Marbaniang, Domenic

The term "cessationism" comes with different shades of meaning. For instance, Classical Cessationism denies the continuation of the prophetic and revelatory gifts while Full Cessationism denies every charismatic gift. However, all these imply one thing in common "cessation" of something. In that case, both Pentecostals and Charismatics who believe in the Final Authority of the Canon and the cessation of Special Canonical Revelation after the Apostles or the completion of the New Testament would be cessationists in that sense of the term; though they would fully disagree that the gifts of the Holy Spirit had ceased since then. Obviously, those who contend that canonical revelation is not closed but continuing are erring; for, all present prophesying even in modern times is called to be evaluated on the basis of the Written Word. The Scripture is Final Authority indeed. Also, teachers on the revelatory gifts would agree that these ministerial revelations are partial a...

Positional Sanctification: Sanctified by Faith in Christ (Acts 26:18) by His Blood (Heb.10:29) Progressive Sanctification:  Dedication to God, Partaking of His Holiness, Pursuit of Holiness, Sanctified Living, Offering Bodies as Living Sacrifice, Walking in the Spirit, Sanctifying Christ in Hearts, Daily Cleansing, Walking in the Light, Avoiding all Appearance of Evil, Having Purity of Conscience, Purity of Faith, Purity of Love, Striving Against Sin, Fleeing Lusts, Disciplining Body, Pursuit of God in Hope, Putting off old man, Putting on new man (Heb.12:10,14; 1Pet.1:15; Rom.12:1,2; Gal.5:22-25; 2Cor.7:1; 1Jn.1:7-9; Rom.12:9; Heb.12:3; 1Cor.9:27; 1Tim.1:5; 6:11; 1Jn.3:3; Eph.4:22-25). Note : Progressive doesn't mean one is less holy today and becomes holier later. One is either holy or unholy; clean or unclean. In the NT, there is no gradation of Holy and Most Holy. Progressive means daily walk of holiness with Christ in the Spirit. No man can say he is immune to temptation while...

I do not think that it is right to turn to cultural anthropologies in order to either affirm or negate a doctrine. Human experience is not the criteria of biblical doctrine. For instance, there have been cultures where people lived nude, without any covering whatsoever, and felt no sense of shame--that doesn't falsify the Genesis account in which Adam and Eve felt ashamed that they were naked, after the Fall. There have been certain cultures where cannibalism was practiced and people ate their neighbors--that doesn't become an experiential argument for the ethical innocence of cannibalism. I think we must be careful not to bring in the experience of man in a culture to validate or invalidate a biblical doctrine.

The Doctrine of “Eternal Security” teaches that a person who has come to a salvific knowledge of Jesus Christ will never turn away from Christ and “lose” his salvation. The doctrine violates several scriptural assumptions and assumes, among many things, that God is ultimately responsible for evil in the world. Contrary to that position, we maintain that a person who has come to know Christ can depart away from faith in Him and lose the privilege of salvation. While the controversy is a large one (with roots dating back to the Augustinian-Pelagian controversy related to depravity and freedom), it is evident from all scriptural, rational, and empirical facts that the doctrine of eternal security violates key assumptions of scripture, reason, and experience. While we respect the religiosity of peoples, religiosity and zeal are not evidences for truthfulness of doctrine (Rom.10:2). One can have zeal for emphasis on the grace of God and still be misinterpreting the grace of God in a way...