Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Roger Olson "Against Cessationism"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Darfius View Post

    You make a post entirely of fluff and call me a know-nothing jackass. New levels of vapid obliviousness. Yea, genius, I want you to respond if you can or dare. That's kinda the point of a forum.
    Thank you for the opportunity to engage substantively.

    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.
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Federalist.

    Nationalist Christian.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

    Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

    Proud member of the this space left blank community.

    Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

    Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

    Justice for Matthew Perna!

    Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post


      -- 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."
      I recall one occasion where a person was triggered by the comment that everyone has triggers. He was quite strident and for quite at time, denying that he could possibly have triggers.

      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.
      And the big one: 1 Cor 2: 4 - "my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God." (Paul). cf Romans 15:19; 1 Cor 4:20; Rom 15:13; 2Cor 6:6

      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.
      My guess is that the reference is to the "Toronto blessing:" it was all the rage in Charismatic circles back in the ... 80s (?).

      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.
      They aren't badges of holiness. However, it would be (almost) impossibly difficult to attain to theosis without the evidence that signs and wonders provide, and it is difficult enough even with that evidence.

      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.
      Whether that is a stated purpose of tongues or not (and Acts 2:4-10 indicates that it might be one of the purposes), that tongues are an avenue provided to personal edification is stated.

      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
      Acts 2: 4-10 - tongues were used there to proclaim God's wonders.

      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.
      1 Cor 13:1 - tongues of men and angels would indicate that the use of tongues is multi-faceted.

      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 will give that one a qualified agreement, "suggests that there is no expectation that anyone present would understand."
      Last edited by tabibito; 03-31-2023, 06:24 AM.
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by tabibito View Post

        I recall one occasion where a person was triggered by the comment that everyone has triggers. He was quite strident and for quite at time, denying that he could possibly have triggers.



        And the big one: 1 Cor 2: 4 - "my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God." (Paul). cf Romans 15:19; 1 Cor 4:20; Rom 15:13; 2Cor 6:6
        I've often used that one. I'm tentatively reconsidering in light of Gordon Fee's notion that such a meaning would feed into the Corinthians' triumphalism, and so the phrasing doesn't carry the same sense here as similar phrasing elsewhere in Paul.

        My guess is that the reference is to the "Toronto blessing:" it was all the rage in Charismatic circles back in the ... 80s (?).
        '90s. But churches I attended or visited in the mid-'80s and later already had some of that stuff. (None of the animal noises and behaviors that turned up in the Toronto movement.) But there was no literal "rolling."

        "Holy rollers" has been a pejorative descriptor for Pentecostals for *many* decades. I've never seen or heard of literal "rolling."

        They aren't badges of holiness. However, it would be (almost) impossibly difficult to attain to theosis without the evidence that signs and wonders provide, and it is difficult enough even with that evidence.



        Whether that is a stated purpose of tongues or not (and Acts 2:4-10 indicates that it might be one of the purposes), that tongues are an avenue provided to personal edification is stated.
        Yes. I thought about that. I don't know why I didn't cite it.


        Acts 2: 4-10 - tongues were used there to proclaim God's wonders.
        Yes. Since there the tongues-speaking apparently started when only the gathered believers were present, and in light of the similar language in 10:46, I take it as primarily directed to God as praise.


        1 Cor 13:1 - tongues of men and angels would indicate that the use of tongues is multi-faceted.



        I will give that one a qualified agreement, "suggests that there is no expectation that anyone present would understand."
        I'll take the opportunity to affirm that I believe tongues-speaking directed to God can also benefit human hearers when interpreted, which would be a big reason that gift exists. We benefit from reading or hearing psalms and prayers, even when they are directed to God and not us.
        Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

        Beige Federalist.

        Nationalist Christian.

        "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

        Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

        Proud member of the this space left blank community.

        Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

        Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

        Justice for Matthew Perna!

        Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

          '90s. But churches I attended or visited in the mid-'80s and later already had some of that stuff. (None of the animal noises and behaviors that turned up in the Toronto movement.) But there was no literal "rolling."

          "Holy rollers" has been a pejorative descriptor for Pentecostals for *many* decades. I've never seen or heard of literal "rolling."
          You have led a sheltered life it seems. I have seen just that.
          There was apparently some confusion about what Ephesians 5:18 was actually saying. At least, that was the excuse that the "prominent from-overseas-prophets" were advancing as the reason they were behaving like drunks.
          Last edited by tabibito; 04-01-2023, 05:37 AM.
          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
          .
          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
          Scripture before Tradition:
          but that won't prevent others from
          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
          of the right to call yourself Christian.

          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

            Thank you for the opportunity to engage substantively.

            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.
            You admit that you're pedantic and then continue in it. It's a character flaw. You claim to be a Christian, act like it. Stop wasting words.

            -- 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.
            Don't care. Present Scripture if you got it.

            -- 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.
            The intended audience of a document authored by an eternal God should "first and foremost" be determined by context. All creatures inhabiting time are "contemporaneous" with an eternal God. And given the undeniable existence of Biblical typology, what may appear to be intended for an audience in a previous time might have even more momentous implications for an audience at a later time. Your methodology is idiotic in addition to being lifted from more intelligent minds than yours. Holding Holding's bag.

            -- 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)
            More wasted words, but that you're an unapologetic beta male and a heretical Jew hater (all the bad things happened to them) is certainly elucidating.

            -- 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."
            You don't believe in inerrancy, but you want your "interpretation" to be considered as valid as someone who does. Seems consistent. Consistently stupid.

            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.
            You desire to follow whatever interpretation of whatever portion of Scripture you deem valid. Forcefully, you're stupid.

            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.
            I'll begin by examining the context around the John 14 verse you mentioned and explore why you're stupid and don't understand Scripture. Then I'll expound on further examples of why you're stupid and don't understand Scripture.

            Scripture Verse: John 14

            9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

            15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”

            © Copyright Original Source



            You correctly point out that Jesus is appealing for (or encouraging) belief on the evidence of the miracles. But then you falter understanding the following verse because of your thirst for what will not sate: gimme gimme "faith". Verse 12 "presents the ability to perform miracles as a result of faith" only as a corollary to the ability to perform greater miracles by which greater faith will result. This can be proven in at least two ways. The first, more obvious, is that Jesus says the Father will "be glorified" by these greater works. Obviously what will glorify the Father is the resultant faith from said miracles. Secondly, Jesus explains that the ability to perform these greater miracles will result (be a "reward" of, lol) Him going to the Father. What does this mean? What changed when the Son ascended to the right hand of the Father? We can find the answer in Revelation:

            Scripture Verse: Revelation 1

            17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

            © Copyright Original Source



            The mention of power over hell harkens back to:

            Scripture Verse: Matthew 17

            17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

            © Copyright Original Source



            From this we are to understand that because Jesus has ascended to the right hand of the Father, He has gained power over death and hell. Said power He will delegate to those who have faith in Him to result in "greater works" which will result in (encourage, lol) greater faith--which will glorify the Father.

            Scripture Verse: John 4

            48 Unless you people see signs and wonders,' Jesus told him, 'you will never believe.'

            © Copyright Original Source



            Offhand, your "offhand" knowledge of Scripture is abysmal. Maybe you shouldn't be trying to sway people's opinions on a public forum when you clearly know Jack Poop.

            Here Jesus is explicitly saying that a certain class of people will not believe "unless" they are shown miracles. That is, miracles are explicitly cited to encourage faith.

            Scripture Verse: John 6

            30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.”

            © Copyright Original Source



            Here, the people are explicitly asking for a miracle "so that" they could believe. In other words, to encourage their faith. They point out that God miraculously provided manna in the past to give the stamp of approval for Moses' ministry.

            Scripture Verse: Luke 7

            18 John’s disciples told him about all these things. Calling two of them, 19 he sent them to the Lord to ask, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”

            20 When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’”

            21 At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. 22 So he replied to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy[a] are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. 23 Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”

            © Copyright Original Source



            Here, under distressing circumstances, John's faith was beginning to waver. When he seeks reassurance from Jesus, Jesus appeals directly to His miracles to encourage John's flagging faith. Important for the "declare it and God is forced to do it like your personal genie" charismatic crowd, no amount of declaring was going to stop John from being beheaded in support of his faith. That should help clarify what I mean by miracles not being a "reward" of faith. Obviously someone healed by a miracle is rewarded, but if their faith is not strengthened to the point of saving faith, that reward is swallowed up in defeat to the point of death. So if the encouragement unto saving faith is infinitely more important than any material benefit the recipient obtains, it can correctly be spoken of as "the" point of the miracle.

            The crux of our dispute is resolved here:

            Scripture Verse: John 17

            17 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:

            “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

            © Copyright Original Source



            Here, eternal life is equated explicitly with knowing the Father and Son. I hope you would agree the "point" of the religious life is to seek and obtain eternal life. To do that, one must seek and obtain Jesus Christ, and through Him obtain the Father. So the Father is glorified when people seek and find Him and people seek and find Him when He is glorified (via miracles). Unlike the spiraling infinite regress into a black hole of mortal egoism I parodied before, this repeating cycle spirals upward into eternal life for everyone who enters into it.

            So I repeat, "the point" of miracles is to encourage faith--that is, the seeking and finding of Jesus Christ. Any other "point" by comparison shrinks into meaningless obscurity. "The point" is certainly not to offer temporary comfort to anyone or even to vouchsafe proof that the worker of a miracle belongs to Christ at that moment in time, since he or she would still have the arduous task of daily taking up their cross and aspiring to the life of the miracleless John the Baptist who was praised by Jesus Christ Himself for his life and faith.

            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.
            Why mention their unbelief if it has nothing to do with His inability to perform miracles? What possible correlation could their be other than it was an obvious indication that no amount or type of miracle would change their state of unbelief? An obvious parallel would be:

            Scripture Verse: Luke 16:31

            “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

            © Copyright Original Source



            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.
            It's difficult for vain hypocrites to tell when they're around other vain hypocrites, because the ego boost they receive from circle twerking one another blinds them to faults that might otherwise be red flags to them. Spiritual flattery will get you everywhere among fools.

            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.
            That you've "never known" charismatic "preachers" on television casting themselves as holier-than-thou because they can knock people backwards by pushing lightly on their foreheads resulting in "healing" and/or speak gibberish and/or "know who's suffering through the television" doesn't mean they don't exist. They do.

            "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?
            I calls 'em likes I sees 'em. Homie was flexing hard and the area around me is a no flex zone. All glory to the Lord Jesus.

            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.
            What's odd is that you referenced the verse that proves your claim wrong, and yet failed to ascertain that. And yet it is highly likely you will continue to run your mouth at ostentatious length.

            Scripture Verse: Acts 2

            2 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

            5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language?

            © Copyright Original Source




            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.
            "Normally", unless you were in a highly populated and diverse public market and/or some other place multilinguists congregated in the ancient world, it was unlikely that any audience in a house meeting in a provincial town, for example, would understand spoken Parthian if that was the language the Holy Spirit empowered someone to utter. Unless the Holy Spirit enabled someone else to understand Parthian. Duh.

            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.
            It was another creative way of calling you a hypocrite. You project or image or give the impression of faith, but you're really just a bundle of inconsistencies, inaccuracies, blasphemies, trifles, foibles, absurdities, affronts and duplicities. I hope you humble yourself and seek to become a real boy.

            Fair warning, if you ramble at such length again, you are like to be ignored by me. Be concise or be gone.

            Comment


            • #51
              Darfius hi

              What do you think of Hebrews 6:1-3? I ask because this is where the foundations of our faith in Christ are listed.

              When I became born again about 20 years ago I read Derek Prince's book, Foundations for Righteous Living. He highlights and goes into detail about each doctrine listed in Hebrews 6:1-3. (These 6 doctrines cover the whole spectrum of our Christian lives if you think about it)!

              Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

              Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

              And this will we do, if God permit.


              My understanding is that there is a good amount of NT support to show that there are 2 separate baptisms available to the person who gets born again: (The doctrine of baptisms is plural in this translation).

              ~Water baptism
              ~Holy Spirit baptism

              I believe this is where the major differences are with denominations and believers.
              The NT does not say that either baptism is necessary for a person to be born again.





              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Esther View Post
                Darfius hi

                What do you think of Hebrews 6:1-3? I ask because this is where the foundations of our faith in Christ are listed.

                When I became born again about 20 years ago I read Derek Prince's book, Foundations for Righteous Living. He highlights and goes into detail about each doctrine listed in Hebrews 6:1-3. (These 6 doctrines cover the whole spectrum of our Christian lives if you think about it)!

                Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

                Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

                And this will we do, if God permit.


                My understanding is that there is a good amount of NT support to show that there are 2 separate baptisms available to the person who gets born again: (The doctrine of baptisms is plural in this translation).

                ~Water baptism
                ~Holy Spirit baptism

                I believe this is where the major differences are with denominations and believers.
                The NT does not say that either baptism is necessary for a person to be born again.
                Hi, Esther, I hope you are doing well and I always enjoy interacting with your sweet, understated kindness and incisive intellect.

                In brief I think you are right. I think there are two separate baptisms being spoken of and I would go further and claim they are referred to by name:

                Scripture Verse: Acts 19

                19 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

                They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

                3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

                John’s baptism,” they replied.

                4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

                © Copyright Original Source



                Scripture Verse: Matthew 21

                24 Jesus replied, “I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 25 John’s baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or of human origin?”

                © Copyright Original Source



                So it's not just called "water baptism" or "baptism by water", but rather "John's baptism" (even by the Lord Himself) and the reason is important. I won't go in depth into the theories about John being the "Teacher of Righteousness" figure from the Qumran documents, but their central premise that a sect broke off from the Temple system of worship claiming it had become irrevocably impure is something I consider to be true.

                Scripture Verse: Luke 1

                8 Once when Zechariah’s division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, 9 he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10 And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshipers were praying outside.

                © Copyright Original Source



                A "custom" is the same as a "tradition", something the Lord Jesus railed against quite explicitly. Burning incense before the altar was specifically a task delineated to the high priest in the Old Testament:

                Scripture Verse: Exodus 30

                7 Aaron [the high priest] shall offer fragrant incense on it; every morning when he dresses the lamps he shall offer it

                © Copyright Original Source



                Undoubtedly due in part to the tumultuous and uncertain "reigns" of the high priests during the period surrounding the first century, it had become "customary" to delegate at least some of the explicit duties of the high priest to a proxy "chosen by lot". And this was decades before John the Baptist came into maturity, by which time the corruption and corresponding ritualistic impurity in and around Temple practices would have doubtlessly compounded under the influence of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

                The levitical system instituted by God in the Old Testament served the purpose of providing His covenant people a means by which they could obtain the ritualistic purity required to worship Him as He saw fit--which constituted inclusion into His "congregation" and represented "salvation" in those days. To be "cut off from the congregation of the Lord" was the same as to be damned. And this ritual purity flowed from God directly to the high priest during the Day of Atonement and from the high priest outward to the people.

                I'll back up to show how this problem of ritual impurity extended back to the very earliest days of the Second Temple period:

                Scripture Verse: Malachi 1

                6 “A son honors his father, and a slave his master. If I am a father, where is the honor due me? If I am a master, where is the respect due me?” says the Lord Almighty.

                “It is you priests who show contempt for my name.

                “But you ask, ‘How have we shown contempt for your name?’

                7 By offering defiled food on my altar.

                “But you ask, ‘How have we defiled you?’

                “By saying that the Lord’s table is contemptible. 8 When you offer blind animals for sacrifice, is that not wrong? When you sacrifice lame or diseased animals, is that not wrong? Try offering them to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you?” says the Lord Almighty.

                9 “Now plead with God to be gracious to us. With such offerings from your hands, will he accept you?” [into the congregation of the Lord]—says the Lord Almighty.

                10 Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the Lord Almighty, “and I will accept no offering from your hands. 11 My name will be great among the nations, from where the sun rises to where it sets. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the nations,” says the Lord Almighty.

                12 “But you profane it by saying, ‘The Lord’s table is defiled,’ and, ‘Its food is contemptible.’ 13 And you say, ‘What a burden!’ and you sniff at it contemptuously,” says the Lord Almighty.

                “When you bring injured, lame or diseased animals and offer them as sacrifices, should I accept them from your hands?” says the Lord. 14 “Cursed is the cheat who has an acceptable male in his flock and vows to give it, but then sacrifices a blemished animal to the Lord. For I am a great king,” says the Lord Almighty, “and my name is to be feared among the nations.

                © Copyright Original Source



                Later in Malachi, the remedy for the ritualistically impure temple--and the subsequent lack of access to God's salvatory Presence--will be God sending "the prophet Elijah" to cleanse and purify God's people and "make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

                John the Baptist's miraculous birth (similar to Samuel and Samson's) was the seal of God's call on his ministry and his Nazirite vow--also, like Samuel and Samson undertaken from birth--marked him as "separate unto the Lord" and made him a suitable vessel for both possessing and imparting the ritual purity required to come into the Presence of God. John figuratively "shut the temple doors" (Malachi 1:10) by instituting a means to access God's congregation separate from the Temple system. He essentially acted as Israel's divinely appointed high priest, which is why it was fitting that he baptize even the Lord Jesus Himself. So only those who submitted to John's baptism could be considered part of God's congregation; could access the only available means at that time of obtaining salvation.

                But John's baptism was merely a "baptism unto repentance". That is what he preached, repentance for entrance into the "coming" kingdom of God. But it is not enough merely to repent or to "deny" one's self, one must also follow the Lord Jesus. John's was a prepatory baptism, it "made ready" people for the Lord. But they required the baptism of the Holy Spirit to fully enter into God's salvatory Presence. And that baptism was only available after the resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus. He became the new Temple whereby people could come into God's Presence (where any two of you gather in My Name, there I am among you).



                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Darfius View Post

                  Hi, Esther, I hope you are doing well and I always enjoy interacting with your sweet, understated kindness and incisive intellect.
                  Thanks the above is only to make up for my lack in debating skills ha ha, and thank you for your reply.

                  In brief I think you are right. I think there are two separate baptisms being spoken of and I would go further and claim they are referred to by name:

                  [verse=Acts 19]19 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

                  They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

                  3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

                  John’s baptism,” they replied.

                  4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.
                  Ok good I see now that there are in fact 3 baptisms to discuss:

                  ~John the Baptist's baptism of repentance.
                  ~Water baptism when a person is born again.
                  ~Holy Spirit baptism when a person is born again.

                  Do you see these 3 baptisms in the NT too?

                  My focus of interest is only on the born again person. Even this term, "born again" has most unfortunately become associated with the "happy clappy's". Do you use this term, "born again" and understand it to mean being born from above, spiritually, when a person comes to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ?

                  I cannot do the rest of your post justice here. I want to see whether I can pin-point the reason why some Christians believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit and why others don't. (Cessationism).






                  Last edited by Esther; 04-03-2023, 10:08 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Darfius View Post

                    But John's baptism was merely a "baptism unto repentance". That is what he preached, repentance for entrance into the "coming" kingdom of God. But it is not enough merely to repent or to "deny" one's self, one must also follow the Lord Jesus. John's was a prepatory baptism, it "made ready" people for the Lord. But they required the baptism of the Holy Spirit to fully enter into God's salvatory Presence. And that baptism was only available after the resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus. He became the new Temple whereby people could come into God's Presence (where any two of you gather in My Name, there I am among you).
                    Agree but see a separate water baptism after the resurrection and then an added Holy Spirit baptism administered by the laying on of hands. So after the resurrection, there are 2 baptisms available to the person who puts their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Darfius View Post

                      You admit that you're pedantic and then continue in it. It's a character flaw. You claim to be a Christian, act like it. Stop wasting words.



                      Don't care. Present Scripture if you got it.



                      The intended audience of a document authored by an eternal God should "first and foremost" be determined by context. All creatures inhabiting time are "contemporaneous" with an eternal God. And given the undeniable existence of Biblical typology, what may appear to be intended for an audience in a previous time might have even more momentous implications for an audience at a later time. Your methodology is idiotic in addition to being lifted from more intelligent minds than yours. Holding Holding's bag.



                      More wasted words, but that you're an unapologetic beta male and a heretical Jew hater (all the bad things happened to them) is certainly elucidating.



                      You don't believe in inerrancy, but you want your "interpretation" to be considered as valid as someone who does. Seems consistent. Consistently stupid.



                      You desire to follow whatever interpretation of whatever portion of Scripture you deem valid. Forcefully, you're stupid.



                      I'll begin by examining the context around the John 14 verse you mentioned and explore why you're stupid and don't understand Scripture. Then I'll expound on further examples of why you're stupid and don't understand Scripture.

                      Scripture Verse: John 14

                      9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

                      15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      You correctly point out that Jesus is appealing for (or encouraging) belief on the evidence of the miracles. But then you falter understanding the following verse because of your thirst for what will not sate: gimme gimme "faith". Verse 12 "presents the ability to perform miracles as a result of faith" only as a corollary to the ability to perform greater miracles by which greater faith will result. This can be proven in at least two ways. The first, more obvious, is that Jesus says the Father will "be glorified" by these greater works. Obviously what will glorify the Father is the resultant faith from said miracles. Secondly, Jesus explains that the ability to perform these greater miracles will result (be a "reward" of, lol) Him going to the Father. What does this mean? What changed when the Son ascended to the right hand of the Father? We can find the answer in Revelation:

                      Scripture Verse: Revelation 1

                      17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      The mention of power over hell harkens back to:

                      Scripture Verse: Matthew 17

                      17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      From this we are to understand that because Jesus has ascended to the right hand of the Father, He has gained power over death and hell. Said power He will delegate to those who have faith in Him to result in "greater works" which will result in (encourage, lol) greater faith--which will glorify the Father.

                      Scripture Verse: John 4

                      48 Unless you people see signs and wonders,' Jesus told him, 'you will never believe.'

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      Offhand, your "offhand" knowledge of Scripture is abysmal. Maybe you shouldn't be trying to sway people's opinions on a public forum when you clearly know Jack Poop.

                      Here Jesus is explicitly saying that a certain class of people will not believe "unless" they are shown miracles. That is, miracles are explicitly cited to encourage faith.

                      Scripture Verse: John 6

                      30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.”

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      Here, the people are explicitly asking for a miracle "so that" they could believe. In other words, to encourage their faith. They point out that God miraculously provided manna in the past to give the stamp of approval for Moses' ministry.

                      Scripture Verse: Luke 7

                      18 John’s disciples told him about all these things. Calling two of them, 19 he sent them to the Lord to ask, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”

                      20 When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’”

                      21 At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. 22 So he replied to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy[a] are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. 23 Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      Here, under distressing circumstances, John's faith was beginning to waver. When he seeks reassurance from Jesus, Jesus appeals directly to His miracles to encourage John's flagging faith. Important for the "declare it and God is forced to do it like your personal genie" charismatic crowd, no amount of declaring was going to stop John from being beheaded in support of his faith. That should help clarify what I mean by miracles not being a "reward" of faith. Obviously someone healed by a miracle is rewarded, but if their faith is not strengthened to the point of saving faith, that reward is swallowed up in defeat to the point of death. So if the encouragement unto saving faith is infinitely more important than any material benefit the recipient obtains, it can correctly be spoken of as "the" point of the miracle.

                      The crux of our dispute is resolved here:

                      Scripture Verse: John 17

                      17 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:

                      “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      Here, eternal life is equated explicitly with knowing the Father and Son. I hope you would agree the "point" of the religious life is to seek and obtain eternal life. To do that, one must seek and obtain Jesus Christ, and through Him obtain the Father. So the Father is glorified when people seek and find Him and people seek and find Him when He is glorified (via miracles). Unlike the spiraling infinite regress into a black hole of mortal egoism I parodied before, this repeating cycle spirals upward into eternal life for everyone who enters into it.

                      So I repeat, "the point" of miracles is to encourage faith--that is, the seeking and finding of Jesus Christ. Any other "point" by comparison shrinks into meaningless obscurity. "The point" is certainly not to offer temporary comfort to anyone or even to vouchsafe proof that the worker of a miracle belongs to Christ at that moment in time, since he or she would still have the arduous task of daily taking up their cross and aspiring to the life of the miracleless John the Baptist who was praised by Jesus Christ Himself for his life and faith.



                      Why mention their unbelief if it has nothing to do with His inability to perform miracles? What possible correlation could their be other than it was an obvious indication that no amount or type of miracle would change their state of unbelief? An obvious parallel would be:

                      Scripture Verse: Luke 16:31

                      “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

                      © Copyright Original Source





                      It's difficult for vain hypocrites to tell when they're around other vain hypocrites, because the ego boost they receive from circle twerking one another blinds them to faults that might otherwise be red flags to them. Spiritual flattery will get you everywhere among fools.



                      That you've "never known" charismatic "preachers" on television casting themselves as holier-than-thou because they can knock people backwards by pushing lightly on their foreheads resulting in "healing" and/or speak gibberish and/or "know who's suffering through the television" doesn't mean they don't exist. They do.



                      I calls 'em likes I sees 'em. Homie was flexing hard and the area around me is a no flex zone. All glory to the Lord Jesus.



                      What's odd is that you referenced the verse that proves your claim wrong, and yet failed to ascertain that. And yet it is highly likely you will continue to run your mouth at ostentatious length.

                      Scripture Verse: Acts 2

                      2 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

                      5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language?

                      © Copyright Original Source






                      "Normally", unless you were in a highly populated and diverse public market and/or some other place multilinguists congregated in the ancient world, it was unlikely that any audience in a house meeting in a provincial town, for example, would understand spoken Parthian if that was the language the Holy Spirit empowered someone to utter. Unless the Holy Spirit enabled someone else to understand Parthian. Duh.



                      It was another creative way of calling you a hypocrite. You project or image or give the impression of faith, but you're really just a bundle of inconsistencies, inaccuracies, blasphemies, trifles, foibles, absurdities, affronts and duplicities. I hope you humble yourself and seek to become a real boy.
                      A LOT of words that may or may not have completely answered NorrinRadd's assertions...but not a single word of this proves from Scripture that Cessationism is true...

                      Fair warning, if you ramble at such length again, you are like to be ignored by me. Be concise or be gone.
                      Ummm...this is NorrinRadd's thread, he is the thread starter. As he is the OP, you do not have the authority to tell him to "be gone". Answer him or don't but, he's not leaving because you say so.

                      "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                      "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Esther View Post

                        Agree but see a separate water baptism after the resurrection and then an added Holy Spirit baptism administered by the laying on of hands. So after the resurrection, there are 2 baptisms available to the person who puts their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ?
                        As a continuaist and a member of a denomination known for believing in the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" the answer we say is, YES! We believe that:
                        "All believers are entitled to and should ardently expect and earnestly seek the promise of the Father, the baptism in the Holy Spirit and fire, according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ. This was the normal experience of all in the early Christian Church. With it comes the enduement of power for life and service, the bestowment of the gifts and their uses in the work of the ministry."

                        Source: https://ag.org/Beliefs/Statement-of-...ental-Truths#7

                        Acts 8:12 - 17, Shows 2 distinct Baptisms, believers Baptism and then the subsequent laying on of hands and them receiving a Baptism of the Holy Spirit. As does Acts 10:44 - 48, but in this case, the Baptisms are reversed! This is further reinterated in
                        Acts 11:14 - 16 and Acts 15:7 - 9.
                        "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                        "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post

                          As a continuaist and a member of a denomination known for believing in the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" the answer we say is, YES! We believe that:
                          "All believers are entitled to and should ardently expect and earnestly seek the promise of the Father, the baptism in the Holy Spirit and fire, according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ. This was the normal experience of all in the early Christian Church. With it comes the enduement of power for life and service, the bestowment of the gifts and their uses in the work of the ministry."

                          Source: https://ag.org/Beliefs/Statement-of-...ental-Truths#7

                          Acts 8:12 - 17, Shows 2 distinct Baptisms, believers Baptism and then the subsequent laying on of hands and them receiving a Baptism of the Holy Spirit. As does Acts 10:44 - 48, but in this case, the Baptisms are reversed! This is further reinterated in
                          Acts 11:14 - 16 and Acts 15:7 - 9.
                          If you have to be "reinterated" something went wrong with the burial.


                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Esther View Post

                            Thanks the above is only to make up for my lack in debating skills ha ha, and thank you for your reply.
                            Ha!

                            Ok good I see now that there are in fact 3 baptisms to discuss:

                            ~John the Baptist's baptism of repentance.
                            ~Water baptism when a person is born again.
                            ~Holy Spirit baptism when a person is born again.

                            Do you see these 3 baptisms in the NT too?

                            My focus of interest is only on the born again person. Even this term, "born again" has most unfortunately become associated with the "happy clappy's". Do you use this term, "born again" and understand it to mean being born from above, spiritually, when a person comes to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ?

                            I cannot do the rest of your post justice here. I want to see whether I can pin-point the reason why some Christians believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit and why others don't. (Cessationism).
                            Too formulaic. The "I have to do such and such to be accepted by God" mentality is paganism. That's why there are so many denominations. Pagans disagreeing about rites. I don't "use" any term, to include "born again", because I have no interest in signaling my faith to others or engaging in their "spiritual virtue signaling" either. I just judge others by their fruit to determine if they truly love the Lord Jesus, as He recommended.

                            But I did not intend to lay out "three baptisms". I intended to explain why John's movement was referred to as "John's baptism". He was inaugurating a radically different method to worship/draw close to God, which saw its consummation in the life, death, resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus. Submitting to his baptism was a declaration that you acknowledged this was the new way God desired fellowship, namely by repentance and a repudiating of the Temple system and its corrupt priestly caste. In a day and age when people thought concretely rather than abstractly, baptism was to convince themselves as much as anyone else that they had truly dedicated their lives to this new cause. Now, it's between you and the Lord Jesus whether you truly submit to Him or not and no water or so-called Holy Spirit baptism will make that either true or false.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
                              A LOT of words that may or may not have completely answered NorrinRadd's assertions...but not a single word of this proves from Scripture that Cessationism is true...
                              You're not very bright, so maybe you don't grasp the implications of miracles being to encourage faith rather than to reward it, but we no longer live in a world brand new to the gospel and in need of verifying signs and wonders to vouchsafe its veracity. Now (and then, but especially now), God desires those who worship Him "in spirit and in truth", so miracles would indeed be counter to that purpose, "encouraging" a faith based on wonders rather than the understanding ("knowledge" of) and devotion to God. The sort of faith of John the Baptist who did no miracles, for example.

                              Ummm...this is NorrinRadd's thread, he is the thread starter. As he is the OP, you do not have the authority to tell him to "be gone". Answer him or don't but, he's not leaving because you say so.
                              I wasn't telling him to leave. "Be gone" referred to him ceasing to be a factor for me in the thread if he persisted in running his mouth needlessly. I don't have the authority to command him to be concise either, which should have been your first clue that it was what I said it was, "fair warning", not dictates. Normally I'd come up with a clever nickname or description for you, but how do you insult the man who already calls himself "Little"?

                              Good day, aptly named one.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Darfius View Post

                                Too formulaic. The "I have to do such and such to be accepted by God" mentality is paganism. That's why there are so many denominations. Pagans disagreeing about rites. I don't "use" any term, to include "born again", because I have no interest in signaling my faith to others or engaging in their "spiritual virtue signaling" either. I just judge others by their fruit to determine if they truly love the Lord Jesus, as He recommended.

                                But I did not intend to lay out "three baptisms". I intended to explain why John's movement was referred to as "John's baptism". He was inaugurating a radically different method to worship/draw close to God, which saw its consummation in the life, death, resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus. Submitting to his baptism was a declaration that you acknowledged this was the new way God desired fellowship, namely by repentance and a repudiating of the Temple system and its corrupt priestly caste. In a day and age when people thought concretely rather than abstractly, baptism was to convince themselves as much as anyone else that they had truly dedicated their lives to this new cause. Now, it's between you and the Lord Jesus whether you truly submit to Him or not and no water or so-called Holy Spirit baptism will make that either true or false.
                                Darfius My mission is not to be argumentative at all. I seriously would like to get to the bottom of the issue of cessationism. Personal experiences do not count, only NT verses and patterns.

                                "Born again" is not a term I came up with. Not to put you on the spot but also to find out why you use or don't use the term purely out of interest? Here are 3 times the term is used in the NT:

                                John 3:3: Jesus answered him, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, that unless a person is born again (anew, from above), he cannot ever see (know, be acquainted with, and experience) the kingdom of God.

                                John 3:7:Marvel not [do not be surprised, astonished] at My telling you, You must all be born anew (from above).

                                1 Peter 1:23: You have been regenerated (born again), not from a mortal [d]origin ([e]seed, sperm), but from one that is immortal by the ever living and lasting Word of God.

                                I get the impression that because you refer to the Holy Spirit baptism as ,"so-called" you do not believe in this baptism. Would you change your mind if I quoted NT scriptures in support of Holy Spirit baptism? I ask because I would be happy to try. Life is short and the days are evil and I am trying to concentrate on the things of God that count. I refuse to get into strife though because the Bible says that where there is strife there is every evil work.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X