Is the Word of Faith movement biblical?

tbeachhead

New member
As soon as you have an envelope, you have a fence. A church given to maintaining its chain link fence, whatever the ilk, is not ready for the coming attractions. Any church that teaches you to believe God, and obey His commandments is a Word/Faith church...founded and grounded on His Word alone, and free from another's personality.
 

Thistle

Active member
As soon as you have an envelope, you have a fence.
I don't know what that means.
A church given to maintaining its chain link fence, whatever the ilk, is not ready for the coming attractions.
I don't know what that means either.
Any church that teaches you to believe God, and obey His commandments is a Word/Faith church...
If I understand what that means then I disagree.
founded and grounded on His Word alone, and free from another's personality.
There seems to be some example or predicate behind this comment and I don't know what it is.
 

tbeachhead

New member
I don't know what that means.
It's not that cryptic. The church is shriveled in its destructive sectarianism. Let me explain. In the Church, there is a we...One church. When there enters a "they", "They" are not in our church...As soon as you measure those folks who attend Church in a building across the way as a "them," you've built a dangerous wall. Hope you understand. I don't get to know you by knowing where we differ and where you get it wrong. I get to know you by standing in the gap with you, and working with you to meet needs.

Does that help?
I don't know what that means either.
Churches that capitalize on their individual distinctives, and seek to remain distinct do not understand how bodies function.

If I understand what that means then I disagree.
What is there to not understand? A word of faith church seeks to take God at His word. A church's attitude toward the Word of God is the measure of that church's strength and of its need...as you seek a gap to stand in. It's not about the label...it's about the function of the Word, from which comes the hearing of faith, according to Paul.

There seems to be some example or predicate behind this comment and I don't know what it is.
The Word of Faith movement, and the theology on which it is grounded, is often mistaken because some names and personalities who, by their own weakness and fatuous error, have sought to capitalize on the theology by proclaiming that godliness is gain. Paul warned of these, and yet the church has too often been taught to reject the doctrine because of the charlatans who profit from it.

Hope this helps. Nice to meet you. Thanks for asking.
 
Last edited:

Thistle

Active member
It's not that cryptic. The church is shriveled in its destructive sectarianism. Let me explain. In the Church, there is a we...One church. When there enters a "they", "They" are not in our church...As soon as you measure those folks who attend Church in a building across the way as a "them," you've built a dangerous wall. Hope you understand. I don't get to know you by knowing where we differ and where you get it wrong. I get to know you by standing in the gap with you, and working with you to meet needs.

Does that help?
Kind of. I very intentionally attend a nondenominational church. We are not the only Christians, we are Christians only.
Churches that capitalize on their individual distinctives, and seek to remain distinct do not understand how bodies function.
I agree with the idea that Christianity should not be sectarian. But when you put Christianity into practice there has to be some agreement about doctrine. Questions assert themselves. Are there essential doctrines? If so, what are they? The relative importance of the things Christians disagree about, is one of the main points of disagreement. So even though I seek to be nonsectarian, I have to acknowledge it's easier said than done.
What is there to not understand? A word of faith church seeks to take God at His word.
The vast majority of Christian denominations will make this identical claim.
A church's attitude toward the Word of God is the measure of that church's strength and of its need
Are you talking about the bible or the second Person of the Godhead?
...as you seek a gap to stand in.
Does this mean performing acts of service, mercy, charity, and redemption?
It's not about the label...
Having names to call things makes drawing distinctions possible.
it's about the function of the Word, from which comes the hearing of faith, according to Paul.
Do you have a passage of scripture in mind that inspires this comment?
The Word of Faith movement, and the theology on which it is grounded, is often mistaken because some names and personalities who, by their own weakness and fatuous error, have sought to capitalize on the theology by proclaiming that godliness is gain.
Question: Do you believe there is a faith force that operates independent of God's will?
Paul warned of these, and yet the church has too often been taught to reject the doctrine because of the charlatans who profit from it.
Okay, no disagreement there.
Hope this helps. Nice to meet you. Thanks for asking.
Very pleased to make your acquaintance too. God bless.
 

tbeachhead

New member
Kind of. I very intentionally attend a nondenominational church. We are not the only Christians, we are Christians only.

I agree with the idea that Christianity should not be sectarian. But when you put Christianity into practice there has to be some agreement about doctrine. Questions assert themselves. Are there essential doctrines? If so, what are they? The relative importance of the things Christians disagree about, is one of the main points of disagreement. So even though I seek to be nonsectarian, I have to acknowledge it's easier said than done.

The vast majority of Christian denominations will make this identical claim.

Are you talking about the bible or the second Person of the Godhead?

Does this mean performing acts of service, mercy, charity, and redemption?

Having names to call things makes drawing distinctions possible.

Do you have a passage of scripture in mind that inspires this comment?

Question: Do you believe there is a faith force that operates independent of God's will?

Okay, no disagreement there.

Very pleased to make your acquaintance too. God bless.
Thank you for your thoughtful response...It's almost like the forum has returned. If you don't mind, I'll be able to enjoy answering more perfectly tomorrow...You are clearly thoughtful and thought provoking. Thanks.

Pete
 

Thistle

Active member
Thank you for your thoughtful response...It's almost like the forum has returned. If you don't mind, I'll be able to enjoy answering more perfectly tomorrow...You are clearly thoughtful and thought provoking. Thanks.

Pete
That's great have a good evening.
 

tbeachhead

New member
Kind of. I very intentionally attend a nondenominational church. We are not the only Christians, we are Christians only.
This is a good description...You can think about it and develop a book in response.

I agree with the idea that Christianity should not be sectarian. But when you put Christianity into practice there has to be some agreement about doctrine. Questions assert themselves. Are there essential doctrines?
If by "essential doctrine" you mean "truth", yes. The truth is essential, and this is comforting: truth is indelible. We don't damage it when we get it wrong or skirt it with our own interpretations, which happens all the time. (I worked with a cessationist College Professor, one of the most spiritual men I ever met, who fully believed and taught that the gifts of the Holy Spirit were not for today, and yet, in every conversation, he read my mail, and inserted insight that only the Holy Spirit could have given him.) We have this hope. The Truth of the Word keeps you in contact and relationship with the Word, so He becomes alive and active in you whether you recognize Him or not. Watch Apollos at the end of Chapter 18 in Acts. He had everything right concerning Jesus Christ, but he'd never heard the word of Truth concerning the baptism of Jesus in the Holy Spirit. He was not only teachable, hence ready to grow, when he was approached by Priscilla and Aquila to correct him, he was open to move to a church where the Holy Spirit was actively working, in Corinth, and so off he went to "water" what Paul had sown, while observing first-hand the impact of a church fully baptized in the Spirit.

So...Apollos had some essential doctrine, and some he had yet to learn. Does that make sense? We are privileged to see through Paul's writings to Corinth what Apollos' impact was in Corinth. He did not do damage...but he raised essential issues that eventually had to be dealt with in a letter. The "sectarianism" that got stirred up in Corinth was due to preferences...some liked Apollos better as a teacher. That happens and presents no danger.
If so, what are they? The relative importance of the things Christians disagree about, is one of the main points of disagreement. So even though I seek to be nonsectarian, I have to acknowledge it's easier said than done.
Now to answer your question, which is a good one. I did two years of short terms missions with Operation Mobilization. I led more than twenty teams with as many churches over those two years, some for days, some weeks...and two for a school year. Our job was to fill the gap and assist the churches in outreach. There were two evangelical churches in the entire city of Belfort on the eastern province of Franche Comte in France. One was Action Biblique, a staunchly anti-charismatic, fundamentalist denomination and the other was an Assembly of God. I was assigned to the former, not even knowing of the existence of the latter until we ran into them on the streets during an outreach. They were advertising a "revival" for the following Wednesday, and I got in big trouble...because I took the youth of our church to that revival. The pastor, who had given me the pulpit the previous Sunday, was aghast to discover that I was Charismatic...No word I spoke that previous Sunday had put him on his guard, yet our differences were irreconcilable. We were reassigned the following week to another church away from the city. The point is...what is essential is the commandment...never the doctrine. We are to love one another with a love by which Jesus is known, and there is no handbook for that love: only an example as to the length to which we are to go for that love...

So...to me...if you agree that the Word of God is true, and I'll answer that question shortly, I see no alternative to the mandate to serve you...and if I see a gap in your doctrine as I understand it...it will be an opportunity to serve more completely until we can have conversations as siblings do.

The vast majority of Christian denominations will make this identical claim.
Of course they do...and my goal is always to prove that they are right. If there's a gap, that's where I stand and say, "What gap?" I think what I'm actually saying is, there IS essential truth...but there is a commandment that is very clear indeed, and even more essential...in fact the only "new" commandment that the church has rarely obeyed, the commandment to which obedience carries the promise that all men will know that we are his disciples.

Are you talking about the bible or the second Person of the Godhead?
Of course. ;) The word on the shelf is not the word. The living word, that is quick, active and sharp, is from the Bible to the heart...You're really asking me if I'm talking about the seed or the planting. The seed is always the first step in the life of the planting.

Does this mean performing acts of service, mercy, charity, and redemption?
It means "See a need. Meet the need." My favorite story is when Francis Frangipane was greeted by a new member, "Oh Pastor. I'm so glad to be here and not in my other church. I mean, your nursery is so neat and clean. I'm so happy leaving my children there. Why...where I was going, I'd be dropping off my kids, and the raisin that was squashed in the rug last week was still there one week later! It was disgusting." Francis turned to her and said, "You came here because of raisins in the carpet? You cannot come to this church. If you want to be a member here, you have to go back to where you were, and volunteer to clean the nursery for ten weeks. If you still want to come here after ten weeks, you'll be welcome." That's what I mean.

Having names to call things makes drawing distinctions possible.
True...and that I see as a problem. If we're supposed to be conformable to His image and His alone, labels are at best temporary...and only signify a possible need I can help with.

Do you have a passage of scripture in mind that inspires this comment?
Of course, and I'm sure you do too. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God...How are they to believe what they have not heard? And how are they to hear if it has not been preached..." That's actually the primary basis of the Word of faith that you say (and I agree) any church can and should claim: Abraham believed God and it was counted...

Question: Do you believe there is a faith force that operates independent of God's will?
That question doesn't make any sense to me. Are you asking me if I believe faith carries with it power? Faith speaks...that's what Jesus said...that's how the world was formed by the word. That's how Mary became pregnant...Faith draws from the hope of the promise and makes it substantial. That's what we learn from Hebrews. Is that what you mean?

Or are you saying faith can be operated in disobedience, greed or rebellion? I can be controversial here...and say faith can make mountains move, and we are responsible for everything we do. ("Did we not do miracles in your name?" "Away from me, you workers of lawlessness...I never knew you." If we have faith to move mountains and have not love...it's not saving faith. But the mountains still moved.)

Okay, no disagreement there.
I'm glad about that.
Very pleased to make your acquaintance too. God bless.
Mutual. Thanks for your patience. I'm sure I've raised questions. I'm often told I'm too cryptic. And my goal is clarity....sigh. Look forward to your response.
 

Thistle

Active member
This is a good description...You can think about it and develop a book in response.
Not sure what you mean.
If by "essential doctrine" you mean "truth", yes.
No reason to be shy about the word doctrine.
The truth is essential, and this is comforting: truth is indelible. We don't damage it when we get it wrong or skirt it with our own interpretations, which happens all the time.
If by "our own" you mean proprietary that is pretty dangerous. If you have a new insight that's not emerged in 2000 years, that's a probable red flag.
(I worked with a cessationist College Professor, one of the most spiritual men I ever met, who fully believed and taught that the gifts of the Holy Spirit were not for today, and yet, in every conversation, he read my mail, and inserted insight that only the Holy Spirit could have given him.)
Being a cessationist myself, I'm sure he believed in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Believing the miraculous gives are in cessation is not the same as believing the non-miraculous gives are in cessation.
We have this hope. The Truth of the Word keeps you in contact and relationship with the Word, so He becomes alive and active in you whether you recognize Him or not.
Are you using Word in two different senses here?
Watch Apollos at the end of Chapter 18 in Acts. He had everything right concerning Jesus Christ, but he'd never heard the word of Truth concerning the baptism of Jesus in the Holy Spirit.
He didn't have the gift of the Holy Spirit.
He was not only teachable, hence ready to grow, when he was approached by Priscilla and Aquila to correct him, he was open to move to a church where the Holy Spirit was actively working, in Corinth, and so off he went to "water" what Paul had sown, while observing first-hand the impact of a church fully baptized in the Spirit.
To have Christian Baptism is to be Spirit Baptized [see 1 Corinthians 12:13, John 3:5, Titus 3:5, Colossians 2:12, etc, etc, etc], because there is only one Christian Baptism [Ephesians 4:5].
So...Apollos had some essential doctrine, and some he had yet to learn. Does that make sense?
If it didn't make sense Luke wouldn't have written it.
We are privileged to see through Paul's writings to Corinth what Apollos' impact was in Corinth. He did not do damage...but he raised essential issues that eventually had to be dealt with in a letter. The "sectarianism" that got stirred up in Corinth was due to preferences...some liked Apollos better as a teacher. That happens and presents no danger.
If it presented no danger why would Paul speak out against sectarianism?
Now to answer your question, which is a good one. I did two years of short terms missions with Operation Mobilization. I led more than twenty teams with as many churches over those two years, some for days, some weeks...and two for a school year. Our job was to fill the gap and assist the churches in outreach.
Very good, that's helpful.
There were two evangelical churches in the entire city of Belfort on the eastern province of Franche Comte in France. One was Action Biblique, a staunchly anti-charismatic, fundamentalist denomination and the other was an Assembly of God. I was assigned to the former, not even knowing of the existence of the latter until we ran into them on the streets during an outreach. They were advertising a "revival" for the following Wednesday, and I got in big trouble...because I took the youth of our church to that revival. The pastor, who had given me the pulpit the previous Sunday, was aghast to discover that I was Charismatic...No word I spoke that previous Sunday had put him on his guard, yet our differences were irreconcilable.
Did you feel that expressing yourself in a devotional language was a necessary element of worship, in that context?
We were reassigned the following week to another church away from the city. The point is...what is essential is the commandment...never the doctrine. We are to love one another with a love by which Jesus is known, and there is no handbook for that love: only an example as to the length to which we are to go for that love...
Well I wouldn't break fellowship over a belief in the continuation of the miraculous spiritual gifts, to the extent it didn't impinge on worship in a cessationist congregation, but I have seen charismatic brothers feel that worshiping in a devotional language was a high enough priority to go elsewhere.
So...to me...if you agree that the Word of God is true, and I'll answer that question shortly, I see no alternative to the mandate to serve you...and if I see a gap in your doctrine as I understand it...it will be an opportunity to serve more completely until we can have conversations as siblings do.
Okay
Of course they do...and my goal is always to prove that they are right. If there's a gap, that's where I stand and say, "What gap?" I think what I'm actually saying is, there IS essential truth...but there is a commandment that is very clear indeed, and even more essential...in fact the only "new" commandment that the church has rarely obeyed, the commandment to which obedience carries the promise that all men will know that we are his disciples.
Admirable sentiment, never the less Paul felt compelled to write Galatians. Obviously written in love, but toward the correction of doctrine.
Of course. ;) The word on the shelf is not the word. The living word, that is quick, active and sharp, is from the Bible to the heart...You're really asking me if I'm talking about the seed or the planting. The seed is always the first step in the life of the planting.
I'm saying that the "Word" is used to mean the second Person of the Godhead, and it is also used to refer to the bible. I'm not predisposed to believe that, that is the same thing.
It means "See a need. Meet the need."
Outstanding.
My favorite story is when Francis Frangipane was greeted by a new member, "Oh Pastor. I'm so glad to be here and not in my other church. I mean, your nursery is so neat and clean. I'm so happy leaving my children there. Why...where I was going, I'd be dropping off my kids, and the raisin that was squashed in the rug last week was still there one week later! It was disgusting." Francis turned to her and said, "You came here because of raisins in the carpet? You cannot come to this church. If you want to be a member here, you have to go back to where you were, and volunteer to clean the nursery for ten weeks. If you still want to come here after ten weeks, you'll be welcome." That's what I mean.
I see the Christian virtue in not complaining and being of service.
 

Thistle

Active member
True...and that I see as a problem. If we're supposed to be conformable to His image and His alone, labels are at best temporary...and only signify a possible need I can help with.
Never the less, Paul wrote "there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized." Carnality does creep in, and there must be a mechanism to deal with that.
Of course, and I'm sure you do too. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God...How are they to believe what they have not heard? And how are they to hear if it has not been preached..."
That helps. I wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying.
That's actually the primary basis of the Word of faith that you say (and I agree) any church can and should claim: Abraham believed God and it was counted...

That question doesn't make any sense to me. Are you asking me if I believe faith carries with it power? Faith speaks...that's what Jesus said...that's how the world was formed by the word. That's how Mary became pregnant...Faith draws from the hope of the promise and makes it substantial. That's what we learn from Hebrews. Is that what you mean?
Did you watch the video? In the video the Word of Faith movement is described as believing that the "faith force that operates independent of God's will."
Or are you saying faith can be operated in disobedience, greed or rebellion? I can be controversial here...and say faith can make mountains move, and we are responsible for everything we do. ("Did we not do miracles in your name?" "Away from me, you workers of lawlessness...I never knew you." If we have faith to move mountains and have not love...it's not saving faith. But the mountains still moved.)
You don't think Paul used any hyperbole there in chapter 13?
I'm glad about that.

Mutual. Thanks for your patience. I'm sure I've raised questions. I'm often told I'm too cryptic. And my goal is clarity....sigh. Look forward to your response.
Yes, feel free to lather on the clarity when ever you're so moved. God bless.
 

Bob Carabbio

Active member

Is the Word of Faith movement biblical?​

IN GENERAL - NO "Movement" in the Visible Churches is "Completely Biblical". They're ALL subject to HUMAN THEOLOGICAL DEGENERATION, and Denominational contamination.

Word of FAITH, however, is COMPLETELY BIBLICAL. You see an exercise of it in action everytime a person is Born Again by FAITH (Eph 2:8,9).

Dad Hagan had three FOUNDATIONAL cites, that cover it nicely.
What is FAITH? - Heb 11:1
From Where does Faith come? - Rom 10:17
How does one "Apply" faith? - Mark 11:22-24

IF one studies and UNDERSTANDS the EXACT TERMINOLOGY in all three Cites, you can't go far wrong.
 

tbeachhead

New member
Not sure what you mean.
This is harder than it needs to be...you said "We are not the only Christians. We are Christians only..." and I acknowledged that that statement is not only a good one, it's profound, and worth a post...or a book. It's a praiseworthy statement.

No reason to be shy about the word doctrine. If by "our own" you mean proprietary that is pretty dangerous. If you have a new insight that's not emerged in 2000 years, that's a probable red flag.
Now I'm confused...You're interpreting what I said as "shyness" toward doctrine? You asked about "essential doctrine..." The only doctrine that is essential is truth...I'm not shy about the truth. I'm interested in what you're calling "essential doctrine." Simple as that. There is no such thing as "our own" truth...Error is owned. Truth is shared and taught. Never owned...unless it's hidden by God. As it is written, "That which is revealed belongs to man. That which is hidden belongs to God." Both truth and error have their source. We'll get into that.

Being a cessationist myself, I'm sure he believed in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Believing the miraculous gives are in cessation is not the same as believing the non-miraculous gives are in cessation.
I'm glad you're honest...That helps me understand your comments better. I've never figured out, If God is directly involved, what is not miraculous? If Peter said, "If [your gift] is to speak, let every word be as an oracle of God..."what do you tell him? No? Or do you claim that is impossible? When I was arrested in North Africa, the first word that came to me was what Jesus said, "“Now when they bring you to the synagogues and magistrates and authorities, do not worry about how or what you should answer, or what you should say. 1For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.” Are you claiming that that is not for today? Or that the Holy Spirit will teach you words that are not supernaturally inspired? Or that this is where cessation ceases to cease...Because when I was in interrogation...for three days...I was first brought before the police lieutenant, who then wanted his captain to hear...who then insisted that I be taken to the Police commissioner, who wondered what prayer could do for his family, and why I had really come to his town. I had three days of supernaturally directed conversation, replete with words of knowledge....I knew things about the officers' families that I had no way of knowing, but that came out merely as innocent speech, suddenly occurring to me...that became revelatory to them. Do you think I should have stopped speaking so as not to break the cessationist law? I'm not being sarcastic...I'm actually saying my experience is worth more than a claim that has none. Jesus absolutely prepared us for the day of our arrest, and promised us we would be persecuted and brought before rulers and magistrates. And please note...this is not John MacArthur's sad, myopic "doctrine drawn from experience." This is merely a testimony of the fulfillment of the Promise according to the Word that we teach.

Are you using Word in two different senses here?
Was I not being clear? The Word is used in two different senses...He is the Word that I preach. And, to add to the mix, there are two different NT words for the Word, which we often confuse.

He didn't have the gift of the Holy Spirit.
That's not what I said, and you won't understand the point if you fall back on your cessationist doctrine. You might have difficulty admitting that the gift of the Holy Spirit is by nature supernatural, and you have therefore artificially limited the experience to natural experiences with natural outcomes since the day the last letter was penned by John. I said nothing about the Gift of God...I said everything about the baptism of Jesus...of which John the baptizer spoke, a second baptism, to which Luke testifies throughout his works, and which he completely distinguishes from the baptism of John, which is the baptism of water. The baptism of Jesus was manifested on the day of Pentecost, and then promised to "...all who are afar off...all who come to believe." We then see that same exact baptism manifested four distinct times in Acts, and implied with Paul's baptism by Ananias. Apollos knew nothing of that baptism until Priscilla and Aquila taught him, because he had only known the scripture concerning Jesus. Luke is very clear...Being a cessationist, you will never have been taught to look at Apollos, because you've been taught that the disciples Paul encounters in Acts 19 who were never baptized in the baptism of Jesus knowing only the baptism of John, were actually disciples of John. That erroneous doctrine is belied by the simple fact that Luke never refers to disciples of John as "disciples." The disciples Paul encountered in Ephesus had been planted by Apollos in the end of chapter 18, before he had met Priscilla and Aquila, and before he was sent off to Corinth to learn from a Charismatic church, and Paul watered them...and they immediately spoke in tongues as on the first manifestation of the baptism of Jesus at Pentecost. (You rightly say, "How can this be." And I say..."Faith comes by hearing. Hearing by the word of God. How can they believe who have never heard...and how can they hear when their teacher has never heard? It's a principle. The baptism of Jesus is a baptism that comes by faith...It' happens when you believe God. It will never happen if you've been taught that it will never happen, and you've put your faith in that false teaching. I fear for those teachers of doctrine who make claims from ignorance concerning the baptism of Jesus. Do you notice in Acts that twice, once in Samaria and once in Ephesus, the baptism of Jesus is subsequent to the baptism of John by days...even weeks?
 
Last edited:

tbeachhead

New member
Part II
To have Christian Baptism is to be Spirit Baptized [see 1 Corinthians 12:13, John 3:5, Titus 3:5, Colossians 2:12, etc, etc, etc], because there is only one Christian Baptism [Ephesians 4:5].
Um...actually...there are several. There is the baptism of John. There is the baptism of Jesus. There is the "...baptism by which I will be baptized..." of which Jesus spoke in his last days. And he spoke of this third baptism to those who had already been baptized with water as He had, and who were, in fifty short days, to be baptized with the Holy Spirit as He had been at the river with John...and there was a third baptism they were to face. If you can, you need to re-read your scripture without your filter. Luke makes a clear distinction between the two baptisms and mentions the third...but every one of the cessationist authors I've read ignores these distinctions. (For the record, in seminary I read Dale Bruner, Anthony Hoekema, John MacArthur, Merrill Unger...and another whose name escapes me. Since seminary, I was taught in France by Jules-Marcel Nicole at l'Institut Biblique de Nogent...one of the greatest professors I've ever had, and an otherwise staunch cessationist...who allowed, with me as a witness in his class, that there was room to learn. He had been teaching Calvinism there as the first step to studying theology for sixty years. I've re-read MacArthur, because his egregious error keeps coming back, I published a refutation of Hanegraaff before he became Orthodox, and I've read and written extensively on Chantry. I'm not obsessed, btw. In seminary, I wrote a systematic theology on tongues as part of an assignment. Since, I have had many cessationist friends who have asked me my opinion in light of these writings.) I add my credentials not to boast...but because I want you to know that, like you, I have studied to reach the conclusions I've reached.

If it didn't make sense Luke wouldn't have written it. If it presented no danger why would Paul speak out against sectarianism?
He spoke out against an artificial sectarianism...where the sower is distinguished from the husbandman who waters. He was speaking to the vine. I don't want to belabor this, because I believe we agree here.

Very good, that's helpful. Did you feel that expressing yourself in a devotional language was a necessary element of worship, in that context?
I was in an Action Biblique church. The mandate is to them, be as one of them. That was my intent, and the effort I made in the congregation. I had not been told that the one group of evangelicals had rejected fellowship with the other.

For the record, and off to the side, the gift I've had and practiced since 1970 is used and practiced according to Paul's clear doctrine...Let me put it this way...You're having difficulty with my cryptic English. I'd never give you the French translation, hoping you'd get it better...unless you speak French. I do not speak in tongues publicly, unless told to do so...and that has only happened once, when missionaries were being ordained and commissioned to Haiti, and I was given a word to speak to them in French...I knew it was French, but the congregation mistook it for another tongue. But, unbeknownst to me, it was a word that was directly given in confirmation to prayers that the couple had been praying, and they received that word with confidence.

I have never uttered a word in a congregation that I myself did not understand. And I pray daily in tongues as I'm free to pray. I have too often to be discounted been in congregations where a word in a tongue was uttered...and the interpretation was in response to questions I had asked, and understanding I was seeking...and always this drove me back to the scriptures for more. This is actually the root of my own training.
Well I wouldn't break fellowship over a belief in the continuation of the miraculous spiritual gifts, to the extent it didn't impinge on worship in a cessationist congregation, but I have seen charismatic brothers feel that worshiping in a devotional language was a high enough priority to go elsewhere.
There is room in the body for children...and sometimes children are in very old bodies...

Okay Admirable sentiment, never the less Paul felt compelled to write Galatians. Obviously written in love, but toward the correction of doctrine.
You're right about that...and Paul was also the one who had planted, and watered...we know of two visits to that neighborhood. He was their apostle. I'm not even a pastor or a teacher, I do not see my job as to correct you...but to supply the insights I've had for you to judge and respond to. I do not want to correct you here, but I enjoy the conversation.

I'm saying that the "Word" is used to mean the second Person of the Godhead, and it is also used to refer to the bible. I'm not predisposed to believe that, that is the same thing.
And I'm not going to try to convince you...but I will say this: The seed has everything in it that the plant will become...when the seed is given its share of soil, water, warmth and light. The Word has never been apart from the Scripture...and He is only alive in us that has been planted...God bless the soil in which He dwells.

Outstanding. I see the Christian virtue in not complaining and being of service.
We agree. Thank you for your patience. I have such limited time to respond lately...
 

tbeachhead

New member
Never the less, Paul wrote "there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized." Carnality does creep in, and there must be a mechanism to deal with that.
And that seems to be your wisdom here. I'm hoping that my responses may be weighed with yours...because this isn't factionalism...but two believers seeking to give air to the hope that is in them. You hold your own with equity and tact. The enemy would seek to divide...

That helps. I wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying. Did you watch the video? In the video the Word of Faith movement is described as believing that the "faith force that operates independent of God's will."
No...and forgive me. I've lived in the Word/Faith movement despite the extremes since 1982...I've seen the good, the bad and the ugly. Don't need a video from a critic. I'm critic enough.

Paul spoke to Timothy of those who looked for gain from godliness...But he also said that in godliness there is great gain. Believe God for a Cadillac...you might get the Cadillac...a friend of mine actually had one given to him. He went on to become a pastor in Maine. But Cadillac faith is not saving faith. Paul makes that clear.

You don't think Paul used any hyperbole there in chapter 13?
No reason to, unless you think that Jesus was speaking in hyperbole in Mark 11. I do not. Paul was saying that faith to do miracles is not saving faith. (controversy alert) I do believe that witchcraft is a process of faith as well...and they are dangerously far from any form of saving faith. The signs and wonders promised in the Revelation will not happen apart from someone's misplaced faith.
Yes, feel free to lather on the clarity when ever you're so moved. God bless.
Yeah...the problem is...if you abide in His Word, you end up thinking in parables. Sigh...

Thanks again.
 
Last edited:

Thistle

Active member
This is harder than it needs to be...you said "We are not the only Christians. We are Christians only..." and I acknowledged that that statement is not only a good one, it's profound, and worth a post...or a book. It's a praiseworthy statement.
Okay, sometimes I just don't understand what you mean.
Now I'm confused...You're interpreting what I said as "shyness" toward doctrine? You asked about "essential doctrine..." The only doctrine that is essential is truth...I'm not shy about the truth. I'm interested in what you're calling "essential doctrine." Simple as that.
If I understand what you've said I mean the same thing you mean when you say truth.
There is no such thing as "our own" truth
We agree.
...Error is owned. Truth is shared and taught. Never owned...unless it's hidden by God. As it is written, "That which is revealed belongs to man. That which is hidden belongs to God." Both truth and error have their source. We'll get into that.
Okay, I'm not quite sure what's at stake in this comment but go ahead.
I'm glad you're honest...
I'm assuming we both are.
That helps me understand your comments better. I've never figured out, If God is directly involved, what is not miraculous?
Miracles are those things that God accomplishes in his per-positive will that are not accomplished by either general providence or special providence.
If Peter said, "If [your gift] is to speak, let every word be as an oracle of God..."what do you tell him? No? Or do you claim that is impossible?
That can be accomplished by God by means of special providence.
When I was arrested in North Africa, the first word that came to me was what Jesus said, "“Now when they bring you to the synagogues and magistrates and authorities, do not worry about how or what you should answer, or what you should say. 1For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.” Are you claiming that that is not for today?
No.
Or that the Holy Spirit will teach you words that are not supernaturally inspired? Or that this is where cessation ceases to cease...Because when I was in interrogation...for three days...I was first brought before the police lieutenant, who then wanted his captain to hear...who then insisted that I be taken to the Police commissioner, who wondered what prayer could do for his family, and why I had really come to his town. I had three days of supernaturally directed conversation, replete with words of knowledge....I knew things about the officers' families that I had no way of knowing, but that came out merely as innocent speech, suddenly occurring to me...that became revelatory to them. Do you think I should have stopped speaking so as not to break the cessationist law? I'm not being sarcastic...I'm actually saying my experience is worth more than a claim that has none. Jesus absolutely prepared us for the day of our arrest, and promised us we would be persecuted and brought before rulers and magistrates. And please note...this is not John MacArthur's sad, myopic "doctrine drawn from experience." This is merely a testimony of the fulfillment of the Promise according to the Word that we teach.
Nothing in your story transgresses my understanding of cessationism.
Was I not being clear? The Word is used in two different senses...
. . . hence my request for clarification.
He is the Word that I preach. And, to add to the mix, there are two different NT words for the Word, which we often confuse.
Do I understand you to say you teach Jesus but not the bible? Not an accusation, it's just a question.
That's not what I said, and you won't understand the point if you fall back on your cessationist doctrine.
I have little choice but to understand the world through that which I believe to be true.
You might have difficulty admitting that the gift of the Holy Spirit is by nature supernatural,
No.
and you have therefore artificially limited the experience to natural experiences with natural outcomes since the day the last letter was penned by John.
I don't think that is fair either.
I said nothing about the Gift of God...I said everything about the baptism of Jesus...of which John the baptizer spoke, a second baptism, to which Luke testifies throughout his works, and which he completely distinguishes from the baptism of John, which is the baptism of water.
There is only one Christian baptism [Ephesians 4:5], and it's none other than Luke that tells us it's performed in water [Acts 8:36-39]. It's there in Acts 8 we see a detailed description of the temporal aspect of baptism, but the spiritual power is described in Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; John 3:3-5; Acts 2:38-39; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-4, 7; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:26-27; Ephesians 5:25-27; Colossians 2:11-13; Titus 3:5; and 1 Peter 3:21.
The baptism of Jesus was manifested on the day of Pentecost, and then promised to "...all who are afar off...all who come to believe."
Right verse 39 referring to verse 41. If that's what you mean I'm in total agreement.
We then see that same exact baptism manifested four distinct times in Acts,
Wait a minute. If we are talking about the same thing it has to be for "even as many as the Lord our God may call." There can be zero exceptions from that moment until the Lord returns.
and implied with Paul's baptism by Ananias.
Obviously, there can be no exceptions. That may be a slight overstatement, but I don't what to derail the conversation.
Apollos knew nothing of that baptism until Priscilla and Aquila taught him, because he had only known the scripture concerning Jesus. Luke is very clear...Being a cessationist, you will never have been taught to look at Apollos,
You don't think I'm capable of reading Acts 18 and 19 and seeing what the Holy Spirit inspired? There is inspired scripture, not interpretations.
because you've been taught that the disciples Paul encounters in Acts 19 who were never baptized in the baptism of Jesus knowing only the baptism of John, were actually disciples of John.
He was a disciple of Jesus in as much as he believe all the light about Jesus that he had. He simply didn't have all the available light.
That erroneous doctrine is belied by the simple fact that Luke never refers to disciples of John as "disciples."
I don't know that to be a fact, but I can tell you certainly that John does [John 3, 4].
 

Thistle

Active member
The disciples Paul encountered in Ephesus had been planted by Apollos in the end of chapter 18, before he had met Priscilla and Aquila, and before he was sent off to Corinth to learn from a Charismatic church, and Paul watered them...and they immediately spoke in tongues as on the first manifestation of the baptism of Jesus at Pentecost.
Paul administered Christian baptism, and in the process laid his hands on them administering spiritual gifts. Miraculous spiritual gifts were administered by the apostles laying on of hands [see Acts 8].
(You rightly say, "How can this be." And I say..."Faith comes by hearing. Hearing by the word of God. How can they believe who have never heard...and how can they hear when their teacher has never heard? It's a principle. The baptism of Jesus is a baptism that comes by faith...It' happens when you believe God. It will never happen if you've been taught that it will never happen, and you've put your faith in that false teaching.
The bible is right on this subject, and we are given a detailed example of Christian baptism in Acts 8:36-39, and the spiritual dimension that we cannot see is described in complete detail in Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; John 3:3-5; Acts 2:38-39; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:26-27; Ephesians 5:25-27; Colossians 2:11-13; Titus 3:5; and 1 Peter 3:21. Given there is only one baptism [Ephesians 4:5] it's Christian baptism.
I fear for those teachers of doctrine who make claims from ignorance concerning the baptism of Jesus.
What the bible teaches, the bible teaches; I don't know what to tell you.
Do you notice in Acts that twice, once in Samaria and once in Ephesus, the baptism of Jesus is subsequent to the baptism of John by days...even weeks?
You have a serious confusion here. " Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John." [John 4:1] So what did Jews think baptism consisted of? " Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized. John also was baptizing at Ae'non near Salim, because there was much water there." [John 3:22ff]. Baptism was a ceremony they performed in water. Not just John, but Jesus and his disciples. What we learn from Acts 18 and 19 is that Christians must receive Christian baptism not just John's baptism. Although they look identical, John's baptism does not grant the gift of the Holy Spirit.
 
Top