Participation During Services

[ItinerantPreacher]

This thread was started because I participated in hijacking another thread.

Question 1

Did the aforementioned (in another thread) (commonly called the sign gifts) gifts cease? If they did not, you both propose the premise that they are not being practiced properly, so my question is:
A) Are they practiced in the church you attend?

B) If they are not being practiced properly in the church you attend, do you speak out?

The discussion in the thread in regards to the past few posts have been about everyone being allowed input in the church setting. So, my question is, do you practice what you preach?

Question 2

This is different, and goes closer to the heart of the last few posts. A cessasionist church has a non-cessasionist attend. (Which we do). The visitor knows the position of the church, and knew it prior to attending. During the sermon/lesson, something is said that he does not agree with. So, he speaks out. Publicly. A discussion ensues. Neither side changes their position, but a lot of time is taken up going back and forth.

Maybe it isn't cessation vs non-cessation, maybe it's Calvinism vs Free Will or Pre Millenial vs Amillenial, or the difference between Israel and the church.

The question is, what would you do next Sunday when he comes again and speaks out along the very same lines again? Is "everyone allowed to speak" or are some discussions better kept till after the service?

 

[prophet]

One at a time, here.

Define "cessationist church", using supporting Scripture for your position.

I'll reserve my take on it until after you post a response.

Please don't take me the wrong way.  I have an earnest desire to see the truth about our spiritual gifts be taught, and Christians be edified.  Why should we let Rome, or Azusa St. redefine Scriptural admonitions?

 

[christundivided]

1a. No
1b. No

2. I wouldn't personally disrupt a service unless I heard something total heretical being preached. Even then, I wouldn't do it unless I was in good standing to do so.

If it was heretical, I would certainly have my say concerning the issue and leave it at that. People either willing accept the truth, or I generally have no use to beat a dead horse.

I do think it is nonsensical to think that someone "preaching" has a right to say anything he has to say without being interrupted.

 

[ALAYMAN]

The question is, what would you do next Sunday when he comes again and speaks out along the very same lines again? Is "everyone allowed to speak" or are some discussions better kept till after the service?

Tell him to shut up and talk to the teaching pastor/elder(s) about it afterward in private, or be forcibly removed.

 

[christundivided]

The question is, what would you do next Sunday when he comes again and speaks out along the very same lines again? Is "everyone allowed to speak" or are some discussions better kept till after the service?

Tell him to shut up and talk to the teaching pastor/elder(s) about it afterward in private, or be forcibly removed.

I've seen some pretty big temper tantrums thrown in a pulpit over the years. Some that ended with the one throwing the tantrum leaving after being called down for it. I vaguely remember a preacher who was auditioning for "pastor" throwing a tantrum when he didn't get 50 percent of the vote. He proceeded to have a service in which he opened all the doors in the church and began trying to cast out the demons that were in the congregation...... and Yes. He was a "Baptist". I had no problem with them kicking him out.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

One at a time, here.

Define "cessationist church", using supporting Scripture for your position.

I'll reserve my take on it until after you post a response.

Please don't take me the wrong way.  I have an earnest desire to see the truth about our spiritual gifts be taught, and Christians be edified.  Why should we let Rome, or Azusa St. redefine Scriptural admonitions?

Ok, you are asking me for a long answer and I have a short amount of time, so I will try to encapsulate.

I believe as does the church I pastor that there were a particular set of gifts that are referred to in Christian nomenclature and Scripture as sign gifts. Mark 16:17&20, Acts 2:43, Acts 5:12 etc

These signs were given to authenticate the message, and were specifically needed to convince the Jew. 1 Corinthians 1:22

The Gift of Healing
- I believe God heals in answer to prayer, James 5:16, but that the gift of healing was a supernatural ability given to a select group of men, and that they could heal Acts 3:6, Acts 5:16, Acts 8:7 etc

The Gift of Tongues
- I believe the gift of tongues was the supernatural ability to speak in a language previously unknown to the speaker. It was the gift of tongues, not the gift of ears, in other words those speaking in tongues did not speak in estatic utterances or a heavenly language which was then translated in the hearers ears, they were speaking in an earthly tongue, but it was unknown to the speaker. There was one gift of tongues, not two different gifts of tongues, one earthly, one heavenly. and tongues were not for the edification of the believer, but rather a sign for unbelievers.  1 Corinthians 14:22, Acts 2, Acts 10:46.

The Gift of Prophecy
- I believe the gift of prophecy was the supernatural ability to receive direct revelation from God that had the same authourity as scripture. It was always 100 percent accurate, and it was specific as opposed to vague. It was subject to the same criteria as a false prophet was in the OT, the difference being that the NT Church was not commanded to exercise capital punishment, but to wholly reject the prophet. Prophecy in scripture is described as both foretelling and forthtelling. We still forthtell today, but there is no foretelling. The completion of the Canon of scripture rendered the gift unnecessary.

Now, I do not interpret 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 as "that which is perfect" = the Word of God. I have many friends who do, and i am familiar with the argument, but I do not. A study of the verb tenses in verse 8 will clear up the misunderstanding, and show that tongues ceased themselves as they were rendered obsolete.

There are other sign gifts, but they are not in use today. The three I mentioned are the gifts most talked about in Christian circles, and there use no longer resembles anything like the NT.

Two specific sign gifts or signs mentioned in Mark 16:15-18 are not even alluded to in the modern church except for one of them in a few off the wall locations.

That is my short take, all I have time for.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

The question is, what would you do next Sunday when he comes again and speaks out along the very same lines again? Is "everyone allowed to speak" or are some discussions better kept till after the service?

Tell him to shut up and talk to the teaching pastor/elder(s) about it afterward in private, or be forcibly removed.

That's my position. Now, to be clear, that is how he conducts himself, he also does not go around contradicting the teaching to the membership surreptitiously, and so he is welcome to continue to attend.

However, that has not always been the case with others.

 

[christundivided]

The question is, what would you do next Sunday when he comes again and speaks out along the very same lines again? Is "everyone allowed to speak" or are some discussions better kept till after the service?

Tell him to shut up and talk to the teaching pastor/elder(s) about it afterward in private, or be forcibly removed.

That's my position. Now, to be clear, that is how he conducts himself, he also does not go around contradicting the teaching to the membership surreptitiously, and so he is welcome to continue to attend.

However, that has not always been the case with others.

So..... You're not looking to really abandon your beliefs to embrace the truth.... You think you already know everything there is to know. You're only let those who agree with you participate!!!!!

Sounds really immature. I personally enjoy being challenged. Even if I disagree, I enjoy the challenge to know why I disagree.

I've certain heard more lies being preached than I've ever heard the truth. By your own standard, I'd given up listening to anything.... a long time ago.

 

[prophet]

One at a time, here.

Define "cessationist church", using supporting Scripture for your position.

I'll reserve my take on it until after you post a response.

Please don't take me the wrong way.  I have an earnest desire to see the truth about our spiritual gifts be taught, and Christians be edified.  Why should we let Rome, or Azusa St. redefine Scriptural admonitions?

Ok, you are asking me for a long answer and I have a short amount of time, so I will try to encapsulate.

I believe as does the church I pastor that there were a particular set of gifts that are referred to in Christian nomenclature and Scripture as sign gifts. Mark 16:17&20, Acts 2:43, Acts 5:12 etc

These signs were given to authenticate the message, and were specifically needed to convince the Jew. 1 Corinthians 1:22

The Gift of Healing
- I believe God heals in answer to prayer, James 5:16, but that the gift of healing was a supernatural ability given to a select group of men, and that they could heal Acts 3:6, Acts 5:16, Acts 8:7 etc

The Gift of Tongues
- I believe the gift of tongues was the supernatural ability to speak in a language previously unknown to the speaker. It was the gift of tongues, not the gift of ears, in other words those speaking in tongues did not speak in estatic utterances or a heavenly language which was then translated in the hearers ears, they were speaking in an earthly tongue, but it was unknown to the speaker. There was one gift of tongues, not two different gifts of tongues, one earthly, one heavenly. and tongues were not for the edification of the believer, but rather a sign for unbelievers.  1 Corinthians 14:22, Acts 2, Acts 10:46.

The Gift of Prophecy
- I believe the gift of prophecy was the supernatural ability to receive direct revelation from God that had the same authourity as scripture. It was always 100 percent accurate, and it was specific as opposed to vague. It was subject to the same criteria as a false prophet was in the OT, the difference being that the NT Church was not commanded to exercise capital punishment, but to wholly reject the prophet. Prophecy in scripture is described as both foretelling and forthtelling. We still forthtell today, but there is no foretelling. The completion of the Canon of scripture rendered the gift unnecessary.

Now, I do not interpret 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 as "that which is perfect" = the Word of God. I have many friends who do, and i am familiar with the argument, but I do not. A study of the verb tenses in verse 8 will clear up the misunderstanding, and show that tongues ceased themselves as they were rendered obsolete.

There are other sign gifts, but they are not in use today. The three I mentioned are the gifts most talked about in Christian circles, and there use no longer resembles anything like the NT.

Two specific sign gifts or signs mentioned in Mark 16:15-18 are not even alluded to in the modern church except for one of them in a few off the wall locations.

That is my short take, all I have time for.

I agree with about half of your posted principles.

The fact that Paul told the Corinthians that

1Co 14:37
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Turns the other half  on its ear.

The church at Corinth wasn't in Israel.
The church had no Apostles, who were God's last generation of Revelators.

Yet he said: "any man", and "commandment".

He even set it up as a rule of thumb , by which to judge the gifts and spiritual level of men who say they are prophets, or worthy of office.

By this same rule of thumb, a cessationist church is a rebellious church, defiant of the Word of God.

For instance:"all may prophesy".
Now, what of the Canon was revealed by any Corinthian convert?

........

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Qujick reply so we don't get half a page of repeated text.

You are concluding that the word prophet, prophecy and prophesy all deal only with foretelling, when in fact they all carry the dual meaning of either foretelling or forthtelling.

In context, 1 Corinthians 14:37 is not Paul affirming that there were prophets in the Corinthian Church, but rather that there were those that considered themselves prophets, a pretty big difference.

 

[BALAAM]

The question is, what would you do next Sunday when he comes again and speaks out along the very same lines again? Is "everyone allowed to speak" or are some discussions better kept till after the service?

Tell him to shut up and talk to the teaching pastor/elder(s) about it afterward in private, or be forcibly removed.

That's my position. Now, to be clear, that is how he conducts himself, he also does not go around contradicting the teaching to the membership surreptitiously, and so he is welcome to continue to attend.

However, that has not always been the case with others.

So..... You're not looking to really abandon your beliefs to embrace the truth.... You think you already know everything there is to know. You're only let those who agree with you participate!!!!!

Sounds really immature. I personally enjoy being challenged. Even if I disagree, I enjoy the challenge to know why I disagree.

I've certain heard more lies being preached than I've ever heard the truth. By your own standard, I'd given up listening to anything.... a long time ago.

Has anyone ever told you what an engaging personality you have?




Didn't think so.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The question is, what would you do next Sunday when he comes again and speaks out along the very same lines again? Is "everyone allowed to speak" or are some discussions better kept till after the service?

Tell him to shut up and talk to the teaching pastor/elder(s) about it afterward in private, or be forcibly removed.

That's my position. Now, to be clear, that is how he conducts himself, he also does not go around contradicting the teaching to the membership surreptitiously, and so he is welcome to continue to attend.

However, that has not always been the case with others.

 

[subllibrm]

The question is, what would you do next Sunday when he comes again and speaks out along the very same lines again? Is "everyone allowed to speak" or are some discussions better kept till after the service?

Tell him to shut up and talk to the teaching pastor/elder(s) about it afterward in private, or be forcibly removed.

That's my position. Now, to be clear, that is how he conducts himself, he also does not go around contradicting the teaching to the membership surreptitiously, and so he is welcome to continue to attend.

However, that has not always been the case with others.

Alex was obviously a DOEG!!!!!


;D

 

[T-Bone]

The question is, what would you do next Sunday when he comes again and speaks out along the very same lines again? Is "everyone allowed to speak" or are some discussions better kept till after the service?

Tell him to shut up and talk to the teaching pastor/elder(s) about it afterward in private, or be forcibly removed.

That's my position. Now, to be clear, that is how he conducts himself, he also does not go around contradicting the teaching to the membership surreptitiously, and so he is welcome to continue to attend.

However, that has not always been the case with others.

Alex was obviously a DOEG!!!!!


;D

Thus the problem with the "Man-o-gwad" syndrome...it is not biblical nor is it Baptistic.  The speaker is not the final authority the Word is. 

I like to put it this way...It is not the messenger that validates the message, but the message that validates the messenger!

 

[christundivided]

The question is, what would you do next Sunday when he comes again and speaks out along the very same lines again? Is "everyone allowed to speak" or are some discussions better kept till after the service?

Tell him to shut up and talk to the teaching pastor/elder(s) about it afterward in private, or be forcibly removed.

That's my position. Now, to be clear, that is how he conducts himself, he also does not go around contradicting the teaching to the membership surreptitiously, and so he is welcome to continue to attend.

However, that has not always been the case with others.

So..... You're not looking to really abandon your beliefs to embrace the truth.... You think you already know everything there is to know. You're only let those who agree with you participate!!!!!

Sounds really immature. I personally enjoy being challenged. Even if I disagree, I enjoy the challenge to know why I disagree.

I've certain heard more lies being preached than I've ever heard the truth. By your own standard, I'd given up listening to anything.... a long time ago.

Has anyone ever told you what an engaging personality you have?

Didn't think so.

Has anyone ever told your forum handle is a "false prophet". I wouldn't even use that name if I was "playing around". Pretty dumb if you ask me. Don't be surprised if I don't worry about what you think....

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

The question is, what would you do next Sunday when he comes again and speaks out along the very same lines again? Is "everyone allowed to speak" or are some discussions better kept till after the service?

Tell him to shut up and talk to the teaching pastor/elder(s) about it afterward in private, or be forcibly removed.

That's my position. Now, to be clear, that is how he conducts himself, he also does not go around contradicting the teaching to the membership surreptitiously, and so he is welcome to continue to attend.

However, that has not always been the case with others.

So..... You're not looking to really abandon your beliefs to embrace the truth.... You think you already know everything there is to know. You're only let those who agree with you participate!!!!!

Sounds really immature. I personally enjoy being challenged. Even if I disagree, I enjoy the challenge to know why I disagree.

I've certain heard more lies being preached than I've ever heard the truth. By your own standard, I'd given up listening to anything.... a long time ago.

The problem is not with asking to be shown why something is true or not true, every preacher/teacher ought to be doing that with the Word as they preach in the first place. Your answer is simply naive, a sign of your own immaturity.

Different doctrinal positions on a variety of topics have existed for a very long time. Traditionally, a group of people with the same or very similar beliefs assembled together, and they became a church. Enough of those churches, and you have a denomination. Usually, the denomination got a label, the label identified the doctrine, or the particular set of beliefs that the people believed.  Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Plymouth Brethren, Christadelphian, to name a few. You know what people believe when you walk in the door. What would be the purpose of a non-cessacionist knowingly going to a cessationist church? To cause division in the name of edification, assuming everyone there was not as enlightened as they were. Prideful. Arrogant. Your ideas go against the very grain of 1 Corinthians 14:26. They did what you propose. And, Paul reproved them for it.

Consider this, how would I be received if I showed up at your church Sunday after Sunday challenging what was said from the pulpit? Sunday after Sunday we went around and around and around, and I kept circling you back to the same topic, refusing to change what I believed, and challenging what you believed? When you preach/teach on almsgiving, I'm going back to tongues, when you preach/teach on serving either each other or the community, I'm going back to tongues. When you preach/teach on character, I'm going back to tongues. We are going to talk about the interpretation of verses, the tenses of verbs, the cross references that apply, and I am not going to relent until you change, because you say you want to be convinced about the truth, and I am convinced I have the truth. I am also prepared to stay the course for the good of the brethren.

Now, I ask again, how am I going to be received?

 

[christundivided]

The problem is not with asking to be shown why something is true or not true, every preacher/teacher ought to be doing that with the Word as they preach in the first place. Your answer is simply naive, a sign of your own immaturity.

Yeah... I usually hear that from children who think their teenagers in Christ.

Different doctrinal positions on a variety of topics have existed for a very long time. Traditionally, a group of people with the same or very similar beliefs assembled together, and they became a church. Enough of those churches, and you have a denomination. Usually, the denomination got a label, the label identified the doctrine, or the particular set of beliefs that the people believed.

Denominationalism is foolishness. Nothing more. Nothing less. I know you dumb nut "Baptist" wear it as a bag of honor..... but you're acting like Barney with a new "tin star".

Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Plymouth Brethren, Christadelphian, to name a few.

What branch of them? There are Baptist that all believe generally the same thing who refuse to fellowship among those of like faith.

You know what people believe when you walk in the door.

Nope. Not at all. There is all forms of crazy across the "baptist" ranks. I never know which crazy I am going to get.

What would be the purpose of a non-cessacionist knowingly going to a cessationist church? To cause division in the name of edification, assuming everyone there was not as enlightened as they were. Prideful. Arrogant. Your ideas go against the very grain of 1 Corinthians 14:26. They did what you propose. And, Paul reproved them for it.

Oh.... I get your point. I'm sure this makes since in "your mind".... but. Paul was talking to a church that had a lot of problems. A lot of divisions. He didn't tell the to all separate and "clan up"....so they could all "get along" at church.

Consider this, how would I be received if I showed up at your church Sunday after Sunday challenging what was said from the pulpit?

Don't be a liar. You're not going to let it happen more than once. Not Sunday after Sunday.... So don't us a dishonest hypothetical situation.

Sunday after Sunday we went around and around and around, and I kept circling you back to the same topic, refusing to change what I believed, and challenging what you believed? When you preach/teach on almsgiving, I'm going back to tongues, when you preach/teach on serving either each other or the community, I'm going back to tongues. When you preach/teach on character, I'm going back to tongues. We are going to talk about the interpretation of verses, the tenses of verbs, the cross references that apply, and I am not going to relent until you change, because you say you want to be convinced about the truth, and I am convinced I have the truth. I am also prepared to stay the course for the good of the brethren.

Someone is right and someone is wrong. If the gift proves itself. You have nothing to say. You should shut your mouth and go back to your little baby crib and take a nap.

Now, I ask again, how am I going to be received?

Who cares how its received. Let the "chips fall where they may".

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

This is different, and goes closer to the heart of the last few posts. A cessasionist church has a non-cessasionist attend. (Which we do). The visitor knows the position of the church, and knew it prior to attending. During the sermon/lesson, something is said that he does not agree with. So, he speaks out. Publicly. A discussion ensues. Neither side changes their position, but a lot of time is taken up going back and forth.

Maybe it isn't cessation vs non-cessation, maybe it's Calvinism vs Free Will or Pre Millenial vs Amillenial, or the difference between Israel and the church.

The question is, what would you do next Sunday when he comes again and speaks out along the very same lines again? Is "everyone allowed to speak" or are some discussions better kept till after the service?

There are two things wrong with your hypothetical.

1. You are deliberately choosing hot button doctrines which stimulate lengthy debate in order to build a straw man.  I don't think Paul had in mind in 1 Cor 14 that two or three prophets would get up and expound on controversial doctrines at length. 

2. What you are REALLY doing is posing this question, "What would happen if someone came to our church and treated it as if it were a 1 Cor 14 scriptural assembly of believers, when it's not?" 

29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged.

That's not the way your church operates at all, so any interactive feedback is naturally going to be disruptive.  If you followed the above scripture, then interactive feedback would be perfectly natural.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

This is different, and goes closer to the heart of the last few posts. A cessasionist church has a non-cessasionist attend. (Which we do). The visitor knows the position of the church, and knew it prior to attending. During the sermon/lesson, something is said that he does not agree with. So, he speaks out. Publicly. A discussion ensues. Neither side changes their position, but a lot of time is taken up going back and forth.

Maybe it isn't cessation vs non-cessation, maybe it's Calvinism vs Free Will or Pre Millenial vs Amillenial, or the difference between Israel and the church.

The question is, what would you do next Sunday when he comes again and speaks out along the very same lines again? Is "everyone allowed to speak" or are some discussions better kept till after the service?

There are two things wrong with your hypothetical.

1. You are deliberately choosing hot button doctrines which stimulate lengthy debate in order to build a straw man.  I don't think Paul had in mind in 1 Cor 14 that two or three prophets would get up and expound on controversial doctrines at length. 

2. What you are REALLY doing is posing this question, "What would happen if someone came to our church and treated it as if it were a 1 Cor 14 scriptural assembly of believers, when it's not?" 

29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged.

That's not the way your church operates at all, so any interactive feedback is naturally going to be disruptive.  If you followed the above scripture, then interactive feedback would be perfectly natural.

In reality, I have seen this happen, with the intent of taking over the church. Using that topic. Tongues.

Titus gives us insight into how to deal with it.
Titus 3:9-11  But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

Heresy includes more than simply not being on the same page about salvation. Certainly this can be abused, but the fact that it can be abused does not negate it from being followed.

 

[christundivided]

This is different, and goes closer to the heart of the last few posts. A cessasionist church has a non-cessasionist attend. (Which we do). The visitor knows the position of the church, and knew it prior to attending. During the sermon/lesson, something is said that he does not agree with. So, he speaks out. Publicly. A discussion ensues. Neither side changes their position, but a lot of time is taken up going back and forth.

Maybe it isn't cessation vs non-cessation, maybe it's Calvinism vs Free Will or Pre Millenial vs Amillenial, or the difference between Israel and the church.

The question is, what would you do next Sunday when he comes again and speaks out along the very same lines again? Is "everyone allowed to speak" or are some discussions better kept till after the service?

There are two things wrong with your hypothetical.

1. You are deliberately choosing hot button doctrines which stimulate lengthy debate in order to build a straw man.  I don't think Paul had in mind in 1 Cor 14 that two or three prophets would get up and expound on controversial doctrines at length. 

2. What you are REALLY doing is posing this question, "What would happen if someone came to our church and treated it as if it were a 1 Cor 14 scriptural assembly of believers, when it's not?" 

29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged.

That's not the way your church operates at all, so any interactive feedback is naturally going to be disruptive.  If you followed the above scripture, then interactive feedback would be perfectly natural.

In reality, I have seen this happen, with the intent of taking over the church. Using that topic. Tongues.

Titus gives us insight into how to deal with it.
Titus 3:9-11  But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

Heresy includes more than simply not being on the same page about salvation. Certainly this can be abused, but the fact that it can be abused does not negate it from being followed.

So... You're only going to consider whether he is a heretic after the first and second abomination?

Will every one else have the pleasure of joining in???