Donations for the month of November


We have received a total of $100 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
NH, USA
Posts: 13,293
Joined: April 2001
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,533
Posts50,706
Members921
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,293
Tom 3,300
chestnutmare 2,862
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,748
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,057
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 20
Pilgrim 16
John_C 2
Recent Posts
The Church of England Announcement
by Tom. Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:11 PM
Law and Grace
by Tom. Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:56 PM
Why I hate the left
by Pilgrim. Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:42 PM
What is a missionary work
by Pilgrim. Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:07 AM
Terrorist Attacks
by AJ Castellitto. Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:08 AM
Theonomy
by Pilgrim. Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:54 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
#29184 - Sat Nov 19, 2005 7:05 PM Re: Gifts of the Spirit ***** [Re: Link]  
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Link Offline
Journeyman
Link  Offline
Journeyman

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Jakarta, Indonesia
Justin Martyr argued with Trypho that there were no more prophets with Trypho, but that there were prophetic gifts in the church in his own time.

Quote

CovenantInBlood wrote

Quote

The Pharisees who accused Jesus of casting out demons by Beelzebul were well aware by Whom He was truly casting out demons! (Because demons aren't cast out by Satan!) They were not interested in the truth, but rather in slandering and inhibiting the work of God, which was undeniably happening before their very eyes.



You can believe that the Pharisees knew who Jesus was casting out demons by if you wish, but the Bible does not tell us. I do not know if it was the same group of Pharisees, but on other occasions when Jesus encountered scribes and Pharisees who opposed Him, He pointed out that they did NOT believe in Him or Who He claimed to be. So it seems highly unlikely that these Pharisees knew He was who He claimed He was, and still opposed Him as they did.


And even if they knew He was casting out demons by the Spirit of God, the point is irrelevant. Jesus said that “whosoever” speaks a word against the Holy Ghost would not be forgiven in this age or in the age to come. He did not say that “those who know who I am casting demons out by” who blaspheme the Holy Ghost would not be forgiven. “Whosoever” includes people who knew, people who did not know, second century Caesars, medieval Muslims, first century Pharisees, 21st century blue collar workers—everybody.

Btw, if this discussion grows any further than this, shouldn’t we start another thread?

from http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm

#29185 - Sat Nov 19, 2005 7:12 PM Re: Gifts of the Spirit [Re: Link]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,293
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,293
NH, USA
Quote
Link said:
You can believe that the Pharisees knew who Jesus was casting out demons by if you wish, but the Bible does not tell us. I do not know if it was the same group of Pharisees, but on other occasions when Jesus encountered scribes and Pharisees who opposed Him, He pointed out that they did NOT believe in Him or Who He claimed to be. So it seems highly unlikely that these Pharisees knew He was who He claimed He was, and still opposed Him as they did.

Wrong again..... ALL men everywhere know that there is a God and that all things were created by Him from not only the things that are clearly seen but from within; i.e., their very being testifies to this truth (Rom 1:19, 20, 25) Yet, knowing the truth, they reject it and substitute a lie.

The Pharisees, in fact, many of the common Jews were well aware of Jesus' claims, having seen the things He did (miracles) and by the things He spoke as a bona fided Rabbi (teacher).


John 10:33 (KJV) "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."


One can certainly know the truth and reject it in unbelief and cast aspersions upon it and those who hold to it. Belief in truth is not a prerequisite for anyone found guilty of blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

And lastly, none here can be found guilty of this sin in regard to dismissing your claims for of a truth, you do not qualify as one who does things by the Holy Spirit. And how is it I can be so sure of this? Well, that is quite easy to explain, for the Holy Spirit revealed to me that what you are espousing is not of Him and thus there is no truth to it. God said it! That does it.

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#29186 - Sat Nov 19, 2005 8:03 PM Re: Gifts of the Spirit [Re: Link]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
Quote
Link stated,

J Edwards, the quote in question was about prophesying in a manner contrary to the tradition passed down from the beginning of the church, not speaking in tongues.

You had better re-read the footnotes: “In Paul's time the speaking with tongues, which involved a similar kind of ecstasy, was very common” etc. Please learn what prophesying means “in context” when the ECFs use it..

Quote
Paul uses a form of ‘pneumatikos’ to describe the ‘spiritual gifts’ of v. 1 and 2, and switches to forms of ‘charisma’ in verse 4 when he starts speaking specifically of the gifts of the Spirit. In I Corinthians 14:32, Paul also uses a form of ‘pneuma’ when he says that the ‘spirits’ of the prophets are subject to the prophets. If he has in mind to contrast pagan ‘spiritual gifts’ with Christian ‘spiritual gifts’, pehraps he used pneuma to refer to a wider category so as not to identify pagan spiritual gifts as coming from grace.

So? What in the world does what Paul say have to do with what the article says? People use terms in different ways and has already been pointed out to you! Here is the author’s quote once again:

Quote
Not only did they try to deceive Wenamon with music, but Wenamon's idol got some help from a local charismatic prophet who was like the charismatic prophets in Canaan who "prophesied" ecstatically (spoke in unknown tongues) or in the sense of "singing with instrumental music."

Barton, George A., Archaeology and the Bible, 7Th Edition pgs 449-452 By: Kenneth Sublett

Now is there such a thing as a false charismatic prophet?

Quote
Matthew 7:21-23 (KJV) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Do you really need this spelled out for you? Let me know if you do and I will pull out the old crayons. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/3stooges.gif" alt="" />

Let us know when you desire to get serious once again!

You may enjoy this asset: ieSpell. It is FREE.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#29187 - Sat Nov 19, 2005 8:08 PM Re: Gifts of the Spirit [Re: Link]  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian


Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
Quote
You can believe that the Pharisees knew who Jesus was casting out demons by if you wish, but the Bible does not tell us.


Jesus said that a house divided cannot stand, and that if He was casting out demons by the prince of demons, by whom were the sons of the Pharisees casting out demons? The Pharisees were well aware that Satan does not cast out Satan. Blasphemy of the Spirit involves an awareness that the Spirit is at work, and maliciously attributing His work to Satan.

Quote
I do not know if it was the same group of Pharisees, but on other occasions when Jesus encountered scribes and Pharisees who opposed Him, He pointed out that they did NOT believe in Him or Who He claimed to be. So it seems highly unlikely that these Pharisees knew He was who He claimed He was, and still opposed Him as they did.


The demons darn well knew who He was, and did they suddenly become allies?

Quote
And even if they knew He was casting out demons by the Spirit of God, the point is irrelevant.


Not in the least, because it involves just what the offense spoken of is! The offense involves an awareness of Who is doing the work.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
#29188 - Sun Nov 20, 2005 4:03 AM Re: Gifts of the Spirit [Re: CovenantInBlood]  
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Link Offline
Journeyman
Link  Offline
Journeyman

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Jakarta, Indonesia
Pilgrim writes
Quote

And lastly, none here can be found guilty of this sin in regard to dismissing your claims for of a truth, you do not qualify as one who does things by the Holy Spirit. And how is it I can be so sure of this? Well, that is quite easy to explain, for the Holy Spirit revealed to me that what you are espousing is not of Him and thus there is no truth to it. God said it! That does it


So are you jokingly pretending to be a charismatic (claiming to have extra-scriptural revelation) at the risk of being a false prophet?

Btw, I did not claim to be prophesying in this thread. I have not argued based on my having authority as a prophet, but based on what scripture says..and arguing against what scripture does not say.

And Pilgrim, you say I was 'wrong again' for saying that the Pharisees who opposed Jesus did not believe in Him? I will let you look up the references yourself that show that they did not believe in him. The fact that that which may be known of God in manifest in men, because God has made it known to them, revealing them by the things that are made, does not negate the fact that the Pharisees who opposed Christ did not believe in them.

Last edited by Link; Sun Nov 20, 2005 5:35 AM.
#29189 - Sun Nov 20, 2005 4:25 AM Re: Gifts of the Spirit [Re: Link]  
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Link Offline
Journeyman
Link  Offline
Journeyman

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Jakarta, Indonesia

In reply to Covenant In Blood
Quote
Jesus said that a house divided cannot stand, and that if He was casting out demons by the prince of demons, by whom were the sons of the Pharisees casting out demons? The Pharisees were well aware that Satan does not cast out Satan. Blasphemy of the Spirit involves an awareness that the Spirit is at work, and maliciously attributing His work to Satan.


And is this supposed to prove that the Pharisees believed in Jesus, or that He were casting out demons by the Spirit of God? Why would Jesus have to tell them this if this were already in their minds? Jesus exposed a flaw in their reasoning, showing that they were wrong. It was Christ who made this argument, and not the Pharisees, and there is nothing in the text to indicate that the Pharisees had thought of it before Christ said it.


Quote
Not in the least, because it involves just what the offense spoken of is! The offense involves an awareness of Who is doing the work.


This is hopeful eisegesis, and not something that comes from the text. Let us look at the verse in question:

Quote

32. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.


Jesus said that ‘whosoever’ spoke a word against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him. He did not qualify His statement by making an exception for those who did so in ignorance, or those who lived in the first century. Nor did he say that this teaching only applied to those who saw the miracles He Himself performed. Instead of limiting this principle, he expands it, declaring that such a person will not be forgiven in this world or in the world to come.

I know that some theologians, including Jonathan Edwards (the real one, not the poster here) believed that one had to have full knowledge to be guilty of blaspheming the Spirit. I suppose they get this idea from the following verses.

I Timothy 1
13. Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
14. And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

Paul was a blasphemer, but notice that the passage does not say that he spoke against the Spirit of God. Jesus said “whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him”.

If we take Christ’s word as true, we must acknowledge that whoever speaks a word against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this world or in the world to come? This is an uncomfortable, possibly even scary teaching. But do we really want to give an account on the day of judgment for arguing that Christ really did not mean what He said, just to make His teachings more acceptable to our ears and more comforting to others?

Here is the earliest interpretation of the verse I can find, from around the turn of the first century, speaking of prophets in those days:

11:10 And any prophet speaking in the Spirit ye shall not try neither discern;
11:11 for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven.

(I do not agree with way this is worded, btw, but it illustrates that those chronologically close to Christ took His teaching literally on this issue. This document purports to be the teaching of the 12 apostles.)

There is also the quote above from Irenaeus that he believed a certain group, possibly the Montanists or certain of their number, of commiting the irremissible sin by sinning against the Spirit.

Christ said what He did on this issue. What should we believe, the words of Christ, or complicated theological arguments that say He did not really mean what He said?

#29190 - Sun Nov 20, 2005 5:53 AM Re: Gifts of the Spirit [Re: Link]  
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Link Offline
Journeyman
Link  Offline
Journeyman

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Jakarta, Indonesia

J Edwards

I point out that ‘charismatic’ is a term loaded with Biblical theology in case you were using quotes from someone who termed the prophets of Canaan ‘charismatic’ as a polemic against those who used the term.

You also wrote,
Quote

In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul warned against the charismatic practice of the pagans



The term ‘charismatic’ comes from a Greek word used in relation to grace. The practices of the pagans might be termed ‘pneumatic’ but ‘charismatic’ should be seen as a word with positive connotations, since it has to do with the grace gifts of God, and not the spiritual practices of the pagans. That does not mean that everything that gets called ‘Charismatic’ is truly charismatic.

#29191 - Sun Nov 20, 2005 9:26 AM Link and Charis ? [Re: Link]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
Quote
The term ‘charismatic’ comes from a Greek word used in relation to grace. The practices of the pagans might be termed ‘pneumatic’ but ‘charismatic’ should be seen as a word with positive connotations, since it has to do with the grace gifts of God, and not the spiritual practices of the pagans. That does not mean that everything that gets called ‘Charismatic’ is truly charismatic.

Many of the Corinthians were pagans (1 Cor 12:3). Many in the visible church are pagans (Matt 7:21-23). Many in Pentecostal churches are pagans. Many Charismatics are pagans. According to your definition only those that are truly saved and are endowed with supernatural gifts are truly Charismatic. Thus, why do YOU and others use the Charismatic description for everyone in your movement? Is this not a false use of charis by YOUR definition? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

By YOUR definition, YOU are misusing the term yourself since: (1) you do not know who the saved are, (2) you cannot prove who the saved are, (3) you can not prove that the gifts being employed are not from the devil himself. Shame on you for associating charis with all these unregenerates. Charismatic does not have very positive connotations if YOU are using it of pagans!

YOU yourself asked Pilgrim,

Quote
So are you jokingly pretending to be a Charismatic (claiming to have extra-scriptural revelation) at the risk of being a false prophet?

Why did YOU associate charis with a false prophet?

In addition, YOU said to Robin,

Quote
I can agree with you that there is a lot of flakiness in certain ends of the Charismatic movement.

Why did YOU associate charis with flakiness?

Moreover, YOU stated of the Shepherd of Hermas,

Quote
If the church, in general, was cessationist, then 'Charismatic' books like the Shepherd would not have been so popular and widespread and often held in high regard by church leaders.

However, the Shepherd was not accepted as Scripture and has false theology in it, thus why are you associating charis with that which is false?

I'll put my crayons up now. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

<p align="center">[Linked Image]</p>


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#29192 - Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:53 PM Re: Gifts of the Spirit [Re: Link]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,293
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,293
NH, USA
Quote
Link said:
And Pilgrim, you say I was 'wrong again' for saying that the Pharisees who opposed Jesus did not believe in Him? I will let you look up the references yourself that show that they did not believe in him. The fact that that which may be known of God in manifest in men, because God has made it known to them, revealing them by the things that are made, does not negate the fact that the Pharisees who opposed Christ did not believe in them.

Oh dear... more dribble! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> READ [Linked Image] what I actually wrote in reply to what you were positing, re: blaspheming the Holy Spirit. The fact is that the Pharisees KNEW who Jesus of Nazareth was as is shown by the passages quoted, (John 5:18, 10:33). One can know the truth without being regenerate but one cannot believe that truth with a living fiduciary faith without having been regenerated by the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit. And one who is indwelt with the Holy Spirit will not and cannot blaspheme this same Holy Spirit, for the Spirit cannot deny Himself.

The passage in Romans was given simply to show that men, even in their unregenerate state, can and do understand the truth concerning the existence and nature of God and even that they are under judgment. For they take that truth, which can be seen from the physical creation around them AND God Himself has manifested this truth IN them, by virtue that they are created in the image of God, and substitute that which they know to be true for a lie. The issue of the Pharisees is simply a further application of this truth in regard to the identity of Jesus of Nazareth. They KNEW full well who He was both from the physical manifestations of His works and from His self-attestation. And for this reason, they hated Him all the more and sought to kill Him.

Thus, it is those who are unregenerate who are capable of blaspheming the Holy Spirit which includes those who outwardly profess to believe yet are still dead in sins.

Quote
Link quips
So are you jokingly pretending to be a charismatic (claiming to have extra-scriptural revelation) at the risk of being a false prophet?

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" /> I was not joking at all as you wrong assume. And definitely it was not the case that I was pretending to be a charismagic, for why would I want to pretend to be something that God opposes? The Holy Spirit has many times revealed to me that all these charismatic claims and manifestations are not of God. And that revelation came and continues to come through the reading of His inspired infallible and inerrant written Word as the Lord Christ had promised from the beginning. (Ps 119:144, 151, 152; Jh 17:17)

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#29193 - Sun Nov 20, 2005 7:26 PM Re: Link and Charis ? [Re: J_Edwards]  
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Link Offline
Journeyman
Link  Offline
Journeyman

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Jakarta, Indonesia
Quote
J_Edwards said:
Many of the Corinthians were pagans (1 Cor 12:3). Many in the visible church are pagans (Matt 7:21-23). Many in Pentecostal churches are pagans. Many Charismatics are pagans. According to your definition only those that are truly saved and are endowed with supernatural gifts are truly Charismatic. Thus, why do YOU and others use the Charismatic description for everyone in your movement? Is this not a false use of charis by YOUR definition? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />


You'll notice I used a Capital 'C' to refer to the movement, and in other cases I used quotes or parentheses when using the term in a non-theological sense. If someone were loose with the the words 'grace' or 'soteriological' you might point it out.

By the way, I never said that only those who were truly saved could exercise charismata. I never said that only those who are truly saved could partake of grace. I recall your namesake (Jonathan Edwards) seemed to assume this by the way he used the word 'grace' saying that Saul's repentance was not 'truly gracious.' While the 'truly saved' are saved by grace, I am not persuaded that unbelievers cannot experience some measure of charis, particularly in the case of those who fall away.

And how would we label pre-Pentecost manifestations of gifts with New Testament terminology. Were Saul's, Balaam's, and Caiaphas' genuine prophecies from grace or not? Were they 'charismata'?

You are making assumptions about my beliefs. I never told you that only the truly saved can exercise charismata. If Satan cannot cast out Satan, and the wicked in Matthew 7 really did cast out demons as they claimed, they may have done it by the power of God. If Caiaphas could prophesy, maybe they really did prophesy true prophecies. Of course, Jesus turns them away, not for their miracles, but because He never knew them, and they were workers of iniquity.

Nevertheless, I see your point that my own terminology can be confusing. I am not a perfect speller, so I'd like to leave some room for myself to leave out a capital without you pointing out.

[quote]By YOUR definition, YOU are misusing the term yourself since: (1) you do not know who the saved are, (2) you cannot prove who the saved are, (3) you can not prove that the gifts being employed are not from the devil himself. Shame on you for associating charis with all these unregenerates. Charismatic does not have very positive connotations if YOU are using it of pagans!
[quote]

I tend to use 'Charismatic' to refer to the movement and 'charismatic' to refer to the adjective. But, like I said, I am not a perfect speller, especially in a forum like this.

#29194 - Sun Nov 20, 2005 7:29 PM Re: Gifts of the Spirit [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Link Offline
Journeyman
Link  Offline
Journeyman

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Jakarta, Indonesia
Dear Pilgrim

One of the philosophical descriptions of 'knowing' is that something is true, and you believe it. You are arguing that one can 'know' but not believe what he knows. This is an interesting concept, but I do not see it in Romans 1. Romans 1 says that which may be known of Him is manifest in them, but it does not say that they 'know' Him, and it does not say that every detailed teaching of Christ is known by unbelievers.

And also, if you claim the scriptures teach against what I am saying, why have you been unable to show this? The scriptures teach that God gives prophecies, dreams, visions, the working of miracles, and other such things to the church. That is what the scriptures teach. I did not make it up. Who inspired those scriptures?

#29195 - Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:15 PM Re: Link and Charis ? [Re: Link]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
You're a real trip (or is that with a capital "T") if you think ANY of us here believes your excuse! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scold.gif" alt="" />

According to your "theory" the Uncials are in the wrong case and therefore can not be Scripture. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#29196 - Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:31 PM Re: Gifts of the Spirit [Re: Link]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,293
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,293
NH, USA
Quote
Link said:
Dear Pilgrim

One of the philosophical descriptions of 'knowing' is that something is true, and you believe it. You are arguing that one can 'know' but not believe what he knows. This is an interesting concept, but I do not see it in Romans 1. Romans 1 says that which may be known of Him is manifest in them, but it does not say that they 'know' Him, and it does not say that every detailed teaching of Christ is known by unbelievers.

Yep, typical of those in the Charismagic movement to not have a firm grasp on the fundamentals of the faith; in this case "gnosis in regard to pistis. The Bible reveals and orthodox theology teaches that there are four types of "faith" which people may have:
  1. Historical faith. This is a purely intellectual apprehension of the truth, devoid of any moral or spiritual purpose. The name does not imply ‘that it embraces only historical facts and events to the exclusion of moral and spiritual truths; nor that it is based on the testimony of history, for it may have reference to contemporaneous facts or events, John 3:2. It is rather expressive of the idea that this faith accepts the truths of Scripture as one might accept a history in which one is not personally interested. This faith may be the result of tradition, of education, of public opinion, of an insight into the moral grandeur of Scripture, and so on, accompanied with the general operations of the Holy Spirit. It may be very orthodox and Scriptural, but is not rooted in the heart, Matt. 7:26; Acts 26:27,28; Jas. 2:19. It is a fides humane, and not a fides divina.
  2. Miraculous faith. The so-called miraculous faith is a persuasion wrought in the mind of a person that a miracle will be performed by him or in his behalf. God can give a person a work to do that transcends his natural powers and enable him to do it. Every attempt to perform a work of that kind requires faith. This is very clear in cases in which man appears merely as the instrument of God or as the one who announces that God will work a miracle, for such a man must have full confidence that God will not put him to shame. In the last analysis God only works miracles, though He may do it through human instrumentality. This is faith of miracles in the active sense, Matt. 17:20; Mark 16:17, 18. It is not necessarily, but may be, accompanied with saving faith. The faith of miracles may also be passive, namely, the persuasion that God will work a miracle in one’s behalf. It, too, may or may not be accompanied with saving faith, Matt. 8:10.13; John 11:22 (comp. verses 25.27); 11:40; Acts 14:9. The question is often raised, whether such a faith has a legitimate place in the life of man to-day. Roman Catholics answer this question affirmatively, while Protestants are inclined to give a negative answer. They point out that there is no Scriptural basis for such a faith, but do not deny that miracles may still occur. God is entirely sovereign also in this respect, and the Word of God leads us to expect another cycle of miracles in the future.
  3. Temporal faith. This is a persuasion of the truths of religion which is accompanied with some promptings of the conscience and a stirring of the affections, but is not rooted in a regenerate heart. The name is derived from Matt. 13:20, 21. It is called a temporary faith, because it is not permanent and fails to maintain itself in days of trial and persecution. This does not mean that it may not last as long as life lasts. It is quite possible that it will perish only at death, but then it surely ceases. This faith is sometimes called a hypocritical faith, but that is not entirely correct, for it does not necessarily involve conscious hypocrisy. They who possess this faith usually believe that they have the true faith. It might better be called an imaginary faith, seemingly genuine, but evanescent in character. It differs from historical faith in the personal interest it shows in the truth and in the reaction of the feelings upon it. Great difficulty may be experienced in attempting to distinguish it from true saving faith. Christ says of the one who so believes: “He hath no root in himself,” Matt. 13:21. It is a faith that does not spring from the root implanted in regeneration, and therefore is not an expression of the new life that is embedded in the depths of the soul. In general it may be said that temporal faith is grounded in the emotional life and seeks personal enjoyment rather than the glory of God.
  4. True Saving faith. True saving faith is a faith that has its seat in the heart and is rooted in the regenerate life. A distinction is often made between the habitus and the actus of faith. Back of both of these, however, lies the semen fidei. This faith is not first of all an activity of man, but a potentiality wrought by God in the heart of the sinner. The seed of faith is implanted in man in regeneration. Some theologians speak of this as the habitus of faith, but others more correctly call it the semen fidei. It is only after God has implanted the seed of faith in the heart that man can exercise faith. This is apparently what Barth has in mind also, when he, in his desire to stress the fact that salvation is exclusively a work of God, says that God rather than man is the subject of faith. The conscious exercise of faith gradually forms a habitus, and this acquires a fundamental and determining significance for the further exercise of faith. When the Bible speaks of faith, it generally refers to faith as an activity of man, though born of the work of the Holy Spirit. Saving faith may be defined as a certain conviction, wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit, as to the truth of the gospel, and a hearty reliance (trust) on the promises of God in Christ. In the last analysis, it is true, Christ is the object of saving faith, but He is offered to us only in the gospel.

For a full explanation of the biblical teaching concerning faith, see the attached document.

Quote
Link exclaims:
And also, if you claim the scriptures teach against what I am saying, why have you been unable to show this? The scriptures teach that God gives prophecies, dreams, visions, the working of miracles, and other such things to the church. That is what the scriptures teach. I did not make it up. Who inspired those scriptures?

But you have been shown from the Scriptures and by the method of use which the Scriptures themselves teach. No one is disputing what the Scripture says but rather your use and interpretation of them. Why should I accept your understanding of Scripture rather than mine or countless others who were far more gifted in this area? What makes your understanding right? and mine wrong?

In His grace,

Attached Files
56834-faith_Berkhof.doc (245 downloads)

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#29197 - Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:57 AM Re: Gifts of the Spirit [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Link Offline
Journeyman
Link  Offline
Journeyman

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Jakarta, Indonesia
J Edwards
You can look up my use of the terms 'Charismatic' and 'charismatic' in this thread and see if my usage is consistent so far. My distinction makes sense if you think about it. Ancient Greek didn't have the capital/smalls distinction, but English does.

Pilgrim,
Not that it has anything to do with the thread, but you should have been posting definitions of knowledge, not definitions of faith to address the point I raised. But this is a tangent, an issue of semantics, and not closely related to the topic of the thread.

#29198 - Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:02 AM Re: Gifts of the Spirit [Re: Link]  
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Link Offline
Journeyman
Link  Offline
Journeyman

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Jakarta, Indonesia
Dear all

I have been thinking bout the flow of argument on this thread, and, from my perspective, it seems that there are has been little attempt to address the core issue at hand--whether the Bible teaches that God no longer gives revelation to the church today. ('Revelation' here is used in a broad sense to include extra-scriptural prophecies that do not reveal new doctrine per se).

If it cannot be shown from scripture that these gifts are no longer given, then we should understand that they still may be given today.

Here is a non-exhaustive summary of some of the arguments raised.

1. That prophecy today, it should be added to scripture.

--Counter-argument. The first post of this thread shows that there were genuine prophecies not included in the text of scripture. If these were not included, why would all other prophecies have to be included. New Testament books had to meet the criteria of being from apostolic circles, not merely be prophetic or revelatory in nature. God gave many revelations to prophets in the first century whose writings are not included in scripture.

2. Hebrews 1 teaches that God spoke in times past by prophets, but now he has spoken by his Son. Some argue based on this, that there were no more prophets.

--Counterargument. This line of reasoning contradicts New Testament teaching that there were prophets after the ascension. It would also lead us to believe that the New Testament is not inspired, since it was written after Christ ascended. Clearly the author of Hebrews did not mean prophetic revelation ended, when he contrasted God speaking through prophets in the past and now speaking by His Son.

3. Hebrews 2 teaches that God bore witness to the eye-witnesses of the resurrection's preaching of salvation with signs, wonders, and gifts. Therefore, the gifts ceased.

-Counterargument. This is poor logic. The verse does not say gifts would not continue. If the passage teaches that God bore witness through signs and wonders when the Gospel was _first_ preached only to the Hebrews, does that mean
that was the only condition under which He would do so? No, of course not. If that were the case, then He would not have born witness to Paul and Barnabas' ministry with miracles as He did when the Gospel was preached among the Gentiles.

If I say, "When I first came to work at my company, I used to eat at McDonald's, which is next door, quite often" does that mean I do not eat at McDonald's anymore? I might eat at McDonald's, and I might not.

4. That supernatural gifts were given exclusively as signs to verify the apostles and/or the scriptures.

Counter-argument- God bore witness to the apostle's preaching by signs and wonders, yes. But scripture does not teach that this is the only purpose for supernatural gifts.

-Philip of the 7, not one of the 12 apostles, did signs and wonders among the people. So did Stephen.

-The debated end of Mark says that certain signs will follow 'them that believe'

-Nowhere does the Bible teach that these signs and wonders confirmed the New Testament canon of scripture per se. To promote the idea that this was the purpose of miracles is to promote an extra-scriptural doctrine, contrary to the idea of sola scriptura.

-If God granted signs and wonders to confirm the message being preached, it does not follow that confirming the word is the reason God has for granting signs and wonders to be done in every case.

-I Corinthians 12 shows us that these gifts were given to edify the body of Christ, which still exists today. Therefore, confirming the word is not the only reason for such things.

5. That belief in the continuance of spiritual gifts violates a certain section of a particular creed.

-Actually the creed quoted does not necessarily contradict the continuance of the gifts, depending on how it is interpreted. However, this is irrelevant. If the Bible does not teach that the gifts ceased, then to base such a doctrine on the wording of a creed is similar to the way Roman Catholics treat papal decrees and other 'sacred tradition.'

6. That 'the perfect' in I Corinthians 13 refers to the closing of cannon of scripture.

-I do not recall anyone here directly stating it. However, I was refered to a website that argued this idea.

Such an interpretation does not fit in the text, in which Paul speaks of his own personal state before and after the perfect comes. If the perfect refers to the resurrection, which he describes later in the book (--note the importance of 'long thoughts' and context--) then Paul will experience the coming of the perfect.

If Paul refers to himself as a literary device, then this interpretation would lead us to conclude that we are more mature than the apostle Paul was in his life, because we have a copy of the scriptures. The canon was compiled based on apostolic authority. How can the apostles be an authority if we make ourselves superior to them? If we make them childish and ourselves mature, spiritually, because we have the books they wrote.

Clearly the completion of the canon does not make us 'more adult' in comparison with the apostles.

7. That the quote from Isaiah 28 in I Corinthians 14 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.

-This really has no bearing on the cessation of the gifts for two reasons

- Paul's makes his point in quoting the verse, that tongues is a sign to 'unbelievers', as he writes, and not Jews per se. He says nothing about the destruction of the temple, Jerusalem, etc. in this passage. Paul does not argue that tongues is a sign to the Jews in particular here.
- Tongues has a purpose other than as a sign to unbelievers. With the gift of interpretation, it edifies the church. Without, it edifies the individual who uses it.

8. If there are true prophecies, they would be authoratative, and they would be hard to judge.

-This is not an argument against the continuance of prophecy. Scripture commands the church to despise not prophesyings and to prove all things. If believing the gifts continue makes church life seem more difficult, that is not evidence that they have ceased. If God would require the early church to discern what was true in their day, is it so hard to believe He might require us to do the same?

We have also had a number of tangents related to issues that have come up during the course of the discussion like defining blaspheming the Holy Spirit, or the appropriate use of the term 'Charismatic.'

I have not seen a strong argument against the use of the gifts, certainly not one based on scritpure. If one cannot show scripture to show that the gifts ceased, why should he believe they have?

Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 15 guests, and 82 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
drewk, patrice, Robert1962, Ron, billmcginnis
921 Registered Users
Shout Box
November
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
650,451 Gospel truth
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.116s Queries: 17 (0.033s) Memory: 2.7480 MB (Peak: 3.0560 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-11-18 21:31:58 UTC