For Christopher

HEADER FOR Expressions

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...

For Christopher

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re:

"Impartation" theology
Re:

For those interested only - On Cessationism. (Christopher Yip)
Date: 2001, Jun 28
From: Bill bmadroth

Dear Christopher, Your post was interesting but I fail to see any valid argument in favor of cessationism offered. Are you not just simply quotinq this person and that person and offering up their opinions. I thought that theology was the "study of God", not the study of the opinions of theologians and historians. I would certainly not base a belief system on on something as important as spiritual gifts and Church structure on the opinions of men. Why have we exalted the opinions of men like Luther, Calvin, Weslsey, etc and the so-called "Church Fathers" to such high authority? What has experience (as related by Deere) got to do with faith and practice ? I have not experienced or seen many things but that does not mean they don't exist. And I would suppose it likely that if one grew up in a Church that believed and taught that the spiritual gifts had ended and were invalid, then it stands to reason that that person would not have experienced those gifts nor would he have persued them. This alone cannot validate their view or theology. Likewise because one grows up in a Church that practices and teaches what they percieve as gifts would have experienced the perceived gift. This alone cannot not validate the view or theology. Please offer me something more. Can you expound upon the Scriptures rather that offer up the opinions of others this subject. Christopher, you "seem" to put much more weight on views of others and in Church history than on the Scriptures themselves. I, like you do not wish to start a debate because I do not subscribe to either side of this issue and besides it would be fruitless I suspect. However I would like to see views based on Scripture and good hermeneutics where the scriptures are expounded upon. Unrelated Below: Christopher, I was reading in my Bible (KJV) the other day in Romans and came to Chapter 15 verse 4. "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." For some reason I decided to check the Greek on this verse. The word translated "learning" was the Greek word "didaskalian" an inflected form of "didaskalia". "Didascalia" occurs 21 times in the Greek NT and is translated "doctrine" 19 times, "teaching" 1 time and "learning" 1 time. This is from the root word "didasko" which means to teach from the primary verb "dao" which means to learn. This kind of floored me because I had been taugh that the Old Testamnent was for "our learning" only and the New Testamant for for Doctrine. We could learn for the Old Testament, but it sould not be considered Doctrine per se. Yet here in Romans here was the same word for "doctrine," I asked my self, why did the translators choose to translate didaskalian as "learning" here in Romans and "doctrine" everywhere else except for Romans 12:7. I know why. So...Once again I have to rearange my thinking to the Scriptures rather than rearange the Scriptures to my thinking. God Bless You