For Lack of Scripture

[Carpenter]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Of course, however the author of this thread was directing his points towards those AFF members that questioned LS and this doctrine (not a personal revelation) and saying their lacked scripture. If you read the first line and the last it was clear Jekyll was drawing a defense that such a one as LS did not have to have bible but could have heard from God directly.

The more I read the more I am not so sure I agree with you totally. Again, in principle, I understand what he is saying. In application and context to L.S., I understand what Jek is saying, and if the application to LS is correct, I disagree with LS and not Jek. Think about it Prax.

Look at it in two different lights and, not necessarily needing to agree with him, you can at least understand the principle of what he is talking about?

I have been around a long time, have heard many many preachers and would consider myself to be at least half intelligent. Therefore, I (and I am sure others) can recognize when preachers are using vernacular, buzz words, quotes, quips, sound bites, and all sundry stories, comparisons, contrasts, outright embellishments, and enciting and exagerated messages to the choir in order to get the message across. They have stomped, danced, acted drunk, shouted, hollered, pirouetted, tiptoed, rolled, and backflipped to get people on their feet*. But remember, the ends ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS justify the means. This is a staple of apostolic evangelism.







*This by no means is an effort to (mis) characterize and/or criticize ALL apostolic evangelists, preachers, pastors, or sermons.

[Jekyll]

Originally Posted by Carpenter

The more I read the more I am not so sure I agree with you totally. Again, in principle, I understand what he is saying. In application and context to L.S., I understand what Jek is saying, and if the application to LS is correct, I disagree with LS and not Jek. Think about it Prax.

Look at it in two different lights and, not necessarily needing to agree with him, you can at least understand the principle of what he is talking about?

I have been around a long time, have heard many many preachers and would consider myself to be at least half intelligent. Therefore, I (and I am sure others) can recognize when preachers are using vernacular, buzz words, quotes, quips, sound bites, and all sundry stories, comparisons, contrasts, outright embellishments, and enciting and exagerated messages to the choir in order to get the message across. They have stomped, danced, acted drunk, shouted, hollered, pirouetted, tiptoed, rolled, and backflipped to get people on their feet*. But remember, the ends ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS justify the means. This is a staple of apostolic evangelism.







*This by no means is an effort to (mis) characterize and/or criticize ALL apostolic evangelists, preachers, pastors, or sermons.

I recall a lady's retort to your attempt at greeting and blessing. "WE MEET AT OUR HOMES LIKE THE BIBLE SAYS." Do these folks have a pastor? What kind of home/church structure exists between this kind of gathering if any?

I also recall a prophet in the Bible who was on a fast. He visited a fellow prophet who convinced the first that "God" told him he could break his fast. The first prophet broke his fast and was devoured by a lion on his way home. If he was fasting and becoming closer to God, what could have blinded his discernment to listen to and believe a lie?

Why could Eli listen to a warning from God through a 7-year old and not change his ways? Yet, a whole wicked city obeys a commandment to repent from a hated Israelite prophet (What a guy, spends 3 days travelling around the region in a fish's belly then cheers on the city's destruction from afar).

Moses obeyed a burning bush and God used him to deliver the Israelites out of slavery. But, they died in the wilderness full of unbelief.

What determines what you will listen to from another who, "Hears from God?"

[Jekyll]

God used a donkey once. If he decided to use an animal to audibly speak to an individual and that individual acted on the message of that animal, would that be accepted or would that be considered as lunacy and the individual railroaded as a quack?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Carpenter

The more I read the more I am not so sure I agree with you totally. Again, in principle, I understand what he is saying. In application and context to L.S., I understand what Jek is saying, and if the application to LS is correct, I disagree with LS and not Jek. Think about it Prax.

Look at it in two different lights and, not necessarily needing to agree with him, you can at least understand the principle of what he is talking about?

I have been around a long time, have heard many many preachers and would consider myself to be at least half intelligent. Therefore, I (and I am sure others) can recognize when preachers are using vernacular, buzz words, quotes, quips, sound bites, and all sundry stories, comparisons, contrasts, outright embellishments, and enciting and exagerated messages to the choir in order to get the message across. They have stomped, danced, acted drunk, shouted, hollered, pirouetted, tiptoed, rolled, and backflipped to get people on their feet*. But remember, the ends ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS justify the means. This is a staple of apostolic evangelism.







*This by no means is an effort to (mis) characterize and/or criticize ALL apostolic evangelists, preachers, pastors, or sermons.

Im not disagreeing with any principles. The principle is totally irrelevant to what LS said and what us here on AFF said. Yet as part of his polemic Jekyll said two very important things

With all of the recent hubub about a certain popular preacher SUPPOSEDLY not preaching truth from the Word of God I have wondered about some things. Interestingly, with the lack of scripture at the time of these events, I wonder.

And he ended it with

Good thing these people have good ole AFF to set them straight! Go ahead! Rip into these folks!

It's very clear he starts with AFF supposedly "ripping LS" for not having scripture for his Magic Hair doctrine and then asserting we'd probably do the same to Abraham.

So in other words he was trying to make an argument for LS not needing scripture...all he needed was to hear from God in order teach this doctrine. That is false false false to the core. Doctrine has to have a biblical basis. If we can come up with new doctrines just by hearing from God in a personal revelation we might as well go Catholic or Mormon

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Im not disagreeing with any principles. The principle is totally irrelevant to what LS said and what us here on AFF said. Yet as part of his polemic Jekyll said two very important things


And he ended it with


It's very clear he starts with AFF supposedly "ripping LS" for not having scripture for his Magic Hair doctrine and then asserting we'd probably do the same to Abraham.

So in other words he was trying to make an argument for LS not needing scripture...all he needed was to hear from God in order teach this doctrine. That is false false false to the core. Doctrine has to have a biblical basis. If we can come up with new doctrines just by hearing from God in a personal revelation we might as well go Catholic or Mormon

Here you go, hitting the nail on the head! This premise gets to the very heart of the matter: doctrine HAS to have a Biblical basis.

[Carpenter]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Im not disagreeing with any principles. The principle is totally irrelevant to what LS said and what us here on AFF said. Yet as part of his polemic Jekyll said two very important things


And he ended it with


It's very clear he starts with AFF supposedly "ripping LS" for not having scripture for his Magic Hair doctrine and then asserting we'd probably do the same to Abraham.

So in other words he was trying to make an argument for LS not needing scripture...all he needed was to hear from God in order teach this doctrine. That is false false false to the core. Doctrine has to have a biblical basis. If we can come up with new doctrines just by hearing from God in a personal revelation we might as well go Catholic or Mormon

I don't disagree with you especially in light of the LS sermon...and maybe I am trying to deflect that perspective to discuss a bigger issue. After all, LS is not the only preacher out there saying outrageous things.

The question raised by Jek is valid...and notice it is a question in his most recent post. How do we make the determination whether or not the voice of the Lord is indeed the voice of the Lord? Is there precise scripture for what the minister is saying or is that voice in the spirit of what scripture says.

I am not saying there is an easy answer, of course there isnt because we have a spectrum on one end where a woman killed her kids based on what she thought was the voice of God and the other, God using a donkey to deliver a message.

After listening to LS sermon, I cannot find any bible for most of what he said about hair in the spirit of, nor direct scripture. Again, he was enciting the crowd holding up his own reputation.

[Jekyll]

Does God speak to you in the same manner, the same way everytime?

How much faith do you have in people that have authority over you, be it your boss, your husband, your pastor, your sunday school teacher, or, your youth leader to deliver what is that word of God for you, whether publicly in a service, or, one on one counseling or conversation?

How much faith should you have in such people? Are you close enough to God and knowledgeable in scripture to be able to instantly compare that "word" with scripture? Do you shoot from the hip or do you let that "word" deal with your spirit? If it is disciplinary or critical in nature, do you give that "word" as much attention as you would an uplifting "word?"

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Carpenter

I don't disagree with you especially in light of the LS sermon...and maybe I am trying to deflect that perspective to discuss a bigger issue. After all, LS is not the only preacher out there saying outrageous things.

The question raised by Jek is valid...and notice it is a question in his most recent post. How do we make the determination whether or not the voice of the Lord is indeed the voice of the Lord? Is there precise scripture for what the minister is saying or is that voice in the spirit of what scripture says.

I am not saying there is an easy answer, of course there isnt because we have a spectrum on one end where a woman killed her kids based on what she thought was the voice of God and the other, God using a donkey to deliver a message.

After listening to LS sermon, I cannot find any bible for most of what he said about hair in the spirit of, nor direct scripture. Again, he was enciting the crowd holding up his own reputation.

when it's a matter of doctrine we compare it to scriptures. When it is not a matter of doctrine I think we have the inspired word to use as a guide to use for principles

[Jermyn Davidson]

"A word from the Lord never supercedes the Word of the Lord."

A Charismatic Trinitarian Preacher, but I can't remember his name.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by crakjak

I have a thought, Timmy. Abraham came from a pagan culture, in which the sacrificing of children was not all that unusual. Maybe God was communicating to Abraham and his family that the true God does not call for human sacrifice. Though it was heartbreaking to Abraham to think that God wanted such a thing, it was not out of his reasoning (culture) that God might require it.
I believe God was eradicating an evil practice out of Abraham's linage.

Strange way of going about it! Teach Abraham that He will never call for human sacrifice, by calling for human sacrifice? (And stopping it just in time, yeah, I know that part. Still very strange. How about just telling him not to do that?)

And then there's poor Jephthah. Was it just bad luck that his daughter was the one he had to sacrifice? Too bad God stop him, like he stopped Abraham.