the distinction between the flesh and the mind? Is the Christian battling the flesh or battling the mind?

As to glory in the midst of cessationists, the point you cannot refute is that you have no proof that you guys have any more glory of God than anybody else. Where’s the evidence? Because you say so? Sorry, not good enough for me. I agree with you though that such glory will repel carnal people. So, leave the carnal people alone and let your glory attract the people that are not carnal. Yet that’s not happening whether here or elsewhere.

As for the Pentecostal you linked, he’s entitled to his opinion.

And Joel Osteen is a holy servant of God. Whom God has raised to bless humanity in our day. Your opinion of him counts for nothing.

WinsomeX:
First, I must thank you vooks for keeping this thread going. Your comments here has not made the thread a solo effort on my path.

But I must say that this quote you have provided has not said anything. It has simply generalised issues and "condemned" them in one fell sweep. The conference people have not done that. They have taken matters one after the other and treated them and those who will critique them should do the same or we must take them to be unserious. I am however not surprised since the writer read only reviews and not the conference presentations themselves.

One thing however they said here which is outrightly false is that MacArthur said Charismatics are not Christians. He made no such statement at the conference and where ever else he may have made it, the reference should be provided. His position is that there are Christians in this movement however little.

So, Macarthur does not think Charismatics are non-christians but he wants evangelicals to treat Charismatics the way they treat Mormons? Are Mormons christians? Since they're not, isn't it obvious what he's trying to say?

WinsomeX:
Summay of John MacArthur Testing the Spirit

1. The text of the message is taken from 1 John 4: 1-11
2. When verse1 says we should test the spirits, it meant we should test men. A similar command is found 1 Thess 5:21-22.
3. Satan is not behind sin; the flesh is. But satan is the author of all false religion.
4. 2 Cor 10:3 descibes true spiritual warfare for us. Spiritual warfare is not fighting demons in prayer, it is a battle for people's minds. The way they think. Ours is a war of the mind.
5. The world is imprisoned in false beliefs and the Christian duty iscto tear down these fortresses of the mind.
6. We do not feel a physical manifestation of the Holy Spirit but we see the results of his works in our lives: conversion, holiness, love for God and his people, love for truth, etc. The Christian life is not the perfection, it is a direction.
7. "What is He doing in us? I’ll just give you a quick list. He produces in us a desire for repentance, a hatred of sin. He produces in us a desire to seek salvation and forgiveness. He produces in us a belief in the gospel, a love for the Lord Jesus Christ, a desire to become a slave of the Lord Jesus Christ, acknowledging Him as Lord. He produces in us a delight in the Holy Scripture, a longing for obedience. He produces in us joy in trials and tribulations, love of other believers, desire for fellowship, understanding of the Bible, illumination of Scripture, inclination to prayer, holy affections, a desire for praise, a heart of thanksgiving, worship as a way of life, and increasing Christlikeness"
8. But there are other spirits. And their aim is to turn discernment into iniquity. To intimidate evangelicals into silence.
9. A true work of the Spirit exalts Jesus Christ. It is a Christological test. He was speaking of the Docetist then who denied Jesus came in the flesh.
10. "All the cults have an aberrant view of Christ.The Holy Spirit does not. The Holy Spirit has an accurate view of Christ, always truthfully presenting the glory of the Son. Any Holy Spirit-filled preacher will be Christ-dominated, Christ-dominated, and present Him in an accurate, and exalting, and truthful way."
11. "If the charismatic movement was being produced by the Holy Spirit, the glory of Christ would prevail everywhere. It would be Christ-dominated and everyone in the movement would be bowing the knee to the true Christ in belief of the true gospel. The people would be humble. They would be joyful. They would be sacrificial. They would be confessional. They would be declaring Jesus as Lord and themselves His slaves. They would be denying themselves, taking up their cross, and following Him wherever He led."
12. The Charismatics dimish the person of Christ by an emphasis on the Holy Spirit and counterfeit experiences.
13. "Show me a person obsessed with the Holy Spirit, and I’ll show you a person not filled with the Holy Spirit. Show me a person obsessed with the Lord Jesus Christ, never tiring of learning and loving Him, entranced by His magnificent glory, and seeking to obey Him and be like Him, and I’ll show you a Spirit-filled person. That’s what a Spirit-filled person looks like".
14. Much of the Charismatic movement is anti Christ. This can be seen in statements by Creflo Dollar and Kenneth Copeland.
15. "So wherever the devaluing of the gospel truth is visible, we know that’s not the work of the Holy Spirit. And let me be very blunt. Any movement that can fully embrace Roman Catholicism is not a movement authored by the Holy Spirit because that’s a false gospel." Catholic charismatics have little in distinction with pentecostals. They both exalt false worships and lately are worshipping together in supposed ecumenical movements.
16. "The prosperity gospel has no interest in the biblical gospel. It only offers financial prosperity, physical well-being to desperate, desperate people. It offers carnal comforts, earthly riches, worldly success to millions of people who literally give up the little that they have to buy it. It is the worst. It is the ugliest. To prey on the sick, and to prey on the poor, and become wealthy by lying to them. Is there anything more wretched than that?"
17. "Joel Osteen writes a book, Your Best Life Now. That’s it. That’s the message. The only way that’s true that your best life is now is if you’re going to hell, because if you’re going to heaven, this is not your best life."
18. Despite this talk of prosperity, 90% of pentecostals live in penury. This evidenced by those in living in Nigeria, South Africa, India and the Philippines were these movements thrive.
20. A true work of the Spirit will point people to the Bible. Not to experiences. Not to voices in the head. But to the Bible.
21. 'I want to close by reading 2 John 7, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. Anyone who goes too far and doesn’t abide in the teaching concerning Christ, - ” the truth about Christ “ - does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, - ” concerning Christ “ - has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, - ” this true doctrine, “ - do not receive him into your house, do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.” '

My focus is on things I disagree with here. So, if anything is not addressed, it’s either because I agree or because I think it’s insignificant.

3. Satan is also behind sin. The flesh has its role. And satan has his. Jesus told Peter that satan had desired him just before His crucifixion. Satan got his way to the extent that he got Peter to sin by denying Jesus.

4. Spiritual warfare is both of the mind and outside the mind. Battling demons is part of spiritual warfare. Eph. 6 says that we wrestle against various levels of spirits, none of which is about the mind. These are entities. I’m beginning to see a pattern here: cessationism thrives on half-truths. If they find A is true, it does not occur to them that B may also be true.

6. The works of the Holy Spirit are not limited to the things listed: love, conversion, holiness. Jesus did His works on earth through the Holy Spirit and the effects include other things not listed, including casting out demons and healing the sick. Peter reminded us of that in Acts 10:38 that God anointed Jesus with the Holy Ghost and as a result He went about doing good and healing those oppressed of the devil. The pattern again!

11. The same can be said of cessasionists. There’s not one cessasionist on this thread or at the conference that radiates the glory of God better than other group of christians. If they did, they wouldn’t even need to announce it. We’ll know. And run to them. So, if this is the standard for judging falsity of belief and practice, cessationism is in the same boat of failure.

12. Untrue and ridiculous claim. Charismatics follow what Jesus said – that the Holy Spirit will replace Him on earth. Even the two chief cessationists on this forum already agree with that.

14. Ridiculous claim. I know enough of Creflo and Copeland to know that they exalt Jesus. It was Creflo that was first made the Scripture in 2 Cor. 5:14 that the love of Christ constrains register in my heart in a new way. That is, if you love the Anointed One and His anointing, that love will compel you not to sin.

15. Ignorance gone to seed. Charismatics have little in common with the Roman Catholic Church. You need not go far. Ask any Catholic on this forum or in your neighborhood and they’ll be among the biggest critics of Charismatics. As for Catholic Charismatics, they share with other charismatics the understanding of the Holy Spirit’s place as the Lord of the Church today that distributes charisms (gifts) for the benefit of the Church and humanity. Some Catholic Charismatic groups have been at loggerheads or kicked out of the Catholic Church because of doctrinal differences. I know from personal experience.

16. What is wretched and ugly is cessationism that offers little help to the sick and poor, which is not the model Jesus left us. Jesus wanted people to go to Heaven, but He also met their physical needs. That’s the model Charismatics believe they should follow. The cessasionists lacking the power to help anyone seek to hide their impotence under the banner of being Heavenly-focused, as though they were any more Heavenly-focused than Jesus and the early Christians that also understood that as long as we’re on earth, we have earthly needs. Of course, the Charismatics are not doing a perfect job and have not been able to help everyone. But it’s only warped thinking that would denigrate people for doing their best even if only a few get helped. Indeed, there are excesses and wrong practices among the Charismatics, but that is not an indictment of the whole movement. It simply means that imperfect human beings are doing imperfect things and should be corrected.

17. It is hard to have a decent conversation with people when they are woefully ignorant of or willfully misrepresent your position. The comment on Joel Osteen’s book is pure rubbish. Only a jaundiced mind would claim that “Your Best Life Now” is coterminous with “Your Best Life IS Now.” It reminds me of somebody who claimed a guy that called himself the Godfather was blasphemous because he’s referring to himself as God the Father! What Joel did in the book – and I’ve read it – is to tell you how you can have the best life while on earth. It does not suggest in anyway that life on earth is the end of all things or better than life in Heaven. It’s like a father telling his son who’s moving to the dormitory how he can make the best of it, especially using the father’s and other people’s experiences. For somebody to claim that the father is saying that the best life is in the dormitory or a repudiation of the life in his house is utter nonsense.

18. Despite claiming to deemphasize prosperity, many cessationists on this forum and at that conference live the good life and even aspire for more. Why not distribute all you have and be at the same level as the 90% in penury?

19. Oh, no 19?

20. Charismatics do not elevate experiences over the Word. Anybody that thinks they do knows next to nothing about the Charismatics. Charismatics simply believe that the experiences promised NT believers belong to them, like when Jesus said in Mark 16 that we shall speak with new tongues and when we lay hands on the sick, they shall recover.

21. Amen.

BabaGnoni:
When Hell freezes over, these requests might get some consideration and the evidence(s) become publicly known
This is like the classic "If you are the Son of God, jump off!" evidence request
It's also right on par with been asked to show off one's freestyle on Jimmy's Jump Off
The answer as usual is, no can do. No granting of "...show us evidence..." requests
Gombs, we don't do show-offs, and as PREVIOUSLY stated here or was it the Midas thread, we don't grant "show us evidence(s)" requests, don't brag or post miracles, we just do.

No. It's more along the lines of 2 Cor. 12:12

12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

And I Cor. 4:19-20

19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power.

20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.

vooks:
Where does Paul say 'Comfort, exhort, edify' is what gift of prophecy does? Just asking not disputing

In I Cor. 14:3, Paul said that “he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.” But we know this is not true when it comes to the work of a prophet. Prophets say hard things that don’t necessarily comfort, edify or exhort. Perhaps, in MOST cases they do not. So, Paul must be referring to something else here when he mentions this gift.

And that’s because the gift of prophecy is for forth telling, not foretelling. The gifts of the spirit that deal with fore telling and seeing into the supernatural are Word of Wisdom, Word of Knowledge and Discerning of Spirits. Reading the gift of prophecy as referring to the kind of foretelling that a prophet does renders some of the other gifts meaningless, especially Word of Wisdom. In other words, how is prophecy that foretells different from Word of Wisdom?

Nevertheless, a prophet may also prophesy in the sense of bringing words that comfort, exhort or edify. But to be a prophet, he would also need other gifts in operation like the Word of Wisdom, i.e. revelation gifts. In I Cor. 14: 29& 30, Paul talks about prophets and revelation: “if anything be revealed . . . .” He didn’t say that with the gift of prophecy.

On the other hand, gift of prophecy is compared to tongues and interpretation of tongues. In I Cor. 14:1, 5 & 39, we see the comparison. Nobody would argue that when people speak in tongues and interpret in church or even at home, they’re necessarily revealing anything. Usually, it’s an inspired utterance to build up the church or help people that need uplifting. That’s what the gift of prophecy does, only that it does it in plain speech instead of tongues that need interpretation.

I also agree with the point already made earlier that the exercise of a spiritual gift does not mean that you’re called into an office. What makes the difference, I believe, is not training to be a prophet or teacher etc. but the consistency of the operation. That is, God can use anybody to heal but that does not mean that that person has the gift of healing. And God can use anybody in the area of gifts of healing, but that does not mean that person is a healing evangelist. Occasional or periodic manifestation is what distinguishes those not in the office from those in the office.

For instance in 1 Cor. 14:1, Paul tells the Christians in Corinth to covet spiritual gifts and to prophesy. But earlier in I Cor. 12:28, he makes clear that not all is called into the office of prophet, a point he emphasizes again in Eph. 4. If not all are called into the office of prophet, why tell ALL to desire to prophesy, knowing that prophesying would make them ALL prophets? That does not make much sense. What Paul obviously meant was that prophesying would not make you a prophet, nor would exercise of any of the spiritual gifts he asked you to covet. The spiritual gifts will serve the church through the believer, but it does not mean that the believer is at the level of ministry gifts.

Now, that does not mean that training can be discounted. Au contraire, it is very important to help the people called into an office to sharpen their skills and conduct themselves properly for greater effectiveness. But even without and before the training, the person is still called to that office.

vooks:
1. In the scriptures, there is no distinction between the 'office' of a prophet and the 'gift' of prophecy
2. In the scriptures, one exercising the 'gift' of prophecy is regarded as a prophet
3. You don't have people prophesying not regarded as prophets

Incorrect. Paul never said the person that has the gift of prophecy in Corinthians is a prophet. Nor did he ever say that prophets always comfort, exhort or edify. But he said so of the gift of prophecy. Either Paul is contradicting himself or we have to take him at his word.

vooks:
When you look at Paul shipwrecked telling them that they will survive but the ship will be lost, I'd say that's foretelling and comforting at the same time. So foretelling and 'comfort,exhortation and edification' are not mutually exclusive.
We see Paul equating the one prophesying to a prophet. Do we have precedents in the OT?
Numbers 11:27-29 King James Version (KJV)
27 And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp.
28 And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them.
29 And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord'S people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!
So a prophesying person is a prophet. Philip's daughters prophesied, they were prophets

I never said they were mutually exclusive. I said they don't always go together. Now tell me where the comfort, exhortation or edification is in Agabus prophecy about Paul going to Jerusalem. Or Elijah telling Ahab that it would not rain for 3 and half years? Or Elisha telling Ahab and Jehoshephat that they would lose the battle the following day? These contradict the definition of the gift of prophecy as given by Paul. That means one can prophesy when prophesying has nothing to with the parameters of the gift of prophecy, I.e. Comfort, exhort, edify. The converse is also true: one can comfort, edify or exhort without doing what a prophet traditionally does, which is see into the supernatural. It's not enough to say that they jive sometimes. They have to jive all the time for Paul's definition to make sense.

vooks:
Thank you my broda,
My reason for asking is because in both NT and OT, a person who prophesies is called a prophet. Look at these verses;
[b]1 Cor 14:23-33 (KJV)
23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? 24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.[/b]
So while one who prophesies is called a prophet, am yet to see one prophesying not being deemed a prophet.
To me, the office of the prophet is romanticized,idealized and ultimately it elevates the gift to more than is warranted
I just can't see the distinction between the 'gift' and 'office'

I think the distinction is not between one who prophesies and a prophet, but about the gift of prophecy and the work of a prophet. Paul says in Corinthians that the gift of prophecy is for comfort, exhortation and edification. Nothing there says anything about foretelling, which is what a prophet does. And a prophet can tell the future in a manner that does not comfort, exhort or edify. E.g. Agabus' prophecy about Paul going to Jerusalem. Thus one who comforts, exhorts or edifies may be exercising the gift of prophecy, but it doesn't make that one a prophet, until such a person can also see into the supernatural and tell what exists there.

WinsomeX:
If you have said "OK" to that post I addressed to you, I will expect you will engage the issues raised. These general tendency to condemn all is what you criticize in my engaging WoF and I wouldn't expect you to be doing the same thing here.

I have painstakingly provided summaries to each presentation, engage those.

If you think someone is deifying Calvin or MacArthur, state where.

Pls lets show some maturity or I will be forced to think you prefer the brick batting which says a lot about the religion one professes.

And the same goes to you to vooks.

I did not condemn anyone. I responded to points raised. I assume some of these points are no different from those at the conference. I'll be responding to observations by forumites as well as excerpts from the conference as much as I can.

vooks:
When you say people who don't know McArthur are illiterate, what do you expect?
I had missed that portion of your thread BTW. Thanks nlmediator for pointing it out

That's the point. He makes some statements and expects me to leave them unanswered and dive straight into the excerpts from the conference. When somebody justifies cessationism by suggesting that those who believe in miracles would be heartless, I should ignore it and rush to some summary of the conference? No, all of it is part of the discussion.

WinsomeX:
That's true. OK, let's proceed.



It will make no difference. But certain minimums must be attained. We must be able to test the spirit behind the prophecy. The other part is that the prophecy of scripture cannot be compared to that of today. Scripture shows that if a prophet does not prophesy 100% accurate, he is not a prophet. We cannot therefore classify a man prophesying today a prophet because most prophecies from individuals are not accurate. So I will admit that there can be prophecy but the human fallibility renders them unable to take up the toga of a prophet. So there are prophecies but no prophets or apostles.



The discussion on tongues, like tithes, will fall flat on its face when we locate their meanings. Tithes were agric products. Tongues are languages. Period. If tongues are languages, the simple question to anyone blowing tongues is "what are you saying?", what's the interpretation? That's what scripture asked us to use to test tongues. So the vast majority of tongues today are gibberish. I however believe that when it pleases God, he can give someone ability to speak a tongue, a language, which will have perfect sense to him or someone else, for a specific purpose. The aid we need in prayer is seeking God with all our hearts and in faith. That's all.



You should have seen by now that I'm not a strict cessationist. But I will rather go with one cessationist than a million charismatic bc I will be safe with him.

The cessationist argument is safe, even if it has its fallibility. All, and I mean, all the confusion in the Charismatic movement today is the result of extra biblical revelations. If people will be content with scripture, this charismatic chaos will be absent. If in the process of strict adherence to scripture, devotion and love to God, he transcends our orthodoxy and blesses us with a revelation, we will rejoice but still subordinate even that to scriptures. So the cessationist are not perfect but are light years ahead of the Charismatics in true spirituality.



There is a presentation on the issue of throwing the baby out of the bath water in this conference. You may go to the link there or wait till I upload it, it's an interesting discuss. Let me not preempt them.



That's why I gave you the background in a previous post that the conference had an audience of Calvinists in view. If they were truly to be Calvinists, they must then remain true to Calvin and his beliefs. That's why that talk was titled after Calvin.

John Calvin will remain the greatest theologian this past 500 years. His teachings are the roots of the reformation reaching millions in Europe and around the world. Those who despise Calvin do it to their own detriment. This was a man sold out to the gospel, that at his death he had nothing; though he was controlling thousands of mission efforts around the world. Paul talks about imitating worthy men. One of such is John Calvin.

The disaster in Christendom today is bc names like Hagin, Kenyon, Idahosa, Oyakhilome, are replacing such worthy names. Imagine someone asking who is John MacArthur on this thread. That's why there is so much biblical illiteracy.

We will come out of it... Amen.

Sad to see you deify a human being. Imagine if anybody did the same with their favorite Christian leader? You'll be here quoting all manner of Scripture. Not knowing MacArthur connotes or even denotes Biblical illiteracy? Didn't know he was somewhere in the Bible that anybody studying the bible would see him there. Interesting.

shdemidemi:
The continuist idea can get painfully irritating some times, some people just seem to block their thinking faculty on the issue. While doing kids school runs today something just struck my spirit(mind) and I started thinking about the whole idea of the unreasonable claims of so many ignorant and some times deluded folks who claim to have this ingrained ability to perform the super natural wonders recorded in the Holy Book.

It is so disturbing that these people sit behind their computers to claim to possess the power while some big shots who make profit from the claims stand behind pulpits on sundays to make same claims (It is apparent that we hear them aver these things than the real show of wonders) while diseases, viruses ravage the world.

If these continuists aren't heartless, do they not see kids in places like Great Ormond street where kids with acute illnesses have to wait months to be allotted bed space in the hospitals. Some parents don't have a life of theirs any more, they wake up as early as 4am and leave the hospital at 11pm to see their kids who are lucky enough to have beds. Some people actually raised the idea and try to pass a bill to allow sick people who are in inexplicable pain and agony a right to end their own lives with medical help.

If these 'Apostles wanna be' charlatans are not bare faced liars or a confused bunch, why do they need people to come to them before getting help? Jesus or the Apostles never made adverts or have a miracle venue, they got popular through people who got healed. Most times Jesus will tell these people to keep the miracle to themselves and not make it public, I believe he did this so people don't get the wrong idea that he came to the world to make everyone well. But these people kept sharing the news of a healer, sure these news rippled far and wide and people will always get healed as Jesus go about his main job of apostleship.

It is either you have the power or you don't, if you do -visit LUTH, wake the dead, raise the lame you wouldn't need all the radio, t.v, newspaper, www or door to door adverts. By the time you empty Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital the entire world will stand still. Get up or shut up. Headache, back ache and other psychosomatic healing including random unverifiable guess prophecies don't count, get on the field do what Peter did, do what Paul did, do what Jesus did or shut your trap.

Frankly, I don't know whether you think through your ideas sometimes. Because they're so preposterous it's hard to imagine that an adult is making such submissions. No wonder when the illogic of your conclusions is presented to you, you start throwing tantrums. To qualify the validity and presence of healing power by a stipulation that all or even a majority be healed is manifestly absurd. Jesus did not resurrect John the Baptist. Peter did not rescue or resurrect James the apostle. Paul did not raise from the dead the Corinthians that died from taking the communion wrongly. If a non-Christian used any of these examples to say that Jesus, Peter or Paul lacked healing power and never raised anyone from the dead or were heartless, Christians would not take such a person seriously. Somehow, you expect your equivalent submission to be given serious attention?

vooks:
nlmediator,
Joni is paralyzed we can all see. She tried to seek for healing and was unsuccessful. She even fires some salvo at Khulmann, she in the fewest words calling her healings staged. What is a person who unsuccessfully sought healing both in private and public doing in a meeting for people who believe Pentecost is historical? Is it wrong to desire getting well? What is the value of prayer? How different is her attitude and shdemidemi's from FATALISM?

Of course being paralyzed and having gone through much, some may be hesitant to probe her message, I hope this is not the case. Winsomex, I request before you proceed that you give time to interrogate each participant contribution to that conference.

Sure smells like fatalism to me. You know what they say: walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's definitely a duck.

Gombs:
well said bro...

i remeber asking him when he was DB why he never discussed

Soul Wining
Love
fruit of the Spirit
How to spread the gospel further
fasting
etc

he side stepped it. when others do, they NEVER seem to have interest in them. But when it s MONEY - tithes, offerings, seeds, etc. Come see them in their best, with all form of baloney.

this was same thing that happened in the WOF thread they did. Now, same is repeating itself, and all he could say is we have had tough times on NL, like seriously? .... you gotta admit bro, That chap has a great sense of humour.

I share your sentiments, my brother. Somebody like Paul Crouch figured out a way to spread the gospel, using modern technology. These cessasionists would almost deride him as the devil incarnate. But you'd think that since they know God better, they'd figure out better ways of accomplishing the Master's purpose, adapting existing methods or coming up with new technologies, etc. Instead, they're often bitter, complaining of what people are not doing perfectly. Just show us evidence of how you're impacting lives seems to be asking for too much.

WinsomeX:
nlmediator,

I have read your second post and I think shdemidemi has offered a sufficient response so I will not belabor it. The trouble with Nairaland is that we have a way of debating petty issues and I will try to avoid that here.

I have made a summary on Macarthur's opening speech, you may respond to the points he raised. If I or others are not satisfied by your response, we will make our objection known. For me, to avoid unending debates, I will only object ONCE, to which you can make a response and we can proceed to another summary.

I am working on a summary of R C Sproul's presentation. When that is ready, you can respond to that too.

I honestly appreciate your coming to this thread and I am very willing to interact with you on a fresh note.

Here is MacArthur summary:

www.nairaland.com/2016831/john-macarthurs-2013-strange-fire/1#28425934

Ok.

^^^

Your post is an exemplar of the ills of the cessassionist movement that I just talked about - a lack of coherence, magnifying issues to score a cheap point, and inability to help a suffering populace. So, if I successfully pray for a person tormented by demons, that means that person now has a perfect world? A relative of mine died last year or so. I knew she had problems, but I didn't know to what extent. When I called her mother to commisserate with her, she told me her daughter was being tormented by evil spirits. These wicked beings would appear to her and be pursung her (in her dreams, I guess). Mind you, the mother is no WOF or charismatic. She's a plain catholic woman and I can't even say she's born again. Assuming I knew of this girl's condition and went to pray for her and God delivered her, would she or anybody be under the illusion that she'll still deal with the many challenges that human beings face on earth? Like finding a suitable spouse, worrying about pregnancy, raising kids, payng bills, etc.

Like I said earlier, you guys are free to believe what you want. And even free to attribute to charismatics what they do not believe. I'll be moved by your lectures when my neighbor's sheep start sporting horns.

I should start by saying that cessasionists are free to believe what they like. But it is most unlikely that they’ll ever be able to persuade me, much less win me over for 3 major reasons. First is their lack of coherence. You can disagree with WOF, but it is clear what we believe. We believe that God heals the same way He did when Jesus and the apostles were on earth and that this healing can be accessed when we exercise our faith. On the other hand, cessasionists present positions that are hard to follow.

E.g., you wrote earlier: “However, most cessationist still hold that God can heal people today and that's what I believe too. He will heal based solely on his will, sovereignty or plan regarding an individual or persons.” The simple conclusion one can draw from this is that when the apostles healed, the healing was not based “solely on [God’s] will, sovereignty or plan regarding an individual or persons.” So, whose will, sovereignty or plan was it based on, apart from God’s? Could the apostles heal anybody even when it was not based “on [God’s] will, sovereignty or plan regarding an individual or persons”? If you’re saying instead that the apostles could heal only based on God’s will, sovereignty or plan, how’re you claiming your position is different from what obtained in the apostles’ days?

Second, cessassionists make up facts or magnify slight ‘errors’ to hide the large points they cannot support. Somebody claims spiritual manifestations have ceased and he goes about talking about laughter and ‘crazy dancing’ even when such things happen among less than 1% of charismatics and in very few meetings. They reject tongues but cannot provide one scripture that says tongues and other gifts have ceased. They reject prophecy and claim that charismatics come up with new revelations, which is completely unsupportable. If a charismatic says that God spoke to him that there’ll be an earthquake in Lagos in 2014, how’s that a new revelation against the Sacred Scriptures? How does that contradict the Bible? Imagine the presenter from Africa claiming that charismatics no longer hold Bible study sessions as they used to. Either he is blatantly lying or he has not been in a charismatic church meeting in recent years and so does not know what he’s talking about. Either explanation disqualifies him from being a worthy presenter in such a high profile conference.

Third, cessationists have little or no answer to a dying and crying world. So long as I see people suffering all the time under the yoke of satan, I’ll not keep quiet or assert that it is God’s Will. I will tell the person that God’s will is for that person to be free right now. And that works better than the cessasisionists telling him that God may or may not deliver him. Isn’t it interesting that cessasisionists claim that all healing is when God wants but not because anybody exercised any faith. Yet, you hardly see any healings or miracles in their midst. Doesn’t God’s sovereignty extend to their members? On the other hand, through me and others, God has worked many healings and miracles. You guys are free to reject them. Or claim that it was not because of our faith. I say, let the healings and miracles continue to flow because of God’s sovereignty in our midst!

WinsomeX:
BabaGnoni

I understand you perfectly and I now understand why you kept referring to mbaemeka. I believe you mean that every cure for every disease is in man and that as time progresses and medical science improves, most incurable ailments will find cure. This is God bringing healing to humanity. mba will rather misconstrue this as you limiting God to medicine. Of course it means that what medicine cannot accomplish, God can, if he chooses to.

As to WoF advocates, I have invited them to this thread and save for Gombs one post, the rest have stayed clear. I think religious section discusses these days has not been kind to them and they will rather stay away altogether than have their theology shaken. I need not begin listing some of them, beginning with the Bayelsan Pastor SirJohn has sent out permanently from nl.

shdemidemi, there is no works in this. I think it makes perfect sense.

It’s attitude such as the one you displayed in this post that keeps some WOFers from participating in your threads. To you, discussions in the Religion section are about competition, causing division and showing yourself to be right, not about enlightenment and edification of the brethren. You extended an invitation to me yesterday, but without waiting even for a reasonable period of time for response, you have already started mocking us.

That’s the same thing you did with the erased WOF thread. I naively thought you were seeking sincere discussions and was writing based on what you did not know about WOF. I stepped in to provide the correct WOF perspective on things, not the distortion I was reading. You commended me immediately I joined the discourse and even said you had me in my mind as one of those who’d join the conversation. Little did I know you had a hidden agenda. All along you knew what you’re doing and shortly afterwards showed your true colors, focusing more on mocking WOF, not a reasoned debate. At that point, we decided to abandon the thread for you, a stance I maintained even when you and your friends created a new one.

If you want people to discuss Bible truths with you, learn to approach them with respect and sincerity. Occasionally, insults would fly but that should not the underlying philosophy among those who care about honest dialogue.

While I’m here, I’ll say a few things in a second post to keep this one from being too long.