|
Post by messengermicah on Aug 16, 2006 20:35:36 GMT -5
Something brought to my attention by the late Paul DeParrie (porcupine) in a conversation I had with him was when Paul the apostle called attention several times in the book of Acts to his Roman citizenship. He stood on the rights of his Roman citizenship.
The motive of Paul doing this, and also the motive for lawsuits should be to keep the door open to the preaching of the gospel.
Lawsuits against other Christians are definitely not permissable.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Aug 17, 2006 20:33:39 GMT -5
What do you mean "what does that have to do with the discussion?" Anybody that "holy" just couldn't have been a Calvinist. Just kidding.
I think I agree with you about those godly Calvinists not thinking about sin in the same way we are talking about it.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Aug 9, 2006 17:17:17 GMT -5
Rob,
The bible says that Stephen was full of faith and power and did great wonders and miracles among the people...and they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which He spake (Acts 6:8, 10).
He is then brought before the Jewish leaders and preaches a message which gets him stoned to death.
In Acts 8 it says Saul (Paul) was consenting unto his death. So Paul heard Stephen's preaching and saw him stoned to death.
It seems as if Stephen did great wonders and miracles among the people, he probably had conversions also. He certainly was effective.
Most people believe Paul the Apostle could not shake Stephen's preaching, testimony and martyrdom and was converted as a result.
Good question and insight.
I tend to be in the middle of this discussion. I certainly believe we are to be effective and to have fruit, however, I think it is dangerous and presumptuous to attempt to judge a ministry by what "fruit" we think it should be bearing.
Stephen as well as many others died before they ever saw the real fruit of their ministry. The fruit that springs up quickly does so because it has no root.
Often it takes many years of plowing, planting, and watering to produce a lasting harvest.
To reap in joy it is necessary to sow in tears.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Aug 8, 2006 15:31:03 GMT -5
Amen! That is the truth. All the love stuff comes from defending sin.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Aug 3, 2006 8:38:06 GMT -5
Amen biblethumper! I agree. I have also had times when I went down under the power of God and came up changed.
This is not to say (and I know biblethumper will agree with me on this), that there is not plenty of charismatic flakiness, foolishness, and game playing. Hey, we hate that foolishness too.
However, to say that this is always an experience that is not scriptural is error. Be careful about speaking lightly about a move of the Holy Spirit. Many people did this in all true revivals (I am not saying there is true revival going on in charismatic churches because people are falling down under the power).
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Jul 30, 2006 12:00:56 GMT -5
Some churches will and some will not. There were always churches that opposed Finney when revival was breaking out in his day.
I agree though that some established churches will change, though they usually revert back to coldness once the excitement is passed. This is not my opinion but a fact of revival history.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Jul 30, 2006 10:56:31 GMT -5
Evan,
I understand where you are coming from, and appreciate it, however, I have been playing those church games almost as long as you have been alive. I am not going to waste another 20 years of my life doing that.
I agree with you about not cutting yourself off totally from the local church. I have not done this, and there are many people at our local church who support what we do, even though the leadership does not.
I do not necessarily think if God moves, He has to move through the local church in revival. If by the local church you mean the Biblical Christians in that area who fast, pray and live in sin free obedience to God then I would say yes, God will have to move through the local church, His body, His people.
If by the local church you mean the established church, and the "steeple houses" I would disagree.
In days past many times God had to work outside of the established church. This was true with the Methodist church and the Salvation Army just to name a few examples. Neither of these movements nor their leaders were accepted by the established church.
I am praying that if God decides to reform the local church to move through it then fine. If He wants to move outside the local church then fine.
However, I will not waste all my time and energy trying to make a difference in a local church who is set in their ways.
I maybe wrong, but after about 20 years of that foolishness, you get tired of it and tend to lose hope.
I HAVE NOT lost hope in God sending revival or His people meeting the conditions for revival, I just do not think it will happen through the local established churches.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Jul 30, 2006 5:55:43 GMT -5
Unfortunately, that is the truth about the established church in America in a general way. There are exceptions of course.
Jack Jackson,
I believe you are doing the right thing. We are doing something similiar here. I believe this is the only thing to do to have a conscience void of offense toward God and man. We can't participate and condone such foolishness in good conscience.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Jul 25, 2006 22:01:26 GMT -5
Yes, I like John Rice also. I am aware he was against tongues, but I like much of his writings. I have read parts of a book he wrote about revival. I think it is called, "We Can Have Revival Now".
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Jul 25, 2006 20:45:10 GMT -5
Doc H,
I really appreciate you and your sons, and I do not necessarily want to discuss this if it is going to end up in strife and name calling (I am not accusing you of doing this because I do not think you have, but when people make insinuations on people's motives then it can turn into that-saying we do not believe the bible, we believe our experiences, etc).
I do not want to divide over a non essential issue like tongues.
However, I do not mind a friendly discussion, as long as both of us avoid all insinuations of the other being inferior, ignorant of the bible, going by experiences, etc.
Agreed?
If you believe I am doing this, please point it out to me and I will apologize, because either of us could do this accidentally.
I think you and your boys are true believers and doing a great work.
Thank you for the apology.
Paul also said knowledge shall vanish away but it has not. He also said prophecies shall fail but they have not because as you just pointed out above, you and I along with many others are still proclaiming the gospel. 1 Corinthians 13:8.
I have a few questions for you.
If Paul is referring to languages that he knows in 1 Corinthians 14:18 (inferring he spoke many different languages), why in the next verse does he say he would rather speak 5 words WITH HIS UNDERSTANDING than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
If he knows all these different languages wouldn't he be speaking in all of them with his understanding?
I am not aware of your previous posts on 1 Corinthians 14:2. Why don't you give an explanation to the question I asked above?
I have read the book of 1 Corinthians hundreds of times and do not see what you are talking about above. Can you be more specific about what you are talking about with tongues (plural), Spirit (big S), etc.
If you believe you have already answered this more fully in another post or thread then just copy and paste it over here.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Jul 24, 2006 10:11:44 GMT -5
Doc H,
Oh boy, here we go again.
O.K. First, do I always pray in an unknown tongue? No.
Why not? Jude 20 says to pray always in the Holy Ghost.
First of all, I do not believe the only way to pray in the Spirit is to pray in tongues. I have never believed that, nor did I ever say that. You can pray in tongues in the flesh or you can pray in tongues in the spirit, the same way you can pray in English (or a known language) in the flesh or in the spirit.
I answered these questions of yours before, so I do not appreciate your insinuation that I have avoided answering you before. You stated above that you "believe" you asked me this before. Can you show me where you asked me this before and I did not respond?
Doc H, did you read my previous posts. I never said people like Edwards, Whitfield, etc, were not spirit filled because they did not speak in tongues. In fact, I said the opposite. Just look back a few posts.
What was the purpose of them speaking in known languages in Acts 10?
Why did Paul say in 1 Corinthians 14:2-For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh NOT UNTO MEN (NOT UNTO MEN), BUT UNTO GOD (BUT UNTO GOD): FOR NO MAN UNDERSTANDETH HIM (NO MAN UNDERSTANDS HIM); howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
Paul said not all speak with tongues, because he was talking about the public ministry of giving a message in tongues not a private prayer language.
Besides, if Paul said that why would you have a problem with some people speaking in tongues?
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Jul 23, 2006 23:49:42 GMT -5
Jim,
Where is Avon Park and how close are you to Miami? Please let me know if there are any events going on up there. Maybe we can work together some time.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Jul 23, 2006 23:45:26 GMT -5
luketentwo,
How do I send you something?
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Jul 23, 2006 23:32:25 GMT -5
Rebecca,
Thanks for sharing that about groaning. I have been groaning in prayer regularly for about 11 years. At times it is constant. If I had a break at work where I could sit quietly for a few minutes I would be groaning. Many times as I lay down to sleep I have to groan to get relief.
Groaning and travail in prayer used to bring me a lot of misunderstanding and persecution. Some people used to be afraid to pray around me, because I would get overwhelmed and have to groan or travail to get relief.
In the days before I started open air preaching, I had alot more time to pray (because instead of preaching I would pray all the time), it would be very heavy on me alot of times.
I think misunderstanding in these areas is a result of the shallow prayer lives of most modern Christians. I am not saying if someone does not groan or travail then their prayer life is shallow.
What I am saying is this should not be such a novelty. Open air preaching has become something of a novelty because the church does not obey the Lord's commandment to go preach. If more people were obeying the Lord more people would be open air preaching and it would not be so unusual.
Same thing with groaning and travail. If more Christians were taking time to wait on God in prayer, and allow Him to intercede through them, groaning and travailing would not be so unusual.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Jul 23, 2006 0:29:43 GMT -5
Whether or not Jesus ever spoke in tongues, I do not know, however, I do know Jesus said that those who believed in Him would speak in tongues (Mark 16).
Evan,
I talked with this about Michael Venyah when he was here and he also believed that Finney spoke with tongues. I have heard from others that he did, but I have never read anything where he talks about it. He does talk much about groaning in prayer which is not necessarily tongues (Romans 8:26). I groan all the time when I am praying.
I was not sure if luketentwo was being sarcastic or not when he asked the question, but I tried to answer him as if he was not. I thought it was odd he put me preaching and you speaking in tongues in the same category.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Jul 22, 2006 13:57:08 GMT -5
I speak with tongues and I think there is a strong case for tongues being the initial evidence as far as the bible goes.
I agree that no one in the bible was ever seeking to speak in tongues when they were filled. I have been reading Azusa Street recently and it was the same there. No one was seeking tongues, they were seeking God.
I would never say someone is not filled with the Holy Spirit if they don't speak in tongues though. I do not know if people like Finney, Wesley, Booth, Brainerd, etc. spoke in tongues, but they were definitely filled with the Holy Spirit.
The problem with most Pentecostals is tongues is not only the initial evidence of being filled, but is the only evidence they are filled.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Jul 22, 2006 11:41:41 GMT -5
luketentwo,
There is no audio or video tapes of me preaching anywhere on the internet that I am aware of, except for several 30-45 second clips a photojournalist took of me preaching.
That is how I know the person who makes the comments about me has never heard me preach.
I would not judge someone else's overall message and life just by listening to several short clips from a photojournalist who is not a Christian.
I don't think anyone who saw me preach who is living in holiness and obedience to God would have any problem with my preaching.
Someone who is hiding or defending sin would.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Jul 22, 2006 6:00:35 GMT -5
Praise the Lord! I would like to hear some Faith Tech tapes myself. I know Bob Reid is from Michigan and teaches Moral Government principles.
I am surprised you thought I left. Why did you think that?
I have been around for a long time and seen a lot of things. Most of the things on that happen on this message board, that get a lot of people all worked up are not that big of a deal to me. Even people who have never heard me preach claiming I do the devil's work.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Jul 21, 2006 21:29:15 GMT -5
Evan,
Do you speak in tongues? It seems like you do. If so how long have you been speaking in tongues? Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Aug 14, 2006 15:42:12 GMT -5
I don't know if he is making that distinction or not.
I am. I am not in favor of physically defending myself if attacked when preaching (and I have been several times).
I do not apply this to areas of defending my family or other defenseless people in everyday life when I am doing nothing to be persecuted.
I think it is the right thing to do, but it does not mean I look forward to physically roughing someone up who is attacking someone else.
When I worked in a juevenile justice institution, we had to restrain the guys sometimes and rough them up a bit. It was good because they had respect for staff. Nowadays I do not think they can do that anymore and the inmates have no respect for staff.
Aren't we supposed to physically discipline children? Would that be considered violence by the standards jhopper is using?
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Aug 14, 2006 13:56:22 GMT -5
I don't think jhopper is making a distinction between being attacked for the name of Jesus and being attacked period. If I am walking down the street with my wife, and someone jumps out and starts attacking us, of course I am going to defend my wife.
My motive is not to hurt someone for the sake of pleasure, but the motive is love for my wife. That is virtuous. The same goes for any defenseless person.
Some of the questions from jhopper seem a little ridiculous. I wonder if he puts on a seatbelt in the car or locks his doors at night to protect his family.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Aug 5, 2006 22:55:30 GMT -5
I agree with pacp.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Aug 4, 2006 13:18:39 GMT -5
Yes, I read about this several months ago.
I think people who never preach to homosexuals have no idea how they operate and how anti-God most of them are.
Many people at the church I attend seem to think all I do is go out and bash homosexuals. I condemn all kinds of sin, but homosexuals are the ones who put up the most opposition.
Most homosexuals are quick to tell you Jesus loves them, so that is not the message we need to come with at all.
I will say that in our country to preach against certain sins like homosex and abortion almost requires us to become somewhat of a political activist. It is true though if we only focus on one thing we can just become a political activist.
The problem is most Christians are not enough of a political activist. They want to avoid confronting the sins head on and just talk about Jesus. Confronting these sins head on will make quite a stir and may get you in trouble with the law.
If we don't fight to uphold first amendment rights while we have them we will lose them.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Aug 1, 2006 16:52:27 GMT -5
pacp,
Yes.
rebecca,
Again, it is never best to preach alone whether you are male or female.
However, if you must preach alone, then preach alone. It is just not ideal. I preach alone sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Aug 1, 2006 16:43:42 GMT -5
It is always better to preach with someone else if possible, whether you are male or female.
I don't know if women are necessarily more susceptible to attacks than men. My wife has never been attacked but I have. Another sister who preaches with us has never been attacked either.
Sometimes though I guess we have to preach alone, and let the chips fall where they may.
I have been preaching many times, and the situation was on the verge of a riot. Officers would ask us to stop or take a break for our own safety. I can understand this. It reaches a point of diminishing return to continue to preach to a mob.
I do not say this out of fear, as I had no fear at all during these times, and am ready to lay down my life if necessary.
I just don't think it is so black and white, that you must stay preaching until you are beaten to death in every situation.
I certainly never like to back down and never do, unless told by police to do so. I just think sometimes in the heat of battle we may not act wisely.
I am continually reminded of the scripture:
And in nothing terrified by your adversaries, which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation and that of God. Phillipians 1:28
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Aug 1, 2006 16:11:57 GMT -5
Let's not forget there were many times Jesus purposely avoided persecution.
I cannot see myself fighting back if attacked when preaching (and I have been attacked several times), but I can see a point at which you should get out of harm's way if possible.
There is a time to be beaten to death and there is a time to avoid further physical harm. It depends on the circumstance.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Aug 1, 2006 14:04:10 GMT -5
I agree with Jesse on this wholeheartedly.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Jul 7, 2006 21:46:52 GMT -5
Do we then make viod the law through faith? God forbid! Yea we establish the law. Romans 3:31
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after flesh but after the spirit. Romans 8:4
Revelation 12:17, and 14:12. Notice it is the keeping of the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world. Titus 2:11-12
For sin shall not have dominion over you for you are not under the law but under grace. Romans 6:14 (grace gives power to live above sin)
For there are certain men crept in unawares who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. Jude 1:4
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Jul 6, 2006 19:10:59 GMT -5
Evan,
I love you brother, but lighten up a little! Save those blasts for the devil and religious hypocrites. Let's watch the friendly fire.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Jul 6, 2006 19:08:48 GMT -5
avery, I am glad you looked at those verses, and understand what I am trying to say about children and sin.
Part of what it has to do with having a sin nature (or not having a sin nature), is it shows babies are not born sinners.
They way I understand it is this: Man is created in the image of God. He is neutral when he is born. He has no knowledge of good or evil. He learns this as his ability to reason is developed.
We are born with certain natural appetites, like sex, food, anger, etc. These in and of themselves are neither good or evil. It is the use of them.
An unlawful use of the appetites would be selfish and therefore sin. The lawful use of these appetites would be to promote the highest good, and glorify God (1 Corinthians 10:31, 1 Corinthians 7).
As a baby, a man cannot reason. He only responds to his bodily desires and appetites. Discomfort, pain, pleasure, feelings, etc. These begin to be developed right away.
The reason develops more slowly.
Man has no excuse for falling prey to these desires and appetites, or else God should not send him to hell.
However, since they are developed much earlier on than the reason, man falls prey to his desire for self gratification by the time he can reason.
I hope I am making my position on this clear, whether or not you agree with me. Let me know if you understand what I am saying.
|
|