₦airaland Forum

Repent thou son of perdition or perish with your god of this world. Jesus Christ loves you

sonOfLucifer:
Hypocrite.

Christianity is not based on human wisdom; ignorant primates think everyone else is insane

cold:
Isn't christianity a form of mental derangement?

This is how you sanitize the human genetic pool; castrating such m0rons

2cato:
Vooks are you sonoflucifer that is fond of making fun of xtian. Imagine calling a mentally derange man a pastor

Another reason I insist the Negr0 should have been colonized for 200 years before exposing him to Christianity

Residents of a village in Singorwet ward, Bomet County were treated to a nerve wrecking drama last Sunday after a local church pastor unsuccessfully attempted to fly to Jerusalem using artificial wings, falling off a tree and breaking his legs.

The man of God, famous in the village for predicting the second coming of Jesus on several occasions, something which has never come to pass, is said to have gone round the village announcing his departure to Jerusalem.

...read on

http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/entertainment/m/?articleID=2000143148&story_title=pastor-tries-to-fly-like-angel-to-jerusalem-breaks-legs-before-his-congregation

Excellent submission.
Supposing Agabus gave you the prophecy today, with the benefit of the entire Canon, how would you test that prophecy? You can't pick any verse saying Winsomex will not be imprisoned or there will not be famine in Judea. So you can only test the accuracy of the same and perhaps the character of the prophet and so forth.

False prophecies, Jesus said we would have those towards the end but I believe that just as false doctrines crept in even before all the apostles checked out, this has nothing to do with continuitionism. False doctrines arise because of the fallen nature of man.

About tongues, Paul made it clear that unless Holy Spirit gives the one exercising the gift interpretation, they don't understand what they are saying. You do understand that there are over 3000 languages and dialects in the world,not to mention extinct languages. Anything you don't understand is gibberish. Tongues are tested with interpretation the absence of which they should not be used publicly. tongues don't substitute any of the needs you have highlighted.

Extr and-Biblical revelations exist I agree but they are not necessarily produced by Charismatic. They stem from disregarding the Bible as the sole authority. For Catholicism, they appeal to papal Bulls and apocrypha not charismatic. In any case,like the tongues abuse in Corinthians,the solution is not to dismiss them but correct the usage. What would you have against a continuationist Sola Scriptura guy like me?

John Calvin remains a man whose work should be subjected to scriptures and we should not hesitate to discard what is amiss.

About the greatness of these men, Reformation was their finest hour. We can't possibly have anything close to that repeating itself. I find it sad that you compare Oyaks to Calvin. Why not compare Calvin to your IDEAL modern Calvinist scholar and man of influence. It almost sounds like these cessationists are bitter that Calvinism is not as appealing as it was back then

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 pleased 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, 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, 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.

There are too many sick folk out there and nobody is healing them so there is no power to heal?
You are one step away from wondering how Jesus will not save everyone. Why can't he stop the sinners from perishing in their sin? Is he impotent?

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 similar 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 the government 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 random unverifiable guess works don't count, get on the field do what Peter did, do what Paul did, do what Jesus did or shut your trap.

Thank you Winsomex.
Agabus is actually the ONLY NT prophet we have record of in action. Let's dwell on him a bit.

When you look at his prophecy of famine or Paul's suffering, would it have made ANY difference if he had uttered those words today with the NT complete? I don't think so. No amount of NT writings helps you see a famine coming over a specific place on earth nor the suffering Paul will undergo in Jerusalem.

I therefore can't understand how the NT canon would do away with such a practical use of the prophetic.
Same case with tongues. We know they aid a believer's prayer life. Now we are telling them, 'hey, you have scriptures, you don't need no aid in prayer, you have all you need'

My point is, when you subscribe to cessationism,and peg it to completion of NT canon, you inevitably end up with some logical absurdities. This is why even Calvin maintained that some gifts were operational while others ceased. Ephesians 4 talk of the so-called Fivefold ministries. How do you discard Apostles and Prophets while you maintain Pastors and Teachers? It's arbitrary.
Cessassionists need to come up with a more convincing justification for cessation or admit the gifts haven't ceased.

I have no problem with Sola Scriptura, but imagining Charismatic Movement as adversarial to it,I can't understand. I think we can retain an abused doctrine by correcting it just as Paul did in Corinth instead of throwing the baby away with the bath water.

I also observed an almost unholy reverence for Calvin. The man was fallible. Just because he said so don't make it right

WinsomeX:
We can look at Agabus prophecy from two point of views. First, Agabus made his prophecy at a time scripture was not complete. It was a time God sent words of authority through men when the sure word of prophecy had not been complete. With scriptures complete such prophecy will no longer be needed.

But Agabus was not an apostle, so why did God use him? Well, this is where I depart from strict cessationism; though scripture is complete and we no longer need human apostolic or prophetic validation, God still speaks to the church through prophetic words. Jesus promised that the Spirit will show us things to come. I have many examples of non Pentecostals who had clear prophetic words from God. I do not believe this is totally out of place.

The reason Sola Scriptura is a solid position in Christendom is because it will keep the flock of God safe. Even when a prophetic word comes, the spirit of the prophecy can be tested against scriptures.

What was the spirit of prophecy of Agabus? It meant the church must prepare. Sending relief to the poor. Love. Help. However when the prophecy is such that it will benefit only one man's stomach, you can be sure such is not from God. And most of the prophetic utterances in churches today are designed to benefit the greedy.

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'

mbaemeka:
Sure, no qualms.

Yes, there is a difference between Prophesying and the office or the ministry of a Prophet. According to the scriptures, 'Telling forth' and 'Foretelling' are essentially the meanings of the word 'Prophesy' but both roles do not belong to everyone. How do I mean?

In 1 Corinthians 14 vs 29 he talked about the Office of a prophet and in vs 31 he spoke about the use of prophecy which he then said was available to everyone. He could say this because of the following:

1. In the Ministry gift or office of a prophet, one who occupies such a role MUST be called of God and his primary role is to FORETELL the mind of God. Such a person will be able to see things in the future or PAST (things that God shows him/her) and he might be obligated to tell the people. For example, Agabus was told about Paul's impending arrest in Jerusalem and the famine. Agabus functioned in that office of a prophet.

Let me also add here that scriptures tell us the office is for exhortation, edification and comforting the brethren so whenever a prophet sees something in the realm of the spirit (by the agency of God), it is all in a bid to exhort, edify and comfort the brethren. Which is similar to what Agabus did. The office of the prophet is not star-gazing, fortune telling etc. The prophet only sees or says what God has shown and allowed him/her to foretell. So if God says "there would be a bombing in this place, do not go there", the prophet simply foretells it so that none of the brethren or their loved ones will be there.

2. In the use of the gift of prophecy, this is still for edification, exhortation and comforting thr brethren as the office but it differs from it in the sense that IT IS NOT a revelation from God. It is just the Christian (whoever it is) 'telling forth' God's word based on faith (Romans 12:6). Even those who are Prophets I.e they are called into the office can still operate this forth-telling gift without a revelation. All that matters is that it should be word-based and meet the conditions above - exhortation, bla bla. An example can be, I could meet a fellow Christian who maybe going through one challenge or the other and I can say "God's word says he will never leave us nor forsake us, so I prophesy to you that whatever you are going through now, God is with you and it would all pan out for your good".

Now, I didn't hear anything directly from God, neither did I see any vision or revelation. But I am just telling forth the word of God in faith (I.e without doubting) so as to comfort the brother. I am using the gift of prophecy without necessarily being a Prophet and it is valid according to the word of God.

So if I tell someone "it is well with you!" Or I say to a barren woman " You would give birth to a child" I am just prophesying by faith to comfort her. I may not have heard such words from God. Paul says it is still not wrong since it is word based.

Sorry if it is too long. If you havr further questions and I have the answers to them I will attempt them.

In 1 Cor 14:23-33, Paul equates a prophet to one who prophesies

[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]

BabaGnoni:
vooks, c'mon now, stop slacking, you can do better than that (i.e. "a teacher is somebody who teaches, prophet one who prophesies'')

Differences could be similar to, just because I cook (i.e. cooking), doesn't necessarily make me a chef (i.e. put on the title or take on the position of chef authority)
- one fills positions but one dont necessarily assume or take on the office or title
Simply, a teacher explains, a prophet proclaims

Son of perdition, repent or perish with your god

sonOfLucifer:
Chrestard, who are you to suggest that? Are you vooks?

Thank you,
The prophetic gift both in NT and OT was never primarily used for recording scriptures. What I cant wrap around my head is why these gifts are automatically deemed to fly in the face of Sola Scriptura doctrine. Can't I operate revelatory gifts without attempting to add to the canon?
It appears like a scare tactic. You see a continuist and you shout, 'hey, he is adding to the canon!'

Look at Agabus prophecy over Paul and draught. Very specific messages which are inspired and are in no way adding to the canon.

WinsomeX:
With the help of Google, I came across this text of Calvin on 1 Cor 13:

www.biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/1_corinthians/13.htm

I am sure their are others that might be more elaborate.

What Calvin said on Charismata is not what is in dispute in the text by Lawson; Lawson was only trying to ask the true disciples of Calvin to be faithful to John Calvin's thinking all round.

While the Strange Fire Conference focused on the ills of the Charismatic movement, their main audience were not Pentecostals, who will not listen to them anyway; but fellow Reformed Calvinist and Evangelicals. They were saying to their fellow colleagues, like John Piper and Wayne Grudem, if you truly call yourselves Calvinist, see what Calvin said of the Charismatics and tell us how it lines up with your thinking.

Calvin's position, like the cessationist, was that God's Holy Spirit will follow and bring Christlike result from a faithful adherence to and teaching of God's word, the bible. The Word of God is the centrality of the Christian faith and not the Holy Spirit, though the Spirit will always accompany the Word. This extends to the point that manifestations of spiritual phenumenons are not proof of the working of the Holy Spirit since faith in the word of God does not necessarily translate to what we must see.

Cessationism is basically saying that the gift of apostles and prophet with accompanying gifts of revelations has ceased since there is no more need to add to scriptures.

However, my personal deviation from what I might call extreme cessationism is that though the canon of scripture is complete, apostles and prophets are no more, revelatory gifts have ceased; BUT it might please God to reach humanity with the supernatural whenever he pleases. A belief in cessationism should not shut him out, rather their should be liberty for such expression of the Spirit, though with God's people judging it according to scriptures. Now, no matter how accurate the revelation or real the miracle, these are simply expressions of God's goodness through fallible men. They are not additions to scriptures and they are not the apostolic gifts, which were perfect, consistent and verifiable.

My cessationism says God has ceased to work as he worked through the apostles but a sovereign God has perfect liberty to do whatever he pleases in his church and in his world, and may God grant we recognize his works in the midst of a perverse generation.

Winsomex,
This guy's basic point is Calvin was a cessassionist and he'd do treatises on charismatic Calvinists the same way he did one on the Libertines as he'd regard them as perverting the truth.

Is it possible to get us Calvin's commentary on the cessationism 'proof texts' such as 1 Corinthians 13:8-12? Am interested in seeing if John Calvin believed that Paul was talking about the NT Canon here.

Thanks bro

mbaemeka,
Please sheath your sword,claws and fangs and let's chat. I need your thoughts. No fight, just exchanging opinions.

I saw Hagin struggle to distinguish between prophesying and 'office of the prophet'
Is there a difference between these? I thought a teacher is somebody who teaches, a prophet one who prophesies and so forth.

Btw, you need to pray hard, this 147 years KJV may be yours

Let me try.
1. You agree that 'everlasting' can be qualified,and the Levitical Priesthood and Atonement proves that.
2. You reject any suggestion of the 'everlasting' in Abrahamic covenant being qualified.

To support your position on 1 & 2, you have to step outside the verses mentioning 'everlasting'. You only need to look to Hebrews to dismiss the argument that Levitical Priesthood and Atonement are permanent.

What I ask is, is it in order to test the permanence of Abrahamic covenant by looking at other scriptures? This is not too much to ask. But before we do that, we may want to ask ourselves exactly what the contents of the covenant are,whether they were recorded as permanent/everlasting, whether this is the case, and whether we can explain the absence, if at all,of some components of the covenant as result of the covenant ceasing.

mbaemeka:
I understand you perfectly but you do not seem to understand me as well. In this verse you quoted again God said the duty of Aaron and other Levitical priests after him to offer sacrifices for the sins of the whole of Israel will be everlasting ACCORDING TO THEIR GENERATION (S) {OF THE LAW OF MOSES}. In other words, it was everlasting as long as the LAW WAS INTACT- because the law created such statute(s). This is totally different from the covenant God had with Abraham because God said the covenant was everlasting according to himself. In other words, God swore by himself to himself (as there was no law binding him to neither was there a higher authority than him) that as long as he exists the covenant with Abraham concerning Christ and his church will be everlasting Hebrews 6:13. So there was nothing that could annul it. Absolutely nothing.

Not the law that came 430 years after the promise nor the NT because the Abrahamic covenant gave birth to the NT.

Hope you understand.

This is the pedestrian m0ronic garbage spewed by Islam apologists

Was Paul circumcised?
Phil 3:5 (KJV) Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

TheRealMrStan:
4. Jesus himself was circumcised (Luke 2:21); but Paul says if we are circumcised we would be estranged from Christ (Galatians 5:2-4).


Read more: http://www.femiaribisala.com/12-articles-of-faith/paul/202-101-discrepancies-between-jesus-and-paul

I believe the point in this is the word everlasting can be qualified. We are not advocating for an eternal Levitical priesthood, just saying the word everlasting may be qualified

Here is another usage of the word.
Leviticus 16:34 (KJV)
And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the Lord commanded Moses.

If this is the case, the covenant with Abraham though reckoned as everlasting,it is quite possible that it is no longer in place and we should not merely resort to the usage of the word 'everlasting' there to defend the permanence of the covenant anymore than we can for Levitical Priesthood and Atonement

Sorry trustman and mbaemeka if I missed the context

mbaemeka:
Trustman
2. What you quoted from Leviticus said Levites would forever be priests through out their generations. I said 2 things in response:

a) This was according to the law, and the law has been abolished. That is why we know it is no longer binding.

b) God already knew the law will not be everlasting but that verse may confuse you until you read Hebrews amd what I have been saying. God was only saying that verse for e.g, that ONLY the Levites will forever be the priests in THIER GENERATIONS. What Generation? The Generation or Era of the Law. That's what Paul explaines in Hebrews 7.

My broda,
I know that James had no business sending unsaved Jews to Peter. What I meant was, Peter just saw them and panicked and as such he was the ONLY person at fault not the messengers.
It is difficult to fathom James sending Peter some mean staunch circumcision guys right after Acts 15 Council. Peter feared the guys from James would report back in Jerusalem and word would reach the bad guys. He is the only guy who withdrew. This is why the rebuke was directed at him.

Who is Mr. Sura?

mbaemeka:
Galatians 2:12 KJV

For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.



the certain that came from James were "of the circumcision". If you read the preceding verses you would have seen how Paul said while he ministered to Gentile Christians, Peter on the other hand ministered to Jewish Christians. It follows logically that "of the circumcision" referred to NO ONE ELSE but Jewish Christians.

If you would not see it, then let it rest.

BTW, you are bullying Mr. Sura o. . .

You are wise, no need expositing your ignorance.


Shalom

mbaemeka:
CAVEAT: I am responsible for what I say, not how you choose to interpret it.

Now (armed with this), go back and read the verses he posted and what I said in relation to them. All that rubbish talk about generations will be nullified when you do.

Thanks.

Did they intimidate Peter to stay away from Gentiles?

mbaemeka:
This makes zero sense and there's no quibbling over all the debatable points you are making. In the book of Galatians, Paul talked about men from James and referred to them copiously as pro-circumcision. If you can not see it, I cannot help you or your bovarism.

The same way Holy Spirit convicted you of your sins is the same way He moves men to support His work. Men and institutions which resort to Moses to exact money from their members are numb to the Spirit. They are infected with Pharisee-ism. They need external compulsion, they need incentives such as open heaven to give, they must be scared with hellfire and Devourer to give

Image123:
If you believe both, that is excellent and that is my exact point. Judgment, mercy, and faith are WEIGHTIER "matters of the law", Christians are not bound by the law. This doesn't stop us as Christians from exercising or practicing weightier matters of the law like mercy and faith. It in the same way/vein/sense doesn't stop the tithe. You are not damned for not tithing, Christ's Grace is sufficient for me. i have ALWAYS believed tithe is a "less important or lighter" "MATTER OF THE LAW" than judgment, mercy and faith. you can confirm from others. The work of God will move forward and must move forward. It is however my understanding and experience that money is important in this life. Jesus talked about money and used money. Believers need money, do you need money? Jesus was a very spiritual man, you know. i understand that we should set our priorities and love and passion right, but it is foolhardy to imply that money is irrelevant. Ready men need ready money to go if they are going to go far. The Master hath need of your cash, make no mistakes. Sorry if that sounds brash, but that is the simple truth. It is not first, it is not priority, it is not even compulsory. i think it is necessary, in this life at least.

You sure have a proclivity to insensitivity. How many times have you used the blind metaphor on this thread? You are getting back at MarkMiwerds aint you?

A Christian is not at liberty to obey God's commands, they are BOUND. That's why you call Jesus LORD. That's why Paul called himself Bond Servant

Abraham gave yet nobody required of it. Pharisees gave because Moses commanded it. You sure can purpose to tithe, circumcise, offer animal offerings and anything else your imagination fancies. Holy Spirit calls those burdens. What you can't purpose to do is to OBEY a command. Because you are already bound to obey.

Next question?

Image123:
You said that prayer is a command. i know well that i am at liberty to obey that 'command'. Is that a contradiction? Correct it if i am wrong; i can pick the amount of time i want to pray, i can pick the time and the place to do it. i can pray without anyone asking me to. i can pray conditionally. Like, IF i wake up tomorrow i pray, IF i run into trouble unexpectedly i pray. What is not right here, the liberty, the command, or the assertion that it is a contradiction?
Abraham and the pharisee GAVE tithes, they externally determined the fraction.
Gen 14:20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he GAVE him tithes of all.
Luk 18:12 I fast twice in the week, I GIVE tithes of all that I possess.

i purpose in my heart to give tithes, even Daniel purposed in his heart so purpose is not a new thing. The Spirit of Christ guides me to give the tithe. i quoted a passage from Luke 11, you can go and and check that. you are yet to show me/us where this passage was debunked(whatever that means) in my eyes, or show where the passage said to do ALL the law. Selah on the passage you quoted, i'm not going to walk you like a blind man.

Just drop bloviating garbage and we will be cool. How do you call Agabus OT prophet?

shdemidemi:
dopey arguments irritate me bro..I need more patience.

Thank you my brother,
Am poring through the commentaries. Please allow me to respond as soon as am done.

BabaGnoni:
vooks, as I've read you in the past saying "...I need to look it up..." or something in that line or to that effect, I thought, you, like the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, would receive the below URL link with great eagerness and examine the contents & especially the commentaries (i.e. do justice to them)
- the answer(s) to your query(ies) is/are in it
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/13-12.htm

Have you at all managed to go over the link yet vooks?

PS: What caught my eyes in it all, partly are the areas about "glass(es)" - the clear and the dark glass(es) and then "the doctrines of grace and truth" etcetera

Typical of overheating puny brains.

shdemidemi:
vooks, just shut your trap and keep your folly beliefs.^^^

I have got nothing more to say to you on this matter.

Stop skirting around your ignorance. Look at the highlighted in blue.
If maturity means God's word documented in a book, then ANYTHING BEFORE that is immaturity. At the point of writing Corinthians, they only had OT. And it follows that maturity was attained as soon as the entire NT was penned.

Next, we are full grown because we have the 'complete word'. This means BEFORE the 'complete word' we are not full grown. Again, the complete word is NT and OT. this means we grew up the moment NT was completed.

So perfect coming to you means New Testament writing. Why are you ashamed of your beliefs?

Please note that in the NT, we have two clear cases of prophets, Agabus and Philip's daughters. We don't know what the daughters said. We have Agabus in action. You have no grounds for claiming that Agabus was ANY DIFFERENT from other NT prophets because you don't have any NT prophet's message to compare it with Agabus'

Prophets don't necessarily carry something hid from the rest. Please study Agabus (Acts 21) He told Paul EXACTLY what others and Holy Spirit had told him

shdemidemi:
Maturity or growth does not mean we will all come to agree the same thing. Maturity of the faith means we have God's mind documented in a book for our collective edification.

The church had no bible like we have it today. There was nothing like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John at the time, people who were gifted at the time speak/prophesy to the church in line with what the Apostle had taught them. Today we have a complete guide, a sure word of prophecy collated and canonized from the works of those who God used as the foundation of christianity.

We are fully grown as a body today because we have the complete Word. Our growth has nothing to do with our individual or sectional volition to follow or not to follow the infallible Word.

shdemidemi:
Please talk for yourself and leave what everyone think out, you don't know what they think so don't assume. Moreover, the question you should have asked for clarity before inferring is what you are asking now.

Paul never sat the church down to teach them about the Torah, he never taught them about what Jesus did during his ministry because he was not there at the time. He birthed the church on the news of the death, burial and ascension(1 cor 15:1-4) of Christ. Even what he taught at the time was not officially documented so he needed faithful men to carry on the cause to avoid extinction.

2 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.

2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, [size=20pt]the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others [/size]also.

Paul hinted on the importance of the Old Testament and this include the four gospels for a broader understanding of God and how it all started.
Romans 15
4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

So when I say 'perfect' refers to the complete revelation of God's will and ways, it isn't just the epistles, it is the entire bible because they intricately add and compliment the main and primary message to the church.





I am not saying they all have to say 'thus says the Lord', c'mon vooks. what I meant was that they had a subjective message from God which is hid to the rest. A prophet is a carrier of a message that is secretly revealed to him by God.

You are free to marry any definition of prophet or prophecy that you fancy. I am resisting meaningless arguments about words so as not to derail the thread. Any definition you take, I can work with it. Ok?

Now, I hope you understand that Greek language like English was not static and the Septuagint Greek is not necessarily NT Greek. Just saying.

You said perfect refers to complete revelation of God in 'completed' scripture. At the point of writing Corinthians, we never had NT. so it is obvious to everyone reading that that you are talking about NT. if you were not, please clarify what you meant by that statement and I will duly apologize

Please stop reading your fantasies into the text. Did John the Baptist ever say 'thus saith the Lord'? What about Nahum? Who said 'thus saith the Lord' is the mark of OT prophets?

shdemidemi:
Every word used in scripture has a meaning if you trace the word back to the original language the people spoke.

Timothy spoke God's word but he was never a prophet. Silas wasn't either and no one in the church was. Its meaning in the septugian is slightly different from the greek meaning. I advise you look it up.



Where in that statement did you find 'Perfect' is New Testament?



What he did was unique after pentecost and it marked the end of 'thus says the Lord' within the church.

You have as much liberty to pray or not to as you have to fornicate
Yes, Abraham could have ignored tithing to Melchizedek.

What's your point? Next question please?

Image123:
Okay, you said that "There is nothing like liberty to obey a command. That's a contradiction. You are under no liberty to ignore commands" Do i have a liberty to pray or not? could Abraham have ignored tithing?

1. We don't have a definition of a prophet in the scriptures, but we do have people who are positively identified as prophets. They all have one thing in common; they act as God's messengers, speaking His Word

2.
Perfect in the context used here refer to the complete revelation of God's mind, will and ways in the completed scripture .

Now, could you please explain at how you arrived at NT prophets being different from OT prophets and how Agubus is an OT prophet, 'among the last'?

shdemidemi:
^^^

1)Bro, Who is a prophet?


2)I will like to see where I said 'perfect' is new testament.

Knowledge and prophecy are somewhat incomplete but at some point t, they will cease. Point t is identified by Completeness coming.

BabaGnoni:
OK, then please explain 1 Corinthians 13:9-10

⁹For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
¹⁰but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.

Have you gone through the link earlier provided yet?

Spurious means a line of reasoning that is apparently but not valid.
I think a major rule of this thread should be participants should cease and desist from making claims that are they can't substantiate.

In my short stint at NL, here is what I have observed; there are factions here and an unwritten rule is to NEVER attack anybody on your side of an argument. Pretty defeatist seeing there are enough targets on the other side. Not even 'friendly fire'.

shdemidemi:
I think 'spurious' is as well but all in all, I apologise (vooks) if you think I sounded harsh- not intended really. What I was trying to say to him was I also want to hear from him rather than have to be constantly queried by him.

I don't have to but I just did. Please respond to them. You are making some of the most careless and unscriptural statements here and am shocked nobody is bothered. Is this meant to be another Cessationists echo chamber?

1. There is NO distinction between NT and OT prophets
2. It takes copious amounts of fertile imagination to make the 'perfect' New Testament, and one has to look outside scriptures to even attempt propping that

shdemidemi:
You don't have to ask me questions, simply tell us what you think the right thing is so we can compare with scriptural guide. It is much easier to criticise, if you must criticise make a presentation as well so we know where you stand.

Where do you get this spurious distinction between NT prophets and OT prophets? Scriptures please
Why would you force a disciple at least twenty years AFTER Pentecost to be an OT prophet?

shdemidemi:
God gave these gifts not because he needs the people empowered to be chasing after the devil or private jet. He gave the gifts for the sole purpose of edifying and establishing a mystical body of Christ- the church.

Apostles were mainly those who were appointed by God with a mission statement from Him. Paul understood the office and the church understood Paul's authority as an Apostle. We don't have Apostles today, the title can be used loosely but the twelve disciples and Paul were the main Apostles God used to pen down scriptures.

Prophets in the old is quite different from that of the new. Prophets in the new don't hear directly from God (Agabus' case was that of the old testament prophet and it marked the end of God speaking directly to any one within the church), they interpret and teach what they hear from the Apostle. Now that the bible is here, it reains the sinle and infallible word of prophecy the church need.

The two gifts relevant today are evangelists and pastor/teacher.