I would consider the lack of a jaw or a tongue to be a relatively rare limitation.
I'm just saying that using the rare case of someone lacking a tongue to determine whether the Bible teaches the necessity of tongues is dangerous. I would be inclined to believe that there are some who are physically or mentally incapable of adhering to or obeying any criteria that any of us would believe is required by God. If that becomes the standard as opposed to the Word of God, we can quickly get to the point where nothing is necessary because there will always be a relatively rare minority that is incapable of performing it.
You weren't supposed to respond so fast, I wasn't through editing!!
Ah, yes, I agree with you here. I would also add that it is dangerous to suppose or reinforce a doctrine, on the basis of one special account, i.e., "Initial Evidence" doctrine due to one man without a tongue "speaking." Was anyone implying a standard from the anomaly you mentioned?
Sorry for sidetracking the thread! Nice pics!
Last edited by noeticknight; 01-15-2010 at 12:20 AM.
I think it is a dangerous precedence to use extreme situations and relatively rare limitations as an indicator of what God requires from all of us. Does the fact that some lack the cognitive ability to repent, confess, or accept Jesus as their Lord an Savior mean that God does not require that of everyone else?
It's not "dangerous" when you are there, holding that soul in your own arms, Stewie. That's where the rubber hits the road.
I think that you are correct also, on the "cognitive" example. These cases just show, however, that in all cases it is the Grace of God that saves us and not the works we do.
I would consider the lack of a jaw or a tongue to be a relatively rare limitation.
I'm just saying that using the rare case of someone lacking a tongue to determine whether the Bible teaches the necessity of tongues is dangerous. I would be inclined to believe that there are some who are physically or mentally incapable of adhering to or obeying any criteria that any of us would believe is required by God. If that becomes the standard as opposed to the Word of God, we can quickly get to the point where nothing is necessary because there will always be a relatively rare minority that is incapable of performing it.
If your Gospel leaves anyone out, for whatever reasons, it is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ: John 3:16, John 6:37-40.
If your Gospel leaves anyone out, for whatever reasons, it is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ: John 3:16, John 6:37-40.
So what is the Gospel (or I guess our response to the gospel), in your opinion, that does not leave anyone out regardless of drastic physical or mental limitation?
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
It's not "dangerous" when you are there, holding that soul in your own arms, Stewie. That's where the rubber hits the road.
I think that you are correct also, on the "cognitive" example. These cases just show, however, that in all cases it is the Grace of God that saves us and not the works we do.
I don't make light of anyone's limitations. Nor am I one to say that they are lost due to them. However, I am not prepared to say that I am not responsible to obey directives from the Word of God because they may be unable to.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
So what is the Gospel (or I guess our response to the gospel), in your opinion, that does not leave anyone out regardless of drastic physical or mental limitation?
Mark (the earliest) of the Gospels states in verse 1, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."
It's not "dangerous" when you are there, holding that soul in your own arms, Stewie. That's where the rubber hits the road.
I think that you are correct also, on the "cognitive" example. These cases just show, however, that in all cases it is the Grace of God that saves us and not the works we do.
That's your conclusion to his analogy? I thought he made a great point. Not proving his tongues plan of salvation, but making his case. Your response sounds like Universalism. We are told to respond. I think the mentally incapacitated will only be accountable for what they know and are able to know.
Mental illness and mute and deaf aren't nearly the same. A mute and deaf person can still cognitively discern the things of GOD.
That's your conclusion to his analogy? I thought he made a great point. Not proving his tongues plan of salvation, but making his case. Your response sounds like Universalism. We are told to respond. I think the mentally incapacitated will only be accountable for what they know and are able to know.
Mental illness and mute and deaf aren't nearly the same. A mute and deaf person can still cognitively discern the things of GOD.
We are told to respond to the Gospel, however no one is ever told to speak in tongues. I took it that Stew was saying the same thing in that post.
The "problem" this case presented didn't involve responding in faith to the Gospel. It involved an example of someone who was simply incapable of speaking in tongues as required by the "Three Steppers." It is at that point that the "Three Stepper" creed fails.
Those who "lack the cognitive ability to repent, confess, or accept Jesus as their Lord an Savior" (Stewie's words) would not be a correct "analogy" (Jeffrey's word) for this type of a situation. They are a different category altogether because they cannot respond at all.
That's your conclusion to his analogy? I thought he made a great point. Not proving his tongues plan of salvation, but making his case. Your response sounds like Universalism. We are told to respond. I think the mentally incapacitated will only be accountable for what they know and are able to know.
Mental illness and mute and deaf aren't nearly the same. A mute and deaf person can still cognitively discern the things of GOD.
I should have added that "Universalism" requires no response at all. My position is that a response is required, however, those in the "cognitive and mental illness" category are incapable of responding in faith and thus require a certain grace that may be akin to Universalism - though applicable only to those in that category.
Someone with no tongue and no lower jaw can still respond in faith. I have witnessed that myself, first hand. They just cannot "speak in tongues" as required by the "Three Steeper" creed.
To (sort of) get back on topic - I would contend that the vast majority of the WPF would faithfully minister the Gospel of salvation to someone like my friend and would not place a bar to the Kingdom because of the infirmity. Thus, I would say that the majority are probably "One Steppers" also - at least in heart.
I said and I will say it again. God is able to make a person with no tongue, no jaw or no any thing else speak in tongues. I have seen and heard the deaf and dumb receive the Holy Ghost. If a person does not speak in tongues they did not receive the Holy Ghost. Tongues are the evidence that one has received the Holy Ghost.
Since God is a Spirit, isn't it possible to worship and pray to Him in our spirit? Hannah prayed in her heart (spirit) for a child. The Bible says her lips moved, but no sound came from her mouth for she was praying in her heart (spirit). Obviously, God heard her prayer, for she had a child. It's possible this woman who had cancer prayed in tongues in her heart. I know it's possible because I have done so.
Linear Mode
