Is anyone else a seer?

CharismaticLady

CharismaticLady

Well-known member
There were seers in the Old Testament called prophets, but the word "seer" is not used in the New Testament for prophets. I just heard about this about 5 months ago at church. They said they have three seers in the church. I asked them about it during Sunday School and they said they could all see the glory around our pastor when he is giving the sermon. So I prayed and asked God if this gift is from him I would like it also. I saw nothing around him during his morning prayer, but as soon as he began his sermons a white glow emanated from around his head and shoulders. I had never seen that before. I believe it has to do with testing the spirits and discerning of spirits.

Does anyone else have this gift? Tell me what you've experienced. I did visit a church with a missionary friend of mine, and when the pastor started the sermon a black billowing cloud about 10 inches was coming out of him. I looked around the church and I don't see anything around anyone else, or even the pastor until he starts preaching.
 
I would guess that Pentecostal type churches are quite dangerous places to attend then. You never know whether you'll be confronted by a demon or by a saint until you see the cloud? Such has been my experience. The lack of effective governance means that persons of questionable motives and theology can become pasters. Judgementalism is so much in evidence.
 
cjab said:
I would guess that Pentecostal type churches are quite dangerous places to attend then. You never know whether you'll be confronted by a demon or by a saint until you see the cloud? Such has been my experience. The lack of effective governance means that persons of questionable motives and theology can become pasters. Judgementalism is so much in evidence.
Click to expand...

One thing about being filled with the Holy Spirit and receiving gifts, no other denomination type of church besides Pentecostal or Charismatic allows the Spirit to have the freedom needed to manifest. So I wouldn't want to be anywhere else, especially in a cessationist denomination where Ithe Spirit is quenched. I am just learning about this sight and so far it only manifests about the sermon, not the person.
 
cjab said:
I would guess that Pentecostal type churches are quite dangerous places to attend then. You never know whether you'll be confronted by a demon or by a saint until you see the cloud? Such has been my experience. The lack of effective governance means that persons of questionable motives and theology can become pasters. Judgementalism is so much in evidence.
Click to expand...
I have seen more dangerous, false doctrine in Baptist churches. If you are baptized in the Holy Spirit and walk by the Spirit, the false is easily discerned. Not to mention, we are to weigh all things by Scripture. If it does not line up with Scripture, you are to disregard, walk away, or confront it. You are not to receive it.
 
Mikey1967 said:
I have seen more dangerous, false doctrine in Baptist churches. If you are baptized in the Holy Spirit and walk by the Spirit, the false is easily discerned. Not to mention, we are to weigh all things by Scripture. If it does not line up with Scripture, you are to disregard, walk away, or confront it. You are not to receive it.
Click to expand...
My observation of Paul's injunction for women to remain silent means that most pentecostal churches are out of bounds for me.
 
cjab said:
My observation of Paul's injunction for women to remain silent means that most pentecostal churches are out of bounds for me.
Click to expand...
Not so. That writing was in response to order in the church that had a specific situation. It was about disrupting the teaching rather than trying to keep the women silent. Where Pentecostals often error is with women pastors. That is not allowed per the Scriptures. They can function as Evangelist, prophets, teachers, and pastor over women. But cannot have authority over men. A pastor over a group or church assembly carries authority over all the people there. If a woman became a pastor, she would have authority over men.
 
Mikey1967 said:
Not so. That writing was in response to order in the church that had a specific situation. It was about disrupting the teaching rather than trying to keep the women silent. Where Pentecostals often error is with women pastors. That is not allowed per the Scriptures. They can function as Evangelist, prophets, teachers, and pastor over women. But cannot have authority over men. A pastor over a group or church assembly carries authority over all the people there. If a woman became a pastor, she would have authority over men.
Click to expand...
Not so. The injunction on women is to remain silent. The specific situation is women in authority over men. It is the context that is important. Paul's teaching is restricted to the Ecclesia, the “gathering of those summoned" i.e. a general meeting. It was inappropriate for women to speak in such meetings. They were permitted to speak in other gatherings but not the full meeting of the church, because it was right they should be in submission.
 
cjab said:
Not so. The injunction on women is to remain silent. The specific situation is women in authority over men. It is the context that is important. Paul's teaching is restricted to the Ecclesia, the “gathering of those summoned" i.e. a general meeting. It was inappropriate for women to speak in such meetings. They were permitted to speak in other gatherings but not the full meeting of the church, because it was right they should be in submission.
Click to expand...
No, sir, it is not. It is not about authority but about order. I don't disagree with you about authority over men. I addressed that above. But in this case, that is not it.
 
Mikey1967 said:
No, sir, it is not. It is not about authority but about order. I don't disagree with you about authority over men. I addressed that above. But in this case, that is not it.
Click to expand...
It is exactly about authority: " They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says" (Gen 3:16)

Barnes

"Let your women keep silence ... - This rule is positive, explicit, and universal. There is no ambiguity in the expressions; and there can be no difference of opinion, one would suppose, in regard to their meaning. The sense evidently is, that in all those things which he had specified, the women were to keep silence; they were to take no part. He had discoursed of speaking foreign languages, and of prophecy; and the evident sense is, that in regard to all these they were to keep silence, or were not to engage in them. These pertained solely to the male portion of the congregation. These things constituted the business of the public teaching; and in this the female part of the congregation were to be silent. "They were not to teach the people, nor were they to interrupt those who were speaking" - Rosenmuller. It is probable that, on pretence of being inspired, the women had assumed the office of public teachers."

Alford

"Their speaking in public would be of itself an act of independence; of teaching the assembly, and among others their own husbands."
 
cjab said:
It is exactly about authority: " They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says" (Gen 3:16)

Barnes

"Let your women keep silence ... - This rule is positive, explicit, and universal. There is no ambiguity in the expressions; and there can be no difference of opinion, one would suppose, in regard to their meaning. The sense evidently is, that in all those things which he had specified, the women were to keep silence; they were to take no part. He had discoursed of speaking foreign languages, and of prophecy; and the evident sense is, that in regard to all these they were to keep silence, or were not to engage in them. These pertained solely to the male portion of the congregation. These things constituted the business of the public teaching; and in this the female part of the congregation were to be silent. "They were not to teach the people, nor were they to interrupt those who were speaking" - Rosenmuller. It is probable that, on pretence of being inspired, the women had assumed the office of public teachers."

Alford

"Their speaking in public would be of itself an act of independence; of teaching the assembly, and among others their own husbands."
Click to expand...
It appears that we are both correct. It is not a blanket statement for the wife to be quiet in church. But in this instance, it is about authority.

1 Corinthians 14:34
13 The word for “woman” and “wife” is the same in Greek. Because of the reference to husbands in v. 35, the word may be translated “wives” here. But in passages governing conduct in church meetings like this (cf. 11:2-16; 1 Tim 2:9-15) the general meaning “women” is more likely.
14 For they are not permitted to speak. In light of 11:2-16, which gives permission for women to pray or prophesy in the church meetings, the silence commanded here seems not to involve the absolute prohibition of a woman addressing the assembly. Therefore (1) some take be silent to mean not taking an authoritative teaching role as 1 Tim 2 indicates, but (2) the better suggestion is to relate it to the preceding regulations about evaluating the prophets (v. 29). Here Paul would be indicating that the women should not speak up during such an evaluation, since such questioning would be in violation of the submission to male leadership that the OT calls for (the law, e.g., Gen 2:18).
 
Mikey1967 said:
It appears that we are both correct. It is not a blanket statement for the wife to be quiet in church. But in this instance, it is about authority.

1 Corinthians 14:34
13 The word for “woman” and “wife” is the same in Greek. Because of the reference to husbands in v. 35, the word may be translated “wives” here. But in passages governing conduct in church meetings like this (cf. 11:2-16; 1 Tim 2:9-15) the general meaning “women” is more likely.
14 For they are not permitted to speak. In light of 11:2-16, which gives permission for women to pray or prophesy in the church meetings, the silence commanded here seems not to involve the absolute prohibition of a woman addressing the assembly. Therefore (1) some take be silent to mean not taking an authoritative teaching role as 1 Tim 2 indicates, but (2) the better suggestion is to relate it to the preceding regulations about evaluating the prophets (v. 29). Here Paul would be indicating that the women should not speak up during such an evaluation, since such questioning would be in violation of the submission to male leadership that the OT calls for (the law, e.g., Gen 2:18).
Click to expand...
I don't know what commentary you are quoting from, but it seems that you are using mostly modern American stuff. We all know the incessant pro-feminist propaganda that comes from US theologians of today. Try reading commentaries from the 19th century and you get a different POV.

It does entail an absolute prohibition on a woman addressing the assembly, at least from nearly every reputable commentator excluding the Methodists, perhaps, who went in for that kind of thing, but look at the Methodists now. Who is John Wesley to lecture anyone on M-F relations?
 
cjab said:
I don't know what commentary you are quoting from, but it seems that you are using mostly modern American stuff. We all know the incessant pro-feminist propaganda that comes from US theologians of today. Try reading commentaries from the 19th century and you get a different POV.

It does entail an absolute prohibition on a woman addressing the assembly, at least from nearly every reputable commentator excluding the Methodists, perhaps, who went in for that kind of thing, but look at the Methodists now. Who is John Wesley to lecture anyone on M-F relations?
Click to expand...
I don't agree. There were prophetesses and teachers who would have been able to "speak." I believe what I gave was in harmony with the rest of Scripture.
 
Mikey1967 said:
I don't agree. There were prophetesses and teachers who would have been able to "speak." I believe what I gave was in harmony with the rest of Scripture.
Click to expand...
I'm not on your wavelength. You just want to ignore the teaching, because, fundamentally you can't tolerate it. Estius puts it well: “Sibi suaeque ignorantiae relinquendos esse censeo.” cf 1 Cor 14:38.
 
cjab said:
I'm not on your wavelength. You just want to ignore the teaching, because, fundamentally you can't tolerate it. Estius puts it well: “Sibi suaeque ignorantiae relinquendos esse censeo.” cf 1 Cor 14:38.
Click to expand...
I can tolerate it just fine as long as it is truth. This isn't. Let's not resort to ad hominem attacks. What you interpret must be in harmony with the reminder of Scripture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top