I understood the post to say that he was shirtless and in shorts in the host's home (where she met him) and got the "first imperssion" - not in the meeting.
As far as personal prophecy goes, I don't see a good biblical basis for it. At least not as it is defined and practiced within in most groups that do it.
Proponents of personal prophecy sometimes cite Acts 21:10,11 as a basis:
Act 21:10
And as we tarried [there] many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.
Act 21:11
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.
This doesn't seem to me like the "personal prophecy" that is practiced in many groups that have adpoted this modern "latter-rain" practice. It was the foretelling by a prophet of an event that ultimatey came to pass. There are no generalities - it is very clear what would happen. This same prophet on a previous occasion foretold of a famine. Contrary to VPW's teaching, Agabus was not telling Paul not to go, he was warning Paul of what would definitely happen when he went - not if he went. Had Paul not gone to Jeruslalem, and the event didn't come to pass, the prophecy would have false. This prophecy was to prepare Paul. Although this prophecy was "personal" for Paul, I would point out that Paul did not seek it out, and Agabus did not ask Paul his permisson to give it.
Acts 11:28
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 11:29
Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea:
Again, a specific event is foretold by the prophet and it did indeed come to pass The church there at Antioch then sent food and supplies to Jerusalem in preparation for the drought. In any case, I just don't see where these verses in Acts support, endorse or promote the modern practice of personal prophecy.
My guess is that what is done in CES or any other group that practices personal prophecy is probably not prophecy at all. What ever it is, I don't think it qualifies as "thus sayeth the Holy Spirit"in the same way as in these verses in Acts.
I wonder how CES was introduced to personal prophecy? Did they at some time get alligned or associated with someone from the apostolic/prophectic movement" ?
I was very interested in CES initially but then came to the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that they were 'bending' to other 'movements' in the hope of attracting more adherents, (maybe a bit like the R.C.s' did).
That's when we and a couple of other churches decided to 'align' with CFFM.
I have a doctrinal question about a previous mentioned teaching of CES. If we will be in the new Jerusalem what about our heavenly citizenship? Is this only allegorical? The covenants made to Isreal promise this new city forever but these promises are only made to them. Now I have been taught that we will have access to the throne of David but our home is in heaven. We don't recieve the city as ours but we get the "blessings" of it. Those blessings fitting in with the Abrahamic Covenant of all nations getting blessed.
If you go to the website, www.truthortradition.com (Dmiller posted the link on page 2) you will find many fabulous articles on the subject of the Chrisitan's Hope, which will answer your questions. In fact, even some of the chapters from John Schoenheit's book on the subject are available to read.
Check out the website, and you won't be disappointed. ;)
"Contrary to VPW's teaching, Agabus was not telling Paul not to go, he was warning Paul of what would definitely happen when he went - not if he went. Had Paul not gone to Jeruslalem, and the event didn't come to pass, the prophecy would have false. This prophecy was to prepare Paul. Although this prophecy was "personal" for Paul, I would point out that Paul did not seek it out, and Agabus did not ask Paul his permisson to give it. "
Holy cow! Are you saying that the teaching on this was wrong..? I don't remember the context of the teaching, like "what was VP's point", but I remember it vividly as "Paul DON"T GO TO JERUSALEM".
So, the point was really to share with Paul what he'd be going through, that's all? And God had 3 different incidents to tell him that?
I think the prophecy would still have been true whether Paul had gone or not. I often think about how at times we only see the bad results of not following our 'gut instinct' or 'inner man' or 'revelation'. The times we do listen, we often never get to see 'what could have happened'.
Holy cow! Are you saying that the teaching on this was wrong..? I don't remember the context of the teaching, like "what was VP's point", but I remember it vividly as "Paul DON"T GO TO JERUSALEM".
So, the point was really to share with Paul what he'd be going through, that's all? And God had 3 different incidents to tell him that?
Can you give me more background please?
Bliss, that is my take on this section of Acts based upon my understanding of prophecy among other things. Any number of good commentaries can give you more background than I could.
V.P.s point was that a comma was misplaced in Acts 21:14. VP contended that there should not have been a comma placed after "ceased."
Acts 21:14
And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.
VP thought it should say "And when he would not be persuaded we ceased saying, do the will of the Lord.
In other words VPW taught that Paul, after being warned by the Holy Spirit, disobeyed God. And when those with Paul realized that Paul had made up his mind, they stopped encouraging him to do God's will.
Yeah, Bliss. VP taught this record in Acts the way he did, so it would fit with his theology about suffering.
Instead of getting to the (many) truths to be found in the record, VP taught that Paul "sinned" by going to Jerusalem because it wasn't God's will for him to go. Wrong again, VP.
Hey Raf..I meant IF there was nowhere else (similar) around for me to go !!
Are you involved with them ? i think it's pretty neat if you are.
David..CFFM encourages people if there is no fellowship close to where they are, then start one up !
I contacted Wayne Clapp when I first left twi to see if they had a fellowship in the San Diego area. They did not, and he referred me to some fellowship ran by people who run Geer's class.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
16
16
12
Popular Days
Apr 7
20
Apr 8
11
Apr 6
10
Apr 18
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 7 posts
ex10 16 posts
dmiller 16 posts
allan w. 12 posts
Popular Days
Apr 7 2006
20 posts
Apr 8 2006
11 posts
Apr 6 2006
10 posts
Apr 18 2006
9 posts
ex10
Safari
Are you saying that John did a public meeting with no shirt on? in short shorts?
As far as the firm likes and dislikes, uh...
Sheesh, nevermind.
Whatevah.
Edited by ex10Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Can't imagine JAL teaching a *meeting*, with no shirt on!
(Are you sure about this???) :blink:
somehow --- I don't think so!
(but as usual -- that's just my IMO)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
I'm pretty sure that wouldn't happen in this lifetime, d.
Like I said, Whatevah.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
LoL Mr. GQ without a shirt
:blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
I understood the post to say that he was shirtless and in shorts in the host's home (where she met him) and got the "first imperssion" - not in the meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------
As far as personal prophecy goes, I don't see a good biblical basis for it. At least not as it is defined and practiced within in most groups that do it.
Proponents of personal prophecy sometimes cite Acts 21:10,11 as a basis:
This doesn't seem to me like the "personal prophecy" that is practiced in many groups that have adpoted this modern "latter-rain" practice. It was the foretelling by a prophet of an event that ultimatey came to pass. There are no generalities - it is very clear what would happen. This same prophet on a previous occasion foretold of a famine. Contrary to VPW's teaching, Agabus was not telling Paul not to go, he was warning Paul of what would definitely happen when he went - not if he went. Had Paul not gone to Jeruslalem, and the event didn't come to pass, the prophecy would have false. This prophecy was to prepare Paul. Although this prophecy was "personal" for Paul, I would point out that Paul did not seek it out, and Agabus did not ask Paul his permisson to give it.
Again, a specific event is foretold by the prophet and it did indeed come to pass The church there at Antioch then sent food and supplies to Jerusalem in preparation for the drought. In any case, I just don't see where these verses in Acts support, endorse or promote the modern practice of personal prophecy.
My guess is that what is done in CES or any other group that practices personal prophecy is probably not prophecy at all. What ever it is, I don't think it qualifies as "thus sayeth the Holy Spirit"in the same way as in these verses in Acts.
I wonder how CES was introduced to personal prophecy? Did they at some time get alligned or associated with someone from the apostolic/prophectic movement" ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Goey,
Check your pm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
I was very interested in CES initially but then came to the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that they were 'bending' to other 'movements' in the hope of attracting more adherents, (maybe a bit like the R.C.s' did).
That's when we and a couple of other churches decided to 'align' with CFFM.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rickyg
I have a doctrinal question about a previous mentioned teaching of CES. If we will be in the new Jerusalem what about our heavenly citizenship? Is this only allegorical? The covenants made to Isreal promise this new city forever but these promises are only made to them. Now I have been taught that we will have access to the throne of David but our home is in heaven. We don't recieve the city as ours but we get the "blessings" of it. Those blessings fitting in with the Abrahamic Covenant of all nations getting blessed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Ricky
If you go to the website, www.truthortradition.com (Dmiller posted the link on page 2) you will find many fabulous articles on the subject of the Chrisitan's Hope, which will answer your questions. In fact, even some of the chapters from John Schoenheit's book on the subject are available to read.
Check out the website, and you won't be disappointed. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
Per Goey
"Contrary to VPW's teaching, Agabus was not telling Paul not to go, he was warning Paul of what would definitely happen when he went - not if he went. Had Paul not gone to Jeruslalem, and the event didn't come to pass, the prophecy would have false. This prophecy was to prepare Paul. Although this prophecy was "personal" for Paul, I would point out that Paul did not seek it out, and Agabus did not ask Paul his permisson to give it. "
Holy cow! Are you saying that the teaching on this was wrong..? I don't remember the context of the teaching, like "what was VP's point", but I remember it vividly as "Paul DON"T GO TO JERUSALEM".
So, the point was really to share with Paul what he'd be going through, that's all? And God had 3 different incidents to tell him that?
Can you give me more background please?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
I think the prophecy would still have been true whether Paul had gone or not. I often think about how at times we only see the bad results of not following our 'gut instinct' or 'inner man' or 'revelation'. The times we do listen, we often never get to see 'what could have happened'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SafariVista
Never mind... not worth the energy here...
Edited by SafariVistaLink to comment
Share on other sites
SafariVista
:(
Edited by SafariVistaLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Bliss Posted:
Bliss, that is my take on this section of Acts based upon my understanding of prophecy among other things. Any number of good commentaries can give you more background than I could.
Here are a few:
http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkeact21.htm
http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/mhc-con/...=ac&chapter=021
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom37.pdf
V.P.s point was that a comma was misplaced in Acts 21:14. VP contended that there should not have been a comma placed after "ceased."
VP thought it should say "And when he would not be persuaded we ceased saying, do the will of the Lord.
In other words VPW taught that Paul, after being warned by the Holy Spirit, disobeyed God. And when those with Paul realized that Paul had made up his mind, they stopped encouraging him to do God's will.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Yeah, Bliss. VP taught this record in Acts the way he did, so it would fit with his theology about suffering.
Instead of getting to the (many) truths to be found in the record, VP taught that Paul "sinned" by going to Jerusalem because it wasn't God's will for him to go. Wrong again, VP.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
I contacted Wayne Clapp when I first left twi to see if they had a fellowship in the San Diego area. They did not, and he referred me to some fellowship ran by people who run Geer's class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.