Okay, sometimes I just don't understand what you mean.
If I understand what you've said I mean the same thing you mean when you say truth.
We agree.
Okay, I'm not quite sure what's at stake in this comment but go ahead.
You own your error, and you teach it at your own risk.
Truth is truth...It's can be revealed, it can be rightly taught, and it can be discovered by your own desire and quest. It cannot be changed/altered/or reinterpreted without risk.
I'm assuming we both are.
Miracles are those things that God accomplishes in his per-positive will that are not accomplished by either general providence or special providence.
That can be accomplished by God by means of special providence.
OK...
This is new verbiage. In everything I've read, I haven't encountered someone who dismisses a prophecy that is clearly from God, because it is merely "by special providence." So...for you, the supernatural gifts are not supernatural, and are not the gifts Paul spoke of because they are merely "special providence?" Do you known what "charismata" means in the Greek? The root, charis, is grace...or...providence. The very definition of charismata is "special providence." If I'm reading your view rightly hear, the Charismatic church is not for today, because the church can only enjoy the gifts of special providence...and I'm fine with redefining the church that way.
Would you believe that I actually witnessed this in Ohio, coming into the church and being taught by God as He promised? Two "revivals" side by side in subsequent weeks. The first was a Pentecostal assembly, and the second was Nazarene. I went to both, and witnessed an amazing message...ONE amazing message to two churches by two preachers led by the Spirit to bring that message. So...the Pentecostal message was prophetic...and the Nazarene message was providential? Is that right? But you'd just say the Pentecostals were in error?
Ok...Good...
If I understood you, the Supernatural words of knowledge, and prophetic utterances I shared with the police officers who interrogated me were merely "providential"? Is that right?
And tell me again why your terminology is so important, when the end is the same, and the unlearned are hearing the Word of God in their own language, at the level that they've already been taught by a Holy Spirit who has been clearly active in their lives long before I arrived in Morocco?
Nothing in your story transgresses my understanding of cessationism.
Because this form of division and sectarianism is very important to maintain? I'm not sure I understand, when God is allowed to speak.
To the Charismatic/Pentecostal...when God makes an utterance, providential or charismatic, it's still His intent, His purpose based on His promise, and the baptism of His Spirit represented clearly in His Word. What could possibly be the problem?
. . . hence my request for clarification.
Do I understand you to say you teach Jesus but not the bible? Not an accusation, it's just a question.
I don't know? Do you? I don't know how you could, given what I said....Jesus is not Jesus apart from the Word, and the Word is all the revelation of Jesus. Your own understanding of what I say is going to be prejudiced by the doctrines you've accepted as " biblical". That is often the case. When traditions nullify the Word and render it impotent, it will also darken understanding.
I have little choice but to understand the world through that which I believe to be true.
I can see that, when you're doctrine has given you over to a walk limited by sight, then the invisible becomes an impossibility to you...and the promise become fixed in the past....and cannot instruct the present.
No. I don't think that is fair either.
You might be right...if you have actually admitted that God is still very active in working miracles, signs, wonders and words...providentially...then you might actually be prepared to receive more than most cessationists who have ever caused division and broken the church into factions as John MacArthur has.
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.
You are confused...and you missed my point. Please don't ignore what I said. John spoke of two. Jesus made reference to a third...that was not water, and he was about to be baptized with that one...a third for him, because he was baptized in water, and with the Spirit...and finally with fire. We can start separate threads on this, because conversing with you might be useful for anyone who is curious. You are lucid, and well taught.
Right verse 39 referring to verse 41. If that's what you mean I'm in total agreement.
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. Obviously, there can be no exceptions. That may be a slight overstatement, but I don't what to derail the conversation.
Yeah...Well....you do seem to be missing that pesky faith issue...How can you receive what you will not believe...what you have actually been taught to be wary of and to reject outright? It's not a haphazard thing. The baptism of Jesus Luke and John the Baptist spoke of so clearly is received, like salvation, by faith...and ignored on the same basis....what you've been taught is going to be your greatest hindrance until you grasp what Peter said, and decide to ask God for clarification. The Spirit is a far better teacher, extremely active in His church today, to clarify where MacArthur etal have been teaching falsehood.
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.
I don't know....It doesn't matter what I think. I do know and can quote the error in MacArthur etal's doctrine, because, like rabbis they quote each other on each error, seeming to believe that if enough "scholars" promote the same error, it's sacred and therefore truth. That's how traditions robbed the Catholic church as well.
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.
Correct...He knew nothing of the baptism of the Spirit. That's why Paul had to come water what he had planted...twelve disciples who had not been baptized in the spirit until they had "heard that there even was a Holy Spirit."
I don't know that to be a fact, but I can tell you certainly that John does [John 3, 4].
Different author...different context....John is still alive.