Bro Suber's controversial sermon

[triumphant1]

Originally Posted by augustianian

I think the doctrine of cessation and those who teach it and believe it is attempted through special pleading and is not the intent of Paul when he wrote I Corinthians 13:8.

So...no the doctrine of cessation cannot be established through the text.

And no...I don't believe in the doctrine of cessation but I do believe in informed discernment and careful exegesis.

a

I understand...thanks.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by augustianian

Well if you believe that God is rational then I guess it would be by the ordinary standards or else why would you believe it??

I would contend that for you to think of a world without a creator would be illogical and irrational.

The proof of God is because of the impossibility of the contrary. Rationality, and an honest atheist, demands a world of order and uniformity which can only be logically adduced using the Christian presupposition.

A sovereign God exists and what He creates possesses rationality, logic, uniformity and order.

The atheist assumes rationality, logic, uniformity and order but denies the existence of a sovereign God...which leaves him without justification for what he assumes.

a

This is a good post! I think I might like you. Whoever you are.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by augustianian

Concerning my statement,
However, the apostle's ARE dead and the environment of their miracles and the reasons for them are different and no longer apply.

Im not sure what you're asking because the truth of my statement appears, to me, to be self-evident.

But in case you're wondering about my opinion concerning modern "apostles"...

We are not today giving the testimony of eyewitnesses to the resurrection while contending with Judaism and a system of Roman Paganism. That is a particular set of circumstances which God worked in to solidify Christian doctrine by using a select few to do wonders and miracles through to validate their message.

There are distinct deeds of an apostle that other believer's could not perform otherwise why would Paul list such deeds in II Corinthians 12:12?? I would also contend that to be called an apostle one would have to see the resurrected Lord, i.e. I Corinthians 9:1, which other than the special circumstances of Paul, did not happen after His ascension.

No matter though, a person's proclaimed apostleship can be easily established today....do what the originals did. That is doubtful.

If one wants to redefine the word "apostle" then that's fine, but I will redefine my reaction to them. In other words, I will not give them the respect that I give the originals.

The canon is complete.

As far as the verse you quoted....it happened...through the apostles and the early church.

Remember the verse says "anyone who has faith in me" not a special class of Christian that are more silly than right.

The special circumstances of the first century do not apply today.
God is not developing the canon.
God is not validating and authenticating the authors of the canon.
God is not validating and authenticating the foundation (Ephesians 5:20) of the Christian faith.

God works through the Word by the Spirit and the need for these "prophets" and "apostles" is not warranted nor should be wanted, in my opinion.

I couldn't disagree with your opinion more because there would be no need for the body of Christ, the church, if what you are asserting is true. All the gifts of the ministry have their place in the body as Paul states in Eph 4:11-12 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:


1Corinthians 12:27-31 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

If there are no apostles or prophets then there are no pastor, teachers, and evangelists either according to your logic.

I would agree with you about the signs of an apostle being proof of a claim to apostleship but as for the need to see the Lord, I'm not sure that is necessary. I think Paul was using that to further his justification that he was indeed an apostle of Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by augustianian

Phil,

Im not being contentious because me and you agree. Im just having a conversation.

God bless,
a

I may not be aware of much else, but of this I am aware.

Thanks for the conversation! You make it an intelligent one!

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by augustianian

The proof of God is because of the impossibility of the contrary. Rationality, and an honest atheist, demands a world of order and uniformity which can only be logically adduced using the Christian presupposition.

Just wondering why you say the only logically adduced God can be through a Christian presupposition as opposed to the idea of God in general?

[Encryptus]

"Originally Posted by augustianian
The proof of God is because of the impossibility of the contrary. Rationality, and an honest atheist, demands a world of order and uniformity which can only be logically adduced using the Christian presupposition."

I have found over the course of decades of such discussion, that the existence of God, tends to indefensible,( or at the very least non-definitive argumentation) by both sides if approached primarily from the view of a "world of order" therefore there must be an "Orderer". Both sides are reduced in the end to the faith of their own personal beginning prejudice.

Instead, the "proof" of God comes from an honest investigation of the historic Christ. Confronting the evidence, one comes face to face with truth. He is Who He said He is.

[augustianian]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Just wondering why you say the only logically adduced God can be through a Christian presupposition as opposed to the idea of God in general?

Actually I said that an atheist demands a world of order and uniformity which can only be adduced using Christian presuppositions...which means that God creates matter and, contrary to Hume and Kant, we do have a justification for believing that matter will act and react in certain ways because as a Christian God ordering matter and setting up it's parameters is a presupposition that an atheist does not make room for in his worldview.

The idea of a God in general is an ambiguous idea that is contradictory to our intuition about how we know the world works. The Christian God, a personal being, if true, demands uniformity and order in nature...which is the reality of the universe. Any other definition of God can only lead to an irrational paradigm of induction. In fact there is no induction at all.

Is it begging the question?? Yes, but the Christian now has an answer for Kant and Hume. The atheist, however, only has Kant and Hume.

a

[augustianian]

Originally Posted by Encryptus

"Originally Posted by augustianian
The proof of God is because of the impossibility of the contrary. Rationality, and an honest atheist, demands a world of order and uniformity which can only be logically adduced using the Christian presupposition."

I have found over the course of decades of such discussion, that the existence of God, tends to indefensible,( or at the very least non-definitive argumentation) by both sides if approached primarily from the view of a "world of order" therefore there must be an "Orderer". Both sides are reduced in the end to the faith of their own personal beginning prejudice.

Instead, the "proof" of God comes from an honest investigation of the historic Christ. Confronting the evidence, one comes face to face with truth. He is Who He said He is.

I agree...Christ is who He said He is. No doubt. The problem comes when the unbeliever is faced with the evidence and he still maintains his unbelief. The focus will inevitably be on the unbeliever's presuppositions. If he looks at evidence of any kind he assumes the laws of logic...why?? According to his worldview he has no reason for such an assumption...it, we, everything is just matter in motion, therefore the laws that govern matter in motion cannot exist because...it's just matter in motion and there's no reason to expect that the reality of today will be the reality of tomorrow.

The unbeliever doesn't live that way nor does he do math, science, or participate in the arts that way. He assumes order.

He assumes the Christian world view when he does such things...but then discounts it when he's faced with the person of Christ. He, consequently, does not follow the evidence nor can he...unless he is converted.

a

[Encryptus]

Originally Posted by augustianian

I agree...Christ is who He said He is. No doubt. The problem comes when the unbeliever is faced with the evidence and he still maintains his unbelief. The focus will inevitably be on the unbeliever's presuppositions. If he looks at evidence of any kind he assumes the laws of logic...why?? According to his worldview he has no reason for such an assumption...it, we, everything is just matter in motion, therefore the laws that govern matter in motion cannot exist because...it's just matter in motion and there's no reason to expect that the reality of today will be the reality of tomorrow.

The unbeliever doesn't live that way nor does he do math, science, or participate in the arts that way. He assumes order.

He assumes the Christian world view when he does such things...but then discounts it when he's faced with the person of Christ. He, consequently, does not follow the evidence nor can he...unless he is converted.

a

Which is perhaps why all shall not be saved.

The rich man wanted Lazarus to raise from the dead and talk to his brethren. He was told they had already rejected a greater testimony. That of the prophets. In this day and age if Jesus Christ were to appear and make a personal plea it would be chalked up to either delusion or trick video. Such is the nature of man.

I cannot intellectually "prove" a chair exists, and yet I sit down on it.

God has insured that faith must be part of the human condition.

No matter the methodology of truth there will be those who reject either through disbelief, or willful disobedience.

But once again is not that the consequence of free will?

[augustianian]

Why??

Holding out the possibility of 'prophets' and 'apostles' existing today is fine. When it comes to these 'apostles' and 'prophets' proving it...well that's a horse of another color.

As I've said before if they wish to redefine the terms, fine...but don't expect me to redefine the criteria. It's up to them, the so-called 'prophets' and 'apostles', to prove that their ministry is a duplication of those who we KNOW were 'prophets' and 'apostles'. I haven't seen such proof...nor do I like their chances.

It's up to them.

That's not my logic, that's yours. Why would that necessarily follow??

Ok...let them prove it by the duplication of the original's signs.

The fact that they can't proves my point.

a