Happy Valentine's Day! A look at Valentine's Day

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

My point?

Anyone can exaggerate the evils of a topic to avoid actual dialogue. Lol

Funny, I didn't exaggerate a thing. But, I simply demonstrated how those who claim to be "Biblical" pull a 180 when it comes to their emotions towards the secular society. That's not exaggerating, it is just the sad facts when people claim to be sola scriptura. Who then take a saint day or a Roman mass to celebrate. Just pointing out how they will say it is all so harmless, but then go into a soliloquy on the holiday's historic "Christian" validity? The saints stories are just that, stories. They aren't Bible. It is like Siddhartha Gautama Buddha, or Ram, Lakshman, Sita, and King Ravana, were these people actual characters in history? Very well could be. Yet, to quote the fictitious Galadriel, "history became legend. Legend becomes myth."
Same thing with Nick, Patrick, and Valentine, whoever these people were in actual history was white washed away by religious mythology, mingled with sprinkles of truth?

Like I said, Roman Catholic saint days are so prevalent within the Roman Catholic year it is staggering. So, why just Nick, Patrick, and Valentine? Well, because those are the three the secular world still observe. While they removed the religious connection and stayed with the pagan connections. Which free them of any semblance of the so called Christian trappings.

Veterans' day, 4th of July, and Memorial day? While having nothing to do with what we are presently discussing, you make a valid observation of Statist worship. Which Sinclair Lewis and anarchist Larkin Rose would give you a resounding hand of applause to your sarcastic musings towards the State's holidays.

The founders of this country protected religious freedoms by allowing religion to remain separate from STATE. Therefore we as Apostolics cannot have our beliefs trampled by the state religion[s]. We have freedom of worship. Roman Catholic and or Protestant holidays cannot (or shouldn't) infringe upon my religious freedoms. Meaning that I shouldn't have to close my business on a Sunday, or on Xmas, Easter, or even the 4th of July. Because they aren't my holidays. They mean nothing to my religion or the founder of my religion. Therefore having them crammed down my throat blessed by some imaginary papal degree, or commercial marketer, can be rejected. Rejected with no fear of governmental punishment.

Churchanity in America has no creedal statement. Because it morphs with the world around it. The Sedevacantist, and Eastern Russian Orthodox looks at it and just shakes it head. Churchanity shape shifts faster than a reptilian leader in the mind of David Icke. Churchanity is a many armed god accepting and rejecting issues with its ever changing agenda.

I believe I stayed with the actual dialogue being discussed in this thread. I made my points, and how the Roman Catholics view the modern Church's want to keep certain "holidays" and saint days. As it suits their whims.

If I have not, feel free to point out those exaggerations, and avoidances.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So far, no one has attacked my character. And the conversation is pleasant.

I see the points regarding scrying etc.

But they are unrelated to the power that was in Elisha's bones, the virtue (or power) that departed from Christ as a desperate woman touched his garments, and the handkerchiefs that were made from Paul's aprons that delivered the sick and demonized.

Or are you implying that this power present in these instances is the same behind scrying and Egyptian magic? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

God is omnipotent, Elisha's bones didn't have power separate from God. If anyone was running around with power which was separate from God, then God would cease from being omnipotent. Hence we are shown Balaam's power to curse or bless was totally predicated on God's power Numbers 23:26. Satan is confined to what he is allowed to do by God's power Job 1:6-12. The Church's ability to bind Satan is predicated on God's power. The issue of the serpent rods in the hands of the Egyptian sorcerers is that they had to tap into the only power source. Yet, in the hands of Moses using the power of God correctly and righteously his serpent rod overpowers those of false religion Exodus 7:10-12. Jesus is told that there was a man casting out demons in Jesus' name, but wasn't a follower of Jesus Christ Mark 9:38 . Jesus then informs His followers that they were not to stop such a person. Because the individual wouldn't be able to come against His ministry if he was casting out devils in Jesus name Mark 9:39. Yet, we see the conclusion of the individual who casted out devils but never followed Christ, he at the end is rejected by Jesus Christ Matthew 7:22-23. The same goes for anyone who uses the power of God incorrectly.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Funny, I didn't exaggerate a thing. But, I simply demonstrated how those who claim to be "Biblical" pull a 180 when it comes to their emotions towards the secular society.

That's true. I believe that is because so many are taught that the NT doesn't require any holiday, nor does it outright condemn observing cultural holidays. It is left entirely up to the individual to decide based on their convictions. In essence, it is entirely up to how the individual feels about such observances emotionally. As most of us know, they draw this teaching from Romans 14:5-12.

The only problem is, so many haven't moved into a place of spiritual maturity with this teaching. For example, instead of saying, "I don't celebrate Christmas. It's traditions are just too pagan for my tastes.", all too many will say, "Christmas! Christmas is pagan! You can't be Christian and participate in Christmas!" lol

That's not exaggerating, it is just the sad facts when people claim to be sola scriptura.

I don't know what's so big about "sola Scriptura". It means, "Scripture alone". It sounds kind of Deist to me. Everyone should also personally know the God of Scripture. But then that would be "sola Scriptura and God". But it doesn't stop there. Because one not only has a personal relationship with God, but one is to be open to the leading of the Spirit. And while the Spirit never leads us contrary to Scripture, He will often challenge our preconceived notions and traditional doctrines relating to the Scriptures. So it would be, "sola Scriptura, and God, and Spirit", or we could say, "Sola Scriptura and Spirit." But then, it doesn't stop there! LOL Because not only do we have the Bible, a personal relationship with God, and the leadings of the Spirit... we also have church tradition! Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

There were "traditions" passed down to the early church, and not all of them are specifically explained in Scripture. Some are hinted at, others are never mentioned at all. For example, one tradition relating to the Lord's Supper is implied. It is that there is a single loaf and a single cup that is passed. Not many little Dixie cups with wafers. One loaf, one cup. There is much symbolism in this tradition. However, I will not go into it here. The point is, this was a tradition, or manner of practice, that was handed down from the Apostles to the church... that isn't elaborated on in Scripture. Another would be the Christian aversion to cremation in the 1st century. I could go on, but I think you get my point.

Honestly, I haven't met anyone who is truly 100% sola Scriptura.

Whenever one talks about the authority of Scripture, one must also talk about how one interprets Scripture. In theology there are mainly two principles of interpreting Scripture. There is the Regulative Principle and the Normative principle. When using the Regulative principle of interpreting Scripture, one will believe that what Scripture does not enjoin explicitly is prohibited. For example, if Scripture doesn't prescribe, describe, or command the use of musical instruments in the NT church... therefore they are viewed as being prohibited and alien to Christian practice. Then there is the Normative Principle. When using the Normative Principle of interpreting Scripture, one will believe that what Scripture does not explicitly prohibit is permitted. For example, Scripture doesn't specifically mention musical instruments in the NT churches... therefore if individual churches or individual Christians find them helpful as a tool to accompany worship, they are permitted. But it must be remembered, that with the Normative Principle, permitted actions taken must not contradict the clear teachings of Scripture. In this example, if a church allows for musical instruments in church, church shouldn't become merely a "concert". Music should be used in a manner that accompanies worship that it might glorify God.

Notice, both positions base their conclusions on Scripture. What is different is how one applies what they find in relation to what they don't find in Scripture.

Who then take a saint day or a Roman mass to celebrate. Just pointing out how they will say it is all so harmless, but then go into a soliloquy on the holiday's historic "Christian" validity? The saints stories are just that, stories. They aren't Bible. It is like Siddhartha Gautama Buddha, or Ram, Lakshman, Sita, and King Ravana, were these people actual characters in history? Very well could be. Yet, to quote the fictitious Galadriel, "history became legend. Legend becomes myth."
Same thing with Nick, Patrick, and Valentine, whoever these people were in actual history was white washed away by religious mythology, mingled with sprinkles of truth?

Of course the actual history is white washed and shrouded in legend. I see these things as merely "Christian" legends that have shaped our cultural traditions here in the United States. They are not to be viewed as absolute truth or history. Back to Regulative vs. Normative principles. Does the Bible plainly forbid such traditions? Nope. Does the Bible specifically condemn such a tradition? Nope. You (Regulative) would warn against them. I (Normative) would argue that unless a thing is explicitly condemned, it is permissible.

Like I said, Roman Catholic saint days are so prevalent within the Roman Catholic year it is staggering. So, why just Nick, Patrick, and Valentine? Well, because those are the three the secular world still observe. While they removed the religious connection and stayed with the pagan connections. Which free them of any semblance of the so called Christian trappings.

Because this is America and the cultural traditions here in America include legends and folk tales about Nick, Patrick, and Valentine. If I were Catholic, I'm sure I'd be far more focused on that, but frankly, I'm not even interested in talking about all those saints... because I'm not Catholic. And with the secularization of America, one would think that we would want to highlight the Christian origins of those traditions. But I see preachers condemn and trash talk those traditions... and then whine, cry, and boohoo that America has lost its "Christian" cultural heritage. I mean, MAKE YOU YOUR FREAKIN' MIND DUDE. LOL Either condemn and cease all Christian practice and tradition because it wasn't started by your denomination and accept that you want a totally secular government void of any sectarian Christian tradition... or defend time honored Christian traditions! LOL

(*Please note, when I say "Christian tradition", I am talking about "Christian" in the sense of relating to the historical Christian faith in general.)

Veterans' day, 4th of July, and Memorial day? While having nothing to do with what we are presently discussing, you make a valid observation of Statist worship. Which Sinclair Lewis and anarchist Larkin Rose would give you a resounding hand of applause to your sarcastic musings towards the State's holidays.

*Takes a bow*

They probable would.

The founders of this country protected religious freedoms by allowing religion to remain separate from STATE. Therefore we as Apostolics cannot have our beliefs trampled by the state religion[s]. We have freedom of worship. Roman Catholic and or Protestant holidays cannot (or shouldn't) infringe upon my religious freedoms. Meaning that I shouldn't have to close my business on a Sunday, or on Xmas, Easter, or even the 4th of July. Because they aren't my holidays. They mean nothing to my religion or the founder of my religion. Therefore having them crammed down my throat blessed by some imaginary papal degree, or commercial marketer, can be rejected. Rejected with no fear of governmental punishment.

I agree. A private business should be allowed to determine it's own days and hours of operation.

But for those of you guys who HATE the cultural Christian-American traditions of Christmas because it happened to have been borrowed by the evil, blood-sucking, Catholics... the government does shut down. Why? In honor of the Christian cultural tradition. Maybe we need to continue to berate Christians for getting involved with Christmas, open government offices during the Christmas holiday, and relegate all that Western "Christian" cultural tradition mess to the past. It's time to move forward into a brave new secular world sterilized from all Christian influence. Right???

Churchanity in America has no creedal statement. Because it morphs with the world around it. The Sedevacantist, and Eastern Russian Orthodox looks at it and just shakes it head. Churchanity shape shifts faster than a reptilian leader in the mind of David Icke. Churchanity is a many armed god accepting and rejecting issues with its ever changing agenda.

Spoken like a true Regulative guy.

I think the diversity of decentralized practice is a good thing for a free and truly Christian society. (I'm the Normative guy here. lol)

I believe I stayed with the actual dialogue being discussed in this thread. I made my points, and how the Roman Catholics view the modern Church's want to keep certain "holidays" and saint days. As it suits their whims.

Who cares what the Catholics think? I don't. Regardless of what they think of it... American culture (composed of people from all kinds of believes, practices, and Christian denominations) has borrowed from their legends and traditions as it might relate to Christmas, Easter, St. Patrick's Day, Valentine's Day, All Hallows, etc. to form a distinctly American cultural tradition based on these ancient Christian legends. Sure, I don't doubt that they think it's silly. But frankly, it is what it is... and I don't care what they think. lol

And in light of the secularization of our society... I believe the Christian origins of such traditions should be mentioned far more.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

God is omnipotent, Elisha's bones didn't have power separate from God. If anyone was running around with power which was separate from God, then God would cease from being omnipotent. Hence we are shown Balaam's power to curse or bless was totally predicated on God's power Numbers 23:26. Satan is confined to what he is allowed to do by God's power Job 1:6-12. The Church's ability to bind Satan is predicated on God's power. The issue of the serpent rods in the hands of the Egyptian sorcerers is that they had to tap into the only power source. Yet, in the hands of Moses using the power of God correctly and righteously his serpent rod overpowers those of false religion Exodus 7:10-12. Jesus is told that there was a man casting out demons in Jesus' name, but wasn't a follower of Jesus Christ Mark 9:38 . Jesus then informs His followers that they were not to stop such a person. Because the individual wouldn't be able to come against His ministry if he was casting out devils in Jesus name Mark 9:39. Yet, we see the conclusion of the individual who casted out devils but never followed Christ, he at the end is rejected by Jesus Christ Matthew 7:22-23. The same goes for anyone who uses the power of God incorrectly.

I've come to look at it a little differently. Or, maybe it's essentially the same, just different terms. I'll share.

I believe that God is omnipotent. No one in their right mind would doubt that. But... God has "energies" (for lack of a better term). Just as the sun emits light and heat... divine energy flows from God and are a part of His very being. These energies permeate creation. However, they are inactive unless one has been granted the authority to activate said energies through faith. And so authority and faith are tied together in relation to these energies. I believe that in some contexts, the Bible calls this "power". Some in the Pentecostal tradition use the term "anointing" to describe the authority and ability to tap into this power.

We read that the authority and ability to use this power is granted to the born again believer, for this power resides in them through the presence of the indwelling Holy Spirit of God.

Acts 1:8
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

We error if we do not understand the scriptures and the power of God.

Matthew 22:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

We know that this "power" comes from the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit:

Luke 4:14
And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.

We know that this "power" can be used in conjunction with spiritual authority against evil spirits and to cure diseases:

Luke 9:1
Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.

We know that this "power" isn't inherent in our own nature or predicated upon our own holiness:

Acts 3:12
And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?

When combined with faith this "power" can be used to unleash great wonders and miracles:

Acts 6:8
And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.

When demonstrated, this "power" is coveted by the wicked:

Acts 8:19
Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

This "power" is distinct from, but not separate, from the Holy Spirit, as it is a part of God's own being:

Acts 10:38
How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

Paul had this power:

Romans 15:19
Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

1 Corinthians 2:4
And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

This power can be denied by those who are merely religious:

2 Timothy 3:5
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Clearly anyone who has received the baptism of the Holy Spirit has received this "power". But, most of us aren't taught that we have this power, nor are we taught with regards to how to use it. For example, Peter and John, when they prayed for the lame man at the gate of the temple, we don't read about Peter praying and asking God to heal this man. No. We see Peter speak and use the spiritual authority granted him to unleash this power on the lame man in the form of healing:

Acts 3:1-12
1 Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.
2 And a certain man lame from his mother's womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple;
3 Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms.
4 And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us.
5 And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them.
6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.7 And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.
8 And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God.
9 And all the people saw him walking and praising God:
10 And they knew that it was he which sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple: and they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened unto him.
11 And as the lame man which was healed held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering.
12 And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?

Notice, Peter didn't say, "Let me pray for you.", and then begin asking and begging God to heal the beggar. NO! Peter understood what resided deep within himself. He said, "Silver and gold have I none; but such AS I HAVE give I thee..." Peter knew that the power was his to release, in the name and authority of Jesus. Today, we'd gather around the poor man and beg God to heal him. Meanwhile God is in Heaven saying, "I gave YOU the my power to heal him!" I sometimes wonder if those who are healed as a result of these "beggar's prayers" are healed in spite of us. Some have told me that they just don't believe God would entrust us with such power.

Now, I'm going to return to the issue of Elisha's bones, the "virtue" (the word is "dunamis", or "power") that healed the woman who touched his garment, and the handkerchiefs taken from Paul's aprons that healed and delivered the people... I believe that this power is residual. The invisible things of God are known by the things that are seen. The universe itself reveals much about His power and divinity. In nature, some things are radio active. They effect the molecular structure of a thing and leave residual traces of their presence. The power of God is much the same. As Paul worked to support himself and his ministry, he toiled throughout the day wearing various aprons and garments. While working by the sweat of his brow, no doubt he prayed and communed with God. I believe Paul was so full of the Holy Spirit and power that this anointing was transferred in part to the clothes he wore. And I do believe that for a time, those who came into contact with those handkerchiefs were healed and delivered. Now, certainly after some time, the power within those handkerchiefs would be depleted. It is this power that was resident in Elisha's bones, departed from Christ through His garment, and was transferred to the clothing that Paul wore. I believe the power of God is very real and is effectual... if one with proper authority knows how to use it. Understanding this power, how it is activated through faith, and our authority to use it is key to unlocking various gifts of the Spirit too.

You might disagree with some, or perhaps even all, of this. And that's cool. In 10 years, I might disagree with it too. That's because I'm still studying and my understanding is constantly evolving. And I've come to call upon the power of God in my prayer life. And the results have been such that I've shared it with a couple others... and they have also been rather surprised with the results. God is real. His power is real. And the very Holy Spirit that resides in us brings with it this power. I fear we've just been too religious to understand it. And then there are those precious souls who are truly "afraid" of this power. They feel safe as powerless beggars. And bless their hearts, that's okay. However, I believe that the fullness of God's desire for us is that we walk in the Spirit and demonstrate His power to a lost and dying world.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

God is omnipotent, Elisha's bones didn't have power separate from God. If anyone was running around with power which was separate from God, then God would cease from being omnipotent.

God is limitless in power. God's power is a part of His very being, just as heat and light emanates from the sun. And the power residing in us originates from the very Spirit of God Himself, who indwells us. I believe God has granted us authority to use this power in accordance with our faith, through the name of Jesus. I do believe that this power can be activated by faith and used at will. In my example above, Peter didn't beg God to heal the lame man. Peter unleashed the power and the man was healed. Being a part of God's own being, this power cannot be used outside of the will and mind of God. For example, if it wasn't God's intention to heal the lame man at the gate of the temple, nothing would have happened. However, if one has the mind of Christ and is in tune with the leading of the Holy Spirit, one will know when to properly use the power with effectual results, thereby presenting the demonstration of the Spirit and power of the Holy Ghost.

Hence we are shown Balaam's power to curse or bless was totally predicated on God's power Numbers 23:26.

Amen.

Satan is confined to what he is allowed to do by God's power Job 1:6-12.

Amen. I believe there is more to the subject of angelic power and ability, but that is another topic entirely.

The Church's ability to bind Satan is predicated on God's power.

Amen.

The issue of the serpent rods in the hands of the Egyptian sorcerers is that they had to tap into the only power source. Yet, in the hands of Moses using the power of God correctly and righteously his serpent rod overpowers those of false religion Exodus 7:10-12.

I disagree here.

I believe there is the power of God... and there is magik (aka sorcery, witchcraft, magic, etc.). The two are not the same.

The power of God is an essential part of His being and nature. It is through this power that God executes His will supernaturally. It is limitless. It is unfading. It is pure and holy. It is associated with the presence of His Holy Spirit. And when employed by those granted the authority through Christ, it only operates in conjunction with His will.

Magic is different. Magic is an energy that originates from another source other than God. Whether it be the human spirit (psychic phenomena), demonic spirits (channeling), or some ambient energy of the universe (witchcraft). It is not limitless. It is fading. It isn't pure and holy. It isn't strictly associated with God's Holy Spirit. It is the energy behind false miracles, signs, and wonders. Use of this energy is forbidden.

I believe that the Egyptian sorcerers engaged in sorcery. Moses and Aaron used the power of God granted to them by God Himself. And, being of a divine nature, limitless, and unfading... it produced an effect that consumed the sorcery of the sorcerers. Unholy, pagan, sorcerers cannot access and use God's power. They might desire to access this power, even offering money for it, but it is not open to them (Acts 8:19).

I'll comment on Mark 9:38-40 in my next post.

We might disagree on some things. But certainly talking about what we do believe can help us understand one another and where we're coming from. I'm enjoying the conversation.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Jesus is told that there was a man casting out demons in Jesus' name, but wasn't a follower of Jesus Christ Mark 9:38 . Jesus then informs His followers that they were not to stop such a person. Because the individual wouldn't be able to come against His ministry if he was casting out devils in Jesus name Mark 9:39. Yet, we see the conclusion of the individual who casted out devils but never followed Christ, he at the end is rejected by Jesus Christ Matthew 7:22-23. The same goes for anyone who uses the power of God incorrectly.

I take a different understanding of it. I'll start by sharing the passage:

Mark 9:38-40
38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

In your post above, you stated:

Jesus is told that there was a man casting out demons in Jesus' name, but wasn't a follower of Jesus Christ Mark 9:38.

I don't get that this man was not a follower of Jesus. In fact, let's look at the pronouns:

"And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us." (Mark 9:38

I believe the "us" is the "we" in this verse. In other words... the disciples saw a man who was casting out devils in the name of Jesus, who wasn't one of the appointed 12. And because this man wasn't a part of the appointed 12, they forbad him.

Also, the disciples state that the man was "casting out devils". Let's see what happens to those who try to cast out devils in Christ's name when they are not followers of Christ:

Acts 19:13-16
13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.
14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.
15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

These vagabond Jewish exorcists tried casting out an evil spirit in the name of Jesus, while not being followers of Jesus. The evil spirit was rather explicit:

"And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?" (Acts 19:15)

And then... it beat them senseless.

We don't see this happening to the stranger that the disciples encountered. Now, the disciples had already experienced casting out devils (Mark 6:13). So, they were no strangers to casting out evil spirits. When talking about this man, they attest to the fact that he was indeed "casting out devils". And he was obviously so successful that they had to forbid him, because he wasn't one of the appointed 12.

I think Jesus preached, fed the five thousand, healed the sick, cast out devils, etc. throughout Judea. I think this man was someone who had personally witnessed, and maybe had even personally experienced, the power of Jesus. And he was clearly fired up. The only problem was... he wasn't UPCI. Oh, wait... he wasn't an appointed deacon of the Apostolic Church of Anyplace. Oh wait, that's not right. He only had a partial understanding, he hadn't personally fellowshipped with Jesus and heard the deeper truths that Jesus had shared with the 12.

Yet Jesus doesn't praise them or say, "Good job guys. That guy was out of order!" Nope. Jesus smiles and says, "Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part."

In other words, "Don't tell this man to stop. There isn't anyone working miracles in my name who isn't ultimately my friend. If he’s not an enemy, he’s an ally."

To me, it's reminiscent of something that is recorded way back in Numbers 11....

Numbers 11:24-29
24 And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the Lord, and gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the tabernacle.
25 And the Lord came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.
26 But there remained two of the men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were written, but went not out unto the tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp.
27 And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp.
28 And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them.
29 And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord'S people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!

I'm surprised Jesus didn't say, "Would God that all the Lord's people were casting out devils".

That's my understanding.

For us, this teaches us not to be so sectarian. We put down, rebuke, chastise, criticize, and forbid anyone doing anything for Jesus through the power and authority of His name if they don't agree with our dogmas, attend our organizations, embrace all of our understandings, use different terminologies, employ different methods, or don't so much as dress like us! LOL I see Jesus correcting this misguided zeal and spiritual immaturity here. If someone is advancing the kingdom of God through actions in the name of Jesus... while some differences might exist between us and they... they aren't enemies.

Oh that more of us could grasp this and walk in the fullness of spiritual maturity that we might cease cutting down those who aren't directly associated with us, our churches, or organizations, or dogmas.

This isn't an elite club. And knowing Jesus personally through the Spirit is more important than knowing every nuance of doctrine about Him.