More pieces fall into place

[Magenta]

Not sure what I was excited about--I said I was attending my first SABBATH service--I know no Christians personally that worship on the Sabbath, I, as the majority of Christians have considered Sunday as the day to assemble--does this mean you gather in the assembly to worship on the Sabbath and didn't take it as anything different or special?.

I have repeatedly stated that I worship God every day. That necessarily includes the Sabbath

 

[Vindicator]

Not sure what I was excited about--I said I was attending my first SABBATH service--I know no Christians personally that worship on the Sabbath, I, as the majority of Christians have considered Sunday as the day to assemble--does this mean you gather in the assembly to worship on the Sabbath and didn't take it as anything different or special?.

The early church actually observed both days through the first few centuries, until the seventh day started falling out of vogue, along with all things Jewish. I unfortunately don't have a church any more, so it's been several years since I observed either. I live every day for Him as best I can, and stay in the word and in fellowship online continually. My wife and I are close to a fairly large number of Christians, so it is not as if we don't have a church family of sorts, but no, I'm not attending anywhere right now.

 

[Laura798]

I have repeatedly stated that I worship God every day. That necessarily includes the Sabbath

HI Magenta,

My posting was addressed to Vindicator--you would've had to have followed our conversation to understand what I was talking about.

 

[Laura798]

The early church actually observed both days through the first few centuries, until the seventh day started falling out of vogue, along with all things Jewish. I unfortunately don't have a church any more, so it's been several years since I observed either. I live every day for Him as best I can, and stay in the word and in fellowship online continually. My wife and I are close to a fairly large number of Christians, so it is not as if we don't have a church family of sorts, but no, I'm not attending anywhere right now.

You're missing my point--I was being facetious as you said I seemed excited about attending my first Sabbath service and you assumed by that I was a new believer--if the tables were turned I'm fairly certain you would be offended if I asked you if you were a new believer.

 

[ResidentAlien]

If it's not already very clear that the Prophetic Standards Statement originated with the NAR, all one has to do is notice the repeated references to the "five-fold ministry." This is a dead giveaway they're talking about Ephesians 4:11: "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers. . ."; the NAR having supposedly restored the offices of apostle and prophet.

 

[Magenta]

HI Magenta,

My posting was addressed to Vindicator--you would've had to have followed our conversation to understand what I was talking about.

How difficult do you believe it is to understand you saying:

I know no Christians personally that worship on the Sabbath?

And does my saying I worship God every day really merit a thumbs down from you?

Why do you dislike? Do you think I am lying?

 

[Laura798]

HI Magenta,

My posting was addressed to Vindicator--you would've had to have followed our conversation to understand what I was talking about.

This is disappointing and frustrating, Magenta as I had considered you a 'friend' on this site--you continue to misconstrue what I believe about the Sabbath as something legalistic--Sabbath rest is no more legalistic than not coveting or not committing adultery and all the rest of the commandments. There may be churches that have made the sabbath legalistic, but that does not make the commandment itself so. I believe as Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath."

And Jesus as our sabbath rest is a metaphor for our spiritual rest in him--it did not replace the Sabbath Day. No more than it did away with the rest of the 9 Commandments.

In fact one of the problems I have with the institutional church is they have one day to assemble and perhaps one weekly bible study, when I have said elsewhere that they met everyday in the first century; in Acts we see that the believers gathered in Assembly at the synagogues on the Sabbath. If we are to gather in assembly, as the majority of Christians do, then why not do it on the Sabbath instead of the 'venerable day of the sun' that Constantine instituted as the official day of rest?

“If ye love me, keep my commandments.” --John 14:15

"In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome,"--1st John 5:3

I think Christians have swung too far in the other direction -- "let us continue to sin that grace may abound"...saying we don't have to obey the commandment even though Jesus clearly calls us to obedience.

 

[Laura798]

How difficult do you believe it is to understand you saying:

I know no Christians personally that worship on the Sabbath?

And does my saying I worship God every day really merit a thumbs down from you?

Why do you dislike? Do you think I am lying?

My thumbs down is because you answered something that was directed to another person and not to you. I found it most unkind as you still don't seem to have any understanding after all my posting about it, as to what I really believe.

And of course I meant the large assembly on the Sabbath vs Sunday, of course we are to worship everyday.

 

[Vindicator]

You're missing my point--I was being facetious as you said I seemed excited about attending my first Sabbath service and you assumed by that I was a new believer--if the tables were turned I'm fairly certain you would be offended if I asked you if you were a new believer.

Actually not in the least, but my apologies for offending you unintentionally.

If it's not already very clear that the Prophetic Standards Statement originated with the NAR, all one has to do is notice the repeated references to the "five-fold ministry." This is a dead giveaway they're talking about Ephesians 4:11: "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers. . ."; the NAR having supposedly restored the offices of apostle and prophet.

RA, how about a response to my post? You seem to want to talk to the author of that book more than you want to discuss matters with the members of this community.

 

[Magenta]

My thumbs down is because you answered something that was directed to another person and not to you. I found it most unkind as you still don't seem to have any understanding after all my posting about it, as to what I really believe.

Laura, this is an open forum. You yourself answer posts not directed specifically to you. That you criticize others and call my response unkind for doing the same is hypocritical. As to what you really believe? You believe Sabbath worship is commanded, while claiming you personally know no Christians who do so. The Sabbath commandment is about rest. Affirming that I have found rest in Christ and do so every day is not unkind. Why would you characterize it that way?

 

[Laura798]

Laura, this is an open forum. You yourself answer posts not directed specifically to you. That you criticize others and call my response unkind for doing the same is hypocritical. As to what you really believe? You believe Sabbath worship is commanded, while claiming you personally know no Christians who do so. The Sabbath commandment is about rest. Affirming that I have found rest in Christ and do so every day is not unkind. Why would you characterize it that way?

Yes, it's an open forum--but ours was a 'conversation' within the forum--you clearly responded without having seen what I was talking about--that was he had ask me earlier if I was a 'new believer'---which I was offended by. In any case, I'd think you'd apologize rather than get defensive, seeing that I was hurt by your comment.

As to me responding--I know which forum you are referring to and when the person pointed out that the position he was defending (vs a personal conversation, btw) was addressed to someone else --I apologized and no longer responded if a post was addressed to a particular person.

 

[Magenta]

Yes, it's an open forum--but ours was a 'conversation' within the forum--you clearly responded without having seen what I was talking about--that was he had ask me earlier if I was a 'new believer'---which I was offended by. In any case, I'd think you'd apologize rather than get defensive, seeing that I was hurt by your comment.

As to me responding--I know which forum you are referring to and when the person pointed out that the position he was defending (vs a personal conversation, btw) was addressed to someone else --I apologized and no longer responded if a post was addressed to a particular person.

Why do you assume I had read none of that? FYI, I had.

You make excuses. I certainly do not owe you an apology.

How odd that you act hypocritically, call my response unkind, and then say such a thing!

I rest in Christ. You may not like my saying so, but it does not make my saying so unkind.

Please do not expect a further response from me to you on this particular subject.

 

[Laura798]

Why do you assume I had read none of that? FYI, I had.

You make excuses. I certainly do not owe you an apology.

How odd that you act hypocritically and call my response unkind and then say such a thing!

I'm amazed at your anger over one thumbs down when I have given you countless thumbs up, hearts, 'winners', and smiles.

"13 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." 1st Corinthians

 

[Vindicator]

Many non-believers revel in vaunting them selves above believers, often claiming to be more rational and logical, more reasonable and intelligent than those whom they oppose... however, if you spend time with them, speaking to them about what they believe and conversely telling them what you believe and why? You will find they are not nearly as rational nor logical nor reasonable nor intelligent as they love to believe they are. They suffer from the pride of life, and wear it like a badge of honor.

Greetings to you, sister.

I think humility really is the dividing line between those who receive from God and those who don't, in many ways and regarding many things. This is true not only of grace, but of the gifts, and revelation from God as well.

I'm still new here, but I'm trying to get to know people, and I noticed you post quite a lot. So hopefully I'll get a chance to know you better down the road.

Blessings in Christ, and looking forward to discussing the word with you in the future.

 

[ResidentAlien]

What the NAR are attempting to do is have there prophetic cake and eat it too. If you examine the Statement carefully, what they want is a third category of prophet. Before, there were only true and false prophets. Now, in their twisted theology they've created a third category.

1. True prophet.

2. False prophet. Someone who is a wolf in sheep's clothing. A false Christian in other words, claiming to speak by the Holy Spirit but who doesn't.

3. True Christians who speak for the Lord but sometimes speak inaccurately.

Number 3 would be them of course. This is the best they can come up with?

They've created an unbiblical category of prophet and this is somehow supposed to paint them in a better light?

Oh what a tangled web we weave. . .

 

[Aaron56]

What the NAR are attempting to do is have there prophetic cake and eat it too. If you examine the Statement carefully, what they want is a third category of prophet. Before, there were only true and false prophets. Now, in their twisted theology they've created a third category.

1. True prophet.

2. False prophet. Someone who is a wolf in sheep's clothing. A false Christian in other words, claiming to speak by the Holy Spirit but who doesn't.

3. True Christians who speak for the Lord but sometimes speak inaccurately.

Number 3 would be them of course. This is the best they can come up with?

They've created an unbiblical category of prophet and this is somehow supposed to paint them in a better light?

Oh what a tangled web we weave. . .

There are those in the office of the prophet and then there are those who have the prophetic gift. Still, if either of them speak something that is not true it cannot be ignored by the church. Many so-called "prophets" are often wrong but continue as if nothing happened. This is a failure of leadership.

 

[Nehemiah6]

There are those in the office of the prophet and then there are those who have the prophetic gift.

By definition they cannot speak what is false. So if they do speak what is false then they are false prophets. Period. Why is it so hard to believe that there are NO true prophets today since the apostle John shut that door 2000 years ago? Whatever God wanted to reveal has been revealed. And it is more that enough.

 

[Vindicator]

By definition they cannot speak what is false. So if they do speak what is false then they are false prophets. Period. Why is it so hard to believe that there are NO true prophets today since the apostle John shut that door 2000 years ago? Whatever God wanted to reveal has been revealed. And it is more that enough.

Nehemiah, I posted a reply earlier that I haven't gotten any reaction to yet.

If you could, tell me what you think of this post in relation to true prophets potentially speaking what is false.

God bless,
- V
https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...es-fall-into-place.202560/page-3#post-4708212

 

[Nehemiah6]

Were they false prophets? No. Did they know the entire picture yet as prophets of God? No, or they would not have been trying to dissuade Paul from going. It illustrates that even prophets can not know the full will of God on a subject, even in the midst of proclaiming accurate prophecies from the Lord.

Let's take a look at the prophecies of Agabus and see that what he said came to pass exactly as predicted:

PROPHECY OF FAMINE FULFILLED
And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. (Acts 11:28)

PROPHECY OF PAUL'S ARREST FULFILLED
And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus. And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles... Then the chief captain came near, and took him [Paul], and commanded him to be bound with two chains; and demanded who he was, and what he had done. (Acts 21:10,11,33) Paul was indeed delivered into the hands of the Romans (Gentiles) but the Jews were behind what happened here..

So the prophecy of Agabus was fulfilled precisely. Everyone pleaded with Paul to avoid this, but Paul was determined to do what he was supposed to do. However, it was not required of Agabus to do anything other than warn Paul. So this is certainly not a matter of "knowing in part".

Knowing in part refers to the completion of the Scriptures. For example Paul prophesied about the coming of the Antichrist. But John provided the full details of the reign of the Antichrist. And Revelation allows us to connect the prophecies of Daniel with those of John.

 

[Vindicator]

So the prophecy of Agabus was fulfilled precisely. Everyone pleaded with Paul to avoid this, but Paul was determined to do what he was supposed to do. However, it was not required of Agabus to do anything other than warn Paul. So this is certainly not a matter of "knowing in part"

Agabus and the other prophets who were members of that congregation were present, as well as Luke by his own testimony, and yet the text states "both we and those from that place pleaded with him not to go up to Jerusalem."

Now let me ask you: Does this mean that all who were pleading with Paul thought the prophecies could be averted? Why else would they be pleading with him not to go? And if prophecies can be averted, then does this not mean that it was conditional upon whether he went or not? The reason I ask is because Cessationists tend to approach the matter of prophecy as if we are all just automatons who can make no decisions on our own with regard to a matter once something has been declared by the Spirit of God. But this is clearly not the case, or they were in blatant disobedience by urging him not to go. Likewise, Niniveh repented at the prophecy of Jonah, and thus what was originally prophesied concerning them (that the city would be destroyed) was averted.