[mlqurgw]

This is to be a discussion between Gavin and myself concerning our beliefs. It is not intended to be a debate but to get to know the beliefs of the other. If you must reply to anything we say please keep it only as a comment not a debate. I will post my first one momentarilly. Gavin if you would like go ahead.

[mlqurgw]

First I would like to bring out those things I believe we do agree on.
I think we do agree that God is a Triune God being the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
I think we do agree that the Scriptures are the Word of God. Whether we agree to what extent I do not know.
I think we agree that baptism is by immersion only.
I am not sure if there is anything else. Gavin can you think of any?

[mlqurgw]

Foregive me if I couldn't think of more I am not feeling well. It does seem we agree on rather few things from my post.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by mlqurgw

First I would like to bring out those things I believe we do agree on.
I think we do agree that God is a Triune God being the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
I think we do agree that the Scriptures are the Word of God. Whether we agree to what extent I do not know.
I think we agree that baptism is by immersion only.
I am not sure if there is anything else. Gavin can you think of any?

Well, what are your views on cessationism? I am completely non-Cessationist.

How about the Catholic Church? I think they started going looney around 500a.d.

Nicene and Athanasian creeds?

That salvation is a work of God's grace and not our merits.

That Mary sinned and broke wind like everyone else. But was an amazing servant of the Lord and the mother of Christ. Certainly a position deserving honor. But not to the degree Catholics give her (coredemptrix is it?).

That Jeremiah was a bullfrog.

We believe a lot of things the same bro. I think this is enough.

[Lightknight]

Which of my beliefs do you want to know why I believe it first?

I, personally, would like to know if and why you believe in cessationism (that the gifts of the spirit have ceased, i.e., tongues and prophecy).

[mlqurgw]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Which of my beliefs do you want to know why I believe it first?

I, personally, would like to know if and why you believe in cessationism (that the gifts of the spirit have ceased, i.e., tongues and prophecy).

I have actually been studying that one. I haven't written my views yet but I will now. Give me a few minutes and I will see if I can come up with anything that makes sense.

[Lightknight]

It's alright. Take your time. If you don't post tonight, it's ok. I'm not going anywhere, neither are you. But I am starting to yawn. So I might be in bed soon.

What about my beliefs, what are you curious about as to why I stand the way I stand on it?

[mlqurgw]

Why I am a cessationist. I admit that much of this comes from “ Signs of the Apostles” by Walter Chantry. He is not my only source but he did help shape my views. I also read many Pentecostal pages on the subject and found almost all of them saying pretty much the same thing. Only that the gifts had not ceased but not giving any real reason why. I also studied some Pentecostal history and was convinced that the modern day gifts were absent until about the 1800’s. Most of those who hold to modern day gifts trace their history to the so-called Azusa Street Revival which took place between 1906 to 1913.
Now to look at the way miracles and signs were used in the Scriptures.
Joseph was the first to receive extraordinary gifts from God. He didn’t work miracles but did do things that were not common. His gifts involved delivering divinely revealed truth. He was a Prophet of God.

Next we have Moses, the first to work miracles. His miracles were given as a sign that he came from God and spoke from God. This principle applies to all Old Testament miracles in that they were done as a sign that the one doing them was a Prophet from God and spoke for God. When they were done it was expected that the inspired word of God was to be spoken.

The miracles of Jesus are next in our study. His miracles were primarily to show His authority as the Prophet of God.

Joh 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
Joh 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Joh 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
Joh 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: The miracles of the Apostles testified to their authority as God’s prophets, they who spoke the revelation of God.

Heb 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
Heb 2:4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?
New Testament miracles are, in Scripture, viewed as God’s stamp of approval on the message of the Apostles.

Ordinary Christians and gifts. Every recorded instance of men receiving these gifts were under the direct ministry of an Apostle.

This brings me to the conclusion that no true servent of Christ will be given power to work miracles unless he is directly associated with bring fresh revelation from God. They are given as signs of God to show He sent the ones performing miracles and we should expect to hear from God when they are done. There are no more Apostles as there are no more that saw and heard directly from Christ as did those who gave us the Scriptures. Also to believe that men today receive a fresh revelation from God is to say the Scriptures are not sufficient.

As to tongues I will write on those some other time.

[mlqurgw]

How about the Catholic Church? I think they started going looney around 500a.d.

I am not sure when they started going looney but I think it may have been around 300ad when Constantine made it the state religion.

Nicene and Athanasian creeds?

While I do believe the creeds help explain what was believed during the early church I do not hold to creeds. They tend to replace the Bible in too many peoples minds.

That salvation is a work of God's grace and not our merits.

Totally by God's grace. I would say Sovereign Grace. Grace and works are diametrically opposed.

That Mary sinned and broke wind like everyone else. But was an amazing servant of the Lord and the mother of Christ. Certainly a position deserving honor. But not to the degree Catholics give her (coredemptrix is it?).

I am apalled that you would think Mary broke wind. I would say she passed gas but only in a ladylike manner. Of course she sinned and was as much in need of a Savior as the rest of us. Certainly she was blessed but she was just a women like all the rest.

That Jeremiah was a bullfrog.

I never understood a single word he said but he always had some mighty fine wine.

We believe a lot of things the same bro. I think this is enough.

You are quite correct.

[Lightknight]

In case you're wondering, I'm very tired. I think it's nappy nappy time.

[mlqurgw]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

In case you're wondering, I'm very tired. I think it's nappy nappy time.

Me too. I am also very sick. I didn't go to work tonight. Sleep well my friend.

[Lightknight]

I hope it is acceptable for me to counter what you're saying. I mean, I know this is supposed to be just a "Restricted participation discussion " But you have been misinformed by that author. He has an interesting theory, but a theory only requires one experiement to disprove. Likewise, it only takes one verse to show him wrong.

Originally Posted by mlqurgw

Ordinary Christians and gifts. Every recorded instance of men receiving these gifts were under the direct ministry of an Apostle.

First off, the day of Pentecost was directly from God. Not the Apostles.

Now, the letters that Paul wrote to certain churches defining the gifts and how to use them were because the people there had no direction from an "Apostle". They were doing things in quite odd manners. You forget that so many chruches were practicing the gifts. They were certainly not under the direct ministry of Apostles.

The difficulty in finding places where someone recieves gifts of the Spirit from someone other than the apostles is because they are the ones who the NT is centered around. However, it isn't that hard to find. Just look at context and for verses.

1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

See, the Apostles were the first ones to receive the gift. So they prayed over others to receive the gift. The Bible doesn't tend to stay on those groups and show them also laying hands on others for the gift. But fortunately the above is a prime example of such.

This brings me to the conclusion that no true servent of Christ will be given power to work miracles unless he is directly associated with bring fresh revelation from God. They are given as signs of God to show He sent the ones performing miracles and we should expect to hear from God when they are done. There are no more Apostles as there are no more that saw and heard directly from Christ as did those who gave us the Scriptures. Also to believe that men today receive a fresh revelation from God is to say the Scriptures are not sufficient.

But the fallacy in this thinking is that we did not have the scriptures until several centuries after the apostles and people who they laid hands on had died. I mean, divine revelation was necessary. So again that isn't feasible to say.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by mlqurgw

I am not sure when they started going looney but I think it may have been around 300ad when Constantine made it the state religion.

I attribute it to the Church becoming the authority figure in the huge power gap produced by the fall of the Roman empire. The power corrupted them.

While I do believe the creeds help explain what was believed during the early church I do not hold to creeds. They tend to replace the Bible in too many peoples minds.

I am saying that you and I both agree with the views described in them. I assume anyways.

Totally by God's grace. I would say Sovereign Grace. Grace and works are diametrically opposed.

Grace is grace. To call grace sovereign is really redundant as you cannot have grace on someone if you are not in the sovereign position of authority to punish them. I call it the work of grace because Jesus' life was just that, a work of grace that led to our salvation.

I am apalled that you would think Mary broke wind. I would say she passed gas but only in a ladylike manner. Of course she sinned and was as much in need of a Savior as the rest of us. Certainly she was blessed but she was just a women like all the rest.

nuh uh!!! She broke wind!!! But indeed in a ladylike manner.

I never understood a single word he said but he always had some mighty fine wine.

He was a friend of mine.

[mlqurgw]

I hope it is acceptable for me to counter what you're saying. I mean, I know this is supposed to be just a "Restricted participation discussion "

I kind of thought you might because you couldn't resist.

But you have been misinformed by that author

Acctually I don't think I was. I didn't just take him at his word. I did check and I did do my own research. He did help shape my views but he didn't give me my views.

I will take what you say into account and let it rest for the time being. I really didn't want to debate this with you.

[mlqurgw]

What do you believe concerning justification and sanctification?