Mustn't issue a new response ... mustn't ...

That's because a lot of the above points have already been addressed in advance, or else don't relate. The resurrection/resuscitation things, for example ... now you've gone and totally missed my point again! Such as, eh, bypassing the other example, the Ruth one, meant to point toward how not everything described in Scripture is prescribed in Scripture? and it depends on the context? and we must seek Biblical balance rather than "yes-but"-ing passages in favor of our own favorite spiritual field? (Throws up hands, then pulls 220 into a side hug anyway even while expressing friendly frustration) Aargh.

Wrong Scripture reading is still going unchecked, despite everyone's best and most grace-based-as-they-can attempts to check it.

(I'm basing this description on the fact that so far, in style, you've been a good sport and haven't complained about everyone supposedly being mean in this lengthy discussion. So far at least everyone else hasn't come across as mean, in my "discernment," but if you believe my tone has been off or somehow non-grace-based, I do -- or should -- welcome criticism.)

220, I love ya, in a platonic, long-range, cyber-community Christian-brotherly way, and I can't wait to hear when you get this hashed out, whatever side of Heaven that takes place. I'd rather it be here in Old Earth, but God may decide to work that out later. Perhaps at least you've seen (for the first time?) genuine Christians who balance Biblically based discernment and recognition that some things will be gray areas between believers. Of course, we're all hashing things out, and none of us are anywhere near close to having all our doctrines straight. But how we read Scripture -- our own meanings into it, or its own meanings out of it? -- is a vital issue.

Speaking of "out," that's where I'm heading. I'm afraid I must park in place, perhaps pout a little, and insist that even if you're tired (physically or just of the discussion?) you haven't addressed the main points at all.

Similar is my encouragement to others: by keeping on with this endless talk without actually addressing previous points, it's contributing more energy to one of those infinite causality/time-space/gravitational anomalous paradoxes that always gave the crew of the Federation Starship Enterprise so much trouble.

I'm ready to move on, especially because there's an interesting discussion to be had about male/female roles going on at the same time.

Also, I have a topic in the queue about people who whine about how too few Christians care for The Poor, and how such complaints are sometimes true or helpful for the Kingdom of Heaven, and sometimes not ...

220, your last paragraph is not quite correct. It was resurrection. Lazarus is the prime example. He wasn't 'out', in a coma, or a vegetable. He was all out dead. He was dead for four days. Even if he was alive in today's standards (in a coma or the like), he would have run out of air really fast in that tomb. Not only that, burial services in those days were not just put the body in a basket and bury it. They wrapped the body up with so much cloth it would have been impossible to breath. On top of that, they added about 50 pounds of spices to disguise the scent of the body's decay. This is the very evidence that is used that Jesus was 100% dead after the cross. Lazarus was 100% dead, and yet he was raised before Jesus.

Every single person is going to be resurrected at some point or another. There is a young man in my church who wasn't rescucitated, but resurrected. He is a walking Testimony of it. Now Jesus' Ressurection is still very different. He was the only one who Ressurected himself. Every one else had to be raised by an external power (and yes, even demons can mimic this miracle). Jesus was the only one who could do it himself. Ressurecting people does occur more often than we tend to think, but they are really only tend to be performed through people that have extremely intimate relationships with God. If you are still going to stand by your point, you need to make a clear definition of what 'resucitation' means that you are using. I take the meaning of it to be waking up someone who is 'asleep' (perhaps like the Jarius' daughter) which is like being in a coma or a vegetable state. Back then, people probably would have considered them dead, but we can't assume that they weren't really all-dead. So if you are using another meaning of 'resuscitate' than what I am thinking, please say so.

Spiritual discernment: I'm not talking about people who look questionable physically. I'm not talking about a lie-detector test. I'm talking about people who are wolves in sheep's clothing and know it. They intentionally try to hoodwink others. I'm also talking about people who are demon-possessed. Can we discern motives, where Christians are spiritually on their journey? I don't think so. But that seems like an abuse of this gift anyway.

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Your thoughts?

But again we run into the issue of the "human element" as I like to call it. While I do not deny spiritual discernment I can see potential for serious abuse of this gift if it is not in line with God's will. See, what I guess bothers me is when you were relating the anecdote of your Maternal Unit you insinuated that this was not a one shot type of thing but had occurred many times. And that's when my spirit became troubled because at that moment I realized that there was that potential that this may be getting applied with a sort of scattershot methodology. I can only imagine that one such as myself, who enjoys the occasional adult beverage, would enter your church and your mom would look at me and somehow divine that I was an evil person because of that or some other sin I had committed. And as a result the rest of the church family would treat me like I had leprosy or worse. And it may not have even been based upon anything I said or did but rather just some unspecified keen inner feeling that may or may not be coming from the Holy Spirit.

People featured on the TBN network: Christians? fakes? mix of both? how do you know [or not know]?

My experiences over 37 years have taught me to view televangelists with extreme scrutiny and caution. This is not to say that all of them are bad or have evil intent, but I was in my teenaged years when the PTL scandal broke out and Jim and Tammy Bakker were all over the TV news for fraud, immorality, and much worse. Jimmy Swaggart is in the same boat...abuse of his parishioners' funds and his regular daliances with prostitutes. And some of the stuff that comes out of Pat Robertson's mouth is just plain embarrassing at times. In this case their "fruits" are evident right off the bat and it doesn't require a whole lot of legwork to check facts and see that they're not what they're making themselves out to be. Even having said that I still think that God has uses for these individuals. Jim Bakker is a much better man for the experience and, from my info, has improved his walk with Christ considerably, even if we may still quibble over small theological points.

As Christians we should be constantly policing ourselves and others to ensure our strength and solidarity for Christ, and I think that this is what is happening right now in this thread. So with regards to discerning televangelists, or anyone else for that matter, I'll leave it in the words of the late, great Ronald Reagan, "trust but verify".

Fencer: Resuscitation has nothing to do with the length of time someone is dead. When someone is resuscitated, guess what? They come back to waking consciousness in their old body, the one they've known all their life. They will eventually die again, just like Lazarus did. When Jesus was resurrected, never to die again, He came back with a new body that could go through doors and walls. He is the FIRST to do so. Jesus is called the firstfruits of the resurrection [1 Corinthians 15:20-23], firstborn from the dead [Colossians 1], and first begotten [born] of the dead [Revelation 1]. He is the FIRST. The next resurrection won't be until Jesus returns. "But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming" [1 Cor 15].
"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord" [1 Thessalonians 4:16-17]. On that day, both the dead and the living will get resurrection bodies.

Yes, Jesus said Jairus' daughter was asleep, but I don't think this meant a coma or vegetable state. I think she was dead. Initially, Jesus said, "Our friend Lazarus sleepeth, but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep" [John 11]. But when the disciples misunderstood, "Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead" [John 11]. And what do we say about the Christian saints who've died, who've gone before us to heaven? We say they're "asleep in Jesus." This phrase is on the tomb of Philip P. Bliss [Rome, PA]. But they're not "asleep." They're physically dead and spiritually alive!

I've known one person to come back from the dead. Last summer, she had a heart attack a week after she had her first child and was dead for like 20 minutes. They had to shock her heart 9 times. They thought she would be a vegetable when they did revive her, but today she's walking and talking perfectly.

Check out this article for a discussion of resuscitation vs. resurrection.

See, what I guess bothers me is when you were relating the anecdote of your Maternal Unit you insinuated that this was not a one shot type of thing but had occurred many times. And that's when my spirit became troubled because at that moment I realized that there was that potential that this may be getting applied with a sort of scattershot methodology. I can only imagine that one such as myself, who enjoys the occasional adult beverage, would enter your church and your mom would look at me and somehow divine that I was an evil person because of that or some other sin I had committed. And as a result the rest of the church family would treat me like I had leprosy or worse.

Yes, it's occurred many times. And she's rarely wrong. But she rarely shares what the Spirit reveals to her with the church family either. She shares it only with me. Why? To let me know to stay away from that person [i.e. their doctrine]. These are people in leadership that I'm talking about, not average churchgoers. And discernment has little to do with what a person looks like physically. It's other things. Some things are really hard to explain.

220: I wrote up a long response for you and then realized everything I was going to say has already been said. I will tell you, though, that your dislike of certain passages of the Bible is a clue to something, and I don't think it bodes well. I urge you to reconsider these passages, and, if it is the bulk of your theology which hampers your acceptance of them, the theological underpinnings themselves.

Also, I have a topic in the queue about people who whine about how too few Christians care for The Poor, and how such complaints are sometimes true or helpful for the Kingdom of Heaven, and sometimes not ...

Another Heard quote, in response to the question 'isn’t someone who preaches social concern just preaching a ‘social gospel’ instead of a spiritual one?'

“Isn’t it nice that we have terms like that, and pigeon holes too, so we can classify things and rob them of their depth and complexity? When Jesus healed the blind man, or when He drove the money changers from the temple, or when He shed tears for Lazarus, was He preaching the ‘social gospel?’”

That makes your approach a lot more reasonable. But just so you know, those that refer what you call 'resuscitation', 'ressurection' also refer to a second or final resurrection which is what you are calling 'resurrection'. We know that everyone will die at some point for good. We are both talking about the same thing. It's just we're using different terminology.

Now for Dr Ransom's suggested topic. The complaints that Christians are not taking care of the poor is partly correct. There are a lot of Christians who are just doing thier thing and not doing anything to reach out. There are others still who do help, but only send money. What Christian living calls us to do is to be involved personally. To look after widows and orphans was originally intended for the men who were martyred for thier faith, but here in America, we don't deal with that. I have grown up working with mission teams that do relational missions in Mexico. We gear our plans to work with families and we are perhaps the only organization in the world with this focus. One of the things that we do though is train family how to minister in any setting. Taking care of the poor goes beyond financial assistance. It is getting personal. It's getting involved. There are poor no matter where you go so location doesn't matter. If you aren't called to do that directly and have resources, use them to not just help the poor but also those who are working with the poor directly. We are a body and every part has a job to do. How do we take care of the poor? We do what Jesus did. Have compasion on them. Meet their needs to the best of our abilities. Comfort them, pray with them, and if God wills, witness a miracle. I've seen it happen, not often, but I've seen it. Hope that gets it started.

(EDIT a few minutes later) Sometimes the condensation needed for writing a text message forces one to make an argument more potent because there's less of it. Let me try that about the discernment thing, once more, than I'll branch out.

I do believe in discernment! I do! I do! But it is based on learning, not intuition, and is never just a 'secret power,' like a superhero, that you keep hidden.

Wow -- and I haven't even really started the topic yet. Apparently it's been in others' minds as well as mine. Thanks for that, Fencer!

You said that "the complaints that Christians are not taking care of the poor is partly correct," and I don't think anyone could disagree with that. In so many areas, the Church needs to do better, and if any Christians claimed "we've got it all right," then they would need to work on humility!

So in short, I fully agree with what you wrote, yet let me take another side: that the complaints that Christians are not taking care of the poor are partly incorrect.

Recently I was thinking about this because Bono --

(Gong hit, followed by sacred-sounding choir vocals)

-- was recently complaining again that too few Christians cared about disease victims in Africa. Todd Friel (Wretched Radio) was playing his quotes and finally made the points that I've been thinking for a long time but hadn't seen made anywhere else: that even if Bono is a Christian (which I wonder about, based not on inner feelings but on his expressed detest for the organized Church and lack of talking about the Gospel), then that is his area, and other Christians have other callings.

It is not right to claim that every other Christian should have your specific ministry or else they're inferior or don't care. For example, Todd pointed out that a little old lady in a church somewhere may like to take care of little children in the nursery, sing songs to them, bounce them on her knees. Well hey, Bono, don't you care about children? You're not a real Christian because Jesus said we all have to take care of children!

Either that, or you could yell at a Christian who doesn't have a radio show, like Todd Friel, and reach the masses with truth and grace that way, Todd pointed out. No! he insisted. You have your ministry, and I have mine. God's people have diverse callings in the world. Some are helping hands, some are teachers, some are singers; some work better with people one-on-one, some work better studying deep in private rooms.

Of course we should all take care of the poor. Jesus was clear about that, but He was clear that it is an outgrowth of our faith, a good work done to glorify God after He has saved us. Whereas for Bono --

(Gong hit, followed by sacred-sounding choir vocals)

-- the Gospel takes a distant second place, it it's mentioned at all, to the much-higher priority of Changing the World here and now. He specifically said we shouldn't bother nearly as much with the Heaven to come as we should with bringing "heaven" to Earth. In essence it's little more than moralist utopianism -- emphasizing what we do more than what God has done, it will only lead to self-righteousness and yet even more hypocrisy.

Not only that, but it's highly selective. No one will argue that we don't need to care of the poor, but frankly right now that along with Saving the Environment are the only culturally approved causes that everybody wants to be known for doing. So what about other world-improving things such as saving little children from death, or preventing the erosion of the family structure? What about all the non-trendy topics that the Celebrity Charity Elite don't much care about? Should Christians involved in those causes blast the charity-elitists for not doing their part? Or if we are making Christ the main point and are a part of the true Church's work on Earth, can't we all just get along, serving in our separate ways?

Finally, I don't know much about Bono --

(Gong hit, followed by sacred-sounding choir vocals)

-- but the mere fact that his name is all over the place as a Top Tier Celebrity Charity Elite says something to me. Jesus talked about the value of His people doing good deeds in secret, for rewards from God and not from men. Too many churches aren't out there glorifying their own actual good works, and naturally that leads to people forgetting or ignoring the fact that they are being done. And what about all those downtown soup kitchens that run off donations from "distant" Christians who don't have the time or resources to get their hands dirty, but definitely have a heart for the poor and donate their money? Why is serving the soup somehow seen as more "spiritual" than working 40+ hours a week to donate money to run the kitchen stoves? What would happen if every Christian decided only working directly with the poor was the most spiritual? The places would dry up without financial resources provided by other Christians.

Again, I'm not saying Christians are fine on the whole Care for the Poor issue. But the Celebrity Charity Elite too often are doing their deeds out of non-Gospel-based moralism and the praise of men. Churches don't get credit, and perhaps shouldn't, for the good works they do carry out. That's not what it's about. And frankly, I would put the salvation of souls for Christ's Kingdom more important than just giving somebody bread and cash. Taking care of The Poor is a means to the end of Christ's Kingdom, and not vice-versa. Too many of the Christianity critics miss that.

I've always found Jesus' words in Matt 26:11 intriguing regarding this subject. So many people want to END POVERTY NOW! Yet Jesus Himself said that would never happen (though the focus of his statement wasn't the poor at all). It was, however, an indictment of those that work to aleviate poverty in such a way as to promote themselves and so much so that they leave out the gospel of Christ's death and resurrection.

Here's another thought along similar lines: the other day a young friend was trying to make a decision about what direction to take in a certain missions venture. Her question was whether she should take one missions venture over another based on the fact that perhaps one set of poor, oppressed orphans was more "least of these" than another set of poor, oppressed orphans.

I responded that making a choice based on that criteria was in point of fact quite legalistic, as if one wouldn't be pleasing enough to God if one didn't find the very, very very 'leastest' of these, or as if you will only get into heaven by serving the very least...

Imagining the scene is a little humorous(no blasphemy intended)...

Jesus: "Who did you minister to while on earth, person-who-wants-into-heaven?"
Person 1: "I ministered to golf addicts, Sir"
Jesus: "BEGONE, for you did not minister to the least of these! NEXT! And who did YOU minister to?"
Person 2: "I ministered to the sick golf addicts, Sir"
Jesus: "What? Couldn't you find someone more wretched to minister to? Well, alright. At least they were truly sick. NEXT! Who did you minister to, person 3?"
Person 3: "Lord, I ministered to the poor, sick, homeless, orphaned golf addicts."
Jesus: "Enter into the joy of thy Lord! You found the true treasure of the leastest of the least, and therefore truly ministered unto ME!"

I think it's interesting that those Jesus welcomes into the Kingdom of His Father don't even realize that they've been serving him by serving the "least of these"...

I think that leaves out the Celebrity Charity Elite. I think it eliminates a social gospel "category"...if you're doing the gospel, you're doing everything you need to do, and God will take care of the rest.

The question is: what is doing the gospel? And are we doing it? I submit that for the most part, no, we're not. But I believe it is more an individual thing than a collective thing--we ought to be looking around us and getting involved with those we see right in front of our faces. Getting our hands dirty trying to help them.

mm

I found this link on Tim Challie's blog. It's a short video clip (less than two minutes) of D.A. Carson discussing Paul's "I do not permit..."

http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Carson-o ... y-2-Permit

220, I am still concerned about your misuse of Scripture that you have not acknowledged. I don't want to browbeat you, but I want you to know that this is a serious thing you seem to be ignoring. What do you have to say about your misuse of Matthew 12:34 and I Corinthians 12:10?

And I agree with Shadowlander about the devastating effects the "heart-reading" you described has. When the Bible talks about spiritual discerment, it's talking about distinguishing between spirits (demonic and angelic), not analyzing the heart of a fellow human being. What you describe is unbiblical and unhealthy.

This new topic about taking care of the poor reminds me of a quote I love from George Eliot's Middlemarch:

People glorify all sorts of bravery except the kind they might show on behalf of their nearest neighbors.

Why is that kind is the hardest to show?

There must be nine different topics racing around the thread and I only have time for one. So the easy and short one it is.

"Resurrection" is when we are raised from the dead and get our Glorified bodies. Jesus was the first one to do this, why is why he is called the "firstborn of the dead."

"Rescusitated" is a medical term for someone who is dead or near-death and has had their heart/breathing restarted. Because it is a medical term it does not fit the Biblical cases of people who are Graveyard D. Dead, cold, and buried or on their way there when help gets there.

The standard terminology for the miracle of being raised from the dead in this life (as opposed to the afterlife) is "revivified." It means the dead person (including four-day Lazarus) is brought back to life, healed of whatever killed hir, and healed of whatever decomposition took place between hir death and the miracle of being re-vivified. The person will grow old and die and this time stay dead.

Or, in the case of Four-Day Lazarus, the religious leaders were so upset about Jesus' having revivified him that they plotted to kill him and make him dead again (John 12:10). No word on how that turned out. Poor guy!

"Resurrection" is when we are raised from the dead and get our Glorified bodies. Jesus was the first one to do this, why is why he is called the "firstborn of the dead."

"Rescusitated" is a medical term for someone who is dead or near-death and has had their heart/breathing restarted. Because it is a medical term it does not fit the Biblical cases of people who are Graveyard D. Dead, cold, and buried or on their way there when help gets there.

The standard terminology for the miracle of being raised from the dead in this life (as opposed to the afterlife) is "revivified." It means the dead person (including four-day Lazarus) is brought back to life, healed of whatever killed hir, and healed of whatever decomposition took place between hir death and the miracle of being re-vivified. The person will grow old and die and this time stay dead.

Thanks for the detailed definitions! I wasn't familiar with "revivified," so this is new information to me.

220, I am still concerned about your misuse of Scripture that you have not acknowledged. I don't want to browbeat you, but I want you to know that this is a serious thing you seem to be ignoring. What do you have to say about your misuse of Matthew 12:34 and I Corinthians 12:10? And I agree with Shadowlander about the devastating effects the "heart-reading" you described has. When the Bible talks about spiritual discerment, it's talking about distinguishing between spirits (demonic and angelic), not analyzing the heart of a fellow human being. What you describe is unbiblical and unhealthy.

I'm not sure how to respond to this... I humbly do not think I misused either Matthew 12:34 or 1 Corinthians 12:10. The "heart-reading" I described is biblical, but few experience or know what I'm talking about. It is distinguishing between those who are Christians and those are not [many of whom have demonic spirits]. You do not know what, collectively, my grandparents, parents, and I witnessed in various churches over the past 50 years. When my mother was a teenager, someone came into my grandfather's church preaching heresy. My grandfather complained to the denominational board. A fellow pastor said he would support my grandfather's claim, but at the last minute he supported the heretic. A decade or two later, he apologized to my grandfather because the church finally saw the heretic for who he truly was. In the mid-1990s, someone called himself a prophet and was allowed to preach in many churches in my denomination. My mother heard him speak once and knew he was not a Christian, and not only that, probably demon-possessed. But she didn't tell anyone but me. In the early 2000s, guess who was right? My mother! And it was a huge scandal! He is no longer allowed to preach in my denomination. I think he may have left the church altogether. This is true spiritual discernment.

I was in my teenaged years when the PTL scandal broke out and Jim and Tammy Bakker were all over the TV news for fraud, immorality, and much worse. Jimmy Swaggart is in the same boat...abuse of his parishioners' funds and his regular daliances with prostitutes. And some of the stuff that comes out of Pat Robertson's mouth is just plain embarrassing at times. In this case their "fruits" are evident right off the bat and it doesn't require a whole lot of legwork to check facts and see that they're not what they're making themselves out to be.

From page 8:

How did these people discern others' hearts? Spirit, Word, mouths, fruit [in any order].

Bakker, Swaggart, Robertson: the Word [they blatantly disobey it], mouths [what they say], fruit [what they do]. Just like my mother, Shadowlander exhibited spiritual discernment.

I'm the Discernerator. (insert Terminator music here)

220, the Bible tells us we must have a dual nature with regards to dealing with other people and life in general. Christ Himself tells us what will happen and how we should not only behave but how also to prepare for such things.

Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.

If I see questionable business practices by a televangelist who seems to be asking for an awful lot of money on a very regular basis, then that raises a red flag to me. I'm not so sure that this is "discernment" as you have laid it out here so much as it is plain old detective work with a dash of suspicion. I used the same basic analysis system to guage whether or not my wife liked me before we were married. If I'm going to pop the question I want to know before hand that she has the same feelings for me that I do for her.

220,

Fact is, we don't know who the elect are and who they aren't. I honestly can't see biblical warrant for a litmus test such as you are suggesting. Biblical discernment judges by fruits--that is, what people do and say, but even then it is fallible. Ultimately, we can't know about anyone's salvation but our own, which is why we are constantly reminded to examine our own hearts.

On a lighter note: I was quite happy this morning when I looked at the authorship of the hymn we sang after the benediction and discovered that it was the Te Deum.

TBG

I do believe in discernment! I do! I do! But it is based on learning, not intuition, and is never just a 'secret power,' like a superhero, that you keep hidden.

If you keep it hidden, that does not edify the body per the Scriptural requirements for a true gift. It's actually questionable that it's a "spiritual gift" at all, because no one else ever knows. A real spiritual gift should be practiced with the Word as a guideline, not vice-versa, and with a local church as the beneficiary and overseer.

How many times shall I state this again? Discernment should be based primarily on what the Bible says, not simply personal intuition.

Again, this comes back to placing Scripture, rightly read and applied, over on top of personal experience, regardless of how powerful it seems, and not vice-versa. It interprets personal experiences, not vice-versa. "You just don't understand" isn't a satisfactory explanation to me. It must be proved with Scripture -- direct, clear -- otherwise this is dangerously approaching Gnostic-style "well, there are Christians, and then there are super-Christians who can 'read hearts.' " Nuh-uh. It hasn't worked in what I've seen, and you still can't explain why someone you know should get a "free pass" when others try the same techniques and are so clearly, transparently wrong -- such as the man who once informed me that "the Spirit had told him" Cain was the "love child" of Satan and Eve.