Bro Suber's controversial sermon

[augustianian]

Originally Posted by Encryptus

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?

True. the only thing I would add is that such unbelief is not a result of free will but rather a will that is in bondage to sin.

Good conversation though.

a

[mizpeh]

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.

I don't know of any personally. But I have read books written about missionaries who I believe would qualify and meet the Biblical criteria presented by Paul. And I would dare to say you don't know every Christian alive. Neither do I think that the man who is an apostle or prophet needs to toot his own horn. It's sad that Paul had to defending his gift.

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

Because God gave the gifts of ministry of apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelists to the church for specific reasons. You are saying that apostles and prophets are no longer necessary yet I assume you see a need for pastors, teachers, and evangelists? But to the Ephesians and the Corinthians Paul stresses the need for all five types of ministry.

If you arbitrarily eliminate apostles and prophets, why stop there? Why not say we don't need teachers because the Holy Spirit can teach us all things. Or why not say we don't need any of the gifts of the ministry in the church? We can live for God independently? But then what would be the sense in Paul putting forth the concept of the body of Christ? and members with different gifts,.....etc?

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

The fact that they can't proves my point

You remind me of someone else I read about in the Bible. Thomas.

[augustianian]

It's up to them to prove it. I'm not opposed to them trying...but all I hear is the tooting of the horn. All smoke no fire.

The problem is that a supposed "prophet" or "apostle" replaces the careful exegesis of the scriptures with wives' tales and neo-pshychic foolishness. The majority of what I've seen I can see from John Edward or Sylvia Browne...why would I want to see it at church??

Again I say, they can say what they want but don't accuse the believer of skepticism if he/she obeys the scriptures and applies I Thessalonians 5:21 to their pronouncements and their deeds. I bet that if more Christians would do that these so called "prophets" and "apostles" would go back to the carnivals where they belong.

If you arbitrarily eliminate apostles and prophets, why stop there?

Obeying I Thessalonians 5:21 and consequently dismissing the "prophet" and "apostle" when they don't meet the criteria is not "arbitrarily eliminating" them. It's called discernment (a gift of the Spirit). So don't "arbitrarily eliminate" my gift to make room for theirs.

First of all, not all of the gifts are extra-ordinary gifts. Paul is giving the Spirit credit for the ordinary gifts (i.e. teaching) and credit for the extra-ordinary gifts. Why is it an either/or conundrum concerning this when all Im saying is basically... prove your gift. I've listened to teachers that I would say are not gifted in that area any more than these supposed "prophets" or "apostles". I've listened to preachers who, in my opinion, are not gifted in that area. Im sure you have to. Would you go on to say that there are no preachers that are gifted in that area?? I don't think so. So why would I HAVE to discount all of the gifts because some do not have certain gifts?? That makes no sense.

Let's get this clear...I do believe in prophets and apostles...but they're dead.

If they're not...then prove it.

Poor, poor Thomas. Why do you think he was the only one doubting??

Because the evidence had not been presented to him yet. If the others didn't doubt before the evidence had been presented then they were foolish. They weren't. They doubted just as much as Thomas did.

I wish more Christians would have that same kind of skepticism.

Remember, the problem the sheep have is that they don't believe that the wolf in sheep's clothing is really a wolf. Certain kind of doubt can save your life.

a

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by augustianian

Poor, poor Thomas. Why do you think he was the only one doubting??

Because the evidence had not been presented to him yet. If the others didn't doubt before the evidence had been presented then they were foolish. They weren't. They doubted just as much as Thomas did.

I think Jesus disagreed with you, especially on the point that those who believed without evidence being foolish.

Joh 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

I wish more Christians would have that same kind of skepticism.

Remember, the problem the sheep have is that they don't believe that the wolf in sheep's clothing is really a wolf. Certain kind of doubt can save your life.

a

augustianian,

What proof needs to be presented to show one is a prophet or apostle? (Supported by scripture) Are there biblical definitions that can be applied, and does it really have to do with signs or only with signs?

[MissBrattified]

It seems to me that signs and works are to follow believers, generically speaking, and are not specific to apostles and prophets from a scriptural perspective.

If signs were the proof for apostles and prophets and the bible says that "these signs shall follow them that believe", then that would mean (assuming that scripture were fulfilled), that all believers are essentially apostles/prophets.

If signs are to follow all believers, and believers are going to do greater things than Jesus did, then what is the distinct proof of a prophet or apostle, since the proof of signs and works is a generic proof of being a believer?

Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Joh 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

[MissBrattified]

Your call for signs/works to be duplicated is a bit of silliness, because again, if your logic were carried out, then prophets in the Old Testament would have had to duplicate the same signs of previous prophets in order to qualify, and we both know that didn't happen. In fact, most of them had works, miracles and signs which occurred exclusively during their ministries, signs that were as unique as their ministries.

[augustianian]

Seeing is not the only criteria for proof. The testimony of witnesses falls under the rubric of evidence also.

However, seeing and touching was the criteria for the apostles...with the testimony of WHAT they saw being our evidence.

We believe based on reasons (there's always a "because" in our faith propositions)...the kicker is if those 'reasons' are valid.

Pretty simple. See the miracles of Jesus and His apostles...if someone can duplicate those, i.e. raising the dead, healing the blind, organic miracles such as the growth of a limb etc...etc...then we can talk.

Relief of a back ache or a headache is NOT a miracle and is not evidence of an "apostle" or a "prophet."

Also, if a "prophet" is correct 100 percent of the time when he says "Thus says the Lord."

Then we go to his doctrine. Does he speak the truth? Does he know how to exegete the scriptures? Are the words that are coming out of his mouth consistent with the words that came out of God's??

How's that?

a

[augustianian]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

It seems to me that signs and works are to follow believers, generically speaking, and are not specific to apostles and prophets from a scriptural perspective.

If signs were the proof for apostles and prophets and the bible says that "these signs shall follow them that believe", then that would mean (assuming that scripture were fulfilled), that all believers are essentially apostles/prophets.

If signs are to follow all believers, and believers are going to do greater things than Jesus did, then what is the distinct proof of a prophet or apostle, since the proof of signs and works is a generic proof of being a believer?

Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Joh 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

I disagree with your argument.

The reason is that the verses in question do not say that ALL these signs will follow EVERY believer. If my contention were true concerning the distinction between an apostle/prophet and the ordinary believer it would not contradict these verses, nor my argument. It still could be said that these signs follow those that believe because apostle/prophet are included in the category of the believer.

An apostle/prophet is included in the passages you quoted (Mark 16:17,18 and John 14:12) but "believer" (generic as you proposed) is not included in II Corinthians 2:12).

So there is a distinction between a "believer" (generic) and an apostle/prophet.

But my disagreement is with the fact that such a distinction is made today between prophets/apostles and the ordinary believer. It's not warranted because the so called apostle/prophet cannot meet the criteria of II Corinthians 2:12.

Again, as I have said, he is welcome to try.

By the way, Mark 16:9-20, in my opinion, should not be used to prove anything. It's not original.

a

[augustianian]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Your call for signs/works to be duplicated is a bit of silliness, because again, if your logic were carried out, then prophets in the Old Testament would have had to duplicate the same signs of previous prophets in order to qualify, and we both know that didn't happen. In fact, most of them had works, miracles and signs which occurred exclusively during their ministries, signs that were as unique as their ministries.

If my logic were used with your premise then I suppose the above argument would work.

But...however,
the very fact that there was no duplication between the prophets of the OT and their predecessors argues FOR my position. I'm arguing for discontinuity also. Apostles/prophets of today ain't doing what their predecessors were doing. The burden of proof is on them to prove otherwise.

a

[SavedLou]

<----tip toes in to quickly insert an off-topic comment. MISS BRATTI...i see that u removed your "inigo montoya" link but i was excited to see it. long live princess bride!