2012.05.02 14:41 thebigru Destiny Alpha Veterans Only
2014.08.24 08:13 david-me KotakuInAction: The almost-official GamerGate subreddit!
2012.12.06 03:28 Cozmo23 Destiny Reddit
2023.03.19 19:52 Aman690 No hate to Paul Tassi 🙂 , Just a fun meme
|submitted by Aman690 to cyberpunkgame [link] [comments]|
2023.03.16 19:38 reicomatricks A brief History of Well of Radiance
2023.03.15 15:10 Kitysune paul tassi is right traveler is indeed a-hole
|submitted by Kitysune to destiny2 [link] [comments]|
2023.03.13 17:24 AJ_ShadowBlade While RoN itself is up for debate for a number of reasons, the Contest changes implemented were great across the board and needs to be the new standard for Day 1 raids
2023.03.06 06:44 weluvmusic Beatport Top 100 Progressive House March 2023
2023.03.06 06:34 weluvmusic Beatport Top 100 Progressive House March 2023
2023.03.05 16:49 MattBaratheon Uh
|submitted by MattBaratheon to MauLer [link] [comments]|
2023.03.03 19:30 deeptechsharing Beatport Top 100 Progressive House March 2023
2023.03.03 16:33 newmusicrls Beatport Progressive House Top 100 March 2023
100 TRACKS: Cristoph – Tha Music (Original Mix) 07:15 125bpm G Diana Miro, Cristoph, Franky Wah – Darkest Hour (feat. Diana Miro) (Extended Mix) 07:09 126bpm Bbm Yotto, Something Good – Rhythm (Of The Night) (Extended Mix) 06:36 122bpm Fm Miss Monique – Tiama (Extended Mix) 06:30 123bpm F Cristoph – Swoon (Original Mix) 08:00 125bpm Bb Cristoph – You (Original Mix) 06:41 126bpm A Marsh – All Night Long (Extended Mix) 05:38 125bpm F Envotion – Eidos (Jerome Isma-Ae Remix) 08:39 123bpm Am P.O.S., Spencer Brown – Polar Bears (Extended Mix) 06:43 126bpm D Cristoph – The Curse (Original Mix) 06:44 125bpm G Armen Miran, Pambouk – Aware (Original Mix) 07:01 121bpm Am Aerofeel5, Vakabular – Argonauts (Extended Mix) 06:23 124bpm Em Weekend Heroes – Faceless (Extended) 06:03 124bpm D P.O.S. – Thunder & Sunshine (Extended Mix) 05:56 124bpm Db Paul van Dyk, Weekend Heroes, Christian Schottstaedt – VENTURE X (Extended) 06:17 126bpm Ab Chris Bekker, Orkidea – Mind Rave (Extended) 06:19 126bpm Eb RIKO & GUGGA – Healing Process (Extended Mix) 07:35 123bpm Abm Marsh – Reminiscent (Extended Mix) 06:08 126bpm D Stone Van Brooken – Millenium (Extended Mix) 06:15 124bpm Bb Luke Chable, Ivan Gough – Orange Theme 2023 (Extended Mix) 08:39 123bpm Ab Estiva, Julia Church – On The Line (Extended Mix) 05:42 124bpm Em Aubrey Fry – Tyrant (Four Candles Remix) 06:33 122bpm Gb Marsh, Simon Doty – Touch The Sky (Extended Mix) 06:43 124bpm Bbm Simos Tagias – Geometric (Original Mix) 07:56 121bpm D Laura van Dam – Take Me Away (Extended Mix) 05:15 125bpm Am Grum, Tigerblind – Shout (Extended Mix) 05:33 125bpm Gm Trilucid – A Moment (Extended Mix) 07:18 123bpm Gm Sex Mind – Niflheim (D-Nox & Gai Barone Remix) 08:04 123bpm Eb Simos Tagias – Archaios (Original Mix) 07:54 122bpm Am Sander Van Doorn, Dan Soleil – Sunlight feat. Dan Soleil (Extended Mix) 04:57 126bpm F Kamilo Sanclemente – Distant Blips (Original Mix) 08:27 122bpm Dm INNERPHONIC – Galactic Trip (Alto Astral Private Mix) 07:40 122bpm D BT – Mercury & Solace (Helsloot Extended Remix) 06:37 124bpm Bbm Avis Vox – Feel It (Extended Mix) 06:06 124bpm Bb Julian Nates – Crystal Eyes (Original Mix) 07:24 122bpm D GMJ – Stage Flight (Jiminy Hop Remix) 08:07 122bpm D CamelPhat, Jem Cooke, Cristoph – Breathe (Original Mix) 07:13 125bpm Am Beckers, D-Nox – Remember (Original Mix) 07:27 122bpm G Sandeep Pai – Mirrors (Jerome Isma-Ae Remix) 07:08 124bpm F Kyan – Lonely River (P.O.S & anamē Extended Mix) 05:54 124bpm Dm Indifferent Guy – Apollo (Extended Mix) 07:09 123bpm Cm GMJ – Empty to Fill (Jamie Stevens Remix) 07:12 121bpm Db Fuenka, Das Pharaoh – Purple Sky (Extended Mix) 07:16 125bpm D DEL-30, Meduza, Mali-Koa – Sparks feat. Mali-Koa (Extended Mix) 06:54 124bpm Am oddchapters – Flares (Rauschhaus Remix) 06:55 121bpm Cm Tinlicker – Perfect Mistake (Extended Mix) 06:45 124bpm Db Marsh – All Night Long (Extended Mix) 05:38 125bpm F Eric Prydz, Empire Of The Sun – We Are Mirage (Original Mix) 06:19 128bpm Em Forty Cats – Paradise Bay (Original Mix) 08:00 122bpm D Panayiotis Tassis – Emotions & Feelings feat. Anna Loud (Original Mix) 07:29 122bpm Bb Kennedy One – To Be With You (Extended Mix) 06:03 124bpm D Marway – Tohil (NOIYSE PROJECT Remix) 08:11 123bpm Ab Paul Woolford, Alison Goldfrapp – Fever (Extended Mix) 05:52 154bpm Dbm Trilucid – Athena (Extended Mix) 07:49 123bpm Gm Jack Walton, Product Of Us – Apologise (feat. Jack Walton) (Original Mix) 06:45 124bpm Cm Estiva – Rays (Extended Mix) 06:21 124bpm Bbm Mike Rish – Tunnel People (Original Mix) 07:44 120bpm Ab Boris Brejcha, Laura Korinth – Gravity feat. Laura Korinth (Original Mix) 09:24 125bpm A# Mode Apart – Gulf Of Bothnia (Extended Mix) 07:28 121bpm F Stan Kolev – Panevritmia (2023 Rework) 07:25 123bpm G Cristoph – Tha Music (Original Mix) 07:15 125bpm G RIKO & GUGGA – Healing Process (Analog Jungs Remix) 08:00 122bpm Ab Jonathan Cowan – Swaddles (Original Mix) 06:58 124bpm G Tantum – Another Day (Original Mix) 06:24 120bpm Dm Jerome Isma-Ae, Weekend Heroes – Left To Hide (Extended Mix) 07:31 125bpm Cm Gai Barone, Luke Brancaccio – Memory Child (Original Mix) 06:34 123bpm C Ruben Karapetyan – 32 Days & One Week (Original Mix) 08:08 120bpm D Michael A – Resurgence (Original Mix) 06:51 122bpm Eb Michael A – Aeon (Original Mix) 06:56 121bpm Am Weird Sounding Dude – Walkway (Extended Mix) 08:02 121bpm Fm Felipe Garcia (UY) – Odyssey (K Loveski Remix) 07:24 122bpm C G.Pal, Simon Vuarambon – 3rd Of July (Simon Vuarambon Retouch) 08:51 121bpm D Uffie, Pharrell Williams – ADD SUV (feat. Pharrell Williams) (Armand Van Helden Club Remix) 04:44 125bpm Dbm UnknownS, Manu Cerasa – He’s Coming for Us (Extended Mix) 07:17 123bpm Bb F-Act – Zeeman Effect (Original Mix) 08:08 122bpm D Indifferent Guy – Black Hole (Extended Mix) 06:29 124bpm C Basil O’Glue, Aaron Suiss, Peled – Into The Shadows (Original Mix) 07:01 121bpm E Coredata – Wander (Eli Spiral Remix) 06:58 124bpm Eb Alexey Union – Transylvania (Original Mix) 06:44 124bpm Em Estiva – Aylu (Extended Mix) 05:42 124bpm Abm Trilucid – Stratos (Extended Mix) 07:04 123bpm Gm Paul Woolford, Alison Goldfrapp – Fever (Special Request Club Mix) 09:10 124bpm Db Kyan – Lonely River (P.O.S & anamē Extended Mix) 05:54 124bpm Dm Rashid Ajami, Haroun Hickman – Let’s Be Free (Jerome Isma-Ae Remix) 07:15 128bpm B Hiboo – Boo York (Original Mix) 07:02 125bpm G Vakabular – Waiting For Too Long (Extended Mix) 05:56 124bpm D Boris Brejcha – Space Diver (Original Mix) 06:37 125bpm F Josh Blains – Alone (Original Mix) 08:03 125bpm F Lubelski – Dreaming (Yulio Niko Remix) 06:12 124bpm G Gai Barone, Luke Brancaccio – Until the End (Original Mix) 08:14 123bpm Em Aman Anand, Da Luka – Mythical Creatures (Golan Zocher & Kamilo Sanclemente Remix) 07:29 122bpm A Margaryan – Next Episode (Vakabular Remix) 05:14 122bpm G Malandra Jr. – Mirage (Mila journée remix) 06:53 123bpm Eb Blanka Barbara – Celestial Trail (Funksun Remix) 08:00 121bpm E Max Freegrant, Slow Fish – Light After Darkness (Extended Mix) 06:38 123bpm D Franky Wah, ACO – Under The Sun (Vintage Culture Extended Remix) 07:18 127bpm Gm Eduard-J – Rassa (Original Mix) 07:21 124bpm Db Paul Thomas – Colombo (Extended Mix) 07:31 120bpm Gm Donner, widerberg – Is It Real (Extended Mix) 06:15 126bpm Gm Imran Khan – Prowler (Original Mix) 07:20 121bpm C
2023.02.28 09:33 Ocean-in-Motion Never seen milk age so quickly before
|submitted by Ocean-in-Motion to Eldenring [link] [comments]|
2023.02.24 08:06 sebstone No no. He got a point
|submitted by sebstone to technicallythetruth [link] [comments]|
2023.02.21 21:07 Low-Summer-2447 Strive To Be Among The Number Of The Elect — Soteriology 101: Former Calvinistic Professor discusses Doctrines of Salvation
[MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] ♪ I'm sorry ♪ ♪ Now I'm out of my room ♪ ♪ Thinking we're responsible and we see ♪ ♪ The best is why it's real ♪ - It's time for the Soteriology 101 podcast, where God is most glorified by his love and provision for all people. Welcome your host, the director of apologetics for Texas Baptists and a junk professor of theology and a local teaching pastor. Dr.Read more: https://opentheo.com/i/4503599627370520112/strive-to-be-among-the-number-of-the-elect
Layton Flowers. - Hello and welcome back to Soteriology 101. Many of you may be aware that there's some back and forth going on between Dr.
James White and Dr. Ken Wilson. Now I'm not gonna get into a lot of the details with regard to James White's rebuttal of Ken Wilson's material.
Ken Wilson is more than capable of handling that for himself. And I pray that James White will accept his challenge to debate personally over those doctrines and those issues. What I would like to reply to however, is some of the red herrings that James White continues to kind of plug in to this discussion by taking his attention off of Ken Wilson and focusing it back on to me.
And that's what he did in one of his most recent dividing line programs with regard to Clement of Rome. Now as I talked about in my last episode, there are some pseudo-climantine writings that are attributed to Clement by some scholars, but then others have brought questions to whether that should be attributed to Clement or not. And I read from some of those pseudo-sources in my debate and I attributed it to Clement.
Now I think James White is perfectly within his right to call those out, to say those seem like pseudo-sources. We're not sure those are from Clement. Doesn't change the fact that they are early writings and they are consistent with many of the same writings that we see from Clement and the other early church fathers.
And so it's not completely discredited to look at those sources, but I think Calvinists are well within their rights to point out the fact that some of those pseudo-writings are not necessarily from those who have the names on them. That's a common practice in those days, oftentimes to attribute to a particular author something that was not necessarily from them. And so James White, instead of focusing on Ken Wilson's thesis, which is where I really would rather the focus stay, he instead talked about our debate and talked about my reference to Clement from the back and forth discussion that we had.
And so that's where I wanted to answer today because what James White goes on to do in this particular broadcast is he goes on to quote from first Clement, the one source that most scholars do believe is truly written by Clement, who's mentioned in the scriptures, by the way, as a bishop there in Rome. And I wanted to correct some of the things that I think James White, some of the errors he makes in this broadcast. One, he interprets, of course, Clement, much like he interprets Paul and the other New Testament authors.
By assuming, in my estimation, he's assuming that if somebody uses the word elect or the number of the elect or something of that nature, that they must be talking Calvinistically. And of course, that's question-bagging. The point up for debate is what is meant by the authors of scripture and thus Clement as well, someone who was long there with the authors of scripture at the same time that they were, what is their meaning when they reference the elect? And so that's the issues we wanna go over here is to talk through some of those things and to make sure we are not making mistakes as to our interpretation based upon our preconceived ideas of what election means.
Now again, anybody who tries to deny that they have some preconceptions or some baggage, theological background, baggage, it's influencing the way they're thinking, they're just not being honest. Obviously, we all have our theological baggage. We have our presuppositions.
We have the things that have influenced us from our perspective. And we all have to acknowledge that. And so anytime you hear James White or others say, "Well, this person's coming to their conclusion "because of their tradition or because of their presupposition." Well, we could turn that around and say the exact same thing back to James White.
We can say, "Well, you're coming up with your interpretation "because of your Calvinistic tradition." And that's just a question begging argument. It's a very low form of debate. It's kinda like the playground, uh-huh, uh-huh, kind of back and forth because again, any question begging is anytime you can just repeat what your opponent says and you could just repeat it back to them without changing a word.
You can know that's a question begging argument. And James White uses that quite regularly in his discussions. And so what I wanted to do is play a portion, at least, of this where he's dealing specifically with some of my claims.
And then we wanna look at Clement of Rome and some of his teachings in order for us to really understand what is most likely the appropriate interpretation of Clement in the context of Clement's writings. And so let's go through some of that. Teach that this wasn't clearly taught until Augustine, who doesn't even teach this view of election until the fifth century.
In other words, the way many people understand election today is not the way it was understood throughout Old Testament times. - Even though Paul interpreted it that way. - Okay, so he says, he's quoting, "He's playing my opening statements from the debate." And so I'm pointing out that no one has interpreted election in this way that Augustine does, not in Old Testament times.
And then of course he's making the comment, well, Paul quoted from Old Testament. Now remember, in his debate with Steve Tassy, as well as in his debate with me, both times he says, well, these guys over there, non-Calvinists, they wanna run to the Old Testament. They wanna run to the Old Testament quotes to see what they said there, instead of looking at quote unquote, the apostolic interpretation.
So what James White is saying there, he did this with John Kramer in the debate, "Ununbelievable" as well. This concept or idea that Paul is ultimately taking these quotes from the Old Testament. And he is isegetically reading a new doctrine into them and saying, even though it didn't mean this then when he quotes from it, he's using his apostolic interpretation.
He's taking this quote from the Old Testament and he's using it to establish a new understanding or a new theology. And that's ultimately what White requires that Paul is doing. Now we don't need that.
We don't believe that Paul needs to iseget the Old Testament in order to establish a new doctrine of election. We believe what it meant in the original context is exactly what Paul means when he's quoting from it. And so we don't have to rely upon this misunderstanding or this misnomer that Paul is isegeting the Old Testament in order to establish this new apostolic interpretation of what election is.
And we go over that more in other broadcast if you're interested. - The New Testament times or any time until a former Gnostic, Mannequin philosopher from Africa who did not know Greek came along 300 years after the time of Christ to systematize it for us. - Yeah, he did not know Greek or Hebrew though he picked up some Greek later in his life.
That much is true. To be honest with you, late and I'm not sure how much of it you know, is that somehow relevant at this particular point? - Yeah, and this is another thing he just brought up recently in Twitter pointing out somebody's inability or lack of ability is just a fact of the matter. So if you have somebody who is being deemed a scholar or somebody that other people are referencing as their scholar or source, then just like in a courtroom if the defense attorney puts up a witness who is an expert in a particular field, then the DA can cross examine that expert's ability and their capabilities because they're being put up as the expert.
Now nobody's putting up a little low light and flowers as the expert on all of these things involved. I've told you guys I'm more of a popularizer of the scholars. I'm one who is coming to you, bringing you the scholar sources.
I quote from leading scholars from our perspective in order to establish what I'm saying is true. I'm not claiming myself as the scholar. You've guys heard me enough to say this.
Now some people would like for me to not do that. Like Jonathan Pritchett says, "Hey, you got a doctorate degree. "You're a teacher here at our seminary.
"You can claim to be a scholar." But I know I'm not from the world of academia and I know my limitations and I'm fine with not being seen as the end all be all scholar of all things. I did take a couple of years of Greek. I know how to read it.
I know how to use my tools. Quite honestly, don't even try to pronounce Greek correctly because I know my limitations in pronouncing English. (laughs) Trying to pronounce all my Greek words exactly correctly.
And so I limit myself on those things and rightly so. And that's the difference maybe between someone like myself and James White. James White in a sense prides himself on his scholarship in these areas.
And he's a decent scholar in most of these regards as far as I've heard. And I'm not questioning that. I don't need to.
I'm not insecure in my beliefs enough to have to question his scholarship. I don't have to question his degree or where he got his degree or all those kinds of things. Like a lot of people try to do.
Matter of fact, I always tell people not to do that. That undermines our position because you're focusing on a red herring on something that doesn't matter. And this is what we see happening on Twitter right now, unfortunately.
I wrote this, I said, "Imagine what Calvinist would be saying if all the early church fathers regularly extolled the idea of individuals being predestined to a factual salvation until a fourth or fifth century convert from Africa who did not know Greek introduced the idea of libertarian free will for the first time." Now seriously, imagine that. Imagine what Calvinist, you guys know how good Calvinist are about talking about the historical figures who supported their views. They make t-shirts about Calvin is my homeboy and all kinds of things about early church fathers and other people who say anything that are supportive of what they believe.
They're really good at that. Can you imagine if for the first three to 400 years we had dozens upon dozens of quotes extolling predestination from the individualized perspective of the Calvinistic interpretation? If you had quote after quote after quote affirming total inability and an unconditional election and irresistible grace, just all of these quotes just one right after another, more so than or even equal to the numbers that we have of actual early church fathers extolling the ability of the human will. Those are John Calvin's words, by the way, that's his findings.
Then just imagine how often we would be hearing those things from Calvinists. It would be all over the place and everyone knows it and if we try to come along and try to appeal to orthodoxy, if the shoe was on the other foot, you can imagine how Calvinists would be calling us out on that. And that's all we're really doing.
We're trying to call Calvinist out on the appeal to orthodoxy. We're not trying to say, as we are erroneously being accused of saying, is that orthodoxy is more important in scripture, that orthodoxy overrules scripture in this regard, that okay, if I can find more people who believed in libertarian free will than in deterministic philosophy or in compatibleistic interpretations of the Old Testament, then therefore I must be right and you must be wrong. We're not making that claim.
We're just simply saying that if you want to appeal to orthodoxy, then we have every right to question your appeal to that expert and to orthodoxy and to demonstrate to you all the other early church fathers of that time, contemporaries with Augustine who actually disagreed with him and why they disagreed with him. We can also point to the fact that Augustine was, in fact, a mannequin for a decade of his life and mannequinism, though very different than what we know as Calvinism, has some similarities like the concept of total moral inability from birth because many, Monty, as I've heard it pronounced more regularly now by scholars, Monty actually taught that because the flesh is evil and bad, that people are born in a condition where they cannot do good things or righteous things or good things whatsoever without some kind of a divine, effectual work. Now, that's similar to Calvinism.
Now, we're not trying to say that what mannequinism teaches and all the forms of mannequin weird, gnostic backgrounds and conclusions are exactly equal with Calvinism. We're just simply saying this is one aspect of mannequinism that is similar. And since Augustine, by Calvin's own estimation, is the first in history to teach a more deterministic philosophy and use the grid that's very different theologically than the one we've ever seen, then that should cause us to at least second guess his credentials, to at least say maybe he was influenced here, maybe the reason he's the first to deny libertarian freedom of the will and to introduce a new grid of sociological interpretation, maybe that should be something that we should question.
And so I just say, imagine how Calvinist, if the shoe were on the other foot here, if the early church fathers had just tons of quotes supporting compatibleistic versions of determinism, just imagine how much they would be using it to support their findings. Well, that's all we're doing because we do have a lot of quotes from the early church fathers establishing this concept of the libertarian freedom of the will and individual human responsibility for their choice to accept or reject. And that's why we've quoted from historians like Lorraine Betner, Sam Storms, Davenant, and other Calvinistic historians who admit that the earliest church fathers did quote unquote extol the ability of the human will.
And James White replied to that tweet and he says, you do not seem to know Greek any better than Augustine did, Leighton, I would suggest dropping that part of your ad hominem. Now, first, if you don't see the irony in that, let me point it out to you, okay? 'Cause what an ad hominem is, is trying to ignore or dismiss a person's argument based upon a flaw in their character or their ability, okay? So based upon my flaw, my inability to do Greek very well, live and to pronounce Greek very well, live, though I do consider myself trained to do Greek in writing, but not in speaking, that's one of the reasons I refrain from speaking Greek very often because I know I'm gonna be mispronounced words. But the fact that I have a lack of ability in that area, therefore I'm gonna dismiss the argument that was just made.
That's an ad hominem, that's dismissing the argument, okay? And so he is dismissing my argument based upon my lack of ability to do Greek to his satisfaction. So that is an ad hominem, that's the irony of all ironies. He is using an ad hominem to dismiss my argument about Augustine's, the fact that Augustine did not know Greek.
Now, my reply to that was to say, I didn't shape the theological landscape of Western Christianity by introducing a new interpretation grid for sociology in the fifth century, James. Augustine's lack of Greek training is just a fact of a matter. Like when a DA, a district attorney cross examines the credibility of an expert witness.
It has been said that all of Western theology is a footnote to the work of Augustine. This is because no other writer with the exception of biblical authors has had more influence on Christendom. When Martin Luther and John Calvin were accused of teaching new doctrine, they pointed to Augustine as their example of one who had taught the things they were teaching.
This is a quote from Dr. R. St.
Sproul of Lincoln Intermenistries. And so I don't think anybody could accuse that as being a biased quote. That is from one of the leading most modern, of course he's gone on to be the Lord more recently, but more modern theological scholars and historians from the Calvinistic perspective.
And he's acknowledging what James White doesn't seem to want to acknowledge is that Augustine has had a huge influence on the way in which modern day church has interpreted and understood certain aspects of sociology, especially as it comes to Martin Luther and John Calvin. Now he can dispute R. C.
Sproul's claims. He can dispute John Calvin's claims that John Calvin make about the early church fathers if he would like to, but he can't in my estimation, just simply dismiss Ken Wilson or myself or others as just being biased and unwilling to listen or unwilling to learn because of our tradition or something of that nature. And so that's that it least establishes that aspect of it.
And only until Augustine, do we see anything like that change? Augustine's the first on record to teach something other than the libertarian form of freedom of the will. And this concept an idea of deterministic philosophy or what is called compatibleistic Calvinism, those kinds of things. - Church fathers, men like Arunaeus or Ignatius, who Ignatius was actually taught by the apostle John himself.
- Because you're not in, we're gonna find out here in a moment, you've never read Clement and Greg. So does that somehow vitiate your conclusions? You just used it, you're the one that raised it. So just wondering what the connection is.
- The earliest church. - Again, if I was trying to make a point that's not already been established by hundreds upon hundreds of scholars before me, then you might have a point. But it is a accepted and known fact that the earliest church fathers taught a libertarian form of the freedom of the will.
And we have some of their writings. They never taught an individualistic Calvinistic view of election. In fact, they repudiated this kind of interpretation in much of their writings.
And you have early church writings like Ignatius and Arunaeus and others who are repudiating that interpretation who are arguing against it. You see if you look at the homilies of John Chrysosum, you will see under John 644, he even says, "The Mannequians leap onto this text to prove their doctrine. Go read it for yourself.
- They repudiated this interpretation. Well, that would be interesting to see if he could substantiate that. We're gonna find Clement teaching what Layton says.
- Okay, we have a lot of quotes from Ignatius and Arunaeus and Athanasius and others that are repudiating the Gnostics of their day who are using verses like John 644 and other things to establish a more deterministic interpretation and understanding of how God works. Those are just the facts of the matter. Again, Ken Wilson's dissertation goes through a lot of these quotes and I'm looking forward to when White gets to those because I think those are devastating to what he's trying to claim because they clearly show Gnostics and Mannequians using the very verses that Calvinists use to establish their deterministic philosophies.
It's very easy to find within the internet. Go look for the original sources yourself. I welcome for you to look at those things.
But I was not talking about Clement writing to Rome. I was talking about we are discussing a letter written to Rome. The Romans nine debate, okay? So he just simply misunderstood me here.
- This he doesn't teach, but anyway. - Since I want us to look at one early church father, the Clement of Rome, we're talking about a letter written to Rome. It is not a letter written to Rome.
- I said, here he misunderstood me. And I actually tweet him during the broadcast and he calls himself out on it later. So he corrects himself later in this broadcast, which I'm thankful for.
I was talking about the letter we are debating here today is about the letter written to Rome. Obviously the letter to Clement that Clement wrote, the first Clement was written to Corinth. And that's what he's trying to say here.
And so there are these kinds of debates among all of these early ancient writings, just so you know, that's just a part of it. And for the fact, and that's one of the reasons that when I quote from a source that's seen by many scholars as a pseudo Clementine writing, it's not necessarily wrong to say this is attributed to Clement because it is by many scholars. And it has been.
- First of all, we don't know who wrote this letter. Clement's name has been associated with it traditionally. And of course, then it was.
- And that's set of a lot of things. People say that about books of the Bible too. There's questions of authorship on almost all of the books of the New Testament as people wonder whether it's a pseudo name or somebody's given authorship, a credit to Paul that really wasn't Paul or to Peter that really wasn't of Peter.
And it's still an early church writing. It's still an early writing that is consistent with many of the other writings of that time. And instead of dealing with that issue, he just brings up the fact that it's questionable as to whether it really is of Clement or not.
As is seen in Ignatius' letter to the church at Rome. These are not things that would be a part of late in flowers world because it doesn't debate Roman Catholics on the subject of papacy, on the basis of early church history. But there's just things not relevant to our point of contention.
- Connected with the Clement that is mentioned by Paul and then tradition ended up later, 100 years later, associating Clement as one of the earliest presbyters. And then eventually once it was lost sight of the fact that the early form of church government in Rome was not a single bishop. It was a plurality of elders.
Those are read herrings with regard to our point of contention. - Those of us who do are aware of these issues. And so we would know that the identification of Clement in this way is traditional.
It's not in the text. It's not in the text of the epistle itself. It is a letter written by the church at Rome to the church at Corinth.
It's not written to the church at Rome. So he's wrong, right, right immediately is not even aware. And I don't know how you could have read the letter and I'll be honest with you, I do not believe that in 2015, late in flowers that ever read, Clement's epistle, what's called First Clement, Clement's epistle.
As Lorraine Betner said, that they were people who, well, let me just pull up Lorraine Betner's actual quote so you can see it for yourself. Okay, you can see this is from onergesm.com site, which is a Calvinistic source. And this is from Lorraine Betner.
- Again, completely irrelevant to the point of the debate. All these things are called read herrings. They're just focusing upon purplish side issues rather than dealing with the fact that Clement and or possible early church writings attributed to Clement were clearly, as Calvin said, extolling the ability of the human will.
It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of predestination was not made a matter of special study until near the end of the fourth century. The earlier church fathers placed chief emphasis on good work such as faith, repentance, alms giving prayer, submission to baptism, et cetera, as the basis of their salvation. They of course taught that salvation was through Christ, yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the gospel.
And so he's acknowledging that the early church fathers, generally speaking, held to this more libertarian perspective that man had full power to accept or reject the gospel. And he goes on to acknowledge that some acknowledge the sovereignty of God is recognized, but they do not, but they still teach an absolute freedom of the human will. So he's finding the same thing that John Calvin found.
Okay, and this is a reformed, this is the guy who popularized Tulip, the acrostic Tulip, Lorraine Betner. And so he's a well-known Calvinistic historian that is very much seen as a scholar among Calvinists. And noticed his findings.
He says this cardinal truth of Christianity. So he's calling a cardinal truth of Christianity, the doctrine of predestination from the Calvinistic perspective, was first clearly seen in Augustine, the great Spirit-filled theologian of the West. And so he seems, well, even let me go on and read here.
In his doctrines of sin and grace, he went far beyond the earlier theologians. So he's acknowledging he went to the church of the religions, so he's acknowledging. He went far beyond the earlier theologians, the people before him.
He taught an unconditional election of grace. So in other words, he's acknowledging unconditional election is first seen in Augustine. Okay, not the other early church fathers, it's first established in Augustine and restricted the purposes of redemption to the divine circle, the definite circle of the elect.
It will not be denied by anyone acquainted with church history that Augustine was imminently great and a good man and that his laborers and writings contributed more to the promotion of sound doctrine and the revival of true religion than did those of any other man between Paul and Luther. So you can see this guy is not a bias source here. Okay, he is a Calvinist who is steaming Augustine, but he's also acknowledging something that James White has yet to acknowledge is that Augustine is the first to introduce these specific types of so-terological claims.
That's the point that has to be established in order for us to continue to have a reasonable discourse over the legitimacy of the claims of Augustine during his time. - Epistle. And of course, there's all sorts of other Clementine writings that are either pseudopig of Rome, one epistle with Clement of Alexandria, lots of epistles, but a lot of weird stuff in those epistles too.
And so you have an epistle written from Rome to the Church of Corinth. If you read it, how could you not know what it was about? Because it is about the Corinthians having kicked their elders out and basically have divided the faith. And we'll be looking at that in just a moment.
So it is not written. - And let's go ahead to where he looks at it because that's what we want to confront here. We want to look at what Clementine, Clement actually said in his original epistle, the one that scholars do see more likely to be truly of Clement and not the pseudo sources that again still has some merit to them, though there's uncertainty as to their authorship.
So keep that in mind as well. - There doesn't need to be an explanation of it because it's already the common possession of the people. So notice what is said here.
Day and night you were anxious for the whole brotherhood that the number of God's elect might be saved with mercy and a good conscience. So let's look over and see, this is what I was, this is what I was doing is I was looking at Clement in the original language and that's what got me wondering, so I mentioned elect to, what was that in the, and so I downloaded the, had to download the debate, convert to MP3, put it in audio note taker. That's what led to all of this and going, I typed out the quote and went, I didn't even Clementine anywhere.
And that's when we stumbled on all this stuff. But here is the section in Clement. And so here you have Tan Arithmon, tone, echlek, tone, Ouchu.
I'll blow it up here. So the number of his elect, as you ice taught, so death side. So that's sozo to save.
So that the number of God's elect together with mercy and some people feel like there might be a textual issue here in regards to soon I day souse. But again, if you think textual variants are difficult in the New Testament, wait till you start trying to do stuff with the church fathers where you have very, very, very, very different textual flavor as far as the number of manuscripts and how old they are and things like that. Anyway, the point is in passing.
Clement can make reference to the doctrine of election, to the number of the elect, that the number of the elect might be saved. The terminology is used throughout the book. It is not uncommon whatsoever to read of the elect, for example, in the previous chapter.
And especially that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which if you rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a picture of friends, talking about the sedition that had taken place in the church there in Corinth. And so you do have regular references to the elect. Now, this can't be the man of key and elect because Manny hasn't been born yet.
As if we don't know that. And again, that's not the point at all that Ken Wilson or I or anybody else and all of Christendom would ever make, but nevertheless, this is what I really wanted to highlight because of the glenses that certain people have on when they hear or see the word of the elect, they automatically just assume Calvinism. They assume the Calvinistic interpretation of the elect, meaning that they are elect unconditionally, I would say arbitrarily, but unconditionally prior to creation for reasons that are unknown, for unknown reasons.
It's only, it's a secret thing to the counsel of God's glory and it has nothing to do with the human being whatsoever. Their choices, actions, or decisions, or anything of that nature, it's just God unconditionally or arbitrarily selects a certain group of people before they're ever born. And these are the ones he affects, he generates in some ways as to make them cause them to believe willingly.
In other words, he's not doing that against their will, he's changing their will so that they will want to humble themselves and believe. Now, that's the Calvinistic interpretation. We don't believe that that's the way God works, we don't believe that's what God has done here.
We believe that God has created us as responsible creatures, meaning that we are able to respond to his revelation freely, and therefore we're held culpable for those things. And so let's look at the quote he was just talking about there, their front climate and looking at verse three of chapter two in climate. It says, "And you being filled with a holy desire "with excellent zeal and pious confidence, "stretch out your arms to Almighty God beseeching him "to be merciful to you in case you had done "anything wrong unwillingly.
"You contended day and night for the whole brotherhood "that in his mercy and good pleasure, "the number of his elect might be saved." Now, whenever a Calvinist hears, the number of his elect, they hear those chosen before the foundation of the world unconditionally, so as to be saved, effectually, okay? I'm not sure that this reference here does anything to support their findings because there is the condition there, they might be saved, not that they certainly will be. And so that doesn't necessarily support the Calvinistic rendering. So how does one come to be the elect or chosen of God? That's the real point of contention.
You can't, again, question bag and just assume elect means what you think it means. You have to establish that with argumentation and why it doesn't take the time to do that here, he might do it elsewhere, but he doesn't do it here and that's what I'm pushing back on. So how does one become elect? Why does God choose someone over another, okay? So why did God choose to save James White and not the latest atheist that he has debated? Who've gone on to be with the Lord, okay? So the last atheist that has died, why did God choose James White and not that person? Well, the Calvinist answer to that question is, well, we don't know, it's not revealed to us, it's a mystery and it's according to the God's secret counsel.
We don't know and we just know this. Calvinists say they know this, it has nothing to do with us personally, it has nothing to do with our faith, our choices, our behaviors, our actions, God's election is unconditionally done. And it's an unconditional election, okay? And so it is completely without regard to the person's decisions, actions, their faith, anything of that nature.
Now we as provisionists, we would say this instead, we'd say God has graciously chooses to save those who put their trust in him, okay? So we don't believe that God unconditionally elects people to be saved. We believe that God graciously chooses to save those who freely choose to put their trust in him. God's election to send the gospel to all people is not conditioned upon their good or bad things that they do, it's in other words, unconditional of their morality, but it is conditioned upon their faith in him.
Now, this is the distinction that sometimes Calvinists are not very good at pointing out. And this is what I'm trying to point out to you so that you see the difference. When we can talk about somebody being saved unconditional of their morality, the good or bad they do, because there's good and bad people both in heaven and hell, relatively speaking.
There are people who live more moralize in hell than even some who may be in heaven, who live less moral lives, okay? So it's not about morality, the good and bad they do. So you can say someone is saved unconditional of their moral living as in comparison with somebody else who ends up in heaven or in hell, okay? So that's not the condition. The condition is not the morality, the good or bad they do.
So what is the condition? Well, we just don't know what it is if you're a Calvinist. What we would say, no, we know what the condition is. It's faith, okay? So they say it's unconditional, we say the condition is faith.
And so we still do believe it's not based upon the good or bad that you do, i.e. your morality, but it is conditioned upon faith. And Calvinists say it was not conditioned on the good or bad you do, and it's not conditioned upon faith, the election.
And that's what we're pushing back on. We're saying, yes, it's not conditioned upon the good or bad you do, but it is conditioned upon your faith in Christ. And that's the difference between our two world views.
So now that we know the two differences, two sides, we go to climate, other teachings here in the same epistle and we ask ourselves what is most likely climate's perspective on this? Is it the more Calvinistic perspective or is it the more provisionistic perspective? And you'd be the judge, we'll just go through some of the statements where he talks about the elect or the chosen of God. So let's look at some of the other climate triteings. In chapter 59, verse three, it says, "God of all flesh who looks into the abysses who beholds the work of men who is the helper of those in danger, the savior of those who have lost hope, who is the maker and bishop of every soul, who makes the nations to multiply upon the earth.
And out of all, you have chosen those that love you through Jesus Christ your beloved son, through whom you have taught us and have sanctified us and have honored us." Now notice here that he does talk about again chosen. That's what the word elect is, to be chosen. Who is he chosen? You have chosen those that love you.
And so clearly it seems to indicate here at least that Clement believes that the choice is based upon one's love of Christ, love of God. So this would this would report with Paul's teaching that says you perish because you refuse to love the truth so as to be saved, as he said, in the letter to the church in Thessalonica, I believe it was. And so when you hear things like that, why did they perish? Well, they perish because they refuse to love the truth in the same way.
Why aren't you chosen? Because you've refused to love God. You've refused to love the truth. So they're chosen based upon what? Some arbitrary, unconditional reason that we just don't know about? No, they have been chosen because they love him.
Okay? So there's one example of where it would side with our interpretation rather than the Calvinistic interpretation. Let's look at some more. A verse two of that same chapter, no, chapter before 58, except our advice and it will not be repeated by you.
For as God lives and as the Lord Jesus Christ lives and the Holy Spirit, the confidence and hope of the elect, he who observes in humility with earnest obedience and repining not the ordinances and commands given by God, he shall be reckoned and counted in the number of them that are saved by Christ Jesus. So again, he's using the word elect and the word the number of them. Okay? In the same way that he used it here in chapter two, where he's just quoting from, here he's using it again in chapter 58 verse two and he's speaking of the elect and being counted in the number of them.
And so he says the elect and then what does he say about the elect? Does he say there's no reason that they're elect or does he say the reasons that they might be elect? Well, it seems here he says the elect, he who observes in humility and earnest and obedience. In other words, he God observes their humility, their earnest obedience, they're repining not. I mean, they're not, they're not fretting in other words, their ordinances, the commands given to them by God, he shall be reckoned and counted in the number of them.
So how are you counted in the number of them? You're in humility and earnest obedience. So he's marking out, these are the signs of those who will be counted in the number of the elect. So he goes on to say, verse one of chapter 52, "The Lord of all things brethren is in need of nothing.
Neither does he require anything of anyone except to confess unto him." Okay, so what does the Lord require? Nothing except to confess unto him. And so here's acknowledging, how does one become elect? You confess your inability to save yourself. And by the way, confessing your inability to save yourself does not merit your salvation.
Confessing your inability to merit your salvation is what God requires. It's the only thing that God requires. When you confess, I can't save myself and put your trust in him, that is the requirement.
That is what God requires. And by grace, he chooses to impute the righteousness of Christ upon you. So here it's clearly sayin...
2023.02.21 06:54 Necessary_Ride8384 Prophecy in the Book of Acts — The Remnant Radio's Podcast
The Remnant Radio is brought to you in part by our sponsors at Chiro's Classrooms. Have you ever thought about learning a biblical language as a supplemental tool in your biblical studies? Will Chiro's Classrooms offers real classroom environments with classmates and a live instructor who can help teach you biblical languages, both Greek and Hebrew? You need to check out Chiro's Classrooms today. The price for a single semester is crazy affordable for anyone, so check out the links in the description and use promo code "Rimnet" in the description.Read more: https://opentheo.com/i/8106479329267287736/prophecy-in-the-book-of-acts
Check out Chiro's Classrooms today. Discount code "R-E-M-N-A-N-T" Remnant to get 10% off your semester. Hey everyone, welcome to the wonderful world of Remnant Radio.
My name is Joshua Lewis and today we are discussing prophecy in the Book of Acts. I am in studio with Michael Roundtree and we have Michael Miller on the other line. Before we dive into today's discussion, I want to let you guys know a little about who we are and what we do.
Remnant radio is a theology broadcast. We interview pastors, teachers from different churches and denominations, but today on Wednesdays we specifically grapple with the gifts of the Spirit. We have a podcast called "To Be Continued." That's what we're doing today.
We're discussing both the charismatic abuses and we discuss the continuationist, how we're firm continuationists and we believe in the gifts of the Spirit. So try to call balls and strikes into this space. If that's something you're interested in, make sure to hit subscribe.
And if you've been blessed by this ministry, consider donating. There are links in the descriptions, both PayPal as one-time gifts or to Patreon to give monthly. It helps us do what we do.
Back from some medical. Yes, back from... And I've been calling it "Writing Leave" because, I don't know, sabbatical kind of feels vacation-y.
But I worked quite a bit, about 12-plus hours a day, writing a book about the book of Revelation. I got like half to two-thirds through it, so I'll have to find a way to kind of push through on that. But I'm really excited, proud of the content.
And just... My real goal is to just kind of demystify this book of Revelation, but also to do it in a way that's devotional and inspiring. He actually secluded himself to an island to really get into John's...
An actual island. I went to Patmos. Not to...
Oh, you went to Patmos. Wow. Yeah, I actually got a few visions.
Excellent. Now you really know what it's about. I got visions about John's visions.
There you go. That's all gonna make sense. To be continued, let's keep going.
Okay, yeah, what are we going to do? So, coming up, we've got Dr. Tom Shreiner. This is the first for us.
Dr. Shreiner is a cessationist. And we've had lots of cessationists on the show.
Yeah. But this is the first time we've ever had a cessationist talking about cessationism. So we're obviously continuationists.
But we decided to do it. And we really liked Dr. Shreiner.
And I think he has a lot of great stuff. And I think it's going to be a really healthy conversation. That's going to be next week.
We also have Matthew Esquivel coming on the show. We're going to talk about the different views of communion, specifically kind of coming out of the Reformation. But of course, there's the Catholic view.
But then there's sort of the Anglican view. There's Lutheran view, the Calvinistic view. And a lot of people aren't really familiar.
There's this Winglion view with all of the different ones. And so Matthew is kind of this... He's getting his PhD in early church fathers and church histories.
So anyway, going to be a great conversation. Michael Miller, how are you doing, bud? I'm good, man. Hanging out in Denver, Colorado.
And in my basement, the dungeon. Just waiting for you guys to ask me questions. So lonely down here.
I want to be a part. It's actually an act of mercy to have Michael on the show because he has nothing to do all day in that poor dungeon down there. Well, hey, let's dive into the content.
What's the content today, Josh, Michael? And we're... Book of Acts. I, Michael Rantri, is a false prophet.
Ooh, here we go. This is going to be a multi-part series. It's going to take multiple episodes.
Okay, so we're talking about prophecy in the book of Acts. Prophecy in the book of Acts. And some time ago, I did a study on the book of Acts and just paying specific attention to every single time that God spoke in the book of Acts.
And one of the things that really stuck out to me was just the way... And I don't want to get too much into a debate about like, you know, Old Testament, New Testament, church and all that. But in some form or another, the church was birthed in the fires of prophecy, Acts chapter 2.
Why is that? What is the significance of that? And I think one thing that really kind of... And you guys just feel free to jump in and ask me anything interrupt me. But in Acts chapter 1, whenever there is a missing apostle, thanks to Judas, and they need to find a new one.
And they've got it down, narrowed down to two different guys. And, you know, they're going to decide how are we going to pick between these two guys? And if it's Old Testament, well, what you do is you cast lots, or you might have the Urim and Thumum, or you might have the Ephod, which is kind of tied to the Urim and Thumum. Or you might go to a prophet, but there's a select few of those.
And there are different various ways that people heard the Lord. And when you get to Acts chapter 1, what they do is there's a casting of lots, which is kind of the modern equivalent would be something like casting die. But then after Acts chapter 1, you never see the casting of lots again.
And you see God speaking in just about every chapter. And there's this massive variety. Sometimes it's angelic appearance.
Sometimes somebody falls into a trance. Sometimes it's just this impression. Sometimes it's a vision.
Sometimes it's a dream. This huge variety of manners in which God speaks. Huge variety and the kinds of people he speaks to.
It's not just apostles. He speaks to Agabus. He speaks to Phillips daughters.
He speaks to Philip. The Holy Spirit speaks to him. And on the road to, I guess, in the desert road when he speaks to the Ethiopian eunuch.
And so a huge variety of people, a huge variety of means by which God speaks, and never again the casting of a lot. And that's directly tied to Acts chapter 2, where the Holy Spirit is poured out upon the church. A fulfillment of the prophet Joel, Joel chapter 2.
I'll pour out my spirit in those days and your sons and your daughters and your old men and your young men and men servants, maid servants. It's a democratization of the Holy Spirit upon the people of God. He goes through every category, men servants, maid servants.
So you've got sort of every economic status as well as men and women. You've got old and young. So it's kind of like this is going to be an everyday thing, not just a priest wearing an ephod, not just a Samuel or an Elijah or an Isaiah.
This is going to be an everybody thing. The church is going to have the spirit of prophecy. Now that is different from the gift of prophecy.
There are some within the church that will have a gifting a unique empowerment in that area where they can regularly and proficiently hear God's voice for the Lord. God's voice for other people, but all of God's people can hear God's voice. And then we just see that playing out over the course of the rest of the book of Acts.
And I started to pay attention to what did they do to get God speaking to them? Because I want God speaking to me. So what were they doing? And so anyway, so that's kind of, I've been talking for a little while. So you jump in.
When you say get God to speak to them, are we going to say these are things that happen to happen? Because this is really important when we read the book of Acts. How are we going to read the book? Are we going to read it prescriptively? Or are we going to read it descriptively? And I know there's definitely a combining of both of those. But to say that God spoke to them in this situation because they were doing this thing or that they were doing this thing and God happened to speak to them.
So can we take from every single one of these accounts or are we finding principles? Is there a principle? Are we looking for? Certainly we need to read the book of Acts differently than we read an epistle differently than we read the apocalypse. Okay, so there are different genres of literature that certainly needs to be paid attention to. But I do think that people take it too far when they insinuate with the prescriptive, descriptive bifurcation, when they insinuate that essentially the book of Acts is a newspaper article and we're just reading about what happened.
No, this was part of God's word, all scripture being God breathed, and it's useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training and righteousness. So this actually affects me. I should look to the church in Acts as my blueprint for what church is supposed to look like, what discipleship is supposed to look like.
So, yes, you should. So I guess my answer is kind of like yes and no. Yes, we should take into account that it is a narrative instead of an epistle.
But no, in the sense of like, you know what? If God speaks to these people over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again when they're doing this thing, I think that the repetition of it speaks strongly to the fact that, you know what, maybe if I do that thing, God will speak to me. Sure. I also think, maybe I'll say this one more thing.
If we look at the thesis statement of the book of Acts, which is Acts 1, 8, you'll receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you and you'll be my witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth. The coming of the Holy Spirit was that the church might fulfill her mission to the ends of the earth, which was not yet fulfilled by Acts 28, which is why you have a network called Acts 29. But the mission goes on, right? We're still reaching to the ends of the earth.
And so when we look in the book of Acts at the power of the Holy Spirit and how that manifests, it's really into principal forms. One is in kind of healings and miracles. And the other is revelation.
Acts chapter two, it's revelation. And so we should be looking as believers for both of these to continue in the fulfillment of our mission. So anyway, there will be another.
I got two things just to bring some clarity to what this episode is about. And one, just as a question I'd love you to ask Tom Shriner next week. When we dive into Acts and we start talking about prophecy being more normative and you see that shift happening from Acts chapter one with the casting of lots to now directly hearing from the Lord and other means in more personal ways.
I'd love for you to ask Shriner next week or whenever is it Monday that you're doing that? The sixth might be too sick. Okay. It's whatever the sixth is.
Yeah. Yeah. Well, my question is how is it that you see this eschatological expectation of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and with the specific evidence of that being prophecy, dreaming dreams.
It's supposed to happen on some sort of new norm. But yet there's nothing in the Old Testament about that being a temporary thing. And even in Acts chapter one, the ends of the earth implying that this outpouring of power is supposed to happen so that the gospel gospel can be carried to the ends of the earth.
Like how is that happening if it was only supposed to last for the apostles and those in the apostles lay their hands on because the apostles. I mean, I guess you could say, you know, Paul may have gotten to the ends of the earth, the known world at that time, but that clearly was not the ends of the earth. Anyway, I'd love to find out his thoughts on that because it does seem like the eschatological fulfillment of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is prophecy widespread.
And like you had already differentiated in the old covenant versus the new, instead of it just being, you know, the prophet or the king. Now it's on all people, all different kinds. So wholesale outpouring.
So there's that one. And then the second thing is, Michael, are we focusing here on this episode on God speaking in Acts? Or are we more trying to look at what is it that causes God to speak to these people more frequently? What about their lives? What about their practice of their faith? Is that kind of where you're going with this? We're focusing specifically on prophecy in the book of Acts, but there's so many examples in the book of Acts that we will be answering. Question number two also.
I think that's in one in clarification, even with we talked about prescriptive descriptive a moment ago, it would be different to say like, hey, the Acts model is that they went from, you know, breaking bread house to house daily and the temple daily, but then neglect that Paul went, you know, on the day of the Lord to go and preach or that they gave all that they had to the apostles and laid it at their feet. But then Paul went and traveled and he didn't receive anything from some of the churches that he went to. So like, even when we look at these texts and we say, hey, there are things that are describing what happens.
It doesn't mean that, hey, today, everyone should come to church and give all that they have to the feet of Michael at Wellspring. And then he used to distribute them as any has need. But it's to say that there is a pattern, like what you said, it's not just one of those things in isolation.
Okay, we've got handkerchiefs that heal people. This is the way God heals people now. It's to say that there is a pattern of, there seems to be a pattern of evangelism, if you will, like, you'll be my witnesses in Judea, Sumeria to other ends on the earth.
And there is this expectation that we have when we read the text that the Holy Spirit is going to come on these people to give them power to be his witnesses. And as they're doing just that thing, that he is confirming their witness through this kind of gift of prophecy. And we're going to see that as we go through the text.
So it's not only that we are saying, hey, let's pull out these principles and see what was happening, but it's also in addition to those kinds of interpretive principles that Jesus is saying, like, this is what this is for. This is what this power is for. Absolutely, absolutely.
And that it so ties to that thesis statement of Acts 1, 8, that there will be my witnesses. And when you look at the way the book, Acts 28 ends, the ends, like on the surface, it would seem as though it's ending on kind of like a, wait a minute, this isn't actually an ending, like, give me a conclusive statement. You know, it's like, second to the last verse, therefore, let it be known to you that salvation, that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles and they will listen.
And then the last verse, he goes on and proclaims God without hindrance. And so his point is, this ends of the earth mission is continuing well beyond Paul. So shouldn't we expect that it's going to continue in not the same way? Or was the power of the Holy Spirit something they only needed then? And now we don't.
So I would say that just because it's so deeply connected to that thesis statement. That's good. And I think that's when we read texts, that's one of the things we want to encourage our audience that when we're reading it, why are we reading it, how are we reading it, so not only you can just believe what we're saying, but you know how we're coming to the solutions.
Absolutely. That's an important thing. Absolutely.
Yeah. So we're at Michael. Okay.
Yeah, sure. So why don't we just walk through? So we looked at Acts chapter 1, and maybe I can just talk through some of the high points in the book of Acts, prophetically speaking and just kind of like, I don't know why my little things ring in, but moments that God speaks in the book of Acts and you guys can just jump in where you want. But I think one of the, one of the big ones is in Acts chapter 10.
It's really Acts 10 and 11. And this is, I think, the centerpiece of the book of Acts because this is, this is where, in my opinion, we see the normative expression of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. So, and that's a whole other conversation, but the whole, the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs for Cornelius and his household at the exact moment of salvation, which is what I believe, and actually with the three of us believe, is normative for the believer.
The story is told twice. First it happens, and then Peter repeats the whole story and acts 11 to kind of show like this story is really central, but here's where I'm getting at with regard to the voice of God. Peter's on a rooftop.
He has a really important vision. Well, what's he doing when he has that vision? He's waiting for lunch to be made. But what else is he doing? He's praying.
Now, is that an incidental mention by Luke? Oh, well, he's preparing. I could have said this, or I could have not said it doesn't matter. No, like Luke is the New Testament theologian of prayer.
When he mentions it, it's very important. If Zechariah is in the temple and he's ministering and he has an angelic appearance of Gabriel, Luke is also going to mention that everybody was praying outside. Luke is going to be the only one that mentions at the Mount of Transfiguration.
Out of all the synoptics who tell the story, he's going to be the only one that mentions Jesus went up there to pray. And I think he says, "Prayed all night." So anyway, Luke is the New Testament theologian of prayer is what I call him. And what we see is Peter's praying when he has this vision.
You just think about how fundamental this is. This is the gospel going to the Gentiles. Well, that's a really important vision.
And what's Peter doing? He's literally, he's just praying while he waits for a sandwich to be made. Okay. That's Peter's in.
But then you have Cornelius' end. And on Cornelius' side, that's actually at the beginning of Acts, chapter 10. What is he doing when the angel appears to him? Cornelius is praying.
Now Cornelius is technically not a believer yet, but this is actually fascinating because it reminds us that God even hears the prayers of an unbeliever. He is seeking and it is in that context that the angel appears to him, "Hey, you Peter, go, or you Cornelius, go sin for Peter. And you Peter, don't hate on Gentiles and go with these Gentiles and go talk with his dude." But this whole meeting is set up with prayer.
And so, I know practically for my church, I try to, you know, sometimes I say to my church, you know, the church is called to be a house of prayer. Jesus calls it. So not necessarily a house of preaching or a house of evangelism.
Those things will happen, but a house of prayer and a place of seeking God. And when we do, these kinds of things happen and I've found that to be true in my life. So there you go.
Miller, do you have a vision stories of pigs in a blanket when you pray? I don't have that, but I will say that my experience with hearing God accurately, some of the most specific words I've had, have come because of prayer or become at times of prayer or just subsequent to praying for particular things. So in 2017, I think I mentioned this in the past, I had been praying pretty consistently for God to give me words and knowledge that are so specific that there's no denying that it had to be revelatory. Why don't you define word of knowledge for us, since not everybody knows what that is? Sure, sure.
When I say word of knowledge, my best guess is there's not like an explicit definition given in the scriptures, but my best guess is that it's just knowledge that you could not know how to do it. You could not know had it not been revealed by God. And so that's what I was wanting, some sort of gift manifestation of the spirit that it demonstrates to people quite viscerally and publicly that it is God himself that made that possible.
And so one of the things I would pray for, the kinds of words and knowledge I was asking for were first and last names of individuals in a room, you know, diseases or infirmities that they had, prayers that they had made in secret, and things that would encourage both them and the audience that was listening. So, and the reason I was doing this was because I had a significant number of dreams that year that was sort of lending itself to this very thing and gave me, I would say, that passioned me to pray. And that's exactly what I saw.
I think Josh and I, we've shown video before of the past of me being in a meeting where I get the name Sheila and flat feet. And, you know, Sheila's not a common name. It's pretty rare.
And for there to be a Sheila who also happens to have flat feet would make that even more rare. And sure enough, we pray for a woman named Sheila who had flat feet and she got healed later that year. Well, I think we've shared about the convergence conference and getting the name Sandy and knowing it was a guy and that he has problems with his shoulder and nobody responds.
And then this person comes up to me afterwards and he's like, Hey, well, nobody knows this. But when I was in the party scene, he was like, I was a big addict and I went by the alias name Sandy. And I've had this problem with my shoulder.
He's like, I was too embarrassed to stand up. And so we prayed for him and he got healed as well. That wasn't his visceral for the crowd, but there was other things like that.
Another example was in South Africa getting the name Georgie L5. It's funny because I've been praying for that meeting in South Africa. Did you say Georgie L5? Like the person's name was Georgie? Yeah.
Okay. All right. I just make it sure I heard that right.
Like, yeah, that's it's a pretty rare. It's not something people are called, right? So you get that name. So you feel like the Holy Spirit told you the name Georgie.
I would have been a little nervous about calling that one out. Oh, I mean, this is the thing. I was either going to fall in my face and look like a fool or God was going to be glorified.
It was going to be one or the other. But the interesting thing was when the Holy Spirit spoke that to me. So I had been praying previous to this meeting for months, like, Hey, God, would you give me these kind of demonstrations so that people would know beyond the shadow of a doubt that you're both real and that you're worth worshipping and that you're good.
Like that was that was my intention. And I was having dinner with the family the night before church and I excuse myself to go to the restroom. And while I was walking into the bathroom, that's when I hear the name Georgie L5.
And I was like, okay, that was too random to just pop into my head. It wasn't like I was thinking about the meeting the next morning. I was just going to the bathroom.
That was it. And so the next morning I get up and I give a sermon about how God is still demonstrating his power so that people can know that he is good and that he loves them. And then I said, you know, here's what happened last night.
I felt like God said there was somebody here with the name Georgie. I'm assuming that's probably something you were you were called when you were a kid. And I heard the word L5.
And when I said I heard it was just in my head. It wasn't like some barking voice from heaven. And I was like, I think that there's a vertebrae called the L5, although I'm not a doctor.
I don't really know much about this. I was like, is that true of somebody here? And one of the elders of the church stands up. Now his name is Jan.
Everybody knows that. He's not a stranger in the audience. And it sounds like, well, why is he standing up? His name's not Georgie.
And he goes on to share how when he was a kid, he looked like his dad so much. His dad's name being George that everybody called him young George Georgie. And he had a problem with his L5 for over 18 years.
And so we prayed for him in front of everybody. This is publicly in front of the whole church and he gets healed like he just interres crying. And it was like the room just erupts and prays.
So again, how did that happen? I was having seasons of prayer where I was praying specifically for that kind of demonstration from God. But it wasn't necessarily during the prayer time that I heard God. It was just randomly.
It's like he just sort of invaded my world. You know, I like that you, so there's times when like you're praying for specific things and those things later happen. And I have found that when it comes to experiencing supernatural ministry, that's exactly the case.
And honestly, all kinds of ministry, it all flows out of the place of prayer. But there are also times when you're just praying and God speaks to you. And that's what we see in Acts 10 where dudes are just praying.
They're doing what they're supposed to do. That happens in Acts 2, right? Acts 2, yes, they're just praying. I mean, they're praying and waiting for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
One that I love is Acts 3. This is more on the miracle side than on the revelation side. But Peter and John are on the way to prayer.
And they see the guy who's lame and which I just think that's a funny description. But anyway, he's lame. Physically, not.
Yeah. Okay. Man, that dude was wearing an outdated clothes.
He was so lame. And bad translation. Yeah, bad translation.
Guys are awful. I didn't do it. Michael clearly did.
Michael did it. Well, in such a scenario, what would it have meant for him to have been healed of lameness? I mean, I don't know. You mean like your jokes? Thank you.
Oh, dude. That was good. Okay, so.
But here's what kind of gets me on that passage is they weren't in the prayer meeting when it happened. They were on the way to prayer. And so God sees the intention of the heart.
And he sees the lifestyle. Like when Jesus says this kind only comes out with prayer or some translations, prayer and fasting, he's not saying that like, Hey, you guys forgot to pray the last five minutes for this demon to go. He's talking about a whole lifestyle.
In fact, he had been on the amount of transfiguration praying, doing the very thing that we're supposed to be doing. And so when you live that lifestyle prayer. So we have like this missionary that visited a wellspring church before his name is Ayla Tassys from Africa.
And his ministry devotes to full days to just prayer. And they've reached thousands and thousands of people through these disciple making movements and pretty amazing and they see miracles and all that. And so he's telling us all this.
But I'm just like, when I hear this, I'm like two full days of just praying. He's like, Well, we do two hours on and then 30 minutes off throughout the day. Like, wow.
But he says like their best, like their best stuff like flows right out of that place of prayer and oftentimes like their ideas for ministry and all of that. And so anyway, but I see that as a model in the book of Acts. Sometimes for me, experientially, it happens like it did for you, Michael.
It's like, you've been praying for something and then it happens. I just called answer prayer. And then there's sometimes when you devote yourself to a lifestyle of prayer and then God speaks to you in the middle of that prayer.
Sometimes I'll have God speak to me for an individual that I'll then text or call and be like, Hey, I feel like God said something to me for you. Well, I was just praying and you just popped in my mind and bam. So, yeah.
Yeah. I'm just thinking of the same like in Luke's writings in Luke 1, Zacharized in the temple of the hour of prayer, lighting incense and the whole assembly is praying and as he's praying, then angel appears to him. We talked about Acts 1.
They're up the upper room praying according to Joel chapter 2. They're in there. The priest, the woman who is pregnant, the nursing infant, they come together.
They rent their heart and not their garments. It's prayer is what is taking place according to Joel in that day and the day that they're doing these things. That's when he pours out his spirit on all flesh.
We have Peter in this text where he's up on the roof, praying at the sixth hour and then he falls into a trance. We have Cornelius who's praying and angel appears to him. So over and over, there just seems to be this connective tissue where there are people who are like, "Hey, I have an Echryian forever and I don't feel like God speaks to me." And then you can ask, "Well, which prayer life look like?" Because again, this isn't necessarily prescriptive saying, "Hey, you have to pray or else God won't speak to you because we see God speaking to pagans." There's no connective tissue that God can't speak to you, but for God's people, it seems as if there is a connection to speaking to the Lord, spending time with the Lord and God responding to those prayers.
Yeah, absolutely. So that was one of the things that I found was that oftentimes in the Book of Acts, God speaks. And if we want to expand upon that does miracles, that Acts 1, 8 power, Revelation of Miracles is the two expressions I see in the Book of Acts.
They occur while or somehow surrounding somebody praying. In fact, here's an even kind of strange one. I don't know if you count this as God speaking or if you count as a miracle or both, but I guess it's both.
Acts 12, whenever Peter is languishing away in prison waiting to die because James has already been killed and Peter's next and he's on high security detail. And he's very closely scrutinized and then there's an angelic appearance. Well, it's closely related to his house of prayer.
Yeah, Mark's mother's house. She's opened it up. People are there praying.
So that's not like an incidental mention. The church is praying. Now, how much faith did they have when Peter shows up on the door? Not much.
Yeah, they don't think it's Peter. They're like, "Yeah, maybe it's Peter's angel." Which would be enough for me to go answer the door. I want to go see, but I actually want to see that more than I want to see Peter.
But you could categorize it as God speaking too because an angel ends up giving Peter all kinds of directions. So sometimes it's like, you're the one praying. Sometimes it's somebody else praying for you, but it's just surrounding prayer.
That's one category that I noticed for both miracles as well as just revelatory experiences. Then, you know what, before I even say the second one, I want to ask you guys, because angelic appearances and trances have been mentioned so far. Do either of you guys have experience with either of those? I've shared my one limited experience.
I'm trying to think if I've had more than one. I've shared this account multiple times where I was in my bed. I'll make it quick since I've shared it before, but Saul, a being with the foot of my bed, got up.
As I'm looking at this being, its face is shining like the sun. It looks like muscle tissue just emanating light. I think to myself, maybe this is Jesus because I've been praying to be with the Lord, to hear the Lord for him to reveal himself to me.
As I'm looking at this creature, I think of Revelation 1, his face shines like the sun. Then I hear the voice of the Lord. One of the few times I can say I've actually heard God's voice.
It says angels of darkness portraying themselves as angels of light. I see my wife being tormented in bed, which is something demonic. I've seen this action before.
Then I kind of, if you could say, "Wake up this vision, this trance," whatever it is, stops. I'm in the same physical place. My wife's not being tormented and that thing is gone.
The meaning of that being that I was willing to look at a supernatural event and assume it was God. God was teaching me in the midst of that, just because it's supernatural doesn't mean it's God. It doesn't mean that it's from the Lord just because it's supernatural.
I've had other experiences that were rather surreal, that were physical, but none of them that would classify as far as I'm aware of vision or a trance. Miller, how about you? How many angels do you see a week? Well, you know me, I'm super spiritual. I see my wife almost every day.
Yeah, I see. That joke was lame. You see what I did? Like a guy in X3? Back to the lame.
So I have not had a trance. I've not had an angelic visitation. My wife has shared a story with me.
Hold on, bro. What do you do on the show, bro? It has to be continued. Yeah, yeah, it's got to be qualified as if you're having chances in its jellyfish.
Trash. Which I hope you guys really can detect. That is such a strong joke.
You are as Christian and as spiritual as anyone on this program. They've had a thousand visions. You've got as much as the spirit as the rest of us.
I want to make sure that we're leveling the playing barrier. There are no records of John the Baptist performing any miracles. That's true.
Yeah, miracles. I think miracles are more. And sometimes miracles are more.
Sometimes we have the gift of sarcasm in their excellence. We may not have any actual spiritual gifts, but we excel in survival. Go, man.
Oh, so I have not had any of those experiences. My wife has. At least I think she has.
So right after her dad died, she was at work and she was standing in her shop and she just fallen crying. And nobody was in the shop that she knew of. But suddenly there was a woman standing behind her and put her hands or a hand on my wife's shoulder.
And my wife couldn't even see the woman. And the woman just started praying over and then stopped. And my wife turned around and there was no one there.
And so that's a. Yeah, I tend to think that's probably an angel in God's way of comforting her in the midst of it. If not the spirit himself.
Not really sure. You know, I could tell a story. So October 2010.
And I remember the date because it led up to a really major kind of period of suffering in my life. And it also surrounded the Texas OU game. I know that's ridiculous, but.
But when you have an idol. You know, you did lost and that was the end for me. No, no, no, no, no.
No, there's actually reason why that's relevant. So. So the night before I like I had an angelic experience.
Okay. I haven't had a million of them, but I had this one. So anyway, I had been at the Texas OU game.
The night before like actually it was in the West end of Dallas and celebrating blah, blah, blah, and you know, screaming go Texas at a bunch of OU fans. Sorry, sooner. And anyway, so we were just in downtown Dallas till 2 a.m.
And I got home and I usually wake up pretty early to pray and I got home late, obviously. And I just told the Lord, Lord, if you want me to wake up and pray, wake me up. But otherwise I'm not setting the alarm.
I'm just going to let myself sleep. I woke up at six and I was like, oh, but I was like really awake. So I got out of bed and I went to my little like place of prayer.
Oh gosh, this is like a really personal story. I don't know how much of this I want to tell, but anyway, I did. I had an angelic experience.
It communicated a number of things to me, but one of them was that I was about to go through a trial that would last 16 weeks. And interestingly, like there wasn't like really a trial that was prominent right then. But then two days later, something started and it lasted 16 weeks to the day.
And anyway, but the angel was like put a hand on me and geez, I feel so weird. I never, I don't think I've ever shared this. Oh man, this is so weird.
Sorry guys. I heard it in a car. You not shared it publicly.
I've never, I've never, I've only told you because you asked me. I asked you specifically about it. Yeah.
I don't usually tell these kind of stories because they sound self aggrandizing, but I'm already in this deep. So the angel like kind of prayed for me endurance. And that's when I asked like, why are you praying endurance for me? And it's like, you're going to need it for 16 weeks.
So anyway, but I just reflected on it later. And it was, I got up and prayed. And so I've experienced these realities in my life.
Not that I've never fallen to a trance before or anything, but I've just God speaking to me in the context of prayer. I wasn't asking even for an angelic experience. And that experience was followed by tons of trauma and pain.
Yes, it was. Right. So that's the personal part.
And that's the personal part. And I'm sorry about Jack, right? Jack has a story, the guy who disabled both of you, that he has a story where his wife had an angelic encounter. People hear that in that sense, oh, that sounds so aggrandizing.
That sounds so awesome. Yeah. And then it was followed by a crap ton of pain.
Like it was not a, they're, they're kid killed themselves. Like it was a horrible experience. Yeah.
Like your experience was a horrible experience. My experience wasn't a good. I saw an angel experience that was God scolding me for being willing to see demonic things and call them God.
So like for people who are watching, you're like, wow, that just sounds so great to see angels. Like the, the backstory of this is that there was pain attached to it. I think Michael would have preferred not to have the angelic encounter and not to have gone through the pain, but that, that it was something that Lord had given him so that he could get through the pain.
That's a good point. And I think that's why you and I both when we, when we see these experiences and we talk about these things, it's like, man, this isn't, this isn't a good story. This is when God used a supernatural thing to like get me through something that was horrible or to correct me or to whatever.
That is true. Like, and, and when you look at the apostle Paul, like I'm thinking of Acts 2311 where it says the Lord stood near Paul. Paul's languishing away in prison and Paul needed that encouragement.
I want to say it's Acts 18. It could be 19, but I think it's 18 where the apostle Paul is like the Lord appears to Paul and says I have many people in this city, but Paul's facing a lot of opposition there. And I have found that that heavy revelation will those has come in times of suffering or when you're about to suffer.
And so that's a, that's a really good point, Josh. Yeah, I, I just, I want to make sure that go ahead Miller, go ahead. Oh, I...
2023.02.18 02:50 SilverPlaqueVII Food for thought: If Netflix buys AMC Networks, this would mean Sentai Filmworks and HIDIVE are part of it.
2023.02.17 05:46 Massive_Phrase_4529 Rockstar truly ruined the reputation of GTA V.
|submitted by Massive_Phrase_4529 to GTAV [link] [comments]|
2023.02.12 16:17 v3_invincible I love Twitter sometimes.
|submitted by v3_invincible to destiny2 [link] [comments]|
2023.02.09 03:30 trailer8k Harry Potter Hogwarts legacy Gender Genocide Simulator
|submitted by trailer8k to Trailerclub [link] [comments]|
2023.02.06 16:24 That1weirdperson Gross
|submitted by That1weirdperson to AreTheCisOk [link] [comments]|
2023.02.06 15:12 Saiv46 what the heck is even this
|submitted by Saiv46 to TheRightCantMemeV2 [link] [comments]|
2023.02.03 13:13 Nikejl Outjerked yet again
|submitted by Nikejl to shitposting [link] [comments]|
2023.01.25 00:59 gravedee Nerf Tier 10 resilience to 30%, or 20%, or 10%, I don’t care
2023.01.22 14:41 tomgold1020 Opinion about fandom efforts