Pastor Dave

Maybe you're right & I just don't see it. It seems to me he is asking why the teen should be thankful for not receiving a beating. I just don't see how that relates to the point I was trying to make. I try to live with an attitude of gratitude. I am thankful for all of the good things God does in my life. I am also thankful when the Holy Spirit nudges me in a direction that allows me to avoid having something bad happen.

I'm sorry, where did this talk of beating come from? It seems that your train of thought runs on a different set of tracks than mine. I don't even think they run in the same direction. Perhaps he should be thankful that he has good parents. Maybe he should be thankful that his needs are met. He might even have reason to be thankful because some of his wants are provided for. Just Sayin'

I'm not sure how you get God washed his hands and moved on out of God gave mankind dominion ( sovereignty; control ) over all the earth. There is a lot more that goes with that teaching but I'm not trying to go into foundational doctrine right now. I thought Dan was doing a fine job of answering why we (Christians) Thank God for all of the good that comes into our lives. Let me see if I can help you understand ...... without quoting scripture. Let's imagine a teenager whose parents left him/her in charge of the house while they went on a three day weekend. The parents have told this teen that he/she has full authority over the house and all that is in it. They have also told this teen that if they need anything just give them a call. Now suppose the teen isn't a very good cook. The parents know this and order in for him/her all three night that they are gone. Should the teen be thankful? Of course he/she should be! Now suppose one of the nights the teen wants to watch an event on pay per view. He/she calls his parents and they authorize him/her to order it. Should the teen be thankful? Of course he/she should be! We (Christians) see all good things as coming from God the Father. He is not unreachable. I've got His number (prayer).

I would say that question was answered in the very first chapter of the Bible. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. At the same time God decided to make mankind He also decided that mankind would have dominion over all the earth. do·min·ion 1. sovereignty; control. Yes God could stop all of the evil that goes on ...... but He has given that responsibility to mankind. Just my take on this.

^like

You could call it a philosophical theory if you'd like, or you could call it a religious theory if you'd like.

I didn't make up Hebrews 11:3, I simply quoted it and showed how it fit. It seems you may think I'm trying to change someone here's mind. I'm not. As the quote from Aristotle in my signature suggests, I'm simply trying to present to some a view that they may not have heard before. After they entertain the concept for a while they are free to accept it, reject it, or even modify it. Oh BTW, there are others who follow a similar train of thought. I don't have to expect others to "take it seriously" ..... they already do!

It seems to me, from this post, that you think there is only one train of thought in Creationism. Sorry, not so. You see there are many different types of creationists. There are the young Earth creationists, old Earth creationists, gap theory, day age, progressive creationism, intelligent design. We are not all of one mind. To a man being told the creation story over 3500 years ago, I think, once you got past anything smaller than a speck of dust he would have thought that it was nothing. Even the great Hawking can not tell us exactly what the singularity was. You see, working your way back to the very, very beginning is kind of like taking a number .... any number you want .... now divide that in half. Take the resulting number and divide that in half. Continue doing that until you come up with nothing. It's not possible. In much the same way it is impossible to work the math back to the very beginning of the universe.

Ahh but the next part of the definition starts with especially .... that does not mean that without those qualifiers it isn't a theory it means that if those qualifiers are met special consideration is given. I think you may have needed to put a qualifier in front of the word theory. You know, like "scientific" theory. You see conspiracy theorist are full of theories about all kinds of things. They are theories. They aren't scientific theories, but they are theories. Simply putting the word theory in front of or behind a phrase does not lend credence to anything. When I put in the word theory into the Merriam Webster online site I don't even see the definition you gave although I do see several that would fit creationism. Full Definition of THEORY 1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 2 : abstract thought : speculation 3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory> 4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all> 5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light> 6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations> I will freely concede that Creationism is not a scientific theory, it is however, a theory none the less.

So according to this definition Creationism is certainly a theory. Creationism is a supposition and a system of ideas intending to explain something.

So, perhaps the first thing we should talk about might be; does this coincide with, or contradict what we are told by science? It seems that science , for many hundreds of years, claimed that the universe was eternal and infinite. In making this assertion scientists eliminated the need for any force (God) to be necessary for the universe to start. It wasn't until the mid 20th century that science caught up to the Bible and decided that the universe had a beginning. The Bible has been saying that the universe had a beginning since the first book of the Pentateuch was written. It was only in 1968-1970 that Stephen Hawking, George F. R. Ellis, and Roger Penrose published papers extending Einstein's theory of relativity to show time/space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. Einstein resisted the concept of an expanding universe with a finite beginning even though relativity pointed the way. The Bible says in Hebrews 11:3 Amplified Bible (AMP) 3 By faith we understand that the worlds [during the successive ages] were framed (fashioned, put in order, and equipped for their intended purpose) by the word of God, so that what we see was not made out of things which are visible. This is the idea that God created the world out of nothing. The Big Bang theory asserts that before the universe was there was the singularity. Often when attempting to explain the singularity laymen might give the example that all of the matter was condensed into something the size of an orange or a golf ball or some other small spherical object. In truth scientist will tell us that the singularity was much smaller. Smaller than a speck of dust, smaller than a molecule, smaller than an atom, smaller even than the nucleus of an atom. It seems, once again, the Bible was right. Everything (including matter and all life) in this universe was made from things which are not visible. Isn't it amazing that thousands of years before modern science the Bible presented so much insight into how this universe is made?

Well since the article is the only information I have on this I can only guess as to why they would change policies. So let me start with this, the church I grew up in had in their beliefs a statement saying something to the effect of we do not believe we are the only one God has revealed the truth to. Perhaps, and this is just speculation on my part, some of their missionaries have come back from these other places telling of things that have happened involving speaking in tongues and because of this Baptist church leaders have decided to give a little leeway on speaking in tongues to these missionaries. As I'm sure you know Christianity has experienced many changes over the the millennia. From different churches founded by the Apostles in the first century to later groups operating independently to Constantine calling for the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century to the split between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches in the 11th century up to the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century to the birth of Pentecostalism in the early 20th century. Maybe this is the next step for the 21st century.

No offense taken.

First off I have to apologize to Dr Kevin James DD. I could have made that post without using the word misguided. Sorry. Keystrikr, Thank you. It's always nice to know when someone gets something from a post. I am compelled to say that if there was any wisdom in my post it was the Holy Spirit that works in me and not me. cuchulain, That just stands to reason. Most non Christians aren't going to try to prove a point using verses from the Bible. Since you are of a different belief system I'm not going to try to convince you that the Bible is the Good Book. Especially here on these forums. However I will say that the Great God YHVH has been very good to me. Just sayin'

Thank you for using the Bible to try to support your misguided assumption. I must say though that it bothers me when people pull a verse out of scripture to try to make a point without reading the surrounding verses. Sometimes a verse can stand alone and sometimes, without the supporting verses, it gives a distorted view of what was being said. You see when the Bible was written there were no chapters or verses. They were added later to make it easier to find what you were looking for. Taking a verse out of context does not always give a clear understanding of what was being said. It's like if I were to say, "You should never drive a car if you are intoxicated." Now you could say that Pastor Dave said, "You should never drive a car", while that is an exact quote of part of what I said it is actually a distortion of what was meant. So let's take a look at these scriptures in context. 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 King James Version (KJV) 8 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. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. So in the verse you cited first it also says that knowledge will vanish away. Has knowledge vanished? I think not. As we read down to verse 10 we see that "But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." To me that is a clear indication of when prophecies, tongues and knowledge are to pass away. When the one who was/is perfect comes. Mark 16:17-20 King James Version (KJV) 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. I don't see anywhere in these passages that says these things are only for the Apostles, or that after the first century they were to be over. What I see is "these signs shall follow them that believe;". The only qualification needed has nothing to do with whether or not you were one of the twelve, nor if you lived in the time of the Apostles but only if you are one of those who believe. Now let's go back to the piece of scripture I pointed to in the OP. (Yes I took that one out of context for the sake of brevity) 16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 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: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: 19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come: 21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Here it clearly says that in the last days "your sons and your daughters shall prophesy". Now you have said that according to 1 Corinthians 13:8 prophecy, tongues, and knowledge were to cease. Clearly this passage tells us that prophecy not only continues to the last days but will be increased in that time. You also say that miracles were used to confirm the word according to Mark 16:20. Exactly when did miracles stop confirming the word?

Actually the article said in Africa, Asia and South America. But to address your point on gaining membership, the question is why do they feel the need to accept the practice of praying in tongues? From reading the article I gather that some of their missionaries have begun to pray in tongues even though the practice was banned prior to this decision. Remember, missionaries are sent from local churches to other countries, so the missionaries were already members of a Southern Baptist church. The first Baptist church that can be traced to the name, appeared in the early 1600's while Pentecostal churches can only be traced back to the early 1900's. As the article stated the practice of speaking in tongues had not been practiced by the Christian community in many centuries. The resurgence of speaking in tongues and the beginnings of the Pentecostal movement can usually be traced back to the Azuza street revival that ran from 1906 to 1915. In the early 1960's other denominations (including Episcopalians,Lutherans, Congregationalists and others) became effected by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit starting what is known as the Charismatic movement, which shares the practice of glossolalia. By 1967 even the Roman Catholic church had a Charismatic movement who also shared in the practice. The Baptists seem to be becoming more open to the idea that the gifts of the Holy Spirit can and do operate now in this time. While this makes them the latest church to accept praying in tongues, I for one, welcome them to the growing family of Christians who operate in the gifts of the Holy spirit.

I found this article to be rather surprising. Southern Baptist Policy Change While this policy change is specifically targeted towards missionaries I find it particularly interesting because at one time at least some Southern Baptist preachers/teachers would say that speaking in tongues died with the apostles and that modern speaking in tongues was "from the devil". Could this be the beginning of the fulfillment of Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: .....

cuchulain, while that was the first scripture I thought of after reading your post, it is not the only reference to dreams in the Bible. The story of Joseph (great grandson of Abraham) is full of dreams and dream interpretation. I once kept a dream journal beside my bed at night to record my dreams in. It has been a while since I was diligent about writing down my dreams but, it is one of the ways God communicates with us (IMO). This is not to say all dreams have significance. As Arglwydd Gruffudd has said, quoting Freud, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Acts 2:17King James Version (KJV) 17 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:

20 or 30 years ago I would have been all over an opportunity to go to Mars. Now I don't think I would. Colonization is a job for the young, not so much for the young at heart. Personally, I think we need to set up "Moon Base Alpha" before we get serious about setting up shop on another planet. (JMO)

Isn't Jacobovici the same guy who "found" the nails from the crucifixion and the tomb of Jesus family?

I think we can agree on that Dan.

So then, the fivefold ministry described in Ephesians 4:11 is now the threefold ministry? What do you say of Romans 12:4-8 (KJV) 4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: 5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. 6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; 7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; 8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness. Why would we be told "let us prophesy" if we are not to expect to have prophets among the churches? I mean, if it had been a separate piece of scripture from one talking about ministry, and teaching, and exhorting, and giving, and ruling, and showing mercy you might be able to make a case. The gift of prophesy is again being described with other gifts you might call natural, just as it was in Ephesians 4. The office of a prophet (IMO) is a valid 21st century office as sure as it was a first century office. I would contend that an apostle (one who is sent) is also (IMO) an office meant to be filled in the church today. The word evangelist is only seen 3 times in the New Testament yet you recognize that as an office of the ministry. Pastor is only ever seen once in the New Testament. Apostle ... 85 times. Teacher is mentioned 125 times. Prophet occurs over 150 times, around 20 times referring specifically to prophets in the Church Age. It would seem to me that apostles, teachers and prophets are more important than pastors or evangelists.

Dan, brother, I love you as a fellow Christian. I have to disagree with you here. So then, are you saying that the gifts of the spirit stopped when the last of the original 12 died? What about Paul? He wasn't one of the original 12. How about Matthias he wasn't one of the original 12 either but he was chosen to replace Judas. Acts 1:26 (KJV) 26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. And if these gifts were only for the apostles then all of the gifts of the spirit must have stopped. So the , what are these gifts of the spirit that ended in the first century with the death of the last apostle? We find one list in Ephesians 4:7-12 (KJV) 7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. 8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) 11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: In the very next verse we are told when these gifts are to pass away; Ephesians 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: When we all come into the unity of faith ....unto a perfect man .... the fulness of Christ. I don't think that when the last apostle died we reached these goals nor have we yet met them. We find another list in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10 (KJV) 8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But lets go with the assumption that the gifts ended in the first century. In that case we must believe that there are no more apostles, no more prophets, no more evangelists, no more pastors, no more teachers, no more words of wisdom, no more words of knowledge,no more faith, no more gifts of healing, no more working miracles, no more prophecy, no more discerning of spirits, no more tongues and no more interpretation of tongues. If even one of these gifts are still in operation the they must all still be operating. Have you ever used the adage "when you take the text out of context all you're left with is a con"? I think that is what I see here. If we look a little further in we see something a little more telling. 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 (KJV) 8 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. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. Again I have to say I don't believe "that which is perfect" has come.

Hello Brother Timothy, I agree that speaking in an unknown tongue is for self edification as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. Now it is true that the overall point Paul is making in 1 Corinthians chapter 14 is that he feels that Prophesy is a more desirable gift than speaking in tongues. Paul does not say however that we shouldn't speak in tongues as is evidenced in verse 39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. Paul says clearly not to forbid others to speak in tongues. Paul tells us that unless there is interpretation that this gift of the spirit should not interrupt a service in verse 5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. and again in verse 19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. None the less, Paul tells us in verse 2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. To me, it seems clear that, when I pray in the spirit (pray in tongues) my spirit is speaking to God. So, unless I or another has an interpretation this is not for other men and should not interrupt a church service.