Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by James McGrail
Originally posted by non dignus
Yes, absolutely, in my opinion.
They are messing with the canon. Even though they don't admit it. If they are getting revelation from God they must write it down and share it with the church.
And I'll bet my bottom dollar there is more bad doctrine than just the charismata. Are they baptist by any chance? Gosh....ya think? (no offense)
True doctrine and godliness hates invention.
My question would be how far are they taking it? If it's tongues and healing, that's one thing. But you're right if it's 'word of knowledge', that's quite another. In fact the tongues and faith healing would make me feel very uncomfortable!
Originally posted by JohnV
When I was younger and more cockey I once responded to a charismatic with my own spiritual gift. He was extoling those gifts that he thought that we thought were dead, such as tongues, healings, and special revelations and predictions. I told him I had the gift of discernment, and that I discerned error here. He left me alone after that. I don't know why.
Originally posted by James McGrail
I have run across a group in the last couple of years (I can't remember the name), that teaches clear calvinistic doctrine, and charismatic theology.
My question: Are charismania and calvinism mutually exclusive?
There be some who have daily some new command from God, to make known unto their brethren and strangers. Some are rapt into an extasie, and have their visage and countenance changed, lying upon the ground certain hours. Some Tremble and Quake for two or three hours together; after that, when they are come unto themselves, they prophecie and speak strange things, as if they had been in another world, or as if they had fallen from out of heaven: and they account to have that in common with the Apostle, when he was taken up into the third heaven.
...As for that which they tax the Ministers, to be Ministers of the dead letter, one may plainly see the Lords taking vengeance upon the outrage offered unto his holy Word; smiting them with the spirit of giddiness, for having despised the true and only means of coming unto God, which is the Scripture and the Word of God. In the passage of the Corinthians where Paul saith, The letter killeth, and the Spirit quickeneth; let any closely consider, against whom the Apostle disputeth, and they will understand his drift. It is very evident that Paul in this place, had to do with false Apostles, who preached and extolled the Law without Christ, and caused the people to recoil from Salvation purchased by Christ, and the grace of the new Covenant, whereunto the Lord had promised to write his Law in the heart of the faithful: the Law then being separated from Christ, as a body without a soul; and nothing cometh from it but death, to those that are under it: it doth nothing but beat and strike the ears, without any quickening the soul, until by faith we are sent from it unto Christ, as from the Usher unto the Master; and then the Law will be found such as David sings it, The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is faithful, making Wise the simple: the commandments of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart, & c. Thus must we understand how it is said, The Letter killeth: Paul called the Law, The killing Letter, and saith, The Spirit quickeneth, i.e., The Ministry of the Gospel, which he opposeth unto the naked Law; and he himself calleth his preaching The Ministry of the Spirit.
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
I'm glad folks are re-discovering the doctrine of predestination. Let's pray they rediscover the rest of our soteriology, our Christology and our covenant theology (including the notion of canon and revelation!) etc.
rsc
Originally posted by James McGrail
I have run across a group in the last couple of years (I can't remember the name), that teaches clear calvinistic doctrine, and charismatic theology.
My question: Are charismania and calvinism mutually exclusive?
Originally posted by non dignus
And I'll bet my bottom dollar there is more bad doctrine than just the charismata. Are they baptist by any chance? Gosh....ya think? (no offense)
Originally posted by SmokingFlax
Dr. Clark.
Could you please identify the author of your earlier quote.
Thanks.
[Edited on 1-8-2006 by SmokingFlax]
1 Cor 14:40 But all things should be done decently and in order.
Heb 12:28 Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Being Charismatic and Reformed isn't the big issue... is Charismatic phenomenon compatible with God's Word and true, orthodox, Christianity?
1 Cor 14:40 But all things should be done decently and in order.
Heb 12:28 Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe
If its healing, that's great!!
They can go into the cancer wards and do alot of good. Seriously.
Originally posted by non dignus
Yes, absolutely, in my opinion.
They are messing with the canon. Even though they don't admit it. If they are getting revelation from God they must write it down and share it with the church.
And I'll bet my bottom dollar there is more bad doctrine than just the charismata. Are they baptist by any chance? Gosh....ya think? (no offense)
True doctrine and godliness hates invention.
Originally posted by Joseph Ringling
Originally posted by non dignus
Yes, absolutely, in my opinion.
They are messing with the canon. Even though they don't admit it. If they are getting revelation from God they must write it down and share it with the church.
And I'll bet my bottom dollar there is more bad doctrine than just the charismata. Are they baptist by any chance? Gosh....ya think? (no offense)
True doctrine and godliness hates invention.
So because they are charismatic they just naturally have to be baptist right? So would it be fair of me to say that if someone believes they have to work for their salvation that they must be paedo? Or can both be human and capable of error?
Originally posted by non dignus
They are messing with the canon. Even though they don't admit it. If they are getting revelation from God they must write it down and share it with the church.
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by non dignus
They are messing with the canon. Even though they don't admit it. If they are getting revelation from God they must write it down and share it with the church.
I'm not Pentecostal. But I also don't agree with this logic used to rebut them.
After all, does Scripture record every revelation God has ever given to men? Does the Bible contain every word God has ever spoken to men? Certainly not! The Bible contains all we need to know for salvation, and the proper worship of God. But it doesn't contain everything He's ever said/revealed to men. Thus the argument above is not valid. Therefore, we should question charistmatics on other grounds.
Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
In these last days, God has already spoken through Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2). So during these last days, we are to expect no more words from God or else the canon can be reopened.
Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
In these last days, God has already spoken through Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2). So during these last days, we are to expect no more words from God or else the canon can be reopened.
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
In these last days, God has already spoken through Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2). So during these last days, we are to expect no more words from God or else the canon can be reopened.
I am well aware of charismatic abuses.
But I'm just curious how you define "these last days" in Hebrews 1:1-2?
Did "these last days" begin with the ministry of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, or what?
Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
I am well aware of charismatic abuses.
But I'm just curious how you define "these last days" in Hebrews 1:1-2?
Did "these last days" begin with the ministry of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, or what?
The last days began with Emmanuel. He spoke in person and through the pillars of the Church, the Apostles. After the ascension and with the end of the apostolic age, God ceased speaking until the Second Advent or the end of the last days.
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
I am well aware of charismatic abuses.
But I'm just curious how you define "these last days" in Hebrews 1:1-2?
Did "these last days" begin with the ministry of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, or what?
The last days began with Emmanuel. He spoke in person and through the pillars of the Church, the Apostles. After the ascension and with the end of the apostolic age, God ceased speaking until the Second Advent or the end of the last days.
How can you back this up, using Hebrews 1? So far, your argument seems to go like this:
1) According to Hebrews 1, in these "last days", God has spoken to us through his Son, instead of through prophecies, signs, etc.
2) Yet, at the same time, you are saying that God spoke to us through the signs, prophecies, etc. of the first century. And He didn't only do this through Christ personally, but also through the Apostles, and also through a number of other people (e.g. Agabus).
But #1 looks to me like it is contradictory to #2. Either the argument is "God spoke to us through Jesus instead of through charismata", or "God spoke to us through Jesus through charismata". Which is it? A person needs to pick one argument or the other . . . not both.
Furthermore, where does Scripture make a clear distinction between the church prior to the death of the last apostle, and the church after the death of the last apostle? Are you saying that, throughout the nations, there may have been people prophecying like Agabus, right up until the apostle John died? But then immediately after his death, all prophecy ceased? I am open to this idea, but I have no idea where Scripture says such a thing. Hebrews 1 certainly doesn't answer this question . . . it talks about God's revelation through His Son, not through other people. But if you argue that Christ could reveal Himself through Agabus (which I would agree), then why couldn't Christ reveal himself through the grandson of Agabus, sometime in the 2nd century?
I hope you don't mind all my questions. I am genuinely wanting to learn. I just do not think Hebrews 1 gives a convincing case for cessationism, at least not the way I have heard it presented.
Are there any other texts that make you think cessation occurred at the time the Apostle John died? Or is Hebrews 1:1-4 the only text you are relying on for this doctrine?
I look forward to hearing more about this. Thank you for your patience with my questions.
[Edited on 1-11-2006 by biblelighthouse]
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son"¦.
We must ask by what standard or rule did the New Testament Church test these prophecies? Was it by the Apostles doctrine along with scripture? If not, what else? Jesus´s words? Well, who knew Jesus´ words and was supernaturally granted remembrance by the Holy Spirit? You, me, the Pope, Benny Hinn? I don´t recall any of us being eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ. Do you see how this relates to Hebrews 1?Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.
Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
Regarding your second point: I cannot dogmatically assert that it all ended with the Apostle John´s last breath. It appears that at the early stages of the New Testament Church, the Apostles were acting under Christ´s Authority to do many miracles, speaking while filled with the Spirit, raising the dead, healing the sick, receiving specific revelations, etc. However, after some time it appears the signs were not as active even while they were still living. Paul was distressed with a personal thorn that God would not take away. He went from raising the dead to recommending wine for Timothy´s stomach illness. Perhaps the Apostolic sign era ended around 70 AD with the "œcoming of the Son of man?" I don´t know. Others more versed in eschatology can add light to that discussion. But it appeared that the "œwind" blew harder at the beginning than the end even among the Apostles.
God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds (Hebrews 1:1-2)
And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams. And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy. (Acts 2:17-18; cf. Joel 2:28-29)
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
I am well aware of charismatic abuses.
But I'm just curious how you define "these last days" in Hebrews 1:1-2?
Did "these last days" begin with the ministry of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, or what?
The last days began with Emmanuel. He spoke in person and through the pillars of the Church, the Apostles. After the ascension and with the end of the apostolic age, God ceased speaking until the Second Advent or the end of the last days.
How can you back this up, using Hebrews 1? So far, your argument seems to go like this:
1) According to Hebrews 1, in these "last days", God has spoken to us through his Son, instead of through prophecies, signs, etc.
2) Yet, at the same time, you are saying that God spoke to us through the signs, prophecies, etc. of the first century. And He didn't only do this through Christ personally, but also through the Apostles, and also through a number of other people (e.g. Agabus).
But #1 looks to me like it is contradictory to #2. Either the argument is "God spoke to us through Jesus instead of through charismata", or "God spoke to us through Jesus through charismata". Which is it? A person needs to pick one argument or the other . . . not both.
Furthermore, where does Scripture make a clear distinction between the church prior to the death of the last apostle, and the church after the death of the last apostle? Are you saying that, throughout the nations, there may have been people prophecying like Agabus, right up until the apostle John died? But then immediately after his death, all prophecy ceased? I am open to this idea, but I have no idea where Scripture says such a thing. Hebrews 1 certainly doesn't answer this question . . . it talks about God's revelation through His Son, not through other people. But if you argue that Christ could reveal Himself through Agabus (which I would agree), then why couldn't Christ reveal himself through the grandson of Agabus, sometime in the 2nd century?
I hope you don't mind all my questions. I am genuinely wanting to learn. I just do not think Hebrews 1 gives a convincing case for cessationism, at least not the way I have heard it presented.
Are there any other texts that make you think cessation occurred at the time the Apostle John died? Or is Hebrews 1:1-4 the only text you are relying on for this doctrine?
I look forward to hearing more about this. Thank you for your patience with my questions.
[Edited on 1-11-2006 by biblelighthouse]