Do believers have visions and dreams today?

[EarlyActs]

I'm not you.

No I can't. I only have your statements on a forum. I don't even know if you are really a scientist. I am not saying you aren't. I am saying I have no way of knowing.

The Bible doesn't actually talk about any miracles outside of the Bible or say that there are any so-----.

But let me clarify. I am not saying God no longer does miracles. I am saying they are not the norm in the church today. I am not saying that God never heals as that would be ludicrous. If someone is healed it is because God healed, irregardless of the means He used. I am not saying He never does it through what we would call miraculous intervention. I am saying He does not do it on demand. I believe we should always ask. And I don't believe He does it by putting on a show.

And I am not saying that we do not experience God. That too would be ludicrous. A covenant relationship with Him is a personal relationship. A personal relationship does not exist without experiencing the person, in this case God. That is not the same thing as having experiences. And I am not saying a person never has those. But one has to be careful to put them in a proper perspective, and they should as a general rule be considered as a private thing between them and Go, and not as proof of something. There are thousands and thousand of people who have had experiences they believe are from God and then because of that experience come up with entire religions that are antithetical to Christianity, as well as doctrines that are then called Christian when they do not fit what the Bible actually teaches.

And I am not saying that the Holy Spirit never moves in ways in a church that produce intense emotions, though that too is rare rather than common and is serving a purpose of God that changes hearts. A mass reconciliation in a sense as happened in the first Great Awakening with Jonathan Edwards. The key to its authenticity is found in what was being preached. Christ was being preached. God was being preached, as

to who they are and who we before them. People were being convicted and turning to the Savior for rescue. And when Edwards saw it becoming of the flesh, he shut it down.

Finny got the idea that the way to save people was to create a certain atmosphere that stirred up emotions to a fever pitch and then ask the people to choose Christ. The second great awakening was all flesh because it was feeding the flesh. And on it goes.

We can tell when we are maturing as Christian when we realize that our experiences can be totally misleading.

 

[EarlyActs]

Well yeah that’s the way I took it, sorry if I misunderstood you. You said Jesus wouldn’t say what he said to me. So I assumed you said I was lying. That happened to me and it is very biblical. John 10:27 exactly. It was Jesus and I would bet my life on it. Through this experience I realized I know him and I have safety and security and a sense of salvation. To disregard my testimony is insulting to me. This single event changed my entire life. Through this event I have gained patience and dissolved fear. I have eternal security. That wasn’t the devil talking to me that night.

As far as that middle aged woman that saw an “angel”, why don’t you believe her? Because you haven’t experienced anything like that? Do you think she was lying to you? She may have very well met the devil transformed to a being of light and her experience was probably real to her. Why dismiss it?

And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

When lines from the OT are used in early Acts, we should realized that their meaning is already fixed. People who treat the Bible as one wide-open existential reference upon another do great damage to it. In addition, our experiences can totally mislead us; there has to be cross-checking.

Jesus taught the apostles for 40 days what the OT actually meant. In a good version, you should find footnotes when ever an OT passage is quoted, that tells you where it came from. These early quotes are the most direct materials we have to these 40 days of teaching. Not surprisingly, they match up with what Jesus directly taught Paul in the desert, which comes out in torrents in various places like Romans 3-4, or Gal 3-4 or the sermon in Acts 13.

Ps 2, 16, 110, 118 are the most referenced, because they establish the enthronement of the King.

In addition, we must realize that in modern times 'this changed my life' is the unquestioned authority for truth, yet it is not what the NT sets forth. This is what I mean by experience can be misleading. I don't think people who say this realize that they are making their own perception of their own change before and after an event to the ultimate test of a reality.

The problem with this at the end of the day is that there are two apostolic messages that have Christ's stamp of authority in early Acts: 1, God's forgiveness of the worst sin through Christ and 2, that Christ is enthroned and deserves world honor. You may have had a supportive experience in relation to these 2 things, but in early Acts they already have supportive events or 'experiences' that are to be preached to the world. This is what Paul meant when he said 'we do not preach ourselves' in 2 Cor 5. He had even seen Jesus' various miracles, yet the one thing 'that God was in Christ, settling the debt of human sin' was above all.

 

[EarlyActs]

Really? I'd think it was too crazy to believe if I heard it

As I noted I didn't say that to convince you, but as a scientist you can sure bet that I was considering and checking for all manner of trickery and deception before during and after

Sounds like you are limiting miracles to the Bible when the Bible doesn't do that

Yes, of course there is the counterfeit but there's also the real thing

And yet that is one of the main purposes and functions (and also of the Holy Spirit) to authenticate and confirm the gospel message with *power*

But even the sense of "power" can be misleading. I once read a Chr Today article on Pentecost and it said that every Christian outreach should have loud noises and unusual lighting to get people's attention! That's not what Acts 1:10 meant.

They thought a kingdom of Israel was to be installed, and he rebuked that and said that the kingdom's priest-authority would come. We know this from the use of 'clothed' being about priest garments, and from the term power/authority here. It was a reference to Christ being enthroned as David saw, 2:30, 31. David was not looking beyond the resurrection; the resurrection was the enthronement. The apostles (and those present at Pentecost) would declare this all over the world. To be made 'Lord and Christ' was to complete the picture of Ps 2, 16, 110, 118--that the whole world should honor him, from rulers down to drainage laborers. This place is His rightful kingdom, and he will smash all those who treat it otherwise.

So it was not the languages miracle or the flames that were the power. This is not what we should look for. Even the languages had a highly significant historical reference apart from just being an attention-grabber: this was the first time since Bab-El that one redemptive message to the world was heard in unison. Israel's mission to bring a 'Seed in whom all the world would be blessed' was underway, a vision that was introduced right after the disarray of Bab-El. So as a warning in ch 3, Peter said that anyone in Israel who did not help in this historic mission and obey the new Moses would be 'degradingly humiliated'--and that is the tragic outcome of the NT generation. The Judaizers went the opposite direction and fought for Israel's kingdom. It is also my 2nd NT theology THE COVENANT REVOLT. At Amazon.

 

[Arial]

Yes, of course there is the counterfeit but there's also the real thing

And what exactly determines which is which in your opinion?

And yet that is one of the main purposes and functions (and also of the Holy Spirit) to authenticate and confirm the gospel message with *power*

That was said of the apostles as they laid the foundation of the church. What they were confirming is confirmed for us is the scriptures. We don't need it confirmed again. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ"

 

[TB2]

And what exactly determines which is which in your opinion?

That was said of the apostles as they laid the foundation of the church. What they were confirming is confirmed for us is the scriptures. We don't need it confirmed again. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ"

The whole of Pauline theology on pneumatology is based on the Spirit-filled and empowered life as a defining identifying mark of the church and believer

 

[TB2]

But even the sense of "power" can be misleading. I once read a Chr Today article on Pentecost and it said that every Christian outreach should have loud noises and unusual lighting to get people's attention! That's not what Acts 1:10 meant.

They thought a kingdom of Israel was to be installed, and he rebuked that and said that the kingdom's priest-authority would come. We know this from the use of 'clothed' being about priest garments, and from the term power/authority here. It was a reference to Christ being enthroned as David saw, 2:30, 31. David was not looking beyond the resurrection; the resurrection was the enthronement. The apostles (and those present at Pentecost) would declare this all over the world. To be made 'Lord and Christ' was to complete the picture of Ps 2, 16, 110, 118--that the whole world should honor him, from rulers down to drainage laborers. This place is His rightful kingdom, and he will smash all those who treat it otherwise.

So it was not the languages miracle or the flames that were the power. This is not what we should look for. Even the languages had a highly significant historical reference apart from just being an attention-grabber: this was the first time since Bab-El that one redemptive message to the world was heard in unison. Israel's mission to bring a 'Seed in whom all the world would be blessed' was underway, a vision that was introduced right after the disarray of Bab-El. So as a warning in ch 3, Peter said that anyone in Israel who did not help in this historic mission and obey the new Moses would be 'degradingly humiliated'--and that is the tragic outcome of the NT generation. The Judaizers went the opposite direction and fought for Israel's kingdom. It is also my 2nd NT theology THE COVENANT REVOLT. At Amazon.

Yes, the counterfeit exists, but so does the genuine. We have to make sure we don't throw the Holy Spirit 'baby' out with the bathwater

 

[prism]

The event of Pentecost was an unmistakable signal to Israel that it was supposed to be missionaries to the world, specifically in that generation, I Cor 14's quote of Isaiah. Those who attended Pentecost heard a complete explanation of the Christ event and enthronement. When they returned home to about 17 diverse places/synagogues, they could hardly help explaining the unusual event, and the Gospel. More on this in THE ENTHRONED KING one of my books at Amazon.

All of this is because all indication in the NT is that that generation was the final. Israel would be decimated by a 2nd destruction for its failure, and the whole world judged. Hence 'right after these (these 1st cent. events in Judea)...' in Mt 24:29.

But of course a delay was allowed for. This is done 3 ways: 'only the Father knows,' the parable of the 4 possible times of the return of the Master, and 2 Peter 3, expressly written about this issue. Referring to the certainty of the world judgement back during the Cataclysm, Peter says it is grace that has delayed the coming one. It will seriously help you grasp the NT if you do not deny the world judgement back then.

A few other miracles establish the authority of the apostles, but since they are gone, I don't know if there is the same need. It was obviously very important that their authority be established compared to ours; we have theirs by proxy.

Jesus taught them for 40 days what the OT was saying about these things, and his enthronement, and why the destruction of Israel would happen shortly. These things should be our essential defense of Christian faith rather than our own miracles, which I have had happen.

What was your point for quoting me? All that you just explained, has little to do with what I had stated. Or I am not following your train of thought.

 

[TB2]

I'm not you

I sure hope not. That'd be weird

No I can't. I only have your statements on a forum. I don't even know if you are really a scientist. I am not saying you aren't. I am saying I have no way of knowing.

That's my point. I shared to share. Not to convince. People can take it or leave it. I however know I saw the hand of God

I am saying He does not do it on demand

Agreed. And that was just as true in the NT. God is sovereign.

The gospel message of salvation is paramount. But an important part of that gospel message that was preached is the ongoing active empowering presence of the Spirit as a sign of Christ's present power and glory (#4 below).

It's not about emotion. It's not about rationale. It's about the whole person and our relationship with the Person. If I may speak personally, more often than not we are the weak link. God is usually more willing to intervene in our lives then we are willing to allow it. We love God but like to keep Him at a comfortable distance and intervene and work on our terms. In my experience, miracles, signs, wonders, gifts of the Spirti, and let's not forget supernatural empowerment to live righteously (which I've experienced in a truly miraculous way that has enabled me to live better than I ever was able to on my own efforts to try to 'be good')---in my experience these things and more are all simply a byproduct of time spent in God's Presence. When I experienced these things it was when I was praying privately but also corporately including a week I took up in the mountains praying and worshipping for about eight hours a day for a week. Just clearing out the entire week to devote to God. I didn't look or seek any of those other things. They just happened without me looking or expecting them. You're absolutely right. Those things are not the focus. It's all about God and spending time in God's Presence. I have never been closer to God than during that time. I am trying to get back to it. It is my fault for not maintaining that relationship. I know as believers the Spirit is still in us at all times the moment we are saved. But we can still stifle and quench the Spirit just the same. I have never been closer during those times. But conversely there have been times since then when I have never been farther away from God. And it's all a result of my own decisions---good and bad. It's my own fault for getting busy and being distracted by life's concerns.

But the wonderful thing in all this is that we don't have to worry about the counterfeits out there, and you don't have to worry about me either and whether my experiences are counterfeit. Because even for argument sake if mine are 'counterfeit' you can be rest assured that *yours* won't be. God will meet you where you are and to the degree you allow and there is nothing like it and nothing in this life this side of heaven that compares to God's tangible, manjfest Presence. Blessings to you, my friend.

 

[Mantis]

When lines from the OT are used in early Acts, we should realized that their meaning is already fixed. People who treat the Bible as one wide-open existential reference upon another do great damage to it. In addition, our experiences can totally mislead us; there has to be cross-checking.

Jesus taught the apostles for 40 days what the OT actually meant. In a good version, you should find footnotes when ever an OT passage is quoted, that tells you where it came from. These early quotes are the most direct materials we have to these 40 days of teaching. Not surprisingly, they match up with what Jesus directly taught Paul in the desert, which comes out in torrents in various places like Romans 3-4, or Gal 3-4 or the sermon in Acts 13.

Ps 2, 16, 110, 118 are the most referenced, because they establish the enthronement of the King.

In addition, we must realize that in modern times 'this changed my life' is the unquestioned authority for truth, yet it is not what the NT sets forth. This is what I mean by experience can be misleading. I don't think people who say this realize that they are making their own perception of their own change before and after an event to the ultimate test of a reality.

The problem with this at the end of the day is that there are two apostolic messages that have Christ's stamp of authority in early Acts: 1, God's forgiveness of the worst sin through Christ and 2, that Christ is enthroned and deserves world honor. You may have had a supportive experience in relation to these 2 things, but in early Acts they already have supportive events or 'experiences' that are to be preached to the world. This is what Paul meant when he said 'we do not preach ourselves' in 2 Cor 5. He had even seen Jesus' various miracles, yet the one thing 'that God was in Christ, settling the debt of human sin' was above all.

What?....lol. Sorry I'm a simple man and you really lost me on what you were trying to say there. Can you simplify this for me?

 

[Arial]

That's my point. I shared to share. Not to convince. People can take it or leave it. I however know I saw the hand of God

Ahh come on. There was not even a speck of convincing intended when you brought up being a scientist? It was all to convincing. This is what I witnessed, I a scientist, therefore I verified, therefore you can believe me.

Agreed. And that was just as true in the NT. God is sovereign.

So in what you saw there was no one who "demanded" something of God? God worked through the apostoles for the verification of their authority and the authority of their teaching as being from God, as the church was just beginning, its teachings just being given.

It's not about emotion. It's not about rationale. It's about the whole person and our relationship with the Person. If I may speak personally, more often than not we are the weak link. God is usually more willing to intervene in our lives then we are willing to allow it. We love God but like to keep Him at a comfortable distance and intervene and work on our terms. In my experience, miracles, signs, wonders, gifts of the Spirti, and let's not forget supernatural empowerment to live righteously (which I've experienced in a truly miraculous way that has enabled me to live better than I ever was able to on my own efforts to try to 'be good')---in my experience these things and more are all simply a byproduct of time spent in God's Presence. When I experienced these things it was when I was praying privately but also corporately including a week I took up in the mountains praying and worshipping for about eight hours a day for a week. Just clearing out the entire week to devote to God. I didn't look or seek any of those other things. They just happened without me looking or expecting them. You're absolutely right. Those things are not the focus. It's all about God and spending time in God's Presence. I have never been closer to God than during that time. I am trying to get back to it. It is my fault for not maintaining that relationship. I know as believers the Spirit is still in us at all times the moment we are saved. But we can still stifle and quench the Spirit just the same. I have never been closer during those times. But conversely there have been times since then when I have never been farther away from God. And it's all a result of my own decisions---good and bad. It's my own fault for getting busy and being distracted by life's concerns.

Your are rabbit trailing of what I said and my point into your own experiences.

The whole of Pauline theology on pneumatology is based on the Spirit-filled and empowered life as a defining identifying mark of the church and believer

That did not answer my question. It merely states something I never denied as though I had.

 

[TB2]

Ahh come on. There was not even a speck of convincing intended when you brought up being a scientist? It was all to convincing. This is what I witnessed, I a scientist, therefore I verified, therefore you can believe me.

No, because I didn't lead with that. I said that in response to a person who expressed comcern for my welfare was that I was being fooled or deceived. I attempted to allay those concerns that the person had for me.

So in what you saw there was no one who "demanded" something of God? God worked through the apostoles for the verification of their authority and the authority of their teaching as being from God, as the church was just beginning, its teachings just being given.

There's no "demand." It's a relationship, right? We ask. We make ourselves available for God to use us. Signs and miracles were worked by non apostles too like Stephen. The gifts of the Spirit are given to the Body, not limited to the apostles.

Your are rabbit trailing of what I said and my point into your own experiences.

I was sharing. Not debating. What point did I miss, please restate.

That did not answer my question. It merely states something I never denied as though I had.

Must have missed it. Please restate your question.

 

[EarlyActs]

What was your point for quoting me? All that you just explained, has little to do with what I had stated. Or I am not following your train of thought.

It was a counter to the idea that they are just for the individual realm.

 

[EarlyActs]

What?....lol. Sorry I'm a simple man and you really lost me on what you were trying to say there. Can you simplify this for me?

People have used 'simple' to mean: 'I experienced something I think was from God so it has to be what it means. In fact, a personal experience is always the authoritative way of knowing.'

I do not find this in the apostle's teaching.

Even the expression 'you must be born again' can become wildly off track to what was originally meant. Maybe you think I'm not being 'simple' to say so, but this would depend on how much we know about 1st cent. Judaism, its questions, its mistakes, etc.

Since the 1970s--the Jesus Revolution--there has been quite a reliance on sound-bytes, sloganism, ear-candy when explaining the NT message.

 

[Arial]

No, because I didn't lead with that. I said that in response to a person who expressed comcern for my welfare was that I was being fooled or deceived. I attempted to allay those concerns that the person had for me.

There's no "demand." It's a relationship, right? We ask. We make ourselves available for God to use us. Signs and miracles were worked by non apostles too like Stephen. The gifts of the Spirit are given to the Body, not limited to the apostles.

Okey dokey.

Must have missed it. Please restate your question.

And what exactly determines which is which in your opinion?

Referring to your statement that yes there is the counterfeit but also the real thing.

 

[TB2]

Okey dokey

Are you being sarcastic?

Referring to your statement that yes there is the counterfeit but also the real thing.

Well first and foremost it has to align align with (and not contradict) the gospel message of salvation, yes?

 

[EarlyActs]

People that fail to see the reason for tongues, and why they were to cease, love to quote passages that speak positively about tongues.
Passages that were written while the gift was still in operation!

You will not find any pro-tongues passage written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.
No more than we will read of God giving signs in Egypt after the Pharaoh and his army were destroyed in the Red Sea.

God gave Pharaoh signs knowing full well that Pharaoh would not believe!
Likewise for tongues as a sign to unbelieving Jews who refused to believe in Jesus!

“With other tongues​

and through the lips of foreigners​

I will speak to this people,​

but even then they will not listen to me,​

says the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 14:21​

Not all signs God gives are to win people to the Lord! Look at Pharaoh!


grace and peace ....................

There is a undeveloped historical reference here. The reason for them in that generation was that that generation of Israel was to be missionaries to the world. Had they done so, the country would not have been ruined in that generation. Instead the country generally gathered around an effort to fight Rome, under guidance from the Zealots.

This is fully developed in my book THE COVENANT REVOLT.

This shows an important feature about 'glossolalia' that is not part of 'aera lalountes' (speaking to the air, I C 14:9): that it was a sign to Israel; a warning sign, an unmistakable and dire arrow pointing to its intended Messianic task.

 

[Hobie]

Do you think visions and dreams happen today?
“And it shall come to pass afterward,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh;
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions. Joel 2:28.

I know the Holy Spirit is present, the only question is how much is it being poured out..

 

[Carbon]

I know the Holy Spirit is present, the only question is how much is it being poured out..

Okay.

 

[GeneZ]

There is a undeveloped historical reference here. The reason for them in that generation was that that generation of Israel was to be missionaries to the world. Had they done so, the country would not have been ruined in that generation. Instead the country generally gathered around an effort to fight Rome, under guidance from the Zealots.

This is fully developed in my book THE COVENANT REVOLT.

This shows an important feature about 'glossolalia' that is not part of 'aera lalountes' (speaking to the air, I C 14:9): that it was a sign to Israel; a warning sign, an unmistakable and dire arrow pointing to its intended Messianic task.

Again. Paul was giving instructions and advice concerning the gift of tongues while the gift was still active.

Paul was not giving advice to those who allege to speak in tongues after the temporary gift ceased after 70 AD.
Just like we can also read in the Torah on how to slaughter a lamb sacrifice.
That does not mean it actively applies to us today.

 

[Arial]

Well first and foremost it has to align align with (and not contradict) the gospel message of salvation, yes?

That goes without saying but it is a generic answer. Surprisingly many people think that if the same type of thing is seen in the Bible that makes what they experience biblical. Or it could be taken to mean that if there is nothing in the experience that contradicts the gospel message of salvation, then it is genuine.