This type of theology is what leads to serious doctrinal errors.
There is no such thing as extrabiblical revelation.
Each of the example give happened in isolation and are exclusively unique in their application ...
we see direct commands from God that were obeyed and gave glory to God who can utilize who and what He pleases ...
What Jekyll is missing is that HOLY MAGIC HAIR has been codified for mass production of miracles, God's favor, angelic protection, etc.
Furthermore the power w/ angels and because of angels aspect of this doctrine gives the impression that this power has more to do w/ the celestial beings than of God ... this might be unintended ... however error begets error ... confusion produces more confusion.
So are some of you saying that because we have the scriptures there is no more prophecy? No, that can't be because in Acts 2:17-18 the scripture says that there will be prophesying. So there will be prophets. But, it will not add to or take away from the Word.
No, I don't think anyone is saying that on this thread. I certainly haven't. I do believe in the ministry of the prophet as much as I believe in pastors, evangelists and the rest of the five fold ministry. Sure, there have always been prophets and will continue to be. The danger is when people base a doctrine on a revelation they supposedly have had that isn't found in the Word. Some say, "Ol' Brother So and So prophesied there will be floods in Iowa and it came to pass, so all of his "revelations" must be true. This sets a dangerous precedence that has led many into error.
I'll give a personal example. I use to attend a church where a brother pastored that I considered to be a prophet. He prophesied many things that came true. Later on, he began to have "revelations" from God that could not be substaniated by the Word. He said the Holy Ghost revealed to him that eating pork was a sin. And he required all of us younger preachers to abstain from pork and to preach his "revelation" as doctrine. I answered that I would when he could show me this "revelation" in the NT. He became angry and said he didn't have to have Bible for it if the Holy Ghost revealed it to him. Therein lies the danger. Doctrine has to be founded squarely on the Word and on nothing else.
The message of a true prophet takes us to the Word, not away from it as illustrated in one of the verses I posted a while ago.
__________________
"Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for Him...." -Psa. 37:7
Waiting for the Lord is easy... Waiting patiently? Not so much.
No, I don't think anyone is saying that on this thread. I certainly haven't. I do believe in the ministry of the prophet as much as I believe in pastors, evangelists and the rest of the five fold ministry. Sure, there have always been prophets and will continue to be. The danger is when people base a doctrine on a revelation they supposedly have had that isn't found in the Word. Some say, "Ol' Brother So and So prophesied there will be floods in Iowa and it came to pass, so all of his "revelations" must be true. This sets a dangerous precedence that has led many into error.
I'll give a personal example. I use to attend a church where a brother pastored that I considered to be a prophet. He prophesied many things that came true. Later on, he began to have "revelations" from God that could not be substaniated by the Word. He said the Holy Ghost revealed to him that eating pork was a sin. And he required all of us younger preachers to abstain from pork and to preach his "revelation" as doctrine. I answered that I would when he could show me this "revelation" in the NT. He became angry and said he didn't have to have Bible for it if the Holy Ghost revealed it to him. Therein lies the danger. Doctrine has to be founded squarely on the Word and on nothing else. The message of a true prophet takes us to the Word, not away from it as illustrated in one of the verses I posted a while ago.
You believe new doctrines can be made by special personal revelation. The bible is not your sole rule of faith. You are on dangerous ground. You have joined the ranks of the RCC, David Koresh, Jim Jones and others
Get off your high horse, I didn't say that I espoused any of this activity, and don't try to put words in my mouth that the Bible is not my sole rule of faith.
Back to first grade reading class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastor Poster
Wow! Jekyll's post is downright fruity.
This type of theology is what leads to serious doctrinal errors.
There is no such thing as extrabiblical revelation.
Who said this is a theology? Some here are getting the question, some aren't and that's fine.
St. Matthew, I agree wholeheartedly, today, no scripture, no doctrine.
Today, because we have scripture, we can test "new" teachings and principles against the word of God. In the New Testament church, how was the scripture distributed and proved against false doctrine? Did they just try the spirits to see if they were of God? MP, which scriptures did they search daily? Was it the law? Did they have copies of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
__________________
"Some may call me foolish, some may call me odd; but I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man than a fool in the eyes of God..."
No, I don't think anyone is saying that on this thread. I certainly haven't. I do believe in the ministry of the prophet as much as I believe in pastors, evangelists and the rest of the five fold ministry. Sure, there have always been prophets and will continue to be. The danger is when people base a doctrine on a revelation they supposedly have had that isn't found in the Word. Some say, "Ol' Brother So and So prophesied there will be floods in Iowa and it came to pass, so all of his "revelations" must be true. This sets a dangerous precedence that has led many into error.
I'll give a personal example. I use to attend a church where a brother pastored that I considered to be a prophet. He prophesied many things that came true. Later on, he began to have "revelations" from God that could not be substaniated by the Word. He said the Holy Ghost revealed to him that eating pork was a sin. And he required all of us younger preachers to abstain from pork and to preach his "revelation" as doctrine. I answered that I would when he could show me this "revelation" in the NT. He became angry and said he didn't have to have Bible for it if the Holy Ghost revealed it to him. Therein lies the danger. Doctrine has to be founded squarely on the Word and on nothing else.
The message of a true prophet takes us to the Word, not away from it as illustrated in one of the verses I posted a while ago.
Thank you, this was preached this morning.
__________________
"Some may call me foolish, some may call me odd; but I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man than a fool in the eyes of God..."
Get off your high horse, I didn't say that I espoused any of this activity, and don't try to put words in my mouth that the Bible is not my sole rule of faith.
Others can see that is what you posted.
Quote:
Back to first grade reading class.
maybe you need to return to first grade and learn how to write what you really mean better.
Quote:
Who said this is a theology? Some here are getting the question, some aren't and that's fine.
The Magic Hair thing is a theology
Quote:
St. Matthew, I agree wholeheartedly, today, no scripture, no doctrine.
You would not know it from what you have posted
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Wow! In other words he is saying we don't need bible. We just need to "hear from God" which is what the Pope claims to have been doing for centuries.
Shocking! So Jekyll is not sola scriptura. The sole rule of faith is not the word of God but the word of God plus whomever he believes is a prophet and hears something not found in the bible. I said it before...this magic hair stuff if not stopped leads to more heresy
No, I don't think anyone is saying that on this thread. I certainly haven't. I do believe in the ministry of the prophet as much as I believe in pastors, evangelists and the rest of the five fold ministry. Sure, there have always been prophets and will continue to be. The danger is when people base a doctrine on a revelation they supposedly have had that isn't found in the Word. Some say, "Ol' Brother So and So prophesied there will be floods in Iowa and it came to pass, so all of his "revelations" must be true. This sets a dangerous precedence that has led many into error.
I'll give a personal example. I use to attend a church where a brother pastored that I considered to be a prophet. He prophesied many things that came true. Later on, he began to have "revelations" from God that could not be substaniated by the Word. He said the Holy Ghost revealed to him that eating pork was a sin. And he required all of us younger preachers to abstain from pork and to preach his "revelation" as doctrine. I answered that I would when he could show me this "revelation" in the NT. He became angry and said he didn't have to have Bible for it if the Holy Ghost revealed it to him. Therein lies the danger. Doctrine has to be founded squarely on the Word and on nothing else.
The message of a true prophet takes us to the Word, not away from it as illustrated in one of the verses I posted a while ago.
Why is it that position and power just go to a person's brain and it gets a virus? Why can't men and women be content to be used of God instead of trying to be a god?
In the New Testament church, how was the scripture distributed and proved against false doctrine? Did they just try the spirits to see if they were of God? MP, which scriptures did they search daily? Was it the law? Did they have copies of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
Yes, I think they "tried the spirits" though, unless that phrase means "discernent" I admit I don'[t have a clear understanding as to what the Scriptures mean by "trying the spirits". I think the Scriptures they searched were, not only the Law, but the Prophets, as well. They read the writings of Isaiah, Jeremiah and many more (some we are not even privy to). The OT was their guide as the OT and NT is our written guide. No...I don't believe they had the Gospels at that time.
__________________
"Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for Him...." -Psa. 37:7
Waiting for the Lord is easy... Waiting patiently? Not so much.
I do plan on studying this thing out completely, but in reading some of the threads I began to wonder some things. I wonder what some of the posters would say if we began to hear things about Bro SP's ministry and that people were actually leaving him with cloths that had touced him to go lay on the sick, and that people were intentionally trying to get in his shadow so they could be healed. I see no specific Scriptural basis for either...in fact there is probably less Scriptural basis for those than for the significance of hair. I'm not saying that I agree with this as a Theology, I'm just pointing out that we do need to be very careful about what we say and what we criticize...Once again I'm not trying to say that nothing should ever be criticized, just be very careful.
__________________
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
My sentiments also!
Linear Mode
