Posted on 03/21/2011 5:09:22 PM PDT by Quix
[Used by emailed permission from Dr Steven Lambert]
"Dispensationalism" as used in the following paragraph in the article above--is NOT how we typically use it on FR and in Christianity at large.
========================================================= Dispensationalism — the claim that miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit passed away — dominates traditional Christianity. Jesus said there would be no such change. Hear His words: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. Matthew 28:20. Jesus fully expected the church “at the end of the age” to believe and teach “all things” that He had commanded the original disciples.
====================================================
Pentecotsals are Dispensationalists--believing that history is broken up into different DISPENSATIONS, ERAS, AGES wherein God tends to have a different focus or emphasis in His dealings with man.
While cessationism might be refuted, unfortunately cornpone fakery became its kissing cousin.
END TIMES PING LIST PING TO
a very good refutation of CESSATIONISM.
Let the games begin.
. . .
Wellllllllllll, it appears that until Armageddon anyway,
fools, the poor and fakers are likely to be with us.
I don’t see that any different from Jesus’ dusty pathed days.
However, one thing it was NOT about was that there would be Prophets of the Old Testament ilk or Apostles of the New Testament sort.
There will be small p prophets and small a apostles (or missionaries) in the Church, but no modern prophet will have the same anointing as the Old Testament or Old Covenant provided for.
Nor will there be missionaries or apostles like the Twelve in the church.
This is why Paul writes that the church is built upon the FOUNDATION of
The (Old Testament) Prophets and the (New Testament) Apostles, with Christ as Chief Cornerstone...
this foundation has already been laid. So there is no need for Old Time Old Covenant Prophets, who were the only ones with the Holy Spirit, during the time when only the Jews had a chance to have their sins washed away in the Temple.
Nor will there be a need for any new modern apostle to be like any of the Twelve Apostles.
Plus, of course, no modern prophet or apostle will ever WRITE the Word of God, nor can any one of us ever be EYEWITNESSES in the FLESH of Christ's ministry on earth.
Just needed to be clear, that while the gifts of the Holy Spirit are for the church today, those positions filled by the heroes of the faith cannot be positions now for anyone in the church because Scripture is sealed.
I think this is the problem with the Lou Engle counterfeits and Elijah List liars. They want all the pomp and circumstance of the Old Testament positions, when it is not theirs to have! (No wonder God sent a deluding spirit on them and they can't prophesy their way out of a paper bag.)
And the irony is, the same Scofiled who preached cessationaism also provided the basic paradigms that fortune-tellers use today to undercut the goodness, power, and gospel of or King and His Kingdom.
Silly dodge . . .
obviously for the hard-up for a dodge
from the good Biblical; well reasoned article.
“Let the games begin.”
Alas, it is true. The Free Republic Religion threads have become games. I have for the most part lost interest.
I somewhat agree.
1. I believe that the office of prophet has changed. Folks are not taken on the back-side of the desert for 3-40 years for purification before beginning ministry.
2. As noted in I Cor 14 . . . utterances are to be vetted, discerned, weighted, authenticated by the local body.
3. There’s no evidence of a stoning policy.
4. I suspect that God did have a unique role in mind for the NT Apostles.
5. Nevertheless, GOD IS SOVEREIGN—HE CAN raise up anyone after the fashion and model of an OT prophet any time HE wishes. I don’t know that He will—but it’s somewhat plausible. The TWO WITNESSES of the Tribulation period might well fit—but then, they’d be returning!
6. I much agree that the relentlessly ballyhooed Apostle UmpTeeUmp and Bishop/Prophet/Apostle Parade-About
are more than a little nauseating and too little on deilvering the pure goods.
7. Nevertheless, IT IS GOD’S HABIT, HOBBY, NATURE . . . to use HIS foolishness to confound man’s wisdom. And, to use rather uncomforting birds of rare plumage as His spokespersons. . . . and . . . on occasion, to lavish them with gifts and attention getting status or roles.
8. Thankfully, I’m not God and don’t want to judge His servants. I’m not their manager nor even their vallet or driver.
9. However, I’m not at all bashful about noticing the stink when some PURPORTED such waltz by.
10. And, I’m not at all bashful about informing some who may have started well, that their halo has fallen into the mud.
Actually, it’s a pathetic dodge well beneath someone of your IQ.
Understandable . . .
however, with FR having 1.2 million unique visitors/month . . .
and some of my threads having 12,000—16,000 and more views . . .
I think the games are worth playing. And, some of the most heated threads seem to attract the most readership.
I guess no one enjoys a boring ball game.
With the mess this world is in, the idea that we do not need the gifts of the Holy Spirit is comical. It’s not the Lord’s fault that we’ve dropped the ball.
Not ALL people speak in tongues; (1 Cor. 12:7-11) and that was one of the things about the Charismatic movement back in the 1970’s that put a lot of people under. However, for those who have experienced speaking in tongues; it is real. Much how to use it, I do not know.
INDEED. WELL PUT.
Yes, Quix, read through your reply, having an eye especially for all the first person pronouns, whether personal or possessive. This is what disheartens me.
Modern American “Christianity” has been called “psycho-therapeutic deism” for the individual. Sadly, it is.
PLENTY true about a lot of Christianity.
A lot of VERY BAD COMMUNICATION begins with
“You . . . .
“You are . . .
“You make me . . .
“You made me . . .
Some of us have a LOT of training making
“I-statements” to counter the dysfunctional horrors of the above.
It is more honest, honorable, accurate, fitting
to own one’s opinions, feelings and perspectives with an “I-statement.”
And, I’ve rarely observed that avoiding “I-statements” succeeded in preventing arrogance, smugness, self-righteousness etc. in prose. It slips in plenty easily with or without “I . . . “ “My . . . “ etc.
At least with straightforward “I . . . “ statements . . . one is more likely to own what they are saying; take responsibility for their ideas, feelings, perspective.
I see that as good.
However, feel free to read into my “I-statements” whatever
HOLY SPIRIT encourages you to do so with.
LOL.
Congrats on the Charismatic part!
I’ve never owned nor followed anything from Schofield.
“PLENTY true about a lot of Christianity.”
No, Quix, plenty true of ALL Christianity. And always has been. What is true of all others of fallen Adam’s race is true also of me. Otherwise, like the Pharisee in the temple, (Luke 18:9-14) I despise others and count myself righteous. I am not.
I feel no obligation to respond to the rest of what you say. Sorry.
The gifts of the Spirit were imparted first to the Apostles, without regard to their belief in those gifts, or their worthiness to receive. All were to receive the gifts of the Spirit.
So how could a lack of those gifts in the Church today be a sign that the church doesn't believe in them, or isn't worthy of them? Wouldn't that itself be a "change" in the gifts, which the author argues could not be changed?
I'm an agnostic about the gifts. At most, I am willing to accept that where they are necessary, God is still capable through the Spirit to manifest those gifts. I do not believe they are normal, or expected, amongst the church believers. My argument isn't ecclesiastic though, but more logic -- I believe there are way too many certain Christians who are certainly doing God's work who have no manifestation of these gifts to believe that the gifts are expected to be manifest in all. As I said, not very spiritual; I call it the Billy Graham rule.
But also, how to explain how the gifts would fall away if they were not intended to? The early church clearly believed in the gifts, and used them, and welcomed them, and probably even expected them. What would cause them to turn to disbelief in the gifts, assuming the author is correct and you can lose the gift through lack of belief that they can happen?
We have disbelief now because we don't see the gifts. How would we develop disbelief in an era where the gifts were the norm?
I'll admit I pretty much settled my pursuit of this issue back in my college days. I did spend a good deal of time on it, with questionares, studies, and visits with pentecostal churches and pastors. I was unconvinced then.
Yes, there is now, that the Holy Spirit is not hidden behind the curtain in the Holiest of Holies, but it is freely given to man...
there is now for those in the church gift positions that are unique.
But as for Jewish Old Testament Prophets being a sign for the errant Jews when they sinned... etc., this is a position that no longer exists.
Same with the 12 Eyewitness Apostles.
Plus of course, in the Old Testament, if you were not Jewish, not sure what your status would be.
I guess part of the reason Dante wrote his stuff was to try to explain were Aristotle, Plato and other non Jews born before Jesus went.
The Cross is the apex of ALL history. It is so interesting to think how everyone’s life changed spiritually, once the Holy Spirit was suddenly freely available to every one... Jew, Gentile etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.