/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

Finally, here's the question where it comes in to application.

What is the actual role of the Spirit in my life as a Christian?

Here's what's explicit:

The spirit indwells in us, and has a role in salvation.

The spirit convicts (John 16:8)

Here's where it gets tricky.

Someone says, "God is teling me to marry Katie", I can immediately say stop no, heretic. The canon is closed, you are claiming to have special revelation from God. If prophecy is still going, that doesn't fit the example of prophecy throughout the Bible and your life does not meet the standard of a prophet.

But someone says, "I felt the need to speak with that person". Is that potentially a guidance of the Holy Spirit? I think so. What if someone says, "the Spirit brought 2 Corinthians 12:9 to my mind at that moment". That's not a new revelation, but does it amount to special revelation?

I guess I'm really just trying to work it out by articulating it through typing. Let me know what you think.

Again, roman catholics need not respond. You guys think mary spontaneously appears and brings new revelation to third worlders every once in a while, your perspective is not valuable in this question.

>>10807

All the charismatic gifts of the Holy Ghost are still present in the Body of Christ.

We can still cast out devils. If the person is unsaved, 7 devils will come back, if saved, they are healed.

We still may receive the gift of tongues. That is whenever we are gifted by God to speak in his name and win souls to Christ. It manifests as: unnatural ability in speaking/learning a new language (a real language, like Spanish or Greek); and when a person normally nervous in speaking is empowered to preach the Gospel.

Lastly, the Holy Ghost is present in everyone who has been baptized in the Holy Ghost; Christ being our baptizer when we believe on his name. The Holy Ghost is our comforter and guides us to all truth. A verse from Proverbs comes to mind; "Him that feareth God understandeth all things."

>>10813

how do you reconcile continuation of prophecy with the sufficiency of scripture?

>>10815

Firstly, prophecy is whenever is speaking for God, whether or not it needs to be written down. People teaching the Bible act as prophets since they are literally speaking for God.

Secondly, I disagree with the premise that all the books of the Bible are necessarily all God decided we'll ever need. However, if someone comes to us claiming to have new divine scripture, it needs to be rigorously checked with the scripture we've already provably received from the Holy Ghost. Remember the Bereans who checked the Old Testament for Paul's veracity.

Because of this, I reject things such as the Mormon scriptures and the Gnostic scriptures as being the word of God because they do not line up whatsoever with the Scripture already received. I also do not agree that there can never be more divine revelation becoming Scripture.

>>10816

When you say "prophecy", do you have special revelation in mind?

>I disagree with the premise that all the books of the Bible are necessarily all God decided we'll ever need

Scripture is such that "that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:17 NAS)

Yes, scripture is all we'll ever need.

>>10817

Yes, scripture. I Just mean I dont think "New Scripture" is off the table for all time from here on out. Nobody gets to just walk around saying they're getting special revelation.

>>10819

And you don't think "prophecy" necessarily refers to special revelation?

>>10820

No.

>>10821

Ok. I disagree with your judgment, but I guess it's not germaine since you don't view it as a charismatic gift.

Could you show me a video recording of an instance where you think a man truly was gifted with tongues as described in the Bible?

>>10822

I do think it's a charismatic gift.

>Could you show me a video recording of an instance where you think a man truly was gifted with tongues as described in the Bible?

https://youtu.be/jNA34iBGJPs

yes, the 54 minute, 23 second mark.

>>10824

I'm seeing a man who studied modern greek reading from a greek new testament. Does he claim this occurrence was a gift of tongues?

Doesn't there need to be one with the gift of interpreting tongues present for that to be the case?

>I do think it's a charismatic gift.

Why do you call it charismatic if you only mean that it refers to teaching doctrine?

>>10828

>Why do you call it charismatic if you only mean that it refers to teaching doctrine?

It is by the grace of God that any man should teach doctrine.

>Doesn't there need to be one with the gift of interpreting tongues present for that to be the case?

The Holy Ghost dwells inside me, and is the one who gives the gift of languages ("tongues").

>>10831

>It is by the grace of God that any man should teach doctrine.

Okay.. what is an example of a spiritual gift listed in one of these passages that is non charismatic?

>The Holy Ghost dwells inside me, and is the one who gives the gift of languages ("tongues").

I'm not asking about who gives the tongues, I'm asking about how your example squares with the apparent Biblical requirement for an interpreter to also be present if someone is exercising the gift of tongues

<If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and let one interpret; but if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. (1 Cor. 14:27-28 NAS)

>>10832

How do you define "charismatic?"

>exercising a compelling charm which inspires devotion in others.?

All the gifts of the Holy Ghost are given by the grace of God. I'm not seeing a discernible difference in their origin.

>>10834

I've defined which gifts I consider charismatic in the second post, in line with the usual cessationist view: >>10808

These are the ones that necessarily involve miraculous power

>All the gifts of the Holy Ghost are given by the grace of God. I'm not seeing a discernible difference in their origin.

Yes everything is by the grace of God, he holds a sustaining role in creation. It's also by grace that we are saved at all and then indwelt by the spirit, and by grace that the spirit grants gifts, cessationist or continuationist.

I'm not arguing a difference in their origin, I'm only categorizing them.

>>10835

I've personally cast out a devil, so maybe thats a part of personal faith that needs to be experienced. I personally, based on scriptural study, doctrinal teachings (especially by IFB pastors) and personal experience, don't believe any gifts of the Holy Ghost have ceased.

>>10836

Well, your personal experience is unverifiable to me and New IFB has an admitted anti-intellectual strain, so I'm not convinced. My own study in Baptist theology brought me to the opposite conclusion, and every experience I've had with professing continuationists relied on pretty superficial appeals to trusting in God or proof texting key verses.

>>10838

You've got to admit, Pastor Steven Anderson is not anti-intellectual. Other pastors, I'll give it to you.

>>10808

>Am I supposed to conclude that some people are specially made better in some of these areas than others, and that's all a spiritual gift entails?

Different members of the church will have a greater propensity to one or other of the spiritual gifts. There are many observations to draw from these passages. For example, this clarifies the kind of activities and works that the Holy Spirit has blessed us each with, and directs our attention to the fact that these specific things are gifts of God. It also shows how there is more than one way to glorify our Savior and Redeemer and that there is no reason to place ourselves in competition with (at variance with) each other over these differences. Pointing us to the fact that each one and each gift accomplishes glorification of God and that together in this way the members work to bring this to greater effect. It also shows us very immediate and close ways which we have the means to accomplish this, if we are just looking for a way. Hope that helps.

Definitely do these things and find which you seem to be, or want to be, the most capable at, then work at being that person with the reassurance of scripture. It's possible to excel in multiple gifts of course, and like you said, they are all something we should do, regardless of proficiencies.

>>10812

>What if someone says, "the Spirit brought 2 Corinthians 12:9 to my mind at that moment". That's not a new revelation, but does it amount to special revelation?

No, I don't think so. This should be considered at least possible, since John 14:26 and 16:13-14 explicitly state this is what the Holy Ghost will do for those he indwells.

<"he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

<"He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you."

This example falls within that. Of course, only he can know if this actually did occur or if he's only claiming it did, so I would definitely study the reference he gives carefully as I would expect anyone else to do if I chose to tell them such a thing.

Also I should note that you will run into people who take different approaches to the gift of tongues as opposed to the sign of speaking in tongues and the other signs spoken of in Mark 16:17-18. You will want to notice this list mentions all of the signs that are held as having ceased, and this is because these were signs that specifically followed the apostles during their ministry. These are the men who brought the word of God by inspiration as mentioned in 2 Peter 1:21. Their role is also specifically singled out in Ephesians 2:20 and 1 Corinthians 3:6-11. So it makes sense that the signs in Mark 16:17-18 would follow specifically them. Even the serpent poison sign was fulfilled, in Acts 28:3-6. But "charismatics" and pentecostals obviously don't make that distinction because they are not getting understanding from God toward his holy Scriptures (see: 1 Corinthians 2:13-14). Hope that helps.

>>10815

Scripture by it's own account isn't sufficient, we are missing books of the bible after all. If we were missing the gospel of Mark would you call it sufficient? We are missing the book of Jasher, and some others but I do not recall their names. Then, scripture itself shows instances of infallible teaching that isnt recorded, like when John writes that not all of Jesus' sayings and prophecies recorded, or when Paul gave a sermon all night long, so long in fact that a man fell out of a building and broke his neck, and would have died were paul not there to heal him. We don't have that sermon, yet that sermon still was infallible. We lack the epistle to the laodecians, which paul mentions. Scripture is not and was never meant to be sufficient. Scripture is just a part of the church tradition.

>>10877

>we are missing books of the bible after all.

By "missing" do you mean there are scripture that God intended us to have that God failed to get to us? Is that what missing is supposed to mean?

If so, that means you don't believe in the preservation of God's word.

Isaiah 40:8

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Psalm 119:160

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Luke 16:17

And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

>We are missing the book of Jasher, and some others but I do not recall their names.

Just because a book is mentioned in the Bible does not automatically mean it is the word of God given by a prophet. Acts 19:19 mentions the fact that many books were taken and burned. Those aren't all scripture simply for the fact of being mentioned in Acts.

>like when John writes that not all of Jesus' sayings and prophecies recorded,

That's not what John 21:23 says at all. It says there are many things which he DID that the word could not contain the books that should be written.

>We don't have that sermon,

How do you know that? How do you know what you don't know isn't recorded in scripture?

>We lack the epistle to the laodecians, which paul mentions.

Same question.

>Scripture is not and was never meant to be sufficient.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 states that it is. All that you've done here is to do everything you think you can to deny the prophecy that God gave regarding preserving his word. You've done everything you can to try to find a way to deny clear prophecy in scripture. Your aim is to spread doubt and unbelief to others.

But what does scripture say?

Proverbs 30:5-6

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Psalm 119:160

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Matthew 24:35

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Isaiah 55:11

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

>>10877

The sufficiency of scripture is not undercut by the fact that there is truth outside of scripture. If you want to deny the sufficiency, you have to give an alternate reading of 2 Tim 3, which directly states the doctrine.

>scripture is part of church tradition

Only someone who gets his doctrine secondhand would say something like that.

>>10862

> John 14:26 and 16:13-14 explicitly state this is what the Holy Ghost will do for those he indwells.

My Bible software points to Acts 2:33

<Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear (Acts 2:33 NAS)

John 14:26 and 16:13 are talking about the Spirit giving new revelation. We can't use this prescriptively for all believers in our dispensation.

>>10885

2 Samuel 1:18

>>10885

Not so fast chief

>You do realize that Paul was speaking of the old testament right? The gospel hadn't even been written yet, let alone the apocalypse of John. So by the rules set up by your (personal, ahistorical) interpretation, all that you need is the old testament, and nothing more

Strawman. You're the one claiming this only refers to the OT, not us.

Paul is not talking only about the old testament, he's talking about "all scripture" being god-breathed. The NT authors viewed their writings as scripture. They claimed to be prophetically inspired by God.

Remember that God is the ultimate author of the epistle of 2 Timothy, and He knew exactly which books He would preserve for the canon.

The church has likewise unanimously viewed the NT as scripture throughout all history, you're the ahistorical one.

>In context, paul is also exhorting Timothy to keep the oral tradition given unto him by paul and the other apostles

No he isn't, he's explicitly talking about written scripture

<14 You, however continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them;

<15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

<16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

<17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

(2 Tim. 3:14-17 NAS)

Anyway take it somewhere else. This isn't relevant tot he topic of spiritual gifts.

You can start your own thread and post all the proof texts you want there.

>>10885

>Do you honestly believe that Paul's sermon was just him reciting scripture, with no originality?

How do you know what you don't know isn't already recorded somewhere in scripture?

>Have you read the epistles? They arent just quotations of Scripture, each one contains original ideas and teachings.

In Colossians 4:16 he directs the current epistle to be read in Laodicea and the one there to be read in Colossae. As we know therefore that he sent his epistles to multiple places, how do you know that the other epistle isn't one of the ones already recorded in the New Testament? And how are you so certain of something "which you claim not to know" that you will actually stand up and tell people it's one of your examples of "lost prophecy"? Have you no shame? Have you no circumspection about those things which you have not seen? Or no discernment?

It's clear from this that anything you can misinterpret and eisegete, from even the most basic of statements, that you will. Because you don't care if you're making scripture contradict itself, after all, your whole ultimate purpose is to discredit it, after all.

>>10932

You are using a lot of words and a lot of quotations, but you do not understand anything of which you speak. Paul mentions multiple times that people should heed his words whether they recieve them by his writing or orally. The early church didnt even have the new testament for crying out loud. The canon wasn't ever decided until the 5th century.

>all tradition is recorded in the bible

That is something I've never even heard before. No it isnt? The divine liturgy isnt in the bible, that's a tradition many protestants even preserve. Then there are many things most modern churches all agree which arent in the bible, but inferred from it. (The athanasian creed, the niceno-constantinopalan creed, the apostles creed, the chalcedonian definition, the very canon itself) remember, no book of the bible lists which books are canonical. The church decided the canon. Shouldnt the people God trusted to figure out the canon also be trusted to solve other theological issues?

>>10938

Have you actually read the Ante-Nicene Fathers?

The canon was the canon by at least 200 AD.

You don't need a vote by a bunch of old guys to figure out what is inspired by the Holy Ghost and what isn't.

>>10940

Many churches were using the Shepherd of Hermas in their services, so no, the canon was not universally decided until the 5th century.

Also, they aren't just "old guys", they are the leaders of the church. The church is led by the holy spirit, and the holy spirit is the spirit of truth, therefore the church is the guardian of all truth. The gates of hell will not prevail against the church, meaning the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church cannot fall into serious doctrinal errors without God intervening. Having the gmchurch decide these serious issues is the only way to ensure that orthodox teachings prevail.

>>10942

The authenticity of the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church is ultimately determined on comparison with the Bible.

Again, have the scripture debate in another thread.

>>10942

Many, not all.

.

yeet

wooot woot

>>10838

is the faith of Christ intellectual to you?

>>10879

Prots constantly purity spiral about the state of others belief while not knowing basic Church history, nobody should lecture anyone, good luck brother

>>10880

Is it of the Spirit of the Lord to remark at how your own doctrine, sparkling clean, is firsthand, while your digressers all simply have bunk doctrine? Meanwhile the spirit of your words is not contrite, you know nothing and should act like it

>>10946

No, it isn't. The Bible was canonized by the one Holy Apostolic Catholic Church.

prots just dig in their heels and repeat scripture scripture scripture because they are all literally North Americans or anglos who reduce scripture to a codex of "divine info" and care about things like "infallibility" rather than singing the scriptures within the very life you lead, as if the spiritual knowledge resembles the erudition of "scripture readers" who digest only what they deem to be sophisticated enough to be obscure and religiously fanciful.

notice all those who constantly lambast and correct others with "scriptural truth" seldom have their own constructive topics of fruit produced from their apparently superior digestion of prophecy and word.

love one another, and do not speak irreverently of your brother, but be reconciled to him