US President George W Bush has arrived in Israel on a landmark visit to the region to try to advance peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.
Mr Bush was met by President Shimon Peres and PM Ehud Olmert.
From the link above, you can also watch:
and
I watched a documentary not long ago, that went back to 1948 when Israel become a nation again, the year I was born, no connection, just thinking outloud. The story told of past US Presidents and Ambassadors who urged Israel to give land for peace. Almost ever time it happened, some sort of disaster, natural or otherwise would followed in the US or other places. The story told often it was within hours or only days. I'm am not giving any phophecy here but this story might be worth watching to see if the story I watched has any substance this time. I am a George Bush supporter, but don't agree with him on trying to broker any land for peace in Israel at their expense. It wouldn't make any difference what the agreement was, the Palestinians would violate it within days anyway. Something else the story told. Arafat's grandfather was related to and involved in the Hitler movement. What is the President thinking? I guess he has more info than I to ponder with. At least I hope so.
I watched a documentary not long ago, that went back to 1948 when Israel become a nation again, the year I was born, no connection, just thinking outloud.
http://www.greatpreachers.org/beware.html
In reply to your comments here, this may be of interest. These are actual facts. I was aware of the 911 not so coincidental....but then again, I am and have always been more than interested in the affairs of Israel.
This is what we should be keeping our WATCH on!!
Not to mention incidents after these.
I know people will scoff...however I don't.
For what it's worth......
Love in Christ
Katy
:-)
We need to pray that George Bush and Condoleesa Rice really see what it is like to live in Israel with rockets being fired into the country daily, and people living in constant fear of suicide bombers or perhaps something nuclear from Iran. I hope that they both get to hear the other side, that there are Israelis who not in favour of a 2-state answer, let alone Jerusalem being handed over to a foreign power. I am pleased to know that there was a law passed in 1980 that forbids any part of Jerusalem to be handed over to a foreign entity; it would need to be discussed in the Knesset, and another law passed to permit this. Somehow, I can't see any Israeli wanting to have places in Jerusalem where rockets and bombs can be stored. Olmert can promise all he likes; it has to be passed in the Knessett. "And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it." Zechariah 12 v 3.
Israel is God's land; "The Land shall not be sold permanently, for the Land is Mind ..." Leviticus 25.v.23
"... I have spoken in My burning jealousy against the rest of the nations and against all Edom, who gave my land to themselves as a possession ..." Ezekiel 36.v.5.
And as for Jerusalem, well, that's God's city, too: "O Lord, in keeping with all your righteous acts, turn away your anger and your wrath from Jerusalem, your city, your holy hill. Our sins and the iniquities of our fathers have made Jerusalem and your people an object of scorn to all those around us." Daniel 9 v 16 and
"O Lord, listen! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, hear and act! For your sake, O my God, do not delay, because your city and your people bear your Name." Daniel 9 19.
What would happen to you if you tried to give away your neighbour's land and property? What would happen if you try to give away God's land and property? I don't believe even the Israelis have any right to dispose of it as they wish; they have been given the land in the very first instance by God.
Mr Olmert, Mr Bush and Ms Rice cannot give one inch to anyone. They aren't even Israelis! They will have God to answer to - and unfortunately, I believe the USA will also have to answer for their deeds, and any other nation that participates, and that could well include the UK, as Tony Blair is somewhere on the sidelines.
Pray that pressure will not be brought to bear on anyone. Let the Israelis and Palestinians do the talking and bargaining in their own time frame, not Bush's. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem and Israel.
Suzy
Hi suzy,
I just discovered this evening that you're in Devon. :-)
I'd had this in the back of my mind, but you know he is a middle east peace envoy now, officially, so I'm wondering if President Bush taking the limelight somewhat conceals Mr Blair's presence in Israel - or, if he is working in Maryland at the other 'peace' conference which is running till later this year.as Tony Blair is somewhere on the sidelines.
Ezekiel 28:26
And they shall dwell safely therein, and shall build houses, and plant vineyards; yea, they shall dwell with confidence, when I have executed judgments upon all those that despise them round about them; and they shall know that I am the LORD their God.
I really wondered about this road to peace....kicking people out of their homes so others could occupy.
Didn't that happen during the Holocaust? Isn't that REALLY illegal. How would you feel if someone came along and said.....leave your home, we've given it to another.
They had no choice, or else they and their families would be arrested.
If it can happen to them...it can happen to anyone, anywhere. Democracy???? Is this Democracy??? :-? I didn't think Democracy gave into terrorists.
Love in Christ
Katy
'I didn't think Democracy gave into terrorists.'
Might it be part fulfilment of this?
Deuteronomy 28:15, then
30 Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her: [i]thou shalt build an house, and thou shalt not dwell therein:
I found this link of a scroll quite unusual -
Brother Dusty posted this over at RS.
http://www.templeinstitute.org/megillat-bush.htm
'A cup of trembling.' Seems so.
Hi Dorcas,
Yes, I live in Exeter in sunny Devon, which is rather wet and washed out currently! Where do you live?
Tony Blair has been an unpaid envoy for the Quartet of Middle East peace negotiator - US, UN, Russia and the EU - in fact, almost the whole world I have just realised!!
Today I heard that he has taken a job with one of Wall Street's leading investment bank JP Morgan for a large salary no doubt.
Were you aware that his office in Jerusalem is on the Hill of Evil Counsel? - rather appropriately named!
***************************************************
Hi HE_Reigns
http://www.templeinstitute.org/megillat-bush.htm
- very interesting reading. I hope Bush, Rice and company unlimited - including Olmert - read it and act correctly. Praise God, He is in charge.
We continue to pray.
Suzy
Might it be part fulfilment of this?Deuteronomy 28:15, then
30 Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her: thou shalt build an house, and thou shalt not dwell therein:
Not sure Dorcas, but look at what God spoke AFTER that!!!
Ezekiel 28:25-26
25Thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall have gathered the house of Israel from the people among whom they are scattered, and shall be sanctified in them in the sight of the heathen, then shall they dwell in their land that I have given to my servant Jacob.
26And they shall dwell safely therein, and shall build houses, and plant vineyards; yea, they shall dwell with confidence, when I have executed judgments upon all those that despise them round about them; and they shall know that I am the LORD their God.
Love in Christ
Katy ;-)
Dorcas, here is a promise to Israel that applies to the 1000 Year Kingdom Reign:
This certainly doesn't apply to today, and it isn't talking about heaven...for no sinner will enter Heaven. Babies dying at 100? Doesn't sound like heaven either, as in Heaven we have eternal life.....no one will be dying or counting years.
Also in Heaven, Jesus said, I go and prepare a place for you....so we won't be building our own house in Heaven either.
So, can you say this prophecy has all ready been fulfilled? If so, When? and if not, why would God make a promise and then not keep.
Or if you are implying when Jesus first came, He came as King to fulfill these promises to the Jews, and their rejection of Him cancelled out this promise, with many more.......
then exactly where would you be today apart from the death and resurrection life of Christ In You....would that have been cancelled out too, and not redemption for Gentiles, only promises to Jews?
We see Jesus first came and aged....just like everyone else....and also left Glory for us...
How then, if Jesus left Glory, could He at that time have Reigned in Glory?
Just food for thought!
My point is Dorcas, Just as Israel confused the TWO comings of Messiah Redeemer, Messiah King, as two totally different agenda's, so does the Church today make this same mistake. We see it didn't work out too well for most of Israel not understanding the two separate events with two totally different agenda's, I wonder how this will affect the professing church today? Not good I'm afraid!!
Isaiah 65:20-22
20There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
21And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
22They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
Love in Christ
Katy ;-)
Annie said,
Apart from the surprise element, I found it most informative as far as I read. Don't know if I'll read it all.I found this link of a scroll quite unusual -
It reminded me of the days I used to try to live the resurrection life, without having embraced first the death which entitled me to it. So Israel appears to believe she can inherit the land, without having made the necessary spiritual journey through Calvary.
But the title given to Mr Bush sent me scurrying to my Bible for further clarity on who Gog is, and also, Meshech and Tubal. I hadn't realised with my understanding, that Reuben had been completely disinherited, and that's how Jacob was able to give Joseph's children his portion. Nor, that as a disinherited son of Jacob, he is in a similar predicament to Esau - and that these two are much more closely related to each other and 'Israel', than to 'the nations' technically, though they may find themselves on the same side - against the Lord's people.
It reminded me of the days I used to try to live the resurrection life, without having embraced first the death which entitled me to it. So Israel appears to believe she can inherit the land, without having made the necessary spiritual journey through Calvary
Interesting this is the New Covenant promised to Israel.
Now just because we don't know HOW God is going to do this, as His ways are not ours, we DO know He has promised to do it.
Again, if Israel had not crucified the Lord, and they would have accepted Jesus as King then and there...they certainly WOULD have received these promises WITHOUT any death and resurrection life.
Ezekiel 36:24For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
25Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
28And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.
29I will also save you from all your uncleannesses: and I will call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you.
30And I will multiply the fruit of the tree, and the increase of the field, that ye shall receive no more reproach of famine among the heathen.
31Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations.
32Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord GOD, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel.
33Thus saith the Lord GOD; In the day that I shall have cleansed you from all your iniquities I will also cause you to dwell in the cities, and the wastes shall be builded.
34And the desolate land shall be tilled, whereas it lay desolate in the sight of all that passed by.
35And they shall say, This land that was desolate is become like the garden of Eden; and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are become fenced, and are inhabited.
36Then the heathen that are left round about you shall know that I the LORD build the ruined places, and plant that that was desolate: I the LORD have spoken it, and I will do it.
37Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will yet for this be enquired of by the house of Israel, to do it for them; I will increase them with men like a flock.
38As the holy flock, as the flock of Jerusalem in her solemn feasts; so shall the waste cities be filled with flocks of men: and they shall know that I am the LORD.
Love in Christ
Katy ;-)
But the title given to Mr Bush sent me scurrying to my Bible for further clarity on who Gog is, and also, Meshech and Tubal. I hadn't realised with my understanding, that Reuben had been completely disinherited, and that's how Jacob was able to give Joseph's children his portion.
I also scurried to my Bible and see no such evidence of waht you are talking about!
Revelation 7:4
And I heard the number of those who were sealed, one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel:
Revelation 7:5
From the tribe of Judah, twelve thousand were sealed, from the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand, from the tribe of Gad twelve thousand,
Revelation 7:6
from the tribe of Asher twelve thousand, from the tribe of Naphtali twelve thousand, from the tribe of Manasseh twelve thousand,
Revelation 7:7
from the tribe of Simeon twelve thousand, from the tribe of Levi twelve thousand, from the tribe of Issachar twelve thousand,
Revelation 7:8
from the tribe of Zebulun twelve thousand, from the tribe of Joseph twelve thousand, from the tribe of Benjamin, twelve thousand were sealed.
Jacob (Israel) had twelve sons. As we can see, the 144,000 are taken from the 12 sons/tribes of Israel. One of the tribes, the tribe of Dan, is not picked, and the tribe of Joseph gets a double portion (Joseph and one of his sons, Manasseh). Israel was the name that God gave Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham.
Why does Joseph get a double portion, and why is Dan not included?
Love in Christ
Katy ;-)
I also scurried to my Bible and see no such evidence of waht you are talking about!
Katy, you must not have been looking in the [url=http://www.amazon.com/Prophecy-Special-Limited-Collector-Leather/dp/1884137881]Jack Van Impe Prophecy Bible
MC
Dorcas, here is a promise to Israel that applies to the 1000 Year Kingdom
Interesting, because if indeed Christ returns to Earth and literally reigns for 1000 years, then how could there be another "fall" afterwards?
Consider the questions posed in the following excerpt from Kim Riddlebarger's site-
[i]There are several serious weaknesses with premillennialism. The first weakness is that premillenniarians have to explain how it is that people make it through the return of Christ and yet remain in natural bodies. Jesus taught that his return marks the end of the age (Matthew 13:39) and that after his return, people no longer marry or are given in marriage (Luke 20:34-36). At Christ's return, he judges the world, making it tough for someone to be judged and yet not eternally condemned or rewarded with eternal life (Matthew 25:31-46). This is especially problematic for premillennarians, since they claim that their view is based upon a "literal" interpretation of prophecy. Where, then, is the one-thousand year gap between the return of Christ and the judgment (which, according to premillennarians takes place at the end of the millennium) when Jesus teaches that judgment takes place at his return? Those who take the Bible "literally" find themselves having to insert a gap into the biblical text which isn't there.
The other problem with premillennialism is, if it be true, there is a great apostasy on the earth after one thousand years of Christ's rule (Revelation 20:7-10). If there cannot be people on earth in natural bodies during the thousand years (which supposedly comes after Christ returns), then who are the people who revolt against Christ at the end of the millennium? And that after Christ's own rule? It makes much more sense to see Revelation 20:1-10 as a description of the entire inter-advental age, since the scene takes place in heaven where the thrones are (vv. 1-6), before shifting to the earth in verses 7-10.
Not looking to debate, but if there is no literal 1000 years, many are going to be in for a real surprise, especially when they're not "raptured" away.
God's grace to you.
Compton,
Do you mean THIS Jack Van Impe? :-?
http://www.biblicist.org/bible/vanimpe.shtml
I've always been highly suspect about anyone naming anything after themselves. :-o
Love in Christ
Katy
Do you mean THIS Jack Van Impe?
Yes.
I know that none of his predictions have ever come true. However I've been learning that in modern prophecy, even if the specific names, places, events, and dates described within are false, we can still hold the essence of the message to be true.
MC
I know that none of his predictions have ever come true. However I've been learning that in modern prophecy, even if the specific names, places, events, and dates described within are false, we can still hold the essence of the message to be true.
Compton, what exactly is your definition of a false prophet?
Deut states clearly that a false prophet is one who's predictions DO NOT come to pass.
There are no false prophecies in scripture, but false prophets are.
Study to show yourselves approved rightly dividing the word of truth.
Paul claimed many false prophets were saying the resurrection had all ready come and gone....referring to the resurrection of the dead, not to Christ, and were subverting the faith of many. He didn't take the view you have, that it really didn't matter, because it will happen one day anyway.
Love in Christ
Katy
PS: Here is the text:
One form of departing from iniquity is departing from false teachers, as we see here!
2 Timothy 2:17-19
17And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
18Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
19Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
Compton, Part 2:
God says:
Ephesians 5:11"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them."
If some pastor/teacher or "Christian" leader refuses to expose works of darkness (By the way, false teachers are workers of darkness, 2 Corinthians 11:13-15) they are:
1. Refusing to obey the Word of God, ***Ephesians 5:11.
2. Not hating evil, showing they don't fear God.***Proverbs 8:13
3. Exposing themselves as a hireling, (one who does not care about the sheep)*****Matthew 23:28.
They give the appearance that they care about the sheep , but the fact they're not warning about the false teachers of our day and exposing them shows they really don't care about the sheep. And this alone identifies them as a false teacher (a hireling, a wage earner, someone who is in it for the money,
*****1 Timothy 6:5; 2 Peter 2:15).
Not only do false teachers not expose, they also give hearty approval OR make up lame excuses for false teachers and false MODERN DAY PROPHETS ***Luke 6:26.
They not only refuse to expose the unfruitful works of darkness, but they also have fellowship with them by exalting them as godly men.
What is a Modern Day (False) Prophet? I've never heard of such a term, unless it is one who comes under the above definition. One who abides in the Modern Day of Political Correctness, above that of being Spiritually Correct....Holding to teh Doctrines of Christ...from Genesis to Revelation.
Love in Christ
Katy
:-)
Katy,
I was just being droll, without the winky face. Forgive me sister.
what exactly is your definition of a false prophet? Deut states clearly that a false prophet is one who's predictions DO NOT come to pass.
Well, I would agree with you...but that would include some people whom we hold in very high regard. I mean, don't even the best prophets "get it wrong" sometimes?
In recent years (in not only Pentecostal an Charismatic churches), the foundation of our faith has been expanded from scripture to seamlessly include 'the prophetic'. As such, I fear this subject is going to bother a lot of people. In fact many people think that the bible itself is just some dry printed pages, void of meaning without holy spirit activation, so they prefer to receive their revelation directly from heaven. Accordingly I commonly hear people discussing prophetic words and dreams they've read on the internet or passed around in their churches with as much or even more awe then they do for their dry dusty bibles.
Apparently God speaks more vividly to his end times church through prophecies and visions, then he does through his word. So this is a probably a touchy subject better left untouched.
Thanks Katy,
MC
Apparently God speaks more vividly to his end times church through prophecies and visions, then he does through his word. So this is a probably a touchy subject better left untouched.
Wow, Maybe then we're not the end time church after all. If that is the criteria of identifying the end time church..we have a LONG ways to go. Those ACCURATE dreams and visions just haven't kicked in yet :-P.
So, in other words, God knew in the Last days no one will be able to read, so He will need to send dreams and visions? Wonder what happened to mankind? Public Schools, no doubt! :-P
Maybe we do need to leave this alone.
Funny thing though, where does it say YOUR dream or Vision is My dream or vision? And how is one going to tell who's dream or vision really IS of God?
If you pick the wrong door.....ouch! Could be fatal, or you could be the one going home with boobie prize.
What exactly do we His Church NEED to have in dreams or visions that will make it or us what...better christians? Aren't we COMPLETE In Him...do I need something else?...not in scripture?
Even if someone had a dream or vision that the world was going to come to an end....would I change anything about my life? If I said yes, then I am not living in obedience to begin with. Correct?
We are reminded our lives are but a vapor.
Love in Christ
Katy
Accordingly I commonly hear people discussing prophetic words and dreams they've read on the internet or passed around in their churches with as much or even more awe then they do for their dry dusty bibles.Apparently God speaks more vividly to his end times church through prophecies and visions, then he does through his word.
You've hit it Brother MC. Jesus warned of such "in those days".
GOD shed His Grace on thee MC - after 2 1/2 plus years of lurking here - [stay humble now :-P ] - I do believe you should receive the 'Chief of Forbearance' award.
And thank you for it.
Here is some food for thought.
DOES GOD SPEAK TO MEN TODAY
IN DREAMS AND VISIONS?
by Cooper P Abrams III
The question arises often as to whether God in this the dispensation speaks to men directly in dreams or visions? Many believe and teach that God does indeed speak to men directly today in the form of dreams and visions. Groups that teach this include the Catholics, Pentecostals, Charismatics, and most "Christian" cults.
Most of the cults were formed when their supposed prophets received special vision, visitations or revelation from God, and told to form special churches or movements. Among those groups are the Mormons, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventist. Each claims God spoke or appeared to them directly and now they represent God and men should follow them.
This presents the believer with a problem? How can a person determine that what is being presented is really coming from God? Among the revelations the cults say they received there is great contradictions and yet each claim that what they saw or heard was from God. If their "revelation" came from God why does it contradict the teaching of Bible and also of others who make the same claim to receiving authentic revelation from God?
On examination the dreams, visions and revelations men revceive can be divided into two groups. The first group would include the cult leaders of false religions that are clearly not doctrinally sound and their revelations contradict the Scripture. The modern day revelations of this group are clearly a hoax intended to deceive people into following them. They claim their visions or visitations from God gave them special authority to form their new movements. A prime example is Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormonism, who claimed God and Jesus appeared to him and told him all the churches on earth were false and he was to form a new church and preach the "restored" gospel. However, the church he formed and its teachings are wholly unbiblical which proves Smith received no visitation from God.
The second group would involve those who have had experiences in which they believe God spoke to them in a dream or vision who are very sincere and who were or became professing Christians. Although we can dismiss the revelations of the first group as being spurious, what about the second group? These are people who profess to be biblical Christians and are very sincere in believing that what they saw was from God.
We must ask by what Biblical standard, principle or criteria are we to determine that what was experienced was a revelation from God? In seeking the answer, we must go to the Bible determine what, "Thus saith the Lord." The only standard that God has given to us that does not change and is totally reliable is His written word.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 explains that, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
This passage plainly tells us the word of God is sufficient for meeting all our needs for instruction from God. Further Hebrews 4:12 says, "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." God proclaims emphatically that His word is to be the "discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Therefore God has given us the tool or the means to determine if our experiences are from Him or not. His word sets the absolute criteria God tells us to use. Further in Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus explained that many would come in His name preaching, casting out devils and doing many wonderful works when in fact they were actually workers of iniquity. This tells us that everything done in the Lord's name does not come from Him and warns us about those doing "wonders."
This paper will deal with the one question, does God give special revelation to individuals in the form of dreams, visions or special experiences today in this dispensation when God is working through the institution of the local church? It will be shown that God does not in this age speak to men through dreams, visions or any direct communication apart from the Word of God, and that it is through the ministry of the Holy Spirit in illuminating God's word that believers are given understanding and direction for their lives. God's revelation is complete as contained in the sixty six Books of the Bible. That means he does not have further things to reveal to nations or individuals that are not in the Bible. Further, the Bible is all sufficient in directing a person to finding and carrying out the will of God for their lives, without the need of a dream, vision or special communication from God in that manner.
God did in fact, revealed himself to men in the Old Testament in dreams, visions, experience, symbols and a host of other means. However, God is now revealing Himself through His written Word, and that age of God speaking in visions and dreams has pasted for a time. Hebrews 1:1-2a says, "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son. . ." Jesus Christ is the Word of God as John 1:1,14-16 plainly says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace." You cannot separate the Lord Jesus from His word and Hebrews 1:1 is telling us that today God is speaking through the Bible, which is His word.
This does not mean that God does not work in a believer's life in directing him toward maturity and carrying out God's specific and unique will for that believer's life. It further in no way impedes a believer in His spiritual relationship to the Lord or of God guiding him to His perfect will. The power of God is not hindered in this dispensation, but to the contrary gives power to the believer that no other dispensation has experienced. In no prior time did men have the completed word of God to instruct them. If we want to know God's will we can find it in the principles of His word. Today we can know everything that God wants us to know.
Many use Peter's quoting of Joel 2:28 in the message he preached on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2:17. Their premise is that Peter is saying that their would be a great outpouring of the Spirit of God in this dispensation and God would speak to men in dreams and visions. Let us then examine these passages and seek the truth on the matter letting the Bible interpret the Bible.
JOEL 2:28-31
And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem."
ACTS 2:16-21
But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."
First let us examine Joel 2:28.
The first thing we must determine is when is God telling Joel that there will be a pouring out of His Spirit?
The first sentence states that, "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh."
This means the pouring out of the spirit will come "after" something. An examination of Joel 2, clearly shows that the events preceding the "pouring out of the spirit," happens after the Great Tribulation, and after the destruction of the northern army, (Joel 2:20) which is Russia. The major theme of the Book of Joel, is of the coming of "the great and terrible day of the Lord to" (Joel 2:31). The Bible tells us that the coming Day of the Lord, includes the seven year Tribulation, Christ's Second Coming at the end of the Tribulation and Christ the ruling in the following Millennium.
The chronology of the events seen in Ezekiel 38, and Daniel 11:36-45 indicate that Russia will be destroyed during the last half of the Tribulation. The destruction of the nations in the campaign of Armageddon is followed by the Second Coming and the Millennial reign of Christ. Thus the pouring of the Spirit of God occurs after the destruction of the northern army and in the time of blessing promised of God.
Two other important facts should be noted. First, the prophecy is addressed to Israel. This is not a prophecy addressed to the churches. The churches are not in view here. Second, the prophecy stated that the spirit will be poured out on all flesh. The spirit of God cannot be poured out on the lost, yet this verse states that it will be poured out on "all" flesh. At the beginning of the Millennium, everyone will be believers. No lost persons will enter the Millennium, and thus the spirit of God could be poured out on "all" flesh because all will be saved.
Also, the prophecy states other events are in view in verses 30-32. These are clearly Tribulation events. (See Matt. 24) The churches are not in view in this prophecy which is addressing events that will happen after the present Church Age. These events refer to Israel and are not related or addressed to the church or this present dispensation.
After this dispensation ends with the Rapture of the Church, Christ's bride, then God's prophetic clock again begins to run as the events of the Great Tribulation unfold ending with the Second Coming of Christ and the setting up of the Millennial Kingdom.
The second question is this: In Acts 2:16-21, is Peter by quoting Joel 2:28, applying this prophecy to this present age in which God is working through the institution of the local church? It is clear that he events recorded in Acts 2, that happened on the day of Pentecost are not the same as are recorded in Joel 2. The context of Joel 2, is the end of the Great Tribulation, and the destruction of the northern army accompanied by great signs and wonders. The only event that is similar is the pouring out of the spirit.
The question, on the day of Pentecost, was what was happening to the men who had received the outpouring of the Holy Spirit? They were perceived to have been drunk. (Acts 2:15) Peter answered and said what you see happening to these men is like what Joel said would happen in the Millennium. Peter was referring to Joel's prophecy as an illustration from Scripture of what the crowds were seeing. Peter was not saying that Joel's prophecy was being fulfilled. He was saying that the pouring out of the spirit of God at Pentecost was what would happen in the day Joel's prophecy would be fulfilled.
The pouring out, or indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God, was not given to all in the Old Testament dispensation. The Holy Spirit was only given to individuals for specific service. Today, in the Church Age all believers are indwelled by the Spirit of God, and this indwelling started on the day of Pentecost. When this future out pouring of the Spirit of God would come in the Millennium it would be on "all" flesh. Clearly he was saying that in the same way, all believers in this dispensation would have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God.
Peter, in Acts 2:38, urged those that were present to "repent" and be receive Jesus Christ, and be baptized and the would receive the gift of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. There is no emphasis on speaking in tongues, prophesying, seeing visions or dreaming dreams by Peter.
There are several New Testament references to visions or dreams, but all are in the Gospel or the transitional period between the Old Testament dispensation and the full implementation of the dispensation of the present age when God is working with the Gentiles through the institution of the local church. Historically one can see the transition through the New Testament in which the sign gifts and miracles gradually ceased as God by inspiration was giving the New Testament to the early churches.
The early church was totally Jewish and remained so until gradually Gentiles were saved and added to the early churches. There was a transitional period of about forty years in time while the early church was slowly becoming a Gentile church. The Gospel was first preached by Peter on the Day of Pentecost and was delivered to the Jews only. All those who were saved on that day were Jews. God was offering to Israel their resurrected Messiah who had suffered, died and been resurrected and paid the sin debt of the world. (see Isa. 53). However, the Jews rejected the Lord Jesus as their Messiah. Paul said in the beginning of his ministry that the Gospel was to go to the Jew first. He said, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek" (Rom. 1:16, also see 2:9-10). Paul later changed the direction of his ministry because the Jews bitterly opposed and rejected the Gospel. Acts 18:6, says, "And when they (the Jews) opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles."
In 70 AD, the Roman general Titus totally destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple, and Judaism ceased to exist on earth as practiced in the Old Testament. The Jews lost their nation, their home land and the place of worship and sacrifice the Temple. Without the Temple the Old Testament commandment could no longer be practiced, thus Old Testament Judaism ceased. It has not been practiced since and is not being practiced today.
There is no mention of visions or dreams being used by God in any of the Epistles to the churches. The Epistles were written to instruct the early churches in all matters of doctrine and practice. 2 Tim. 3:16, states that in the early church pastors and members where instructed to seek their teaching and guidance from the Scriptures. It dreams and visions were operable then they would have been included.
What other evidence is their that God stopped using visions and dreams to communicate to men?
The Bible says in 1 Corinthian 13:8-10. "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away."
The context verses 8-10 of 1 Corinthians 12-14 God instructions concerning the spiritual gifts. Prophecy was a temporary gift of foretelling the future. Likewise, the gift of knowledge was the ability to know information that was given directly by the Holy Spirit to the individual. Both of the gifts were the means by which the Lord gave us His written word the Bible. These two gifts were rendered inoperative when the New Testament canon was closed in 95-96 AD because with the completion of the Book of Revelation by the Apostle John the Bible in its entirety was complete. No one today the biblical gift of prophecy in that God is not giving new revelation to us. The last written Scripture was the Book of Revelation. One must now study the Bible in order to acquire knowledge and it is the work of the Holy Spirit to illuminate the word of God as a person reads and studies it. In the Scriptures preaching is often referred to as prophesying. However, the prophecy referred too here cannot not mean preaching the word of God because preaching will not cease after the Rapture of the church (see Matt. 24:13-14) and also there will be teaching of the Word of God in the Millennium. (see Isa. 2:3) Thus prophecies and knowledge which are said to cease or will be rendered inoperative "when that which is perfect is come."
The word for "perfect" is a neuter adjective used as a noun. This word "perfect" cannot refer to Christ because it is in the neuter gender rather than in the masculine gender. Christ is never in the New Testament referred to by a neuter pronoun. The masculine gender would have been used if the word "perfect" was a reference to Christ, but that is not the case so it must be referring to something else.
Thus, the word "perfect" must refer to a complete "thing" and not to a person. Some teach that the word "perfect" is a reference to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. This would mean that the gifts of prophecy, knowledge and tongues are operative today and will continue until the end of the Tribulation. However, the context of 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, beginning with 1 Corinthians 12 and ending with Chapter 14 is not speaking of the Tribulation or the Second Coming, but is addressing the matter of the sign gifts. Thus this statement is certainly related to the subject of this passage which is the sign gifts.
1 Corinthians 13:1-2 establishes the subject of the chapter and begins with "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy. . . " Chapter 14 begins, "Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him. . . ." Clearly the subject is gifts, and nothing in these four chapters refers to the Second Coming in any way.
It thereby the context of 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 is plainly referring to the completion of the canon meaning the completed Word of God. Bowman says "It is interesting to note that "perfect" is used of the word in James 1:25 (cf. the Hebrew for "perfect" in Psa. 19:7). In this same connection, tongues shall cease when the New Testament canon was completed. Notice that verse 8, includes tongues along with prophecies and knowledge. Two of these shall be rendered inoperative and one shall cease "when that which is perfect is come." All three gifts were temporary and ceased at the completed New Testament." (The Charismatic Movement, Dr. Hoyle Bowman, Piedmont Bible College, Winston-Salem, page 23.)
Thus the significance of I Cor. 13:8-10, in the matter of the question of dreams and visions is that these special gifts of tongues, prophecies and knowledge were apart of the dispensation of the Law, and of God working with Israel. They were used by God to reveal and verify His truth to the Jews. Several things should be noted:
(1) In the church age, when God is not working with Israel as a nation these special gifts of communication are ceased. God used them to communicate with Israel. When Israel rejected God, He ceased communications with them.
(2) The reason they ceased, according to I Cor. 13:9-10, when the completed Word of God was present, there was no longer any need for God to communicate through these mediums any longer. God chose now to speak through the written Word. In 95-96 AD, when John finished the Book of Revelations the New Testament canon was finished and complete.
(3) A believer in the church, has something the Jews did not have. The Christian today has the Holy Spirit of God indwelling him. The ministry of the Holy Spirit is to illuminate God's written word. Outside the Gospels and the Book of Acts no one is recorded as having a vision or dream from God to direct him.
(4) The apparent fact of history is that now God has chosen to reveal Himself to man, to guide and lead the believer by and through the Word of God, which is the written Bible. It is the new nature of the believer that enables him to understand the things of God, and the Holy Spirit who is the guide.
(5) Christ does not today appear to man nor does God.
(6) Dreams and visions in the Old Testament required many times an interpreter. By the very nature of what a dream or vision is it is not as clear a means of communication as is written instruction from God. God has chosen to communicate in a clearer way to the church, that by having the written record of his revelation to man.
One significant passage of Scripture that has an important bearing on this matter is Hebrew 1:1-2.
"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in the last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." Heb. 1:1-2
First note who the Book is addressed too? It is written specifically to the Hebrews. These were not lost Jews but those who had believed in their Messiah the Lord Jesus Christ. Next note what is the first statement made. God in the past spoke to the prophets in many different ways (dreams, visions, visitations ceremonies, laws, ritual and directly) is now in these days speaking to us through His Son.
John 1:1, states that Christ is the word and Revelation 19:13, confirms it. The Word is Christ and Christ is the Word. The opening statement to these Jewish Christians was that God now had a better way, that was through the Lord Jesus Christ. God was saying I am going to speak to you now in a different way; a more direct way. The Old Testament saints looked to the Coming of the Messiah and God in the past had revealed Himself mainly to them by symbols, examples and illustrations. Now there was no need of that. The Truth was come, that is the Lord Jesus Christ.
WHY DO SOME STILL BELIEVE THAT GOD SPEAKS THROUGH DREAMS AND VISIONS TODAY?"
They do not see things dispensationally. This means that they do not make a difference between God dealing with Israel in the Old Testament and God working presently in the New Testament church age. Many times they mistakenly equate the specific promises of God to Israel as being now directed to the churches.
The New Testament unmistakenly presents a different view of the relationship between God and the Church and God and the Old Testament saints. The church is presented as having a special place in the Kingdom of God, as being the "bride of Christ." The church is also referred to as the "body of Christ" and being Christ's joint heir. The fact is, the church has a closer relationship to Christ and a greater revelation than Israel had in the Old Testament.
The church became a Gentile body. In I Corinthian 1:22, Paul set the stage for his instruction to the Corinthian church. He said, "...the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom." The early churches were a mixed assembly of Jews and Gentiles. He then preceded to give them not a sign, but wisdom. One thing he dealt with was their total misunderstanding of the special sign gifts, which included miracles, that was given to the Apostles to authenticate that what they taught was the word of God. Some in the early churches were making the mistake of not making a difference between the institution of the church and Israel. Though the sign gifts where still operative at the writing of this book, Paul clearly de-emphasized their use.
When you have a written printed and accurate instruction from God you do not need God to speak directly to you. You do not need special signs to know what is the will of God or be directed by Him. The principles to handle any situation in life is found within the Bible and further the ministry of the Holy Spirit helps us to understand and apply these principles of God's word.
WHAT IS THE EXPLAIN FOR THOSE TODAY THAT HAVE DREAMS AND VISIONS, SPEAK IN TONGUE AND PRACTICE THE SIGN GIFTS?
Before you can answer that question we must understand that it is wrong to accept an experience, feeling or emotion over the Word of God. We are to judge our emotions and experiences by the Word of God. It is not correct to reverse the process. We must be willing to let the Word of God settle any matter of question. If we are not, then we are out side the influence of God and have no guide to truth. No matter how real the experience, its realness is not a valid with a means to authenticate it and only the Bible can do that.
It is impossible the to authenticate a vision, dream or the sign gifts as coming from God. The answer is certainly because God has not left us without adequate instruction to deal with everything we might encounter in life. When we look to the Bible we find that God has not given us even a hint as to how we are to interpret dreams or visions. He also has not given us even one example of anyone having a vision in the Epistles. God's obvious silence on the matter should lead us to question its validity in the churches. If the visions and dreams that some few modern day Christians are having were from God, the God would have given us a way to authenticate, interpret and verify them. Obviously, He has not and we must conclude the reason is that modern day visions and revelation are not from God.
Over the years I have had many people tell me that they had some special vision from the Lord. In every case, the person having the vision or some revelation from God was not a faithful and sound Christian. From my personal experience I have found that those who said they had revelation from God were either members of a doctrinally unsound church or were themselves unstable in their spiritual life. For example one person who has been a friend for many years said he had a vision where God spoke to him and told him he had some special task for him to do. He related that he was asleep in a chair and woke from his sleep to see the vision. He said for a long time before this he had been seriously thinking about what God wanted him to do with this life. After the vision this person set out on a some special secret task in which he said was a new way to study the Bible that no one else knows. He worked on it for twenty years almost every day of his life. He was not able to finish it because he is elderly and he is not mental able to do even simple tasks now. Time has proven that he wasted twenty years of his life in which he never attended any church, never witnessed for the Lord, nor supported the work of the Lord. When I suggested that I had often while dreaming thought I was awake and that he had dreamed this because it was on his mind, he began very upset with me. Clearly, his vision was not from God because it caused him to disobey God's clear instructions that a believer is to assemble himself with other believers, to be a witness for Christ and support the work of the Lord through the local church.
Another friend had a vision in which he said God appeared to him and told him to serve Him. His life was changed in that he no longer drank and did outward sinful things. However, he started attending doctrinally unsound churches. He attended several churches and always those in doctrinal error and now many years later is in a totally apostate Protestant church. He is a wonderful man and a good friend, but he does not abide in sound doctrine. His vision is the source of direction in his life....not the Bible. He says he had been for sometime seriously considering what God wanted him to do with his life. This shows he was thinking deeply about the matter which means this was probably a psychologically produced event produced in his mind. He further says he awoke from a sleep and saw the vision which means he could have been in a dream-like state when he awoke. Many people who have had visions do not claim to be Christians or claim that their vision came from God which shows having visions can occur without there being any reference to God.
From my personal observations I have observed that there are several things that are common with people who have visions. First, they have been thinking about the subject of the vision prior to its occurrence or something triggers the dream. Second, it often happens in relationship to sleep. The person wakes up and has the vision. Third, the vision generally confirms to them what they had been already considering. Fourth, the vision generally does not bring them closer to the Lord, but directs them away from the Bible and/or sound doctrine. Fifth, without exception the person who has the vision was in doctrinal error and/or attending a church that was doctrinally unsound.
In conclusion two things are clear. First, there is no biblical support for believers having dreams and visions from God in this dispensation. God tell us in the Bible He speaks to us through His word. Second, dreams and visions generally has a detrimental and confusing effect in the person's life. Their vision sets a precedent and they remain unsound doctrinally in some areas.
Even if someone had a dream or vision that the world was going to come to an end....would I change anything about my life? If I said yes, then I am not living in obedience to begin with. Correct?
That's the way I see it. Reminds me of something Martin Luther said when asked what he would do if he knew Jesus was coming back tomorrow. He answered something along the lines, 'exactly what I'm going to do today. And Wesley marveled at the Moravian's who lived their lives so in the presence of God as to be ready to meet him with joy at every second of the day.
GOD shed His Grace on thee MC
Thank you much Annie. That was an undeserved but welcome blessing.
the word of God is sufficient for meeting all our needs for instruction from God.
Thanks for the excellent article Katy. Again I want to stress that I was speaking a little tongue and cheek earlier, just to tease out the truths you promptly provided.
As we know, sometime people perceive any critique of the "5-fold' ministry, especially prophesy, as a rejection of the giftings altogether, especially prophecy. While this democratic advocacy for all the prophets in training seems like a welcome defense for layministry, it is actually an enormous disservice to those giftings.
Too often a mere calling is mistaken for an ordination in God. This is a common downgrade that is accepted today, in our celebration of 'body ministry.' Perhaps in this eagerness to abolish the long suffered division between clergy and laity in the church, we have also abolished personal responsibility. The opportunity for ministry that is open to the laity, is by no means a by-pass for the same rigorous discipline and training that the 'professional' must go through.
A calling is not at all a credential.
Some may remember the recent movie about the legendary Vince Papale, a walk-on from the street who played professional football for the Philadelphia Eagles. He answered a call for walk-on tryouts to the general public, and was the only one selected among hundreds...and even then he had to still make the team.
The analogy isn't perfect, but my point is that we can't assume that being invited to prophecy makes one a prophet, or that being gifted in teaching bypasses the need for scholastic training to teach. The lay minister can't be anymore lax then the trained minister. If the laity wants access to the domain of ministry long dominated by clergy, then they need to show themselves worthy of the callings they pursue...and not regard high standards as an unfair barrier to their 'ministry.' The standards have to be maintained...and this means that many who are called may fail the responsibilities of their calling, or won't see their callings fulfilled for many many years...that is if they are humble and diligent. (Two rare qualities indeed!)
I am hesitant to name names, but he is a wonderful and helpful example so...Ron Bailey is a serious laymen who answered his calling with discipline and accountability. He demonstrates that abolishing the barrier between the 'professional' and the layman isn't accomplished by removing the scholastic standards applied to institutionally trained ministers...but by matching and exceeding those standards.
It is by upholding the standards of our calling that we are faithful to our callings. There is no spiritual shortcut. Passion is not a right to preach. Burden is not a license to prophesy. The Bible must be taught faithfully and skillfully as the only unassailable standard of our confession. If need be, we should be willing to wait many years, and even risk personal failure and disappointment, before we are truly ordained by the Holy Spirit to steward God's word to the body according to our personal callings. The good news is that this should bring no sadness or resentment to a shepherd's heart whose motivation is the welfare of the flock.
Just some thoughts,
MC
edit: by the way...My apologies for causing this thread to be side tracked.
EDIT: to MC 'Ron Bailey is a serious laymen who answered his calling with discipline and accountability.' Brother, I have read somewhere that he was a pastor at 26. Can't find the reference, but I believe he's had a training. It is true that he has added a [i]tremendous
Thanks for this article, Katy. I confess I have read only parts of it. You pose it as 'food for thought' but, are you really such a cessationist as this author?
Well, if it wasn't for the dreams and visions through which God has ministered to some very deep needs in me, I'd go along with hisThis paper will deal with the one question, does God give special revelation to individuals in the form of dreams, visions or special experiences today in this dispensation when God is working through the institution of the local church? It will be shown that God does not in this age speak to men through dreams, visions or any direct communication apart from the Word of God, and that it is through the ministry of the Holy Spirit in illuminating God's word that believers are given understanding and direction for their lives.
There are resons for these, and they are not all such as should be rejected out of hand... for instance... if I've been praying (like Cornelius had been) and God gives a further revelation of Jesus somehow... why would that be bad?From my personal observations I have observed that there are several things that are common with people who have visions. First, they have been thinking about the subject of the vision prior to its occurrence or something triggers the dream. Second, it often happens in relationship to sleep. The person wakes up and has the vision. Third, the vision generally confirms to them what they had been already considering.
The reverse has been my experience.Fourth, the vision generally does not bring them closer to the Lord, but directs them away from the Bible and/or sound doctrine.
In the same way as people who are extremely ill sometimes have important visions or encounters with God while they are almost dead to the world, I don't see this as a problem. If God had not appeared to me when I wasFifth, without exception the person who has the vision was in doctrinal error and/or attending a church that was doctrinally unsound.
Yes scripture is necessary as an objective witness, and the people who had dreams or visions in the Bible were often experiencing them as part of [u]God's
I am very grateful for every revelation of Himself, which God has given me. Each one has caused me to focus on [u]Him
Hi Dorcas,
I'm sure he's had training, but he has described himself as a layman. In any case, it was sloppy of me to comment using his name without him being present. I meant respect, but I shouldn't have taken the liberty. Never mind the example. (Forgive me Ron.)
The point is that being called to a ministry doesn't mean you are instantly qualified. I suppose another side to this point is that being a layman doesn't mean that you can afford to be an untrained novice. I raise these abstract points as a sideways commentary on the excessive extra-biblical speculation being foisted on the body, even in this forum, and in concern that global trials will only increase the rumor mill school of prophecy.
Regarding the power of personal experiences, I came across this prayer from the Puritans. I think these words express how I reserve a place for my experiences yet ultimately don't fully trust them.
O God of love, I approach thee with encouragement derived from they character... Sounds pretty intimate so far, and to our pentecostalized ears this might even sound like a description of a vision or intensely personal spiritual contact with God's heart. Wonderful words indeed, yet the Puritan writes that this refreshing encouragement in God's character is drawn from a well deeper then personal experience. The prayer continues with the very next line...
For I am not left to feel after thee in the darkness of my nature, no to worship thee as the unknown God. I cannot find out thy perfections, but I know thou art good, ready to forgive, plenteous in mercy. Thou hast displayed thy wisdom, power, and goodness in all thy works, and hast revealed thy will in the Scripture of truth.
Thou hast caused it to be preserved, translated, published, multiplied, so that all men may posses it and find thee in it.
Here I see thy greatness and thy grace, thy pity and thy rectitude, thy mercy and thy truth, thy being and men's hearts.
Besides the inspiration in this prayer, I also see this as an historical record revealing how these Christians connected to God. Their relationship with Him was deeply personal but it wasn't rooted in personal experience. Instead they drew from a deeper well, from a more trustworthy, and ultimately more comforting source of assurance: God's word.
Our current conditioning to regard scripture as infallible factual truth, yet all the while anxiously looking to prophecy and visions for personal confirmation of this truth is a weakness that the modern schools of prophecy and preaching is partially responsible for. They have usurped scripture's testimony with their own urgent message, and consequently have invited the rest of us to seek and rely on personal experiences over the word of God. I suppose in their defense, they are only weak men susceptible to the historic setting they have grown up in. But by and large, the various and conflicting schools of the prophetic (in America at least) have weakened reliance on scripture. This is true not only of the health and wealth persuasion, but also of the doom and gloom believers.
They are freelancers in the spirit impulsed by their own sincere agendas. They are often not so concerned with upholding the testimony of scripture as they are with producing an outcome and effect within the listener. The outcome they desire may be noble, but their manipulation leads them to extra-biblical resourcefulness.
Regarding your own dear testimony sister, I would not want to press my argument against any experience you've had with the Lord. I hesitate from making my point so sharp as to carelessly hurt you, or shortchange your deep love for the scriptures. And I do understand the preciousness of experiences with God. My only concern is when our experiences become the basis for leading, instructing, and prophesying to others. Since they are unnecessary in the light of the sufficient resources of scripture, why ask others to accept the risk of my human error?
I realize we live a post-modern age where rationality rules our brains and mysticism rules our hearts, leaving us divided and fractured, ever unsure of what is real and what is illusion. As always, the Church may in some ways reflect the historic setting she finds herself in. It is to stand strong against these blowing winds of subjectivity and half-truth's that I believe God gave us His word in writing; he intended us to be more presuppositional then evidential...that is to say we are being equipped to trust Christ is who he says he is whether or not he manifests himself personally, and regardless the hazards we encounter in the storm.
This is not to say he does not comfort, but that he comforts through his word even unto the rest of my troubled soul. All other sweet apparitions I hold in curiosity and wonder, but I never let them define my faith moving forward. Conversely, all visions of terror and despair I also hold in contempt. Once again, I realize I am going against the tide here, but I have found that to seek an evidential based relationship with Christ is a recipe for emotional and psychological instability. (Not to mention the doctrinal chaos.) Now you say that unles Christ appeared to you you wouldn't have made it through...I say that unless I had the grace to believe the promises in the Bible I wouldn't have made it through! I think the same is true for you too.
Still, I recognize that the heart of your testimony is that you want us, the Church, to have a living vibrant relationship with the Lord and not just a textual familiarity. That's my heart too.
Blessings sister,
MC
For I am not left to feel after thee in the darkness of my nature, no to worship thee as the unknown God. I cannot find out thy perfections, but I know thou art good, ready to forgive, plenteous in mercy. Thou hast displayed thy wisdom, power, and goodness in all thy works, and hast revealed thy will in the Scripture of truth.
O dear brother, you can never go wrong when you quote a Puritan prayer. Reading this sample is like taking a deep, cold drink from a mountain spring. I makes me weep that this kind of [i]sobriety
Thank you for this, Mike. Do you know which Puritan wrote it?
Bro. Paul
Hi Paul.
This was from one of the prayers in Valley of Vision titled Scriptural Convictions.
You may have seen awhile back a movie called Dead Poets Society with Robin Williams. In the movie there is a poignant scene where a young insecure man reads a poem in class, saying something like, Truth is a cold wet blanket that is too small to cover all of me at once.
In contrast I find this prayer reminds that God's Word is a warm blanket, that covers me completely and keeps me safe. And not just me, but my wife, my children and my brethren in the Lord.
Why do we keep handing each other the cold wet blanket of our own truths all the time?
Blessings,
MC
I find this prayer reminds that God's Word is a warm blanket, that covers me completely and keeps me safe. And not just me, but my wife, my children and my brethren in the Lord.
Yes, brother. A resounding yes. The blanket of God's Word is big and warm and safe, and the blanket size increases as our mattresses grow. Where we run into trouble is when we start taking fancy to all the nifty "Star Wars" comforters with Yoda and Luke Skywalker on the front. Note, these too also promise a warm sleep; the only problem here is that they come only in kiddie sizes, and they don't grow with the mattress. Lots of believers are therefore sleeping in fetal positions, in cribs and playpens, and with their feet hanging off little NASCAR-style beds.
Why do we keep handing each other the cold wet blanket of our own opinions all the time?
I think partly because the cold wet blanket is so cheap and accessible and our wet clothes don't have to come off before we slip under it. It also hugs the tiny bedframe.
Oh my, you riffed beautifully on that one brother. Well said!
(edit: That pretty much sums up the way I get into trouble.)
Compton said
Hi Mike,Their relationship with Him was deeply personal but it wasn't rooted in personal experience. Instead they drew from a deeper well, from a more trustworthy, and ultimately more comforting source of assurance: God's word.
I understand there is enough in the written word to preach from, and would not offer the content of a personal encounter with Christ [i]instead
The reason my post covered only dreams and visions, was because I was answering a tiny part of the article - that which said dreams and visions are never from God. I cannot apologise for rejecting the generalisation, which is anti-scriptural, even if every individual the author had interviewed was mistaken in their belief they had heard from God.
It concerns me that there is such a willingness to over-rule God's ability to make something of the willingness of a person to seek Him, and to choose for those people, how God may or may not interact with their understanding.
Many times I have been way off if an absolute template of truth were to be placed over my grasp of events, but [i]God[i]God[i]for His glory[i]God
But, as ever I am most grateful for your gentleness in reminding us of the objective truth of scripture, and in my old age, I am able to understand it enough to make use of it as you advocate. But I am [i]always
Hi Linn,
It concerns me that there is such a willingness to over-rule God's ability to make something of the willingness of a person to seek Him, and to choose for those people, how God may or may not interact with their understanding.
I feel the willingness to over-rule God is rarely found in those who bow their experiences, affections, and faith in submission to what they find in scripture.
Yet, I really do not feel that we are really that far apart in practice, though in our theoretical presentations there may be different emphasis.
Many times I have been way off if an absolute template of truth were to be placed over my grasp of events, but God was not confused, and God knew I was trying to get things right for His glory and God held on to me or didn't let me fall beneath His everlasting arms. (The Bible doesn't do that... -)
I can relate. Here I would only point out that you could not be sure your first grasp was incorrect, nor could you truly be sure that God was a father who would hold you, unless these things were shown to you in scripture. So I am appreciative of experiences and evidential testimonies, but only as long as we make them the caboose and not the engine of our faith.
Blessings,
MC
(edit: That pretty much sums up the way I get into trouble.)
Strap on the crash helmet. Buckle in. When you resolve to elevate God's Word over anyone's personal experience - no matter how innocently the experience may have been contrived - you will ruffle feathers, agitate ego. People don't like to be told their experiences are often nothing more than dark spots on the Sun.
We need to come to the place where we absolutely loathe ourselves, where we cannot and will not trust anything that was birthed in our minds our hearts. I tell people often, "Speak to me only from the Word of God, and not from your experiences in another realm, not from visions - and certainly not what you 'saw in the spirit.' Give me the pure Word of God, undefiled by mortal tamperings, and give it to me out of a heart that hates self and trusts only in what has already been written."
Hi again Mike,
I feel I have to qualify what I'm saying for the sake of readers, and also to acknowledge your general acceptance of my last post.
Many times I've tried to explain how hard I found it to use the Bible for anything, even in times of need. I was not brought up reading the Bible much. I didn't know where to find things. I didn't know how to read doctrine out of it. I didn't know the narrative in it. I had been depressed, psychologically unwell after a series of personal experiences partly designed to unhinge me, I had battled for years with opposing thoughts, and I had developed a very tight survivor's control on my life and anything around me which I could influence to help me get by.I feel the willingness to over-rule God is rarely found in those who bow their experiences, affections, and faith in submission to what they find in scripture
To this human wreck, with an infantile appreciation of scripture, and yet a personal working relationship with the Father, He accepted me as that little child who had become utterly dependent on Him through circumstance. There was nothing objective going on in my relationship with Him, except the biblical research I was doing to find out if how He was looking after me was biblical. Do you follow?
Now, a decade and a half later, I can put it all together in the kind of order you would [i]like[i]first
to acknowledge your general acceptance of my last post.
Certainly I accept your testimony. I treasure your faith and experience in God, and join with you in worship for his faithfulness and tenderness to you. None of my comments were intended to question your testimony and relationship with the Lord. I shudder at the thought. Each relationship to God in this forum is precious to me...even if I fail to communicate that from time to time.
Indeed, my concern that we are grounded in the reality of scripture is motivated by a desire to strengthen the faith found in you, and not challenge or weaken.
Blessings sister,
MC
Well, if it wasn't for the dreams and visions through which God has ministered to some very deep needs in me, I'd go along with his reasoning 100%... but God has had other ideas - such as the fulfillment of His promise to pour out His Spirit - which is supposed to lead to dreams and visions!
Actually Linn, the Promise of the Spirit in the New Covenant says nothing about dreams and visions, but says, I will put my Spirit in you and cause you to walk in my statutes.
The Holy Spirit is who unites us with the death and resurrection life of Jesus Christ, setting us free from teh bondage of sin.
If you read the article very closely, and read ALL of Joel 2, you will see the word AFTER.....After what.....After the Terrible DAY OF THE LORD. That *Day* hasn't happened yet. Paul clearly teaches us in Thessalonians, we are not in THAT DAY. Some, even then were subverting the Christians Faith by teaching that it was.
"The Day of the Lord", is the day of God's vengeance and wrath....and this chapter goes with Matthew 24&25.
God DID NOT at Pentecost pour out His Spirit on ALL FLESH, but you will read Acts 5:32, (((added: and that comes only to those who repent and turn to Jesus Christ)) He gives His Spirit in this time of the Church age, to those who obey Him.
Can you rightly divide these two completely different times?
When reading Matthew 24&25, and especially 25, it is AFRER ****the terrible *Day of the Lord*, that He returns to set up His Kingdom, and all who will enter.
You will also note in Matthew 25, this is not the Great White Throne Judgement. Nothing is mentioned about the Lambs Book of Life, or even the resurrection of the dead that will be judged at that time as well.
So in fact, no one can have dreams or visions FROM GOD that also null out at the same time scripture. God does not give you a Spirit that usurps authority over His written Word.
The Holy Spirit is not the HEAD...Jesus Christ is.
Love in Christ
Katy
Hi Katy,
Do you really expect me to renouce God's word to me, or to withdraw my testimony, because it distresses your understanding of scripture?
I tell people often, "Speak to me only from the Word of God, and not from your experiences in another realm, not from visions - and certainly not what you 'saw in the spirit.' Give me the pure Word of God, undefiled by mortal tamperings, and give it to me out of a heart that hates self and trusts only in what has already been written."
You are correct. Even Self has to admit that no matter how detailed and real something was given to me...it must not be tossed out there for all to see and hear with the dogmatic belief that everyone just accept it as from GOD.
You are correct. Feathers get ruffled, people suggest others are not listening and wonder when will the rest catch up with me! I'm not immune. I've written for decades and still find myself falling into the flesh of "Why dont they get this? Pastors, teachers, evangelists, prophets...all have their roles assigned by GOD and each is an equal since GOD is no respector of persons. But those who really need our involvement arent the ones sitting next to us in church or in SermonIndex...week after week.
Isnt it the LOST we're after? Not the teacher or servant who is clearly doing work for the LORD and we drill them on a comment as though they;re satan himself. Yes we need to make certain we teach truth but to drill down into subjective areas and stay there like dim lights sitting in the church pews exalting our light as though it's brighter than the one next to us...is grievous at best.
We can toss around terms and we can support our opinions and claim that they're facts...all day long. JESUS CHRIST died for us. HE rose again. HE calls us to a personal relationship with HIM and we can have eternal life! Acceptance of that and a life of loving servitude for CHRIST is the essence of HIS will for me.
Paul spoke of the divisions and my opinion, which also is worth what you paid for it...nothing. :-) our conversations should discuss but not reach a point where we either enflame another or just give the topic lip service.
Perhaps I'm just an older country bumpkin who GOD has graciously rewarded with 2000+ poems about him and I see our time best spent in support...not contradiction per se.
Many of the postings I see on here...when the views get really up there...are no longer discussing the author's point but disagreements on separate topics within the thread.
I tire of the Body shooting our own wounded, claiming truths from personal visions that we unconciously or deliberately expect others to buy-into as "Gospel" truth.
I've been accused of not wanting to "hear" truth or that because I ask for scriptural support as PaulWest points out...I'm trying to minimize another's vision or dream.
The blessing of HIS visions got Joseph sold into slavery and slated as a scapegoat. GOD was in control of that, wasnt HE? So let us not take offense that someone questions our vision or our dream. It happened with Joseph and what other proof should we require?
SOunds like "Let's all just try to get along" but if we post for the purpose of gaining whole agreement from everyone...then we are mistaken. If we post our vision or dream OR our intpretation of someone else dream...remember Joseph. It's like, "If you dont get into the battle on this topic, you're weak, or backslidden" or some other derogatory labeling.
Sadly the posting I called the Rambling Prophetic has completely missed it's point and I regret posting it. I respect all who post here and encourage SElf and all to not speak nor share using the Bible as a weapon...which I fear my posting may have appeared as. I ask for all's forgiveness as such.
Thank you all and may HIS favor shine upon you and your families. Amen and amen.
Hi everyone,
I wanted to share some thoughts on the subject of dreams.
I was reminded of how God warned Joseph to flee in a dream and also how the Apostle Paul was called in a vision to come to Macedonia.
Paul writes in a letter to Timothy that scripture is profitable for correction and doctrine, reproof and for instruction in righteousness, but does that mean it is sufficient, by itself, in every instance of life?
What do I mean by asking that?
Here's what I mean: the scriptures may warn us of persecution, but they do not tell us as individuals when it may happen to us. The scriptures also gives us the principle that some should go out and proclaim the Gospel, but they do not tell us as individuals when or where or if we should go. Remember Phillip, how the scripture says he was told to go and join himself to the eunuch's chariot, or also how Peter was told to go with the men from Cornelius's house? Or how also was Ananias told to go and meet with Paul?
There are lands today where the Bible is very much restricted. But is God restricted from speaking to men and women in visions and in dreams?
I think it is possible that we hide our fear of encountering God in ways outside of our control with piety. But that is not at all like Moses, who, in receiving the word of God, drew near to the thick darkness, where God was.
Chris
Do you really expect me to renouce God's word to me, or to withdraw my testimony, because it distresses your understanding of scripture?
Linn, I'm not distressed at all over scripture. But you have to admit that no scripture is of private interpretation.
If one has a gift of speaking in tongues, does that one interpret his own tongue? NO!
Dreams and visions are very subjective. If I held out an ink blot to you and asked what you saw, I would conclude through my own understanding what it means. My opinion of your dream or vision means nothing to me. Someone else may interpret it another way then I do. Now who do you believe?
Are you interpreting your own dreams and visions?
Well, lets do take Joseph...did he really understand his dream or vision......could anyone there interpret it? No. However in time God revealed the meaning, and brought to pass ( years later) something concerning Joseph which in fact concerned the whole family.
These scriptures are used again in Revelation 12.
Now we know, there are no new books of the Bible written and added to the Scriptures people's modern day dreams and visions.
Peter had a personal dream, re: meat on a sheet.
However that dream and vision did not usurp authority over the all ready written word of God. For Gentiles to be saved, was no secret, as that promise was all ready given to Abraham, that in him, all families of the earth would be blessed.
So anyone who claims to have a dream or vision, cannot re-arrange or alter the Alpha and Omega, First and Last, Beginning and End of what is all ready established.
Unfortunately we have Rick Warren and his dream and vision of curing AIDS around the world. Let me ask you, where does God state such things?
The danger of falling into and following these so called dreams and visions actually carry you away from Truth, not towards truth.
I do believe it is a matter we need to strongly rebuke, even if one is accused of causing divisions. The Apostles did, suffered for it, and will be greatly rewarded in Heaven for being *GOOD* Stewards of the Mysteries of God...those are the ones whom God has declared The FAITHFUL and CHOSEN.
We're here to please God, not man!
Love in Christ
Katy
In response to ChrisJD's post....Is GOD able or permitted to speak to us through dreams and visions? THat's rhetorical.
One point is all I've tried to make on the Rambling Prophetic poem I wrote and here.
Those who are blessed with visions and dreams...share them but shouldnt go on and on basing something they quote as "Fact" when it really is a "most likely scenario" from which another "most likely scenario" is derived. Then after several degrees of serparation in a thread, the point is lost and the "discussion" is more inflammatory than helpful. More using the bible as a weapon which I too have unintentionally done.
The proof is replete throughout SI. THere is much good. Make no mistake. However, any focus or dream or sermon or vision which begs SElf-light...which draws and redraws attention to points which are arguable and subjective loosely bound by a biblical reference taken out of context or expounded upon / stretched out beyond what can be supported...is Self serving and not CHRIST serving.
I read how quickly people seek to defend their subjective dreams and visions and take offense. Back to Paul West's quote...let's stick with Scripture...not our "degrees of seperation" interpretations as such...stating people should believe personal visions, sermons, dreams, revelations known as "X" when the WORD doesnt support or condemn it.
That's the gray area I speak most to myself about. Just because HE doesnt say something about my vision or dream in contrast...doesnt make it right either.
Am I bashing? IN NO WAY. How can one argue with the intent which I'm striving to be more in line with...that we not have "dream" and "vision" wars...intent on proving someone right or wrong...not uplifting and learning together?
Here me! I too am at fault and seek to set that right! May the tone of every posting and reply not end NOR be filled with a majority of accusation or words of offense.
The World attacks us enough...why should the Army of GOD also shoot our own wounded?
Are our titles of Apostle, Preacher, Teacher, Evangilist SO SACRED that we have to beat back those who are sincerely learning and mean no harm? Is prophecy such a "sacred cloth" that we take someone's disagreement with our vision as "they are "running from truth" or implying that "You aren't reading the WORD correctly"
No one is so uneducated to miss the tones which are ever increasing...which seek to be understood first...and not to understand first.
As with the Rambling Prophetic thread, I will end here and return to posting devotionals. I stepped out of the devotional forum to see the rest of SI...and am going back to Devotions.
CHeck out how many views of my poems there are on average. 30? 40? Then the prophetic thread receives 500+ in just a few days? I am not proud of my posting which, though it sought to drive us to scriptually support our visions and dreams with ONLY what is in context...and in scripture.
Bless you all and thank you for your feedback!
I guess this problem has been around for quite sometime.
But look, it says someones false dream or vision CAN come to pass...but is that a test of Truth?
God puts before us a test...to know truth and to know a lie, and he tries our heart, and obedience...not according to someone dream or vision coming to pass or not, but does it measure up to HIS Word.
Unfortunately we can't stone false dreamers today, but more then likely be the ones stoned for not following.
This will be the sign of the spirit of anti-christ, who comes with signs and wonders, that will most likely come to pass. Will you be so grounded in His Word, that you will know truth from Lie, or just believe is something comes to pass it is true?
Just food for thought!
Deuteronomy 13
1If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
[u][b]2And the sign or the wonder come to pass,
[u][b]3Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
4Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
5And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
Has Paul or any of the Apostles given the Church any instruction on how to interpret dreams and visions. I see no such instruction.
If God is speaking something to you personally about your call or any given situation, maybe it best to keep to yourself and see if it DOES come to pass, before Boasting ahead of time.
Don't say, today or tomorrow we will do this or that, but say...if The Lord is willing.
We're not to be boasting about such things anyway.
Love in Christ
Katy-Did
Hi Katy,
I feel I need to answer some of your points because you have attributed attitudes to me which I do not espouse, presuming to tell what I believe, without pausing to check with me. You posted an article which was completely against God's revelation to man through dream or vision. That is anti-scriptural. That's why I replied as I did - to refute his sweeping conclusions. If you read my reply carefully, I admitted that his conclusion about those he'd interviewed might be valid... just that his extrapolation was not.
I expect scripture to illuminate my understanding, and to connect with other scripture. Can I ask you whether God ever speaks to you from the Bible personally, or, don't you believe in that?But you have to admit that no scripture is of private interpretation.
2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that [u]no prophecy of the scripture
I don't believe you can argue this from scripture, and definitely I have seen the gift of interpretation given to some who also have tongues, and, using both gifts in the Church, even interpreting their own tongue if God did not give the interpretation to anyone else.If one has a gift of speaking in tongues, does that one interpret his own tongue? NO!
Also, might I remind you that Daniel was given the dream which needed interpreting - he had not had the dream personally - and the interpretation.
Joseph also knew what had been said to him in his dreams, as do I. I also know when I don't understand a dream - whether mine, or someone else's - but one can seek God for the interpretation, for sure. After all, if He has chosen to speak in a dream, He must want to say something - to communicate.
So the brethren on SI keep saying. However, the content of a dream or vision may be totallyDreams and visions are very subjective.
While this is true, God still uses dreams and visions to guide His people, and these are recognised by the witness of the Spirit to more than one person giving their spiritual attention to it. I hope you're not implying that the carnal mind can judge a prophecy, dream or vision.Now we know, there are no new books of the Bible written and added to the Scriptures people's modern day dreams and visions.
I can't remember if you believe in healing or not, but I know a man who has prayed for AIDS to be healed and it has been healed. Does this pose a problem to you?Unfortunately we have Rick Warren and his dream and vision of curing AIDS around the world. Let me ask you, where does God state such things?
At no time have I considered abandoning my Bible and relying solely on dreams and visions, but I cannot help noting that nothing had been written down for the first 2000 years of man's history, and God and man were doing just fine without the Book we now have. I have been much more misled by people who claimed to know God's will for me, than by anything God spoke to me while I was asleep.The danger of falling into and following these so called dreams and visions actually carry you away from Truth, not towards truth.
Several times on SI I have made the point that when God speaks one cannot doubt that it is Him, or, what He has said, but, there are times when one is not sure whether it is God one is hearing, (or some other voice 1 Cor 14:10), and one has to wait, or perhaps revise one's petition, as it is possible to be asking the wrong question, based on one's natural thinking; then there is nothing God can do with that - except wait for the pray-er to give Him a different lead, more amenable to answer.
However, the times He's chosen to speak to me by dream or vision have never been because I was seeking [i]them[u]Him
If you are saying that the apostles rebuked those who had dreams or visions, do you have a scripture reference?The Apostles did
I realise Paul appears to choose to ignore all the times a prophet warned him of his impending fate at Rome, but that is not quite the same.
Hi Katy, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.
If I may say, you are venturing into the unknown here, because the thing that may be false, is the claim that God gave the dream or vision.it says someones false dream or vision CAN come to pass
Also, these may not be prophetic in the sense of adding something to human knowledge which was not known before, but what it [u]does
There is another aspect to the revelation a dream or vision may bring, in that it may challenge the received wisdom of one's local assembly, simply because there has been a lack of exercising of biblical faith - say, towards evangelism, or healing. Such revelation may bring a group of believers to greater dependence on God, and move them towards proper obedience. That would be good, wouldn't it?
The Holy Spirit gives interpretations, not the person who is His mouthpiece.Has Paul or any of the Apostles given the Church any instruction on how to interpret dreams and visions. I see no such instruction.
Not all dreams or visions are about one's future. Usually, they are about God. Then, there is a dilemma about whether the matterIf God is speaking something to you personally about your call or any given situation, maybe it best to keep to yourself and see if it DOES come to pass, before Boasting ahead of time.
Hi everyone.
Katy-Did,
I'm not sure what you mean here?
"Unfortunately we can't stone false dreamers today, but more then likely be the ones stoned for not following."
Why do you say it is [b]unfortunate
Maybe it [b]is fortunate[b]falsely accusing someone
"Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you."
- Deuteronomy chapter 19 verse 19(KJV)
See verses 15 through 20 also.
I sure hope George Bush is having better luck n making headway in his peace talks then we are here. ;-)
Really there is no end to this conversation. No end forever and ever.
Dorcas, I do what to add that while I am glad that the Lord met you in those early days, I feel that along the way you have picked up some very strange ideas about how a Christian 'knows' things. It's like you survived a car crash without a seat belt, and now you advocate everyone to not wear a seatbelt.
To every rule there are exceptions, but a healthy approach to thinking is not to focus on the exceptions but the standards. If everyone regarded their visions and intuitions as from God we would be...well we would be the very society we live in today, which is schizophrenic intellectually, morally, and spiritually. The church has become this as well. Everyone, including the Christian, holds their own truth from their vantage point...and they know that others hold different truths from different vantage points and but this bothers no one because they have abandoned the hope of ever seeing objective reality. The theory of relativity has become the practice of it.
Katy's thesis, that no vision is of private intepretation is not only biblical, it is healthy. We can't each one of us live in our own hall of mirrors and hope to see a healthy picture of ourselves or make sense of our fallen world privately. Such is the method of the clinically ill, not the spirit-filled New Man. We find out who we are, what is reality, and how to know God not through private visions but through the spirit-breathed and ministered scriptures. This is true spiritualality.
I am sensitive to how some feel emotionally or mentally held together by their visions, but I need to make my exit from this labyrinth. That God can reach out to us while we were yet ignorant and unsubmissive to scriptures is a common fact...but that we should desire to elevate those exceptional experiences as part of the healthy normal Christians' spiritual practice is a wrong intepretation of God's grace during our immaturity.
MC
Apart from the surprise element, I found it most informative as far as I read. Don't know if I'll read it all.[It reminded me of the days I used to try to live the resurrection life, without having embraced first the death which entitled me to it. So Israel appears to believe she can inherit the land, without having made the necessary spiritual journey through Calvary.But the title given to Mr Bush sent me scurrying to my Bible for further clarity on who Gog is, and also, Meshech and Tubal. I hadn't realised with my understanding, that Reuben had been completely disinherited, and that's how Jacob was able to give Joseph's children his portion. Nor, that as a disinherited son of Jacob, he is in a similar predicament to Esau - and that these two are much more closely related to each other and 'Israel', than to 'the nations' technically, though they may find themselves on the same side - against the Lord's people.
Dorcas, lets go back to this post you made a couple days ago.
first, where in scripture is Ruben ever cut off?
When making comments such as these, having no scriptural basis what so ever, trying to apply it to our modern day News events.....all I can say is WOW. Is that interpretation of scripture through ones dream or vision?
Before I will respond to any of your comments, Please back this quote you made WITH Scripture, not a dream or vision you had....and certainly not someone else’s misunderstanding of Ruben.
Reuben lost preeminence, as the First born, not son ship and was never cut off.
To compare the Palestinian - Arabs to any of the sons of Joseph, due to Reuben being cut off is teaching a doctrine promoting Joseph’s sons as terrorists.
It is Esau, and Ishmael you may be wanting to study, and their descendents.
But to put GOG in the Mix here.....oh my, then we have a dream or vision turning into a night-mare probably due to something you ate after listening to a false teacher, and then dreaming about it.
Dorcas, when you make statements as these, you actually lose all credibility with those who KNOW their Bibles.
So I am inviting you to prove me wrong here with this quote you made, and back it up...where was Ruben ever disinherited and cut off? I
Is he not mentioned in Genesis 49 and Revelation 7? Jacob said he would not excel, but nothing about being cut off and his portion given to another.
Jacob's last words to His children, Genesis 49, also blessing Joseph's Children in Genesis 48?
Now, there is another man out today calling himself the Greatest prophet in our time spewing off other false doctrine as well, stating Jacob STOLE the Blessing, and it really belongs to Esau, and that is because of all the bloodshed.
Well, Esau if you read scripture sold His birthright....and is mentioned in the hall of shame in Hebrews 12 as THAT profane person.
Paul also establishes in Romans 9 it was GOD who said the elder will serve the younger.
God had called Jacob from before their birth. If anyone is to blame, it would be Rebecca, for not telling Isaac what the Lord spoke to her.
When the Lord spoke to Sarah that Ishmael will not be heirs with Isaac, Abraham listened to her, and sent Ishmael and his mother away.
The enemies of Israel are not their own blood, but the descendents of Ishmael, those who claim to have Abraham as their father.
We worship the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, and Jacob was renamed by God Israel...from where came the Blessings, and from whom came Our Lord and savior Jesus Christ.
Be careful what you are teaching Dorcas, it could have and lead many astray in these last days.
Love in Christ
Katy
Hi Mike,
Me too!I sure hope George Bush is having better luck n making headway in his peace talks then we are here. ;-)
While I understand the 'charismatic church' in America has slipped of the rails a bit (at least), your post exudes an elevated degree of charismata-phobia.
Katy misquoted a verse about prophecy. Now you have misquoted it about visions. I don't think, until either of you have spent some time in a healthy church where the gifts operate as a matter of normal every-Sunday course, that you have a hope of receiving what I've said with the degree of unemotional dispassion that I said it.
Mike, I am grateful for you reassurance that you wish to strengthen me by your comments, but this last post from you reads as if you think (despite my earlier protestations) that I have first abandoned my Bible, and second, could not possibly know whether God had used a dream or a vision to speak to me. I am bewildered.
Do you really believe that God only speaks through scripture, since the Bible was put together?
At times when you have known how you must revise a decision into line with a fresh understanding of God'ss will, did you have to take the whole situation to the church for confirmation? Or did [u]you[i]hope
This seems to have become a discussion about whether or not the brethren on SI are willing to give God permission to communicate His word according to His will. That alone distresses me.
To find myself in the thick of the discussion, defending His right to continue communicating with and to man in ways He always did, also distresses me.
To be discussing these things with a group of Christians who claim to rest their lives on New Testament truth, remains.... bewildering.... as it seems there are a number of confusions in the collective mind.
First, let me put to rest [i]any idea whatsoever
Nor am I suggesting that every dream or vision is a word for the whole Church; that too, would be ridiculous. However, these provisos made, it is not crazy for me to claim that I know when God has spoken to me, revealed truth to me that I had not [i]seen
I do not claim them as truth for anyone else but myself, although EDIT: in the light of scripture they communicated truth which is also in scripture in a general way. end edit.
I may tell, very occasionally, how God has communicated a truth to me, when I'm sharing fellowship with other Christians. Would I do this if the content of the revelation was incompatible with God's revelation of Himself in scripture? I don't think so. I would be praying for deliverance - and in that I might well ask for help, from my brethren, sooner rather than later.
I am not asking for licence beyond the common occurences in scripture, because if we are to be like Jesus, who 'saw' and 'did' what His Father had showed Him, and spoke out what He had 'hear'd from His Father, then there [i]must
Now, if I [i]was
How responsible should I feel for the state of the American church or society, which has led to such a degree of concern over what now appears as a reasonable way for God to communicate with me? At the time, I was completely awestruck, and absolutely silenced by it, and it was near a decade before I shared the most impacting of these revelations. I had shared dreams, because they were relevant to the hope I had in God, in a different way and measure.
Perhaps I should not hope that anything I've written here has improved our mutual understanding. I hope we both agree that God still speaks to man today, especially through the reading of the scriptures, whereby we see examples of how God deals with man.
Please tell me what you think about these two questions:
if Paul had been alone when the light shone round him, would that light have been an objective truth or not?
Why do we accept his testimony of hearing a voice, when only he heard it?
If some people don't accept he heard a voice, is it unbelief - or objectivity?
Hi Katy,
This is where I was thinking of:first, where in scripture is Ruben ever cut off?
[color=0000FF](KJV) 1 Chronicles 5:1
Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he [i]was[u]his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph
Perhaps I misunderstood what that meant?
[color=0000FF](26 And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria, and he carried them away, even the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river Gozan, [b]unto this day
It is reasonable that some of them returned somehow sometime. Perhaps you know when?
I hope by now you have read my last post to Mike, because
this is uncalled for.Is that interpretation of scripture through ones dream or vision?
1 Chron 5:4
The sons of Joel; Shemaiah his son, Gog his son, Shimei his son,
Here is what Strong's definitions says about Gog:
1) son of Pethuel and the 2nd of the 12 minor prophets with a book by
his name; probably prophesied in the time of king Uzziah of Judah
2) eldest son of Samuel the prophet and father of Heman the singer
3) a Simeonite chief
4) a Reubenite
5) a chief of Gad
6) son of Izrahiah and a chief of Issachar
7) brother of Nathan of Zobah and one of David's mighty warriors
8) son of Pedaiah and a chief of the half tribe of Manasseh west of
the Jordan in the time of David
9) a son of Nebo who returned with Ezra and had a foreign wife
10) a Benjamite, son of Zichri
11) a Levite
12) a Kohathite Levite in the reign of Hezekiah
13) a Gershonite Levite chief in the time of David
14) a Gershonite Levite, son of Jehiel and a descendant of Laadan;
maybe same as 13
Please explain to me from scripture, why you would make him anything other than a Reubenite, seeing the writer is in the throes of naming the sons of Reuben, beginning at v 3.
Thanks. :-)
Someone sent me this link.
“TURKEY sets a fantastic example for nations around the world to see where it's possible to have a [b]democracy coexist with a great religion like Islam[u]George Bush's words of welcome, this week
HI Dorcas,
Do you really believe that God only speaks through scripture, since the Bible was put together?
If I may, let me explain myself another way by means of a military analogy.
A soldier may be both tactical and strategic. For instance a soldier may be called upon occupy a hill. Now in the heat of battle he will have to make tactical choices according to the challenges he encounters. He may need to switch from using his rifle to throwing a grenade, or from flanking right to flanking left. A good soldier should have tactical ability to react and adapt accordingly.
Yet, as the soldier advances in responsibility he learns to be trained strategically. This is another mindset, that requires long term commitment to goals, polices, and principles that are larger then any one soldiers tactical perspective. The more the soldier progress in responsibility the more he will have to adjust his thinking from short term survival to long term forward planning and execution.
This is not charismata-phobia. This is not excluding visions or prophecies or any other in the moment experience with God, but keeping order in the ranks by keeping these devices in their proper context. You are right to point out that we would not share our personal visions with the entire church body. If we are expect to contribute to the body, we have to mature to a level where we can move from thinking about how to throw hand grenades to thinking about the welfare of the entire army.
We admit the bible doesn't give always us specific answers for every tactical problem we face. We are equipped with the Spirit to help guide us through the battlefields of life.(To keep using a miliatry metaphor here!) The bible's strategic revelation doesn't give minute by minute tactical instruction, and so in the fierce heat of battle we might think that strategic thinking is obsolete. Afterall, only we footsoldiers know what it's like to face the threats and pain we have experienced, and so we need immediate solutions unique to our perspective, not found in the inactive pages of scripture.
It is the permanancy and immovablility of scripture that is it's strength. Against this unchanging foundation, many of us live our lives hoping for something new and special just for our individual perspective. We want our tactics to dictate God's strategy. We slip and slide away from biblical principles governing our doctrinal commitment, our financial choices, family responsibilies, and even governing our churches. We are simply reacting to enemy fire and assuming that spiritual warfare is only a matter of knowing when to throw hand grenades or how to flank.
Again, I would not go so far as to say we should reject visions or any other first hand reliance on the Lord in principle. In fact I would say that tactical experience is a vital part of spiritual warfare.
What I am saying is that we need to know that our experiences must always fit within the strategic outline given to us by scripture. Admittedly we don't always agree on what we find there together, but if we must have disputes let's keep the conversation to what scripture says and leave our visions and prophecies out of it.
Unfornunately most soldiers cannot tell the difference between their tactics and biblical strategy. They live their lives in supernaturalist exceptions, intimidating bible believing Christians as 'putting God in a box.' Along these lines, I don't think we can frame this extra-biblical abuse in the church as propblem unique to American Chraismatics, as the desperate spiritual decline of Europe is well known. Christianity is almost extinct in Europe in large part due because in the 19th century she accepted additional means of knowing God that were equal to the bible.
So whether we are insisting on using our mystical/emotional experiences or using rationalism to critique scripture, rather then the reverse, we are outside the strategy of God's word. In this way, our over-emphasis of spiritual giftings is no different then an acceptance of German higher-criticism. The bible is given because it is meant to be our revelation of truth from God's perspective. If we want God's perspective we must live in the bible's pages, not looking into our fallen hearts and minds. If God meant for us to live by direct revelation, he wouldn't have placed such a premium on bringing us the scriptures. We may have visions, and we may even engage in textual criticism, but the moment we think our various and conflicting arbitrary perspectives are equal forms of revelation we have already set ourselves up to be flanked and overrun by the enemy.
In summary: we need not prohibit individuals from considering experimental tactics...maybe there is some useful exchange of experience on that level for one another. But we should review these tactics and keep them submission to the bibles strategic framework. For instance what do we tell the woman who wants to leave her husband because she believes the Lord told her to marry another more spiritual man? What do we tell the man who believes he will profit from speculating his family savings in the stock market because he believes God has called him to full-time ministry?
Being a soldier requires submission to a higher authority beyond the influence of their own ground level tactical perpsective...that is the wisdom of Sola Scriptura. It does not deny personal experiences, but requires us to learn how to bring out tactical thinking in line with scriptural thinking.
That is all I am saying. I do not see what the problem is.
MC
(KJV) 1 Chronicles 5:1Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright.
Do you see the part in () explaining the verse.
1Ch 5:1-10. The Line of Reuben.
1. Now the sons of Reuben
In proceeding to give this genealogy, the sacred historian states, in a parenthesis (1Ch 5:1, 2), the reason why it was not placed first, as Reuben was the oldest son of Jacob. The birthright, which by a foul crime he had forfeited, implied not only dominion, but a double portion (De 21:17); and both of these were transferred to Joseph, whose two sons having been adopted as the children of Jacob (Ge 48:5), received each an allotted portion, as forming two distinct tribes in Israel.
Joseph then was entitled to the precedency; and yet, as his posterity was not mentioned first, the sacred historian judged it necessary to explain that "the genealogy was not to be reckoned after the birthright," but with a reference to a superior honor and privilege that had been conferred on Judah-not the man, but the tribe, whereby it was invested with the pre-eminence over all the other tribes, and out of it was to spring David with his royal lineage, and especially the great Messiah (Heb 7:14). These were the two reasons why, in the order of enumeration, the genealogy of Judah is introduced before that of Reuben.
Linn, you see in Genesis 49 Ruben is mentioned first...yet in Revelation, Judah is mentioned first, and Ruben second.
If this had any grand detailing of the last days, the double portion given to Joseph's sons, their names would be preemnent over Judah...in Revelation 7.
However we see Dan is not listed at all.
History of Reuben:
The names of these twelve tribes indicated the history of the tribes they represented. The prince of the tribe Reuben was called Elizur, "my God is a rock," referring to the ancestor of this tribe, Reuben, Jacob's son, who sinned, but, owing to his penance, was forgiven by God, who bore his sin as a rock bears the house built upon it. The name of Elizur's father was Shedeur, "cast into the fire," because Reuben was converted to repentance and atonement through Judah, who confessed his sin when his daughter-in-law Tamar was about to be cast into the fire.
Here is what Strong's definitions says about Gog:
My Strongs has no such definitions. The Hebrew states a Gowg, referring to a Northern Nation, and Greek, referring to Revelation...as a symbolic name for anti-christ.
Now, there is much debate as to whether the anti-christ will be a Jew. As far as I am concerned, the jury is out on that for me.
However, getting back to the Book of Joshua, Reuben, Gad and Joseph's son's together (and it always seems as they are mentioned together) helped settle the Land promised, and then went back to inherit the land Moses promised to them on the other side of the Jordan. There was a big misunderstanding when they went back, because they had built an alter there, that all the tribes were in an uproar. After explaining themselves and why they built it, everything was settled.
This tells you that no sons of Reuben, Gad or the sons of Joseph would have anything to do with buiding "The Dome of the Rock" over Solomon's Temple. And, I would conclude, if these were their descendents,they should have their little rear ends kicked from here TO KINGDOM COME!
Love in Christ
Katy :-)
“TURKEY sets a fantastic example for nations around the world to see where it's possible to have a democracy coexist with a great religion like Islam.” Those were George Bush's words of welcome, this week, to Turkey's President Abdullah Gul.
Dorcas, again, I hope you are not advocating God wants this???!!!??
If democracy states we need to respect one another's gods and tolerate one anothers idoltry, this is a man made Political move not found in scripture.
I am not convinced WE are to force democracy on any nation, and I don't believe our founding forfathers believed this either.
This is something new and different, and if one has to WAR in order to force a type of government on anyone?????I have some real issues with this in measuring up with scripture.
Firstly, WE are not of this world, or it's political systems.
After 911, when I saw a great move in this country and ALL religions prayed for peace here, I was really shocked that President Bush seems to be saying what the New Age Movement is saying....We are all one! Are we? really?
Those who spoke up seemed to be told to shut up..re Franklin Graham concerning other violent religions, and that we are not teh same, and Allah is Not the God of Abraham Isac and Jacob.
I wonder if this New democracy won't actually bring in anti-christ, who will be the one who brings in a false peace.
Love in Christ
Katy
Hi Katy,
It depends what you think about His sovereignty with regard to unbelievers. Obviously - I mean, I hope it would be obvious - I recognise that having a Muslim country in the EU is breaking the mould. I don't know if you've ever looked at the HQ in Strasbourg? - the replica of the tower of Babel - but if you do some research on the overt display of occultism running the EU, you will know it is running as directly counter to God's will for mankind, as a public organisation can.Dorcas, again, I hope you are not advocating God wants this???!!!??
Hi Dorcas,
I should finish a thought...This is a man made political movement not found in scripture....((for Christians to promote or exalt))))
Just because something sounds nice doesn't mean it's God's will.
Seeing these things coming to pass only should make us bolder to preach the Gospel to save souls, rather then asking unsaved souls to try to endure to the end....and by that becomming saved.
Love in Christ
Katy
EDITED to add note to Mike and additional comment to Katy.
Hi Mike,
Thank you for your reply. I do have things to say.... tomorrow. :-)
Hi Katy,
Gog is named as a son of Joel, son of Reuben, in 1 Chr 5:4.
It's late, and I need to return to this thread tomorrow, but
Do you mean you don't think the EU is found in scripture?This is a man made political movement not found in scripture
(I'm not going to pretend I could explain it, but I believe it's there.)
Hi Dorcas,
In the meantime, I wanted to add a footnote to add a little level-headed perspective to my comments.
When ever we talk of 'the right way' we might give the impression that we are in the light and everyone else is in the dark. This is a pitfall of apologetics. The honest truth I believe is that even unbelievers are not completely in darkness while we believers are not completely in the light.
That we should not assume unbelievers are in complete darkness regarding God's word is one of the benefits of having God's word proclaimed beyond the confines of Church. It is a benifit for the lost, as well as the Church, that laws and culture reflects Christian world views as the more light men can walk in the better. Even historical light illumines. (No I'm not a dominionist, just one who appreciates light.) For instance, many an unbeliever are more honest, more industrious, more frugal, more compassionate then a believer...their values and character were informed by the Judea-Christian revelation of morality. This is a cultural heritage resulting from the bible, though today the value of this is being despised by society, and taken for granted even by Christians. (Of course those beyond the borders of historically Christian societies still have the imprint of God in their created being, if not the Gospel.)
Conversely we believers, inspite of our polished apologetics, are not walking completely in the light. We still have areas of thinking disjointed from scripture. Seeing with the bibles' perspective that all mankind, believer and unbeliever alike, share the same need to know God, we are able to regard others we disagree with not as fools beneath us, but with dignity, respect and compassion. You and I are no longer lost though, and by grace we are in the right way...the road to Zion. We are saved and at peace with God through the finished work of Christ.
I bring this 'big picture' up to remind myself that apologetical conversations are not to defend myself, but to preserve and defend an ideal, a proper picture of our faith. In reality, even as I presume to lecture you in Sola Scriptura, you may in practice be closer to that very ideal then I am. I am always mindful of this possibility, whether discussing the bible with believers or unbelievers.
Of course there is value is honing our rhetoric to fall in line with scripture. I believe this is an important descipline. I'm just being mindful that as useful as sound rhetoric is, it isn't character or practice.
Blessings sister,
MC
Gog is named as a son of Joel, son of Reuben, in 1 Chr 5:4.
Linn, this may be true, but is it the Gog of Ezekiel 38&39 and Revelation 20?
So, to find teh answer to your question, please studied Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39.
Scripture teaches scripture and must completely agree on all points.
Listen:
"And the word of the Lord came to me saying: 'Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against Him, and say, "Thus says the Lord God, 'Behold I am against you, O Gog, prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal.
So we see, Gog is the Prince of Rosh. What did I say about Ruben? He is one of the Princes of Israel, was never given any land in the land of Magog. Magog is not the land given to Abraham Isaac and Jacob.
GOG of the Land of Magog will be the answer to your question as to who Gog is.
Listen:
And I will turn you about, and put hooks in your jaws, and I will bring you out, and all your army, horses and horsemen, all of them splendidly attired, a great company with buckler and shield, all of them wielding swords; Persia, Ethiopia, and Put with them, all of them with shield and helmet; Gomer with all its troops; Beth-togarmah from the remote parts of the north with all its troops - many peoples with you'" Ezekiel 38:1-6.
The nations mentioned in this passage, Magog, Meshech, Tubal, Gomer and Beth-togarmah, were a barbarous people known as the Scythians. These were a nomadic people who had moved from central Asia to southern Russia. Just about the same time that Ezekiel was born, the Scythians terrorized southwest Asia and the Middle East.
During the time of Ezekiel and Jeremiah, the Scythians attacked Syria and Judea from their capital city of Saqqez. Later, they attacked Egypt which borders Ethiopia and Libya, in scripture known as Put. Do you see teh sons of Ruben anywhere at any time said to have merged or inter-marrried with these people?
* In Genesis 10:2, Magog, Meshech, Tubal, and Gomer are named as the sons of Japeth and are the founders of the northern group of nations from which the Scythians descended.
* In Ezekiel 27:13, Meshech and Tubal are mentioned as being sellers of slaves to Tyre; and in Ezekiel 32:26, they are spoken of as "instilling terror in the land of the living."
* Meshech is thought to be a people called the Moschi dwelling in the Caucasus mountain regions according to Assyrian inscriptions.
* Tubal is thought to be a people called the Tibareni dwelling on the southeast shores of the Black Sea.
* Gomer is thought to have been the Cimmerians, who occupied central Turkey in the days of the Assyrian empire.
* Beth-togarmah is thought to be Armenia.
* Persia is the people inhabiting the region of modern day Iraq and Iran.
* Ethiopia and Put speak of the Black African nations.
When the history of the Scythian people is examined, it becomes apparent that they are the people described in Ezekiel's prophecy.
By examining this passage Ezekiel 38-39 describes a Scythian invasions. This passage prophecies the triumph of Jesus Christ over the kingdoms of this world. This is announced in Revelation 11.
"Gog and Magog" is a biblical symbol for the heathen nations of the world. The Apostle John equates "the nations of the four corners of the earth" with "Gog and Magog" (Revelation 20:8). "Gog and Magog" is used in the Bible to describe the nations of the world that are opposed to Christ and His Kingdom.
Jews today( National Israel) are looking for the Messiah and the promise of the Kingdom, (Acts 1:6&7) that was also promised in the OT...it’s not fighting against it.
Jews saved today are part of teh Church, teh Body of Christ.
Ezekiel tell you exactly who Gog is. Gog of the land of Magog....Prince of ????......never mentioned as part of Israel.
Love in Christ
Katy
PS: added, In Rev 20, gog in the strongs = anti-christ. Those who have the mark of the beast are those who oppose the Coming Kingdom of Jesus Christ. The anti-christ will sit in the throne as though he were God...but not for long. When Jesus Christ takes the Throne of David, those saved during the Great Tribulation will enter the Kingdom....Matthew 25. And Joel's prophecy will come to pass. Those who enter in, His Spirit will be given to ALL FLESH, fulfilling the New Covenant promises to Israel as well, in Ezekiel 36. They will be back in their Land.
Hi Katy,
So... you're saying that the original Gog in the Bible, is not the one whose descendents appear in Ezekiel. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
So... you're saying that the original Gog in the Bible, is not the one whose descendents appear in Ezekiel. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Only if you are assuming the original Gog in the Bible are the descendants of Reuben ...Gog who does appear in Ezekiel. No they are not, just by the total clarity of Ezekiel...Gog, from the land of Magog The Chief Prince of Meshech and Tubal. Genesis 10, the descendants of Japheth.
Abraham came from the descendants of Shem, as did Sara.
I know sometimes genealogies can be boring in scripture, but they are there for a reason.
Genesis 10 is really a great study.
Love in Christ
Katy
So... you're saying that the original Gog in the Bible, is not the one whose descendents appear in Ezekiel. Thanks for sharing your thoughts
The Original Gog in the Bible are the descendants of Japheth, the enemies of Israel spoken of in Ezekiel.
Just because one has the name Judas, doesn't imply all Judas's are the son of perdition.
Dorcas, This may help!
Genesis 10:1-5
Now this is the genealogy of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And sons were born to them after the flood. The sons of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. The sons of Gomer were Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah. The sons of Javan were Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. From these the coastland peoples of the Gentiles were separated into their lands, everyone according to his language, according to their families, into their nations.
From Japheth comes the Japhetic peoples—the Medes, Greeks, Cypriots, etc. This probably includes the Caucasian people of Europe and of northern Asia. Many scholars would also include the Orientals here. J. Vernon McGee quotes H.S. Miller’s chart, which includes (1) those who proceeded from Magog: Scythians, Slavs, Russians, Bulgarians, Bohemians, Poles, Slovaks, and Croatians; (2) those from Madai: the Indians and the Iranic races—Medes, Persians, Afghans, and Kurds; (3) those from Javan: Greeks, Romans and the Romance nationalities such as French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, etc.; and (4) those from Tiras: Thracians, Teutons, Germans, and the east Germanic and the European races, the north Germanic or the Scandinavians and the west Germanic from which comes the High German and the Low German, and the Anglo-Saxon race, the English people.
Genesis 10:6-20
The sons of Ham were Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan. The sons of Cush were Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabtechah; and the sons of Raamah were Sheba and Dedan. Cush begot Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one on the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; therefore it is said, "Like Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD." And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. From that land he went to Assyria and built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah (that is the principal city). Mizraim begot Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, Pathrusim, and Casluhim (from whom came the Philistines and Caphtorim). Canaan begot Sidon his firstborn, and Heth; the Jebusite, the Amorite, and the Girgashite; the Hivite, the Arkite, and the Sinite; the Arvadite, the Zemarite, and the Hamathite. Afterward the families of the Canaanites were dispersed. And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon as you go toward Gerar; then as you go toward Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha. These were the sons of Ham, according to their families, according to their languages, in their lands and in their nations.
From Ham came the Hamitic peoples—Ethiopians, Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, Babylonians, and possibly the African and Oriental peoples, though many scholars view the Orientals as Japhetic. As is seen, Ham had other sons other than Canaan even though it was only Canaan who was cursed due to the incident with Noah’s drunkenness in the last chapter.
What is notable in this passage is the introduction of Nimrod, a Hebrew name that had the meaning, rebel.
NIMROD (nim’rod). A descendant of Ham through Cush who early distinguished himself throughout the region of Mesopotamia (Gen 10:8-12). He is described as “a mighty one in the earth” (v. 8) and “a mighty hunter before the Lord” (v. 9), probably signifying that he was one of the first recorded potentates in history and a tyrant (a hunter of men, cf. Jer 16:16). According to v. 10 he founded a kingdom in the land of Shinar (q.v.), i.e., in southern Iraq, consisting of Babel, Erech, and Accad, “even all of them”. . . Then he went forth into Assyria and built—or rebuilt—Nineveh. . . . .
Archaeologically speaking, Nimrod may have been the leader of the Ubaid movement from S to N Iraq, c. 3800-3500 B.C. That is the only period prior to the time of Abraham (c. 2000 B.C.) when a non-Semitic culture came from the S and left significant remains in the early levels of the Assyrian cities. Sargo of Akkad or Agade (c. 2300 B.C.), who conquered all of Mesopotamia by marching from his capital near Babylon, was a Semitic ruler.
In Mic 5:6 Assyria is called the land of Nimrod. To the present day his name is attached to ruined cities: the site of Calah is called “Nimrud,” and the site of ancient Borsippa in Babylonia is called “Birs Nimrud.”
An interesting study on Nimrod from secular history may be found in Alexander Hislop’s book, The Two Babylons. Nimrod was responsible for the Tower of Babel, and he attempted to bring together the human race after the Flood in an effort to unify it into one nation of which he could become the great world ruler. He was the rebel who founded Babel, the hunter of souls of men. He was the lawless one, and he foreshadowed the last world rule, the Antichrist, who is yet to appear.
Genesis 10:21-32
And children were born also to Shem, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder. The sons of Shem were Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud, and Aram. The sons of Aram were Uz, Hul, Gether, and Mash. Arphaxad begot Salah, and Salah begot Eber. To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother's name was Joktan. Joktan begot Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab. All these were the sons of Joktan. And their dwelling place was from Mesha as you go toward Sephar, the mountain of the east. These were the sons of Shem, according to their families, according to their languages, in their lands, according to their nations. These were the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations, in their nations; and from these the nations were divided on the earth after the flood.
From Shem came the Semitic peoples—Jews, Arabs, Assyrians, Arameans, Phoenicians.
The reference to Shem and Japheth without Ham recalls Noah’s blessing of Shem and Japheth in 9:26-27, where there Canaan is also excluded.
The mention of the “sons of Eber” anticipates the genealogy that yet lies ahead and results in the birth of Abraham (11:10-26).
The list of descendants of Shem is also highly selective, going to the two sons of Eber and then following the line of the second son, Joktan. Significantly, another genealogy of Shem is repeated after the account of the building of Babylon (11:1-9), and there the line is continued to Abraham through the first son of Eber, Peleg (11:10-26). Thus a dividing line is drawn through the descendants of Shem on either side of the city of Babylon, falling between the two sons of Eber, Peleg and Joktan. One line leads to the building of Babylon and the other to the family of Abraham. A hint to this division is in v.25. Typically, the “earth” refers to the “inhabitants of the land.” Thus not only is the land divided in the confusion of languages (11:1), but two great lines of humanity diverge from the midst of the sons of Shem: those who seek to make a name (shem; GK 9005) for themselves in the building of the city of Babylon (11:4) and those for whom God will make a name (shem, 12:2; GK 9002) in the call of Abraham.
The final verse of this chapter again takes up the theme of the division of the nations. What has been described geographically and linguistically in this chapter will be described theologically in chapter 11, namely, God’s judgment of Babylon and His dispersion of earth’s inhabitants. Then the Bible will narrow its focus on the “seed of Abraham” and the “sons of Israel.”
Katy
Hi Katy,
The prince of Rosh is not mentioned in the KJV, but does appear in Young's. Rosh was a descendant of Benjamin.
Let me briefly explain why I tend towards accepting the Gog of 1 Chr 5 as the Gog of Ezekiel. First, he is the only Gog, as is Rosh, Meshech and Tubal, the latter two being sons of Japheth. Second, there are plenty of Reubenites not descended from Gog, who could account for those in Revelation. Third, there is nothing in scripture to say that a descendent of Jacob could not stay [i]away
Seventh, Magog is referred to as the land. Yes, it has been named after a person, but the 'person' who has gained control of the people, appears to be the descendent of Jacob, and that's not a surprise.. nor, that the descendents of Benjamin are under the descendents of Gog. They would not have forgotten who was the eldest and who was the youngest. Eighth, God is merciful. There is no reason why those descendents of Gog who want to return to Him, cannot do so now through faith in Christ Jesus.
If we are talking about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy, then in the light of Daniel's, we know that a maximum of a third of 'Israel' will be saved in the end. Amen. So Gog may be somewhat of a figurehead allowed by God, for all those who do not turn to Him even after everything that possibly could be done, is done. You will note that they were taken away because of their idolatry.
With regard to Dan, he seems to have had an interesting career leaving his name in northern regions: a country named after him to this day, and many islands under that country's control, including eventually successful excusions into the British Isles long after Christianity had reached both his country and mine. One of his first stronghold's here was the venue for the Synod in which the Catholic Church persuaded the English kingdom to become part of its growing realm.
Hi Mike,
There was much I wished to say, to tease out a number of your thoughts, but the truth is, I don't have time. I know you'll understand. In particular, this paragraph invited deeper dissection, but I will confine myself to a few short (I hope) comments.
Perhaps your later post was partly to qualify this further?So whether we are insisting on using our mystical/emotional experiences or using rationalism to critique scripture, rather then the reverse, we are outside the strategy of God's word. In this way, our over-emphasis of spiritual giftings is no different then an acceptance of German higher-criticism. The bible is given because it is meant to be our revelation of truth from God's perspective. If we want God's perspective . If God meant for us to live by direct revelation, he wouldn't have placed such a premium on bringing us the scriptures. We may have visions, and we may even engage in textual criticism, but the moment we think our various and conflicting arbitrary perspectives are equal forms of revelation we have already set ourselves up to be flanked and overrun by the enemy.
'we must live in the bible's pages, not looking into our fallen hearts and minds'
Please tell me if I'm wrong, but... this sentence seems to imply that dreams and visions only come from the fallen heart and mind, and never from the Lord. Perhaps I'm being hypersensitive in reading this way, but when you use words like 'mystical', 'emotional' and 'rationalism' as if they are all unacceptable associations with faith and the revelation of scripture, as I said... it invites comment.
Thinking through scripture then, the vast majority of dreams and visions which are recorded, happened to those who were not born again. There is an implication if you accept that Peter's claim of the pentecostal outpouring being that which Joel prophesied, that the occurence of dreams and visions should have increased amongst believers, rather than been limited to lone national prophets (although we all remember there were 7000 other 'believers' in Elijah's day, who had not bowed to Baal).
Jesus also clearly places the mighty works He did within the context of the unbeliever, rather than the believer, so I am bemused at the level of anxiety my confession has provoked. I apologise for the concern it causes you, but of course, not for the confession.
Lastly, let us remember Cornelius. :-o Not only not born again, but not even Jewish. If I compare my experience with scripture, I cannot but find in favour of God's dealings with me on the matter of both dreams and visions - fallen heart and head included. Brother, this is one of the ways He calls us on to greater faith.
Nevertheless, I do not dispute that hallucinogens, pure fantasy and sheer badness can produce the circumstances of unwanted dreams and visions. But even these can cause a person to seek God for a pure heart and mind. And if He chooses to present Himself when the mind has been quieted by rest and sleep... the soul may be readier to receive His revelation of hope.
ohhh Dorcas,
This idea of private revelation from God is something greatly important to you, and I can see you will have your way on this one. I tried to relax the rope, even to the point of coming over to the very edge of your point of view. Yet you seem intent on tugging it taught again. I've equivicated and even abdicated on 99 points, and kept only one for myself, and now you want that one too.
I'm sorry, but I'm done here. I'd rather let this one go, then to continue giving you opportunity to imply without saying it that dreams are equal to scripture. Someone might hear you and believe it.
The Bible is more reliable then our dreams. The Bible comes with a warranty, dreams come with a disclaimer. This is the only point I am trying to preserve. I cannot say it anymore clearly. If you agree, then we have arrived upon common ground. If you believe differently, then I wish you luck with that.
Sweet dreams. ;-)
MC
ooohhh Mike...
No thanks. ;-)I wish you luck
I'm sorry I've dragged you to the edge of what you feel to be a dangerous precipice. Your level of concern is certainly being communicated to me, and I realise you are more worried about everyone else than you are about my spiritual stability or yours - which is all fine.
But what I really don't understand, is why when scripture describes as many dreams and visions as it does, you are intent on rejecting them as valid. Yet [u]no[i]possibly[i]even privately
Your implication that the things God has shown my spirit when I'm alone with Him are somehow 'private revelation' which must be rejected [i]per se
Where does that leave the things He shows [i]anyone
I really do hope we have a misunderstanding here, and you are not trying to blot dreams and visions out of the Christian's experience, simply because they seem to make you nervous...
The implication that we should be suspicious of communications from God by dream or vision, because of the [i]method
It cannot be possible that His word revealed in a vision, is less His word for the vision (or dream), and it cannot be, if it is His word, that it is any less [i]true
I have not been trying to say this. But, to construct a metaphor - if dreams could be likened to a family car, and scripture likened to a ten ton truck, and, each vehicle was carrying a box of fresh organic eggs - the eggs being the word - the content of a dream or vision must mean the same as somewhere in scripture, for it to be validated objectively.dreams are equal to scripture
Even if the subjective is not in any doubt... ;-)
What d'you think?
Do we have common ground?
I sure hope so.
Hi Dorcas,
This is probably not productive...
The implication that we should be suspicious of communications from God by dream or vision, because of the method He chose to speak, is also mysterious to me.
I'll go with your word suspicious. I've been given ample cause to be suspicious from the legacy of dreamers and prophets who would implicate God in their pathological behavior. Amazingly though, by faith in the better examples of the bible, I am still open to the possibility of dreams.
But...
And your desire that whatever He said should be regarded as some sort of inferior quality to that in the Bible, is also of concern.
I do regard them as inferior quality. You have me.
If you regard your or my dreams as equal in quality to the bible then I would call that a cause for concern.
On this particular point we have no common ground. :-(
MC
Please tell me if I'm wrong, but... this sentence seems to imply that dreams and visions only come from the fallen heart and mind, and never from the Lord. Perhaps I'm being hypersensitive in reading this way, but when you use words like 'mystical', 'emotional' and 'rationalism' as if they are all unacceptable associations with faith and the revelation of scripture, as I said... it invites comment.
If I may throw in my oar at an untimely point, (ie, butt in) being one who has experienced dreams – including a few that have come true:
Calvin said: “Man is an idol factory”. Now, that happens easily with dreams! Perhaps, then it’s not merely an issue of the virtue of dreams, but of the dreamer. I have seen forums fall over the edge into their “dreamland”. When it came to interpretation, the imagination had no boundaries – as if God had tossed them a free-for-all. And they “backed up” their conclusions with scripture references to boot! That was enough to tempt me to swing back into my safety zone: rationalism. (which is just another version of subjectivity)
However, protection against the misuse of dreams is not to swing over into the academic/rational side, though that is important too. Let’s admit, rationalism can become an idol too. Hey, we’ll do anything to evade submission to God! There is a part of us that craves to be little gods!
Loren Cunningham, founder of YWAM, in his book “Is that really you, God?” (first ed.) shares a number of revelatory experiences, and how they led to the founding of the organization. I do not doubt the authenticity of them and the demand that they placed on Cunningham. Still, Cunningham discovered that God would always validate his divine leading in at least three other ways – like, God would give the same message to other believers, circumstance, Scripture, etc.
I have come to trust that God is more aware of my bent to idolatry than I am, and I trust him to build checks and balances into my life. (that seems to include “opportunities” to fall and get bruised) The challenge for me is to keep on handing the reigns to him. He’s in the driver’s seat (Yes, I’ve had a few dreams that symbolized that!)
I’d have to say that dreams are not meant to replace the Holy Spirit in the lives of others. God can and must lead them. That is integral to the New Covenant. No human is to usurp a mediatory role, or use their dreams to pull rank. Even the apostle Paul wouldn’t let people give him that role. Paul pointed them to the Word.
”Let the prophet who has a dream tell his dream, but let the one who has my word speak it faithfully. For what has straw to do with grain?" declares the LORD.” Jeremiah 23:28
It would seem that God does not forbid the proclamation of a dream, and at times even requires it, but he does hold the word as the ultimate authority. Perhaps the analogy would be a roadsign. We are not free to subjectively interpret a roadsign. But we don’t get fixated on it either. (We'll go into the ditch!) Ultimately we keep our eyes on the road – and follow it to our destination.
If the sign is truly constructed by God, it should head us in the right direction, should it not?
The point: Check where that sign is pointing! Is it where you should go, or where your flesh wants to go?
Diane
The Bible is more reliable then our dreams. The Bible comes with a warranty, dreams come with a disclaimer. This is the only point I am trying to preserve. I cannot say it anymore clearly. If you agree, then we have arrived upon common ground. If you believe differently, then I wish you luck with that.
Compton, I totally agree with you.
As Paul warns.....
9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; [u][b]because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
13But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
14Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
16Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,
17Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.
Love in Christ
Katy ;-)
The prince of Rosh is not mentioned in the KJV, but does appear in Young's. Rosh was a descendant of Benjamin.
But now you have another dilemma...Rosh being Benjamin's descendant....and Gog being Reuben's descendant...(The tribes of Israel still intact in Revelation 7).....
So are you saying Gog, the descendant of Reuben is the Prince of Rosh...Benjamin's descendant... :-P
The more you insist on your own way...the more absurd it becomes!!!
Once again, and then I'm done here too....
The only ones who are referred to as Princes are the 12 sons of Jacob.
Their descendants, no matter how many children they have will never be referred to as a Prince.
But, have it your way Dorcas, as you always do want to have, no doubt caused by pride.
I fear you have an unteachable spirit, not in submission to other members of the Body of Christ. Yes Jesus Christ is the Head, and all Truth flows from HIM. Those in obedience to Jesus Christ hear the warnings of other members of the Body, for the GOOD of the Body, to be healthy, strong , not being tossed about by every wind of doctrine that comes along, until we ALL grow up into maturity.
Love in Christ
Katy
God and the nations
The Bible message primarily concerns the nation of Israel. The hope of a true Christian is therein styled "the hope of Israel" (Acts 28:20). Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, made this very clear when he said "Salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22). This hope of salvation will be realised by the prospect of living forever in the Kingdom of God (2 Peter 1:11 & Daniel 7:27). The Kingdom of God is to be established in the earth with Jerusalem as it's capital city (Jeremiah 3:17). That is why the apostles asked Jesus, after his resurrection, if he was going to "restore again the kingdom (of God) to Israel" (Acts 1:1-6).
A cursory glance at the above passages of scripture will confirm that the nation of Israel features prominently in the purpose of God. Closer investigation will reveal that the Bible has much to say about other nations, especially those who inpinge on the life of Israel, as for example, Egypt, Babylon, Assyria etc. Looking at nations in modern times, we find that Bible prophecy is concerned with nations as Persia (Iran), Ethiopia and Libya (Ezekiel 38:5). From this chapter in Ezekiel we learn that these nations are involved in a confederacy which invades the land of Israel (verse 8). These invaders are defeated and destroyed by God, resulting in Israel being "saved with an everlasting salvation", (Isaiah 45:17) so that following the establishment of the Kingdom of God, "God will be known in the eyes of many nations" (Ezekiel 38:23).
The invading leader identified
The leader of this invasion is named as Gog, who is described as "the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal" (verse 2 RV). Unlike other names in this chapter at which we have looked, these ancient names have been superseded by more modern ones. Experts confidently assert that "Ros (or Rosh) is the most ancient form under which history makes mention of the name Russia", and Russian historians themselves confirm this by stating that "Russians derive their name from Ros". Ezekiel 38 adds it's own confirmation to this interpretation by pinpointing the geographical location of this prince of Rosh. This is described as "the north parts", or, as the revised version gives it "the uttermost parts of the north" (verse 15). A glance at a map will reveal that in relation to the land of Israel, the territory of Russia lies in the "uttermost parts of the north". It is particularly noticeable that Moscow (Meshech) is almost due north of Jerusalem. There can be no doubt that the Gog of this chapter represents the person in control of the affairs of Russia and is the leader of the forces that will invade Israel.
Again Dorcas, WHY would YOUR vision and dream be true when 99.44 100% (you being the other) KNOW and agree on this point of scripture.
Katy
Today
Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have begun talks in Jerusalem on what are seen as the most intractable issues in the peace process.
These include the status of Jerusalem, the borders of a Palestinian state, Jewish settlements in the West Bank, refugees, security and water resources.
The talks are being led by Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and former Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei.
Three Palestinian militants died in an Israeli strike in Gaza on Sunday.
Katy asked
Umm... .... Which point?this point of scripture.
this point of scripture.
The point Dorcas that regardless of what you may think you see with your eyes, or visions or dreams, that Prophecy will be fulfilled just as scripture says, even if our eyes and dreams and visions may want to say otherwise.
Why do you think many will ***be deceived*** in the last days? Even God's elect...if it were possible.
People can have dreams and visions until the cows come home, but the foundations of God's WORD stands strong...has been tried 7 ( perfect) times in the fire.
Have your dreams and visions been tried 7 times in any fire.
Remember Satan said..I will set my throne above the Stars of God.
So anyone who wants you to believe they and their visions are Above the other members in the Body, and there is no accountability....hummmmmm!
(((((Added: and anyone who says their dreams or visions surpass the Word of God, ((Jesus is the Word who became Flesh)), is actually saying they are god or of a higher order than God Himself, exalting themselves above God!)))))
Buy of me Gold (not Dreams or Visions) TRIED in
the fire that you may be rich (eyes to see and ears to hear God's Word....and that your ****nakedness*** DOES NOT Show!
Jude warns of filthy dreamers in the last days!
Love in Christ
Katy
Here is what the Bible says.
Jesus Christ is Prince of Peace, and the Government will be upon HIS Shoulders, and He and He alone will bring in Peace....
The Government is not upon the shoulders of George Bush and Tony Blair. No where in scripture is the Peace of Jerusalem upon the shoulders of a Gentile Nation...or it's leaders...however a false peace will be brought in by the anti-christ....
Isaiah 9:5-7
5For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire.
6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
This is the Promised Millennial Kingdom Reign of Jesus Christ.
Love in Christ
Katy
God's word is sure, tried 7 times in the Fire...perfect, and needs no alterations through any one's dreams!
The Bible is more reliable then our dreams. The Bible comes with a warranty, dreams come with a disclaimer.
Indeed! And yet, may I toss in another disclaimer: that is, the human potential for misinterpretation of Scripture. We all know those who dogmatically hold their interpretations as absolute truth, believing that this IS the Truth.
I see something else: It seems that most of those whom I encounter in my daily life have an alarming distortion of the Word – even those who grew up in church and view themselves as conservative Bible believers. Also, there is a trend I heard recently coined as Biblical liberalism. Its “adherents” claim the inerrancy of scripture but follow a liberal philosophy. This is intensely troubling to me. It is practically impossible to break through the distortions using Bible verses. To them, their perception is correct.
How will God prod through the layers and layers of twisted thinking in order to convey his saving truth? Will a series of neighbourhood Bible studies do it? Expository Sermons? Not in themselves! That’s because it is easy to safely hide misperceptions under loads of God/bible talk.
I cannot doubt that God jolts people out of their spiritual slumber using unexpected means – means that drive straight to the conscience. (Guess how I know!) He is using revelatory means all over the world to cut through the mental/spiritual barriers. For the beholder, there seems to be no doubt that the Lord has spoken.
If God left us on our own – even with our Bibles, we could easily fool ourselves all the way down the garden path. Thankfully he deploys his rescue operations, and draws in the wandering sheep. He is never short of methods to employ.
Dear God, please break through our resistance and our blindness!!!
Diane
Islam, SVM News, 1 January, 2007: Millions of Muslim converts to Christianity celebrated Christmas throughout the world. According the reports of the various missionary organisations and news medias.
'More Muslims converted to faith in Jesus Christ over the past decade than at any other time in human history. A spiritual revolution is underway throughout North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia.
More than 10,000 muslims accepted Jesus Christ as their personal saviour throughout India during the last year. The Bible Society of India publishing thousands of New Testaments for the Muslims with their own terminology and vocabulary in different Indian languages and Tazi language. Pastor Paul Ciniraj Mohamed, the Director of the Salem Voice Ministries is one of the key persons of the Bible translators of the Bible Society of India to reach the Gospel to the Muslims. He is in the midst of persecution. Recently also he was threatened by the extremists to count down his days alongwith the whole family.
Also, more than one million Bibles shipped into the country since 2003, and pastors report Iraqis are snatching them up so fast they constantly need more Bibles.
Thousands of Muslims turned to Christ and worshipping Lord Jesus in Morocco, Somalia, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Pakistan, Bengladesh, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Maldievs.
Around a million believed in Jesus over the past decade in Egypt.
But last year they sold 750,000 copies of the Bible on tape (in Arabic) and about a half million copies of the Arabic New Testament. "Egyptians are increasingly hungry for God's Word," an Egyptian Christian leader told.
'Last Christmas, I had the privilege of visiting the largest Christian congregation in the Middle East, which meets in an enormous cave on the outskirts of Cairo. Some 10,000 believers worship there every weekend. A prayer conference the church held in May 2005 drew some 20,000 believers', Rosenberg told.
In Sudan, more than one million have converted since 2000, and some 5 million have become Christians since the early 1990s, despite a radical Islamic regime and an on-going genocide that has killed more than 200,000. Seminaries are being held in caves to train pastors to shepherd the huge numbers of people coming to Christ. Why such a dramatic spiritual awakening? "People have seen real Islam, and they want Jesus instead," one Sudanese evangelical leader said.
In December 2001, Sheikh Ahmad al Qataani, a leading Saudi cleric, appeared on a live interview on Aljazeera satellite television to confirm that, sure enough, Muslims were turning to Jesus in alarming numbers. "In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity," Al Qataani warned. "Every day, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Every year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity."
Stunned, the interviewer interrupted the cleric. "Hold on! Let me clarify. Do we have six million converting from Islam to Christianity?" Al Qataani repeated his assertion. "Every year," the cleric confirmed, adding, "a tragedy has happened."
[i]One of the most dramatic developments is that many Muslims -- including Shiites in Iran and Iraq -- are seeing dreams and visions of Jesus and thus coming into churches explaining that they have already converted and now need a Bible and guidance on how to follow Jesus.
Idris Salahudeen, the Pastor of the Salem Voice Ministries said, hundreds upon hundreds ordinary muslims believing Jesus and secretly converting into Christianity by seeing brutal behaviour of fundamentalists towards Christians. Maybe this torturing is a purification of nominal Christians to have more faith and courage."
So many things that i thought normal in my christian walk are cause for great suspicion with the brethren on si.
I am not sure if it is a predisposition from background or teaching or what. :-(
consider prayer as a spiritual dynamic.....Is it viable because it is written in scripture or can it exist as a practice before God without even the existence of a bible?
Obviously [under circumstances of imprisonment etc,] One could pray and be born-again with no bible at all.
Because it is a dynamic of God. Not because i find it in the bible.
the same holds true for healing, prophecy, dreams, and visions.
We should not throw caution to the wind but caution should never be our driving force.
Look....you are not deceived in your prayers.
because if you belong to God you are guaranteed the faithfulness of God.
The word of God cannot possibly fail.....But you can fail with all the bible before you and in you.
It is Jesus that never fails
The last days deception will be [most likely] from the word.
The ones not deceived are those intimate with Him. they know him. They know his voice. they know their bibles.
This is the correct combination of the word the Son and the Holy Spirit.
It is not "I do it" because i found it in the bible. "I do it" because I walk with him and the bible confirms the living God.
Dreams and visions happen not because they are ok'ed by the word but at the same time it is the word that confirms them.
Healing is not ok'ed by the bible healing is from God and the bible confirms healing.
David
US President George W Bush is wrapping up an eight-day Middle East tour with a brief visit to Egypt.
Speaking in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh Mr Bush said that he hoped Egypt would build on moves towards greater democracy.
Standing with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, he stopped short of directly criticising Egypt's government.
The US has in the past raised concerns over Egypt's human rights record and its treatment of the independent press.
"I'm absolutely confident that people in the Middle East are working on building a society based on justice," he said during his stop-over.
Egypt's banned opposition Muslim Brotherhood - which holds a fifth of the seats in parliament - staged a protest in Cairo on Tuesday against Mr Bush's visit.
Relations between the two allies have cooled, particularly over US calls for Egypt to do more to secure its border with the Gaza Strip, analysts say.
The Bush administration has notified the US Congress that it intends to go ahead with a major sale of sensitive military technology to Saudi Arabia.
It made the announcement just hours after US President George W Bush began his first visit to the kingdom, as part of a tour of Gulf Arab allies.
The laser-guided bomb technology sale is worth $123m (£63m).
Meanwhile Mr Bush said he was talking to King Abdullah about the effect of high oil prices on the US economy.
Saudi Arabia is the world's biggest oil exporter and a leading member of oil producers' cartel Opec.
"I would hope that as Opec considers different production levels that they understand that if... one of the biggest consumers' economy suffers it means less purchases, less oil and gas sold," Mr Bush said.
Hmmmm.......
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php
Hummmmm is right.
Will history repeat itself?
I always wondered why Bush was so convinced Iraq had weapons of mass distruction to begin with...were they the weapons The Reagan/Bush Administration and then Bush SR. administration SOLD to them to begin with? Is that why he was soooooooo sure?...and looked what happened there...friends forever????????
Katy
To Mike Compton, my dear friend and brother-in-Christ,
I cannot believe we had such a severe disagreement in this thread over the content of scripture, but for those who may have thought my view of the [i]doctrine[i]the baptism of the Holy Spirit
For any who need a refresher in how scripture [i]does
What I remembered was, that I'd said your posts exuded 'charismata-phobia'... because that is how they were reading [i]to me[i]the charismata
Hi Dorcas,
What I remembered was, that I'd said your posts exuded 'charismata-phobia'... because that is how they were reading to me. I know you better than that and I'm sorry that choice of phrase......Perhaps that was what had worried you.
Actually the jarring came from the follwoing statement that, even now as I read it,l seems to place personal revelation on equal standing with scriptural revelation...
And your desire that whatever He said (i.e. dreams and personal revelation) should be regarded as some sort of inferior quality to that in the Bible, is also of concern.
I was trying to comprehend your poised pacific delivery of what I feel is an outlandish statement. Thanks for bringing this up here in the forum. To let the air out of this thing let me candidly tell you, I'm not sure what irritated me more; the content of your statement there, or that polite English pugnacity that seemed to needle through the difficulties without difficulty.
Add to that everyone's piling on, either defending the idea of dreams, or characterizing sola scripture as a spiritless head knowledge...two directions in the conversation that were quite unneeded, and oblivious to the real cause of my consternation.
Diane, dear sister if you are reading this, kindly understand that I took great exception to you taking the wheel of the conversation as it was headed down one street, and forcing it down another. You did this, in my opinion, by arguing that we are alas held captive to our various arbitrary and subjective interpretations of scripture, so in the end personal perspective is all there is, whether we are talking dreams or the Bible. I felt this dodged the point at hand, because even if we downplay the instruction of the Holy Spirit regarding the bible, which we readily affirmed for dreams, we can at least agree that in the case of scripture, the content is a fixed point to begin with and comes with the unassailable authority of God upon it. With our dreams we must accept that the content, the interpretation, and the authority, are relative and subjective. (This difference is and remains my only point.)
You both know me. I am not cessasionist regarding the gifts of the spirit, but I am cessasionist when it comes to any irritation I felt towards you. :-) I am not roused any more. In the end I settled down and figured maybe I had reached the limits of my concordance possible here in SI...perhaps I am more fundamentalist then I had let myself and everyone believe!
And of course, rather then accentuating our basic differences, I think we still have much more to focus on that keeps us in fellowship. We are more alike then different! Besides, like I said before, even after all my worried defense of sola scriptura, it may be that I hold least to the idea then either of you!
As Diane has pointed out, we are in His hands. That is what binds us together most of all.
You are both the most precious friends to me.
Blessings,
MC
Dear Mike,
Thank you for your honest - and generous - reply.
All through the previous discussion, you put the word 'personal' at variance with scripture, yet who is it that receives the revelation from scripture, if it is not the 'personal' believer?
In using the phrase 'personal revelation' to imply that the revelation comes from the person rather than God, you are (in the way that I understand what you must be meaning about the 'revelation' of scripture), questioning the actual experiential claims of everyone who would say they 'know the Lord' or receives answers to prayer, or who hears the gospel and believes [i]the word
To carry your stance to its logical conclusion, one would surmise that you could not believe God's word was communicated to the biblical saints either through visions or dreams, and parts of prophecy must be suspect because of how the prophet said he received them. It was this illogic that I could not get my head around. I believe we are supposed to be being made [i]more
In short, I'm saying one doesn't need to be Jewish or Christian, to hear from God through a dream, vision or prayer - and I believe there is scriptural record for [u]all[i]rightly
I am not denying one ounce of scripture - not one jot or tittle - by my belief that scripture lays out for us through its narrative, the kind of things we may expect from God in our walk with Him. Further, I don't expect anyone else to validate on my behalf, anything that I believe God has shown me. Further still, I don't expect God to show me anything which is not somewhere in scripture. But additionally, we all find times when scripture leaps out at us as if we've never read that verse before, and hits us with a topical relevance which only the Father could have known we needed to receive. Even when this is not happening, scripture is spiritual food of a very special kind.
I put as many provisos as I could, in my earlier comments, including that I'm claiming nothing from God which could not be shared publicly. Nevertheless, just as those in scripture did not necessarily share their revelation from God with the whole world, so it may be that a word given is a 'personal' direction or communication of biblical truth about God. It isn't mine to answer why He didn't just make the written word available to everyone, and give us all an equal understanding of the whole thing... If this once existed, He is faced with a greater variety of circumstances through which to reach men's hearts and understanding now, than then.
Below is the last sentence in my signature, by Oswald Chambers. I have no idea whether you can agree with it or not, but I think it expresses what I believe, rather along the line of a thread I started titled 'Love is not objective?'... because I'd realised Jesus must have loved us subjectively as well, to continue through to the cross and beyond. While they can be separated on paper, in one single human life they can be separated only temporarily by the mind and heart, and then, to be real there has to be a re-integration of truth; it is by living this out, that we [u]are[i]becoming
'Jesus said, "When He the Spirit of truth is come . . . He shall glorify Me." When I commit myself to the revelation made in the New Testament, I receive from God the gift of the Holy Spirit Who begins to interpret to me what Jesus did, and does in me subjectively all that Jesus Christ did for me objectively.' [i]Oswald Chambers
Dear brother, I ask in all earnestness... if fundamentalism doesn't reach these conclusions, is it truly expressive of the [i]outworking
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has accused US President George W Bush of "sowing the seeds of division" during his recent Middle East visit.
Mr Ahmadinejad said Mr Bush had brought a "message of confrontation" during his tour, during which he warned Arab allies that Iran posed a threat.
In an interview with al-Jazeera TV, the Iranian leader also said Israel "would not dare" attack Iran.
He spoke as Israel announced it had test-fired a ballistic missile.
Reports in the Israeli media said the long-range missile was aimed at intercepting aerial threats against the Jewish state.
Hi Dorcas,
First of all I hope you know I've never thought you deny any portion of scripture. Be at peace there.
Secondly, I gladly accept that people can receive personal revelations, (even 'unbelievers'). Jesus talked with unbelievers during his earthly ministry, and I see no reason why the Spirit would snub them today. If anyone has the heart of an evangelist it is the Holy Spirit. With this confidence in mind, I've even shared one or two visions here in the forum...though with voluntary disclaimers.
However dreams (and whatever else) do not measure and validate themselves, but scripture measures them.
When a dream runs contrary to scripture, scripture wins.
Imply, and infer whatever conclusion you may from this simple premise. I happen to think it is quite elementary without any further explanation.
It's fine with me if you feel there are some subtleties in the Spirit I am missing with such a hard and fast rule.
'Jesus said, "When He the Spirit of truth is come . . . He shall glorify Me." When I commit myself to the revelation made in the New Testament, I receive from God the gift of the Holy Spirit Who begins to interpret to me what Jesus did, and does in me subjectively all that Jesus Christ did for me objectively.' Oswald Chambers
I think this is well said. Oswald is confident to take hold of Christ subjectively, because he is diligent and submissive to the objective. He knows the Spirit helps him understand the scriptures and the reality of Christ they disclose.
You see when he made this statement, he assumed Christians held their scriptures with unmatched reverence and diligence. Our generation does not, and a young Christian may take your argument as a license to submit directly to the subjective, without studying and submitting to the objective. You and I are standing on the shoulders of great expositors and scholars who have handed us bible knowledge, and we don't fully appreciate what that has done for us. Perhaps we are now so spiritual that the bible is poured directly into our spirits without reading it, or being taught it.
Now along comes a novice in the faith who has not had this heritage, and soon they will be subsisting more on their own subjective then on the bible itself.
We quite understandably get excited when we hear of muslims receiving life changing visions of Christ, but as I have said before this is no precedent for considering Scripture merely another optional source of revelation. True enough, the Lord is miraculously faithful to those under opposition and in isolation from scripture and mature fellowship. The world, and myself, are not worthy of these brethren. Yet, if we truly appreciated them we would be giving support to those organizations who supply them with scriptures. But alas, like the other riches of the west, our generation takes our scriptural resources for granted, never comprehending how rich the blessing of God is upon us for allowing his scriptures to be so freely available here.
Enough soap-boxing from me. In any case, rest assured that I believe that dreams and other leadings of the Holy Spirit are wonderful provisions from the Holy Spirit. Yes, there is such a thing a dream, revelation whatever, that is not of God. I believe the potential for deception and delusion in this area is well documented in scripture and in experience ad nauseam as to be beyond honest refutation. However we equally know there are personal experiences that are indeed from God, but I also do not believe that these experiences are limited, crowded, or dampened by practicing a disciplined deference to scripture. Scripture is spiritual too after all!
Dorcas, I gently ask you to not task me anymore on this subject. Also kindly refrain from laying out the 'logical conclusions' of my position, and unwittingly or purposely goad me further. (Obviously feel free to state your own beliefs!) I think both our positions are articulated enough to know there is no misunderstanding...just disagreement.
Blessings sister,
MC
I have a very simple question to ask Dorcas.
What would you say to all those who have had visions of seeing The Virgin Mary?
Does scripture support this, or does scripture not support this?
Or does it matter whether scripture does or doesn't support this?
Katy
dorcas wrote:
I cannot believe we had such a severe disagreement in this thread over the content of scripture, but for those who may have thought my view of the[i]doctrine[/i] of[i]the baptism of the Holy Spirit[/i] , includes the receiving of dreams and visions from God - scripture does not make this claim, and I accord with the written word.
The Word of God is called the Word of truth. It is the Spirit of truth that teaches us all things. Jesus said, "But when the Comforter comes, even the Holy Spirit, which the Father will send in My name, that one shall teach you all things, and shall bring to your remembrance everything that I have told you" (John 14:26). This is the promise Jesus gave!
The Bible makes it clear that the Word of truth works together with the Spirit of truth to give understanding to those who love God and seek His will. It is self-evident that it is not possible for the carnal mind, which is deceitful above all things (Jer. 17:9), to come to the knowledge of the truth of God. In fact, the carnal, unconverted mind is enmity (that is, hostile) toward God and is not willing to be subject to God's laws (Rom. 8:7). Regardless of how brilliant or how great one's intellect may be, God's Word is not understood by human wisdom or reasoning. It is only through the Spirit of God that the Word of God is understood.
The Apostle Paul taught that spiritual truths can only be discerned and understood through the Spirit of God: "But according as it is written, 'The eye has not seen, nor the ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for those who love Him.'
Hi Mike,
Thanks again for your reply.
OK. To 'goad' was not my intention.Also kindly refrain from laying out the 'logical conclusions' of my position, and unwittingly or purposely goad me further.
I have always agreed with this.When a dream runs contrary to scripture, scripture wins.
I have never advocated this.Our generation does not, and a young Christian may take your argument as a license to submit directly to the subjective, without studying and submitting to the objective.
Big mistake.and soon they will be subsisting more on their own subjective then on the bible itself.
Indeed, this whole discussion has brought the very same matter to the forefront of my mind.Yet, if we truly appreciated them we would be giving support to those organizations who supply them with scriptures.
I would not call a dream in which God had not ministered, a 'revelation', although even a counterfeit event, which I'd be more likely to labelYes, there is such a thing a dream,[b]revelation whatever[/b] , that is not of God. I believe the potential for deception and delusion in this area is well documented in scripture and in experience ad nauseam as to be beyond honest refutation.
I hope that some of my reply has come as a surprise in this case, and that this is...just disagreement.
Hello Katy,
I do not believe any of them are from God.What would you say to all those who have had visions of seeing The Virgin Mary?
Of course it matters!Or does it matter whether scripture does or doesn't support this?
Scripture does not support such visions.Does scripture support this, or does scripture not support this?
MC said,
I took great exception to you …
I’m relieved to return back to SI to see that you did take exception to my ramblings. You should have! Not long after posting them I said to myself, “Now, that was full of arrogance and self-righteousness!” Such attitudes should indeed be checked within the community. MC, you are doing your job.
As I reflect back, I recall having just endured an ordeal with a brother who was adamant about the authority of the Word. Yet he was also adamant that when Jesus said, “You of little faith…” he meant “you of little faith in yourself. He had exegeted Jesus’ words to imply that we should have more faith in ourselves.
When I expressed my understanding that in Scripture the object of faith is never ourselves, but always God, I was “corrected”. Alas Rob Bell and his “greatest thing on earth “– the NOOMA videos, had managed to draw away this once godly evangelical pastor - and all under the assumption of the absolute truth of the word.
In the midst of that tortuous affair, I popped in on SI, only to hear yet again a brother (MC) insisting that the Bible is the only reliable absolute objective truth. While I couldn’t agree more, my mind has been preoccupied with the miserable fallibility of its interpreters. I dare not exclude myself from the throng. For there is that sinister fiber within that finds glee in asserting our “more rightness” over the one we view as less enlightened. This is not the path to revival.
May God revive our consciousness of guilt before him.
Diane
Hi Diane, :-)
I don't recognise many high profile North Americans, (and I don't need to know about Rob Bell, I don't think), but what are
please?the NOOMA videos
You also said
Do you feel that 'guilt' - or an acknowledgement of sin in the terms of 1 John 1:8, is about the only way for us to verifyIn the midst of that tortuous affair, I popped in on SI, only to hear yet again a brother (MC) insisting that the Bible is the only reliable absolute objective truth. While I couldn’t agree more, my mind has been preoccupied with the miserable fallibility of its interpreters. I dare not exclude myself from the throng. For there is that sinister fiber within that finds glee in asserting our “more rightness” over the one we view as less enlightened. This is not the path to revival.May God revive our consciousness of guilt before him.
Or, is there another way? Someone posted the words of Horatius Bonar this week past, comparing 'intimacy with God' (calling it 'the essence of religion'), with a knowledge of 'doctrine', and pushing the reader toward holding [i]both together
Is the answer, [i]of course not?
Or, could it be that if one is not [u]sure[b]God[i]depend
Acts 4:13
Now when they [the religious] saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, [b]that[u]they had been with Jesus
Hi Katy,
I wish to add to my earlier reply on p9, to this your question.
I said:What would you say to all those who have had visions of seeing The Virgin Mary?
I said that because of the following scriptures in which God's will is unmistakable. It is important to note that the earthly status of the person dabbling in the occult does not make it ok. If anything, it sets an example of sin by which others may feel mistakenly justified in following.I do not believe any of them are from God.
We are blessed nowadays to be able to come to Christ with repentant hearts, to be forgiven and released from the bondages of these sinful practices.
[color=0000FF]1 Samuel 28:7
Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, [i]there is
For those who don't know the Bible [u]is against every seeking of communication with the spirits of the dead[b]The action which he sought was forbidden by the Law which he was supposed to be upholding
[color=0000FF]Leviticus 19:31
Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to [u]be defiled by them[i]am
Leviticus 20:6
And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.
Leviticus 20:27
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood [i]shall be
Deuteronomy 18
9 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
10 There shall not be found among you [i]any one[i]or[i]or
11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
12 [u]For all that do these things [i]are[b]abomination
13 Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God.
14 For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the LORD thy God hath not suffered thee so [i]to do
15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;[/color]
contd.
contd.
The last verse above, is picked up by both Peter in Acts 3:22 - 24 and Stephen in Acts 7, both referring to Jesus Christ as 'that Prophet' whom those who would not hear, would eventually be destroyed.
These verses all agree to tell us that [u]God Himself speaks with His people
[color=0000FF]1 Timothy 2:5
For [i]there is[u]the man Christ Jesus
Thus, no apparition of Mary the mother of Jesus, is validated by God's word.
Mary was an ordinary woman who was given a very special role in God's plan of salvation. But, being ordinarily human [i]only
She is not a god, not divine and was never a member of the Godhead, as some religions lead their followers to believe.
There might be reason to suppose another spirit has impersonated her in appearances to those who claim to have seen her. [b]But scripture in no way endorses these events for the basing of faith or actions
One last quote from the Bible:
[color=0000FF]2 Corinthians 4
1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, [u]we faint not
2 [u]But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty[u]nor handling the word of God deceitfully[b]but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience[u]in the sight of God
3 But [b]if
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to [i]give
7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
2 Corinthians 11
2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present [i]you as[b]to Christ
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is [u]in Christ
4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [i]if[i]him
5 For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.
6 But though [i]I be
wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
13 For such [i]are
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore [i]it is[u]whose end shall be according to [b]their
See also Galatians 5 in Paul's list of the [u]sins of the flesh
Dorcas, Knowledge about NOOMA is not necessary in order to follow my thoughts. I should have left it out. In fact, I should have known better, in view of our tendency to delve into discussion about people and organizations - and drift from the concepts at hand – or what God may be saying to us about ourselves.
Do you feel that 'guilt' - or an acknowledgement of sin in the terms of 1 John 1:8, is about the only way for us to verify to ourselves that 'the truth' is 'in us'?
May God continue to work in the lives of our SI folk. Without a doubt, each person is precious in his sight.
Diane
For those who don't know the Bible is against every seeking of communication with the spirits of the dead, please note that Saul, at the time, had been king, charged with the spiritual leadership of the nation for a season. The action which he sought was forbidden by the Law which he was supposed to be upholding.
Dorcas, I know this and even brought to your attention after a debate with Psalms 1 and you stating you believed we have the gift of raising people from the dead, and how psalms 1 wanted to know and have more information on teh subject.
You so sided with Psalms 1 against me on that thread I was shocked.
I'm thrilled after I PM'd you my concerns you do see how dangerous that discussion was.
Anyone today, like Benny Hinn or the likes who wants to claim they raised someone from the dead is dabbling in witchcraft. Because to do so, one would certainly have to summons the spirit of that dead person to enter back into their decayed body.
Praise God Dorcas you can see the truth in this.
Love Katy
[i]"The phrase "Swan song" is a reference to an ancient belief that the Mute Swan (Cygnus olor) is completely mute during it's lifetime, except for singing a single, heartbreakingly beautiful song just before it dies."
No doubt, each person [b]is[i]as we die to ourselves
right?
Hi Katy,
Thanks for your reply. I'm glad you agree that the harbouring of a familiar spirit is sin, and the calling up of spirits is also sin. Although scripture gives us to believe the witch of Endor successfully called up Samuel (1 Sam 28:7 on), God is thoroughly against anyone tinkering with these things.
However, when I 'sided' with David, this is not what we were talking about. We were considering the command [u]of Jesus
John 11:42 - 45 is probably the most unusual of all the biblical examples, in that Lazarus had been dead four days. But, Jesus said it was for the glory of God. When I read that story, I'm reminded of how intimately He worked together with His Father, and exhorted us to the same, in John 17.
Here are other scriptures which would support any saint whom the Holy Spirit burdened with this exercise of faith.
[color=0000FF]2 Kings 4
28 Then she said, Did I desire a son of my lord? did I not say, Do not deceive me?
29 Then he said to Gehazi, Gird up thy loins, and take my staff in thine hand, and go thy way: if thou meet any man, salute him not; and if any salute thee, answer him not again: and lay my staff upon the face of the child.
30 And the mother of the child said, [i]As
31 And Gehazi passed on before them, and laid the staff upon the face of the child; but [i]there was
32 And when Elisha was come into the house, behold, the child was dead, [i]and
33 He went in therefore, and shut the door upon them twain, and prayed unto the LORD.
34 And he went up, and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands: and he stretched himself upon the child; and the flesh of the child waxed warm.
35 Then he returned, and walked in the house to and fro; and went up, and stretched himself upon him: and the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes.
36 And he called Gehazi, and said, Call this Shunammite. So he called her. And when she was come in unto him, he said, Take up thy son.
37 Then she went in, and fell at his feet, and bowed herself to the ground, and took up her son, and went out.[/color]
(This is also reported in 2 Kings 8.)
[color=0000FF]Luke 7
12 Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city [Nain], behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her.
13 And when the Lord saw her, [u]he had compassion on her
14 And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare [i]him
15 And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother.
16 And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, 'That a great prophet is risen up among us'; and, 'That God hath visited his people'.
Acts 9
39 Then Peter arose and went with them. When he was come, they brought him into the upper chamber: and all the widows stood by him weeping, and shewing the coats and garments which Dorcas made, while she was with them.
40 But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning [i]him
41 And he gave her [i]his
Just for the record, I don't believe there is a 'gift' of raising the dead. Nevertheless, it has been given to some to be used in this way, and if God gives the necessary faith in the situation, I believe one should trust Him to do the work, for undoubtedly, His is able and His compassion may desire it.
[color=0000FF]Acts 26:8
Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?[/color]
WOW!
David
Katy-did wrote:
Anyone today, like Benny Hinn or the likes who wants to claim they raised someone from the dead is dabbling in witchcraft. Because to do so, one would certainly have to summons the spirit of that dead person to enter back into their decayed body.
Love Katy
Now I ask this in a pure sincere manner because all the goings on here lately, some might think I am being sarcastic or something but this is not the case, what if maybe the person just died like an hour ago would it still be impossible for us to ask the Father in Faith through Prayer to bring this person back to life, could this person be brought back to life?
Hello Diane,
Or should I say goodbye?
Will you really stay away this time? :-oActually, I sense that it is time to withdraw from SI. I must refrain from posting anymore for the time being. Perhaps I need to free myself to let God shape me and refine me as he sees fit.May God continue to work in the lives of our SI folk. Without a doubt, each person is precious in his sight.
Diane
I really can't get my head around that possibility!
No lure.... you don't have to reply if you're seriously decided.
May the Lord give you strength for all you must fulfill in His will. :-D
Will you really stay away this time?
As God sees fit, he will bring us together - maybe in the future.
Diane
Now I ask this in a pure sincere manner because all the goings on here lately, some might think I am being sarcastic or something but this is not the case, what if maybe the person just died like an hour ago would it still be impossible for us to ask the Father in Faith through Prayer to bring this person back to life, could this person be brought back to life?
Bill, I'm sure as long as they haven't been sucked into the big bright light...sure.
I was talking about bodies in the grave. The only resurrection to life will be at the first resurrection. Jesus said I AM the Resurrection.
Those outside of Christ will be raised at the second resurrection......
Blessed are those who have part of the First Resurrection.
Love in Christ
Katy
Hi Bill,
Sorry I didn't notice your post until today. Katy raises an interesting query about 'the big bright light' but I don't know how we can know...
I believe the scriptural accounts of these raisings from the dead deserve closer scrutiny, as they have more in common even at first glance, than simply a dead person in each account. One of those factors appears to be a family or community which is in mourning, to receive the person back from death.what if maybe the person just died like an hour ago would it still be impossible for us to ask the Father in Faith through Prayer to bring this person back to life, could this person be brought back to life?
I don't know if there are other ways to read this, but the story of the prodigal son comes to mind, and its links to Romans 11. Where is the faith?
Katy, Keep it simple. If you look at it another way everything fits.
The bible says we are married to one who is raised from the dead.
Also Rom. 8;11 says But if the same spirit that raised Christ from the dead dwell in you.....
Jesus demonstrated his power through signs, wonders and miracles.
He is still alive today. He does what he did then.
"the devil comes but for to steal,kill, and destroy....I come that ye might have life, and that more abundantly"
Peter, Elijah, Jesus and others raised the dead and we are commanded to raise the dead.
But if any of us look too deeply into "the objections" of raising the dead we never will.
My personal motive in this is that I believe we can snatch a soul from the devil.
I am not interested in those that have died in Christ. I believe they are in good hands.
I have a vision of starting a church and having lots of members in the assembly that were raised from the dead.
I also have a vision of starting a team of downs syndrome prayer warriors that lay hands on the sick.
Get this picture .....you walk into a situation in a home or hospital or on the street with a team of warriors, some with downs syndrome, and some that have recently been raised from the dead. They dont have a faith issue, me and my team will be "dumb" enough to just believe Jesus is alive and still does miracles and the bible is true.
David
Psalms 1, yes, please keep it simple. You are talking about preaching the Gospel of salvation.
Those who have repented, and received Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior have been raised up together with Him, a New Creation. This is being Born Again.
We have now only a deposit of our coming complete redemption of our glorified Bodies. That will come at the first resurrection.
But I find it is misleading to use that expression, resurrection the dead, along side scripture of bringing physically dead people back to life as one in the same.
We are SPIRITUALLY reborn...This is a difference between night and day.
Even Dorcas is wondering if it doesn't mean the Prodical son returning to his Fathers house.
That is called Repentance, as the scriptures all ready indicate he was a son to begin with, a totally different subject.
Love in Christ
Katy
Hello Katy, David and others,
I don't have time at this moment to write all that's on my heart to share, for the Lord put some things together from scripture with me this morning, but I would like to recommend this sermon by Carter Conlon [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=1982]When Death hears the Voice of God
Description:[i]A terrific message using the resurrection of Lazarus to illustrate the purpose of the gospel; This is about those who are in the grave of sin being lifted from spiritual and physical death to life, by moving to the sound of His voice now.
This word displays a mastery of scripture and truth, to encourage faith. Please do listen to it if you can and apart from the blessing of the word itself, let's share if and what it contributes to this discussion.
:-D
Katy, resurection is the end result of a dead person being raised from the dead....is it not?
It is in my bible, it happened with the apostles and with Jesus and it is happening today.
If you reject it then so be it,
David
Katy, resurection is the end result of a dead person being raised from the dead....is it not?
Yes, this is called the New Birth, and those in Christ have been raised up together with Him and seated with Christ in Heavenly places in Christ Jesus.
When Jesus returns, THEN will be the completion of the resurrection of our physical life, as our bodies will be fashioned like His.
Those Born Again live on the Resurrection side of the Cross now.
We live in the Power of His resurrection.
When have I ever rejected this?
We don't walk around now in our Glorified bodies.
Katy
Lazarus and Taditha were not born again.
David
Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.
Donate