Originally posted by Darfius
View Post
I will pedantically note that I didn't "call [you]" anything, I characterized what you "sound[ed] like" in your post. The "jackass" part is of course a subjective impression. I admit it often fits me just as well as you. The "know-nothing" part related to your various assertions and allusions, which I don't believe are supported by preponderance of evidence.
Before I charge ahead in interacting with your post, I will take the liberty of laying out a bit of background and stating my own presuppositions and positions.
-- I don't particularly object to the idea of "inerrancy," but I also believe it is largely a shibboleth. Since most formulations apply it only to the original manuscripts, not to transmission or translation, and certainly not to interpretation, there are definite limits to its practical value.
-- I believe the Scriptures, especially the NT epistles, were written first and foremost to people and groups alive at the time. The extent to which modern situations are analogous to theirs affects the extent to which instructions are relevant and applicable.
-- Since I mentioned J-Mac, for points of reference, I disagree with MacArthur on...
..... Soteriology (I'm generally Arminian)
..... Christology (I hold to a form of kenoticism)
..... Pneumatology (I'm Charismatic)
..... Ecclesiology (I lean informal, generally prefer a Psa. 149-150 style of music, and believe there is no restriction on the ministry roles open to women)
..... Theological Anthropology (I do not believe in a sex-based hierarchy anywhere, including in the home)
..... Eschatology (I incline toward Partial Preterism)
-- While I generally sneer at the notion of "triggers," I have to admit I have a few. A big one is when people say things along the lines of, "Well, you do what you want, but *I* will go with *Scripture." That's a noxious combination of ignorance and arrogance that doesn't acknowledge that one's *interpretation* of Scripture is not the same *as* Scripture. Usually both sides believe themselves to be "going with Scripture."
Is it preferable to believe that Scripture can support whatever random nonsense your resident cult leader wants to enforce today? I like how an arrogant insult follows directly on the heels of accusing someone else of arrogance. I'm arrogant, but it's because I have the ability, right and duty to be. It's my job to put morons like you in your place.
Her implication, intended or not, that only she and not those who disagree with her desire(s) to follow Scripture merited forceful challenge.
The point of miracles was to encourage faith, not reward it. That's the first clue as to why non-cessationists are stupid.
There is no "the" point of miracles.
Offhand, the only Scripture that comes to mind that supports your view is John 14:11.
Even then, the very next verse, John 14:12, presents the ability to *perform* miracles as a result (not necessarily "reward") of faith. Likewise Matt. 17:20; 21:21; Mark 11:23; Luke 17:6.
Matt. 15:28 and Acts 3:16 present miraculous healing as a *result* (one could possibly interpret as "reward") of faith.
Gal. 3:5 portrays miracles in general as the *result* of "hearing with faith."
Matt. 20:34 and Mark 1:41 show healing miracles as the result of Jesus being "moved with compassion," with no proximate mention of "faith" as being relevant at all.
Mark 16:17-18, Rom. 15:19, and Heb. 2:4 all present miracles as evidence of the Gospel.
Matt. 10:7-8 suggest that benevolent miracles are evidence that God's dominion is coming near, and possibly demonstrate something of the nature of that dominion.
Jesus was friggin' God, and even He couldn't do miracles if there was not enough likelihood it would result in obedient faith. It wasn't 'cause He didn't have faith Himself...wait for it...OBVIOUSLY.
The sense in Mark 6 and Matt. 13 is that His hometown people were dismissive of Him and regarded Him only as the carpenter, not God, Son of God, or even a prophet. There was such unbelief that they didn't bother to listen to Him or ask Him for healing. Of course it had nothing to do with "His" faith, but the text doesn't seem to suggest anything about the perceived likelihood of obedient faith resulting from the miracles either.
Unsurprisingly, it's always the hypocritical, showboating idiots falling over themselves rolling in "church" aisles muttering gibberish who have the most vested interest in getting everyone else to believe it's Holy Spirit inspired 'cause they're so friggin' holy.
In 40-ish years among Pentecostals and Charismatics, I've seen hundreds of people "slain in the Spirit," and occasionally "stuck" to the floor for extended durations. I've never seen anyone literally "rolling," so I'm going to assume that's mostly hyperbole.
ISTM pretty rare for someone to be doing glossolalia *while* falling under the power, but it probably does happen.
I don't know where you get the "hypocritical" and "showboating" stuff. I haven't gotten that impression from the people I've been around.
In my experience, the reason some have a "vested interest" in finding ways to show it to be Spirit-inspired, or at least Spirit-related, is that people with a different hermeneutical approach reflexively jump to cast those behaviors as caused by some unholy-spirit. I've never known anyone to treat them as a badge of holiness.
"Once, when I was on a mission--'cause I go on missions a lot 'cause I love God more than you--I saw some stuff that proves I'm right, which proves I'm holy, which proves I'm right, which proves...I'm falling into a black hole of self-gratulation! Jump in, the egoistic waters are fine!"
Why would you even say something like this? What is wrong with you? What causes you to see such motivation in his post?
The point of speaking in tongues was to make the gospel message accessible to other peoples...what purpose would that serve in a globally connected world where interpreters and multilinguists abound.
There is no place in Scripture where that is the stated purpose of tongues.
There is no place in Scripture where tongues are used to speak to people, whether to preach the Gospel or to deliver some other message; however, there are places -- Acts 2, 10-11; 1 Cor. 14 -- where tongues are shown by example or taught by precept to be for the purpose of "speaking to God" in prayer or praise or thanksgiving.
The very fact that there is a separate "interpretation of tongues" gift suggests that the normal expectation was that no one present would understand the speech by "natural" means.
I hope I sound like an arrogant "fundy" when I say this: Enjoy projecting faith instead of living it.
I don't even know what that last sentence means.
Comment