# The spirit teaches



## Vectorman

I had the pleasure this week of reconnecting with an old friend whom I hadn’t seen in a few years. Bill was the pastor of my mother’s church and I got to know him when I accompanied mom on a short-term mission trip into Central America. I could tell right away that Bill and I shared a passion for evangelism, along with hunting and fishing. But Bill's real gift was ministering to men. He even wrote a yearlong bible study that helps give you a solid foundation and teaches you how to study the bible. I along with a few guys in my church took the study.

That was 8 years ago, but I’m glad to report that our men’s bible study group is still meeting today.  After our year long study was complete, Bill was called to another church in a different state and left us freshly trained bible thumpers to fend for ourselves with nothing but the Word, the Spirit and each other to guide us along as we dug through the book. It turns out that we had everything we needed. Bill did a great job at giving us the tools to learn about the bible but he was a mainline denominational pastor who followed the party’s teaching fairly closely. I would say he leaned in the direction of reformed lordship salvation. 

When our group of men really started digging into the Bible with our newfound study skills, the book took us in a completely different direction. The more we learned about what the Bible really says, the more we realized that our church and denomination were teaching things that were just not true…. some things were not even close. I came to realize that just because it came from the pulpit didn’t mean it was biblical. Everything taught by pastors, Sunday school teachers, TV preachers, etc., was suspect until you checked it out for yourself from the book. 

I was shocked at how many things I had to unlearn, things I had believed all my life, things that I had been taught by my church and things that I had been teaching too. We even had an occasional church staff guy join us at our study once or twice, most of them ran away to never come back. One said as he left, “I believe what you are saying is true but you are going to get me fired if I start preaching that stuff”. 

I believe that God put Bill in our group to help us to reach a point but He knew we needed to separate and go it alone after that. The funny thing about this is when Bill and I started comparing notes this week, I found that over the past few years, he had reached many of the same conclusions that we had about biblical topics. He had to unlearn many things just as we did. 

You see, it’s the Spirit’s job to teach, and He teaches the same truth regardless of what state you are in or how many miles you are away from each other. Our job is to be teachable. Martin Luther said the Christian life is a life of repentance. What he was saying is that you must allow the Word and the Spirit to change your mind about what you believe to be biblical truth. The problem today is that most people, especially church ministers and teachers think they know the bible so well that they can’t be taught anything. They are unteachable. I’ll leave you with a bible verse.

Proverbs 26:12(NIV)
Do you see a person wise in their own eyes?
    There is more hope for a fool than for them.


----------



## hobbs27

It is the saddest reality of modern organized religion.  You are to be kept in line. Limited in knowledge,  and never question certain things.


----------



## gordon 2

Vectorman said:


> I had the pleasure this week of reconnecting with an old friend whom I hadn’t seen in a few years. Bill was the pastor of my mother’s church and I got to know him when I accompanied mom on a short-term mission trip into Central America. I could tell right away that Bill and I shared a passion for evangelism, along with hunting and fishing. But Bill's real gift was ministering to men. He even wrote a yearlong bible study that helps give you a solid foundation and teaches you how to study the bible. I along with a few guys in my church took the study.
> 
> That was 8 years ago, but I’m glad to report that our men’s bible study group is still meeting today.  After our year long study was complete, Bill was called to another church in a different state and left us freshly trained bible thumpers to fend for ourselves with nothing but the Word, the Spirit and each other to guide us along as we dug through the book. It turns out that we had everything we needed. Bill did a great job at giving us the tools to learn about the bible but he was a mainline denominational pastor who followed the party’s teaching fairly closely. I would say he leaned in the direction of reformed lordship salvation.
> 
> When our group of men really started digging into the Bible with our newfound study skills, the book took us in a completely different direction. The more we learned about what the Bible really says, the more we realized that our church and denomination were teaching things that were just not true…. some things were not even close. I came to realize that just because it came from the pulpit didn’t mean it was biblical. Everything taught by pastors, Sunday school teachers, TV preachers, etc., was suspect until you checked it out for yourself from the book.
> 
> I was shocked at how many things I had to unlearn, things I had believed all my life, things that I had been taught by my church and things that I had been teaching too. We even had an occasional church staff guy join us at our study once or twice, most of them ran away to never come back. One said as he left, “I believe what you are saying is true but you are going to get me fired if I start preaching that stuff”.
> 
> I believe that God put Bill in our group to help us to reach a point but He knew we needed to separate and go it alone after that. The funny thing about this is when Bill and I started comparing notes this week, I found that over the past few years, he had reached many of the same conclusions that we had about biblical topics. He had to unlearn many things just as we did.
> 
> You see, it’s the Spirit’s job to teach, and He teaches the same truth regardless of what state you are in or how many miles you are away from each other. Our job is to be teachable. Martin Luther said the Christian life is a life of repentance. What he was saying is that you must allow the Word and the Spirit to change your mind about what you believe to be biblical truth. The problem today is that most people, especially church ministers and teachers think they know the bible so well that they can’t be taught anything. They are unteachable. I’ll leave you with a bible verse.
> 
> Proverbs 26:12(NIV)
> Do you see a person wise in their own eyes?
> There is more hope for a fool than for them.




We live in a world of false news and false church? Spinning the wheel of fortune today is peppered with Spin Again blocks?

Quote: The problem today is that most people, especially church ministers and teachers think they know the bible so well that they can’t be taught anything. They are unteachable. 

This is a somewhat of a blanket statement. But I'm not sure it means what is means. It might have been meant to mean something else than it means? Maybe?

 I don't know how this could be fact checked?>>>> Does thinking that you know the bible well make one unteachable?

And this is kind of an interesting statement. 


Quote : Martin Luther said the Christian life is a life of repentance. 

 Interesting in that I have to wonder when the priest said this? Was it before or after he married the nun? Context?

 In any case, I'm impressed by the speed of your learning. I have to wonder  that at the rate of your conclusions on church things and teaching that if in 8 more yrs you're still  teachable?

Could you be a bit more specific about a couple of things that you have come to unlearn?


----------



## Vectorman

"most people" is a blanket statement and I should have narrowed that group. 

Some of the things that I had been taught and needed to unlearn were things like repentance for salvation, the sinners prayer, tithing, baptism, signs of spiritual maturity, and many others. You see there was a time in my life when I thought of myself as a mature christian but after a true study of the Bible I realized that I was not, because most things that I believed to be biblical truth were not learned from the book, it was things taught to me by pastors and sunday school teachers. This bible study which continues today has revealed that many of my (previous) denominations positions were just biblically incorrect.


----------



## gordon 2

Vectorman said:


> "most people" is a blanket statement and I should have narrowed that group.
> 
> Some of the things that I had been taught and needed to unlearn were things like repentance for salvation, the sinners prayer, tithing, baptism, signs of spiritual maturity, and many others. You see there was a time in my life when I thought of myself as a mature christian but after a true study of the Bible I realized that I was not, because most things that I believed to be biblical truth were not learned from the book, it was things taught to me by pastors and sunday school teachers. This bible study which continues today has revealed that many of my (previous) denominations positions were just biblically incorrect.



So what makes your study such a "true study" compared to another's study? Is it not the case that most think their study is the true one?

If I wanted an equally "true study" of scripture as you seem to have found how would I go about this?

What is the most import true position for you that the spirit which teaches has thought you?

By the way I can see that bible study can show that one's understanding of denominational positions are incorrect; that is a previously held understanding of the position. Is this not the case with our understanding of many and varied christian positions? We assume we understand some positions when we don't. In some cases it is not the positions that are at fault, but our individual understandings or misunderstanding. And these misunderstandings can be, yes, spurred along by our elders...


----------



## centerpin fan

gordon 2 said:


> So what makes your study such a "true study" compared to another's study? Is it not the case that most think their study is the true one?


----------



## Vectorman

It's very simple, we studied the book, not someone's interpretation off the book. It's like fishing, give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. (or he will be broke for the rest of his life because of buying fishing gear!) 

I think that many people today want a church pastor or elder to feed them on sunday morning, to tell them what to believe, it's very comfortable being spoon fed. To have every story in the Bible turned into some morality lesson that may or may not have anything to do with the context of what's going on. 

Instead elders should be training people how to study the Bible for themselves and let them dig out the truth that's in it. To figure out who's talking, to whom are they talking to and what they are talking about. To helping them understand that "context is king" when studying the Bible. To show them that if I'm reading about discipleship and think it's talking about salvation how it will cause confusion in my understanding of the word. To help them understand that the promises to Israel are not promises to the church. To help them see that Paul's gospel of grace is not the same as John's gospel of the kingdom. etc etc.

The point of my initial post was not a statement that I have figured out biblical truth and everybody else is wrong. The point was that I allowed, like many others, other people to do my Bible study for me. I had believed my pastors, s/s teachers, denomination's teaching instead of digging it out for myself. Many times they are right, many times they are wrong, but we ourselves are responsible for knowing truth. I can't use the excuse " but the pastor told me __________ ".

For this I don't need to defend or justify myself to you or anyone. So I'm finished doing that. Good day.

Vectorman


----------



## centerpin fan

Vectorman said:


> Some of the things that I had been taught and needed to unlearn were things like repentance for salvation, the sinners prayer, tithing, baptism, signs of spiritual maturity, and many others.



Spend ten minutes searching this forum, and you will see thread after thread where people disagree on every one of those topics.  These are people no less committed to Bible study than you.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I don't think it's the topics he is talking about more than the learning technique. While it's OK to follow your denomination and it's elders, one should learn on their own as well. 
It would benefit elders to teach their congregations to do so as well. 
Vectorman was not saying the things he has found out on his own are what you should believe but to at least form your own beliefs based on spiritual reading yourself.
To take off your denomination goggles and read the scripture as an individual guided by the Holy Spirit himself.

I think ya'll might have misread him and then him misreading ya'll. Perhaps?

I welcome a fresh voice so hopefully Vectorman will stick around.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Vectorman said:


> Some of the things that I had been taught and needed to unlearn were things like repentance for salvation, the sinners prayer, tithing, baptism, signs of spiritual maturity, and many others.



Why don't you take them one at a time and help us understand more of what you are talking about.

What did you church teach about repentance for salvation, and what have you learned from your study?

Maybe you could go down the list like that, and we could discuss it more in depth.


----------



## formula1

*Re:*

Indeed the Holy Spirit does teach but we all better be sure that we know how to listen.  Otherwise, we might be better off following the examples of our elders and leaders in the church!


----------



## Artfuldodger

To me repentance for salvation means that I couldn't quit sinning and save myself. Therefore I repented from that way of thinking and turned to God's way. God's way was that we can't quit sinning and therefore needed salvation in the form of a Messiah.
If I could have saved myself, then I wouldn't have needed Jesus to die for my sins. I would have just, quit sinning.


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> To me repentance for salvation means that I couldn't quit sinning and save myself. Therefore I repented from that way of thinking and turned to God's way. God's way was that we can't quit sinning and therefore needed salvation in the form of a Messiah.
> If I could have saved myself, then I wouldn't have needed Jesus to die for my sins. I would have just, quit sinning.



Even though you can't stop, you do still try to    ........ right?


----------



## gordon 2

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't think it's the topics he is talking about more than the learning technique. While it's OK to follow your denomination and it's elders, one should learn on there own as well.
> It would benefit elders to teach their congregations to do so as well.
> Vectorman was not saying the things he has found out on his own are what you should believe but to at least form your own beliefs based on spiritual reading yourself.
> To take off your denomination goggles and read the scripture as an individual guided by the Holy Spirit himself.
> 
> I think ya'll might have misread him and then him misreading ya'll. Perhaps?
> 
> I welcome a fresh voice so hopefully Vectorman will stick around.[/QUOTE]
> ----------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> I agree Art. Vectorman needs to witness here. And I welcome a fresh voice  as you do.
> 
> So don't run off Vectorman.  You have valid points... that Christians need to understand I hope.


----------



## Vectorman

centerpin fan said:


> Spend ten minutes searching this forum, and you will see thread after thread where people disagree on every one of those topics.  These are people no less committed to Bible study than you.



Good point, I believe that it's ok to disagree about interpretation of scripture, I also believe that if we both are  searching for truth that sooner or later we will arrive at the same position. Many, many times I have walked out of my Bible study group with a different opinion than when I walked in. We have to allow scripture to change our mind. If I walk into a Bible study group with the intention of proving to everybody else that I'm right and they're wrong on a biblical topic that I'm not only wasting my time but also everybody else's too. That's the reason that we should be meeting with others and "reasoning from the scriptures" discussing why we believe what we do. Asking them what verses they use to support their position, being willing to look at it from their direction, because they may be right!!

Vectorman


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Even though you can't stop, you do still try to    ........ right?



But of course;

Colossians 3:12
Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on hearts of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience,

Galatians 5:22-24
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

Could be like "discipleship" and salvation. Perhaps repentance from sin is the first step of discipleship. It's the fruit of salvation, not the cause.


----------



## Vectorman

Artfuldodger said:


> It's the fruit of salvation, not the cause.



Exactly!! When people tell me that you have to repent of your sins to be saved, I ask them which ones(sins). If repentance is a requirement for salvation then the answer has to be ALL of them.......... well who has done that?

I think that maybe we focus on sin too much in the new testament church. Paul said that everything is permissible for me but not everything is beneficial. If we focus on loving God and loving our neighbor and always being prepared to share the hope that we have to someone who wants to hear it. The sin issue will take care of itself.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Vectorman said:


> Exactly!! When people tell me that you have to repent of your sins to be saved, I ask them which ones(sins). If repentance is a requirement for salvation then the answer has to be ALL of them.......... well who has done that?
> 
> I think that maybe we focus on sin too much in the new testament church. Paul said that everything is permissible for me but not everything is beneficial. If we focus on loving God and loving our neighbor and always being prepared to share the hope that we have to someone who wants to hear it. The sin issue will take care of itself.



Yes, just follow the Great Commandment and the others will be included. Love will supersede discipleship. The rule book becomes less important once it's placed in our hearts.


----------



## Israel

gordon 2 said:


> Artfuldodger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's the topics he is talking about more than the learning technique. While it's OK to follow your denomination and it's elders, one should learn on there own as well.
> It would benefit elders to teach their congregations to do so as well.
> Vectorman was not saying the things he has found out on his own are what you should believe but to at least form your own beliefs based on spiritual reading yourself.
> To take off your denomination goggles and read the scripture as an individual guided by the Holy Spirit himself.
> 
> I think ya'll might have misread him and then him misreading ya'll. Perhaps?
> 
> I welcome a fresh voice so hopefully Vectorman will stick around.[/QUOTE]
> ----------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> I agree Art. Vectorman needs to witness here. And I welcome a fresh voice  as you do.
> 
> So don't run off Vectorman.  You have valid points... that Christians need to understand I hope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it's OK to follow your denomination and it's elders...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is speaking this?
Click to expand...


----------



## gordon 2

Israel said:


> gordon 2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is speaking this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah...? You tell me.  I was reading Deuteronomy at the time. I might have been stiffnecked? What did you see?
Click to expand...


----------



## centerpin fan

Vectorman said:


> When people tell me that you have to repent of your sins to be saved, I ask them which ones(sins).



That's a question no one asked Peter on the day of Pentecost.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Peter already had salvation. It took the power of the Holy Spirit to transform him.
Repentance is a change of mind that results in a change of action.
Peter is calling for people who rejected Jesus to repent from that way of thinking and their sins would be forgiven.

Acts 2:38 
 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 

We read that when one repents or changes his mind, he receives salvation. Then with the power of the Holy Spirit he bears the fruit of this repentance.

Acts 26:20 (ESV) 
but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.


----------



## Israel

gordon 2 said:


> Israel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah...? You tell me.  I was reading Deuteronomy at the time. I might have been stiffnecked? What did you see?
> 
> 
> 
> I see I erroneously misquoted, or indirectly quoted, what was Artful's original post. But to the point in the matter of following, to what denomination does the Spirit testify...if indeed there be one?
Click to expand...


----------



## gordon 2

Israel said:


> gordon 2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see I erroneously misquoted, or indirectly quoted, what was Artful's original post. But to the point in the matter of following, to what denomination does the Spirit testify...if indeed there be one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea. Get it. However... the Spirit testifies to many in various denominations...
> 
> I think what Art meant, a I might have intended in our communications is simply that it is a good idea not to go it alone, not even in a bible study alone, without the oversight of the church (elders, ministers et al.) For the simple reason(s) that they might help you to avoid reinventing the wheel, finding a new wheel and thinking it is the best wheel since the last French cycle rally,  or even that a wheel is not needed at all.  Simply elders might just share that they " bin there done that and those wheels fell off"  and other smart from experience and knowledge points...etc... To be able to do this, that is differ to elders, one must take a position that the Holy Spirit ministers to them maybe not the same way he does with "me" ... but some of them are saddled to their gifts and they are worth asking guidance...
Click to expand...


----------



## Vectorman

With our group, as long as we were under the "umbrella" of the church, we didn't really have the freedom to question the denominational church's teaching or position on topics and we certainly didn't have the freedom to disagree with what was coming from the pulpit. Therefore, it was necessary for us to separate our bible study from the authority of the local church. Almost everyone in this bible study is a Sunday School or youth teacher so we don't have an issue with lack of experience leading down a bad road. I would not recommend doing this for a group of immature new believers without some guidance because you are correct, it might not work out so well.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

gee, no repentance to be saved?  I read everywhere there must be repentance to be saved.  and to say that Peter was only speaking of repentance for rejecting Jesus doesn't sound right.  No where did he limit the repentance to that one topic. 

To repent means to stop, turn around and go a different direction.  To make a decision to change behaviors.  Are you saying that one can continue to manifest the same wicked behaviors of his past and be a follower of Christ?  Surely not.


----------



## centerpin fan

Vectorman said:


> Almost everyone in this bible study is a Sunday School or youth teacher ...



Do they also believe repentance is not necessary for salvation?


----------



## M80

Vectorman said:


> I had the pleasure this week of reconnecting with an old friend whom I hadn’t seen in a few years. Bill was the pastor of my mother’s church and I got to know him when I accompanied mom on a short-term mission trip into Central America. I could tell right away that Bill and I shared a passion for evangelism, along with hunting and fishing. But Bill's real gift was ministering to men. He even wrote a yearlong bible study that helps give you a solid foundation and teaches you how to study the bible. I along with a few guys in my church took the study.
> 
> That was 8 years ago, but I’m glad to report that our men’s bible study group is still meeting today.  After our year long study was complete, Bill was called to another church in a different state and left us freshly trained bible thumpers to fend for ourselves with nothing but the Word, the Spirit and each other to guide us along as we dug through the book. It turns out that we had everything we needed. Bill did a great job at giving us the tools to learn about the bible but he was a mainline denominational pastor who followed the party’s teaching fairly closely. I would say he leaned in the direction of reformed lordship salvation.
> 
> When our group of men really started digging into the Bible with our newfound study skills, the book took us in a completely different direction. The more we learned about what the Bible really says, the more we realized that our church and denomination were teaching things that were just not true…. some things were not even close. I came to realize that just because it came from the pulpit didn’t mean it was biblical. Everything taught by pastors, Sunday school teachers, TV preachers, etc., was suspect until you checked it out for yourself from the book.
> 
> I was shocked at how many things I had to unlearn, things I had believed all my life, things that I had been taught by my church and things that I had been teaching too. We even had an occasional church staff guy join us at our study once or twice, most of them ran away to never come back. One said as he left, “I believe what you are saying is true but you are going to get me fired if I start preaching that stuff”.
> 
> I believe that God put Bill in our group to help us to reach a point but He knew we needed to separate and go it alone after that. The funny thing about this is when Bill and I started comparing notes this week, I found that over the past few years, he had reached many of the same conclusions that we had about biblical topics. He had to unlearn many things just as we did.
> 
> You see, it’s the Spirit’s job to teach, and He teaches the same truth regardless of what state you are in or how many miles you are away from each other. Our job is to be teachable. Martin Luther said the Christian life is a life of repentance. What he was saying is that you must allow the Word and the Spirit to change your mind about what you believe to be biblical truth. The problem today is that most people, especially church ministers and teachers think they know the bible so well that they can’t be taught anything. They are unteachable. I’ll leave you with a bible verse.
> 
> Proverbs 26:12(NIV)
> Do you see a person wise in their own eyes?
> There is more hope for a fool than for them.



“But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;”
CensoredCensoredActsâ€¬ Censored3:18-19â€¬ CensoredKJVâ€¬â€¬
http://bible.com/1/act.3.18-19.kjv

According to the Word we must repent. Not being mean at all but be careful which spirit you are listening too. 

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”
CensoredCensored1 Johnâ€¬ Censored4:1â€¬ CensoredKJVâ€¬â€¬
http://bible.com/1/1jn.4.1.kjv

“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”
CensoredCensoredGalatiansâ€¬ Censored1:6-9â€¬ CensoredKJVâ€¬â€¬
http://bible.com/1/gal.1.6-9.kjv


----------



## centerpin fan

mwilliams80 said:


> “But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;”
> CensoredCensoredActsâ€¬ Censored3:18-19â€¬ CensoredKJVâ€¬â€¬
> http://bible.com/1/act.3.18-19.kjv
> 
> According to the Word we must repent. Not being mean at all but be careful which spirit you are listening too.
> 
> “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”
> CensoredCensored1 Johnâ€¬ Censored4:1â€¬ CensoredKJVâ€¬â€¬
> http://bible.com/1/1jn.4.1.kjv
> 
> “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”
> CensoredCensoredGalatiansâ€¬ Censored1:6-9â€¬ CensoredKJVâ€¬â€¬
> http://bible.com/1/gal.1.6-9.kjv



What in the world is being censored?


----------



## hummerpoo

centerpin fan said:


> What in the world is being censored?



I get that when I c/p from Bible Gateway — I have no idea what is being censored.


----------



## M80

centerpin fan said:


> What in the world is being censored?


As far as I know the whole verse is there. I copy and paste from my bible app to save time of typing it all


----------



## Vectorman

mwilliams80 said:


> “But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;”
> CensoredCensoredActs‬ Censored3:18-19‬ CensoredKJV‬‬
> http://bible.com/1/act.3.18-19.kjv
> 
> According to the Word we must repent. Not being mean at all but be careful which spirit you are listening too.




If I back up to verse 13 to get the context of Peter's statement it appears that Peter is charging the Jews with killing Jesus:

"13 The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. 14 You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. 15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this."

Peter also acknowledged that they didn't know that Jesus was the Messiah:

17 “Now, fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders.

Peter is telling the Nation of Israel to "repent" of the killing of their Messiah and "be converted" to accept Him as the Messiah, Savior, King of Israel so that Jesus would at the proper time return to restore Israel to it's former glory.

I don't see the connection between what's going on here and the gospel of grace that Paul preached to the gentile new testament believers.


----------



## Vectorman

mwilliams80 said:


> “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”



Digging into Galations we find that Paul is once again having trouble with Jews coming into their ranks and convincing them that they have to follow jewish law and "some other gospel". If we keep reading into chapter 2 we'll see Paul telling them that he went to Jerusalem and showed the leaders of the Jerusalem church the gospel of grace that he preaches to the gentiles:

Galatians 2
1 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles.

Clearly this gospel that Paul preached was different than what Peter and the 12 were preaching to the Jews. If we keep reading down through verses 7 - 9 we'll see the Jerusalem church leaders recognized that Paul and his grace gospel was a ministry for the gentiles and Peter and his gospel was for the Jews. They shook hands in agreement. Paul was really telling the Jerusalem church leaders to tell your people to leave us alone.

Paul shared his gospel of grace in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4:

1 Corinthians 15:1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 

It's faith and faith alone in the finished work of Christ. Later when it became clear that this generation of Jews would never turn to Christ, Peter instructed his readers to read Paul's letters, they are hard to understand (for a Jew)but are scriptures that people distort.


----------



## hobbs27

Vectorman said:


> Digging into Galations we find that Paul is once again having trouble with Jews coming into their ranks and convincing them that they have to follow jewish law and "some other gospel". If we keep reading into chapter 2 we'll see Paul telling them that he went to Jerusalem and showed the leaders of the Jerusalem church the gospel of grace that he preaches to the gentiles:
> 
> Galatians 2
> 1 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles.
> 
> Clearly this gospel that Paul preached was different than what Peter and the 12 were preaching to the Jews. If we keep reading down through verses 7 - 9 we'll see the Jerusalem church leaders recognized that Paul and his grace gospel was a ministry for the gentiles and Peter and his gospel was for the Jews. They shook hands in agreement. Paul was really telling the Jerusalem church leaders to tell your people to leave us alone.
> 
> Paul shared his gospel of grace in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4:
> 
> 1 Corinthians 15:1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
> 
> 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
> 
> It's faith and faith alone in the finished work of Christ. Later when it became clear that this generation of Jews would never turn to Christ, Peter instructed his readers to read Paul's letters, they are hard to understand (for a Jew)but are scriptures that people distort.




There was only one Gospel. But at this time there was two covenants.  The New coming in at Christ's anointing (Baptism)  , The old finished at the temple destruction in 70ad.

For forty years, 30 ad to 70ad the Jews wandered between two covenants.  Those that followed Jesus were brought out of the bondage of the law and into the Liberty of grace.  They were the remnant that were saved. 

 The correct number of Jew's accepted Christ and those that rejected were dealt with. Either killed,  taken in as slaves,  or left behind as a Handicapped or undesirable. Their Temple destroyed,  their priesthood gone forever,  their genealogies lost forever... To never be a people of the seed of Abraham again,  as the accepting Jew's along with faithful gentiles became Co heirs to the inheritance of Abraham with Christ.


----------



## centerpin fan

Vectorman said:


> Clearly this gospel that Paul preached was different than what Peter and the 12 were preaching to the Jews.



That was not clear to Christians for the last two thousand years.  Paul himself said there is one faith.  If this is where your Bible study has led you, I suggest you start over.

I have a hard time believing you came up with this just by reading the Bible.  It sounds like off-the-rack hyperdispensationalism.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Matthew 4:17

From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near."

Matthew 21:32
32 For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.

What was Jesus telling them to repent from?  

Luke 24:46-48

46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things.

What repentance, and what sins was being taught here?


----------



## Israel

As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

_Scripturally_ it is apparent zeal and repentance are linked. Am I mishearing/misreading that? Is it not in some form saying (made noteworthy by the _therefore_) be truly zealous...in repenting? As if there could be a "zeal" mistaken that is absent of repenting?

_Experientially_(to which none are subject except by reason and truth) I cannot deny this. Nor have the some (or many, depending) with which I have had communion over the years. That curious determination in pursuit of Christ leads to oft admissions "I was so wrong". "Oh, I may have seen a thing, sought to be faithful to such and such a revelation...but in that learned...(to whatever extent) my own disposition toward the truth was not right. I was _wrong_." (I have distilled that to a great extent...nevertheless...like an odor without words, a fragrance needing no explanation...it is sensible)
What of this? How can this be? Shouldn't zeal for God (in the intuition of man) exempt one from this need (gift, really) of repentance? Shouldn't a hotness in pursuit never need and acknowledgement of needing to be _turned_?

Ahhh, but spiritual matters are always thus, no? _Knowing_ the way, even _seeing_ the way may be shown a far cry from _walking_ the way. We easily speak of what we see, what we know...but who of us does not know of blowouts when rubber meets road? Am I crazy?

I cannot say God cannot. God forbid. But I cannot lie without being shown myself, a liar. Yes, God can have a man who has always kept perfect speed, never been tempted (or fallen)to the leaven of the Pharisees, never been persuaded that what he knows...now makes him a "something" of necessity in, and to, the world.
Yet. I have known a bull in a china shop. Zeal and fire, good things. Their easily being coopted by something else that is of excuse, and not true submission marked by obedience we have been warned against. Beware that leaven that excuses itself. Mercy is always something else. It is coupled with the seeing of many "ooops". Zeal and fire...good things.

Anger at wrongdoing having a place.
And my elders do not seek to hide the many scars obvious of breaking loose nuts on locked wheels that led to blowouts. They know of resistance to God. In themselves. Or that wonderful smell of singeing having come from playing with a fire, broad burn marks across them that testify of their own mishandling...from which they learned. They needn't ever say a word about those experiences. They are obvious in their disfigurement.
They are not fit for the world.
They have seen what the world needs, and despite a once presuming, they have acquired a true knowledge through many repentances...it is not them.
But they remain obediently content to abide. Where they are neither needed, nor wanted...for the sake of another.


----------



## Vectorman

hobbs27 said:


> To never be a people of the seed of Abraham again,



I see references to this being for a season or a temporary blindness, I have always understood that Israel will once again be restored. What lead you to believe that the Jews would never be a people of the seed of Abraham again?


----------



## Vectorman

Repentance.... it really depends on what your definition of repentance is. If you understand repentance to be a changing of your mind resulting in a change of belief then I agree that you need to change from unbelief to trusting in the finished work of Christ is all that's necessary for salvation.

If you define repentance as turning from sins or feeling sorry for sins or really any attempt to contribute to what has already been completed by Christ, then no I can't agree with your definition of repentance being required for salvation.

John 20:31 states the reason that he wrote the gospel letter.

31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

John wrote this letter for the purpose to evangelize the recipients of the letter. His whole letter is all about believe, believe, believe. Nowhere in the whole gospel of John is the word repent mentioned. If this repentance was a requirement for salvation, don't you think he would have said so?


----------



## centerpin fan

Vectorman said:


> Repentance.... it really depends on what your definition of repentance is. If you understand repentance to be a changing of your mind resulting in a change of belief then I agree that you need to change from unbelief to trusting in the finished work of Christ is all that's necessary for salvation.
> 
> If you define repentance as turning from sins or feeling sorry for sins or really any attempt to contribute to what has already been completed by Christ, then no I can't agree with your definition of repentance being required for salvation.



The biblical example of repentance is sorrow for and turning from sins.  You see this over and over in the Bible.  When people went out to John the Baptist to be baptized, they did not go to him "changing their minds".  They went to him "confessing their sins".


----------



## hobbs27

Vectorman said:


> I see references to this being for a season or a temporary blindness, I have always understood that Israel will once again be restored. What lead you to believe that the Jews would never be a people of the seed of Abraham again?




Those that accepted Christ were the true Israel. (Roman's 9:6) not all Israel were Israel. 

Jesus was the seed of Abraham. (Galatians 3:16)  Jesus received the inheritance.. Land ie. Kingdom.  Through faith,  the believing Jew's and Gentiles became one body and were Co heirs of the inheritance with Christ. (Roman's 8:17).

See the inheritance has been given,  the Kingdom has come. 

Sometime after the temple destruction.  A hold out Jew formed a new religion.  It's called rabbinic Judaism.  It's foundation came out of the ashes of God's wrath,  just as Islam did.  Christianity is the true religion dating back to the first covenant man Adam.


----------



## gordon 2

https://www.gty.org/library/articles/A238/Repentance-in-the-Gospel-of-John

I found this a good read... author points out that repentance is implied in the concept of belief in John.... 

Quote ( To say that John called for a faith that excluded repentance is to grossly misconstrue the apostle's concept of what it means to be a believer. Although John never uses repent as a verb, the verbs he does employ are even stronger. He teaches that all true believers love the light (John 3:19), come to the light (John 3:20-21), obey the Son (John 3:36), practice the truth (John 3:21), worship in spirit and truth (John 4:23-24), honor God (John 5:22-24), do good deeds (John 5:29), eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood (John 6:48-66), love God (John 8:42 , cf. 1 John 2:15), follow Jesus (John 10:26-28), and keep Jesus' commandments (John 14:15). Those ideas hardly concur with no-lordship salvation! All of them presuppose repentance, commitment, and a desire to obey. ) End quote.


----------



## Israel

Vectorman said:


> Repentance.... it really depends on what your definition of repentance is. If you understand repentance to be a changing of your mind resulting in a change of belief then I agree that you need to change from unbelief to trusting in the finished work of Christ is all that's necessary for salvation.
> 
> If you define repentance as turning from sins or feeling sorry for sins or really any attempt to contribute to what has already been completed by Christ, then no I can't agree with your definition of repentance being required for salvation.
> 
> John 20:31 states the reason that he wrote the gospel letter.
> 
> 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
> 
> John wrote this letter for the purpose to evangelize the recipients of the letter. His whole letter is all about believe, believe, believe. Nowhere in the whole gospel of John is the word repent mentioned. If this repentance was a requirement for salvation, don't you think he would have said so?



Repentance gets such a bad rap.

Like a really distasteful thing that signals the last thing anyone wants to broadcast about themselves...I was, or am, wrong.

Who doesn't know that in Jurassic Park?
But the weak are made to be eaten.


----------



## Artfuldodger

NE GA Pappy said:


> Matthew 4:17
> 
> From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near."
> 
> Matthew 21:32
> 32 For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.
> 
> What was Jesus telling them to repent from?
> 
> Luke 24:46-48
> 
> 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things.
> 
> What repentance, and what sins was being taught here?



"repentance for the forgiveness of sins"

If it meant to quit sinning, who then is saved?


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Those that accepted Christ were the true Israel. (Roman's 9:6) not all Israel were Israel.
> 
> Jesus was the seed of Abraham. (Galatians 3:16)  Jesus received the inheritance.. Land ie. Kingdom.  Through faith,  the believing Jew's and Gentiles became one body and were Co heirs of the inheritance with Christ. (Roman's 8:17).
> 
> See the inheritance has been given,  the Kingdom has come.
> 
> Sometime after the temple destruction.  A hold out Jew formed a new religion.  It's called rabbinic Judaism.  It's foundation came out of the ashes of God's wrath,  just as Islam did.  Christianity is the true religion dating back to the first covenant man Adam.




Romans 11:1 I ask then, did God reject His people? Certainly not! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject His people, whom He foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says about Elijah, how he appealed to God against Israel.

Then a Remnant was chosen by grace and not of works. Chosen? Elected?
The rest of Israel was hardened. Their rejection brought reconciliation to the world. Natural branches were broken off and the Gentiles were grafted in.

Romans 11:25-26
25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not be conceited: A hardening in part has come to Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove godlessness from Jacob.

"all Israel will be saved." God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy.

Romans 11:27-29
27And this is My covenant with them when I take away their sins.”
28As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs,
29For God's gifts and his call can never be withdrawn.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Ephesians 2:12-13
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.
13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Romans 11:10-11
10Let their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever.” 11I ask then, did they stumble so as to lose their share? Absolutely not! However, because of their trespass, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel jealous.

Acts 28:27-28
For the hearts of these people are hardened, and their ears cannot hear, and they have closed their eyes--so their eyes cannot see, and their ears cannot hear, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them.'
28 So I want you to know that this salvation from God has also been offered to the Gentiles, and they will accept it."

Isaiah 49:6
He says, "You will do more than restore the people of Israel to me. I will make you a light to the Gentiles, and you will bring my salvation to the ends of the earth."


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Artfuldodger said:


> "repentance for the forgiveness of sins"
> 
> If it meant to quit sinning, who then is saved?



see post 26

Repentance means to turn from your ways.  If it meant to quit sinning, we all would fall short.  Even Paul said he did what it did not want to do, and didn't do what he knew to do.  I believe God holds us responsible for what we know to do. ( to him that knows to do good, but doesn't do it, to him it is sin) and we all do things we know we shouldn't.  It doesn't mean we are not saved, it just means we are not perfect.


----------



## Artfuldodger

NE GA Pappy said:


> see post 26
> 
> Repentance means to turn from your ways.  If it meant to quit sinning, we all would fall short.  Even Paul said he did what it did not want to do, and didn't do what he knew to do.  I believe God holds us responsible for what we know to do. ( to him that knows to do good, but doesn't do it, to him it is sin) and we all do things we know we shouldn't.  It doesn't mean we are not saved, it just means we are not perfect.



The scriptures you quote in #36 say nothing of the repentance you speak of.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Artfuldodger said:


> The scriptures you quote in #36 say nothing of the repentance you speak of.



then what repentance do they speak of?  How many kinds of repentance are there, and which type are we responsible to perform?


----------



## Artfuldodger

NE GA Pappy said:


> then what repentance do they speak of?  How many kinds of repentance are there, and which type are we responsible to perform?



It has a few different meanings such as a change of heart, change of mind, remorseful regret, etc. as one would need in order to start believing in grace vs works for salvation.

After forming the belief and receiving the Holy Spirit one would produce the fruit of the Spirit and then repent to turn from their ways.

If it took "Repentance means to turn from your ways" for salvation, we wouldn't need grace. "Repentance means to turn from your ways" happens as a result of salvation.

The way I read it is one repents/changes his heart from believing he can live good enough to gain salvation like some of the Jews thought they could to believing in salvation by grace alone.
Then after salvation one starts on the journey of santification, justification, and all of those other big words that leads to  "Repentance means to turn from your ways."

I think if we see all the Greek and Hebrew words that were translated to "repent" we'd see the English word "repent" used for more than one word.

2 Timothy 2:25
Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth,

I don't see this as meaning God will grant them the ability to turn from their ways but will change their heart leading them to the knowledge of the truth. Which is salvation by God's grace through the blood of Jesus.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Let's use a drunkard or a glutton as an example. Under the repent means turn from your ways for salvation, the drunkard or glutton would need to overcome their problem first and then if they remain clean, they'd receive salvation.

Under the repent meaning change your mind, they'd realize they are too weak to overcome and thus need salvation by grace and grace alone. Then after this repentance, they receive salvation by grace and receive the Holy Spirit. With his help they can repent or turn from their ways.

I look at it as being more of what we are not capable of without God than what we are responsible of.

Acts 11:18 
When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”


----------



## Artfuldodger

Luke 13:2-5
1Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2And Jesus said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? 3"I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4"Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? 5"I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

The Greek word for repent in this passage is metanoeo.

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call."

Acts 2;41
Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Acts 10:43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.

When the three thousand were added, what was their repentance that allowed salvation?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

NE GA Pappy said:


> To repent means to stop, turn around and go a different direction. To make a decision to change behaviors.   Are you saying that one can continue to manifest the same wicked behaviors of his past and be a follower of Christ?  Surely not.



isn't that what I said? 

But with that decision, there should be a change manifest in ones life also, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Artfuldodger

NE GA Pappy said:


> isn't that what I said?
> 
> But with that decision, there should be a change manifest in ones life also, wouldn't you agree?



Yes, most definitely!

Galatians 5:22
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

1 Corinthians 13:4-8
 4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.


----------



## Vectorman

NE GA Pappy said:


> Are you saying that one can continue to manifest the same wicked behaviors of his past and be a follower of Christ?  Surely not.



The problem is that everybody has a different list of what they consider wicked behavior to be. One group will say that the person has to stop drinking, another group will say the person has to stop smoking. The people in the south have a different list than the people in the north. Every denomination has their own list. (The bible defines wickedness as having no regard for the Lord.) It's really an issue of having the cart before the horse. 

I do know that grace has always been a better motivator of proper behavior than the law. Under the law I follow the rules because I have to, under grace, with the help of the Spirit, I change my behavior because I want to please Him.


----------



## centerpin fan

Vectorman said:


> The problem is that everybody has a different list of what they consider wicked behavior to be.



How about adultery?  Can an unrepentant adulterer receive salvation?


----------



## Vectorman

I tell you the truth, one thing that haunts me, I spent many years doing evangelism work and even teaching others to do evangelism. During most of those years when the people that I shared with walked away from our conversation, they had heard a gospel that required repentance or turning from sin to receive salvation. I now know that to be a false gospel and I assure you that it will never happen again. I wish I could go back and talk to each one of those folks and correct the error that I made. I can only hope that someone will.


----------



## Vectorman

centerpin fan said:


> How about adultery?  Can an unrepentant adulterer receive salvation?



The adulterer, drunkard, addict, homosexual, thief and any other vice we can think of can through faith in Christ receive salvation......... Then the Holy Spirit can start working to change the life of that individual. Will it happen overnight? probably not. Will the drunkard take another drink? yes probably will. But changing behavior is the Spirits job. There is nothing that I can say or do to someone to change their behavior. I struggle enough to keep my own behavior in check.


----------



## Israel

I am not sure of the particulars in what we are discussing.
Are we talking about repentance before God, or the need of a disciple to preach the gospel with a specific call to repentance, or the requirement of a convert to somehow express by some word, or words, "I repent"?

There are a few relatively detailed conversion accounts to which we could refer, but ultimately I come back to John's (the baptist) word of "Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance" and Jesus' preaching "saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."

If, at its root, repentance is what the word means, to have a change of mind, how could this ever be a thing separate than acknowledging and receiving the faith of the Son of God? 
Can there ever be a walking in the newness of life, to which we are exhorted, that does not include an abandoning of old ways of thinking? 

This change of "from" to "toward" is it not (even) experientially something with which we might all be aware, in ourselves?

If we refer back, even to the OP that has provoked these responses:



> I was shocked at how many things I had to unlearn, things I had believed all my life, things that I had been taught by my church and things that I had been teaching too.



Well, I don't think it's necessary for me to ask if such a brother had some exchanges before God as to things now seen in a different light. For it is said here:



> I now know that to be a false gospel and I assure you that it will never happen again. I wish I could go back and talk to each one of those folks and correct the error that I made. I can only hope that someone will.



I do not review these quotes to the end that _something is being done in practice_ that seems to be opposed in word...but rather that there is an acknowledgement of change, and that attributed to the Spirit.
Have we not, in truest form, been called as men that in every sense must now present ourselves as open to _all revision_?
When what is immutable touches the mutable, something's gotta give.
Do we all agree to what we ourselves are in the above statement?

For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
And Jacob was a very clever man...once.


----------



## centerpin fan

Vectorman said:


> The adulterer, drunkard, addict, homosexual, thief and any other vice we can think of can through faith in Christ receive salvation.



Agreed, but that is not my question.

Can an unrepentant adulterer receive salvation?


----------



## Vectorman

centerpin fan said:


> agreed, but that is not my question.
> 
> Can an unrepentant adulterer receive salvation?



yes......can the unrepentant glutton receive salvation? how about the the guy who cheats on his taxes?


----------



## Artfuldodger

We talk about repenting from adultery, murder, drinking, overeating, fornication, gambling etc. To me those are the easy sins to repent from. 

For me personally, my list is;
Lust, gossip, cheating, hatred, swearing, boastfulness, pride, envy, jealousy, arrogance, covetousness, not forgiving others, and not helping others.

I don't have a problem drinking, fussing with my wife, spending food money on gambling, stealing money, club crawls, dancing, and adultery.
I guess we all have a different list as mentioned. We all have different struggles.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Vectorman said:


> I see references to this being for a season or a temporary blindness, I have always understood that Israel will once again be restored. What lead you to believe that the Jews would never be a people of the seed of Abraham again?



Isaiah 14:1
When the LORD will have compassion on Jacob and again choose Israel, and settle them in their own land, then strangers will join them and attach themselves to the house of Jacob.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Isaiah 14:1
> When the LORD will have compassion on Jacob and again choose Israel, and settle them in their own land, then strangers will join them and attach themselves to the house of Jacob.




Yes!  Israel is restored,  the Kingdom has come.


----------



## centerpin fan

Vectorman said:


> ... can the unrepentant glutton receive salvation?



Of course not.  All sin is deadly poison, and repentance is the antidote.

Where else but the GON spiritual forum would this even be a topic for debate?


----------



## centerpin fan

welderguy said:


> Luke 5:32
> 32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
> 
> When a sinner receives this effectual call, he comes alive. He's given a new spiritual nature that now must war every day against his flesh nature.
> ...But we are " more than conquerors through Him".



OK, but ... can an unrepentant adulterer receive salvation?  A simple yes or no will suffice.


----------



## gordon 2

centerpin fan said:


> OK, but ... can an unrepentant adulterer receive salvation?  A simple yes or no will suffice.



Yes, implies that the unrepentant adulterer, glutton, cooks who put raisins in their breads will pass go on the day he/she is free from the bondage of the curse. However they that can choose to be unrepentant adulterers, gluttons and evil cooks who put raisins in breads, after they have been saved from wrath have returned to wrath... and that is not a comfortable place to be... especially that you know better and seek not repentance...

So I guess what i'm saying is yes they can be saved before sinner(s) knew that putting raisins in perfectly good breads is not very heavenly. And I'm saying no that they are not saved if they continue being unrepentant with the raisin bread sin after they are well guided by the Holy Spirit that raisins in bread is a sin.

So the answer is Yes and No. ( This is going to end up a once saved always saved topic tread and what is salvation tread soon I think...)


----------



## hobbs27

As one that believes Salvation is made available for whosoever will.... I find it hard to believe that an unrepentant anyone would seek the water of life which is freely given.


----------



## gordon 2

hobbs27 said:


> As one that believes Salvation is made available for whosoever will.... I find it hard to believe that an unrepentant anyone would seek the water of life which is freely given.



Did the sweet heart at the well seek salvation when she freely dipped her bucket for a thirsty fellow? Or Paul, was he seeking a Messiah when he fell on his head from His  voiced question,  " Paul, why are you doing this to me?"

It is most likely that the suffering due to unrepentance can provoke a quest for a remedy to the suffering only, that is a treatment for the symptoms, -- but the good doctor might have an other algorithm in mind...? Like repent...and you will be healed.


----------



## hobbs27

gordon 2 said:


> Did the sweet heart at the well seek salvation when she freely dipped her bucket for a thirsty fellow?



This is one of those stories I believe the KJV says it best,  comparing it to the original Greek. 

Notice Jesus doesn't ask her to give him drink... He tells her to give him to drink. Give those that thirst Me...Amen! 

7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.

8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.)

9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.

10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

The Gospel goes out to those that thirst... Saul's conversion to Paul is not a typical story.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

centerpin fan said:


> OK, but ... can an unrepentant adulterer receive salvation?  A simple yes or no will suffice.



I don't believe they can.  The Bible is full of the command to repent.  If one is not repentant, how can they follow Christ?  If they are unrepentant, do they have the ability to believe they need a savior, or do they believe there is nothing wrong with their lives as it is being lived.

If there is nothing wrong with there lives, why do they need a savior?  If there is no error in their ways, no savior is needed.


----------



## centerpin fan

NE GA Pappy said:


> The Bible is full of the command to repent.  If one is not repentant, how can they follow Christ?
> 
> If there is nothing wrong with there lives, why do they need a savior?



Good questions.  Enquiring minds want to know.


----------



## gordon 2

NE GA Pappy said:


> I don't believe they can.  The Bible is full of the command to repent.  If one is not repentant, how can they follow Christ?  If they are unrepentant, do they have the ability to believe they need a savior, or do they believe there is nothing wrong with their lives as it is being lived.
> 
> If there is nothing wrong with there lives, why do they need a savior?  If there is no error in their ways, no savior is needed.



 I think the unrepentant will learn that they need something...because wrath will kinda catch up with them. 

Why would the gospel make sense to a gentile the first time he/she hears it?

I think that Geronimo for example, a very unrepentant and well trained raider-robber-warrior who exhibited no remorse for the death of his victims out of institutionalized hate for foreigners ( other tribe groups and Europeans) only came to repent of this nature after he came to believe on Christ. I think he admitted that his former life was wrong after he became a Christian. Before this he knew exactly who needed killing and the seasons for it  and for no other reason that this was the thing  for a real man ( human being) to do in his world.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

gordon 2 said:


> I think the unrepentant will learn that they need something...because wrath will kinda catch up with them.
> 
> Why would the gospel make sense to a gentile the first time he/she hears it?
> 
> I think that Geronimo for example, a very unrepentant and well trained raider-robber-warrior who exhibited no remorse for the death of his victims out of institutionalized hate for foreigners ( other tribe groups and Europeans) only came to repent of this nature after he came to believe on Christ. I think he admitted that his former life was wrong after he became a Christian. Before this he knew exactly who needed killing and the seasons for it  and for no other reason that this was the thing  for a real man ( human being) to do in his world.



I would think that the sequence would be different to salvation.  

1.  hearing the message

2.  realizing the truth of the message

3.  realizing the error of your ways

4.  believing that a change is needed

5.  a decision to make the changes

6.  becoming a follower


----------



## gordon 2

NE GA Pappy said:


> I would think that the sequence would be different to salvation.
> 
> 1.  hearing the message
> 
> 2.  realizing the truth of the message
> 
> 3.  realizing the error of your ways
> 
> 4.  believing that a change is needed
> 
> 5.  a decision to make the changes
> 
> 6.  becoming a follower



You might be correct. I gave the info away I had on this and can not access it now. It seemed to me that the repentance came after...  I would think he started on milk and repentance needed a bit more solids.

But you might be totally correct...


----------



## NE GA Pappy

i think 5 is where the repentance comes in to play.

this is just my random thoughts.  nothing I read


----------



## welderguy

NE GA Pappy said:


> I would think that the sequence would be different to salvation.
> 
> 1.  hearing the message
> 
> 2.  realizing the truth of the message
> 
> 3.  realizing the error of your ways
> 
> 4.  believing that a change is needed
> 
> 5.  a decision to make the changes
> 
> 6.  becoming a follower



Is #1 requiring physical hearing for salvation?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

welderguy said:


> Is #1 requiring physical hearing for salvation?



Romans 10:14 would tend to make me believe that Paul thought so.

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?


----------



## welderguy

NE GA Pappy said:


> Romans 10:14 would tend to make me believe that Paul thought so.
> 
> How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?



That would make it rough on a deaf ,blind, mentally challenged person who didn't have a preacher to preach to him/her before they died.

Is it possible that it has a different meaning?


----------



## hobbs27

When did the blind and deaf not have ways of communication?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

welderguy said:


> That would make it rough on a deaf ,blind, mentally challenged person who didn't have a preacher to preach to him/her before they died.
> 
> Is it possible that it has a different meaning?



I think you are grasping at straws here.  To hear means to have the message communicated.  If the person is not physically able to have any communication, then that is Gods issue to judge.  Would that fall under the age of accountability?  If they never reached a mental age to understand, then they wouldn't be held responsible.


----------



## Artfuldodger

NE GA Pappy said:


> Romans 10:14 would tend to make me believe that Paul thought so.
> 
> How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?



Romans 10:20
And Isaiah boldly says, "I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me."

John 8:47
Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."


----------



## Artfuldodger

NE GA Pappy said:


> I think you are grasping at straws here.  To hear means to have the message communicated.  If the person is not physically able to have any communication, then that is Gods issue to judge.  Would that fall under the age of accountability?  If they never reached a mental age to understand, then they wouldn't be held responsible.



John 15:21-22
But they will treat you like this on account of My name, because they do not know the One who sent Me. 22If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin.

John 9:41-42
40Some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard this, and they asked Him, “Are we blind too?” 41“If you were blind, Jesus replied, “you would not be guilty of sin. But since you claim you can see,’ your guilt remains.” 

Any thoughts on those who've never heard?


----------



## welderguy

NE GA Pappy said:


> I think you are grasping at straws here.  To hear means to have the message communicated.  If the person is not physically able to have any communication, then that is Gods issue to judge.  Would that fall under the age of accountability?  If they never reached a mental age to understand, then they wouldn't be held responsible.



Where does this "age of accountability" notion come from in scripture?
What age is it when a person suddenly becomes a certified sinner?


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> When did the blind and deaf not have ways of communication?



Funny you should ask that. Remember Helen Keller?
When she finally learned communication, she told her teacher she knew of God already, she just didn't know His name until they told her.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

welderguy said:


> Where does this "age of accountability" notion come from in scripture?
> What age is it when a person suddenly becomes a certified sinner?



We are certified sinners at conception. It is something we inherit from the first Adam.  But God is gracious to the young and not capable of understanding, even though they are guilty of sin.  The Jews held the age of 12 as the age when they became responsible for their own sins, but I don't believe there is a set age.  We all have different levels of understanding. 

The Bible refers to the children sacrificed to Molech as the "innocents".  How could they be innocent if they were born guilty of sin?  

The Bible also speaks of the entire family being saved by the faith of the father.  Does it make sense that the belief and faith of the father would be counted as righteousness for his young children?  I don't really understand that, but yet that is what the Bible seems to imply.  It also seems the children were held accountable for the sins of their fathers.  When rebellion was found in the ranks of the Israelites, God destroyed the entire family in an earthquake.  Men, women, children, tent, possessions... everything.  

Why were these children doomed because of the sins of their fathers?


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Funny you should ask that. Remember Helen Keller?
> When she finally learned communication, she told her teacher she knew of God already, she just didn't know His name until they told her.



It's a shame she wasn't Christian.


----------



## M80

It's all about the condition of the heart. Romans 10 says for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Believing isn't speaking. Believing your condition and realizing jesus is the only way one believes and repents from the heart. What happens on the inside is revealed on the outside. First thing I did when the Lord saved me is told everyone what the Lord had did for me.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> It's a shame she wasn't Christian.



Only God knows her heart. Her fame certainly seemed to influence her in a bad way, but her early testimony speaks differently.


----------



## hummerpoo

NE GA Pappy said:


> I would think that the sequence would be different to salvation.
> 
> 1.  hearing the message
> 
> 2.  realizing the truth of the message
> 
> 3.  realizing the error of your ways
> 
> 4.  believing that a change is needed
> 
> 5.  a decision to make the changes
> 
> 6.  becoming a follower



God gets lost when the focus is on men.
It's called legalism.



Artfuldodger said:


> Romans 10:20
> And Isaiah boldly says, "I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me."
> 
> John 8:47
> Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."





mwilliams80 said:


> It's all about the condition of the heart. Romans 10 says for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Believing isn't speaking. Believing your condition and realizing jesus is the only way one believes and repents from the heart. What happens on the inside is revealed on the outside. First thing I did when the Lord saved me is told everyone what the Lord had did for me.


----------



## gordon 2

It seems that I have learned that the whole point of the Jewish cult was that it would stand as a testimony to God for the whole world to know righteousness. That is everything sinful would be evident to man from God's righteousness which flowed out of His love for His people.

Him that freed the captives and fought for them and fed  them mana when they had no wits or means of their own to  feed themselves, and who directed them so they would not wonder aimlessly did all of this because He loved them and not because they were righteous. In fact He says they were not righteous at all but stiffnecked and that they would not even keep the Promised land He gave them because they were NOT a righteous people.

Now if Christianity or Judaism somehow stops witnessing the righteousness of God, which proceeds from His love then they have lost guidance.


So I understand that sin is pointed out to children from the time that " If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin."

 And therefore everything that proceeds out of the word of God which is everything including all of creation witnesses of God's righteousness . So sin is pointed out by the word of God itself ( by scripture and the cult), but also by his mana. That is man lives not only on the word alone but also on everything which  proceeds from His word-- .So  also a witness to God's righteousness need not be only the word itself, but that which man needs both in manners and substance to feed, dress and house himself and live. ( I understand that this is the lesson of mana.)

And I understand that there is a difference in sin ( the act) and the consequences of sin. All suffer the consequences of sin be they our sins or those of others which we are not personally guilty of be they our father's sins or our children's. Therefore children can be innocent of sin yet they suffer the consequences of other's sins.

The Hebrews who had refused their faith to God when they had not followed His will and manner for them to go initially into the Promised Land, never went there, not even Moses. But their children did, but not as children. So they suffered for their parents sin though they were accounted as innocent in that they wondered for many yrs yet could had been to their rest as babes had their parent's not doubted God's love and Him doing the right thing.


----------



## Vectorman

NE GA Pappy said:


> It also seems the children were held accountable for the sins of their fathers.  When rebellion was found in the ranks of the Israelites, God destroyed the entire family in an earthquake.  Men, women, children, tent, possessions... everything.
> 
> Why were these children doomed because of the sins of their fathers?



It is a difficult verse to understand why God would destroy the children along with the rebellious parents. 

The destruction of Korah and his family and children is another example of the Lord purging evil and rebellion from Israel. It's not easy to understand but like many things we have to trust Him to know what He's doing.

Same thing when God commanded Israel to kill all the canaannites, men, women, children. But this was actually an act of mercy for Israel's children because God knew that the canaanites would teach Israel to worship idols and to sacrifice their children which Israel did.


----------



## Israel

Sin ricochets.


----------



## gordon 2

I once read a good story. It was a story about trying to help a people, by helping businesses ( local economies), but it ended in the loss of all that was created, which the people created for themselves while thinking they were helping themselves.

I forget if it was Bangladesh or Pakistan, but apparently lots of international funds ( investment capital) went into their economy at one point. And the receiving businesses and the people who were industrious did thrive and grew and gave jobs to more people and the all the people grew richer.

This led to new infrastructure, new commercial and residential development, new schools, new clinics etc.  Developers bought and traded new land, leveled old construction and built anew. Towns and communities prospered and individuals prospered.

And then one yr great rains came and levies broke and old riverbeds unknown to the eager developers were flooded and the towns and villages, with their  businesses, infrastructure and prosperity, they all flowed down to the sea taking some of the people also in uncommon numbers.

 I have to wonder that in their eagerness to prosper that they had forgotten they were building on old riverbeds? Or had they not cared how God sends down his rains?


----------



## centerpin fan

Vectorman said:


> It's very simple, we studied the book, not someone's interpretation off the book.



It sounds like you studied Michael Halsey's interpretation of the book.  In the "A guy walks into your church" thread, you referenced his book.  I looked up the book and the seminary where Halsey teaches.  Here's part of the doctrinal statement from the seminary:  

_No act of obedience (other than faith in Christ), whether preceding or following faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, such as commitment or willingness to obey, sorrow for sin, turning from sin, baptism, or submission to the Lordship of Christ, may be added to, or considered a part of, faith as a condition for receiving eternal salvation. The saving transaction between God and the sinner consists simply of the giving and receiving of a free gift that is without cost to the believer (John 4:10; Romans 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8–9; Titus 3:5; Revelation 22:17 )._

http://www.gracebiblicalseminary.org/about-us/our-doctrinal-beliefs/

This sounds very similar to what you said here and in other threads.  Is your Bible study group the source of these teachings, or is it Halsey?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> It is the saddest reality of modern organized religion.  You are to be kept in line. Limited in knowledge,  and never question certain things.



Not sure how you fault ANY church if the individual members are too lazy to read the Bible.  You follow a recipe for making your supper yet you take someone's word when it comes the most important question in your life.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Vectoman.  After reading this thread I'm convinced you have been terribly misled, and quiet possibly educated into foolishness.   I would respectfully suggest you forget what you have learned, especially regarding separate gospels and repentance.


----------



## hobbs27

SemperFiDawg said:


> Not sure how you fault ANY church if the individual members are too lazy to read the Bible.  You follow a recipe for making your supper yet you take someone's word when it comes the most important question in your life.



 The problem I see is denominational stances. 

In the cOC you must be water baptized or you are not saved. 

In some cOG you must speak in tongues or you are not saved. 

In some Baptist churches you must have an experience of grace in others you just quote a prayer or raise a hand. 


As members question these teachings of the church they are in,  and probably grown up in with family members,  it doesn't matter the scriptural support that they may present.  The denominations are set in their belief and anyone questioning that is rebuked and possibly disfellowshipped.


----------



## Vectorman

centerpin fan said:


> It sounds like you studied Michael Halsey's interpretation of the book.  In the "A guy walks into your church" thread, you referenced his book.  I looked up the book and the seminary where Halsey teaches.  Here's part of the doctrinal statement from the seminary:
> 
> _No act of obedience (other than faith in Christ), whether preceding or following faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, such as commitment or willingness to obey, sorrow for sin, turning from sin, baptism, or submission to the Lordship of Christ, may be added to, or considered a part of, faith as a condition for receiving eternal salvation. The saving transaction between God and the sinner consists simply of the giving and receiving of a free gift that is without cost to the believer (John 4:10; Romans 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8–9; Titus 3:5; Revelation 22:17 )._
> 
> http://www.gracebiblicalseminary.org/about-us/our-doctrinal-beliefs/
> 
> This sounds very similar to what you said here and in other threads.  Is your Bible study group the source of these teachings, or is it Halsey?



It is both and many others but you never take anybody's word for truth, you always check what they say with scripture to see if they are speaking truth or not. I don't agree with everything than anybody teaches. But, now that you posted it, I do agree with the Doctrinal Statement of the grace biblical seminary 100%. It is very simple, faith alone on Christ alone. Anything beyond that is an attempt to work your way into heaven.


----------



## centerpin fan

Vectorman said:


> It is both and many others but you never take anybody's word for truth, you always check what they say with scripture to see if they are speaking truth or not. I don't agree with everything than anybody teaches. But, now that you posted it, I do agree with the Doctrinal Statement of the grace biblical seminary 100%. It is very simple, faith alone on Christ alone. Anything beyond that is an attempt to work your way into heaven.



Do you go to Halsey's church?


----------



## Vectorman

hobbs27 said:


> The problem I see is denominational stances.
> 
> In the cOC you must be water baptized or you are not saved.
> 
> In some cOG you must speak in tongues or you are not saved.
> 
> In some Baptist churches you must have an experience of grace in others you just quote a prayer or raise a hand.
> 
> 
> As members question these teachings of the church they are in,  and probably grown up in with family members,  it doesn't matter the scriptural support that they may present.  The denominations are set in their belief and anyone questioning that is rebuked and possibly disfellowshipped.



It's a little weird for me to say this but I agree with Mr. Hobbs  The problem with denominations today is that just like the pharisees of Jesus day when the tradition of the elder's had been elevated to equal or even supersede the written word of God. Today our denominations have taken the same stance with their traditions, and they really don't care if the book agrees with them or not.


----------



## Vectorman

centerpin fan said:


> Do you go to Halsey's church?



Yes I do, it is the Hangar Bible Fellowship in Locust Grove, it is a home church, we normally have between 12-20 folks that attend every Sunday morning. It is not "Halsey's Church". He is a teaching elder as am I and two others. It is very nontraditional in that after the teaching time we all discuss what was taught and any other topics that come up.


----------



## Vectorman

SemperFiDawg said:


> Vectoman.  After reading this thread I'm convinced you have been terribly misled, and quiet possibly educated into foolishness.   I would respectfully suggest you forget what you have learned, especially regarding separate gospels and repentance.



So when I read Galations 2:6-9

6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles)

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

How should I interpret Paul being given a gospel for the uncircumcision(gentiles) and Peter being given a gospel for the circumcision(Jews). Just curious


----------



## centerpin fan

Vectorman said:


> How should I interpret Paul being given a gospel for the uncircumcision(gentiles) and Peter being given a gospel for the circumcision(Jews). Just curious



In your view, what are the differences between Peter's gospel and Paul's gospel?  In other words, what did Peter teach the Jews that is null and void for us gentiles, and vice versa for Paul?


----------



## hobbs27

Oh.... My!   I see the problem here,  but will refrain from explaining.  

There is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism !


----------



## centerpin fan

hobbs27 said:


> There is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism !



You beat me to it.


----------



## hobbs27

centerpin fan said:


> You beat me to it.



I'm on vacation this week so I have a little more time on my hands than normal. 

You remember in Acts Paul had defend these Gentiles on the matter of  circumcision,  yet Paul circumcised Timothy which had a Jewish mother... Now that's not two different Gospels,  but there is a reason the Gentile did not have to follow the Law. It never was given to them.


----------



## Vectorman

centerpin fan said:


> In your view, what are the differences between Peter's gospel and Paul's gospel?  In other words, what did Peter teach the Jews that is null and void for us gentiles, and vice versa for Paul?



Salvation has always been about faith: Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as right standing. What did they have to believe, whatever God told them at the time. Hebrews 11 commonly known as the faith chapter tells of many different people who believed God through the old testament. In the beginning of the new testament we find John the baptist proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the remission of sin. Peter preached Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins

Paul's gospel is in 
1 Corinthians 15

15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

This is what we refer to as the gospel of grace. It was given to Paul by revelation to give to us Gentiles. Our requirement is to believe it. That's it, no baptism, no repentance of sin, no turning from sin, no feelng sorry for sin. Now I'm a firm believer that repentance means changing your mind, from unbelief to faith in Christ. But you guys keep insisting it means to turn from sin.


----------



## Vectorman

hobbs27 said:


> I'm on vacation this week so I have a little more time on my hands than normal.
> 
> You remember in Acts Paul had defend these Gentiles on the matter of  circumcision,  yet Paul circumcised Timothy which had a Jewish mother... Now that's not two different Gospels,  but there is a reason the Gentile did not have to follow the Law. It never was given to them.



Yes, a baptism of repentance was also never given to them either, it was given to the Jews. The gentiles were given Death, burial, resurrection.


----------



## hobbs27

Vectorman said:


> Yes, a baptism of repentance was also never given to them either, it was given to the Jews. The gentiles were given Death, burial, resurrection.



 There's a reason for that,  and it ain't two different Gospels. Were the gentiles not being grafted in? If you graft in to a tree from two separate trees.. In the end what do you have,  one or two?


----------



## centerpin fan

Vectorman said:


> But you guys keep insisting it means to turn from sin.



We have 2,000 years of church history as precedent.  Now I realize that, for many people, that means nothing.  I think it's a mistake, however, to ignore what the church has always taught.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Vectorman said:


> Salvation has always been about faith



So I gather from what you are saying is that even though salvation has always been about faith, there have been different rules depending on the time frame or groups within those time frames?

Was there ever a time frame or group that salvation was not delievered to?
How does these verses tie into all of this?

Ephesians 2:12
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

Romans 9:4
the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory and the covenants; theirs the giving of the Law, the temple worship, and the promises.

Romans 11:25-26
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not be conceited: A hardening in part has come to Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove godlessness from Jacob.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> There's a reason for that,  and it ain't two different Gospels. Were the gentiles not being grafted in? If you graft in to a tree from two separate trees.. In the end what do you have,  one or two?



How did it work before the Gentiles were grafted in? Before God blinded the Jews? 

What about the dispensation of the overlapping period of the two covenants? Were the rules different then than "grace only?

If salvation has always  been the same for everyone and every dispensation, faith and grace, what was the purpose of the other rules? 

Even so, today we still have some people who say we all are saved by grace alone and another group that says it take rules. But the rules are for everyone, even those that never had a covenant of rules with God.


----------



## Artfuldodger

If Gentiles had to be grafted in to become heirs of the promise, what were they considered before the grafting? In Romans 11 we read that God blinded the Jews to allow salvation to the Gentiles.

How was it before the grafting? Before the two branches were grafted together to make one?


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> There's a reason for that,  and it ain't two different Gospels. Were the gentiles not being grafted in? If you graft in to a tree from two separate trees.. In the end what do you have,  one or two?



I guess you do see a time when salvation was different between the Gentile and Jew but sometime before 70AD, they were grafted into one. The full number of Gentiles finally came in and then they were one group. Then Jesus came;

Romans 11:28-31
28Regarding the gospel, they are enemies on your account; but regarding election, they are loved on account of the patriarchs. 29For God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who formerly disobeyed God have now received mercy through their disobedience,31so they too have now disobeyed, in order that they too may now receive mercy through the mercy shown to you.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> How did it work before the Gentiles were grafted in? Before God blinded the Jews?
> 
> What about the dispensation of the overlapping period of the two covenants? Were the rules different then than "grace only?
> 
> If salvation has always  been the same for everyone and every dispensation, faith and grace, what was the purpose of the other rules?
> 
> Even so, today we still have some people who say we all are saved by grace alone and another group that says it take rules. But the rules are for everyone, even those that never had a covenant of rules with God.



It didn't work,  all old testament saints died in the hope we now realize.  Eternal life.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> It didn't work,  all old testament saints died in the hope we now realize.  Eternal life.



I'm more interested in what Gentiles were before they were grafted into the promises of Israel? Did they have salvation from believing by faith even though they were
separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.


----------



## Artfuldodger

centerpin fan said:


> We have 2,000 years of church history as precedent.  Now I realize that, for many people, that means nothing.  I think it's a mistake, however, to ignore what the church has always taught.



I hope Vectorman's definition of repentance is correct as I'm having a bit of trouble repenting from sin. I do believe Jesus died for my sins. I was hoping his blood washed them away. If not, I'm doomed to eternal death.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Vectorman said:


> Yes, a baptism of repentance was also never given to them either, it was given to the Jews. The gentiles were given Death, burial, resurrection.



The more you describe your views, the more disturbed they appear.  Right now you're somewhere bordering on cultish with you claiming special knowledge no one in the last 2000 years has been able to see.  That should be a huge red flag to you and if it's not then that's a black flag to me that this is all about juicing your ego.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Artfuldodger said:


> I hope Vectorman's definition of repentance is correct as I'm having a bit of trouble repenting from sin. I do believe Jesus died for my sins. I was hoping his blood washed them away. If not, I'm doomed to eternal death.



If you're having a problem repenting then you're not repenting and you are NOT saved.  Already been discussed.   Just trying to decide if you're just jockeying with vector man for attention.  Judging from your past several years of posting I'm guessing you're worried he's gonna out-troll you. Personally I don't think you have anything to worry about.  He appears legitimately disturbed in his views whereas you seem to just post anything in order to get a response.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm more interested in what Gentiles were before they were grafted into the promises of Israel? Did they have salvation from believing by faith even though they were
> separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.



Ephesians 2:12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world


----------



## Artfuldodger

SemperFiDawg said:


> If you're having a problem repenting then you're not repenting and you are NOT saved.  Already been discussed.   Just trying to decide if you're just jockeying with vector man for attention.  Judging from your past several years of posting I'm guessing you're worried he's gonna out-troll you. Personally I don't think you have anything to worry about.  He appears legitimately disturbed in his views whereas you seem to just post anything in order to get a response.



My repentance was knowing that I could never stop sinning and thus needed the blood of Christ to wash my sins away. It takes nothing from me and all from God.

Vectorman has a clearer picture of God's grace than your 2000 year old church ever had.  He does not appear legitimately disturbed in his views. I would say that my beliefs align more with his than with yours.

If you think I'm trolling then please put me back on your ignore list. But before you do please answer this;

"remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world."

It's not that hard of a question. What was the condition of the Gentiles before they were grafted in as in Romans 11?

Have you ever even read Romans 11? Answer this for me and then put me back on your ignore list.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Ephesians 2:12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world



Yes, what does that mean? What was their fate before the grafting?


----------



## Vectorman

SemperFiDawg said:


> The more you describe your views, the more disturbed they appear.  Right now you're somewhere bordering on cultish with you claiming special knowledge no one in the last 2000 years has been able to see.



When or where did I claim special knowledge? I'm just reading the book. Paul who was the apostle to gentiles not only saw it, he's the one who said it. I just believe it.


----------



## Vectorman

SemperFiDawg said:


> The more you describe your views, the more disturbed they appear.  Right now you're somewhere bordering on cultish with you claiming special knowledge no one in the last 2000 years has been able to see.  That should be a huge red flag to you and if it's not then that's a black flag to me that this is all about juicing your ego.



So no one in the last 2000 years has been able to see that salvation is by faith alone without works?

Church Fathers on Justification by Faith

Clement of Rome: "We also, being called through God's will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith" (Epistle to Corinthians).

Ignatius: "His cross, and his death, and his resurrection, and the faith which is through him, are my unpolluted muniments; and in these, through your prayers, I am willing to be justified (Epistle to Philadelphians). Note: "muniments" are title deeds, documents giving evidence of legal ownership of something.

Polycarp: "I know that through grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ (Epistle of Philippians).

Justin Martyr: "No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer...are sins purged, but by faith, through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account (Dialogue with Trypho). "God gave his own Son the ransom for us...for what, save his righteousness, could cover our sins. In whom was it possible that we, transgressors and ungodly as we were, could be justified, save in the Son of God alone? ...O unexpected benefit, that the transgression of many should be hidden in one righteous Person and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors" (Letter to Diognetus).

Ireneus: "Through the obedience of one man who first was born from the Virgin, many should be justified and receive salvation."

Cyprian: "If Abraham believed in God and it was imputed to him for righteousness, then each one, who believes in God and lives by faith, is found to be a righteous person."

Athanasius: "Not by these (i.e. human efforts) but by faith, a man is justified as was Abraham."

Basil: "This is the true and perfect glorying in God, when a man is not lifted up on account of his own righteousness, but has known himself to be wanting in true righteousness and to be justified by faith alone in Christ."

Ambrose: "Without the works of the law, to an ungodly man, that is to say, a Gentile, believing in Christ, his "faith is imputed for righteousness" as also it was to Abraham."

Origen: "Through faith, without the works of the law, the dying thief was justified, because...the Lord inquired not what he had previously wrought, nor yet waited for his performance of some work after he should have believe; but...he took him unto himself for a companion, justified through his confession alone."

Jerome: "When an ungodly man is converted, God justified him through faith alone, not on account of good works which he possessed not."

Chrysostom: "What then did God do? He made (says Paul) a righteous Person (Christ) to be a sinner, in order that he might make sinners righteous... it is the righteousness of God, when we are justified, not by works...but by grace, where all sin is made to vanish away."

Chrysostom: "Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed."

Augustine: "Grace is give to you, not wages paid to you...it is called grace because it is given gratuitously. By no precedent merits did you buy what you have received. The sinner therefore received this grace first, that his sins should be forgiven him...good works follow after a justified person; they do not go before in order that he may be justified...good works, following after justification, show what a man has received."

Augustine: "Now, having duly considered and weighed all these circumstances and testimonies, we conclude that a man is not justified by the precepts of a holy life, but by faith in Jesus Christ,--in a word, not by the law of works, but by the law of faith; not by the letter, but by the spirit; not by the merits of deeds, but by free grace."

Anselm: "Do you believe that you cannot be saved but by the death of Christ? Go, then, and ...put all your confidence in this death alone. If God shall say to you, "You are a sinner", say to him, "I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and my sin.""

Bernard of Clairvaux: "Shall not all our righteousness turn out to be mere unrighteousness and deficiency? What, then, shall it be concerning our sins, when not even our righteousness can answer for itself? Wherefore...let us flee, with all humility to Mercy which alone can save our souls...whoever hungers and thirsts after righteousness, let him believe in thee, who "justified the ungodly"; and thus, being justified by faith alone, he shall have peace with God."


----------



## Artfuldodger

Proverbs 26:12(NIV)
Do you see a person wise in their own eyes?
There is more hope for a fool than for them. 

Regardless of if we are members of a 2000 year old Church, a 500 year old Protestant Church of the reformation, or a 2 year old church gathered in a coffeeshop, none of us  should be wise enough to think we have all the answers.
It is possible to see how a denomination can place blinders on our understanding. I'm not saying one should abandon their denomination, just that they should be able to see beyond it as an individual seeking understanding. 
Just because something is taught for hundreds of years doesn't make it right. They might have been wise in their own eyes.


----------



## Vectorman

All I know is that Heaven would be a miserable place if we had to spend eternity listening to people talk about all the things they did or didn't do to get there.


----------



## Artfuldodger

How does one go about witnessing to a lost soul if you've got to tell them they must repent of sin in order to be saved? That seems like a hard task.
First you tell them Jesus died for their sins, then you tell them it comes with a stipulation. What if it's a drunkard? He believes Jesus died for his sins but years later he still suffers from alcoholism. He could eventually believe his salvation was lost due to his inability to quit drinking.
Why not tell him that God will stand by him as a Father to a Son regardless.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Yes, what does that mean? What was their fate before the grafting?



Hades.


----------



## Vectorman

I really don't like it when these discussions go from sharing ideas to arguments. I've let this one go way past sharing ideas. I do enjoy reading peoples opinions about topics and finding out why they believe what they do. Hobbs suggested earlier today that I read Josephus to understand why he's firmly planted in the 70ad camp. I have been reading Josephus' writings this afternoon and they are excellent reading. Not that I would put it above scripture in finding truth but it gives you insight into the history, context and culture of people living in israel during biblical times. Now, it will take a while for me to get to 70ad because I'm starting from the beginning. I may or may not agree with Hobbs after reading that chapter but it's all about searching for truth. I don't get offended if you don't agree with me on a topic and don't be offended if I say something that you don't agree with. You don't really need to accuse me of being part of a cult or of being here just to make people mad and to stroke my ego. I guess what I'm really saying folks is to lighten up a little and enjoy the sharing of ideas.


----------



## Vectorman

Artfuldodger said:


> So I gather from what you are saying is that even though salvation has always been about faith, there have been different rules depending on the time frame or groups within those time frames?
> 
> Was there ever a time frame or group that salvation was not delievered to?
> How does these verses tie into all of this?
> 
> Ephesians 2:12
> remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.



I do see that there are times when what you were expected to believe was different than other times. Jesus asked Peter "who do you say that I am?" Peter said, "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God." this is what God had revealed to him and was all he was expected to believe. He could not possibly believe in the death, burial and resurrection because it hadn't even happened yet. This was a time of transition.

About Eph 2:12, It describes a time when gentiles were not being saved. I don't think that it was because God didn't allow them in, I think it was because they(gentiles) chose not to. There is a rare exception or 2 in the old testament where gentiles were saved. 2 Kings 5 comes to mind when Naaman the Syrian army commander was healed of leprosy and believed the God of Israel.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Vectorman said:


> When or where did I claim special knowledge? I'm just reading the book. Paul who was the apostle to gentiles not only saw it, he's the one who said it. I just believe it.



Redefining the original doctrine after 2000 years due to a "NEW" bible study?  Yeah.  That's claiming special knowledge.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Vectorman said:


> I really don't like it when these discussions go from sharing ideas to arguments. I've let this one go way past sharing ideas. I do enjoy reading peoples opinions about topics and finding out why they believe what they do. Hobbs suggested earlier today that I read Josephus to understand why he's firmly planted in the 70ad camp. I have been reading Josephus' writings this afternoon and they are excellent reading. Not that I would put it above scripture in finding truth but it gives you insight into the history, context and culture of people living in israel during biblical times. Now, it will take a while for me to get to 70ad because I'm starting from the beginning. I may or may not agree with Hobbs after reading that chapter but it's all about searching for truth. I don't get offended if you don't agree with me on a topic and don't be offended if I say something that you don't agree with. You don't really need to accuse me of being part of a cult or of being here just to make people mad and to stroke my ego. I guess what I'm really saying folks is to lighten up a little and enjoy the sharing of ideas.



So you like spreading your ideas, but you don't want anyone to challenge them.  I'll say this.  If your ideas are indefensible or you don't want to/can't defend them, then an open forum is probably not a good place to "share" them.


----------



## hobbs27

Even when they are defensible and 100% in agreement with scripture, man is not easily moved.  This is a good thing though,  so we're  no blown around from one doctrine to another.

 It doesn't matter if others accept what you have come to believe as long as it is good with you,  and scripture supports it.


----------



## centerpin fan

Vectorman said:


> So no one in the last 2000 years has been able to see that salvation is by faith alone without works?
> 
> Church Fathers on Justification by Faith
> 
> Clement of Rome: "We also, being called through God's will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith" (Epistle to Corinthians).
> 
> Ignatius: "His cross, and his death, and his resurrection, and the faith which is through him, are my unpolluted muniments; and in these, through your prayers, I am willing to be justified (Epistle to Philadelphians). Note: "muniments" are title deeds, documents giving evidence of legal ownership of something.
> 
> Polycarp: "I know that through grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ (Epistle of Philippians).
> 
> Justin Martyr: "No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer...are sins purged, but by faith, through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account (Dialogue with Trypho). "God gave his own Son the ransom for us...for what, save his righteousness, could cover our sins. In whom was it possible that we, transgressors and ungodly as we were, could be justified, save in the Son of God alone? ...O unexpected benefit, that the transgression of many should be hidden in one righteous Person and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors" (Letter to Diognetus).
> 
> Ireneus: "Through the obedience of one man who first was born from the Virgin, many should be justified and receive salvation."
> 
> Cyprian: "If Abraham believed in God and it was imputed to him for righteousness, then each one, who believes in God and lives by faith, is found to be a righteous person."
> 
> Athanasius: "Not by these (i.e. human efforts) but by faith, a man is justified as was Abraham."
> 
> Basil: "This is the true and perfect glorying in God, when a man is not lifted up on account of his own righteousness, but has known himself to be wanting in true righteousness and to be justified by faith alone in Christ."
> 
> Ambrose: "Without the works of the law, to an ungodly man, that is to say, a Gentile, believing in Christ, his "faith is imputed for righteousness" as also it was to Abraham."
> 
> Origen: "Through faith, without the works of the law, the dying thief was justified, because...the Lord inquired not what he had previously wrought, nor yet waited for his performance of some work after he should have believe; but...he took him unto himself for a companion, justified through his confession alone."
> 
> Jerome: "When an ungodly man is converted, God justified him through faith alone, not on account of good works which he possessed not."
> 
> Chrysostom: "What then did God do? He made (says Paul) a righteous Person (Christ) to be a sinner, in order that he might make sinners righteous... it is the righteousness of God, when we are justified, not by works...but by grace, where all sin is made to vanish away."
> 
> Chrysostom: "Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed."
> 
> Augustine: "Grace is give to you, not wages paid to you...it is called grace because it is given gratuitously. By no precedent merits did you buy what you have received. The sinner therefore received this grace first, that his sins should be forgiven him...good works follow after a justified person; they do not go before in order that he may be justified...good works, following after justification, show what a man has received."
> 
> Augustine: "Now, having duly considered and weighed all these circumstances and testimonies, we conclude that a man is not justified by the precepts of a holy life, but by faith in Jesus Christ,--in a word, not by the law of works, but by the law of faith; not by the letter, but by the spirit; not by the merits of deeds, but by free grace."
> 
> Anselm: "Do you believe that you cannot be saved but by the death of Christ? Go, then, and ...put all your confidence in this death alone. If God shall say to you, "You are a sinner", say to him, "I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and my sin.""
> 
> Bernard of Clairvaux: "Shall not all our righteousness turn out to be mere unrighteousness and deficiency? What, then, shall it be concerning our sins, when not even our righteousness can answer for itself? Wherefore...let us flee, with all humility to Mercy which alone can save our souls...whoever hungers and thirsts after righteousness, let him believe in thee, who "justified the ungodly"; and thus, being justified by faith alone, he shall have peace with God."



Do you really believe those guys did not think repentance from sin is necessary for salvation?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> Even when they are defensible and 100% in agreement with scripture, man is not easily moved.  This is a good thing though,  so we're  no blown around from one doctrine to another.
> 
> It doesn't matter if others accept what you have come to believe as long as it is good with you,  and scripture supports it.



Scripture has and continues to be bent into diametrically opposing views so I'm not convinced your last statement is very sound advice


----------



## SemperFiDawg

centerpin fan said:


> Do you really believe those guys did not think repentance from sin is necessary for salvation?



I'm honestly afraid to hear this answer.


----------



## Vectorman

SemperFiDawg said:


> So you like spreading your ideas, but you don't want anyone to challenge them.  I'll say this.  If your ideas are indefensible or you don't want to/can't defend them, then an open forum is probably not a good place to "share" them.



The possibility of a different gospel for gentiles was not something that I pulled out of the air. I simply read in Galations 2:

2 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, *I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles*.(*Why would he need to share with them the gospel he preaches to the gentiles if it was the same gospel that Peter preached to the Jews?*)I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.(*under the law*) 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

Late in his ministry, Peter would tell the Jews to go to Pauls epistles for understanding about salvation.

2 Peter 3:15-16

15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand,(*For a Jew*) which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Reading these things I can come up with no other explanation other than Paul's gospel to the gentiles was different than Peter's.


----------



## centerpin fan

Vectorman said:


> The possibility of a different gospel for gentiles was not something that I pulled out of the air. I simply read in Galations 2:
> 
> 2 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, *I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles*.(*Why would he need to share with them the gospel he preaches to the gentiles if it was the same gospel that Peter preached to the Jews ...*


*

This is classic eisegesis (reading your beliefs into the text.)*


----------



## Vectorman

centerpin fan said:


> Do you really believe those guys did not think repentance from sin is necessary for salvation?



If I look at what Augustine said:

Augustine: "Grace is give to you, not wages paid to you...it is called grace because it is given gratuitously. By no precedent merits did you buy what you have received. The sinner therefore received this grace first, that his sins should be forgiven him...good works follow after a justified person; they do not go before in order that he may be justified...good works, following after justification, show what a man has received."

Reading this it becomes very clear to me that he did not think that repentance of sin was necessary for salvation.


----------



## centerpin fan

Vectorman said:


> If I look at what Augustine said:
> 
> Augustine: "Grace is give to you, not wages paid to you...it is called grace because it is given gratuitously. By no precedent merits did you buy what you have received. The sinner therefore received this grace first, that his sins should be forgiven him...good works follow after a justified person; they do not go before in order that he may be justified...good works, following after justification, show what a man has received."
> 
> Reading this it becomes very clear to me that he did not think that repentance of sin was necessary for salvation.



You're selectively quoting a man whose autobiography was titled _Confessions_ --  which details his life of sin and subsequent repentance.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Vectorman said:


> The possibility of a different gospel for gentiles was not something that I pulled out of the air. I simply read in Galations 2:
> 
> 2 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, *I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles*.(*Why would he need to share with them the gospel he preaches to the gentiles if it was the same gospel that Peter preached to the Jews?*)I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.(*under the law*) 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.
> 
> Late in his ministry, Peter would tell the Jews to go to Pauls epistles for understanding about salvation.
> 
> 2 Peter 3:15-16
> 
> 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand,(*For a Jew*) which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
> 
> Reading these things I can come up with no other explanation other than Paul's gospel to the gentiles was different than Peter's.



Well read on down to 6:6 and your find 


> they added nothing to my message.


 which clearly indicates there was ONE message, not two.


----------



## hobbs27

SemperFiDawg said:


> Scripture has and continues to be bent into diametrically opposing views so I'm not convinced your last statement is very sound advice



Then who amongst this group of misfits shall he put all his faith in to direct him on sound doctrine? If the spirit isn't allowed to settle our faith on doctrine then we must be abandoned children. Yes we question,  yes we have different thoughts,  but it is our life long duty to search where the Lord directs us.


----------



## hobbs27

Vectorman said:


> Reading these things I can come up with no other explanation other than Paul's gospel to the gentiles was different than Peter's.



What is your definition of Gospel?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Vectorman said:


> If I look at what Augustine said:
> 
> Augustine: "Grace is give to you, not wages paid to you...it is called grace because it is given gratuitously. By no precedent merits did you buy what you have received. The sinner therefore received this grace first, that his sins should be forgiven him...good works follow after a justified person; they do not go before in order that he may be justified...good works, following after justification, show what a man has received."
> 
> Reading this it becomes very clear to me that he did not think that repentance of sin was necessary for salvation.




Let me get this straight.  You read that and decided repentance isn't necessary?

Are you kidding me?   Really?  How?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> Then who amongst this group of misfits shall he put all his faith in to direct him on sound doctrine?



At this point, for him, I would suggest a Children's Bible.


----------



## Vectorman

hobbs27 said:


> What is your definition of Gospel?



The word gospel means "good news", we do unfortunately because of how we have been taught automatically to think "requirements for salvation" when we see it but that's not always they way it should be read.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Please allow me to alter this slightly.  I think you understated it.




centerpin fan said:


> You're selectively quoting a man whose autobiography was titled _Confessions_ --  which details his life of sin and *subsequent repentance.*


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Vectorman said:


> The word gospel means "good news", we do unfortunately because of how we have been taught automatically to think "requirements for salvation" when we see it but that's not always they way it should be read.



Makes perfect sense.  You can't just toss out 'repentance' without redefining 'gospel' along the way.


----------



## Vectorman

SemperFiDawg said:


> Let me get this straight.  You read that and decided repentance isn't necessary?
> 
> Are you kidding me?   Really?  How?



I said based on what he said, he(Augustine) didn't think repentance of sin was necessary for salvation.

What did Calvin and Luther think?....

from Bible.org

REPENTANCE (METANOIA) DEFINED AS A CHANGE OF MIND

In contrast to the Church's definition of metanoia as involving contrition, confession, and the performance of acts of penance, Calvin and Luther concluded that it retained its classical sense of "a change of mind."21 Salvific repentance according to Calvin and Luther was a change of mind whereby one recognized his own sinfulness and need of forgiveness and then turned in faith to God to provide that forgiveness in Christ.22 In essence, then, Luther and Calvin viewed salvific repentance as an essential part of saving faith.


----------



## hobbs27

Vectorman said:


> The word gospel means "good news", we do unfortunately because of how we have been taught automatically to think "requirements for salvation" when we see it but that's not always they way it should be read.



And what was the good news,  and how could it possibly be different for the Jew than the Gentile?


----------



## centerpin fan

Fifteen people reading this train wreck now ...


----------



## centerpin fan

Vectorman said:


> I said based on what he said, he(Augustine) didn't think repentance of sin was necessary for salvation.
> 
> What did Calvin and Luther think?....
> 
> from Bible.org
> 
> REPENTANCE (METANOIA) DEFINED AS A CHANGE OF MIND
> 
> In contrast to the Church's definition of metanoia as involving contrition, confession, and the performance of acts of penance, Calvin and Luther concluded that it retained its classical sense of "a change of mind."21 Salvific repentance according to Calvin and Luther was a change of mind whereby one recognized his own sinfulness and need of forgiveness and then turned in faith to God to provide that forgiveness in Christ.22 In essence, then, Luther and Calvin viewed salvific repentance as an essential part of saving faith.



Did you read that part?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Vectorman said:


> I said based on what he said, he(Augustine) didn't think repentance of sin was necessary for salvation.
> 
> What did Calvin and Luther think?....
> 
> from Bible.org
> 
> REPENTANCE (METANOIA) DEFINED AS A CHANGE OF MIND
> 
> In contrast to the Church's definition of metanoia as involving contrition, confession, and the performance of acts of penance, Calvin and Luther concluded that it retained its classical sense of "a change of mind."21 Salvific repentance according to Calvin and Luther was a change of mind whereby one recognized his own sinfulness and need of forgiveness and then turned in faith to God to provide that forgiveness in Christ.22 In essence, then, Luther and Calvin viewed salvific repentance as an essential part of saving faith.



In the Augustine quote, unless I missed it, the term repentance is not present.  Are you implying the reason it's not present is because it's not necessary?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

centerpin fan said:


> Did you read that part?



I think he's arguing (his) interpretation of Augustine is correct and the Church including Calvin and Luther are wrong.  Otherwise his post makes no sense.


----------



## centerpin fan

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think he's arguing (his) interpretation of Augustine is correct and the Church including Calvin and Luther are wrong.  Otherwise his post makes no sense.



At this point, I'm starting to feel like John Cleese:


----------



## SemperFiDawg

centerpin fan said:


> Fifteen people reading this train wreck now ...



Well at least it's interesting.


----------



## Vectorman

It depends on what your definition of repentance is. If you think repentance means to turn from sin then no, repentance is not part of salvation. If you believe that repentance is changing your mind and believing the gospel, then yes. My post about Calvin and Martin Luther was to show that they had the correct definition of repentance.


----------



## centerpin fan

Vectorman said:


> My post about Calvin and Martin Luther was to show that they had the correct definition of repentance.



I think they did.  But your definition of repentance does not match theirs.  Read the red part again in post 153.


----------



## Artfuldodger

In contrast to the Church's definition of metanoia as involving contrition, confession, and the performance of acts of penance, Calvin and Luther concluded that it retained its classical sense of "a change of mind."21 Salvific repentance according to Calvin and Luther was a change of mind whereby one recognized his own sinfulness and need of forgiveness and then turned in faith to God to provide that forgiveness in Christ.22 In essence, then, Luther and Calvin viewed salvific repentance as an essential part of saving faith.

Wouldn't it appear that Luther and Calvin's definition of salvific repentance be a change of mind and that it is a part of saving faith? They aren't denying that it is a part of salvation, just the definition of repentance.


----------



## centerpin fan

Artfuldodger said:


> Wouldn't it appear that Luther and Calvin's definition of salvific repentance be a change of mind ...



About what?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Vectorman said:


> It depends on what your definition of repentance is. If you think repentance means to turn from sin then no, repentance is not part of salvation.



You're DEAD wrong



Vectorman said:


> If you believe that repentance is changing your mind and believing the gospel, then yes.



Delusional




Vectorman said:


> My post about Calvin and Martin Luther was to show that they had the correct definition of repentance.



 They do.  You don't.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Artfuldodger said:


> Wouldn't it appear that Luther and Calvin's definition of salvific repentance be ........


 
Only to someone who is illiterate or mentally incompetent.


----------



## centerpin fan

Vectorman said:


> It depends on what your definition of repentance is.





Sorry.  Couldn't resist.


----------



## Vectorman

When we pass from this life to the next and you stand before God and if He asked you why should He let you into heaven. If you answer because I have turned from my sin or I have quit sinning.....be sure to bring some aloe


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Vectorman said:


> When we pass from this life to the next and you stand before God and if He asked you why should He let you into heaven. If you answer because I have turned from my sin or I have quit sinning.....be sure to bring some aloe



As contrast to "Because I didn't turn from my sins and I kept willfully sinning?   

Let me ask.  If sin has no consequence, no penalty, and requires no repentance what was the purpose of Christ's crucifixion.   Indeed!  What was the Purpose of Christ at all.  Why do you need a savior at all if you haven't done anything wrong?

Your doctrine negates it's own necessity.  It self- destructs.


----------



## centerpin fan

Vectorman said:


> If you answer because I have turned from my sin or I have quit sinning.....be sure to bring some aloe



Why would you say that?  Anybody who has repented obviously has faith in Jesus.


----------



## Vectorman

SemperFiDawg said:


> As contrast to "Because I didn't turn from my sins and I kept willfully sinning?
> 
> Let me ask.  If sin has no consequence, no penalty, and requires no repentance what was the purpose of Christ's crucifixion.   Indeed!  What was the Purpose of Christ at all.  Why do you need a savior at all if you haven't done anything wrong?
> 
> Your doctrine negates it's own necessity.  It self- destructs.



Where in all the post have I ever said I haven't done anything wrong? But in post after post I have said faith in the finished work of christ and that alone is the requirement. Where in any post have I preached grace is a license to sin?


----------



## Vectorman

centerpin fan said:


> Why would you say that?  Anybody who has repented obviously has faith in Jesus.



Because if I'm relying on faith in Christ I cannot add any works too it. And if I'm relying on my works, I'm saying I don't need Christ and his work.

You are trying to keep 1 foot on the dock and the other in a boat. Pick a side, are you depending on Christ or your ability to not sin?


----------



## centerpin fan

Vectorman said:


> Because if I'm relying on faith in Christ I cannot add any works too it.



As I said before, this is where we fundamentally disagree.  I don't believe repentance is a "work".


----------



## Vectorman

centerpin fan said:


> As I said before, this is where we fundamentally disagree.  I don't believe repentance is a "work".



Agreed, let's let this thread die and go away.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Vectorman said:


> Where in all the post have I ever said I haven't done anything wrong? But in post after post I have said faith in the finished work of christ and that alone is the requirement. Where in any post have I preached grace is a license to sin?



I just countered your straw man with his antithesis.


----------



## hobbs27

SemperFIDawg... CPF. ...

I'm curious... Would you accept that the Apostles approached their subjects in different manners according to their race,  being a Jew or a Gentile?  
 I believe I have found a great example of how Paul changed his style of preaching,  and I think this is one of the ways vector has become confused over this,  it's not a different gospel or a different hope,  but a Jew would learn about Jesus through the Law and prophets..  A Gentile,  not so much.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Preaching to the Jew, you would have to get him to forget the Law and go with Jesus. You would have to get him to accept that Jesus also became the King and messiah to the Gentile as well.

Preaching to the Gentile, you would have to teach him that they are being grafted into the promises once given to the Jew. Having never had the Law, yet presenting a religion that was once full of Laws might be a strange concept to Gentiles.


----------



## centerpin fan

hobbs27 said:


> SemperFIDawg... CPF. ...
> 
> I'm curious... Would you accept that the Apostles approached their subjects in different manners according to their race,  being a Jew or a Gentile?
> I believe I have found a great example of how Paul changed his style of preaching,  and I think this is one of the ways vector has become confused over this,  it's not a different gospel or a different hope,  but a Jew would learn about Jesus through the Law and prophets..  A Gentile,  not so much.



That sounds reasonable.  I always thought it was interesting that the educated apostle (Paul) went to the gentiles because they needed a teacher.  OTOH, the uneducated apostle (Peter) went to the Jews, who thought they didn't need a teacher.


----------



## hobbs27

centerpin fan said:


> That sounds reasonable.  I always thought it was interesting that the educated apostle (Paul) went to the gentiles because they needed a teacher.  OTOH, the uneducated apostle (Peter) went to the Jews, who thought they didn't need a teacher.



Yes and Art is correct too.  

In Acts 17:19,22. Paul is teaching gentiles in Greece about Jesus,  and not from the law and prophets.

Acts 28:23 Paul is teaching his brethren the Jews in Rome.. And he teaches them Jesus from the Law and prophets. 

Peter teaching mostly or all Jew's would have appeared to present a different message than Paul which taught Gentiles... But as we already pointed out,  there is one Lord,  one Faith,  one Baptism.


----------



## Vectorman

hobbs27 said:


> SemperFIDawg... CPF. ...
> 
> I'm curious... Would you accept that the Apostles approached their subjects in different manners according to their race,  being a Jew or a Gentile?
> I believe I have found a great example of how Paul changed his style of preaching,  and I think this is one of the ways vector has become confused over this,  it's not a different gospel or a different hope,  but a Jew would learn about Jesus through the Law and prophets..  A Gentile,  not so much.



Wow, suddenly we have the sharing of ideas again, something a person can read, study, check the scripture about.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> SemperFIDawg... CPF. ...
> 
> I'm curious... Would you accept that the Apostles approached their subjects in different manners according to their race,  being a Jew or a Gentile?
> I believe I have found a great example of how Paul changed his style of preaching,  and I think this is one of the ways vector has become confused over this,  it's not a different gospel or a different hope,  but a Jew would learn about Jesus through the Law and prophets..  A Gentile,  not so much.



Maybe, to some extent, but not so much intentionally, especially where Paul is concerned.  I think God chose and guided them.  You read Acts and several times you read that the Holy Spirit spoke through them......even across language barriers.  This lines up with Jesus telling them not to worry about what to say.  That when the time came the Holy Spirit would speak through them.  

As an aside, It still happens today.  I have a very close friend who had to bury his little girl a few years back.  His wife had written out something she wanted to say at the end of the service, but was in no shape to do it, so he did.  
When he got to the end of the message he said something happened to him.  He said, "For those of you who aren't saved you better fix that quick,  time is real short."  He told me that wasn't in the message, and it wasn't even on his mind.  He said he could NOT have said it if he tried to.  He had to.  It just came out of the blue, and he realized it was the Holy Spirit that did it through him.  Made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.


----------



## Bama4me

SemperFiDawg said:


> As an aside, It still happens today.  I have a very close friend who had to bury his little girl a few years back.  His wife had written out something she wanted to say at the end of the service, but was in no shape to do it, so he did.
> When he got to the end of the message he said something happened to him.  He said, "For those of you who aren't saved you better fix that quick,  time is real short."  He told me that wasn't in the message, and it wasn't even on his mind.  He said he could NOT have said it if he tried to.  He had to.  It just came out of the blue, and he realized it was the Holy Spirit that did it through him.  Made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.



I disagree with the premise that the Spirit moves people today to speak in this way.  People say a lot of things that are unplanned on a whim - our minds often deviate from a specific direction for a variety of reasons.


During the NT times when no written Scripture existed... yes.  But not today.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Bama4me said:


> I disagree with the premise that the Spirit moves people today to speak in this way.  People say a lot of things that are unplanned on a whim - our minds often deviate from a specific direction for a variety of reasons.
> 
> 
> During the NT times when no written Scripture existed... yes.  But not today.



Oh Brother.     Another person who thinks they can put God in a box (the same God who spoke the Universe into existence)  based on their deductions from reading scripture.

Let me ask.  By stating this, are you not in effect limiting God, and thus in essence becoming his master?  

Think about this.  The thief on the cross was the ONLY person Christ guaranteed he would see in Heaven today.  He wasn't baptized,  he didn't speak in tongues, prophesy, and wasn't an disciple.  Shouldn't that serve as a warning about limiting God?


----------



## Israel

I surely cannot speak to the "why" of God's choosing of Saul of Tarsus, (despite personal speculations), but I am at liberty to explore (as are we all) the benefits that accrue to it.

Here's a man who (if his own testimony is to be believed) that carried within himself so great a burden of law, regulations, obligations to a "system" he believed would bring him to the knowledge of God, finding ultimately (through grace and revelation) this all and only brought him to the knowledge of sin.

In his excelling at that which he embraced he was not ashamed nor embarrassed to articulate:

"circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin; a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, persecuting the church; as to righteousness under the Law, faultless."

All of this former effort, when seen in the light now caused him to proclaim:

"But whatever was an asset to me, I count as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things as loss compared to the surpassing excellence of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ…"

It is more than a simple accounting of a thing, or things, useless and as "rubbish"...it involves the very personal compelling to _see them _as so, that.... "I may gain Christ". 

Who of us does not know this?

Who does not have the experience (even having been made a believer) that does not learn those personal altars and encounters, those most prized and valued experiences are never that upon which we may take our stand? All of history, personal, or embraced as personal...makes way.

"Yes" we may say "God spoke to me there" or "God did (such and such) for me there"  "God showed such and such to me there", and we may even find the most marvelous of comforts in their recall. Yes, these things may indeed be true things, real things, for us irrefutable things. But all the while we know...and are learning, these "things" are not those upon which we dare take our stand. These "things" we have been given to see of Christ, though they even be "all of the Christ"...are not the fullness of all of the Christ of God.
How much, we may come to see, that we, of ourselves, have fashioned into "system", only the Lord can show. ("Be not entangled again...")

I see the benefit made manifest, at least to me, through a man like Paul. Learning wonderfully of burden lifted, but more importantly in that seeing, the acknowledgement of _natural_ tendency to refashion of liberty a thing that will again become a binding and constriction of soul if left untended by the guidance of the Spirit.
There is a pressing on to know a person...in a fullness previously unimaginable that with it brings a likewise knowing of one another in that same light.
We might admit, if we dare to, are made aware to, the first person we have never really known at all, is ourselves. And from that unknowing all of our other relationships have been colored, tainted, locking us in an isolation of which we readily made our own cell bars. We chose according to the one on the only throne we could see...our own.

But when the Conqueror has come...


----------



## Bama4me

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh Brother.     Another person who thinks they can put God in a box (the same God who spoke the Universe into existence)  based on their deductions from reading scripture.
> 
> Let me ask.  By stating this, are you not in effect limiting God, and thus in essence becoming his master?



Thanks for reading my mind and intentions... your opening line there obviously isn't trying to engage, but disparage.  If you claim to be a Christian, then you might want to look at changing that disposition.

No one can put God in a box, but we can only operate on the basis of revelation.  In other words, what has God revealed to us about ________ (insert any subject in the blank)?  Paul cautioned the Corinthian brethren to not "go beyond Scripture"... that means that we should draw our conclusions based on what God reveals - not on opinions or speculations of man.  God clearly possesses all power - but that isn't the question.  The question is "what has our God revealed to us on the subject of knowledge"?

During the NT times, people didn't have written material like we do today... they were dependent upon the Spirit directly leading them to truth (John 16:12-15).  As congregations were established in the book of Acts, there would be prophets/evangelists/etc. who would be "gifted" by the Holy Spirit when apostles would lay hands on them (see Acts 8:14-17, 2 Timothy 1:6-7).  The entire lifeblood (if you will) of the congregation depended upon people having and using these gifts.

At some point, all of God's intended revelation would have been complete and at that time, there would no longer be a need for prophets and other such people men to reveal any more information.  When was that time?  Scripture leads us to understand it would be when the biblical canon would be complete and when each congregation reached a mature level of knowledge (1 Corinthians 13:8ff, Ephesians 4:11ff).  For some congregations, it likely would be on a different time frame than others because of the maturity level.

Not one person in the book of Acts could say to another "just read Scripture about Jesus, the gospel, etc." because the NT had not yet been completed.  You asked me to think about something in your post... think about living as a Christian in a time when NT Scripture didn't exist.  The reliance we have today on the written word wouldn't be possible.

The reason I stated what I did above is because God has indicated we no longer need additional revelation - in other words, we no longer need to be "led" in a direct way by the Holy Spirit.  Today we continue to be "led"... but it's via the written word, not by the Spirit actively directing us as Phillip was in Acts 8.

Today, everywhere I look, I see people claiming to be "led" by the Spirit.  Regarding beliefs, one claims the Spirit "led him" to believe one thing... while another claims the Spirit "led him" to believe something totally opposed.  Nowhere in Scripture do you see such occurring - in fact, God makes the point that He is NOT the author of chaos (1 Corinthians 14:33).  Thus... either one person today is lying or God IS a God that is fickle (one way one day, totally different the next).  Obviously, that's not correct (Hebrews 13:8).

When I ask who should be believed in those matters, I'm told "it's whoever is in agreement with Scripture".  When I hear this, I wonder "if Scripture proclaims it already, why does God need to 'led a person' to that knowledge... why cannot God give them the intelligence to look to what has been written?"

God indeeds "moves and works" today in many ways - I'm not denying that.  However, He does not "give us impulses to follow" or miraculously endow us today as He did in the first century.


----------



## gordon 2

Bama4me said:


> Thanks for reading my mind and intentions... your opening line there obviously isn't trying to engage, but disparage.  If you claim to be a Christian, then you might want to look at changing that disposition.
> 
> No one can put God in a box, but we can only operate on the basis of revelation.  In other words, what has God revealed to us about ________ (insert any subject in the blank)?  Paul cautioned the Corinthian brethren to not "go beyond Scripture"... that means that we should draw our conclusions based on what God reveals - not on opinions or speculations of man.  God clearly possesses all power - but that isn't the question.  The question is "what has our God revealed to us on the subject of knowledge"?
> 
> During the NT times, people didn't have written material like we do today... they were dependent upon the Spirit directly leading them to truth (John 16:12-15).  As congregations were established in the book of Acts, there would be prophets/evangelists/etc. who would be "gifted" by the Holy Spirit when apostles would lay hands on them (see Acts 8:14-17, 2 Timothy 1:6-7).  The entire lifeblood (if you will) of the congregation depended upon people having and using these gifts.
> 
> At some point, all of God's intended revelation would have been complete and at that time, there would no longer be a need for prophets and other such people men to reveal any more information.  When was that time?  Scripture leads us to understand it would be when the biblical canon would be complete and when each congregation reached a mature level of knowledge (1 Corinthians 13:8ff, Ephesians 4:11ff).  For some congregations, it likely would be on a different time frame than others because of the maturity level.
> 
> Not one person in the book of Acts could say to another "just read Scripture about Jesus, the gospel, etc." because the NT had not yet been completed.  You asked me to think about something in your post... think about living as a Christian in a time when NT Scripture didn't exist.  The reliance we have today on the written word wouldn't be possible.
> 
> The reason I stated what I did above is because God has indicated we no longer need additional revelation - in other words, we no longer need to be "led" in a direct way by the Holy Spirit.  Today we continue to be "led"... but it's via the written word, not by the Spirit actively directing us as Phillip was in Acts 8.
> 
> Today, everywhere I look, I see people claiming to be "led" by the Spirit.  Regarding beliefs, one claims the Spirit "led him" to believe one thing... while another claims the Spirit "led him" to believe something totally opposed.  Nowhere in Scripture do you see such occurring - in fact, God makes the point that He is NOT the author of chaos (1 Corinthians 14:33).  Thus... either one person today is lying or God IS a God that is fickle (one way one day, totally different the next).  Obviously, that's not correct (Hebrews 13:8).
> 
> When I ask who should be believed in those matters, I'm told "it's whoever is in agreement with Scripture".  When I hear this, I wonder "if Scripture proclaims it already, why does God need to 'led a person' to that knowledge... why cannot God give them the intelligence to look to what has been written?"
> 
> God indeeds "moves and works" today in many ways - I'm not denying that.  However, He does not "give us impulses to follow" or miraculously endow us today as He did in the first century.[/QUOTE]
> 
> 
> You really, really believe this?


----------



## hobbs27

Gordon.. I believe what he said too.  The Spiritual Gifts were given to those first century Christians only.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Bama4me said:


> Thanks for reading my mind and intentions... your opening line there obviously isn't trying to engage, but disparage.  If you claim to be a Christian, then you might want to look at changing that disposition.
> 
> No one can put God in a box, but we can only operate on the basis of revelation.  In other words, what has God revealed to us about ________ (insert any subject in the blank)?  Paul cautioned the Corinthian brethren to not "go beyond Scripture"... that means that we should draw our conclusions based on what God reveals - not on opinions or speculations of man.  God clearly possesses all power - but that isn't the question.  The question is "what has our God revealed to us on the subject of knowledge"?
> 
> During the NT times, people didn't have written material like we do today... they were dependent upon the Spirit directly leading them to truth (John 16:12-15).  As congregations were established in the book of Acts, there would be prophets/evangelists/etc. who would be "gifted" by the Holy Spirit when apostles would lay hands on them (see Acts 8:14-17, 2 Timothy 1:6-7).  The entire lifeblood (if you will) of the congregation depended upon people having and using these gifts.
> 
> At some point, all of God's intended revelation would have been complete and at that time, there would no longer be a need for prophets and other such people men to reveal any more information.  When was that time?  Scripture leads us to understand it would be when the biblical canon would be complete and when each congregation reached a mature level of knowledge (1 Corinthians 13:8ff, Ephesians 4:11ff).  For some congregations, it likely would be on a different time frame than others because of the maturity level.
> 
> Not one person in the book of Acts could say to another "just read Scripture about Jesus, the gospel, etc." because the NT had not yet been completed.  You asked me to think about something in your post... think about living as a Christian in a time when NT Scripture didn't exist.  The reliance we have today on the written word wouldn't be possible.
> 
> The reason I stated what I did above is because God has indicated we no longer need additional revelation - in other words, we no longer need to be "led" in a direct way by the Holy Spirit.  Today we continue to be "led"... but it's via the written word, not by the Spirit actively directing us as Phillip was in Acts 8.
> 
> Today, everywhere I look, I see people claiming to be "led" by the Spirit.  Regarding beliefs, one claims the Spirit "led him" to believe one thing... while another claims the Spirit "led him" to believe something totally opposed.  Nowhere in Scripture do you see such occurring - in fact, God makes the point that He is NOT the author of chaos (1 Corinthians 14:33).  Thus... either one person today is lying or God IS a God that is fickle (one way one day, totally different the next).  Obviously, that's not correct (Hebrews 13:8).
> 
> When I ask who should be believed in those matters, I'm told "it's whoever is in agreement with Scripture".  When I hear this, I wonder "if Scripture proclaims it already, why does God need to 'led a person' to that knowledge... why cannot God give them the intelligence to look to what has been written?"
> 
> God indeeds "moves and works" today in many ways - I'm not denying that.  However, He does not "give us impulses to follow" or miraculously endow us today as He did in the first century.



Nope.  Just read your post brother.  



> However, He does not "give us impulses to follow" or miraculously endow us today as He did in the first century.



Not sure what you meant by "impulses".  It's vague at best,  but saying 





> or miraculously endow us today as He did in the first century.


 is exactly what I am speaking of.   Who are you to dictate what God does?

I stand convinced that every breath we take is direct and concrete proof of a miracle.  Don'''t believe it?  Try to take another one when your times up.  The problem is we don't appreciate God's miracles that happen in our life every second.  We don't see the miracles, because we have lost our 'wonder'.    You're missing a lot of God's working in your life by believing as you do Brother.


----------



## hummerpoo

SemperFiDawg said:


> I stand convinced that every breath we take is direct and concrete proof of a miracle.  Don'''t believe it?  Try to take another one when your times up.  The problem is we don't appreciate God's miracles that happen in our life every second.  We don't see the miracles, because we have lost our 'wonder'.    You're missing a lot of God's working in your life by believing as you do Brother.



Amen!

God gives us the eyes to see and the ears to hear (His Spirit in us); and what we see and hear is God working in us and around us.  The awareness of God's activity in all that we experience is the ground of "spiritual joy"; it is what prompt Paul to say, "Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us."

One of my mentors as a young man was fellow who quit school after the 3rd grade to help his father "hack" railroad ties, to provide for the family through the winter months.  His proficiency with scripture wasn't much, but he knew God as intimately as anyone I have ever known; and he praised God come what may.


----------



## Bama4me

SemperFiDawg said:


> I stand convinced that every breath we take is direct and concrete proof of a miracle.  Don'''t believe it?  Try to take another one when your times up.  The problem is we don't appreciate God's miracles that happen in our life every second.  We don't see the miracles, because we have lost our 'wonder'.    You're missing a lot of God's working in your life by believing as you do Brother.



Ok... then what you're arguing about is semantics.  In the NT, a miracle is defined as something that defied natural laws - something that could only be caused by supernatural means.

For example, walking on water was a miracle... taking two fish and five loaves of bread and making enough food to feed 5,000 men was a miracle... raising a widow's son from the dead was a miracle.  Definition-wise from the bible, miracles aren't things God created as the "natural order".

Granted, a baby's growth in a mother's womb is amazing to behold... how the world continues to be situated just the right distance from the sun is unable to be fathomed... yes, the very way our body works to take in oxygen and process it to create energy is an awesome thing.  I'm not saying any of these things aren't just as amazing as things done in the bible days - they are.

However, when you define a "miracle" from the bible, that definition doesn't include those types of things.  Also, in the NT days, God often worked these things THROUGH the hands of people.  God raised Tabitha from the dead by Peter's work... and He did the same with Eutychus via the work of Paul.  Peter and John imparted the Holy Spirit to the believers in Samaria... and the Holy Spirit "gifted" 12 men in Ephesus w/ the ability to speak in tongues via the hands of Paul.

In 1 Corinthians 13 and Ephesians 4, the bible states these things would cease... obviously at a time when they would no longer be needed.  John 20:30-31 says the signs of the Lord in that book were recorded so people could read about them and come to a belief in Him - no miracle was needed for faith to be created (unlike in prior NT times).  These are things that are revealed to us... we're not guessing here.

You continue to say "I'm limiting God".  Question for you... in Titus 1:2 we read that God never lies (some versions say "cannot lie).  When I make the statement "God doesn't lie" have I "limited God"... or "put Him in a box"?  Or... am I simply depending upon God's revealed word to proclaim a fact that God reveals about Himself?  Again, God works in multitudes of ways today - many of which we probably have no way to fathom.  However, we can't just take what He has revealed to us and throw it out the window because "that limits God".  If it's revealed in His word, then HE has limited Himself.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Bama4me said:


> Ok... then what you're arguing about is semantics.



No.



Bama4me said:


> In the NT, a miracle is defined as something that defied natural laws.



I wasn't aware the NT defined the term "miracle".  Verse please?

As far as 1 C 13 and E4.  I would say you're taking them out of context and reading your beliefs INTO them.  

Ask 1000 Christians what 1 C 13 and 100% of them would say " Oh yeah,  That the one dealing with love."  I dare say 1 would say "Oh yeah, that's the one where God says he's out of the whole miracle/ supernatural business."  

Anyway, If you are reading this much into these verses you're comfortable reading you're beliefs into scripture, which means I'm wasting my time and yours too.


----------



## Bama4me

SemperFiDawg said:


> I wasn't aware the NT defined the term "miracle".  Verse please?
> 
> As far as 1 C 13 and E4.  I would say you're taking them out of context and reading your beliefs INTO them.
> 
> Ask 1000 Christians what 1 C 13 and 100% of them would say " Oh yeah,  That the one dealing with love."  I dare say 1 would say "Oh yeah, that's the one where God says he's out of the whole miracle/ supernatural business."
> 
> Anyway, If you are reading this much into these verses you're comfortable reading you're beliefs into scripture, which means I'm wasting my time and yours too.



If you can't acknowledge how the bible portrays miracles to be, then you're not open to discussion whatsoever.  I'd encourage you to go look at every passage that discusses miracles/signs/wonders and draw the definition from that type of study.  Childbirth IS amazing, but you'll not find the bible calling it a miracle in the same sense it does other things.

I don't operate from "what does 1000 Christians say about a topic".  Jesus said most people would be lost due to their unwillingness to submit to Him... even many Christians.  So I'm not interested in the "majority view".  If you read the context of 1 Corinthians 13, you'll see the topic of love is discussed in a greater context - a context that goes back to chapter 12 and ends in chapter 14.  If it's only about love, why the mention of (1) tongues, (2) prophetic powers, (3) understanding, (4) knowledge, (5) faith to remove mountains, and (6) prophecy?  Those are clear references to miraculous spiritual gifts that existed in that time.


----------



## Israel

It had better have been a "miracle" that assembled what you have to read (and call the Bible)...or...


----------



## gordon 2

"However, He does not "give us impulses to follow" or miraculously endow us today as He did in the first century."

I still can't believe this?

If I was before Jesus right now and I said to him you never gave me a supernatural impulse (s) to follow I would be lying to God.

If I was to say to all of you right now that God never gave me a supernatural impulse (s) to follow I would be lying to all of you.

Now if anyone said that God does not give supernatural impulses and gifts to believers today-- I would wonder what possesses them to say such a thing, or suspect they  never ventured much to know the body of believers. ( And I find it hard to believe that a doctrine would blind someone to this, especially a christian fluent in biblese.) And maybe we should care to some degree in what certain 1000 believers say and believe...after all some of them were well versed in scritpure also.

Now if God has it that believers are not able to heal due faith,  or teachers to teach with signs following, prophets to prophecy so as to build up believers and the church,  then my life is a lie and I am in my sin and my whole spiritual life is a deception: More specifically I have never know the fragrance of our Lord, it was a hypnosis and I never set foot in His Kingdom, this was psychosis. And once more the numerous recorded reports of the powers of saints today and in the recent past is conspiracy and I have been taken-duped. 

 And more,  perhaps I am to a cult regards all of Christianity because I really can't believe a saint would believe this with full certainty.... " He does not "give us impulses to follow" or miraculously endow us today as He did in the first century."

Perhaps I'm under a poisoned rock? --and have been made worse for prayer both mine and the fools that tried to minister to me in the name of Jesus Christ my Lord.


----------



## centerpin fan

gordon 2 said:


> You really, really believe this?



I've been reading this forum and asking this question for seven years.


----------



## hummerpoo

gordon 2 said:


> "However, He does not "give us impulses to follow" or miraculously endow us today as He did in the first century."
> 
> I still can't believe this?
> 
> If I was before Jesus right now and I said to him you never gave me a supernatural impulse (s) to follow I would lying to God.
> 
> If I was to say to all of you right now that God never gave me a supernatural impulse (s) to follow I would be lying to all of you.
> 
> Now if anyone said that God does not give supernatural impulses and gifts to believers today-- I would wonder what possesses them to say such a thing, or suspect they  never ventured much to know the body of believers. ( And I find it hard to believe that a doctrine would blind someone to this, especially a christian fluent in biblese.) And maybe we should care to some degree in what certain 1000 believers say and believe...after all some of them were well versed in scritpure also.
> 
> Now if God has it that believers are not able to heal due faith,  or teachers to teach with signs following, prophets to prophecy so as to build up believers and the church,  then my life is a lie and I am in my sin and my whole spiritual life is a deception: More specifically I have never know the fragrance of our Lord, it was a hypnosis and I never set foot in His Kingdom, this was psychosis. And once more the numerous recorded reports of the powers of saints today and in the recent past is conspiracy and I have been taken-duped.
> 
> And more,  perhaps I am to a cult regards all of Christianity because I really can't believe a saint would believe this with full certainty.... " He does not "give us impulses to follow" or miraculously endow us today as He did in the first century."
> 
> Perhaps I'm under a poisoned rock? --and have been made worse for prayer both mine and the fools that tried to minister to me in the name of Jesus Christ my Lord.



Well said, may God continue to bless you with His supernatural impulses.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Israel said:


> It had better have been a "miracle" that assembled what you have to read (and call the Bible)...or...



Naw Man.  Miracles ceased when John died.  Didn't you read the scripture he cited that specifically stated that.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Bama4me said:


> If you can't acknowledge how the bible portrays miracles to be, then you're not open to discussion whatsoever.  I'd encourage you to go look at every passage that discusses miracles/signs/wonders and draw the definition from that type of study.  Childbirth IS amazing, but you'll not find the bible calling it a miracle in the same sense it does other things.
> 
> I don't operate from "what does 1000 Christians say about a topic".  Jesus said most people would be lost due to their unwillingness to submit to Him... even many Christians.  So I'm not interested in the "majority view".  If you read the context of 1 Corinthians 13, you'll see the topic of love is discussed in a greater context - a context that goes back to chapter 12 and ends in chapter 14.  If it's only about love, why the mention of (1) tongues, (2) prophetic powers, (3) understanding, (4) knowledge, (5) faith to remove mountains, and (6) prophecy?  Those are clear references to miraculous spiritual gifts that existed in that time.





> If you can't acknowledge how the bible portrays miracles to be, then you're not open to discussion whatsoever.



Still waiting on that verse where you said the Bible defines "miracles".  



> I don't operate from "what does 1000 Christians say about a topic.



That's obvious and maybe your first mistake.  



> So I'm not interested in the "majority view



Like I said,  another Gnostic reading his beliefs into Scripture.


----------



## formula1

*re:*



gordon 2 said:


> "However, He does not "give us impulses to follow" or miraculously endow us today as He did in the first century."
> 
> I still can't believe this?
> 
> If I was before Jesus right now and I said to him you never gave me a supernatural impulse (s) to follow I would lying to God.
> 
> If I was to say to all of you right now that God never gave me a supernatural impulse (s) to follow I would be lying to all of you.
> 
> Now if anyone said that God does not give supernatural impulses and gifts to believers today-- I would wonder what possesses them to say such a thing, or suspect they  never ventured much to know the body of believers. ( And I find it hard to believe that a doctrine would blind someone to this, especially a christian fluent in biblese.) And maybe we should care to some degree in what certain 1000 believers say and believe...after all some of them were well versed in scritpure also.
> 
> Now if God has it that believers are not able to heal due faith,  or teachers to teach with signs following, prophets to prophecy so as to build up believers and the church,  then my life is a lie and I am in my sin and my whole spiritual life is a deception: More specifically I have never know the fragrance of our Lord, it was a hypnosis and I never set foot in His Kingdom, this was psychosis. And once more the numerous recorded reports of the powers of saints today and in the recent past is conspiracy and I have been taken-duped.
> 
> And more,  perhaps I am to a cult regards all of Christianity because I really can't believe a saint would believe this with full certainty.... " He does not "give us impulses to follow" or miraculously endow us today as He did in the first century."
> 
> Perhaps I'm under a poisoned rock? --and have been made worse for prayer both mine and the fools that tried to minister to me in the name of Jesus Christ my Lord.



X2!  Very well said! 

We walk by faith that is capable of moving mountains!  A little leading of a servant by the impulse of the Holy Spirit is not all that difficult for one who walks by faith to begin with!  For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life!


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ___________?

Feel free to fill in the blank with any word you wish as I think this is the gist of it.  Is not the greatest miracle a Holy God forgiving my and your sin?  

As an aside, after seeing all the alien beliefs that have surfaced here over the last 6 months or so, I have to legitimately wonder just how long it's gonna be before someone comes along claiming God doesn't forgive sin anymore.


----------



## Israel

Bama4me said:


> If you can't acknowledge how the bible portrays miracles to be, then you're not open to discussion whatsoever.  I'd encourage you to go look at every passage that discusses miracles/signs/wonders and draw the definition from that type of study.  Childbirth IS amazing, but you'll not find the bible calling it a miracle in the same sense it does other things.
> 
> I don't operate from "what does 1000 Christians say about a topic".  Jesus said most people would be lost due to their unwillingness to submit to Him... even many Christians.  So I'm not interested in the "majority view".  If you read the context of 1 Corinthians 13, you'll see the topic of love is discussed in a greater context - a context that goes back to chapter 12 and ends in chapter 14.  If it's only about love, why the mention of (1) tongues, (2) prophetic powers, (3) understanding, (4) knowledge, (5) faith to remove mountains, and (6) prophecy?  Those are clear references to miraculous spiritual gifts that existed in that time.


There is no issue with taking one's stand upon those verses if one remains consistent in them. That there might be agreement as to "believing" them is not an issue. Is not the nub of the matter, if they are "extinguished"...then the matter of the _coming perfect _being understood rightly is what has signaled  their passing?

If they are extinguished...what is the perfect of which Paul speaks? That, by assumption then (if extinguished), has already come?

I see this "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:"

For which other mentioned gifts have been given. Being careful to say of those gifts (if they be extent...are there "pastors"? teachers...evangelists... still?)...then likewise there remain apostles and prophets. One would/could expect them to exercise their gifts, not excluding prophesy.


----------



## hobbs27

There are no Apostles today,  and have not been since the first century.  

There no prophets today.

There's no spiritual gifts today.

If you believe otherwise,  point out the prophets.. Point out the ones with spiritual gifts that can heal.. That can be bitten by venomous snakes and not even swell.  Show me the man today that can walk on water.


----------



## centerpin fan

hobbs27 said:


> There are no Apostles today,  and have not been since the first century.
> 
> There no prophets today.
> 
> There's no spiritual gifts today.
> 
> If you believe otherwise,  point out the prophets.. Point out the ones with spiritual gifts that can heal.. That can be bitten by venomous snakes and not even swell.  Show me the man today that can walk on water.


----------



## centerpin fan

hobbs27 said:


> If you believe otherwise,  point out the prophets.. Point out the ones with spiritual gifts that can heal.



Don't make me post a Benny Hinn video.


----------



## Bama4me

SemperFiDawg said:


> Still waiting on that verse where you said the Bible defines "miracles".



Ok... Peter claimed that God showed Jesus was the Christ by doing "mighty works", "wonders", and "signs".  All the terms are words used to describe miracles.  When do the gospel accounts portraying Jesus as putting hands on a pregnant woman and her giving birth to a baby?  Where do we see Jesus state something and then find a man able to breath oxygen into his lungs in the same way he was doing prior to seeing Him?

No... ALL of the things Jesus did were things that defied a "natural law."  Walking on water, healing the sick via just a command, raising the dead, etc.  Surely you'll allow the bible the opportunity to clarify what something is... no?


----------



## Israel

hobbs27 said:


> There are no Apostles today,  and have not been since the first century.
> 
> There no prophets today.
> 
> There's no spiritual gifts today.
> 
> If you believe otherwise,  point out the prophets.. Point out the ones with spiritual gifts that can heal.. That can be bitten by venomous snakes and not even swell.  Show me the man today that can walk on water.



Things made obvious do not need pointing out.


----------



## Bama4me

Israel said:


> There is no issue with taking one's stand upon those verses if one remains consistent in them. That there might be agreement as to "believing" them is not an issue. Is not the nub of the matter, if they are "extinguished"...then the matter of the _coming perfect _being understood rightly is what has signaled  their passing?
> 
> If they are extinguished...what is the perfect of which Paul speaks? That, by assumption then (if extinguished), has already come?
> 
> I see this "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:"
> 
> For which other mentioned gifts have been given. Being careful to say of those gifts (if they be extent...are there "pastors"? teachers...evangelists... still?)...then likewise there remain apostles and prophets. One would/could expect them to exercise their gifts, not excluding prophesy.



You raise very good questions... it would seem that "the perfect" of 1 Corinthians 13 would either be one of two things - either the written, assembled word of God and/or individual maturity of the church.

I'll use prophecy for example... Jesus indicated that ALL of the truth would be revealed during the lifetimes of the apostles (John 14:25-26; John 16:12-13).  At some point prior to the death of the last apostle (likely John), all of God's revelation would be given to the church.  That's the idea mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13... at that time, people had partial prophecy... they couldn't see clearly (fully).  A time was coming, however, when revelation would be full and complete.  Without prophets during this time, though, the church would have been helpless to know God's will for their lives.

Once the word would be established (canon assembled) and prophets had revealed everything given to them to individual congregations, the gift of prophecy wouldn't be needed... nothing more would be left to reveal.  For those believing in modern-day prophets, I'd ask the questions... (1) what's the purpose for having them today, (2) how do you know they're reliable, and (3) how do you receive the gift today?

In answer to your last question, I DO believe the Spirit still "gifts" people today - there are evangelists and pastors for instance.  However, HOW people become that today and how they became that in the 1st Century would differ - a person became that in the 1st Century through miraculous means (Holy Spirit baptism/laying on of apostle's hands), but today through non-miraculous means.


----------



## Bama4me

gordon 2 said:


> Now if God has it that believers are not able to heal due faith,  or teachers to teach with signs following, prophets to prophecy so as to build up believers and the church,  then my life is a lie and I am in my sin and my whole spiritual life is a deception: More specifically I have never know the fragrance of our Lord, it was a hypnosis and I never set foot in His Kingdom, this was psychosis. And once more the numerous recorded reports of the powers of saints today and in the recent past is conspiracy and I have been taken-duped.



Ok... then answer me this.

When have you seen a person who has a verified condition
(aka - checked out by multiple, unbiased doctors) be healed by someone who gave them a command - similar to what happened in Acts 9:32-35?

When have you seen a dead person be raised to life when a Christian pray over them and then gave a command - like what Peter did in Acts 9:36-42.

When have you seen believers have someone lay hands on them and then seen them miraculously be able to speak in a known language (tongues defined) that he/she has never studied?

If you've seen these things firsthand, then I'll make a deal with you.  Let me go find some people I know who fit the category of these bible character and I'll bring them to the person you know... and we'll see if these miracles can be done.  In fact, I know of two people who have passed away in the past 24 hours... let's have that person come and raise these two ladies from the dead.  If this can be done by a man's hand today, I'll be happy to admit that I have been wrong all of this time and join you and the group of people who subscribe to this belief system.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> There are no Apostles today,  and have not been since the first century.
> 
> There no prophets today.
> 
> There's no spiritual gifts today.
> 
> If you believe otherwise,  point out the prophets.. Point out the ones with spiritual gifts that can heal.. That can be bitten by venomous snakes and not even swell.  Show me the man today that can walk on water.



Whoaaaaa there Hoss!!!  I don't recall anyone saying there were any prophets around today.   You may want to go back and and do some re-reading.

You've posted 2 times in this thread and both times you mention, for no apparent reason, the term "first century"? 
Based on this and your history I prophesy that you are about to die to turn this into a 70AD thread.

As for spiritual gifts,  tell me Sir,  what exactly is your salvation if not a spiritual gift? And based on your premise you are not saved nor is anyone else since 70AD or so.  

Come on man.  That one is right across the plate.

BTW.  Just curious.  Can you by chance scripturally support any of these bold proclamations you're making?


----------



## hobbs27

SemperFiDawg said:


> Whoaaaaa there Hoss!!!  I don't recall anyone saying there were any prophets around today.   You may want to go back and and do some re-reading.
> 
> You've posted 2 times in this thread and both times you mention, for no apparent reason, the term "first century"?
> Based on this and your history I prophesy that you are about to die to turn this into a 70AD thread.
> 
> As for spiritual gifts,  tell me Sir,  what exactly is your salvation if not a spiritual gift.



My mention of the first century gifts is in agreement with what Bama  said in post # 182

My mention of no apostles or prophets today was in reference to Israel post #198

I'm too busy to take on much right now,  but Bama is correct on the spiritual gifts ceasing with the first century apostles.  

There's nothing but clowns that claim to have those gifts... As CPF mentioned Benny Hinn,  and if I'm not mistaken was just charged with fraud and tax evasion.


----------



## Bama4me

SemperFiDawg said:


> Whoaaaaa there Hoss!!!  I don't recall anyone saying there were any prophets around today.



Oh Brother . Another person who thinks they can put God in a box.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Bama4me said:


> Ok... then answer me this.
> 
> When have you seen a person who has a verified condition
> (aka - checked out by multiple, unbiased doctors) be healed by someone who gave them a command - similar to what happened in Acts 9:32-35?
> 
> When have you seen a dead person be raised to life when a Christian pray over them and then gave a command - like what Peter did in Acts 9:36-42.
> 
> When have you seen believers have someone lay hands on them and then seen them miraculously be able to speak in a known language (tongues defined) that he/she has never studied?
> 
> If you've seen these things firsthand, then I'll make a deal with you.  Let me go find some people I know who fit the category of these bible character and I'll bring them to the person you know... and we'll see if these miracles can be done.  In fact, I know of two people who have passed away in the past 24 hours... let's have that person come and raise these two ladies from the dead.  If this can be done by a man's hand today, I'll be happy to admit that I have been wrong all of this time and join you and the group of people who subscribe to this belief system.



The more you type the worse I feel for you.  I have heard of more than 1 example of EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE you just gave above relatively recently and even more.  You need to get out more, read more and talk with missionaries more.  If you did you would realize God is just as busy doing miracles today as ever, you just don't need that BIG of a God in your world, so you don't allow for one.  Others do and they get Him.  For goodness sakes man, open your eyes and ears.  These aren't Benny Hinns I'm referring to either so don't stereotype them as such.
Just like my friend.  No reason on earth for him to lie to me, yet you with your "God in a box" belief basically called him one.  Your faith won't allow or doesn't need a God outside the box.  Like I said,  I honestly feel sorrow for you.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Bama4me said:


> Oh Brother . Another person who thinks they can put God in a box.



Scratching my head on that one??????   Maybe you are confusing the terms 'prophet' (OT man of God) and PROPHECY (God temporarily speaking through a man).


----------



## gordon 2

Bama4me said:


> Ok... then answer me this.
> 
> When have you seen a person who has a verified condition
> (aka - checked out by multiple, unbiased doctors) be healed by someone who gave them a command - similar to what happened in Acts 9:32-35?
> 
> When have you seen a dead person be raised to life when a Christian pray over them and then gave a command - like what Peter did in Acts 9:36-42.
> 
> When have you seen believers have someone lay hands on them and then seen them miraculously be able to speak in a known language (tongues defined) that he/she has never studied?
> 
> If you've seen these things firsthand, then I'll make a deal with you.  Let me go find some people I know who fit the category of these bible character and I'll bring them to the person you know... and we'll see if these miracles can be done.  In fact, I know of two people who have passed away in the past 24 hours... let's have that person come and raise these two ladies from the dead.  If this can be done by a man's hand today, I'll be happy to admit that I have been wrong all of this time and join you and the group of people who subscribe to this belief system.




Brother, don't get me wrong... I think highly of you... but your christian outlook is somewhat unbalanced.

Although documented medical finding of faith healing do exist, I personally have not witnessed this as far as I can know. I also have been told verbally by individuals who seemed credible, especially that they were not particularly religious, that they had been healed of a medically proven condition requiring surgery by a faith healer for which surgeon had no explanation! 

If you care to study faith healing seriously, you will find the accounts of many charlatans and people seeking attention, but on the other hand you will also find the genuine thing... duly documented by churches and medical expertise.

I have known people to pray in tongues, but never to speak in tongues. But there are accounts that it has happened in our day-- and of that I have no reason to discount or  not believe. But I do believe and know that all things are possible through faith by Christians. I suspect strongly that God just might have good reason to make a one language person multilingual sudden like, from an intimate encounter with God even in our day. 

I have known apostles and teachers today who have claimed to have raised the dead. I was not there to witness this. And I have no first hand account of this to share. However, that you would line up the dead so that a man or women of God might raise them up sounds a bit like tempting God, or maybe it smells alot like tempting God? Is there not better things to ask God about?

I would suggest you research your topic. It is relatively easy to do with the resources we have today. Christianity is big and the experiences of Christians and non Christians who have been ministered to by Christians are countless.

We don't all have the same faith, faith meaning knowledge of living with God closely, although we all have the same close faith ( belief) regards how Jesus redeems those who would believe.

In the end all I can say is that in some cases I did not ask people what God can-could do today, not even other Christians, I just trusted and still trust God to furnish the answer. And regards the gifts that are identified with the early Christians and the works those gifts provided, by experience and by faith God has never told me they no longer exist, but rather the contrary.  People have been healed spiritually, emotionally and physically in my lifetime because of faith. The Holy Spirit has " fallen" on people for many varied reasons, some known and some I will never know. Not always due their own faith, (some individuals had none) but at least by the faith of believers who were attentive to the ministry and the power of God people's lives have been changed due to those with gifts have ministered with power. And in my assessment it was not very different than in the days when Paul walked the soil of The Middle East and Europe in his day.

Now you can declare what you will... but your declarations should be cautioned by the testimonies of saints who speak of how the Holy Spirit testified to them that Jesus was equally close to them and present in their lives as He was in the lives of the saints from day one... since when the Holy Spirit became lively in the Christian church.

Also one last thing perhaps, I have found it rewarding in my life to go where Jesus is spiritually active in the body of believers. Even like the curious guy who climbed a tree to see Jesus going by, sometimes it is rewarding. It challenges our mindsets when the roof of a church, a denomination other than your own, rumbles from a great wind on a otherwise clam night and Jesus becomes present to all in the room each according to their faith, each according to their needs-- all ministered to from His love.  For me those 20 minutes have changed my live more than the many hours I've spent in scripture. It is one thing to invite Jesus in our homes, it is another for Him to invite Himself. I hope you find that last place someday, it will change your life.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> My mention of the first century gifts is in agreement with what Bama  said in post # 182
> 
> My mention of no apostles or prophets today was in reference to Israel post #198
> 
> I'm too busy to take on much right now,  but Bama is correct on the spiritual gifts ceasing with the first century apostles.
> 
> There's nothing but clowns that claim to have those gifts... As CPF mentioned Benny Hinn,  and if I'm not mistaken was just charged with fraud and tax evasion.



Again, one claiming to have the gift being a clown does not limit God from doing miracles in everyday human life.  Just because Benny Hinn claims to heal doesn't mean God can't or doesn't.  To think otherwise is foolhardy.


----------



## centerpin fan

hobbs27 said:


> As CPF mentioned Benny Hinn,  and if I'm not mistaken was just charged with fraud and tax evasion.



Well, if you can't trust Benny Hinn ...


----------



## hummerpoo

A man well known to me (70+ years old) was on a regimen which, it was hoped, would make him strong enough to have a good chance of surviving surgery to correct a heart condition which was almost certainly terminal.  When, after 3 wks. of the regimen, he saw the surgeon last week to find out if there had been any progress the Dr. opened his report with "I guess my daughter is going to have to wait a while for that car.  The condition I was hoping to correct is gone.  I can't tell you how, but it is not there."  Another acquaintance who is a colleague of the Dr. confirmed that the change is beyond any hint of a medical explanation.

In private conversation with the man he never mentioned "who" or "how" in connection with change in his condition.  He only said, "I don't know why."

I can also speak of personal observation of operative spiritual gifts, but that would be a waste, as those who think that perfection is here (1 Cor. 13:10), think that we are now face to face (1 Cor. 13:12),think that we have all attained to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (Eph. 4:13), and grown up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ (Eph. 4:15) would not hear; and those who also see would be bored.


----------



## hobbs27

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again, one claiming to have the gift being a clown does not limit God from doing miracles in everyday human life.  Just because Benny Hinn claims to heal doesn't mean God can't or doesn't.  To think otherwise is foolhardy.



I don't think God healing someone or guiding them out of a bad position is,  gifts of the spirit at all.  The gifts were given to the Apostles that they in the absence of Christ could perform the miracles in which He did. 

No one today or post apostolic age (first century)  have those gifts. 

Theres  reason you don't see healing preachers in children's hospitals or psychics winning lotteries.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

This is powerful.  This is Andrew White  aka The Vicar of Baghdad.  This man is NOT a Benny Hinn.  His Church is perhaps the most persecuted Church on the face of the earth today.  Yet this brilliant man see's and testifies to miracles ever day.


----------



## Bama4me

gordon 2 said:


> Brother, don't get me wrong... I think highly of you... but your christian outlook is somewhat unbalanced.
> 
> Although documented medical finding of faith healing do exist, I personally have not witnessed this as far as I can know. I also have been told verbally by individuals who seemed credible, especially that they were not particularly religious, that they had been healed of a medically proven condition requiring surgery by a faith healer for which surgeon had no explanation!
> 
> If you care to study faith healing seriously, you will find the accounts of many charlatans and people seeking attention, but on the other hand you will also find the genuine thing... duly documented by churches and medical expertise.
> 
> I have known people to pray in tongues, but never to speak in tongues. But there are accounts that it has happened in our day-- and of that I have no reason to discount or  not believe. But I do believe and know that all things are possible through faith by Christians. I suspect strongly that God just might have good reason to make a one language person multilingual sudden like, from an intimate encounter with God even in our day.
> 
> I have known apostles and teachers today who have claimed to have raised the dead. I was not there to witness this. And I have no first hand account of this to share. However, that you would line up the dead so that a man or women of God might raise them up sounds a bit like tempting God, or maybe it smells alot like tempting God? Is there not better things to ask God about?
> 
> I would suggest you research your topic. It is relatively easy to do with the resources we have today. Christianity is big and the experiences of Christians and non Christians who have been ministered to by Christians are countless.
> 
> We don't all have the same faith, faith meaning knowledge of living with God closely, although we all have the same close faith ( belief) regards how Jesus redeems those who would believe.
> 
> In the end all I can say is that in some cases I did not ask people what God can-could do today, not even other Christians, I just trusted and still trust God to furnish the answer. And regards the gifts that are identified with the early Christians and the works those gifts provided, by experience and by faith God has never told me they no longer exist, but rather the contrary.  People have been healed spiritually, emotionally and physically in my lifetime because of faith. The Holy Spirit has " fallen" on people for many varied reasons, some known and some I will never know. Not always due their own faith, (some individuals had none) but at least by the faith of believers who were attentive to the ministry and the power of God people's lives have been changed due to those with gifts have ministered with power. And in my assessment it was not very different than in the days when Paul walked the soil of The Middle East and Europe in his day.
> 
> Now you can declare what you will... but your declarations should be cautioned by the testimonies of saints who speak of how the Holy Spirit testified to them that Jesus was equally close to them and present in their lives as He was in the lives of the saints from day one... since when the Holy Spirit became lively in the Christian church.
> 
> Also one last thing perhaps, I have found it rewarding in my life to go where Jesus is spiritually active in the body of believers. Even like the curious guy who climbed a tree to see Jesus going by, sometimes it is rewarding. It challenges our mindsets when the roof of a church, a denomination other than your own, rumbles from a great wind on a otherwise clam night and Jesus becomes present to all in the room each according to their faith, each according to their needs-- all ministered to from His love.  For me those 20 minutes have changed my live more than the many hours I've spent in scripture. It is one thing to invite Jesus in our homes, it is another for Him to invite Himself. I hope you find that last place someday, it will change your life.



Brother... a lot of things occur that people attribute to the Lord that isn't always of the Lord.  I don't doubt that folks believe the Spirit allows these types of gifts today, but in the 1st Century when Jesus/apostles were doing these types of things, they weren't in a box somewhere... they were very much in the public eye and people would flock to Jesus/apostles as a result.

I'm not tempting God whatsoever... I'm just asking for very simple evidence that the spiritual gifts from the 1st Century still exist today.  Show me a person who can pray and then speak a person back to life and I'll agree... show me a man who can successfully command a crippled man to walk after years of disabilities and I agree... show me one who can walk on water... you get the idea.

Jesus and the apostles very publicly did miracles - things that went beyond the normal activities of life.  I don't doubt that God does amazing things today in one way or another... but He doesn't do them the way they were done in the New Testament times (through the hands/verbal commands of people).  That ceased in early church times.


----------



## Bama4me

hobbs27 said:


> I don't think God healing someone or guiding them out of a bad position is,  gifts of the spirit at all.  The gifts were given to the Apostles that they in the absence of Christ could perform the miracles in which He did.
> 
> No one today or post apostolic age (first century)  have those gifts.
> 
> Theres  reason you don't see healing preachers in children's hospitals or psychics winning lotteries.



From the view of the New Testament, those things didn't qualify as "gifts of the Spirit".  Gifts of the Spirit would include things found in such lists as seen in 1 Corinthians 12:4ff, Ephesians 4:11, 1 Peter 4:10, etc.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Nabeel Qureshi
 Author of Seeking Allah,Finding Jesus tells of dreams and visions that led him to Christ.


----------



## Bama4me

SemperFiDawg said:


> This is powerful.  This is Andrew White  aka The Vicar of Baghdad.  This man is NOT a Benny Hinn.  His Church is perhaps the most persecuted Church on the face of the earth today.  Yet this brilliant man see's and testifies to miracles ever day.



Ah... so conjuring up stuff and attributing those things to God is automatic proof of miracles today?  Really???  And from an illegitimate faith to boot?


----------



## Bama4me

SemperFiDawg said:


> Nabeel Qureshi
> Author of Seeking Allah,Finding Jesus tells of dreams and visions that led him to Christ.



Look... if people could do the things Jesus and the apostles did in the 1st Century today, people would FLOCK to them in hordes.  Three stories on the evening news of dead folks being raised would begin the rush to wherever these things were happening.  But... there's no rush because those are not happening.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Ravi Zacharias speaks of miraculous healing he experienced that came through a friends dream and a prophecy here.
Dial it up to the 2:25 mark and listen.

Again not a Benny Hinn, but a well respected, educated Christian.


----------



## Israel

Bama4me said:


> Look... if people could do the things Jesus and the apostles did in the 1st Century today, people would FLOCK to them in hordes.  Three stories on the evening news of dead folks being raised would begin the rush to wherever these things were happening.  But... there's no rush because those are not happening.



Have you ever considered the fault of thinking "if I don't know about it, it must not be happening"?
Have you ever considered the fault of thinking "If I see it, it must be real"?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Bama4me said:


> Ah... so conjuring up stuff and attributing those things to God is automatic proof of miracles today?  Really???  And from an illegitimate faith to boot?



Conjuring?  

Do you realize you sound exactly like and Atheist?

Just how many credible people are you willing to discredit to justify your twisted view of scripture?

Do you have any idea what that man has been through?  
His church has been fire bombed.  He lost hundreds of his members murdered at the hands of ISIS.  He's under constant threat of death. Yet he's founded 2 charities to help those being persecuted flee, is a Harvard Fellow and author.  YOU question his integrity and sanity which says more about you that it doe's him.

As far as an 'illegitimate faith', He's a Christian and judging by his works a sane person would say a strong one.  We need to stop, because my sorrow for you is rapidly turning to a strong disdain.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Bama4me said:


> Look... if people could do the things Jesus and the apostles did in the 1st Century today, people would FLOCK to them in hordes.  Three stories on the evening news of dead folks being raised would begin the rush to wherever these things were happening.  But... there's no rush because those are not happening.



Really?  Maybe you haven't heard of the Scribes, Sadducees and Pharasees.  You know, the ones who couldn't see past their doctrinal interpretation to SEE the actual miracles being performed around them.  

And let's get this straight, because you're a bit confused.  It's not 'people' doing the miracles.  Never was.  It's GOD doing them, sometimes through people.


----------



## hobbs27

SemperFiDawg said:


> This is powerful.  This is Andrew White  aka The Vicar of Baghdad.  This man is NOT a Benny Hinn.  His Church is perhaps the most persecuted Church on the face of the earth today.  Yet this brilliant man see's and testifies to miracles ever day.



 Semperfi... Seriously?  You believe the words coming out of this man's mouth? 
 He's not as energetic as Hinn,  but that's about all I can say about him.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> Semperfi... Seriously?  You believe the words coming out of this man's mouth?
> He's not as energetic as Hinn,  but that's about all I can say about him.



Let me tell you something.  The last person to put their spin on Gods word and start a conversation with "Seriously?  You believe...."  was a snake.  

That's what I believe.

Maybe you should look a little deeper into who this man is and who he points too, before you label him a nut.  I have.


----------



## hobbs27

SemperFiDawg said:


> Let me t
> ell you something.  The last person to put their spin on Gods word and start a conversation with "Seriously?  You believe...."  was a snake.
> 
> That's what I believe.
> 
> Maybe you should look a little deeper into who this man is and who he points too, before you label him a nut.  I have.




His evidence is orbs in pictures.  Have you ever taken a ghost tour?  They are interesting and fun,  but part of them is having the participants take pictures at night of certain areas with distant lights.  Guess what?  You get pictures of orbs.  Now on the ghost tour they claim these are ghosts.  It's a hoax,  plain and simple. 

He speaks to angels,  He claims to have seen the dead raised... That's all I need to know the man is not stable.


----------



## Israel

Bama4me said:


> You raise very good questions... it would seem that "the perfect" of 1 Corinthians 13 would either be one of two things - either the written, assembled word of God and/or individual maturity of the church.
> 
> I'll use prophecy for example... Jesus indicated that ALL of the truth would be revealed during the lifetimes of the apostles (John 14:25-26; John 16:12-13).  At some point prior to the death of the last apostle (likely John), all of God's revelation would be given to the church.  That's the idea mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13... at that time, people had partial prophecy... they couldn't see clearly (fully).  A time was coming, however, when revelation would be full and complete.  Without prophets during this time, though, the church would have been helpless to know God's will for their lives.
> 
> Once the word would be established (canon assembled) and prophets had revealed everything given to them to individual congregations, the gift of prophecy wouldn't be needed... nothing more would be left to reveal.  For those believing in modern-day prophets, I'd ask the questions... (1) what's the purpose for having them today, (2) how do you know they're reliable, and (3) how do you receive the gift today?
> 
> In answer to your last question, I DO believe the Spirit still "gifts" people today - there are evangelists and pastors for instance.  However, HOW people become that today and how they became that in the 1st Century would differ - a person became that in the 1st Century through miraculous means (Holy Spirit baptism/laying on of apostle's hands), but today through non-miraculous means.



On what basis then, do you accept Paul's apostleship? If, in the sense I take your references in John, Paul who was not "then" present in Jesus' company would have to be either seen as established as true solely upon revelation, or a presumptuous pretender. 

Likewise Barnabas is also referred to as apostle. Paul refers in Thessalonians (when apparently speaking of himself and Silas and Timothy) uses the plural term "apostles"...whether referring to Silas or Timothy...or both, is not made clear.

I realize that even if accepted it is easily said "but none of these (perhaps) extended past the "first century" church", (as though God has purposed a "something else" from our arbitrary conclusions of time, till now).

Not knowing, nor much caring for arguments of "cessation" according to an inserted reasoning of man, I am content to believe what Jesus has said regarding what will follow those who believe. And of such, and in such I find Jesus' words of far greater import, _and conviction_ of faith than all other arguments. 

It seems we consider ourselves, at least to some it would appear...as special. And we may be. Perhaps more especially "needful" than we care to endure, or admit.

Some perhaps, even worthy of Paul's words of warning: "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock."
Or perhaps rebuke:

"Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you."

That I know God assuredly saw fit to have my faith safeguarded and my comforts encouraged at the hands of another "born out of time", yet, "in the flesh" as apostle of Jesus Christ is probably most fitting that it be of little to no consequence to any other but me. But to elevate him would be the most displeasure I could show toward such a gift.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> His evidence is orbs in pictures.  Have you ever taken a ghost tour?  They are interesting and fun,  but part of them is having the participants take pictures at night of certain areas with distant lights.  Guess what?  You get pictures of orbs.  Now on the ghost tour they claim these are ghosts.  It's a hoax,  plain and simple.
> 
> He speaks to angels,  He claims to have seen the dead raised... That's all I need to know the man is not stable.





> He speaks to angels,  He claims to have seen the dead raised... That's all I need to know the man is not stable.



Funny thing is one could say the same thing about Christ and any of the apostles not to mention a whole lot of common people over the last 2000 years.  Are they all unstable?  If not, how many are you willing to discount to justify your unscriptural view.  How many are you willing to call fools, to be right? Disturbing.


----------



## hobbs27

SemperFiDawg said:


> Funny thing is one could say the same thing about Christ and any of the apostles not to mention a whole lot of common people over the last 2000 years.  Are they all unstable?  If not, how many are you willing to discount to justify your unscriptural view.  How many are you willing to call fools, to be right? Disturbing.




No one is denying the miracles of Christ,  nor the gifts of the spirit given to the Apostles... 

It's after that time.  Things such as speaking in tongues.  That was not existent in the church for over a thousand years,  then some fruit loops started claiming they were speaking in tongues... And now some of those fruit loops claim unless you speak in tongue you aren't saved.

These gifts that people are claiming to have  is very new to the church.  It has caused a lot of false doctrines,  the seventh day Adventist are founded on this bad doctrine. The wackos in Waco TX,  Jim Jones,  etc...  Claiming to be modern day prophets,  when all is written,  all is foretold, and there is no more need of any prophets.


----------



## Israel

One may speak/pray in tongues, yet not claim any advantage...except the greatest of relief to a mind and heart that barely knows itself, through that gift. That some may use it as platform of self exaltation would seem plain...even as some...even in English, barely escape that presumption.

It (as gift) is not a "hard thing" to receive, and surely not impossible,  and one might even venture a sorely needed refreshing to what is already (perhaps) too well schooled in a vanity reluctant to see. That is that a general excessive affection attached to ones "native tongue" hides the truth that it itself...is entirely "made up".
Men always prefer it seems, to appear fools their own way.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Israel said:


> One may speak/pray in tongues, yet not claim any advantage...except the greatest of relief to a mind and heart that barely knows itself, through that gift. That some may use it as platform of self exaltation would seem plain...even as some...even in English, barely escape that presumption.
> 
> It (as gift) is not a "hard thing" to receive, and surely not impossible,  and one might even venture a sorely needed refreshing to what is already (perhaps) too well schooled in a vanity reluctant to see. That is that a general excessive affection attached to ones "native tongue" hides the truth that it itself...is entirely "made up".
> Men always prefer it seems, to appear fools their own way.



Now I'm really starting to worry.  I actually understood what you stated.  And agree too.


----------



## hobbs27

St. Augustine. 

‘In the earliest times, “the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spake with tongues,” which they had not learned, “as the Spirit gave them utterance.” These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away.’ (Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John. Homily VI, 10)


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> No one is denying the miracles of Christ,  nor the gifts of the spirit given to the Apostles...
> 
> It's after that time.  Things such as speaking in tongues.  That was not existent in the church for over a thousand years,  then some fruit loops started claiming they were speaking in tongues... And now some of those fruit loops claim unless you speak in tongue you aren't saved.
> 
> These gifts that people are claiming to have  is very new to the church.  It has caused a lot of false doctrines,  the seventh day Adventist are founded on this bad doctrine. The wackos in Waco TX,  Jim Jones,  etc...  Claiming to be modern day prophets,  when all is written,  all is foretold, and there is no more need of any prophets.





> It's after that time....



Again, is it too much to ask for you to copy/paste a scripture to support this?


----------



## hummerpoo

Israel said:


> On what basis then, do you accept Paul's apostleship? If, in the sense I take your references in John, Paul who was not "then" present in Jesus' company would have to be either seen as established as true solely upon revelation, or a presumptuous pretender.
> 
> Likewise Barnabas is also referred to as apostle. Paul refers in Thessalonians (when apparently speaking of himself and Silas and Timothy) uses the plural term "apostles"...whether referring to Silas or Timothy...or both, is not made clear.
> 
> I realize that even if accepted it is easily said "but none of these (perhaps) extended past the "first century" church", (as though God has purposed a "something else" from our arbitrary conclusions of time, till now).
> 
> Not knowing, nor much caring for arguments of "cessation" according to an inserted reasoning of man, I am content to believe what Jesus has said regarding what will follow those who believe. And of such, and in such I find Jesus' words of far greater import, _and conviction_ of faith than all other arguments.
> 
> It seems we consider ourselves, at least to some it would appear...as special. And we may be. Perhaps more especially "needful" than we care to endure, or admit.
> 
> Some perhaps, even worthy of Paul's words of warning: "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock."
> Or perhaps rebuke:
> 
> "Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you."
> 
> That I know God assuredly saw fit to have my faith safeguarded and my comforts encouraged at the hands of another "born out of time", yet, "in the flesh" as apostle of Jesus Christ is probably most fitting that it be of little to no consequence to any other but me. But to elevate him would be the most displeasure I could show toward such a gift.



And by this is violated the greatest, and most basic, of God's civil law.


----------



## hobbs27

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again, is it too much to ask for you to copy/paste a scripture to support this?



Here.. almost the entire argument made with scripture. 

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-i-am-a-cessationist


----------



## Israel

When something can be referenced for support of a position in one circumstance, but that same source belies another maintained position (but is not equally referenced)...

Trying to bring to bear whatever weight Augustine might have regarding spiritual gifts (and I know not much of him) inherently suggests his weight in other matters must be as substantial. I owe him nothing, but the one who uses him...does.


Augustine comments on the Last Judgment scene found in Matthew 25 and speaks about the second coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and how to be properly prepared for it by showing the same mercy to others by which we wish to be judged.

Then all the trees of the forest will exult before the face of the Lord, for he has come, he has come to judge the earth. He has come the first time, and he will come again. At his first coming, his own voice declared in the gospel: Hereafter you shall see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds. What does he mean by hereafter? Does he not mean that the Lord will come at a future time when all the nations of the earth will be striking their breasts in grief? Previously he came through his preachers, and he filled the whole world. Let us not resist his first coming, so that we may not dread the second.

What then should the Christian do? He ought to use the world, not become its slave. And what does this mean? It means having, as though not having. So says the Apostle: My brethren, the appointed time is short: from now on let those who have wives live as though they had none; and those who mourn as though they were not mourning; and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing; and those who buy as though they had no goods; and those who deal with this world as though they had no dealings with it. For the form of this world is passing away.

But I wish you to be without anxiety. He who is without anxiety waits without fear until his Lord comes. For what sort of love of Christ is it to fear his coming? Brothers, do we not have to blush for shame? We love him, yet we fear his coming. Are we really certain that we love him? Or do we love our sins more? Therefore let us hate our sins and love him who will exact punishment for them. He will come whether we wish it or not. Do not think that because he is not coming just now, he will not come at all. He will come, you know not when; and provided he finds you prepared, your ignorance of the time of his coming will not be held against you.

Christ's Second Coming--St. Augustine -1- Painting Augustine in his Study

All the trees of the forest will exult. He has come the first time, and he will come again to judge the earth; he will find those rejoicing who believed in his first coming, for he has come.

He will judge the world with equity and the peoples in his truth. What are equity and truth? He will gather together with him for the judgement his chosen ones, but the others he will set apart; for he will place some on his right, others on his left. What is more equitable, what more true than that they should not themselves expect mercy from the judge, who themselves were unwilling to show mercy before the judge’s coming.

Those, however, who were willing to show mercy will be judged with mercy. For it will be said to those placed on his right: Come, blessed of my Father, take possession of the kingdom which has been prepared for you from the beginning of the world. And he reckons to their account their works of mercy: For I was hungry and you gave me food to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me drink.

What is imputed to those placed on his left side? That they refused to show mercy. And where will they go? Depart into the everlasting fire. The hearing of this condemnation will cause much wailing. But what has another psalm said? The just man will be held in everlasting remembrance; he will not fear the evil report. What is the evil report? Depart into the everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels. Whoever rejoices to hear the good report will not fear the bad. This is equity, this is truth.

Or do you, because you are unjust, expect the judge not to be just? Or because you are a liar, will the truthful one not be true? Rather, if you wish to receive mercy, be merciful before he comes; forgive whatever has been done against you; give of your abundance. Of whose possessions do you give, if not from his? If you were to give of your own, it would be largess; but since you give of his, it is restitution. For what do you have, that you have not received?

These are the sacrifices most pleasing to God: mercy, humility, praise, peace, charity. Such as these, then, let us bring and, free from fear, we shall await the coming of the judge who will judge the world in equity and the peoples in his truth.

An excerpt from St. Augustine’s discourse on Ps. 95 (14 & 15: CCL 39, 1351-1353), on the Last Judgment in Matthew 25, the second coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the importance of preparing for it through works of mercy.  This selection is used in the Roman Office of Readings for the 33rd Sunday in Ordinary Time.


You yawned when last warned of dealing duplicitously among the brothers. But, some have seen you.


----------



## hobbs27

Oh,  St.  Augustine. 

I would debate his futurist beliefs using scripture alone,  but that doesn't need to be a part of this topic. I seek to dispute this without the discussion of eschatology. 

Why trust Augustine on this matter and not on all?  What we get here is a picture of history.  There were no spiritual gifts in the church 3rd century.  ..Oh,  God was active as He is today,  and Augustine had to clarify his point later on.

The fact is,  spiritual gifts were non existent in church history until the 1700-1800s . That is along the time many new doctrines entered.


----------



## Israel

hobbs27 said:


> Oh,  St.  Augustine.
> 
> I would debate his futurist beliefs using scripture alone,  but that doesn't need to be a part of this topic. I seek to dispute this without the discussion of eschatology.
> 
> Why trust Augustine on this matter and not on all?  What we get here is a picture of history.  There were no spiritual gifts in the church 3rd century.  ..Oh,  God was active as He is today,  and Augustine had to clarify his point later on.
> 
> The fact is,  spiritual gifts were non existent in church history until the 1700-1800s . That is along the time many new doctrines entered.



How odd.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> Here.. almost the entire argument made with scripture.
> 
> https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-i-am-a-cessationist



You probably should find another article.  This author's equivocal approach to scripture proves nothing.  What scripture states, he says "could" happen, while what he sees as "hints" in scripture he accepts as proved (see last topic).

"Now, could God in cutting-edge missionary situations grant miracles and signs and wonders to accredit the gospel as he did in apostolic times? Yes." But that would prove him wrong, right?  He is hyperbolizing an argument against showmanship evangelism which most people easily accept without the hyperbole.

Who here has said that miracles on demand is the norm?  Some have said that they don't happen.  As is common, we have a mountain, but reality is a photoshoped ant hill.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> Oh,  St.  Augustine.
> 
> I would debate his futurist beliefs using scripture alone,  but that doesn't need to be a part of this topic. I seek to dispute this without the discussion of eschatology.
> 
> Why trust Augustine on this matter and not on all?  What we get here is a picture of history.  There were no spiritual gifts in the church 3rd century.  ..Oh,  God was active as He is today,  and Augustine had to clarify his point later on.
> 
> The fact is,  spiritual gifts were non existent in church history until the 1700-1800s . That is along the time many new doctrines entered.



So trust Augustine when his history supports your belief but debate it when his doesn't.  Trust the Bible when it supports your beliefs, but deviate from it when it doesn't.  Strong Christians are upstanding models of the faith until their beliefs on miracles doesn't match yours then they become nuts and loons.  

Again.  I'm still waiting on just one scripture that states God stopped performing miracles in the first century.  You haven't foisted one because one doesn't exist.  Just your twisted interpretation which you continue to bandy about.  No surprise really given your history on other doctrine.  I'm done conversing with you.  Waste of pearls.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hummerpoo said:


> You probably should find another article.  This author's equivocal approach to scripture proves nothing.  What scripture states, he says "could" happen, while what he sees as "hints" in scripture he accepts as proved (see last topic).
> 
> "Now, could God in cutting-edge missionary situations grant miracles and signs and wonders to accredit the gospel as he did in apostolic times? Yes." But that would prove him wrong, right?  He is hyperbolizing an argument against showmanship evangelism which most people easily accept without the hyperbole.
> 
> Who here has said that miracles on demand is the norm?  Some have said that they don't happen.  As is common, we have a mountain, but reality is a photoshoped ant hill.



He HAS to equivocate.  He has absolutely NO scriptural support.


----------



## centerpin fan

Israel said:


> How odd.



How ironic.


----------



## Bama4me

SemperFiDawg said:


> Really?  Maybe you haven't heard of the Scribes, Sadducees and Pharasees.  You know, the ones who couldn't see past their doctrinal interpretation to SEE the actual miracles being performed around them.
> 
> And let's get this straight, because you're a bit confused.  It's not 'people' doing the miracles.  Never was.  It's GOD doing them, sometimes through people.



Look... it's obvious that you're becoming hostile.  I'm not the least bit confused, but I deal with people daily who are when it comes to this subject.  Again, and I'll say it again with your response in mind... GOD is not raising anyone from the dead through someone praying/commanding them to be raised.  GOD is not allowing people to walk on the water... or miraculously multiplying food to feed many thousands of people.  GOD is not endowing people today to be prophets/tongue speakers as He did in the 1st Century.

I believe in a God that is limitless and works powerfully today... but that doesn't mean I can simply throw God's word out the window when I begin learning how He has chosen to work in this world.  Feel free to have the last word... but I ask anyone reading this thread to honestly examine the things that I'm saying and come to a logical, reasonable conclusion.  If these things happen, how come they do not occur like they did in the 1st Century?


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> You probably should find another article.  This author's equivocal approach to scripture proves nothing.  What scripture states, he says "could" happen, while what he sees as "hints" in scripture he accepts as proved (see last topic).
> 
> "Now, could God in cutting-edge missionary situations grant miracles and signs and wonders to accredit the gospel as he did in apostolic times? Yes." But that would prove him wrong, right?  He is hyperbolizing an argument against showmanship evangelism which most people easily accept without the hyperbole.
> 
> Who here has said that miracles on demand is the norm?  Some have said that they don't happen.  As is common, we have a mountain, but reality is a photoshoped ant hill.



 I think the author attempts to explain in a Christian manner. He posits his opinion and why with the scripture. All one has to do is follow along.  

 Sure he leaves the possibility open... I think as a friendly gesture.. As it could be possible because I do not understand all scripture... But what I do understand does not point to a continuation or a possibility of a continuation of the gifts.


----------



## Bama4me

Israel said:


> On what basis then, do you accept Paul's apostleship? If, in the sense I take your references in John, Paul who was not "then" present in Jesus' company would have to be either seen as established as true solely upon revelation, or a presumptuous pretender.
> 
> Likewise Barnabas is also referred to as apostle. Paul refers in Thessalonians (when apparently speaking of himself and Silas and Timothy) uses the plural term "apostles"...whether referring to Silas or Timothy...or both, is not made clear.
> 
> I realize that even if accepted it is easily said "but none of these (perhaps) extended past the "first century" church", (as though God has purposed a "something else" from our arbitrary conclusions of time, till now).
> 
> Not knowing, nor much caring for arguments of "cessation" according to an inserted reasoning of man, I am content to believe what Jesus has said regarding what will follow those who believe. And of such, and in such I find Jesus' words of far greater import, _and conviction_ of faith than all other arguments.



I'm not exactly certain why you mention Paul's position as an apostle - if he followed the pattern of the others Paul would have received the gift via specifically being chosen by Christ.  Apostles didn't fit into the exact same category as prophets, tongue-speakers, etc. in terms of how they'd receive their gift - being seen by Jesus and being chosen by Him led to their selection.

Regarding Barnabas and others, two explanations can be offered.  First, the word rendered "apostle" can also be rendered "messenger"... and sometimes it is in the NT.  Just as the word "deacon" is from the same word that's rendered "servant"... there's more than one meaning to this word.  Thus, the more general meaning could have been applied.  Second, even if the Lord saw fit to appoint more men to that position in the 1st Century, there's no evidence that suggests such continued on into later times.  None of the "church fathers" ever hinted at the fact they held the office of apostles... even though most of them had spent considerable time with some of them.

Regarding your last statement, I ask you these questions.  
Based on Matthew 5:31, when people divorce today must a husband give his wife a "certificate of divorce"?  Based on Matthew 5:23, should we continue to be offering gifts on altars today?  Based on Matthew 19:21, must Christians in this day sell everything they have and follow Jesus?  Based on Luke 20:5ff, should we be looking forward to the time when the temple is destroyed?  Based on John 13:21, should be be looking for someone who is going to betray Jesus today?

Clearly, not everything Jesus said in the gospel accounts would relate to every time period... or even to all people.  Saying "I'll hold onto to what Jesus said" while ignoring that fact will lead to beliefs that are not in keeping with His will for us today.


----------



## Israel

Bama4me said:


> I'm not exactly certain why you mention Paul's position as an apostle - if he followed the pattern of the others Paul would have received the gift via specifically being chosen by Christ.  Apostles didn't fit into the exact same category as prophets, tongue-speakers, etc. in terms of how they'd receive their gift - being seen by Jesus and being chosen by Him led to their selection.
> 
> Regarding Barnabas and others, two explanations can be offered.  First, the word rendered "apostle" can also be rendered "messenger"... and sometimes it is in the NT.  Just as the word "deacon" is from the same word that's rendered "servant"... there's more than one meaning to this word.  Thus, the more general meaning could have been applied.  Second, even if the Lord saw fit to appoint more men to that position in the 1st Century, there's no evidence that suggests such continued on into later times.  None of the "church fathers" ever hinted at the fact they held the office of apostles... even though most of them had spent considerable time with some of them.
> 
> Regarding your last statement, I ask you these questions.
> Based on Matthew 5:31, when people divorce today must a husband give his wife a "certificate of divorce"?  Based on Matthew 5:23, should we continue to be offering gifts on altars today?  Based on Matthew 19:21, must Christians in this day sell everything they have and follow Jesus?  Based on Luke 20:5ff, should we be looking forward to the time when the temple is destroyed?  Based on John 13:21, should be be looking for someone who is going to betray Jesus today?
> 
> Clearly, not everything Jesus said in the gospel accounts would relate to every time period... or even to all people.  Saying "I'll hold onto to what Jesus said" while ignoring that fact will lead to beliefs that are not in keeping with His will for us today.




I trust you mean, as much as you understand, your best.
I'll hold to Jesus...and His word.


----------



## Bama4me

Israel said:


> I trust you mean, as much as you understand, your best.
> I'll hold to Jesus...and His word.



You're obviously implying that doing so means that I'm not... will you answer the questions?


----------



## gemcgrew

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again.  I'm still waiting on just one scripture that states God stopped performing miracles in the first century. You haven't foisted one because one doesn't exist.


I have found that if a man does not believe in the miracles promised, he never really believed in the miracles recorded.


----------



## hobbs27

gemcgrew said:


> I have found that if a man does not believe in the miracles promised, he never really believed in the miracles recorded.



You didn't look very far.

You and a few others on here never struck me as the charismatic either... Speak in tongues much gem?


----------



## gemcgrew

hobbs27 said:


> You didn't look very far.
> 
> You and a few others on here never struck me as the charismatic either... Speak in tongues much gem?


Why do you use the Charismatic as the standard? It's as if you believe a man must be a Charismatic if he is not a Cessationist.

God does all that He pleases, so if He pleases, He can work a miracle today. This shouldn't be a difficult thing for a believer to grasp.

As to my speaking in tongues, I never have, to my knowledge. But if it pleases God for me to speak in tongues, I will at an appointed time and place.

Where is your Biblical evidence that God is no longer pleased to perform miracles?


----------



## hobbs27

gemcgrew said:


> Why do you use the Charismatic as the standard? It's as if you believe a man must be a Charismatic if he is not a Cessationist.
> 
> God does all that He pleases, so if He pleases, He can work a miracle today. This shouldn't be a difficult thing for a believer to grasp.
> 
> As to my speaking in tongues, I never have, to my knowledge. But if it pleases God for me to speak in tongues, I will at an appointed time and place.
> 
> Where is your Biblical evidence that God is no longer pleased to perform miracles?



You speak in tongue Gem?


----------



## Bama4me

gemcgrew said:


> God does all that He pleases, so if He pleases, He can work a miracle today. This shouldn't be a difficult thing for a believer to grasp.
> 
> Where is your Biblical evidence that God is no longer pleased to perform miracles?



The question is not about what God would do if He pleases. We all acknowledge that God can do anything that He'd like to do. The question is "does God's revelation to us indicate He still works miraculous things through people today as He did in the 1st Century?"

If you'll read earlier in the thread you'll see the passages which support the idea that God no longer works miracles via human hands.


----------



## gemcgrew

Bama4me said:


> The question is not about what God would do if He pleases. We all acknowledge that God can do anything that He'd like to do. The question is "does God's revelation to us indicate He still works miraculous things through people today as He did in the 1st Century?"


So you do acknowledge that God may work miraculous things through people today as He did in the 1st Century.


----------



## hummerpoo

Bama4me said:


> The question is not about what God would do if He pleases. We all acknowledge that God can do anything that He'd like to do. The question is "does God's revelation to us indicate He still works miraculous things through people today as He did in the 1st Century?"
> 
> If you'll read earlier in the thread you'll see the passages which support the idea that God no longer works miracles via human hands.



Or, by the proposed interpretation, anoints Preachers, Teachers, or Evangelists; who are inexplicably being left out of the conversation, but are included in the cited scripture.  Could it be that the proposition is being presented in a circuitous manor?


----------



## Israel

One might recognize that seeking to uphold the moving of mountains without love is a vanity. That taking one's stand by a pressing (from wherever that pressure may come) to defend the "miraculous" if coming likewise with temptation to let the love of Christ slip, is a hazard.
Nevertheless Jesus speaks of a faith given in Him, through Him, of Him and of such residence by His presence, to be assured of His presence I cannot deny.

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

In another place we are told:

He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

I suppose one could argue (as has been argued multiple times) that manifestation is nothing more than mind trickery, nothing about it need point to the "miraculous". That a man could convince himself _Christ_ is with him because of some miracle seen, or performed, Jesus likewise warns against..."Have we not prophesied in your name...?"etc.

So, a man, a professing believing man, could be rightly cautioned not to take any stand on either having seen the miraculous, or even, if God wills, to have been a participant in such. These things do not assure the soul.

But if we are men that are called to stand by the resurrection of One...out from the dead, the significance of that should not be lost upon us. And if we in seeking that significance discover a likewise power made available in that faith we might find ourselves remiss to make any assumptions regarding it. The new man is made aware of the price of assumption and presumption, for he is always aware of the price paid to remove it. But along with that comes the awareness of so great a power demonstrated in the assurance of its removal.

Which then is easier to say...take up your bed and walk...or your sins are forgiven? They are both likewise impossible to "mere" men. Yet in and from another...equally easy.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> I think the author attempts to explain in a Christian manner. He posits his opinion and why with the scripture. All one has to do is follow along.
> 
> Sure he leaves the possibility open... I think as a friendly gesture.. As it could be possible because I do not understand all scripture... But what I do understand does not point to a continuation or a possibility of a continuation of the gifts.



Because you think that perfection is here (1 Cor. 13:10), think that we are now face to face (1 Cor. 13:12),think that we have all attained to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (Eph. 4:13), and grown up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ (Eph. 4:15)?


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> Because you think that perfection is here (1 Cor. 13:10), think that we are now face to face (1 Cor. 13:12),think that we have all attained to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (Eph. 4:13), and grown up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ (Eph. 4:15)?




The pouring out of the Spirit on which men spoke in tongues.. Prophesied in Joel for the last days,  Peter declared in Acts 2. ( This is that)  which was spoken of by the prophet Joel. 

The spiritual gifts were a sign,  a fulfilling of a prophecy,  they do not exist in man today,  there purpose was served.  For those pretending to have these gifts they are extending what Joel and Peter defined as the last days,  thousands of years. 

Do you have theses gifts?  Why is it only the charismatic that claim to have these?  Why aren't those with the gift of healing not going to the hospitals?  

 Can God do what God wants?  Yes He is God,  but He has given us all the scripture, all the prophesy,  and in the last days in which Peter claimed to be in,  He poured out his spirit on those first century Christians as His prophet Joel had foretold.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

gemcgrew said:


> I have found that if a man does not believe in the miracles promised, he never really believed in the miracles recorded.



Trufe!!!


----------



## Israel

hobbs27 said:


> The pouring out of the Spirit on which men spoke in tongues.. Prophesied in Joel for the last days,  Peter declared in Acts 2. ( This is that)  which was spoken of by the prophet Joel.
> 
> The spiritual gifts were a sign,  a fulfilling of a prophecy,  they do not exist in man today,  there purpose was served.  For those pretending to have these gifts they are extending what Joel and Peter defined as the last days,  thousands of years.
> 
> Do you have theses gifts?  Why is it only the charismatic that claim to have these?  Why aren't those with the gift of healing not going to the hospitals?
> 
> Can God do what God wants?  Yes He is God,  but He has given us all the scripture, all the prophesy,  and in the last days in which Peter claimed to be in,  He poured out his spirit on those first century Christians as His prophet Joel had foretold.



So Jesus’ brothers said to Him, “Leave here and go to Judea, so that Your disciples there may see the works You are doing. No one who wants to be known publicly acts in secret. Since You are doing these things, show Yourself to the world.”  For even His own brothers did not believe in Him.…

The disciple is made aware of a mind that cannot see except by contradistinction. One is either "of Rome" or Protestant. The "other" is not yet seen. One is either "charismatic" or "non charismatic", the other is not tenable or seen. This mind itself is set for contradiction so that what has always been...before titles, categories, labels are invented...might be seen.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

This was suggested to me by someone deeply respected.  It's from Acts 10-11 regarding Peter and the Centurian's conversion and Peters subsequent defense of it before the Jewish Apostles.  I think it sums up this argument succinctly. 

Acts 11:17

17 So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”

And I'm quiet sure some of what I've posted would lead many to suspect I'm charismatic.  I'm not.  I'm Baptist.  I just don't fall for the belief that my or anyone else's doctrine can constrain God.

I don't doubt miracles when I hear of them.  I believe in God and he's in the miracle business (no matter how you define them).  I look to where they point.  I look to the credibility of the person reporting them.  If they don't point to God but the person I discount them.  If the person is not credible I discount them.  

If they come from a credible source who's only purpose in reporting it is to serve as a witness with nothing to gain then I believe them.  Why wouldn't I? And again, is not the GREATEST miracle a HOLY GOD forgiving us wretched, fetid sinners and does that not happen every day?


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> The pouring out of the Spirit on which men spoke in tongues.. Prophesied in Joel for the last days,  Peter declared in Acts 2. ( This is that)  which was spoken of by the prophet Joel.
> 
> The spiritual gifts were a sign,  a fulfilling of a prophecy,  they do not exist in man today,  there purpose was served.  For those pretending to have these gifts they are extending what Joel and Peter defined as the last days,  thousands of years.
> 
> Do you have theses gifts?  Why is it only the charismatic that claim to have these?  Why aren't those with the gift of healing not going to the hospitals?
> 
> Can God do what God wants?  Yes He is God,  but He has given us all the scripture, all the prophesy,  and in the last days in which Peter claimed to be in,  He poured out his spirit on those first century Christians as His prophet Joel had foretold.



To which of the four points of the question did you respond?



hummerpoo said:


> Because you think that perfection is here (1 Cor. 13:10), think that we are now face to face (1 Cor. 13:12),think that we have all attained to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (Eph. 4:13), and grown up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ (Eph. 4:15)?


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> To which of the four points of the question did you respond?



All of them,  without providing a resounding Yes.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

"Why do only charasmatics have the gifts? ". As a Baptist living in a half Charismatic family I'm often confronted with this question.
My answer. In much of the same manner many Athiest ask the same regarding believers.  "Why are believers the only ones to find God?"  Regarding both groups I answer "Because they are the only ones seeking with a REAL expectation of finding what they seek."


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> All of them,  without providing a resounding Yes.



Sorry Hobbs, I don't buy that.  If it's yes, say yes.  If it's a qualified yes, define, document, and defend.


----------



## hobbs27

There's men today that claim to have been giving the gift of healing.  In other words God gave them the power as He did the Apostles. 

 Are they telling the truth... God gave them a gift,  and they can use it as they see fit?


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> Sorry Hobbs, I don't buy that.  If it's yes, say yes.  If it's a qualified yes, define, document, and defend.



I can't define, document,  and defend that and stay on the topic of our discussion here.  If you want go create an entire thread on that,  OK.  
 While this topic is indeed connected with the end times,  I'm doing my best,  and it is very hard for me, nevertheless I'm trying to show my position on this and let it fit in the majorities futuristic paradigm.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> I can't define, document,  and defend that and stay on the topic of our discussion here.  If you want go create an entire thread on that,  OK.
> While this topic is indeed connected with the end times,  I'm doing my best,  and it is very hard for me, nevertheless I'm trying to show my position on this and let it fit in the majorities futuristic paradigm.



I understand and sympathize with your position, however, the question I have ask is directly from the primary scripture being used to support the proposition.  It is dead center in the issue, and the question of correct interpretation can not be avoided.  Additionally, the points of the question being from the two passages introduced, discussion must be directly related to those two passages.


----------



## gordon 2

hobbs27 said:


> There's men today that claim to have been giving the gift of healing.  In other words God gave them the power as He did the Apostles.
> 
> Are they telling the truth... God gave them a gift,  and they can use it as they see fit?



Most,  if not all,  thaumaturge, as far as I have researched never say they have power or the gift of healing, but that it is God doing the wonder work.

And more, not all  who ask are healed. Some are. Some not. Once more some that are healed have faith; And some healed don't, never did, and don't following the wonder work done to them which they testify to have happened.

Thaumaturges never claim to have power they see fit to provide. As a matter of fact most find themselves ugly sinners that would surely heal themselves and the people they chose. Rather they let God lead them and lead the people who present themselves for some form of wonderwork.

It is not uncommon for a thaumaturge to say to a sick person with great faith, " Why do you need to be healed? You have sufficient faith to carry your cross as the example of our Lord?" And then to an individual with little or no faith, " The Lord's will be done, you no longer have an illness or disability."

It is not uncommon for a thaumaturge to see 20 individuals per day or much more, and to pray with each-- and yet only one will claim to have been rid of some chronic illness or to have a parent or spouse recover of some such illness which was sought for. ( So the thaumaturge does not go to hospital to heal all the inhabitants of their wards.)

And it is not uncommon to a thaumaturge to say that healing or some wonderwork continues today as a sign or testimony of God's presence ( because God is the wonderworker) to the persons healed or to the persons surrounding the wonderwork. One wonderwork can have spiritual (Christain) significance, can provide testimony of God for many generations, and centuries thereafter...

----------------------------------------------------------------

My personal bla, bla on this is that thaumaturge like Paul for example, know to walk in other people's shoes and more. They not only walk in the individual's shoes, but in the individual's social shoes. This it to say... one's shoe's walks in the USA and another's in Mexico. And then, yet not all shoes walk in the same places in the USA and Mexico. Some of God's children ( his elect) walk in Bern Switzerland and some in the cities of Iraq. Some have had parents with faith some not. All need different things, in God's time-- not mine, not our's.

When I look back at the pastors at Azusa or some Greek Orthodox thaumaturge... I see individuals who are willing to let God's presence in their lives be present in the lives of the people who meet with them..not because these individuals or the individual who frequent them are particularly great or special, but because they know God is. And perhaps this is part of God's way to gather his elect, His saints... which for us was all due to His wonderwork in our Lord Jesus... and that which from Him follows today even in the Holy Spirit signs and wonders according to Him.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> I understand and sympathize with your position, however, the question I have ask is directly from the primary scripture being used to support the proposition.  It is dead center in the issue, and the question of correct interpretation can not be avoided.  Additionally, the points of the question being from the two passages introduced, discussion must be directly related to those two passages.



 Yes.  I don't however believe it is necessary to accept those passages as fulfilled to understand the gifts have ceased.. They were only for a time.  
 I believe in prayer.  I believe God answers prayers.  I do not believe God has ordained any man today with the gift to heal.  I do not believe tongues have a purpose or are of God today. It has served its purpose.


----------



## Israel

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.  To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit,  to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> Yes.  I don't however believe it is necessary to accept those passages as fulfilled to understand the gifts have ceased.. They were only for a time.
> I believe in prayer.  I believe God answers prayers.  I do not believe God has ordained any man today with the gift to heal.  I do not believe tongues have a purpose or are of God today. It has served its purpose.



So, I understand that you believe the things you have stated and that belief is unrelated to the proposition discussed in this thread or the scripture purported to support that proposition.  IOW, your concurrence is coincidental.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> So, I understand that you believe the things you have stated and that belief is unrelated to the proposition discussed in this thread or the scripture purported to support that proposition.  IOW, your concurrence is coincidental.



There's some ways of looking at this.  Yes,  again my paradigm fits the bill perfectly, I can't help so many reject it. 

In this scripture. Paul says "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." 

The first century church was in its infancy.  They were babes in Christ. But today the church is mature and we are men in Christ.  Those gifts necessary for the infant church,  are no longer necessary.  We eat of the meat of the word,  we are the largest religion of the world,  we have grown into adulthood and no longer need the childish things to establish something new,  and small.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> There's some ways of looking at this.  Yes,  again my paradigm fits the bill perfectly, I can't help so many reject it.
> 
> In this scripture. Paul says "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
> 
> The first century church was in its infancy.  They were babes in Christ. But today the church is mature and we are men in Christ.  Those gifts necessary for the infant church,  are no longer necessary.  We eat of the meat of the word,  we are the largest religion of the world,  we have grown into adulthood and no longer need the childish things to establish something new,  and small.



Yes, Paul's child/man statement fits your paradigm when taken out of the context within which it is set, as shown in my original question; within that context it serves to illustrate the believers relationship with the Devine in time as it is developed by God toward his relationship with the Devine in eternity.

Now, I suggest that we are indeed outside the scope of the discussion, have clarified our difference (what is the context), and should discontinue the line of discussion.


----------



## Israel

This girl followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation.”  She continued this for many days. Eventually Paul grew so aggravated that he turned and said to the spirit, “In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!” And the spirit left her at that very moment.…


----------



## gordon 2

Ah. I wish I was as smart of some of you. But not being, yet I hope this is not out of context regards the use of children that the holy use, but especially when Jesus uses it to describe his apostles who are fishing one night rather than doing something else.


John 21:5-6King James Version (KJV)

5 Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No.

6 And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.
............


Don't you think it is strange that Jesus should call Peter and John and the others fishing "children". Grown men!?

In the same recorded sequence Jesus says to Peter " Feed my sheep." and this to them:

John 21:18-19King James Version (KJV)

18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee,  when thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.
-------------------------
(When thous shalt be old, thous shalt stretch forth they hands and another shall gird thee and carry thee whiter thou wouldest not.) My paraphrase...

------------------

From all of this I'm understanding that we just like Peter and John and the others, who had witnessed the resurrected Jesus, who were fishing at night just like  most likely they had done before they ever met Jesus, were acting like children. They were looking back too far.

 They were not acting like adults who had witnessed the glory of God as no other individuals on the planet had witnessed before them.

Basically the day when Jesus commissioned his desciples to "Feed my sheep." and they decided to let go of the  things of their youths or childhoods, to act as in the days before Jesus was intimate with them, and thereafter to walk as Jesus had walked proclaiming the gospel to the world, from that day forward all who are in Christ are adults.

Therefore the church has from the get go been peopled with adults. It became peopled with spiritual adults the very first time it fed the Lord's sheep without Jesus specifically sending them. It was never an infant from that day. Infants are given meat and milk--by adults.

 Now individuals into the church might be to milk even in our day and the majority of believers into a specific local church might only have the wits for milk, but the greater church feeding them, milk or meat, was adult the morning Jesus told his boys to cast their net on the right side of the ship after a full night of skunked fishing and told them to "Follow me." Being led by God's hand is very adult in my outlook. A child might well be led by His hand, but might not know who's hand hold's his. But an adult who is conscious of the truth knows.


----------



## Israel

Once taken by a vision I saw a lamb, grazing, simply ambling forward and munching almost oblivious on the tender green shoots before it. Suddenly a cobra like snake reared before it from the grass with intent. But just as suddenly a scythe-like instrument was swung from above, by a hand unseen, and just as suddenly as the snake appeared, it was cleanly beheaded. The lamb continued, again, almost shouting in its demeanor, a complete unawareness of what had just taken place. It had never once lifted its head from eating.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> Yes, Paul's child/man statement fits your paradigm when taken out of the context within which it is set, as shown in my original question; within that context it serves to illustrate the believers relationship with the Devine in time as it is developed by God toward his relationship with the Devine in eternity.
> 
> Now, I suggest that we are indeed outside the scope of the discussion, have clarified our difference (what is the context), and should discontinue the line of discussion.



I assure you nothing is out of context in comparison to the infant church state they were in.  

 This is the same topic Paul discussed with the Ephesians 
 Ch.  4 :1 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. 16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.


----------



## centerpin fan

Israel said:


> Once taken by a vision I saw a lamb, grazing, simply ambling forward and munching almost oblivious on the tender green shoots before it. Suddenly a cobra like snake reared before it from the grass with intent. But just as suddenly a scythe-like instrument was swung from above, by a hand unseen, and just as suddenly as the snake appeared, it was cleanly beheaded. The lamb continued, again, almost shouting in its demeanor, a complete unawareness of what had just taken place. It had never once lifted its head from eating.



Another piece of the puzzle falls into place.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> I assure you nothing is out of context in comparison to the infant church state they were in.
> 
> This is the same topic Paul discussed with the Ephesians
> Ch.  4 :1 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
> 
> 14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. 16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.



So, after all the beating about the bush, the answer to:



hummerpoo said:


> Because you think that perfection is here (1 Cor. 13:10), think that we are now face to face (1 Cor. 13:12),think that we have all attained to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (Eph. 4:13), and grown up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ (Eph. 4:15)?



is a simple, "Yes".


----------



## Artfuldodger

How does one determine what guidance we receive from the Holy Spirit vs ourselves? God does provide his Holy Spirit to produce fruit from us. 
Why would the Holy Spirit guiding a preacher or even me to minister be any different than direct guidance from the Holy Spirit?

Why would God guiding a doctor to save a dying man be any different that God saving the man through divine intervention?

I'm trying to see what the difference is in either. 
Example, God cures a man of cancer vs God curing a man of cancer through guiding a doctor.

God saves a man from eternal death by divine intervention directly from the Holy Spirit or God saves a man through another man by providing his Holy Spirit to speak through this man.

I'm wondering if God works both ways.


----------



## gordon 2

Artfuldodger said:


> How does one determine what guidance we receive from the Holy Spirit vs ourselves? God does provide his Holy Spirit to produce fruit from us.
> Why would the Holy Spirit guiding a preacher or even me to minister be any different than direct guidance from the Holy Spirit?
> 
> Why would God guiding a doctor to save a dying man be any different that God saving the man through divine intervention?
> 
> I'm trying to see what the difference is in either.
> Example, God cures a man of cancer vs God curing a man of cancer through guiding a doctor.
> 
> God saves a man from eternal death by divine intervention directly from the Holy Spirit or God saves a man through another man by providing his Holy Spirit to speak through this man.
> 
> I'm wondering if God works both ways.



Well Art, when the Holy Spirit intervenes the faith of some in influenced. When the doctor heals you, it will influence the Benz or Bently dealer to think himself blessed.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> So, after all the beating about the bush, the answer to:
> 
> 
> 
> is a simple, "Yes".




Not a simple yes.  Let me fix your question  so I can provide a simple yes. 

Because scripture states perfection is here (1 Cor. 13:10), that we are now face to face (1 Cor. 13:12), that we have all attained to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (Eph. 4:13), and grown up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ (Eph. 4:15)?

Yes.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gordon 2 said:


> Well Art, when the Holy Spirit intervenes the faith of some in influenced. When the doctor heals you, it will influence the Benz or Bently dealer to think himself blessed.



So you don't think the Holy Spirit works through man? The Holy Spirit doesn't give man any ability to produce fruit?


----------



## gordon 2

Artfuldodger said:


> So you don't think the Holy Spirit works through man? The Holy Spirit doesn't give man any ability to produce fruit?



Well Art, I've worked in a hospital in nursing for 13 yrs. Worked on medical-surgical floors and stroke floors and more... I was never aware of one surgeon who talked about faith, religion, Jesus, salvation, end times, eternal punishment, etc... with patients. But maybe some did...

The reason I'm answering this way is because you wrote this: "Why would God guiding a doctor to save a dying man be any different that God saving the man through divine intervention?"

Personally I don't think the skills of doctors are any more special than anyone else's who got trained for a skill.

Your questions reminds me of the difference between a heart attack and a tornado when both cause death...


----------



## Artfuldodger

gordon 2 said:


> Well Art, I've worked in a hospital in nursing for 13 yrs. Worked on medical-surgical floors and stroke floors and more... I was never aware of one surgeon who talked about faith, religion, Jesus, salvation, end times, eternal punishment, etc... with patients. But maybe some did...
> 
> The reason I'm answering this way is because you wrote this: "Why would God guiding a doctor to save a dying man be any different that God saving the man through divine intervention?"
> 
> Personally I don't think the skills of doctors are any more special than anyone else's who got trained for a skill.
> 
> Your questions reminds me of the difference between a heart attack and a tornado when both cause death...



I was told of a surgeon who asked his patient if he could pray before the pending cancer surgery. She said yes and he held her hand and prayed that God would guide him and her through the surgery. 
She is now cancer free. Somehow I'm trying to figure out what cured her. Was it divine intervention directly from God or was it the fruit of the Holy Spirit through the surgeon?

In those 13 years have you seen any miracles? If so were they the result of direct intervention from God or guidance from the Holy Spirit through a man?


----------



## gordon 2

Artfuldodger said:


> I was told of a surgeon who asked his patient if he could pray before the pending cancer surgery. She said yes and he held her hand and prayed that God would guide him and her through the surgery.
> She is now cancer free. Somehow I'm trying to figure out what cured her. Was it divine intervention directly from God or was it the fruit of the Holy Spirit through the surgeon?
> 
> In those 13 years have you seen any miracles? If so were they the result of direct intervention from God or guidance from the Holy Spirit through a man?



 I have seen nothing supernatural--except that despite the human frailty of nurses and doctors and other hospital staff, --their errors and miscalculations--outcomes were very good.

You realize that medicine is an art, and not a science per say?  Hospitals are a miracle I think.

In any case... I don't wish to derail this tread with my banter... I'll leave it to others perhaps to answer your questions art.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gordon 2 said:


> I have seen nothing supernatural--except that despite the human frailty of nurses and doctors and other hospital staff, --their errors and miscalculations--outcomes were very good.
> 
> You realize that medicine is an art, and not a science per say?  Hospitals are a miracle I think.
> 
> In any case... I don't wish to derail this tread with my banter... I'll leave it to others perhaps to answer your questions art.



Good idea, I'm still trying to figure out God's limitations as an artist and scientist. 

I believe God can, and still does, guide one's thoughts, actions, teachings, etc. to help others in sickness. That sickness can be spiritual or of the flesh.


----------



## Israel

Art, sometimes an angel opens the prison door and men just walk out.
Sometimes an earthquake shakes the prison to its foundations and men's doors swing wide and chains drop off...but they remain put. To some purpose. Eutychus gets raised, even Naaman got healed, but Stephen is appointed to a seemingly different testimony.
Some fishermen are told "come follow me" and one healed man who _wants to_ follow is told "go home and tell". The people "of Israel" resist, while a Centurion easily receives. Causing even Jesus to marvel.

Some want desperately to be seen as "good Christians", others want desperately to not be seen as "christians" at all. Some believe they know what they "would do" according to the stance and posture they've adopted, and then encourage others into hypotheticals. Some simply know they do what they do, and that nothing is hidden from the sight of Him who sees all. Maybe they have learned trying to figure out "what they would do" is as painful in fruitlessness as trying to "figure out" what God "would do". And maybe some have even learned friends are not appointed to one another for the sake of figuring out. Just to be with.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Israel said:


> Art, sometimes an angel opens the prison door and men just walk out.
> Sometimes an earthquake shakes the prison to its foundations and men's doors swing wide and chains drop off...but they remain put. To some purpose. Eutychus gets raised, even Naaman got healed, but Stephen is appointed to a seemingly different testimony.
> Some fishermen are told "come follow me" and one healed man who _wants to_ follow is told "go home and tell". The people "of Israel" resist, while a Centurion easily receives. Causing even Jesus to marvel.
> 
> Some want desperately to be seen as "good Christians", others want desperately to not be seen as "christians" at all. Some believe they know what they "would do" according to the stance and posture they've adopted, and then encourage others into hypotheticals. Some simply know they do what they do, and that nothing is hidden from the sight of Him who sees all. Maybe they have learned trying to figure out "what they would do" is as painful in fruitlessness as trying to "figure out" what God "would do". And maybe some have even learned friends are not appointed to one another for the sake of figuring out. Just to be with.



Good lesson, it sounds like God kinda works as if he is God or something along the lines of a Supreme Being.


----------



## Artfuldodger

When we receive the Holy Spirit, don't we obtain some unity with God? If God is within us, wouldn't it stand to reason that he could guide our teaching ability as we share his Gospel with others?

What's the point of receiving the Holy Spirit if it doesn't benefit our actions and teaching being one of those actions.


----------



## Israel

Artfuldodger said:


> When we receive the Holy Spirit, don't we obtain some unity with God? If God is within us, wouldn't it stand to reason that he could guide our teaching ability as we share his Gospel with others?
> 
> What's the point of receiving the Holy Spirit if it doesn't benefit our actions and teaching being one of those actions.


Forgive me Art, I believe the post I just deleted was pretty far from understanding you.
But I'm still not at all sure, but will venture you are making an affirmative as to the Spirit's ability...whether it be "through" a man, or some other instrument? (Dreams, visions,  scriptural meditations, prayer, circumstances...that lead to enlightening our minds)?
Maybe that's why Paul said in some place "Who is equal to such a task?" of the things you mentioned...a sharing of the things of God...of truth. Which is perhaps why he knew he had to depend upon the Spirit of the faith of the Son of God. He saw the severe limits of explanation...so to speak...and had come to rely upon something other than man's ability to "get the truth across".

But, I sure could be as equally wrong in seeking to understand you.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Yes Israel, that is what I'm talking about. Our spirit becoming a part of "the Spirit." The Spirit working through a man or other avenue as you mentioned.


----------



## Israel

Artfuldodger said:


> Yes Israel, that is what I'm talking about. Our spirit becoming a part of "the Spirit." The Spirit working through a man or other avenue as you mentioned.



Yeah. OK. sorry for my confusion. And appreciate your clarification.

I think that's it...like you stated...right there...the Spirit.
Again, I think it could be what Paul was referencing/seeing when he spoke about Apollos and himself...you know "I follow Paul, I follow Apollos...etc"
It wasn't, as he said, that Paul or Apollos were anything...one plants, one waters...but the growth can only come from God. 

We can read the scriptures...but we might ask ourselves (and rightly I am persuaded, before God)..."am I really reading /hearing"? Same thing with any other "thing"...a dream, a vision, an experience...and of course...even a "teacher"...are we "reading them rightly?"

This could certainly tie in to what was said about being "living epistles"...we are to submit to God's writing upon our hearts his truth that transforms us...so that ...when even we ourselves (if having submitted) are read "rightly"...a man might come to see God in His dwelling place...even in another man. 

Cause that's it really, isn't it? This good news, this gospel of peace made between God and man through the man Jesus Christ, is about truth and life, and the only place it is found in fullness. But, if it is true to us...no matter in what estate we may be found, it will be made true in us...to be made true (and truth) through us. God's working within to "work out" His salvation...even through earthen vessels. In which our Lord was not ashamed to appear, nor even as we appear such, ashamed to call us His brothers.


----------



## Bama4me

One of the things absent in this discussion is purpose... why were the spiritual gifts of prophecy, tongues, etc. needed in the 1st Century?

How could someone preach the good news of the gospel if he didn't have knowledge?  Where would the knowledge come from?  At the time of the 1st Century, there wasn't a collection of the gospel accounts to learn/preach from... there wasn't a collection of letters that could be studied and used.  Thus, there was a need for God to directly reveal His will for man through people like prophets... and those having the gift of knowledge.

Why were healings needed in that day and time?  The New Testament Scriptures reveal that these healings and other miraculous deeds were done to confirm the validity of the message/messenger (see Mark 16:20, John 20:30-31, & Hebrews 2:3-4).  Time and again in the book of Acts, we see a miracle being done and then the gospel taught.  In places where the gospel was preached, people would be asking "why should I believe this message... what will compel me to see it as authentic?"  When a teacher was able to legitimately perform miracles, people would know it was a God-sanctioned message.

Now... fast forward to present day.  We have something they did not have then... the NT Scriptures.  We have the account of these people performing these miracles... we have enough information provided to come to a reasoned conclusion... and the information we consult claims to be the word of God.

But here's another question... is God still revealing His will to mankind today.  Or, to ask it another way, has God's will (at this point in history) been fully revealed to man OR is that revelation incomplete (more to come)?


----------



## Bama4me

Artfuldodger said:


> How does one determine what guidance we receive from the Holy Spirit vs ourselves? God does provide his Holy Spirit to produce fruit from us.
> Why would the Holy Spirit guiding a preacher or even me to minister be any different than direct guidance from the Holy Spirit?
> 
> Why would God guiding a doctor to save a dying man be any different that God saving the man through divine intervention?
> 
> I'm trying to see what the difference is in either.
> Example, God cures a man of cancer vs God curing a man of cancer through guiding a doctor.



In answer to your question here, I think we can see the distinction through something like the gift of tongues.  In Acts 2, the apostles (via the Holy Spirit) were able to speak in languages (tongues) they had not studied.  People from all areas around the world heard a message spoken in their own native tongues as a result.  Being able to speak in a language that one has NEVER studied is a miracle - and it came directly through the work of the Holy Spirit.

Today, people do not possess that endowment in the same way - no one is going to miraculously speak in a language unknown to them.  However, one can obviously study and learn a foreign language today and thus end up serving the same function today - only in a non-miraculous manner.

Consider also the healing by Philip in Samaria (Acts 8).  In his work in that city, he healed people who were paralyzed and lame and cast out unclean spirits.  This was obvious to all in that city... and it validated the message he spoke as being from God.  In that time, the Spirit worked in these ways through people like Philip in order to validate the message spoken.

Today, there's no need to continue to validate a message.  We have information through the word that they only had through miraculous endowments... we can take the word and bring someone to a knowledge of the truth.  In that day and age, people were healed via things like prayer and command.  Imagine a doctor today telling a patient "I'm going to pray that your cancer disappears and following the prayer I'll command you to be healed."  Does that occur?  We both know the answer.  God indeeds still heals today, but in using the doctor's hands He uses skill that's come via study and learning (through non-miraculous means).


----------



## gordon 2

Bama4me said:


> One of the things absent in this discussion is purpose... why were the spiritual gifts of prophecy, tongues, etc. needed in the 1st Century?
> 
> How could someone preach the good news of the gospel if he didn't have knowledge?  Where would the knowledge come from?  At the time of the 1st Century, there wasn't a collection of the gospel accounts to learn/preach from... there wasn't a collection of letters that could be studied and used.  Thus, there was a need for God to directly reveal His will for man through people like prophets... and those having the gift of knowledge.
> 
> Why were healings needed in that day and time?  The New Testament Scriptures reveal that these healings and other miraculous deeds were done to confirm the validity of the message/messenger (see Mark 16:20, John 20:30-31, & Hebrews 2:3-4).  Time and again in the book of Acts, we see a miracle being done and then the gospel taught.  In places where the gospel was preached, people would be asking "why should I believe this message... what will compel me to see it as authentic?"  When a teacher was able to legitimately perform miracles, people would know it was a God-sanctioned message.
> 
> Now... fast forward to present day.  We have something they did not have then... the NT Scriptures.  We have the account of these people performing these miracles... we have enough information provided to come to a reasoned conclusion... and the information we consult claims to be the word of God.
> 
> But here's another question... is God still revealing His will to mankind today.  Or, to ask it another way, has God's will (at this point in history) been fully revealed to man OR is that revelation incomplete (more to come)?



1 John 3:2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

Who is we here? Are we the same now as we were 2000 yrs ago, or in the middle ages, or 50 yrs ago, or 20 yrs ago?

We are constantly changing as a church if we mean the church. ???

Have we as individuals and as the church asked Jesus everything and all things? No new things to come up, no things from the past overlooked, misunderstood...? The "world" does not spin new unheard of webs?

Were not those in Moses ready to say that all essentials to spiritual life was in scripture? And in faith a Messiah would come.

 But because the Messiah did come did a New Testament occur? Yes.

 And who are we to know now that when the last Judgement comes and the dead are taken up that a Newer Testament will not occur?

 I don't know if you ever talked with average people who fill the pews of  our church and what they understand or understood for the scripture reading and study?

I would suggest that for many people their faith is shored up by a sign even today, and even sometimes a sign given to someone else, but in a context they trust, and for this they have a faith that is unshakable...

 Some people can't read scripture and understand what it says. Some can't read scripture. Some great sinners need a sign to become great saints--all the revelations in scripture not hitting the spots of their shame. Perhaps.

It is one thing to be wedded to our God and seen in plain view in the veils of scripture and it is another to be without veil and to the fragrance of proximity? Perhaps. And perhaps that proximity is more common than some might expect--as to the faith of many--and similar and  just as it was of importance to the early church .

Scripture is a written account of the events that testify of God in the lives of the saints. I'm not certain that it is the only revelation of what is important today or available to saints today. I'm aware of some saints who needed far more than scripture to give them the faith as Abraham is said to have known it.


----------



## Israel

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.


----------



## Bama4me

gordon 2 said:


> 1 John 3:2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
> 
> Who is we here? Are we the same now as we were 2000 yrs ago, or in the middle ages, or 50 yrs ago, or 20 yrs ago?
> 
> We are constantly changing as a church if we mean the church. ???
> 
> Have we as individuals and as the church asked Jesus everything and all things? No new things to come up, no things from the past overlooked, misunderstood...? The "world" does not spin new unheard of webs?
> 
> Were not those in Moses ready to say that all essentials to spiritual life was in scripture? And in faith a Messiah would come.
> 
> But because the Messiah did come did a New Testament occur? Yes.
> 
> And who are we to know now that when the last Judgement comes and the dead are taken up that a Newer Testament will not occur?
> 
> I don't know if you ever talked with average people who fill the pews of  our church and what they understand or understood for the scripture reading and study?
> 
> I would suggest that for many people their faith is shored up by a sign even today, and even sometimes a sign given to someone else, but in a context they trust, and for this they have a faith that is unshakable...
> 
> Some people can't read scripture and understand what it says. Some can't read scripture. Some great sinners need a sign to become great saints--all the revelations in scripture not hitting the spots of their shame. Perhaps.
> 
> It is one thing to be wedded to our God and seen in plain view in the veils of scripture and it is another to be without veil and to the fragrance of proximity? Perhaps. And perhaps that proximity is more common than some might expect--as to the faith of many--and similar and  just as it was of importance to the early church .
> 
> Scripture is a written account of the events that testify of God in the lives of the saints. I'm not certain that it is the only revelation of what is important today or available to saints today. I'm aware of some saints who needed far more than scripture to give them the faith as Abraham is said to have known it.



So... are you saying that more is needed by people than what God has already revealed?  Yes or no?


----------



## Israel

The pay sucked when I was God's counselor, too.


----------



## gordon 2

Bama4me said:


> So... are you saying that more is needed by people than what God has already revealed?  Yes or no?



No.


----------



## Bama4me

gordon 2 said:


> No.



Ok... then I'm puzzled as why you believe people need their faith shored up today by a sign.


----------



## gordon 2

Bama4me said:


> Ok... then I'm puzzled as why you believe people need their faith shored up today by a sign.



Signs following have been revealed. Yes or no?


----------



## gordon 2

Israel said:


> The pay sucked when I was God's counselor, too.


----------



## Bama4me

gordon 2 said:


> Signs following have been revealed. Yes or No.



Not sure where you're coming from, but the purpose for the signs in the NT were to confirm the word as being valid in the absence of God's complete revelation.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 we learn that "all that is Scripture" will bring a person to "completeness".  The rich man in Luke 16:27-31 believed a miracle would lead his five brothers to believe... but he was told that if they wouldn't accept the written word they would not be moved by a miracle.  John 20:30-31 (written near the end of the 1st Century) says an account of the miracles of Jesus was given so that people could read them and have faith created in their heart.

People in the 1st Century times needed miracles to confirm to them that what they were hearing was authentic - that it came from God and not men.  That need, however, was in a vacuum when verifiable information was not written down and made available.  If I believe miracles are needed today to shore up someone's faith, then 2 Timothy 3 isn't true... because more than Scripture is needed.  That would mean Father Abraham was wrong in Luke 16... that people today need Scripture PLUS signs.  That would mean John was inaccurate in what he said in John 20... people can't read and come to faith in God.

Don't get me wrong... when I look at the world in the way Romans 1 mentions, I can gain confidence that the God of the bible exists.  When we look at the design and order in the world, it didn't happen by accident.  Certainly, looking around the creation leads us to believe a Divine Power is indeed a part of this world.  However, the signs found in the New Testament are not being done through brethren's hands today the way they were then.


----------



## gordon 2

Bama4me said:


> Not sure where you're coming from, but the purpose for the signs in the NT were to confirm the word as being valid in the absence of God's complete revelation.
> 
> 2 Timothy 3:16-17 we learn that "all that is Scripture" will bring a person to "completeness".  The rich man in Luke 16:27-31 believed a miracle would lead his five brothers to believe... but he was told that if they wouldn't accept the written word they would not be moved by a miracle.  John 20:30-31 (written near the end of the 1st Century) says an account of the miracles of Jesus was given so that people could read them and have faith created in their heart.
> 
> People in the 1st Century times needed miracles to confirm to them that what they were hearing was authentic - that it came from God and not men.  That need, however, was in a vacuum when verifiable information was not written down and made available.  If I believe miracles are needed today to shore up someone's faith, then 2 Timothy 3 isn't true... because more than Scripture is needed.  That would mean Father Abraham was wrong in Luke 16... that people today need Scripture PLUS signs.  That would mean John was inaccurate in what he said in John 20... people can't read and come to faith in God.
> 
> Don't get me wrong... when I look at the world in the way Romans 1 mentions, I can gain confidence that the God of the bible exists.  When we look at the design and order in the world, it didn't happen by accident.  Certainly, looking around the creation leads us to believe a Divine Power is indeed a part of this world.  However, the signs found in the New Testament are not being done through brethren's hands today the way they were then.



Ok. So you say. And this is ok.  I suspect you understand your point from your understanding of scripture. My understanding comes from experience and scripture.

Perhaps your way of looking at this will or does work for you. Great. I really hope it does. Personally my life in Christ has been informed by scripture study and signs following.


----------



## Bama4me

gordon 2 said:


> Ok. So you say. And this is ok.  I suspect you understand your point from your understanding of scripture. My understanding comes from experience and scripture.
> 
> Perhaps your way of looking at this will or does work for you. Great. I really hope it does. Personally my life in Christ has been informed by scripture study and signs following.



Ok... so we get to the heart of the matter.  The issue here is "experience".  I regularly hear people say "but I feel that ________ is true"... or "my experience teaches me ______ about a religious subject."

Yet, the bible affirms that feelings are not dependable to be followed.  Jeremiah 17:9, Proverbs 28:26, Proverbs 14:12, and a host of other Scriptures point out that people (even good people) are easily misled by feelings.  For years, the godly patriarch Jacob believed Joseph to be dead... even in the face of his sons' testimony to the contrary, he refused to believe it.

Today, we have many folks relying on "experience" today when it comes to religious matters, including this subject.  When pressed about "how can one be sure that God 'led you' to this conclusion/action", what I usually hear is an answer like is presented here... https://billygraham.org/answer/does-god-reveal-things-through-dreams-and-visions/ 

Coming full circle, IF we have all we need today in the fully revealed Scriptures, why the need for these things today?  We readily understand the need in 1st Century days - not a single person could say "let's study about that subject from Colossians 3"... or "let's look at Peter's comments in his 2nd epistle".  Witness a miracle and hear a message - it's a theme of Acts.  Today, IF people claim a reliance upon the written word, why is the other needed?  I stand by what I mentioned earlier... IF something else is needed then we've got issues with several biblical statements.


----------



## gordon 2

Bama4me said:


> Ok... so we get to the heart of the matter.  The issue here is "experience".  I regularly hear people say "but I feel that ________ is true"... or "my experience teaches me ______ about a religious subject."
> 
> Yet, the bible affirms that feelings are not dependable to be followed.  Jeremiah 17:9, Proverbs 28:26, Proverbs 14:12, and a host of other Scriptures point out that people (even good people) are easily misled by feelings.  For years, the godly patriarch Jacob believed Joseph to be dead... even in the face of his sons' testimony to the contrary, he refused to believe it.
> 
> Today, we have many folks relying on "experience" today when it comes to religious matters, including this subject.  When pressed about "how can one be sure that God 'led you' to this conclusion/action", what I usually hear is an answer like is presented here... https://billygraham.org/answer/does-god-reveal-things-through-dreams-and-visions/
> 
> Coming full circle, IF we have all we need today in the fully revealed Scriptures, why the need for these things today?  We readily understand the need in 1st Century days - not a single person could say "let's study about that subject from Colossians 3"... or "let's look at Peter's comments in his 2nd epistle".  Witness a miracle and hear a message - it's a theme of Acts.  Today, IF people claim a reliance upon the written word, why is the other needed?  I stand by what I mentioned earlier... IF something else is needed then we've got issues with several biblical statements.



Amen. I hope this serves you well.


----------



## Israel

Bama4me said:


> Ok... so we get to the heart of the matter.  The issue here is "experience".  I regularly hear people say "but I feel that ________ is true"... or "my experience teaches me ______ about a religious subject."
> 
> Yet, the bible affirms that feelings are not dependable to be followed.  Jeremiah 17:9, Proverbs 28:26, Proverbs 14:12, and a host of other Scriptures point out that people (even good people) are easily misled by feelings.  For years, the godly patriarch Jacob believed Joseph to be dead... even in the face of his sons' testimony to the contrary, he refused to believe it.
> 
> Today, we have many folks relying on "experience" today when it comes to religious matters, including this subject.  When pressed about "how can one be sure that God 'led you' to this conclusion/action", what I usually hear is an answer like is presented here... https://billygraham.org/answer/does-god-reveal-things-through-dreams-and-visions/
> 
> Coming full circle, IF we have all we need today in the fully revealed Scriptures, why the need for these things today?  We readily understand the need in 1st Century days - not a single person could say "let's study about that subject from Colossians 3"... or "let's look at Peter's comments in his 2nd epistle".  Witness a miracle and hear a message - it's a theme of Acts.  Today, IF people claim a reliance upon the written word, why is the other needed?  I stand by what I mentioned earlier... IF something else is needed then we've got issues with several biblical statements.



yeah. that's it. I need Jesus Christ...all and nothing less.


----------



## formula1

*Re:*



Israel said:


> yeah. that's it. I need Jesus Christ...all and nothing less.



Amen, that we only come to the 'Me'! Nothing short of that is enough!  Such a good reminder that life exists in Jesus and only in Him!  May we pray daily that we never refuse Him!

John 5 
39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about Me, 40 yet you refuse to come to Me that you may have life.


----------



## Bama4me

Israel said:


> yeah. that's it. I need Jesus Christ...all and nothing less.



If so, I'm sorry for what you'll experience on the last day.  Even Jesus said we needed more than just Him... but then again, don't let the word of God get in your way.


----------



## Bama4me

formula1 said:


> Amen, that we only come to the 'Me'! Nothing short of that is enough!  Such a good reminder that life exists in Jesus and only in Him!  May we pray daily that we never refuse Him!
> 
> John 5
> 39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about Me, 40 yet you refuse to come to Me that you may have life.



So... Jesus condemned the use of Scriptures then?


----------



## Israel

Bama4me said:


> So... Jesus condemned the use of Scriptures then?



If you are wanting to assume the unenviable position of trying to get Formula to slip into that straw man suit, I believe you will not find it tailored to him. Oh, he may, of grace let you try and hang whatever you care to on him, but, well, that's precisely why I don't see it tailored to him. 

He appears to have lamb's blood and would probably be sheepish enough to let you do pretty much whatever you needed to him, rather than raise an accusation against you. Can't say as I have ever seen him do much beyond convict  me greatly with his kindness and gentleness. And singular devotion.
But do what you must do. I'll just testify to innocent blood. Wherever I am made to see it.


As to the rest...your being pretty well convinced enough to know where any will appear "on the last day", well, I make no claim as to where or how I'll appear... God knows, and therefore the disposition of that I am persuaded is in far wiser hands than my own. I had to meet a man so uncaring of his own disposal to understand this. He's true. But I'm also persuaded that for any to see Him, just as it was for me...well,


----------



## formula1

*re:*

No, He put them in proper perspective!

The purpose of scripture is to lead you to relationship with Him. Eternal life doesn't exist in knowing scripture but only in knowing Christ.  I'm sure you know that!


----------



## formula1

Israel said:


> If you are wanting to assume the unenviable position of trying to get Formula to slip into that straw man suit, I believe you will not find it tailored to him. Oh, he may, of grace let you try and hang whatever you care to on him, but, well, that's precisely why I don't see it tailored to him.
> 
> He appears to have lamb's blood and would probably be sheepish enough to let you do pretty much whatever you needed to him, rather than raise an accusation against you. Can't say as I have ever seen him do much beyond convict  me greatly with his kindness and gentleness. And singular devotion.
> But do what you must do. I'll just testify to innocent blood. Wherever I am made to see it.



Thank you sir for your kindness!  If I don't meet you before then, please come and rejoice with me on the streets of gold! But yet, I already know you in Christ!


----------



## Bama4me

formula1 said:


> No, He put them in proper perspective!
> 
> The purpose of scripture is to lead you to relationship with Him. Eternal life doesn't exist in knowing scripture but only in knowing Christ.  I'm sure you know that!



If you've read through the thread, you'll see that I've done nothing but emphasis the role partial/full Scripture played in the course of the 1st Century times.

Yet, what I get in return is "I'll just take Christ only"??? I agree that eternal life doesn't exist in knowing Scripture, but Jesus Himself said it will be our standard of judgment on the last day (John 12:48).  None of us here today would know a thing about Jesus if it weren't for the Scriptures - we might could know there's a higher power and come to a belief in a supernatural being, but we'd know nothing more conclusive than that.  

For those of you wanting to take pot shots at Scripture and their sufficiency, go ahead.  You're doing something Christ never did - and roundly condemned.  The passage referenced in John (5:39-40) is not an instance of Jesus condemning reliance on Scripture... it's a passage condemning men who refused to be led to the conclusion Scripture would support.  Paul stated in Acts 20:32 "And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those being sanctified."


----------



## formula1

*re:*

So lets post that verse you mentioned.

John 12:48 The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.

I don't reject Him (Christ) and I don't reject His words just so that is clear!

And I don't reject any Scripture as it leads me into knowing Him even more. And since I believed in Christ the Holy Spirit has given me a love for His word and His truth in the canon of Scripture.  Scripture teaches us about itself:

John 20
30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

2 Timothy 3
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

...just for a couple of references.

I simply believe in all Scripture!  But I believe it Christ because He first drew me to Him by His Spirit.  I believe in the Power of the Holy Spirit working in the life of the believer.  I accept that He speaks to me as I pray and leads me according to His will for me.  I know he has lead me away from danger by the HS, he has healed folks in my life by the HS, and He has spoken so lovingly and perfectly into my life that I cannot deny and will not deny His power, distributed as He sees fit to distribute it.  And He shows He did all of this in Scripture too.  So He did prove His Word to me with signs following!

The very fact that we have assurance we are children of God rests in the Spirit making it known to each one of us!  

Romans 8
16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

I only know what you choose to reveal about yourself and I know you believe in Christ and more than likely your are doing your very best to live for Him.  That's great and I hope you continue to do so.  That's all I want for you.  Live out your experience in Christ as you deem necessary!

I just happen not to believe or accept the cessation of gifts to you espouse because I've seen them and I've experienced them.  No alternative interpretation of scripture is going to change that for me.  For me, rightly dividing the word of truth is what matters and frankly I don't think you have rightly divided it (in this particular case).

God is very much alive today and I simply stand as a witness for His Glory!  We worship in Spirit and Truth, not one or the other!  I think sometimes we forget that!

May God richly bless you as you walk in Him!


----------



## Israel

You've gone from the most tenuous argument as to the "perfect having come" in the appearance of the scriptures, to pivoting toward anyone's disagreeing with that premise as holding the scriptures in some contempt. OK, nothing new to see here, nothing in fact, at all.

Lapsus miracularis vs lapsus scripturalis. (I made that up...)

Besides the truth that God spoke to Adam, spoke to Cain...( do you have a position on those who "hear" the Lord?) and  also spoke/worked miraculously on and on to Malachi (at least as is recorded)...which resumes (only to our knowledge) shortly before the birth of Jesus, in all prophesy, miraculous doings, appearances and gifts of the Spirit.

Will the "gifts" pass away? Assuredly. Might it be when the Giver is seen and apprehended in fullness? (This question is not to you in particular...) Will there come a time when the faith that is able to move mountains will no longer find mountains needing moving? (Sometimes it may well be on behalf of another that the moving of the mountain is sought).

Will there come a time when "nothing shall be impossible to him who believes"...will be manifestly demonstrated in the presence of the all possible God (in truth, the only God...possible) and thereby find no longer any need to even consider the word...impossible.

Consider, or consider not...the words of Jesus (yes, I know...found in scripture...but do we really want to argue who is gonna "lift up the letters higher?") in all the things said of faith, what it can do, what it will do...ultimately...and of all the ways it will be made manifest. Press to find an expiration date on any of it...other than seeing the Lord in fullness. The end of our faith, the goal...

No, none here have contended they "need" to see (in only one sense) or show the miraculous...haven't met one on here looking for snakes or poison...(many here know enough _comes to them _in various forms).  No need to go shake the bushes.

If I was to say "the onus is on you to show" it would be more burdensome than you could bear. Because it is not there. From the beginning of the world...the Lord has shown himself as he sees fit, to whom he sees fit, after whatever manner he sees fit. 

You can claim He ceased because something "happened" that you say is His reference for stopping. Which you  (and others)refer to in some very vague "first century" reference as to the time of it. Some by "the scriptures are complete."

At what pen stroke...did it (the gifts of the Spirit) end? When was the canon complete? 

Were a few letters passed around...sufficient grounds for God to suspend (be careful now...for at least one of those letters...speaks most directly to manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit) His (to us) miraculous interventions? 

Or did "God have to wait" for councils to conclude "what's in...what's out" into that time well past the first century?

So...till then God was "free" to intervene miraculously if He so chose? (This does not even begin to address those very councils, their presumed "Heavenly" endorsement...at least as would have to be assumed God was going to use as His "cut off" for manifesting Himself in ways the world cannot receive).

Did God retain the "Revelation" option...did He feel free to manifest Himself through gifts of the spirit while men quibbled over accepting the Book of Revelation as "inspired"...and into the canon?


Just because you claim the canon's completion (really...what does that even mean?) as the thing referenced that makes cessation "so"...does not make it...so. Nor does it mean that those who neither see that nor acknowledge it...hold the scriptures in contempt.
It would be very very difficult today for me to imagine anything less compelling than caring about whether you believe the faith of the Son of God is often expressed in the most inexplicable ways no less, nor differently than amongst His people at any other time. 

As to the Bible...who told YOU, they... "those writings" ...are inspired scripture? How'd you get from a letter to a "son in the faith" to something not only intended for general publication...but also as to be elevated as showing the way of life? Who "told" any of us...it's OK to read another's private correspondence? We either know...or really are, rather presumptuous. 

(But I am persuaded few things work to expose presumption quite so well as to be allowed to continue in it...till the unutterably deep well of grace provided as remedy against it is revealed.)

Peter references Paul's writing as such but once. We know Jesus referred (as did Paul and many others) to the Tanakh...as such. So...whose council/counsel do you follow? How many "books" does the _real_ book...have?


"What's in...what's out"..."who's in...who's out"...what man doesn't put his finger on the scale? WHAT MAN?


----------



## formula1

*re:*

Brothers, read these scriptures just last night and I simply wanted to share it with you.  I hope it will speak to you!

John 7
37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” 39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Isaiah 43:19
Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert.

Jeremiah 17:13
O Lord, the hope of Israel, all who forsake you shall be put to shame; those who turn away from you shall be written in the earth, for they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living water.


----------



## Israel

formula1 said:


> Brothers, read these scriptures just last night and I simply wanted to share it with you.  I hope it will speak to you!
> 
> John 7
> 37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” 39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
> 
> Isaiah 43:19
> Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert.
> 
> Jeremiah 17:13
> O Lord, the hope of Israel, all who forsake you shall be put to shame; those who turn away from you shall be written in the earth, for they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living water.




Thanks be to God.


----------



## hobbs27

Peter had a gift that no man has ever had since the first century...So far.. Anyone claiming to have the gift Peter  was given has been a fraud...this does not happen today..

Acts 5:14 And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women, 15 so that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them.


----------



## Bama4me

formula1 said:


> I simply believe in all Scripture!  But I believe in Christ because He first drew me to Him by His Spirit.  I believe in the Power of the Holy Spirit working in the life of the believer.  I accept that He speaks to me as I pray and leads me according to His will for me.  I know he has lead me away from danger by the HS, he has healed folks in my life by the HS, and He has spoken so lovingly and perfectly into my life that I cannot deny and will not deny His power, distributed as He sees fit to distribute it.  And He shows He did all of this in Scripture too.  So He did prove His Word to me with signs following!
> 
> The very fact that we have assurance we are children of God rests in the Spirit making it known to each one of us!



Questions... how do you know the "leading" is from the Holy Spirit rather than from say... a conscience that's been trained by study of the Scriptures?  How do you know the healings have been a result of the Holy Spirit and not by the Father's providential work?  

I'm not disputing the fact that the Spirit leads us today nor that He is not active... but what Hobbs states above is true. People today who are not endowed to speak in languages they haven't previously studied... people today are not endowed to lay hands on someone and distribute the Holy Spirit... people today can't pray and then command dead people to arise.  

Again, for anyone who believes otherwise, I offer you a challenge.  Let's take the person who supposedly has the gift to raise people from the dead to a cemetery - I know of two recent sisters who died whose family would love to see them raised.  Let's take the person who supposedly has the gift of tongues into an assembly of foreigners and see if a foreigner can understand his/her language.  Then, let's see a person who supposedly can do what Paul did in Acts 19 - lay hands on someone and then watch the Holy Spirit endow them with the gifts of tongues/prophecy.

Like Thomas, when I witness these things I'll be more than happy to share the beliefs of many of you.  Youtube videos, scam artists that deal in illusion, etc. are not proof... Jesus and 1st Century believers publicly performed miracles that could not be denied and they were plain to see.  Show me the individuals who can do these things and I'll convert to your belief system.

Until then, though, I refuse to follow Scriptures that have been taken out of context. I've asked before and I'll ask again... does Jesus' statement to the rich young ruler in Matthew 19:21 apply to each of us today?


----------



## Bama4me

Israel said:


> You can claim He ceased because something "happened" that you say is His reference for stopping. Which you  (and others)refer to in some very vague "first century" reference as to the time of it. Some by "the scriptures are complete."
> 
> At what pen stroke...did it (the gifts of the Spirit) end? When was the canon complete?
> 
> Were a few letters passed around...sufficient grounds for God to suspend (be careful now...for at least one of those letters...speaks most directly to manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit) His (to us) miraculous interventions?
> 
> Or did "God have to wait" for councils to conclude "what's in...what's out" into that time well past the first century?
> 
> So...till then God was "free" to intervene miraculously if He so chose? (This does not even begin to address those very councils, their presumed "Heavenly" endorsement...at least as would have to be assumed God was going to use as His "cut off" for manifesting Himself in ways the world cannot receive).
> 
> Did God retain the "Revelation" option...did He feel free to manifest Himself through gifts of the spirit while men quibbled over accepting the Book of Revelation as "inspired"...and into the canon?
> 
> 
> Just because you claim the canon's completion (really...what does that even mean?) as the thing referenced that makes cessation "so"...does not make it...so. Nor does it mean that those who neither see that nor acknowledge it...hold the scriptures in contempt.
> It would be very very difficult today for me to imagine anything less compelling than caring about whether you believe the faith of the Son of God is often expressed in the most inexplicable ways no less, nor differently than amongst His people at any other time.
> 
> As to the Bible...who told YOU, they... "those writings" ...are inspired scripture? How'd you get from a letter to a "son in the faith" to something not only intended for general publication...but also as to be elevated as showing the way of life? Who "told" any of us...it's OK to read another's private correspondence? We either know...or really are, rather presumptuous.
> 
> (But I am persuaded few things work to expose presumption quite so well as to be allowed to continue in it...till the unutterably deep well of grace provided as remedy against it is revealed.)
> 
> Peter references Paul's writing as such but once. We know Jesus referred (as did Paul and many others) to the Tanakh...as such. So...whose council/counsel do you follow? How many "books" does the _real_ book...have?
> 
> "What's in...what's out"..."who's in...who's out"...what man doesn't put his finger on the scale? WHAT MAN?



Respectfully, the "vagueness" you speak of is the belief you subscribe to.  Jesus promised the Spirit would bring "all the truth" to the apostles (John 16:14)... and the apostles were commanded to proclaim this entire truth to all nations (Matthew 28:18-20).  When this truth would come, early Christians could become complete and mature (Ephesians 4:11ff/2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Yet... you say more is needed.  You say that more "truth" is yet to be revealed.  If more truth is needed, sir, then Christ has been very inefficient over the years - because it's taken Him almost 2000 years to deliver it to mankind.  Today, if we're still needing information from the Holy Spirit in order to live our lives pleasing to the Father, then Jesus lied to His apostles and passages like 2 Peter 1:3 are falsehoods. 

The "vagueness" you subscribe to wasn't known in the 3rd and 4th centuries by the church. Church leaders in the 1st 400 years of church history testify to the fading of these miracles - even though many attested to their presence in the days of the apostles (and the generation that followed).  The reason the view you espouse today is so widely accepted in Christian circles is because of the influence of people like Wesley and Calvin - who under the umbrella of Calvinism popularized the doctrine of "illumination". One denomination after another accepted this doctrine or some variation of it - and in our day of "relative truth", it's an easy answer to claim "everyone is right" (after all, if the Spirit has "led" someone to a certain belief, then how can others claim it's wrong?).

As a result of this doctrine today, people rely on feelings more than God's revealed word.  Yet, never in Scripture were people told that assurance came through feelings - rather through tangible actions (see 1 John for example).  I believe in the "leading" idea (apart from the word) today, but I disagree with the source of the leading. Paul told the Thessalonians in the second letter that God would allow people to believe delusions when they'd reject the truth... and we see that everywhere today when it comes to this subject.


----------



## Israel

bama4me said:


> respectfully, the "vagueness" you speak of is the belief you subscribe to.  Jesus promised the spirit would bring "all the truth" to the apostles (john 16:14)... And the apostles were commanded to proclaim this entire truth to all nations (matthew 28:18-20).  When this truth would come, early christians could become complete and mature (ephesians 4:11ff/2 timothy 3:16-17).
> 
> Yet... You say more is needed.  You say that more "truth" is yet to be revealed.  If more truth is needed, sir, then christ has been very inefficient over the years - because it's taken him almost 2000 years to deliver it to mankind.  Today, if we're still needing information from the holy spirit in order to live our lives pleasing to the father, then jesus lied to his apostles and passages like 2 peter 1:3 are falsehoods.
> 
> The "vagueness" you subscribe to wasn't known in the 3rd and 4th centuries by the church. Church leaders in the 1st 400 years of church history testify to the fading of these miracles - even though many attested to their presence in the days of the apostles (and the generation that followed).  The reason the view you espouse today is so widely accepted in christian circles is because of the influence of people like wesley and calvin - who under the umbrella of calvinism popularized the doctrine of "illumination". One denomination after another accepted this doctrine or some variation of it - and in our day of "relative truth", it's an easy answer to claim "everyone is right" (after all, if the spirit has "led" someone to a certain belief, then how can others claim it's wrong?).
> 
> As a result of this doctrine today, people rely on feelings more than god's revealed word.  Yet, never in scripture were people told that assurance came through feelings - rather through tangible actions (see 1 john for example).  I believe in the "leading" idea (apart from the word) today, but i disagree with the source of the leading. Paul told the thessalonians in the second letter that god would allow people to believe delusions when they'd reject the truth... And we see that everywhere today when it comes to this subject.



10-4.


----------



## formula1

*re:*



Bama4me said:


> Questions... how do you know the "leading" is from the Holy Spirit rather than from say... a conscience that's been trained by study of the Scriptures?  How do you know the healings have been a result of the Holy Spirit and not by the Father's providential work?
> 
> I'm not disputing the fact that the Spirit leads us today nor that He is not active... but what Hobbs states above is true. People today who are not endowed to speak in languages they haven't previously studied... people today are not endowed to lay hands on someone and distribute the Holy Spirit... people today can't pray and then command dead people to arise.
> 
> Again, for anyone who believes otherwise, I offer you a challenge.  Let's take the person who supposedly has the gift to raise people from the dead to a cemetery - I know of two recent sisters who died whose family would love to see them raised.  Let's take the person who supposedly has the gift of tongues into an assembly of foreigners and see if a foreigner can understand his/her language.  Then, let's see a person who supposedly can do what Paul did in Acts 19 - lay hands on someone and then watch the Holy Spirit endow them with the gifts of tongues/prophecy.
> 
> Like Thomas, when I witness these things I'll be more than happy to share the beliefs of many of you.  Youtube videos, scam artists that deal in illusion, etc. are not proof... Jesus and 1st Century believers publicly performed miracles that could not be denied and they were plain to see.  Show me the individuals who can do these things and I'll convert to your belief system.
> 
> Until then, though, I refuse to follow Scriptures that have been taken out of context. I've asked before and I'll ask again... does Jesus' statement to the rich young ruler in Matthew 19:21 apply to each of us today?



Like I said in my previous post, may God richly bless you as you walk in Him!


----------



## hobbs27

> I'm not disputing the fact that the Spirit leads us today nor that He is not active.



 I had to go back several times in this thread to make sure... Because this was the basis of their argument.  Unable to separate modern living in the New Testament with an active God leading us... And First century gifts of healing,  tongues,  and raising the dead.


----------



## Israel

Bama4me said:


> Questions... how do you know the "leading" is from the Holy Spirit rather than from say... a conscience that's been trained by study of the Scriptures?  How do you know the healings have been a result of the Holy Spirit and not by the Father's providential work?
> 
> I'm not disputing the fact that the Spirit leads us today nor that He is not active... but what Hobbs states above is true. People today who are not endowed to speak in languages they haven't previously studied... people today are not endowed to lay hands on someone and distribute the Holy Spirit... people today can't pray and then command dead people to arise.
> 
> Again, for anyone who believes otherwise, I offer you a challenge.  Let's take the person who supposedly has the gift to raise people from the dead to a cemetery - I know of two recent sisters who died whose family would love to see them raised.  Let's take the person who supposedly has the gift of tongues into an assembly of foreigners and see if a foreigner can understand his/her language.  Then, let's see a person who supposedly can do what Paul did in Acts 19 - lay hands on someone and then watch the Holy Spirit endow them with the gifts of tongues/prophecy.
> 
> Like Thomas, when I witness these things I'll be more than happy to share the beliefs of many of you.  Youtube videos, scam artists that deal in illusion, etc. are not proof... Jesus and 1st Century believers publicly performed miracles that could not be denied and they were plain to see.  Show me the individuals who can do these things and I'll convert to your belief system.
> 
> Until then, though, I refuse to follow Scriptures that have been taken out of context. I've asked before and I'll ask again... does Jesus' statement to the rich young ruler in Matthew 19:21 apply to each of us today?



The getting from "one place" to another, if even seeking with what might be called...or seen as the deepest and most sincere motive, or presented even...a such, is, I am persuaded, always out of a man's hands. 

A man knows his own desires, perhaps, or at least believes he does. If more firmly pressed he may come to the place where he touches need in whatever form and in some concluding believes this is the deepest he can ever go. It is mercy that never holds his blindness against him. 

His believing is that there is nothing beyond his need as he perceives it, as he experiences it. Need defines, in whatever place he touches it, the limits to him of what he can accept...what is _acceptable_ to be.

The place in which he cries _the_ "Nooooo!" is appointed to each and every man. This "no" is no more summoned nor bidden, nor "thought out" and preconceived than the "ouch" or "Ohhhh" or "son of a ______" that follows a man whacking his thumb as he shingles a roof.

We are being made to utter from that same place a thing common to most all of us, that we more prefer to utter from easy chairs, pulpits, studies full of books and commentaries, before friendly faces and from computer desks and inside temple walls.
Jesus is Lord.

As surely as I do not get myself from any "one place" to another, I am totally unable to assist anyone with that, either. 

But I can say that the faith of the Son of God is not a "belief system". But we'll all know one another even better, as we are learning to, even now, in the _wine press._

What is inside...will come out. Whether whine or wine.


----------



## Bama4me

Israel said:


> The getting from "one place" to another, if even seeking with what might be called...or seen as the deepest and most sincere motive, or presented even...a such, is, I am persuaded, always out of a man's hands.
> 
> A man knows his own desires, perhaps, or at least believes he does. If more firmly pressed he may come to the place where he touches need in whatever form and in some concluding believes this is the deepest he can ever go. It is mercy that never holds his blindness against him.
> 
> His believing is that there is nothing beyond his need as he perceives it, as he experiences it. Need defines, in whatever place he touches it, the limits to him of what he can accept...what is _acceptable_ to be.
> 
> The place in which he cries _the_ "Nooooo!" is appointed to each and every man. This "no" is no more summoned nor bidden, nor "thought out" and preconceived than the "ouch" or "Ohhhh" or "son of a ______" that follows a man whacking his thumb as he shingles a roof.
> 
> We are being made to utter from that same place a thing common to most all of us, that we more prefer to utter from easy chairs, pulpits, studies full of books and commentaries, before friendly faces and from computer desks and inside temple walls.
> Jesus is Lord.
> 
> As surely as I do not get myself from any "one place" to another, I am totally unable to assist anyone with that, either.
> 
> But I can say that the faith of the Son of God is not a "belief system". But we'll all know one another even better, as we are learning to, even now, in the _wine press._
> 
> What is inside...will come out. Whether whine or wine.



As usual, you speak in riddles instead of plainly.  However, I'll comment on what you plainly do say - "faith of the Son of God is not a 'belief system'."

Semantics aside, you can't support that statement when looking at passages such as Galatians 1:6-10 and Jude 3.  "The gospel" and "the faith once and for all delivered to the saints" is obviously a set of beliefs that people hold. Call it what you will, but the gospel has certain parameters attached to it...


----------



## Bama4me

hobbs27 said:


> I had to go back several times in this thread to make sure... Because this was the basis of their argument.  Unable to separate modern living in the New Testament with an active God leading us... And First century gifts of healing,  tongues,  and raising the dead.



Just to clarify, I believe that the Spirit leads us today via the words that He inspired men to write.  Not a leading that is independent from God's word...

I do believe the Spirit continues today to do "miraculous things", but not through people in the manner which was seen in NT days.  I.e. while no one can pray/command a person to be healed, the hands of a doctor can be used by God in order to provide it.

Hope that helps...


----------



## hobbs27

Bama4me said:


> Just to clarify, I believe that the Spirit leads us today via the words that He inspired men to write.  Not a leading that is independent from God's word...
> 
> I do believe the Spirit continues today to do "miraculous things", but not through people in the manner which was seen in NT days.  I.e. while no one can pray/command a person to be healed, the hands of a doctor can be used by God in order to provide it.
> 
> Hope that helps...



I agree.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Bama4me said:


> Just to clarify, I believe that the Spirit leads us today via the words that He inspired men to write.  Not a leading that is independent from God's word...
> 
> I do believe the Spirit continues today to do "miraculous things", but not through people in the manner which was seen in NT days.  I.e. while no one can pray/command a person to be healed, the hands of a doctor can be used by God in order to provide it.
> 
> Hope that helps...



This is where I feel your fallacy lies.  You freely attribute miracles to the apostles and state that individuals like that don't exist today.  The flaw you make is it seems to me you feel the power resided in the men.  It didn't.  They were simply vessels for the spirit to work thru.  Same as today.  Sure there are charlatans out there, but that doesn't confine God from performing true BIG miracles thru faithful vessels today for HIS GLORY.


----------



## Bama4me

SemperFiDawg said:


> This is where I feel your fallacy lies.  You freely attribute miracles to the apostles and state that individuals like that don't exist today.  The flaw you make is it seems to me you feel the power resided in the men.  It didn't.  They were simply vessels for the spirit to work thru.  Same as today.  Sure there are charlatans out there, but that doesn't confine God from performing true BIG miracles thru faithful vessels today for HIS GLORY.



Respectfully, the fallacy isn't mine... it's your's. And... you don't know what you're asserting about what I believe.

The power was NEVER because of the man - it always came via the Holy Spirit. What I'm saying is the Spirit doesn't use "vessels" today in the way He did then - the supernatural gifts bestowed upon Christians in the 1st Century ceased.

In that day, people received these supernatural gifts by 2 ways - baptism of the Holy Spirit (seen in Acts 2/10) and by apostles laying hands upon people (seen in Acts 8/19).  People receiving the Holy Spirit in this manner were able to do miraculous things (heal sick, raise dead, etc.).  God does not operate in that manner today.  THAT'S what I'm saying.

BTW, God IS confined by what His word reveals.  IF God has said He doesn't lie, then He cannot lie.  IF God has said He will condemn those who don't believe in Him, then He won't save those who disbelieve.  And before you go and say "you're limiting God", let me stop you.  No person has ability to limit God... but God CAN limit Himself and reveal (through His word) what those limits are.


----------

