Bill, Read Powell's Article

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...

Bill, Read Powell's Article

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re:

"Impartation" theology
Re:

For those interested only - On Cessationism. (Christopher Yip)
Re:

For Christopher (Bill )
Date: 2001, Jun 28
From: Christopher Yip CKHY

Dear Bill,
Quite clearly, you have not visited the link and read Powell's article. Please do and then rebut.
YOU: Why have we exalted the opinions of men like Luther, Calvin, Weslsey, etc and the so-called "Church Fathers" to such high authority?
ME: I'm surprised you wrote this. Do you realise that the moment you exegete Scriptures, with or without reference to lexicons by (mere) men like Strong or Thayer, and offer up your exegesis on a particular issue, you have joined the long list of (mere) men like Luther, Calvin, Wesley? And according to your reasoning, why should we listen to your opinion too since you obviously are just a man too?
YOU: 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.
ME: So, you are of the opinion that sign gifts are given only to those those who believe they continue to exist today? Isn't this a bit chicken and egg?
YOU: Please offer me something more. Can you expound upon the Scriptures rather that offer up the opinions of others this subject.
ME: Read Powell's article.
YOU: Christopher, you "seem" to put much more weight on views of others and in Church history than on the Scriptures themselves.
ME: Isn't your view one of these ("others")? Should I ignore you?
Why is Church History important in the issue of cessationism? Perhaps it didn't occur to you that if cessationism is not true, then we should see miracle workers all around us. This is why Powell commented, "One could hardly affirm cessationism if miracles and healing are happening all about him". And how would we go around looking at this piece of evidence if not through Church History?
YOU: 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.
ME: Just for fun and not meant to be offensive, it just sprang to my mind. Someone said before that those who can see truth on both sides of an issue probably don't understand what the issue is about! Just for laughs.
YOU: 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.
ME: I supposed the above is a riddle for me - to guess the reason for that translation.
Didaskalia is teaching and instruction which implies learning. Teaching that is authoritative becomes doctrine and dogma. So, the choice of teaching, learning, instruction or doctrine depends on the context. Here is the passage from verse 1 which sets the context:
NRSV - 1We who are strong ought to put up with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2Each of us must please our neighbor for the good purpose of building up the neighbor. 3For Christ did not please himself; but, as it is written, “The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.” 4For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, so that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope.
NIV - 1We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. 2Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. 3For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: “The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.”Ł 4For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
The context here is the example that Jesus has set for us in dealing with the weak - our neighbour. Christ did not please Himself, so too we should live for others. Christ followed the example of Scriptures, specifically that of Psalm 69 (verse 9). Does Psalm 69 teach doctrine? I don't think so - it is a prayer of David in distress. It is the prayer of the righteous in suffering. Such a psalm is inspirational and motivational, not didactic. As such, it makes sense to say that the psalm was written for our learning, for our instruction, that is, to teach us the ways of the holy.
As to those who think that the old has gone, the new is here, that everything in the OT is abrogated, they probably need it to be so because they want to believe something else. I have written something on this here:
http://www.salvationarmy.org/sadiscuss.nsf/($All)/5FCDF136310BB30680256A78001BCBB8
Regards, Christopher