| Poster | Thread |
philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
In reality I don't think we ever really have to make that choice, but in our hearts we may. But if we ever did have to make that choice, I think you'd make the same one as me.
If you were ever faced with the decision and let's say you had 2 doors in front of you- and you knew Jesus Himself was waiting for you on the other side of door #1 and the Bible itself (and perhaps your favorite Bible teacher) was waiting for you on the other side of door #2- and you were forced to make a decision... which would you pick?
We are not talking about the choice but the manner of the choice. We may make the same choice but why would I choose as I would? How will I know it isn't something which has transformed itself into an angel of light? (2 Cor 11:14) How would I know that in this instance even the 'elect' might not be deceived? I know that any revelation of Christ must be consistent with what has already been revealed of the Christ. Peter saw the Lord revealed in His glory on the mount of transfiguration but spoke of a 'more sure word of prophecy'. 2Pet. 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: and I am bidden to take heed to that more sure word of prophecy... until the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts. This must mean that until Christ returns in Parousia my prime and final reference point will be the scripture.
It is not a question of choosing Christ or the Bible (BTW I have no favourite Bible teachers). It is a question of identifying Christ by means of the Bible. Because God has ordered it thus He will not reveal Himself in a way that is contrary to scripture. It is not that the Bible is greater than Christ but that the Bible is greater than my perception of Christ, and all my perceptions must be subject to the scriptural revelations. Is. 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. ...no matter how bright the light might seem to be, if it does not speak (or show itself) according to this word (of the law and the testimony) it is because there is no light in it.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
|
 2005/7/15 17:26 | Profile |
todd
Member
Joined: 2003/5/12
Posts: 573
California
| | Re: | | Philo,
I like your post and think it is full of wisdom. I think I fully agree with most of it.
Here's a couple possible exceptions...
You wrote:
"We are not talking about the choice but the manner of the choice."
I think we [i]were[/i] talking about the choice but it seems we might be getting away from it. The statement I made that you seem to be questioning is, "I'll take God's manifest presence over good Bible teaching anytime!" Is this not about a choice?
You also wrote:
" This must mean that until Christ returns in Parousia my prime and final reference point will be the scripture."
Must it? The Scripture reference there seems kind of vague to me. And even if it must mean what you say, how confident are you in your understanding of Parousia? |
|
| 2005/7/15 17:34 | Profile |
philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
I think we [i]were[/i] talking about the choice but it seems we might be getting away from it. The statement I made that you seem to be questioning is, "I'll take God's manifest presence over good Bible teaching anytime!" Is this not about a choice?
It will result in choice but it is actually based on perceptions. How do you recognise 'God's manifest presence'? By comparing the current data against the previous data. The previous data here is not my preference for lively or quiet meetings but the revelation already entrusted to us. The Pentecostal may like to 'keep the pot boiling' and some in the past regarded that as evidence of 'manifest presence'; the Quaker will be seeking 'stillness' in which to hear the voice. These are both conditioned responses. The only objective route is to rigourously compare the latest data with the earliest ie 'what saith the scripture?'
Quote:
Must it? The Scripture reference there seems kind of vague to me. And even if it must mean what you say, how confident are you in your understanding of Parousia?
Parousia is the ultimate royal presence. In that Christ will return in like manner as we saw Him ascend, I am very confident. As regards men's scheduling of this I have little confidence.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
|
| 2005/7/15 17:52 | Profile |
ZekeO
Member
Joined: 2004/7/4
Posts: 1014
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
| | Muddying the waters | | Quote:
philologos wrote:
The only objective route is to rigourously compare the latest data with the earliest ie 'what saith the scripture?'
What do we do if the scripture is silent?
We are told to discern the spirits, what then is the measuring rod? It can't always be the word and it can't always be the Spirit. I feel that the gift of discernment is a gift not so much of discerning doctrinal error, but the error which lies within and at the root of mens actions. If that is true what do we do?
_________________
Zeke Oosthuis
|
|
| 2005/7/15 18:11 | Profile |
todd
Member
Joined: 2003/5/12
Posts: 573
California
| | Re: | | Philo,
I think we might be in agreement. It seems that ultimately God's manifest presence is recognized [by] a mixture of both subjective and objective [influences]. And we must be careful that the subjective part does not violate the objective part.
Personally, up to this point in my life I have tended to experience God in a comparatively quiet manner. But I am open to different ways of experiencing God. I think I would be a fool to shut myself off from any legitimate way of experiencing Him. I want to know Him as much as He can be known. Don't we all... |
|
| 2005/7/15 18:16 | Profile |
markm
Member
Joined: 2004/11/4
Posts: 46
| | Re: | | Quote:
sermonindex wrote:
This video is taken from the Toronto Airport Fellowship, I find her way of ministering very peculiar and unedifying. The way she is always interrupted with spasmodic sounds and words such as WHOOAAA! is quite strange and unbiblical.
October 3, 2003 - Toronto, Canada
Video of Toronto Service
This type of ministry has an appearance of Godliness but really is deceptive in many ways. I would rather be under a bible believing, teaching ministry that seeks first after Jesus Christ and the revelation of Him in scripture.
I don't doubt that God is doing something through this ministry or is using the preaching of His name. But I totally think its a mis-representation of true Christianity and a shame to God's name in the end.
I can't bear to watch over 15 mins of this video. :-(
I found the `WHOOOOAs` and the `YAYs` annoying at first also. Slightly unnerving and abrasive, especially since the audio quality is not great and the outbursts are louder than the talking. I wasn't sure at first if she was drunk on the spirt, or actually drunk. But I didn't want to dismiss it soley on the basis of preaching style, so I let it play on.
When she actually got into the message, she (mostly) regained composure and began preaching a message on absolute surrender. Much of what she was talking about was the very same notion of surrender that I've seen highlighted countless times on this site.
Keith Daniel and Ravenhill preached on similar themes of submitting to God's love so completely that the love of God just flows through you to the people around you. Both suggest that for revival to break out it would take such a person. If I'm not mistaken, Ravenhill went further and asked if such a person would not be accepted by the mainstream of the church. (On a side note, I wonder if anyone finds Daniel's or Ravenhill's gentile pounding on the podium annoying. Personally, I kinda like it.)
The uncomfortable and almost embarrassing beginning is used as an illustration later in the message. Are you willing to surrender so completely to God that you would be willing to go up on stage and make a fool of yourself if that would be God's will? (Sounds like an Art Katz question.)
Yes, there is the potential for excess ("Honey the Lord hasn't told me to wash those dishes, so I'm just waiting for Him to tell me... now where's the TV remote..."). Or the person who claims to be hearing from God, but really they stoped hearing anything (due to unrepentant sin?), and now they just blurt out or perform every imagination of their flesh and claim it to be from God.
And there is the potential (inevitability?) for those to come along who will emulate through the flesh the outward appearance of 'surrender' without actually surrendering.
But the same potential for abuse is found in sermons on this site. Maybe this is naive, but it seems that at some point we have to trust God to take care of those honestly seeking Him.
I don't know anything more about this speaker than just that one video. The style was not what I would normally listen to. But the message she preached was a familiar one to someone who comes to this site mainly to listen to the sermons.
To be so focused on the love of Jesus that all else melts away, and only His opinion matters. Whatever He wants, you'll do. And His love will flow through you to the nations.
At least that's what I got out of it. |
|
| 2005/7/15 18:37 | Profile |
philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: Muddying the waters | | Quote:
We are told to discern the spirits, what then is the measuring rod? It can't always be the word and it can't always be the Spirit. I feel that the gift of discernment is a gift not so much of discerning doctrinal error, but the error which lies within and at the root of mens actions. If that is true what do we do?
We are told to judge/test spirits in 1 John 4:1. Which has the sense of thoroughly testing something and then adding your seal to it in affirmation. 'discerning of spirits' is a manifestation of the Spirit and in that sense would be involuntary. The context is each case is 'spirits' which is interesting in the light of the original thrust of this thread. Neither of these instances has to do with 'doctrine' but with the 'roots' of things.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
|
| 2005/7/15 18:38 | Profile |
| | Re: | | I agree with Markm. They can be taken as truly drunk or drunk in the Spirit...or w/e in the beginning. I'm about an hour into it. And she is preaching, clearly, reading from the word of God, by now, she has quoted straight from the Word of God 3 times now. (At least 4 verses each).
There is another video, in brownsville. (When it was a real revival) She was just praying for God to 'ruin them'. Sounds crazy, but alot of power in it. You can find it on fireonthealtar.com in the video section.
|
|
| 2005/7/15 23:03 | |
| | Re: | | I heard from Heidi saying 'in the past 3 months, 8,000 muslims got saved'. She said thats normal. Is that revival? Or is that man's doing? Sorry if thats 'poking a finger' or something negative. Just something i heard and had to post, cause thats AWESOME!!!!! yahoo!
*Edit* I just finished watching the video. The last 30 mins or so, was in worship. Prayer asking for God to come into people's lives more. For the 'laborers' that they might get rest and restoration. It blessed me alot. |
|
| 2005/7/15 23:40 | |
Aussiedler
Member
Joined: 2005/2/14
Posts: 109
GERMANY
| | Re: | | If you judge heidi, than you have to judge jackie pullinger, because they are friends. and if you judge Pullinger, than you have to judge ravenhill and wilkerson, because they recommend pullingers ministry... |
|
| 2009/6/24 17:59 | Profile |
