# B. B. Warfield's Book "Counterfeit Miracles"



## bookslover (Sep 29, 2018)

B. B. Warfield's book _Counterfeit Miracles_

It occurred to me recently that this book was published 100 years ago this year, in 1918. I think it was his last book, too.

Just sayin'.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 29, 2018)

bookslover said:


> B. B. Warfield's book _Counterfeit Miracles_
> 
> It occurred to me recently that this book was published 100 years ago this year, in 1918. I think it was his last book, too.
> 
> Just sayin'.


Was he addressing the Charasmatic movement of his time?


----------



## bookslover (Sep 29, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Was he addressing the Charasmatic movement of his time?



Partly. If I remember, he's addressing the various movements of "enthusiasm" (as it was called in centuries past) as well as the brand new Pentecostalism movement of the early 20th century (which began in 1906).


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 29, 2018)

bookslover said:


> Partly. If I remember, he's addressing the various movements of "enthusiasm" (as it was called in centuries past) as well as the brand new Pentecostalism movement of the early 20th century (which began in 1906).



It interesting to me that he was adressing the problems in the modern Charasmatic Movement of his time , and we are still adressing them even today. The new teacher against the Charasmatics now being those such as Dr MacArthur himself.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 29, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Was he addressing the Charasmatic movement of his time?



It was more of the Keswick stuff. And he also interacted with some Oxford Anglican claims about miracles extending up to but no later than the 5th century. While I think Warfield is in error on some parts, he's correct on that.

It is a good work against Benny Hinn. It won't work against Keener or Steve Hays.


----------



## Tom Hart (Sep 30, 2018)

From the table of contents:

The Cessation of the Charismata
Patristic and Mediæval Marvels
Roman Catholic Miracles
Irvingite Gifts
Faith-Healing
Mind-Cure


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 30, 2018)

Here is a dissertation topic if anyone wants it: examine late 19th century/early 20th century cessationist indirect attacks on spiritualism, theosophy, Blavatsky, etc. That would be interesting.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Sep 30, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Here is a dissertation topic if anyone wants it: examine late 19th century/early 20th century cessationist indirect attacks on spiritualism, theosophy, Blavatsky, etc. That would be interesting.



Let’s just raise up another Warfield!


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 1, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Let’s just raise up another Warfield!


God did in the area of exposing Charismatic Chaos, and his name is Dr MacArthur. They should have his book and BB Warfield book put together and sold.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 1, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God did in the area of exposing Charismatic Chaos, and his name is Dr MacArthur. They should have his book and BB Warfield book put together and sold.



Not really. Warfield engaged in scholarship and Macarthur told anecdotes about charismatics who claimed God healed their flat tire or brought their chicken back from the dead. Macarthur has been worked over pretty good by continuationist scholars. Warfield not so.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## lynnie (Oct 1, 2018)

Poythress details history of gifts such as prophecy with Samuel Rutherford (yeah, the WCF guy) and several Puritans. They were not cessationists as the word is often defined. I don't think VP mentions it but there were plenty of such incidents with Spurgeon too. Not sure what BBW does with the men like Flavel, Mather, Rutherford. Anybody know? Does he attribute it to Satan or not discuss it? 

Having said that, my charismatic experience has been that while God can work that way to His glory and to help His saints (including me on occasion) most of what goes on is bogus. Most of the so called words and hotlines to God today are either flesh or counterfeits in my opinion. And the modern apostolic and prophetic movements, where they claim to go to the third heaven and join in the councils of the Godhead, and come back with new revelation on authoritative par with scripture are positively Satanic. I don't doubt they are experiencing something in the spirit realm, but I think it is the fallen ones. 

I hate to see people throw it (gifts) all out due to the corruption.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 1, 2018)

lynnie said:


> Poythress details history of gifts such as prophecy with Samuel Rutherford (yeah, the WCF guy) and several Puritans. They were not cessationists as the word is often defined. I don't think VP mentions it but there were plenty of such incidents with Spurgeon too. Not sure what BBW does with the men like Flavel, Mather, Rutherford. Anybody know? Does he attribute it to Satan or not discuss it?
> 
> Having said that, my charismatic experience has been that while God can work that way to His glory and to help His saints (including me on occasion) most of what goes on is bogus. Most of the so called words and hotlines to God today are either flesh or counterfeits in my opinion. And the modern apostolic and prophetic movements, where they claim to go to the third heaven and join in the councils of the Godhead, and come back with new revelation on authoritative par with scripture are positively Satanic. I don't doubt they are experiencing something in the spirit realm, but I think it is the fallen ones.
> 
> I hate to see people throw it (gifts) all out due to the corruption.


How many of the spiritual gifts do you still see to now be in operation?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 1, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Not really. Warfield engaged in scholarship and Macarthur told anecdotes about charismatics who claimed God healed their flat tire or brought their chicken back from the dead. Macarthur has been worked over pretty good by continuationist scholars. Warfield not so.


I do think that at times Dr MacArthur did seem to get to the point of almost saying all and any into that movement were not of God, and would like to see a discussion between him and Dr Grudem on this issue of spiritual gifts being in operation today or not.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 1, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I do think that at times Dr MacArthur did seem to get to the point of almost saying all and any into that movement were not of God, and would like to see a discussion between him and Dr Grudem on this issue of spiritual gifts being in operation today or not.



I did a logical analysis where I showed that Macarthur was logically forced to say his hero Lloyd-Jones was the lowest of the low.
https://cocceius.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/macarthur-and-defeaters/


----------



## Taylor (Oct 1, 2018)

lynnie said:


> Poythress details history of gifts such as prophecy with Samuel Rutherford (yeah, the WCF guy) and several Puritans. They were not cessationists as the word is often defined. I don't think VP mentions it but there were plenty of such incidents with Spurgeon too. Not sure what BBW does with the men like Flavel, Mather, Rutherford. Anybody know? Does he attribute it to Satan or not discuss it?
> 
> Having said that, my charismatic experience has been that while God can work that way to His glory and to help His saints (including me on occasion) most of what goes on is bogus. Most of the so called words and hotlines to God today are either flesh or counterfeits in my opinion. And the modern apostolic and prophetic movements, where they claim to go to the third heaven and join in the councils of the Godhead, and come back with new revelation on authoritative par with scripture are positively Satanic. I don't doubt they are experiencing something in the spirit realm, but I think it is the fallen ones.
> 
> I hate to see people throw it (gifts) all out due to the corruption.



This is a good post. Growing up in a Pentecostal church, I have struggled with this whole issue of the gifts. Exegetically, I am not really able to defend the idea that God will not_ ever_ administer any one of the more "miraculous" gifts to_ any_ of his saints under_ any_ circumstance, although certainly the prevalence we see in the New Testament is certainly not in operation today.

I am inclined to agree with Dr. Jim Boice on this matter:

"The question arises as to whether such gifts exist today, a matter on which Christians are divided. We may note, on the one hand, that some gifts (such as the gifts of apostleship and prophecy) no longer occur in their biblical sense. The gifts of healings and miracles could be like them.

Yet gifts like evangelism, teaching and faith continue to exist and clearly must continue to the end of church history. Healings and miracles could be like them.

"A third possibility exists. Healings and miracles could exist but could occur infrequently. There are several reasons for preferring this interpretation. Miracles and healings are bracketed by other gifts which continue: in the case of 1 Corinthians 12:8–10, by wisdom, knowledge and faith before, and by the discerning of spirits afterward; in the case of 1 Corinthians 12:28–30, by teaching before and the gift of helping after. The working of miracles is similar to the case of speaking in tongues, which is treated at great length two chapters later and in regard to which we receive an explicit warning: “Do not forbid speaking in tongues” (1 Cor. 14:39). Paul is not encouraging tongues-speaking, but he recognizes that God may continue to give this gift and it should therefore not be discouraged. Nowhere does Paul indicate that either healings, miracles or tongues will cease. Further, accounts of healings and other miracles exist from every period of church history. (Although it may be true that many of them are myths, mistakes or even deliberate deceptions, it would be brash indeed to declare that they all are.)

"We dare not put God in a box on this matter, saying that he cannot give the gifts of healings or miracles today. He can. On the other hand, to say that is not the same thing as saying we have a right to expect healings or that what passes for the miraculous today is authentic."

—James M. Boice,_ Foundations of the Christian Faith: A Comprehensive & Readable Theology_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 614.​

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## lynnie (Oct 1, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> How many of the spiritual gifts do you still see to now be in operation?


David.....I appreciate you asking but this subject has gotten me a couple infractions in the past so I think I better quit while I can still post. The official PB position is cessationist and continuationism is not regarded as confessional. I happen to think Samuel Rutherford was confessional, and Poythress is OPC, so better that such reputable people influence you than my opinion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 2, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I did a logical analysis where I showed that Macarthur was logically forced to say his hero Lloyd-Jones was the lowest of the low.
> https://cocceius.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/macarthur-and-defeaters/


I would see a distinct differences in theology between Dr Grudem, DA Carson, and Dr Lloyd-Jones, and the bulk of the fruit cakes in the Word of faith movement, such as the Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copelands of that group.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 2, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> This is a good post. Growing up in a Pentecostal church, I have struggled with this whole issue of the gifts. Exegetically, I am not really able to defend the idea that God will not_ ever_ administer any one of the more "miraculous" gifts to_ any_ of his saints under_ any_ circumstance, although certainly the prevalence we see in the New Testament is certainly not in operation today.
> 
> I am inclined to agree with Dr. Jim Boice on this matter:
> 
> ...


I was a teaching Elder in the AOG, and would say that my new understanding would be that while the Lord can still do divine healings and even miracles as He deems fit to have them done, there would be none gifted to heal or do miracles as the Apostles were by God. This would not be the normal way that God operates today, as what was recorded in Acts was during the transition period between the Old and New Covenants.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I would see a distinct differences in theology between Dr Grudem, DA Carson, and Dr Lloyd-Jones, and the bulk of the fruit cakes in the Word of faith movement, such as the Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copelands of that group.


That's good, but the so-called logic in Macarthur's approach precludes any such distinctions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I was a teaching Elder in the AOG, and would say that my new understanding would be that while the Lord can still do divine healings and even miracles as He deems fit to have them done, there would be none gifted to heal or do miracles as the Apostles were by God. This would not be the normal way that God operates today, as what was recorded in Acts was during the transition period between the Old and New Covenants.



I guess the easiest response to that would be "How would you know that?" The apostles weren't always able to heal with 100% accuracy, and once you grant that fact, there is little difference between their healing ministry and John Wimber's.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 2, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's good, but the so-called logic in Macarthur's approach precludes any such distinctions.


He should not be lumping together all under the same Charismatic label, as there are good scholars even among them, such as the 3 that were mentioned in my list, and Dr Gordon Fee. The really bad ones are those in the Word of Faith and the Prosperity Gospel.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 2, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I guess the easiest response to that would be "How would you know that?" The apostles weren't always able to heal with 100% accuracy, and once you grant that fact, there is little difference between their healing ministry and John Wimber's.


The Apostles always were able to heal someone in Acts though, so where exactly were they not able to heal or do a miracle when they tried to do such?


----------



## earl40 (Oct 2, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's good, but the so-called logic in Macarthur's approach precludes any such distinctions.



That is what cessationism is, and is the logical meaning of the word.


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 2, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's good, but the so-called logic in Macarthur's approach precludes any such distinctions.



I thought this was a weak point in the book because of its embarrassing irony. MacArthur calls out continuationist teachers for giving credence to the wackos; MacArthur is a dispensationalist.

But regarding cessationism vs. continuationism, I don't think it is unfair to lump it all together. Continuationism is error whether espoused by Lloyd-Jones or Wilkerson. That doesn't mean all continuationist teachers are equally false.


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 2, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The apostles weren't always able to heal with 100% accuracy, and once you grant that fact, there is little difference between their healing ministry and John Wimber's.



Really?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 2, 2018)

earl40 said:


> That is what cessationism is, and is the logical meaning of the word.


The meaning would be more that we do not see the gifts to heal and to do miracles still in operation, but that God Himself can still choose to do them in response to prayers when He sees fit to do them. God can still fully operate as He chooses to do, but the operations of His shown in Acts was for that peculiar time, and not set up as the norm for us today.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> Really?



Erastus stayed in Corinth, and I left Trophimus sick in Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20). If Paul had infallible healing power, he should have healed him.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2018)

earl40 said:


> That is what cessationism is, and is the logical meaning of the word.



And I am glad you are taking Mac's argument to the conclusion. He is forced to condemn his hero Lloyd-Jones. Mind you, it isn't that MLJ is wrong. He's amil, after all. Rather, as Mac stated elsewhere, he is "the lowest of the low."


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Apostles always were able to heal someone in Acts though, so where exactly were they not able to heal or do a miracle when they tried to do such?



2 Tim. 4:20. Erastus stayed in Corinth, and I left Trophimus sick in Miletus.

If Paul had 100% healing power, then why didn't he heal Trophimus?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 2, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> 2 Tim. 4:20. Erastus stayed in Corinth, and I left Trophimus sick in Miletus.
> 
> If Paul had 100% healing power, then why didn't he heal Trophimus?


Perhaps by the time of the Epistles the apostolic gifts were winding down. Moreover, nothing therein suggests Paul actually set about to heal Trophimus.

Worth a read:
https://answersingenesis.org/education/spurgeon-sermons/1444-the-sick-man-left-behind/


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Perhaps by the time of the Epistles the apostolic gifts were winding down. Moreover, nothing therein suggests Paul actually set about to heal Trophimus.
> 
> Worth a read:
> https://answersingenesis.org/education/spurgeon-sermons/1444-the-sick-man-left-behind/



That's certainly possible, but it is an argument from silence. It's assuming the very thing we need to prove. And if he had the opportunity to heal but chose not to, it's hard to see how the charge against modern day charismatics (e.g., "You never see them at hospitals") doesn't also apply to him.

Of course, I don't believe that those who can heal today are always obligated to heal at every opportunity with 100% accuracy.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 2, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's certainly possible, but it is an argument from silence.


Evidence of absence is not necessarily absence of evidence to the contrary. 

Why are we compelled to assume that Paul's leaving someone sick implies some failure to heal over the more plausible that he simply did not make an attempt to do so in the first place?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Evidence of absence is not necessarily absence of evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Why are we compelled to assume that Paul's leaving someone sick implies some failure to heal over the more plausible that he simply did not make an attempt to do so in the first place?



Why are we compelled to assume that a modern day healer's leaving person x implies some failure to heal over the more plausible attempt that he simply did not make an attempt to do so in the first place?

That leaves us with two horns of a dilemma:

Horn 1: The apostles weren't always able to heal.

Horn 2: the apostles weren't always obligated to heal.

Horn 2 is the kicker. It means that many pop arguments against charismaticism's healers fall.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 2, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> And I am glad you are taking Mac's argument to the conclusion. He is forced to condemn his hero Lloyd-Jones. Mind you, it isn't that MLJ is wrong. He's amil, after all. Rather, as Mac stated elsewhere, he is "the lowest of the low."



Was that charge against the person or the teaching?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Was that charge against the person or the teaching?



I can't access my blog at work, from which I quoted Mac, but I am almost certain he used the personal pronoun "who."


----------



## earl40 (Oct 2, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I can't access my blog at work, from which I quoted Mac, but I am almost certain he used the personal pronoun "who."



I saw your blog and he was not calling Jones what you said he did. He was calling the Copeland's and the Benny Hin's the low of the low.


----------



## Taylor (Oct 2, 2018)

earl40 said:


> I saw your blog and he was not calling Jones what you said he did. He was calling the Copeland's and the Benny Hin's the low of the low.



I think Jacob’s point is that the _implication _of such accusations is not what JM himself would affirm or want.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 2, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> I thought this was a weak point in the book because of its embarrassing irony. MacArthur calls out continuationist teachers for giving credence to the wackos; MacArthur is a dispensationalist.
> 
> But regarding cessationism vs. continuationism, I don't think it is unfair to lump it all together. Continuationism is error whether espoused by Lloyd-Jones or Wilkerson. That doesn't mean all continuationist teachers are equally false.


I do also think that one must define what is meant by saying gifts have ceased, as we still hold with gifts such as teacher and giving as for today, and also that God can still heal or do miracler in rare times, based upon His own Will. Some would use ceasing to mean that nothing is allowed for today.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2018)

earl40 said:


> I saw your blog and he was not calling Jones what you said he did. He was calling the Copeland's and the Benny Hin's the low of the low.



https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/TM13-18/an-appeal-to-charismatic-friends



> Number seven, by asserting the gift of healing has continued to be present, the continuationist position affirms the same basic premise that undergirds the fraudulent ministry of charismatic faith healers. If you say the gift of healing is still around, and you say it whimsically, there’s no evidence it’s around, either experimentally or biblically, but if you say it’s still around, then you have just validated healers.



Therefore, by Mac's reasoning, MLJ is in the same camp as Benny Hinn.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 2, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Erastus stayed in Corinth, and I left Trophimus sick in Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20). If Paul had infallible healing power, he should have healed him.


That would just prove that the gift to heal had then ceased for Paul.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> That would just prove that the gift to heal had then ceased for Paul.



No, it wouldn't. That still begs the question that the apostles were always able to heal infallibly. There is no evidence that the gift dried up. You need to provide the quotes from Scripture that it ceased.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 2, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Evidence of absence is not necessarily absence of evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Why are we compelled to assume that Paul's leaving someone sick implies some failure to heal over the more plausible that he simply did not make an attempt to do so in the first place?


Or that the gift to heal had already ceased at that time?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 2, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No, it wouldn't. That still begs the question that the apostles were always able to heal infallibly. There is no evidence that the gift dried up. You need to provide the quotes from Scripture that it ceased.


What was the main reason that Jesus gave those sign gifts to His Apostles then?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> What was the main reason that Jesus gave those sign gifts to His Apostles then?



To show mercy and the in-breaking of the kingdom.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 2, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> To show mercy and the in-breaking of the kingdom.


I always thouht it was to fulfill OT prophecies of persons with strange language being a witness to the Jews, and to also make the claims of Jesus as the Messiah to be seen as legit. It was to confiem His person and ministry, before the scriptures were given in full to us now.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I always thouht it was to fulfill OT prophecies of persons with strange language being a witness to the Jews, and to also make the claims of Jesus as the Messiah to be seen as legit. It was to confiem His person and ministry, before the scriptures were given in full to us now.



Are you talking about tongues or miracles? It sounds like tongues, but the focus of the thread is miracles.

But even if it were to confirm Jesus' person and ministry, there is no logical connection between the last jot of ink on Revelation 22 being dry and the miracles' ceasing.

If all of the miraculous is a sign to confirm Jesus' ministry, then we have some really odd situations:

*Paul says prophecy is a sign for believers, but why would believers need a sign that Jesus is God? They already know that.

I have more notes on whether all miracles = signs/that confirm Jesus' ministry. It's pretty clear that's false. I'll supply more later. Jesus doesn't need his ministry confirmed. He is the one confirming us.

I think you all are trying to say that every miracle = proof that Jesus is God or Christianity is true. I think that, too, is problematic but it is a lot better claim than the first one.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 2, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Are you talking about tongues or miracles? It sounds like tongues, but the focus of the thread is miracles.
> 
> But even if it were to confirm Jesus' person and ministry, there is no logical connection between the last jot of ink on Revelation 22 being dry and the miracles' ceasing.
> 
> ...


God confirmed that Jesus was the promised Messiah, and that the Gospel was true by the sign gifts in operation, but the Lord now has firmly eslablished that Jesus is the Lord since the time of the scriptures being recorded down for us. This means that God's main method of operation is now the preaching and teaching of the scriptures, and not the sign gifts as the normal operation method.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 2, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Erastus stayed in Corinth, and I left Trophimus sick in Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20). If Paul had infallible healing power, he should have healed him.



And you take this to mean that the apostles' ministry, with respect to healing, was effectively the same as John Wimber's? Come on. At least the apostles' had _some _miraculous healings on their record.

I cannot say why the apostles did not heal in all cases. It's an interesting question. (It's certainly not mentioned anywhere in the New Testament that they visited any leper colonies.) I would only assume it is because miraculous healings and other miracles were extraordinary and served a special purpose (giving force to the apostles' preaching).


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> And you take this to mean that the apostles' ministry, with respect to healing, was effectively the same as John Wimber's?



No. I am saying the same charge applies to Paul that applies to Wimber, if people want to go that route.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God confirmed that Jesus was the promised Messiah, and that the Gospel was true by the sign gifts in operation, but the Lord now has firmly eslablished that Jesus is the Lord since the time of the scriptures being recorded down for us. This means that God's main method of operation is now the preaching and teaching of the scriptures, and not the sign gifts as the normal operation method.



There is not a single argument in that post. Just a string of assertions.


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 2, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No. I am saying the same charge applies to Paul that applies to Wimber, if people want to go that route.



You said,



BayouHuguenot said:


> The apostles weren't always able to heal with 100% accuracy, and once you grant that fact, there is little difference between their healing ministry and John Wimber's.



I push back against this statement because I see no scriptural warrant for holding that such a man as John Wimber (or any other faith-healer) should be placed in the same category as Paul the Apostle.

The same charge does not apply because
a) John Wimber (as no apostle) has no miracles to his name, and
b) such healing gifts have ceased.

No doubt you think that I take that second point for granted. (Probably the first as well.) Likewise, it seems to me that you take continuationism for granted if you are willing to say that a modern faith-healer's ministry can be judged as little different from an apostle's because both were seemingly unable to produce miracles 100% of the time. (And again, even less than 100% is still a better record than Wimber's 0%.)

As I mentioned above, I would think there are reasons unknown to us why Paul would not miraculously heal Trophimus or Timothy. I would certainly not say that Paul is therefore able to be judged the same way as Wimber et al.

Finally, the standard by which to judge a supposed prophet/miracle-worker is given, I think, in Deuteronomy 18:20-22.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> I push back against this statement because I see no scriptural warrant for holding that such a man as John Wimber (or any other faith-healer) should be placed in the same category as Paul the Apostle.



I don't think any of us are in the same category as Paul.


Tom Hart said:


> a) John Wimber (as no apostle) has no miracles to his name, and



Numerous people in the Vineyard attest otherwise.


Tom Hart said:


> b) such healing gifts have ceased.



Assertion.


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 2, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Numerous people in the Vineyard attest otherwise.



Assertion. Give some evidence.



BayouHuguenot said:


> Assertion.



Not really. I think the Scriptures are clear enough. I'm sure you're familiar with the arguments. But right now I have to change my son's diaper.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> Assertion. Give some evidence.


http://focushr.sermondrop.com/sermons/7040-6-Demonisation-John-Wimber-


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 2, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> http://focushr.sermondrop.com/sermons/7040-6-Demonisation-John-Wimber-



Could you explain a bit about what this is?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 3, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> Could you explain a bit about what this is?



If it is what I recall, Wimber is giving his story of healing ministries and deliverance within the Vineyard.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 3, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/TM13-18/an-appeal-to-charismatic-friends
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, by Mac's reasoning, MLJ is in the same camp as Benny Hinn.



If you read this you are making a wrong assumption. Here we have JM describing his continuationist friends....."Who are my continuationist friends? People who are my friends, real friends of mine whom I respect, who have made great contributions to the church, the body of Christ, who’ve taught all of us, who’ve taught me, who’ve ministered alongside me, hand-in-hand with me, with whom I’ve prayed, sometimes for hours and hours, with whom I’ve spoken, and talked, hammered out convictions. But they call themselves “continuationists” because they want to give place to the charismatic movement."

You have made the jump in assuming JM thinks these "friends" are in the same camp as the Copeland's and Hinn's of the world. Yes he is saying they, his friends reformed continuationists, are essentially teaching the same as the crazy charismatics, but in saying the "lowest of the low" are people like Piper and ML Jones are not what JM said, and he (JM) defined his terms.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 3, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> If it is what I recall, Wimber is giving his story of healing ministries and deliverance within the Vineyard.



OK... And why should I believe it? I grew up in Pentecostalism. I have enough experiences with made-up healings.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 3, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> OK... And why should I believe it? I grew up in Pentecostalism. I have enough experiences with made-up healings.



Believe if you want to. Doesn't matter to me. You asked for examples and evidence. I gave it. That's all there is to it.


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 3, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Believe if you want to. Doesn't matter to me. You asked for examples and evidence. I gave it. That's all there is to it.



A claim is not evidence, no matter how sincere.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 3, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> But right now I have to change my son's diaper.


 The ultimate defense. I can relate!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 3, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> A claim is not evidence, no matter how sincere.



Methinks we will also disagree on what constitutes valid evidence. I can probably marshal evidence from guys like Keener, who wrote a book on it from the African mission field, and it will be dismissed. I can also marshal evidence from world-renowned analytic philosophers like JP Moreland (documented in _Kingdom Triangle_), but I can also take a wild guess on what will happen to that evidence.
http://www.jpmoreland.com/2012/11/28/on-craig-keeners-magisterial-miracles-miracles/

And as for anecdotal evidence along the lines of "I grew up in a Pentecostal church...."

Fair enough. I went to several soul-killing cessationist churches who had the same philosophy on the supernatural as David Hume. By parity of argument, the sword cuts both ways.


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 3, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Methinks we will also disagree on what constitutes valid evidence.



You're quite right. Too often there has been "evidence" for the supernatural that has been subsequently been discredited. With fraudsters like Benny Hinn around, you really can't fault a man for being a skeptic, can you?

I used to take these things for granted. When I was a kid, that was the environment I was in. It was not easy, to be honest, to come out of that. At times I have even considered whether my current position is a reaction against my upbringing. But then we come back to the evidence. I find none of these accounts of supernatural healings, glossalalia, etc. convincing, and I am now comfortable in my conviction that such things have ceased. The evidence demands a conclusion. For me, that meant rethinking the teaching of Scripture on these things.

You and I will differ here; our difference goes right back to the the text of Scripture.

I'll have a look at that link you provided. Even though I will admittedly approach it with doubt, I am still interested in the other side's claims.

I would like you to know that I have enjoyed this exchange. I hope I haven't come across as uncharitable or unkind. (I admit I sometimes am, but I intended nothing of the sort here.) I always enjoy your posts, and your rigorous logic. (Even though on this issue I think you are demonstrating less of your customary rigour. )


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 3, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> With fraudsters like Benny Hinn around, you really can't fault a man for being a skeptic, can you?



Sure, but cessationists need to realize that Hinn isn't the standard of discussion, Keener is. And if we go by abuses, I can make "Pastor" Steven Anderson the standard of cessationism.

Thanks for the exchange, too. I don't recall ever practicing "the power gifts" (except for maybe one word of knowledge). So that's my story, for what it's worth.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 3, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Sure, but cessationists need to realize that Hinn isn't the standard of discussion, Keener is.



The "standard" is scripture is what cessationists should claim.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 3, 2018)

earl40 said:


> The "standard" is scripture is what cessationists should claim.



Um...yeah. What I meant was that the typical _*representative *_of continuationism is Craig Keener or Michael Brown. I was not saying that the ultimate epistemic authority is Craig Keener.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 3, 2018)

I don't think this has come up yet, but what exactly is a miracle? It's important to nail this down because unbelievers already have their response. The following discussion is from Grudem's book on prophecy. These are different definitions:

1. A direct intervention by God in history (Grudem 109). Whether this is true or not, it is actually irrelevant to the discussion of spiritual gifts. For what makes a spiritual gift is its origination in the Holy Spirit.
2. Something that arouses awe and wonder. This, however, is too broad to be useful.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 4, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> And you take this to mean that the apostles' ministry, with respect to healing, was effectively the same as John Wimber's? Come on. At least the apostles' had _some _miraculous healings on their record.
> 
> I cannot say why the apostles did not heal in all cases. It's an interesting question. (It's certainly not mentioned anywhere in the New Testament that they visited any leper colonies.) I would only assume it is because miraculous healings and other miracles were extraordinary and served a special purpose (giving force to the apostles' preaching).


The truth is still that they were granted those gifts from Jesus for just those times, for the express purpose of confirming Jesus as Messiah and the Gospel has being from God. There were no recorded instances where any of them attempted to heal someone and it failed, unlike modern day persons claiming to have that gift to heal today.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 4, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No. I am saying the same charge applies to Paul that applies to Wimber, if people want to go that route.


Paul as an Apostle was gifted by God to heal, but John Wimber was not given that specific gift.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 4, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> There is not a single argument in that post. Just a string of assertions.


What I posted there was the same way that Reformed and non continuing Baptists have seen this issue though. correct?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 4, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> You said,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Apostles Of Jesus were a unique category,as they were granted by Christ the inspiration to record down to us inspired scriptures, and also had those unique gifts to validate Jesus as Lord and the Gospel message was from God.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 4, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't think any of us are in the same category as Paul.
> 
> 
> Numerous people in the Vineyard attest otherwise.
> ...


Any of those persons have been able to produce documented medical records to show the healings actual happened?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 4, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> OK... And why should I believe it? I grew up in Pentecostalism. I have enough experiences with made-up healings.


I was a teaching Elder in the AOG for a decade, and can state that there were no documented case of medical healing in my local church uring that time.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 4, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Um...yeah. What I meant was that the typical _*representative *_of continuationism is Craig Keener or Michael Brown. I was not saying that the ultimate epistemic authority is Craig Keener.


The claim is being made by some that God still has gifted them with those gifts to heal and perform miracles, just as He did the Apostles, and still need to see documented medical evidence to support those claims.
Acts was the inspired record from God of how He operated during the transistion between the Old and New Covenants, and so not the normal way He functions with us today.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 4, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> and still need to see documented medical evidence to support those claims.



And they have been provided in the literature. I no longer worry about this claim because if someone like Keener provides documentation (he wrote an authoritative two volumes on it), it will be dismissed as "not really happened.


Dachaser said:


> Acts was the inspired record from God of how He operated during the transistion between the Old and New Covenants, and so not the normal way He functions with us today.



If we apply that all the way, then nothing in Acts applies today and no one wants to draw that conclusion.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 4, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Any of those persons have been able to produce documented medical records to show the healings actual happened?



Yes. But HIPAA makes it hard to make those widespread. If you want to ask someone for their private medical records, good luck with that.

Edit: If you want to ask people for their private records, go for it. But that means nothing for exegesis. Ultimatley, I do theology based on exegesis, not on experience. If someone says "miracles are false because I don't see [e.g. experience] them today," then that person is ironically making the same mistake as charismatics are said to make: basing theology off of experience.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 4, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> What I posted there was the same way that Reformed and non continuing Baptists have seen this issue though. correct?



Yes, but posting what they believe isn't the same thing as logic. I can post a string of assertions from Pentecostals and that leaves us at a Mexican standoff.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 4, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Paul as an Apostle was gifted by God to heal, but John Wimber was not given that specific gift.



Again, that's the whole issue under debate. I can just say, "No, I disagree," and that would have the same amount of logical import.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 4, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> And they have been provided in the literature. I no longer worry about this claim because if someone like Keener provides documentation (he wrote an authoritative two volumes on it), it will be dismissed as "not really happened.
> 
> 
> If we apply that all the way, then nothing in Acts applies today and no one wants to draw that conclusion.


Not really, as all of Acts is for us and to us for today, its just that not all of the examples given to us there would be the normal way God operates today.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 4, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Yes. But HIPAA makes it hard to make those widespread. If you want to ask someone for their private medical records, good luck with that.
> 
> Edit: If you want to ask people for their private records, go for it. But that means nothing for exegesis. Ultimatley, I do theology based on exegesis, not on experience. If someone says "miracles are false because I don't see [e.g. experience] them today," then that person is ironically making the same mistake as charismatics are said to make: basing theology off of experience.


I am not stating that God cannot heal nor do miracles today if He chooses to do such, but am stating that would not be the normal way He operates in this current age. No one right now has been gifted by Him to function as the Apostles were, for they were also inspired to recorde sacred scriptures. Do not see any able to do that right now.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 4, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Again, that's the whole issue under debate. I can just say, "No, I disagree," and that would have the same amount of logical import.


The Apostles could write sacred scriptures and speak while discusiing theology without any errors or mistakes, and doubt any able to do that for today.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 4, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> speak while discusiing theology without any errors or mistakes,



That's false. See Paul's rebuke of Peter.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 4, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> No one right now has been gifted by Him to function as the Apostles were, for they were also inspired to recorde sacred scriptures.



The logical connection between those two statements doesn't hold. Phillip's daughters prophecied, yet they didn't write Scripture.


Dachaser said:


> Do not see any able to do that right now.



So what? Others do.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 4, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Not really, as all of Acts is for us and to us for today, its just that not all of the examples given to us there would be the normal way God operates today.



You keep repeating that refrain. Who is to say what is "normal" anyway?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 5, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's false. See Paul's rebuke of Peter.


He did not rebuke the theology of Peter, but his misapplication of what Peter knew was true.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 5, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The logical connection between those two statements doesn't hold. Phillip's daughters prophecied, yet they didn't write Scripture.
> 
> 
> So what? Others do.


The gift of prophecy was not the same as the Apostles ability to write and to speak on theology with infallibility.
There are many claims made by faith healers, but why is there never any real documenttaed by medical facts true healings?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 5, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> You keep repeating that refrain. Who is to say what is "normal" anyway?


The scriptures themselves, and how historically the Church has seen the sign gifts granted to the Apostles not happening as the norm after the Apostolic Age ceased to exist.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The scriptures themselves, and how historically the Church has seen the sign gifts granted to the Apostles not happening as the norm after the Apostolic Age ceased to exist.



But that's circular reasoning. The Scriptures show miracles. 

As to them ceasing in the apostolic church, read City of God. Augustine documents them all over hte place.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> but why is there never any real documenttaed by medical facts true healings?



How do you know there isn't? And you ignored the parts about HIPAA privacy.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> He did not rebuke the theology of Peter, but his misapplication of what Peter knew was true.



Peter made a theological position. Paul rebuked it. You seem to think that the apostles always spoke true theology 100% of the time, yet with Peter this is false.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 5, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> How do you know there isn't? And you ignored the parts about HIPAA privacy.


Before there was that mandate concerning medical records not being given out, there were still no documented healings that were able to be verified.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 5, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Peter made a theological position. Paul rebuked it. You seem to think that the apostles always spoke true theology 100% of the time, yet with Peter this is false.


When the Apostle either spoke or wrote in regards to theology, were always right!


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> When the Apostle either spoke or wrote in regards to theology, were always right!



All _Scripture_ is God-breathed. I know of no verse that supports your statement above.

You still have to address Peter's apparent theological error. I find your description of it as an error of application to be insufficient. It is clear that Peter had come under the influence of certain Jews who were teaching wrong theology (not merely wrong application).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 5, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> All _Scripture_ is God-breathed. I know of no verse that supports your statement above.
> 
> You still have to address Peter's apparent theological error. I find your description of it as an error of application to be insufficient. It is clear that Peter had come under the influence of certain Jews who were teaching wrong theology (not merely wrong application).


Paul himself stated to Peter that he knew the truth of living under the grace of God now found in the New Covenant with God, but that under pressure from Judaizers, he was starting to waver from his former convictions. Not His theology was bad/wrong, but his application of what he knew was the right thing to do wasbeing addressed by Paul.


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Paul himself stated to Peter that he knew the truth of living under the grace of God now found in the New Covenant with God, but that under pressure from Judaizers, he was starting to waver from his former convictions. Not His theology was bad/wrong, but his application of what he knew was the right thing to do wasbeing addressed by Paul.


David,

Brother...I think both @Tom Hart & @BayouHuguenot are taking issue because your post have been broadly vague towards the latter half of this thread and need some refining.

Our actions have implications on our Theology. Hence even if one grants your claim: "that the Apostle Peter's theology was always right", ....Peter "applying it" wrongly would still yield that his Theology of Applying his Theology had erred. The Apostles did have flaws..and we should find hope in that. They had a special office yes, but they were still men. It seems Peter in a moment of weakness feared men more than the Lord, which is not a huge shocker (remember the rooster crow)

@OP
Very interesting indeed. We likely will need Warfield's book for the next 100 years as well, because "signs & wonders" are still demanded in this age that is becoming less and less satisfied with the WORD of God. May we remind ourselves even this hour of the beauty, majesty, and wonder we have in our copy of God's HOLY Word and may be we sobered in knowing that this Lord's Day we have a chance to be feed by that same Word from our overseers.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Paul himself stated to Peter that he knew the truth of living under the grace of God now found in the New Covenant with God, but that under pressure from Judaizers, he was starting to waver from his former convictions. Not His theology was bad/wrong, but his application of what he knew was the right thing to do wasbeing addressed by Paul.



The language used in Gal. 2:4-16 seems to me to show Paul correcting Peter and others for behaviour arising out of incorrect theological positions. Paul's words are quite strong: "they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel", and even Barnabas was "carried away". Then he turns the discussion into an argument for justification by faith. More than a bit theological, if you ask me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 5, 2018)

@Grant Jones

Warfield's _Counterfeit Miracles _is well worth a read. Very useful for navigating movements involving supposed signs and wonders. Warfield was brilliant and wrote with clarity and wit. A couple of times I burst out laughing.


----------



## Taylor (Oct 5, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> I find your description of it as an error of application to be insufficient. It is clear that Peter had come under the influence of certain Jews who were teaching wrong theology (not merely wrong application).



Indeed, wrong application *is* wrong theology.


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 5, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Indeed, wrong application *is* wrong theology.



I would tend to agree. A wrong application likely points to something deeper.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 5, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> @Grant Jones
> 
> Warfield's _Counterfeit Miracles _is well worth a read. Very useful for navigating movements involving supposed signs and wonders. Warfield was brilliant and wrote with clarity and wit. A couple of times I burst out laughing.



It is a good book and among cessationist treatises, it is one of the best. (Gaffin's is the best. Macarthur's is the worst).

Warfield made a specific argument that both Dispensationalists and Reformed have used since: the cluster-miracles argument. Mind you, I think the argument is flawed but it is rhetorically brilliant


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> When the Apostle either spoke or wrote in regards to theology, were always right!



Good luck finding a verse that says Peter had ex cathedra infallibility. Yes, his canonical writings are 100% right. But we have no evidence that any time he prefaced a verbal statement with, "Now I speak theology..." that he was necessarily going to be right. Sounds like a magical formula, actually.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Oct 5, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Gaffin's is the best.



Why do you say this? (Not a challenge; I’m genuinely curious. I’ve never read the work.)


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 5, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Good luck finding a verse that says Peter had ex cathedra infallibility. Yes, his canonical writings are 100% right. But we have no evidence that any time he prefaced a verbal statement with, "Now I speak theology..." that he was necessarily going to be right. Sounds like a magical formula, actually.


When any of the Apostles were giving forth either verbally or in recorded form theology, they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to be always speaking truth.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> When any of the Apostles were giving forth either verbally



You have no evidence for this statement.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 5, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Why do you say this? (Not a challenge; I’m genuinely curious. I’ve never read the work.)



Because he realizes the issue can't be framed as Benny Hinn on one side and John Macarthur on the other. Also, he is more sensitive to the nuances of redemptive history. He also (rightly) rejects the idea that "when the perfect has come" = the end of the NT canon.

He also interacts with Grudem's exegesis in great detail, something Macarthur didn't do in Strange Fire.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 5, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Because he realizes the issue can't be framed as Benny Hinn on one side and John Macarthur on the other. Also, he is more sensitive to the nuances of redemptive history. He also (rightly) rejects the idea that "when the perfect has come" = the end of the NT canon.
> 
> He also interacts with Grudem's exegesis in great detail, something Macarthur didn't do in Strange Fire.


Doesn't he though also watre down the Prophetic element to saying that at times it might be right, but others times can be wrong?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 5, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> You have no evidence for this statement.


Jesus promised to the Apostlews the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth, so why would it not be spoken theology he would overlook to make sure was right?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 5, 2018)

O Palmer Robertson's "The Final Word" is also a helpful study on cessationism. 

Regarding the apostle's use of healing gifts, I don't think they had the freedom to use them upon any personal whim. If that were the case, Paul could heal himself of his many injuries rather than endure the suffering, or heal Timothy's stomach rather then recommending wine for treatment. Even with Jesus, though he healed many, he did not heal all. They were led by the Spirit in their ministry. The healings were signs confirming the apostolic message, and this confirmation came as God wanted, not as men wanted it. Hebrews 2:3-4 is clear that God confirmed their testimony with the signs. The question then really is, what was the original role of the healing gifts, and does that role continue or not? And if the miracles do in fact continue, what is the function, and where is the evidence of the same kind of indisputable miracles? For instance, life-long paralytics walking? Deformed limbs restored? Blindness cured? The dead being raised? 

In all my experience in Pentecostalism, alleged healings were more vague, unverifiable, or simply successful medical interventions (blessed by God certainly but nothing like apostolic miracles).


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Jesus promised to the Apostlews the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth, so why would it not be spoken theology he would overlook to make sure was right?



It doesn't logically follow that Jesus would guide them to all truth; therefore, every time they spoke on theological matters they were inerrant.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 5, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I don't think they had the freedom to use them upon any personal whim. If that were the case, Paul could heal himself of his many injuries rather than endure the suffering, or heal Timothy's stomach rather then recommending wine for treatment. Even with Jesus, though he healed many, he did not heal all. They were led by the Spirit in their ministry.



Continuationists like Moreland and Keener agree.


Puritan Sailor said:


> The question then really is, what was the original role of the healing gifts, and does that role continue or not?



To show God's mercy and demonstrate the kingdom. 


Puritan Sailor said:


> And if the miracles do in fact continue, what is the function,



To show God's mercy and demonstrate the kingdom.


Puritan Sailor said:


> and where is the evidence of the same kind of indisputable miracles?



The literature is out there. Perusing the scholarly literature on this will show you where to look.


Puritan Sailor said:


> In all my experience in Pentecostalism, alleged healings were more vague, unverifiable, or simply successful medical interventions (blessed by God certainly but nothing like apostolic miracles).



I don't dispute your experience, but that is what it is--your experience. Ultimately it comes down to exegesis.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Doesn't he though also watre down the Prophetic element to saying that at times it might be right, but others times can be wrong?



What he shows is that when the word "Prophet/prophesy" is used in Greek literature, it doesn't carry the same connotations as OT prophets. For instance, Agabus was wrong on a few particulars (he said the Jews would hand Paul over, when it was actually the Romans who saved Paul from the Jews).

Further, in the Old Testament disobeying a prophecy usually meant death, yet when the believers "spoke by the Spirit to Paul so that he would not go to Jerusalem," Paul ignored them.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 5, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> O Palmer Robertson's "The Final Word" is also a helpful study on cessationism.
> 
> Regarding the apostle's use of healing gifts, I don't think they had the freedom to use them upon any personal whim. If that were the case, Paul could heal himself of his many injuries rather than endure the suffering, or heal Timothy's stomach rather then recommending wine for treatment. Even with Jesus, though he healed many, he did not heal all. They were led by the Spirit in their ministry. The healings were signs confirming the apostolic message, and this confirmation came as God wanted, not as men wanted it. Hebrews 2:3-4 is clear that God confirmed their testimony with the signs. The question then really is, what was the original role of the healing gifts, and does that role continue or not? And if the miracles do in fact continue, what is the function, and where is the evidence of the same kind of indisputable miracles? For instance, life-long paralytics walking? Deformed limbs restored? Blindness cured? The dead being raised?
> 
> In all my experience in Pentecostalism, alleged healings were more vague, unverifiable, or simply successful medical interventions (blessed by God certainly but nothing like apostolic miracles).



I will say that this is the one response that makes me work through the issues. I"ll probably bow out at this point. I have several Wayne Grudem book reviews I am working on at the moment.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 5, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> To show God's mercy and demonstrate the kingdom.


I agree with this, but the New Testament adds more significance to the signs than just these things. Ultimately, we have to establish exegetically if that added significance of confirming apostolic testimony is fundamental to the sign, or if the signs may continue without that important element once the apostles are gone. 



> The literature is out there. Perusing the scholarly literature on this will show you where to look.



I will peruse what sources I can, but if you could point me to specific authors documenting the extraordinary kind of healings I described above, I'd appreciate it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 5, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I will peruse what sources I can, but if you could point me to specific authors documenting the extraordinary kind of healings I described above, I'd appreciate it.



Off the top of my head, and I haven't really looked at the literature since 2014. Give me a day or two. I"ll have to find my old bibliography.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 6, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> But that's circular reasoning. The Scriptures show miracles.
> 
> As to them ceasing in the apostolic church, read City of God. Augustine documents them all over hte place.



I have read Augustine's testimonies of miracles and they are from miraculous. I "sit" on my conviction. LOL


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2018)

earl40 said:


> I have read Augustine's testimonies of miracles and they are from miraculous. I "sit" on my conviction. LOL



I have no idea what any of that means.

Ultimately, though, I don't really care if the events in Augustine's account happened or not. I base my theology off of exegesis, not off of "what is possible today because science and David Hume" or "my experience."

I simply brought Augustine up because people have this line that "miracles ceased in the early church." I groan whenever people say that. I've read 20,000 pages of "the early church fathers" over the past decade. Most people haven't. Suffice to say--that claim is false.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 6, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> It doesn't logically follow that Jesus would guide them to all truth; therefore, every time they spoke on theological matters they were inerrant.


I should have stated it in this fashion then, as whenever in the Bible any Apostle tried to heal or spoke on theology, was infallible and healings always happened.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 6, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> What he shows is that when the word "Prophet/prophesy" is used in Greek literature, it doesn't carry the same connotations as OT prophets. For instance, Agabus was wrong on a few particulars (he said the Jews would hand Paul over, when it was actually the Romans who saved Paul from the Jews).
> 
> Further, in the Old Testament disobeying a prophecy usually meant death, yet when the believers "spoke by the Spirit to Paul so that he would not go to Jerusalem," Paul ignored them.


So the OT Prophets and the NT Apostles are under the same infallible footing, as their spoken and recorded words were inspired by God, but those with gift of prophecy were not to be used for any instruction, teaching, or doctrine, correct?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 6, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I agree with this, but the New Testament adds more significance to the signs than just these things. Ultimately, we have to establish exegetically if that added significance of confirming apostolic testimony is fundamental to the sign, or if the signs may continue without that important element once the apostles are gone.
> 
> 
> 
> I will peruse what sources I can, but if you could point me to specific authors documenting the extraordinary kind of healings I described above, I'd appreciate it.


Hebrews 2:4 informs us that God used the Apostles to do signs and wonders in order to confirm that Jesus was the promised Messiah, and that the Gospel of Him was true, but notice the author of Hebrews wrote as if those gifts had already ceased in his time.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 6, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I have no idea what any of that means.
> 
> Ultimately, though, I don't really care if the events in Augustine's account happened or not. I base my theology off of exegesis, not off of "what is possible today because science and David Hume" or "my experience."
> 
> I simply brought Augustine up because people have this line that "miracles ceased in the early church." I groan whenever people say that. I've read 20,000 pages of "the early church fathers" over the past decade. Most people haven't. Suffice to say--that claim is false.


I do not think any are saying that miracles and healings from God ceased fully, but that the gifts to be able to do that ourselves ceased with death of John.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> So the OT Prophets and the NT Apostles are under the same infallible footing, as their spoken and recorded words were inspired by God, but those with gift of prophecy were not to be used for any instruction, teaching, or doctrine, correct?



Didn't say that. Prophecy, like any spiritual gift, is to be used for edifying the church. What everyone here is objecting to is your apparent belief that every time Peter uttered a theological statement it was infallible. We know that is false because of Galatians.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 6, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I have no idea what any of that means.
> 
> Ultimately, though, I don't really care if the events in Augustine's account happened or not. I base my theology off of exegesis, not off of "what is possible today because science and David Hume" or "my experience."
> 
> I simply brought Augustine up because people have this line that "miracles ceased in the early church." I groan whenever people say that. I've read 20,000 pages of "the early church fathers" over the past decade. Most people haven't. Suffice to say--that claim is false.



I thought you would have remembered about the hemorrhoids "sit" that Augustine wrote about.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I should have stated it in this fashion then, as whenever in the Bible any Apostle tried to heal or spoke on theology, was infallible and healings always happened.



That might be true. We just have no evidence concerning Trophimus. Both sides have to admit it is an argument from silence. We simply don't know if Paul tried to heal him or not. If he didn't, it would make for an interesting conversation between him and Trophimus: "Sorry, I can heal you but I choose not to."


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2018)

earl40 said:


> I thought you would have remembered about the hemorrhoids "sit" that Augustine wrote about.



I remember now.


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I should have stated it in this fashion then, as whenever in the Bible any Apostle tried to heal or spoke on theology, was infallible and healings always happened.



That really does not strike me as significantly different from your earlier statements.

Are you advocating a doctrine of _ex cathedra_ for the apostles? The doctrine that the Scriptures are God-breathed does not come with a footnote saying that every apostle-uttered theological remark (or healing, now) was equally inspired.


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I do not think any are saying that miracles and healings from God ceased fully, but that the gifts to be able to do that ourselves ceased with death of John.



That is one view. I do not hold that, however. For my part, I hold that God is free. He can perform miracles if he so wishes, and I believe he does. But it is not the same as how things happened in the days of the apostles.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 6, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I base my theology off of exegesis, not off of "what is possible today because science and David Hume" or "my experience."



3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and *was* confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2018)

earl40 said:


> 3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and *was* confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
> 
> 4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?



Okay. I never denied that they had sign-functions. I simply dispute that they always and only had sign-functions. James 5 seems to think that elders will do healings, yet none of them are apostles and there is no discernible sign involved.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 6, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Didn't say that. Prophecy, like any spiritual gift, is to be used for edifying the church. What everyone here is objecting to is your apparent belief that every time Peter uttered a theological statement it was infallible. We know that is false because of Galatians.


Peter had right theology, but was under pressure applying it wrongly.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 6, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That might be true. We just have no evidence concerning Trophimus. Both sides have to admit it is an argument from silence. We simply don't know if Paul tried to heal him or not. If he didn't, it would make for an interesting conversation between him and Trophimus: "Sorry, I can heal you but I choose not to."


So it could very well been that the gift to heal for Paul was already ceasing at that time?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 6, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> That really does not strike me as significantly different from your earlier statements.
> 
> Are you advocating a doctrine of _ex cathedra_ for the apostles? The doctrine that the Scriptures are God-breathed does not come with a footnote saying that every apostle-uttered theological remark (or healing, now) was equally inspired.


While they were speaking for Jesus, the Holy Spirit would had made sure their theology being given forth to the churches was infallible, correct?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 6, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> That is one view. I do not hold that, however. For my part, I hold that God is free. He can perform miracles if he so wishes, and I believe he does. But it is not the same as how things happened in the days of the apostles.


We would be in agreement, as neither of us would see God gifting persons today to perform sign gifts.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> So it could very well been that the gift to heal for Paul was already ceasing at that time?



That's what most Dispensationalists say. The problem, though, is that we have no evidence to say that. It keeps coming back to that: evidence.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Peter had right theology, but was under pressure applying it wrongly.



Which is theology. We've already been over this.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 6, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Okay. I never denied that they had sign-functions. I simply dispute that they always and only had sign-functions. James 5 seems to think that elders will do healings, yet none of them are apostles and there is no discernible sign involved.


 Of course when James was written I strongly suspect the Apostles were still alive and the cannon was not complete.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 6, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Okay. I never denied that they had sign-functions. I simply dispute that they always and only had sign-functions. James 5 seems to think that elders will do healings, yet none of them are apostles and there is no discernible sign involved.



Couple thoughts on James 5:14-16. James described a healing in answer to prayer, but the apostles seemed to heal by declaration. Also, the "prayer of faith" in this case resulted in both healing and forgiveness of sins. So this, at least to me, seems to be talking about a situation where sin is involved, not just simple sickness. Whatever the case, James 5 may be grounds to continue praying for the sick, but it doesn't deal specifically with the apostolic practice of performing healings.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 6, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's what most Dispensationalists say. The problem, though, is that we have no evidence to say that. It keeps coming back to that: evidence.


I think its what many Covenant Theology Christians say also thouguh.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 6, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Of course when James was written I strongly suspect the Apostles were still alive and the cannon was not complete.


It was one of the first books written of the NT canon, correct?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 6, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Couple thoughts on James 5:14-16. James described a healing in answer to prayer, but the apostles seemed to heal by declaration. Also, the "prayer of faith" in this case resulted in both healing and forgiveness of sins. So this, at least to me, seems to be talking about a situation where sin is involved, not just simple sickness. Whatever the case, James 5 may be grounds to continue praying for the sick, but it doesn't deal specifically with the apostolic practice of performing healings.


Perhaps James was addressing the situation in which a person sinning was part of the reason why now sick, as a chaistisement from God?


----------



## earl40 (Oct 6, 2018)

What is interesting is that there are promises of God in James, and to think they apply today is foolishness.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 6, 2018)

earl40 said:


> What is interesting is that there are promises of God in James, and to think they apply today is foolishness.


You do not have the Elders gather around the sick and pray for them if they request that to happen?


----------



## earl40 (Oct 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> You do not have the Elders gather around the sick and pray for them if they request that to happen?



Below is a promise that does not happen today.....

14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

15 And the prayer of faith *shall* save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 6, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Below is a promise that does not happen today.....
> 
> 14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
> 
> 15 And the prayer of faith *shall* save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.


We should still obey God and ask for Him to heal, just no promise will always happen, correct?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Of course when James was written I strongly suspect the Apostles were still alive and the cannon was not complete.



This is called circular reasoning.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> We should still obey God and ask for Him to heal, just no promise will always happen, correct?



In James it is promised, and of course we may pray for others today but not guaranteed, as it was during the time when James was written.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Whatever the case, James 5 may be grounds to continue praying for the sick, but it doesn't deal specifically with the apostolic practice of performing healings.



I agree with this post. I just used James to push back against the idea that the only healings in the NT were apostolic-office healings tied with sign gifts.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Oct 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> *whenever in the Bible any Apostle tried to heal* or spoke on theology, was infallible and *healings always happened.*



How do you reconcile the emboldened part of your post with Mk. 9:14-29 (or do you make a distinction between the healing of 1) physical ailments due to genetic/physiological issues and 2) demon-possession, which causes physical ailments, such as being deaf and dumb)?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 7, 2018)

earl40 said:


> 3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and *was* confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
> 
> 4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?



Out of curiosity, do you think Hebrews was the last book written in the NT?


----------



## earl40 (Oct 7, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Out of curiosity, do you think Hebrews was the last book written in the NT?



I do not know. Makes no difference to my point.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 7, 2018)

earl40 said:


> I do not know. Makes no difference to my point.



It makes all the difference in the world. Your argument implied that everything that happened before Hebrews (the words you emphasized in the past tense) cuts off all future prophecy.

Yet, every NT scholar holds that Revelation was the last written book, so that is at least one more prophecy. That means your argument from Hebrews can't prove what you want it to prove.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 7, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> It makes all the difference in the world. Your argument implied that everything that happened before Hebrews (the words you emphasized in the past tense) cuts off all future prophecy.
> 
> Yet, every NT scholar holds that Revelation was the last written book, so that is at least one more prophecy. That means your argument from Hebrews can't prove what you want it to prove.



3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and *was* confirmed unto us *by them that heard him*;

4 God also bearing *them *witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

The point stands, in the past and future, to those who heard him to which the signs showed.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 7, 2018)

earl40 said:


> 3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and *was* confirmed unto us *by them that heard him*;
> 
> 4 God also bearing *them *witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?
> 
> The point stands, in the past and future, to those who heard him to which the signs showed.



All the text proves is that people who heard him in the past saw signs confirmed. To read anything else into it is eisegesis.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 7, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> All the text proves is that people who heard him in the past saw signs confirmed.



What this is saying is that God confirmed Himself with signs. Your sentence does not even make sense.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 7, 2018)

earl40 said:


> What this is saying is that God confirmed Himself with signs. Your sentence does not even make sense.



Yeah, no one is disputing that God confirmed with signs. I think the original issue was whether all miracles were apostolic-signs, and I pointed out to at least once case that wasn't (James; whether James's miracles continued today is beside the point; it was at least one miracle-event that wasn't apostolic).


----------



## bookslover (Oct 7, 2018)

Man, what a thread!

All I did was note the hundredth anniversary of Warfield's book - and now look at what this thread has gone and done. LOL

Not complaining - just marveling.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 8, 2018)

bookslover said:


> Man, what a thread!
> 
> All I did was note the hundredth anniversary of Warfield's book - and now look at what this thread has gone and done. LOL
> 
> Not complaining - just marveling.



Such is the essence of a message board.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 11, 2018)

Everyone was asking "But where is the medical documentation?" Normally, I wouldn't care, since for me it is an exegetical question, not an experiential one. But I was on Steve Hays' blog and I found this, if it means anything to anybody.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/modern-miracle-reports-with-evidence.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/modern-miracle-reports-with-evidence_15.html


----------



## earl40 (Oct 11, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Everyone was asking "But where is the medical documentation?" Normally, I wouldn't care, since for me it is an exegetical question, not an experiential one.



May I ask, if this is not too far off subject. What about those who witnessed the miracles Jesus and the Apostles performed? Were they not basing the answer to the question based on experience?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 11, 2018)

earl40 said:


> May I ask, if this is not too far off subject. What about those who witnessed the miracles Jesus and the Apostles performed? Were they not basing the answer to the question based on experience?



Absolutely. But charismatics have normally been accused of "just doing experience." So I decided to try a different tact: just exegesis. Of course, I can go the experience route. I have the universal testimony of the church. But then people say, "We just believe the Bible," so what's the point?

There is a larger epistemological issue: we need to be careful of using the same skeptical arguments against modern miracle claims that atheists use against the Gospels.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## earl40 (Oct 11, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Absolutely. But charismatics have normally been accused of "just doing experience." So I decided to try a different tact: just exegesis.



What exactly is the exegetical reason for your belief?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 11, 2018)

earl40 said:


> What exactly is the exegetical reason for your belief?



I've probably been over it a dozen times already in this thread.

Exegetical might be too strong, since I didn't format my keyboard to use Greek terms. We'll go with textual:

1. 1 Cor 1, where Paul equates the duration of spiritual gifts until the time of Christ's return.
2. James 5--regardless of what this means exactly, and whether it expired or not, it was an example of miracles that had nothing to do with the apostles or with "confirming a message."
3. I'm trying to think of other areas. We've covered it on this thread and another thread this year around Spring time at least 20-30 times.
4. I pointed out that the past tenses in Hebrews 1 had nothing to do with whether prophecy expired or not. If it did, and if John wrote after Hebrews, then we have at least one instance of prophecy continuing after prophecy expired. That is a contradiction and is fatal to the whole argument.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 12, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I've probably been over it a dozen times already in this thread.
> 
> Exegetical might be too strong, since I didn't format my keyboard to use Greek terms. We'll go with textual:
> 
> ...



Appreciate.  Of course I disagree but another thread another day. If I get the energy I would like discuss these points one day, for I would not hope to think the PB would like to express and endorse that the continuation of the gifts for today is still going on.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Oct 12, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Sure, but cessationists need to realize that Hinn isn't the standard of discussion, Keener is. And if we go by abuses, I can make "Pastor" Steven Anderson the standard of cessationism.
> 
> Thanks for the exchange, too. I don't recall ever practicing "the power gifts" (except for maybe one word of knowledge). So that's my story, for what it's worth.



Out of interest, thinking back to the time when you practiced one word of knowledge, a few questions about it: Was it a word of Scripture, or an extra - scriptural word of knowledge? Would you say it was an infallible word? Was it inspired by the Holy Ghost, and if not, in what sense was it a power gift (assuming this means one of the gifts of the Holy Ghost mentioned in the NT which you were practicing)?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 12, 2018)

ScottishPresbyterian said:


> Was it a word of Scripture, or an extra - scriptural word of knowledge?



It was more of a summary of Scripture. I suppose, depending on the English translation, I could find a word-to-word correspondence.



> Would you say it was an infallible word?



If it came from God, yes. But my understanding of the details is contingent (think of how Agabus's details don't fully match up with what he prophecied, though the prophecy was correct).



> Was it inspired by the Holy Ghost



I hope so, otherwise I am channeling demons! Anyway, "inspired" is a loaded term. Shakespeare is inspiring, but not theopneustos. If you are asking if it is ex-spirated in the sense of theopneustos, no.



> and if not, in what sense was it a power gift (assuming this means one of the gifts of the Holy Ghost mentioned in the NT which you were practicing)?



see above


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Oct 12, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> It was more of a summary of Scripture. I suppose, depending on the English translation, I could find a word-to-word correspondence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Forgive me, but I don't fully understand your answers. When you say it was a summary of Scripture, do you mean you articulated a doctrine which was scriptural (with Scriptural backing perhaps), or paraphrased a verse of Scripture? Neither sound like gifts in the sense being discussed (I. E. Nobody i am aware of would be contending that the ability to do these things has ceased). Perhaps it would clarify if you told us what the word of knowledge was, assuming it is to edification.

I'm not sure what to make of the other answers, particularly in conjunction with each other. By "inspired by the Holy Spirit" of course I do mean Theopneustos - after all the Holy Spirit is God (not sure why this is a loaded term). You seem to disclaim this for your word of knowledge, but yet state that if it came from God it was infallible (tautology), and yet by disclaim in inspiration presumably you suggest it did not come from God, hence my confusion. Given all this, the "see above" at the end doesn't help to answer the question it is supposed to answer.

Can you clarify a little?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 12, 2018)

ScottishPresbyterian said:


> When you say it was a summary of Scripture, do you mean you articulated a doctrine which was scriptural (with Scriptural backing perhaps), or paraphrased a verse of Scripture?



Paraphrased a verse. There are many verses like "Fear not" or "I will be with you" which could either be exact quotes or paraphases of larger statements.


ScottishPresbyterian said:


> By "inspired by the Holy Spirit" of course I do mean Theopneustos - after all the Holy Spirit is God (not sure why this is a loaded term)



In that case, no. I was not theopneustosed. But the word "inspired" is misleading because when you look at the English word and compare it to what the Spirit is actually doing, it isn't the people who are inspired. It is the Spirit who is ex-spiring (breathing out). Yet, we don't want to say the Holy Spirit expired!


ScottishPresbyterian said:


> You seem to disclaim this for your word of knowledge, but yet state that if it came from God it was infallible (tautology)



All of God's truths are infallible by definition. Yet, given the nature of epistemic warrant, I fully concede I could be wrong. That's just basic epistemology.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Oct 12, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Paraphrased a verse. There are many verses like "Fear not" or "I will be with you" which could either be exact quotes or paraphases of larger statements.
> 
> 
> In that case, no. I was not theopneustosed. But the word "inspired" is misleading because when you look at the English word and compare it to what the Spirit is actually doing, it isn't the people who are inspired. It is the Spirit who is ex-spiring (breathing out). Yet, we don't want to say the Holy Spirit expired!
> ...



So to get down to the bedrock of my question, if you could be wrong, how can it be a word of knowledge in the sense of a gift given by the Spirit? Does the Spirit give as gifts words of knowledge which could be wrong?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 12, 2018)

ScottishPresbyterian said:


> So to get down to the bedrock of my question, if you could be wrong, how can it be a word of knowledge in the sense of a gift given by the Spirit? Does the Spirit give as gifts words of knowledge which could be wrong?



Does the Spirit give the gift of teaching so that teachers could be wrong? Certainly, as we know men who are skilled teachers (Doug Wilson) yet are terribly wrong.

I say that I could be wrong simply on the basis of epistemology: I don't have 100% certainty of anything. But given what Plantinga taught us about warranted epistemic beliefs, that's not a problem.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 12, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Everyone was asking "But where is the medical documentation?" Normally, I wouldn't care, since for me it is an exegetical question, not an experiential one. But I was on Steve Hays' blog and I found this, if it means anything to anybody.
> 
> http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/modern-miracle-reports-with-evidence.html
> 
> http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/modern-miracle-reports-with-evidence_15.html


Thank you for the references. 
I agree, ultimately the answers are decided exegetically. If people are going to claim apostolic type gifts today, we need to have a clear biblical understanding and criteria in order to evaluate such claims. 

But from the references you gave, these could certainly fit the James 5 types of healing in answer to prayer, but not the apostolic gift of healing by command.


----------



## Abeard (Oct 12, 2018)

bookslover said:


> Man, what a thread!
> 
> All I did was note the hundredth anniversary of Warfield's book - and now look at what this thread has gone and done. LOL
> 
> Not complaining - just marveling.



You've created a monster! haha

This must be a record or something.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 12, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> But from the references you gave, these could certainly fit the James 5 types of healing in answer to prayer, but not the apostolic gift of healing by command.



I think I can agree with that, though I think the "apostolic healing by command" wasn't 100%.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 12, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I think I can agree with that, though I think the "apostolic healing by command" wasn't 100%.



Of course in James 5 it is a promise, and if one was sick they were healed each and every time back then.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 12, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Of course in James 5 it is a promise, and if one was sick they were healed each and every time back then.



Since that is a prescriptive passage, not descriptive, we have no stats on the matter. And the book of Proverbs is full of prescriptions which more often than not, aren't strictly true 100% of the time. And James is wisdom literature.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Oct 12, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Does the Spirit give the gift of teaching so that teachers could be wrong? Certainly, as we know men who are skilled teachers (Doug Wilson) yet are terribly wrong.
> 
> I say that I could be wrong simply on the basis of epistemology: I don't have 100% certainty of anything. But given what Plantinga taught us about warranted epistemic beliefs, that's not a problem.



So how do you distinguish this word of knowledge which you believe to be a gift of the Holy Ghost from any other pronouncement you make?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 12, 2018)

ScottishPresbyterian said:


> So how do you distinguish this word of knowledge which you believe to be a gift of the Holy Ghost from any other pronouncement you make?



Given what we know about epistemic warrant and belief-formation, there are several indicators:

1) it is immediate (not formed on the basis of any other belief)
2) a belief is generally a motion of the mind towards an object. In this case, the Holy Spirit gives the content without my mind willing that content to arise.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Oct 12, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Given what we know about epistemic warrant and belief-formation, there are several indicators:
> 
> 1) it is immediate (not formed on the basis of any other belief)
> 2) a belief is generally a motion of the mind towards an object. In this case, the Holy Spirit gives the content without my mind willing that content to arise.



So if something suddenly pops into your mind you believe it to be a gift of the Spirit?

I'm not trying to be obnoxious, I really don't understand the thinking. Perhaps an example would really be helpful in understanding where you are coming from here.

As I alluded to in my earlier post, we cannot assume that any thoughts, opinions or knowledge we have is word from God unless we are willing to claim it is infallible - the alternative to this is to concede that God could give a fallible word of knowledge. If the word in question is Scripture then of course we are absolutely warranted to claim this, but then it is not an extraordinary gift. If it is not Scripture then if we claim it is a word from God, we confess extra-Scriptural revelations from God - is this your position?


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 12, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The Holy Spirit gives the content without my mind willing that content to arise.



Years ago, at a wildly charismatic church in Toronto, a woman stood up and gave a "word of knowledge". She didn't speak long, and what she said was mostly different bits of Scripture cobbled together into a "prophecy". It wasn't wordless babble.

But what rules out an ecstatic utterance? How can you know that the Holy Spirit moved you? You've given no real answer to that question.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 12, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> But what rules out an ecstatic utterance?



Probably the fact I wasn't speaking or uttering anything at all.


Tom Hart said:


> How can you know that the Holy Spirit moved you? You've given no real answer to that question.



Because epistemologically it is a self-defeating question. It's what philosopher Roderick Chisholm called "the problem of criterion." I am not obligated to _keep on giving justifications for my beliefs_ (which in turn will force me to give justifications for my justifications, and on to infinity).

If I am to know how I know something, I must have both an object of knowledge (_p_, word of wisdom in this case) and a criterion to validate _p_ (we will call _q_.). I must also have something else: _r_, the fact that _p _satisfies _q_.

But this raises a problem. One can now ask “How do you know _q _and _r_?” What justifies my choosing this as a criterion? I must now satisfy the conditions with _q’ _and _r’_. But that isn’t good enough. How do I know _q’ _and _r’_? I must now satisfy those new conditions with _q”_ and _r”_.

But to point towards an answer: I had asked God a question and immediately, before I had a chance to reflect on anything, a distinct proposition was in my head. The proposition glorified God, attacked Satan’s kingdom, and furthered my trust in Jesus. If that isn’t a sufficient criterion, nothing is.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 12, 2018)

ScottishPresbyterian said:


> So if something suddenly pops into your mind you believe it to be a gift of the Spirit?



No.


ScottishPresbyterian said:


> we cannot assume that any thoughts, opinions or knowledge we have is word from God unless we are willing to claim it is infallible



Was Agabus infallible? Did he give 100% accurate correspondence to the facts? 


ScottishPresbyterian said:


> If it is not Scripture then if we claim it is a word from God, we confess extra-Scriptural revelations from God - is this your position?



No. I am not using revelation in the sense you are. I am using it in the sense of the NT, which is simply "Unveiling." Numerous times apocalypsis/apocalypto is used in the NT it has nothing to do with what we call Scriptural canon.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 12, 2018)

Here is why really pressing on the "how do you really, really know" line is dangerous. We all believe in the _estimonium Spiritus sancti internum. _So the question now is, "How do you really, really know that was from the Holy Spirit?" Can't use the Bible, since that would be circular reasoning since you got the idea from the Bible. 

This is why knowledge doesn't equal justified, true belief. It is warranted, true belief.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 12, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I think I can agree with that, though I think the "apostolic healing by command" wasn't 100%.


Another exegetical issue to work through though is the timing of James. It was likely an earlier epistle. The later epistles like Timothy and Titus do not stress healing at all. One would think Paul should have addressed it as he sent these men to further establish the churches. The same with other later epistles from Peter and John. I'm not saying healings didn't happen, but the emphasis certainly is not there like it was in the immediate years following Pentecost. Just one more exegetical dimension to work through...


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 12, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Another exegetical issue to work through though is the timing of James. It was likely an earlier epistle.



Maybe, but that argument cuts both ways. Hebrews wasn't the last book, so that means that the verses in chapter 1 don't prove prophecy stopped, since there is at least one more prophecy to come (probably two, if we count Jude).


Puritan Sailor said:


> The later epistles like Timothy and Titus do not stress healing at all. One would think Paul should have addressed it as he sent these men to further establish the churches.



Argument from silence


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 12, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Probably the fact I wasn't speaking or uttering anything at all.
> 
> Because epistemologically it is a self-defeating question. It's what philosopher Roderick Chisholm called "the problem of criterion." I am not obligated to _keep on giving justifications for my beliefs_ (which in turn will force me to give justifications for my justifications, and on to infinity).
> 
> ...



A thought popped into your head as an answer to prayer?

I believe that God does indeed give distinct answers to prayer. It has happened sometimes that as I have been praying I come to some solution or decision, or a greater sense of assurance, etc.

I am a cessationist, but I do believe that God answers prayer.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but it is possible that we are closer on this issue than it would at first seem. I would not place this sort of answered prayer in the same class as a healing miracle or Agabus-like prophecy, however.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Oct 13, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Probably the fact I wasn't speaking or uttering anything at all.
> 
> But to point towards an answer: I had asked God a question and immediately, before I had a chance to reflect on anything, a distinct proposition was in my head. The proposition glorified God, attacked Satan’s kingdom, and furthered my trust in Jesus. If that isn’t a sufficient criterion, nothing is.



This makes it more clear - God answers prayer and providentially guides us by His Spirit, it's marvellous in it's own way, but not the same thing as the gifts the early church had. I don't mean that they were not guided in this way, just that we cannot equate this with the gifts of healing, prophecy, tongues, etc.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 13, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but it is possible that we are closer on this issue than it would at first seem.



That's where most people are on the issue. The Strange Fire types have muddied the water by saying there is Macarthur on the one side and Benny Hinn on the other. In terms of NT scholarship, however, most people are closer to Carson.


Tom Hart said:


> I would not place this sort of answered prayer in the same class as a healing miracle or Agabus-like prophecy, however.



I wouldn't, either. But I also would't place Agabus's prophecy in the same class as Elijah's.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 13, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Maybe, but that argument cuts both ways. Hebrews wasn't the last book, so that means that the verses in chapter 1 don't prove prophecy stopped, since there is at least one more prophecy to come (probably two, if we count Jude).


I never said Hebrews was the last book. That was someone else. I think the contribution of Hebrews is that it explains the divine purpose of the sign gifts for confirming the apostolic testimony. I agree with you that it doesn't provide a hard date for when they ceased. 



> Argument from silence


A fairly loud silence though if you are going to argue for robust continuation of healings as part of ordinary church life, rather than just sporadic occurrences throughout the rest of church history. Further, to say the miracles continued in the same intensity (or should continue) as the earlier books is also an argument from silence. Again, I said this was one exegetical piece of the argument, not the whole.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 13, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I think the contribution of Hebrews is that it explains the divine purpose of the sign gifts for confirming the apostolic testimony.



The difficulty with that is its hard to see how Philip's daughters confirmed the apostolic testimony. Maybe they did, but it's not immediately clear.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 13, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The difficulty with that is its hard to see how Philip's daughters confirmed the apostolic testimony. Maybe they did, but it's not immediately clear.


God didn't just confirm the testimony through the miracles but through distributing the prophetic gifts. The very act of their prophecy was an act of divine confirmation proving the fulfillment of Joel 2 among other things (as Peter made clear in Acts 2).

Hebrews 2:4 "God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will." 

The gifts provided divine confirmation just as much as the miracles did.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 13, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> God didn't just confirm the testimony through the miracles but through distributing the prophetic gifts. The very act of their prophecy was an act of divine confirmation proving the fulfillment of Joel 2 among other things (as Peter made clear in Acts 2).
> 
> Hebrews 2:4 "God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will."
> 
> The gifts provided divine confirmation just as much as the miracles did.



But by that same logic, any of the gifts could do that but they haven't expired


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 13, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> But by that same logic, any of the gifts could do that but they haven't expired


Perhaps, but the context seems to emphasize the extraordinary signs and gifts tied to the new revelation, not the gifts dealing with ordinary Christian piety and ministry. The extraordinary delivery at Sinai (alluded to in vs. 2) had ongoing significance even though the extraordinary circumstances ceased which brought about the original message. Hebrews seems to be making a similar case for the new revelation, extraordinary circumstances through which the message was delivered and confirmed, but with ongoing significance for those who hear the message later even after those extraordinary circumstances have passed on. The pastoral epistles, Peter, and John seem to give the same impression, emphasizing ordinary gospel ministry rather than the extraordinary signs or gifts through which the gospel originally came. 

Again, just thinking out loud with you here... I appreciate you asking hard questions and pressing on the common assumptions.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 15, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I agree with this post. I just used James to push back against the idea that the only healings in the NT were apostolic-office healings tied with sign gifts.


During the time of James, God would still heal if He chose to by answering the prayer made in faith, but does not mean that the Apostolic Gift was still now in operation.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 15, 2018)

earl40 said:


> In James it is promised, and of course we may pray for others today but not guaranteed, as it was during the time when James was written.


We can still do the same today then, but up to the Lord to answer yes or no, correct?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 15, 2018)

kainos01 said:


> How do you reconcile the emboldened part of your post with Mk. 9:14-29 (or do you make a distinction between the healing of 1) physical ailments due to genetic/physiological issues and 2) demon-possession, which causes physical ailments, such as being deaf and dumb)?


I see the Lord Jesus and His Apostles doing healings that involved both demonic issues and strictly physical ailments.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 15, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Out of curiosity, do you think Hebrews was the last book written in the NT?


The Book of the Revelation was the last canon Book recorded down for us.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 15, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> But by that same logic, any of the gifts could do that but they haven't expired


The speaking in tongues and the sign gifts fulfilled OT scriptures and were also used to confirm the work and ministry of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 15, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Perhaps, but the context seems to emphasize the extraordinary signs and gifts tied to the new revelation, not the gifts dealing with ordinary Christian piety and ministry. The extraordinary delivery at Sinai (alluded to in vs. 2) had ongoing significance even though the extraordinary circumstances ceased which brought about the original message. Hebrews seems to be making a similar case for the new revelation, extraordinary circumstances through which the message was delivered and confirmed, but with ongoing significance for those who hear the message later even after those extraordinary circumstances have passed on. The pastoral epistles, Peter, and John seem to give the same impression, emphasizing ordinary gospel ministry rather than the extraordinary signs or gifts through which the gospel originally came.
> 
> Again, just thinking out loud with you here... I appreciate you asking hard questions and pressing on the common assumptions.


Jesus Himself seemed to be hinting at what would be happening after the Apostolic Age was over, as He told them blessed are those who would hear and not see, but believed the message.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 15, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The speaking in tongues and the sign gifts fulfilled OT scriptures and were also used to confirm the work and ministry of Jesus Christ.


When Paul spoke in tongues where he was only edifying himself, as he admits, how was that a sign confirming Jesus?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 15, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Book of the Revelation was the last canon Book recorded down for us.



I know.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 15, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> During the time of James, God would still heal if He chose to by answering the prayer made in faith, but does not mean that the Apostolic Gift was still now in operation.



Is that like your conclusion or your premise?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 15, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> When Paul spoke in tongues where he was only edifying himself, as he admits, how was that a sign confirming Jesus?


The tongues used by God in Acts were a sign to the Jews that the gentiles were now also being saved by same messiah, Jesus Christ.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 15, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Is that like your conclusion or your premise?


Asking for clarrification as to if that promise was just for that time or for today also?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 15, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Asking for clarrification as to if that promise was just for that time or for today also?



You are just stating that line. I know that's what you believe. You said it a hundred times on this thread. I am not sure why you are saying it again. An argument has premises that support a conclusion. You are just stating the conclusion as though that solved the problem.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 15, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The tongues used by God in Acts were a sign to the Jews that the gentiles were now also being saved by same messiah, Jesus Christ.



When Paul was only edifying himself, how could that be a sign to the Jews? Wouldn't their being saved also edify them?


----------



## earl40 (Oct 15, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> We can still do the same today then, but up to the Lord to answer yes or no, correct?



I do not believe we ought to oil up the head like James instructed. Our Lord today works through ordinary means, unlike the promises in James.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 15, 2018)

earl40 said:


> I do not believe we ought to oil up the head like James instructed. Our Lord today works through ordinary means, unlike the promises in James.



For what it's worth, the elders of my then-church poured oil on a family member of mine and the doctors were afterwards able to diagnose the problem.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 15, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> When Paul spoke in tongues where he was only edifying himself, as he admits, how was that a sign confirming Jesus?



Where are you getting this?


----------



## earl40 (Oct 15, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> For what it's worth, the elders of my then-church poured oil on a family member of mine and the doctors were afterwards able to diagnose the problem.



I am happy the Dr. found out what was wrong, but I know it had nothing to do with oil on the head.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 15, 2018)

earl40 said:


> I do not believe we ought to oil up the head like James instructed. Our Lord today works through ordinary means, unlike the promises in James.


What in the text though specified that we are no longer to follow that procedure for today with the church Elders?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 15, 2018)

earl40 said:


> I am happy the Dr. found out what was wrong, but I know it had nothing to do with oil on the head.



That's a good example of your theory getting in the way of a) what the text actually says and b) the facts.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 15, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Where are you getting this?



1 Cor 14:4. The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.

If tongues in this case were a sign to confirm Jesus, it's hard to see how they only edify the tongue-speaker.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 15, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> What in the text though specified that we are no longer to follow that procedure for today with the church Elders?



Because the promise that the sick will be made well does not happen today after one receives oil.


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 15, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Because the promise that the sick will be made well does not happen today after one receives oil.


What about essential oils?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## earl40 (Oct 15, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> 1 Cor 14:4. The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.
> 
> If tongues in this case were a sign to confirm Jesus, it's hard to see how they only edify the tongue-speaker.



So you think Paul spoke tongues all by his lonesome self sometimes? Or do you believe he practiced speaking in tongues in the company of people?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 15, 2018)

earl40 said:


> So you think Paul spoke tongues all by his lonesome self sometimes? Or do you believe he practiced speaking in tongues in the company of people?



The evidence isn't conclusive. That he spoke in tongues is a given, since he told the Corinthians "I speak in tongues more than all of you."


----------



## Taylor (Oct 15, 2018)

Grant Jones said:


> What about essential oils?


----------



## earl40 (Oct 16, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The evidence isn't conclusive. That he spoke in tongues is a given, since he told the Corinthians "I speak in tongues more than all of you."



The point of my question was for you to see that Paul did not practice speaking in tongues by himself. In other words, I know he was not speaking in tongues to "edify" himself.

14 *For if* I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 16, 2018)

earl40 said:


> The point of my question was for you to see that Paul did not practice speaking in tongues by himself.



I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you (1 Cor. 14:18).

Was it private or in public? Doesn't matter, since he is clear that tongues only edifies the speaker, which makes it odd for tongues to confirm the apostolic ministry.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 16, 2018)

earl40 said:


> So you think Paul spoke tongues all by his lonesome self sometimes? Or do you believe he practiced speaking in tongues in the company of people?


I do not think that the scriptures support the concept of a personal prayer tongue languages though.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 16, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you (1 Cor. 14:18).
> 
> Was it private or in public? Doesn't matter, since he is clear that tongues only edifies the speaker, which makes it odd for tongues to confirm the apostolic ministry.


The gift of tongues was by the will of the Holy Spirit though back then, as not all saved had them, correct?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 16, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The gift of tongues was by the will of the Holy Spirit though back then, as not all saved had them, correct?



That's true of almost every gift. Not everyone has the gift of pastoring, teaching, administrating, etc.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 16, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you (1 Cor. 14:18).
> 
> Was it private or in public? Doesn't matter, since he is clear that tongues only edifies the speaker, which makes it odd for tongues to confirm the apostolic ministry.



I think you need to read 1 Cor 14 again and understand that Paul is *clearly *commanding one is not to speak in tongues by himself, and I know he did not disobey his own command. 

If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 16, 2018)

earl40 said:


> I think you need to read 1 Cor 14 again and understand that Paul is *clearly *commanding one is not to speak in tongues by himself, and I know he did not disobey his own command.
> 
> If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.



D.A. Carson writes,

_“Paul thanks God that he speaks in tongues more than all of his readers. . . If Paul speaks in tongues more than all the Corinthians, yet in the church prefers to speak five intelligible words rather than ten thousand words in a tongue . . ., then where does he speak them? . . . The only possible conclusion is that Paul exercised his remarkable tongues gift in private” (p. 105)_

Showing the Spirit.

I'm actually undecided on the issue. My initial point was pushing back against the ubiquitous "everything miraculous is a sign that confirmed apostolic ministry." There is no evidence that every miracle was only a confirmation of apostolic message. Further, there is no logical warrant to move from that dubious premise to the conclusion "It doesn't happen today."


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Oct 16, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> 1 Cor 14:4. The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.
> 
> If tongues in this case were a sign to confirm Jesus, it's hard to see how they only edify the tongue-speaker.



They didn't only edify the tongue-speaker - if you read the context Paul is telling the Corinthians not to use the gift of tongues in the church when it would not edify the hearers. On the day of Pentecost the Apostles spoke in tongues and it clearly did edify the hearers - it was a sign verifying the truth of what they were saying.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 16, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> D.A. Carson writes,
> 
> _“Paul thanks God that he speaks in tongues more than all of his readers. . . If Paul speaks in tongues more than all the Corinthians, yet in the church prefers to speak five intelligible words rather than ten thousand words in a tongue . . ., then where does he speak them? . . . The only possible conclusion is that Paul exercised his remarkable tongues gift in private” (p. 105)_
> 
> ...


There is no scripture though to support that the same supernatural gifts given by Jesus to His own Apostles are being distributed by God among the Church body today.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 16, 2018)

ScottishPresbyterian said:


> They didn't only edify the tongue-speaker - if you read the context Paul is telling the Corinthians not to use the gift of tongues in the church when it would not edify the hearers. On the day of Pentecost the Apostles spoke in tongues and it clearly did edify the hearers - it was a sign verifying the truth of what they were saying.


Those tongues were actually real earthly languages, not unknown Heavenly tongue as many claim for today.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 16, 2018)

earl40 said:


> I think you need to read 1 Cor 14 again and understand that Paul is *clearly *commanding one is not to speak in tongues by himself, and I know he did not disobey his own command.
> 
> If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.


He would probably see a difference between the tongue God gives to edify the local assembly, and the one used in private prayers to God.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Oct 16, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Those tongues were actually real earthly languages, not unknown Heavenly tongue as many claim for today.



Indeed. The inane babble uttered by those today who claim to have the gift of tongues is not at all the same thing, and to suggest it comes from the Holy Ghost is bordering on blasphemous.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 16, 2018)

ScottishPresbyterian said:


> Indeed. The inane babble uttered by those today who claim to have the gift of tongues is not at all the same thing, and to suggest it comes from the Holy Ghost is bordering on blasphemous.


IF there were any gift of tongues being given and used by God for today, would seem to be say on the missions field to get the Gospel message out among those never hearing of Jesus, but surely not speaking in gibberish.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 16, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> There is no scripture though to support that the same supernatural gifts given by Jesus to His own Apostles are being distributed by God among the Church body today.



There is no Scripture to support, by that reasoning, that any of the gifts are continuing today. It's not good to build positions on logical fallacies (argument from silence).


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 16, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> IF there were any gift of tongues being given and used by God for today, would seem to be say on the missions field to get the Gospel message out among those never hearing of Jesus, but surely not speaking in gibberish.



Your sentence isn't clear on who or what the actual subject is, but I'll take a guess. How do you know that this isn't happening? Missional reports an bck this up. I already refuted your "No medical testimonies have been found" earlier in this thread.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 17, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> D.A. Carson writes,
> 
> _“Paul thanks God that he speaks in tongues more than all of his readers. . . If Paul speaks in tongues more than all the Corinthians, yet in the church prefers to speak five intelligible words rather than ten thousand words in a tongue . . ., then where does he speak them? . . . The only possible conclusion is that Paul exercised his remarkable tongues gift in private” (p. 105)_
> 
> ...



Just trying to point you in the right direction in that you should decide exactly what speaking in tongues is. If it is speaking in a language, each and every time, Paul would not do it all by himself against his command. If you believe tongues also includes some type of prayer language then we have another issue to discuss.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 17, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Just trying to point you in the right direction in that you should decide exactly what speaking in tongues is. If it is speaking in a language, each and every time, Paul would not do it all by himself against his command. If you believe tongues also includes some type of prayer language then we have another issue to discuss.



I don't have a definite position on tongues. For example, when Peter and them spoke in tongues on Pentecost, while their audience understood it, they didn't have a designated interpreter per Paul's command in Corinthians. So I don't think the two situations are entirely identical.

In any case, I personally don't speak in tongues and I don't think I know anyone that does, so it's more of an academic issue to me.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 17, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't have a definite position on tongues. For example, when Peter and them spoke in tongues on Pentecost, while their audience understood it, they didn't have a designated interpreter per Paul's command in Corinthians. So I don't think the two situations are entirely identical.
> 
> In any case, I personally don't speak in tongues and I don't think I know anyone that does, so it's more of an academic issue to me.



I hear you, though not having a definite position does lend you to not being able to defend your thoughts very well. Also those that heard and understood at Pentecost were the interpreters.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 17, 2018)

earl40 said:


> I hear you, though not having a definite position does lend you to not being able to defend your thoughts very well.



Outside observers can be the judge of that (since many have emailed me and are considering continuationism). 


earl40 said:


> Also those that heard and understood at Pentecost were the interpreters.



That's specifically *not* how Paul prescribed the situation, which lends credence to the claim that these two situations are not analogous.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 17, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't have a definite position on tongues. For example, when Peter and them spoke in tongues on Pentecost, while their audience understood it, they didn't have a designated interpreter per Paul's command in Corinthians. So I don't think the two situations are entirely identical.
> 
> In any case, I personally don't speak in tongues and I don't think I know anyone that does, so it's more of an academic issue to me.



This really isn't that hard to reconcile. In Acts 2, an interpreter was not needed since they were speaking the languages of those nations, so of course they understood. In 1 Corinthians, it would seem the foreign language was not known in the congregation, therefore it required interpretation in order to be profitable to them. Paul likely spoke tongues in both contexts, in missionary encounters with those who did not speak his language, and in a corporate worship context when there was an interpreter. 

Regarding your earlier question of how the gift of tongues confirmed the apostolic testimony, it was not necessarily the message of any particular tongue that confirmed the testimony, but the new presence of the gift itself (again Hebrew 2:3-4). It was a new sign (along with many others) accompanying and confirming the new revelation of the gospel. But it still had to be used according to God's purpose, not for various recipients to show off.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 17, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> This really isn't that hard to reconcile. In Acts 2, an interpreter was not needed since they were speaking the languages of those nations, so of course they understood.



I can go with that, but that confirms (probably not the best term, given current discussion!) one of my suspicions that there aren't always absolute rules in these situations.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 17, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I can go with that, but that confirms (probably not the best term, given current discussion!) one of my suspicions that there aren't always absolute rules in these situations.


I think Paul set out the rule in 1 Cor 14. Either use a language the audience can understand, or interpret it so they can understand, or keep your mouth shut, all for the good of the body.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 18, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> There is no Scripture to support, by that reasoning, that any of the gifts are continuing today. It's not good to build positions on logical fallacies (argument from silence).


We know that the Lord Jesus bestowed those sign gifts to His own Apostles for their mission in His name, but we have no reputable documentation supporting that God continued to grant those same gifts after John died.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 18, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> but we have no reputable documentation supporting that God continued to grant those same gifts after John died.



Yes we do. It's called church history. And even if we didn't have church history documentation, that would be irrelevant, since it is an exegetical question.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 18, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Your sentence isn't clear on who or what the actual subject is, but I'll take a guess. How do you know that this isn't happening? Missional reports an bck this up. I already refuted your "No medical testimonies have been found" earlier in this thread.


My position would be that the sign gifts were given to the Apostles in order to validate the Person of Jesus , and the Gospel message as being from God, so if still was in operation, the mission fields shoud be the only place where God might be alllowing those sign gifts to be in operation for the expressed purpose to confirm Jesus as Lord and Gospel as true, but even then they would shortly wane and cease.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 18, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> This really isn't that hard to reconcile. In Acts 2, an interpreter was not needed since they were speaking the languages of those nations, so of course they understood. In 1 Corinthians, it would seem the foreign language was not known in the congregation, therefore it required interpretation in order to be profitable to them. Paul likely spoke tongues in both contexts, in missionary encounters with those who did not speak his language, and in a corporate worship context when there was an interpreter.
> 
> Regarding your earlier question of how the gift of tongues confirmed the apostolic testimony, it was not necessarily the message of any particular tongue that confirmed the testimony, but the new presence of the gift itself (again Hebrew 2:3-4). It was a new sign (along with many others) accompanying and confirming the new revelation of the gospel. But it still had to be used according to God's purpose, not for various recipients to show off.


The main purpose of the sign gifts were to confirm Jesus as Messiah, and that the Gospel was true, butthat was just during the transisition period recorded in Acts.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 18, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Yes we do. It's called church history. And even if we didn't have church history documentation, that would be irrelevant, since it is an exegetical question.


We do not have reliable source showing to us God kept distributing the sign gifts to His body though.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 18, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> We do not have reliable source showing to us God kept distributing the sign gifts to His body though.



Yes we do. Athanasius's _On the Incarnation_ for one. Gregory Thaumaturge is another. Gregory of Nazianzus received visions. Augustine, himself a cessationist, documents case after case in City of God.

This is basic church history.

Unless you mean reliable = infallibly inspired, in which case most of human knowledge isn't reliable.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 18, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> My position would be that the sign gifts were given to the Apostles in order to validate the Person of Jesus , and the Gospel message as being from God, so if still was in operation, the mission fields shoud be the only place where God might be alllowing those sign gifts to be in operation for the expressed purpose to confirm Jesus as Lord and Gospel as true, but even then they would shortly wane and cease.



I know that is your position. My position is the negation of your position, but I doubt you find that proposition compelling. The point of a logical argument is to build a case from premises. For example:

Major Premise: Paul said the gifts would continue until Jesus returns (1 Cor. 1:7).
Minor premise: the erroneously-called sign gifts are gifts.
Conclusion: They continue.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 18, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The main purpose of the sign gifts were to confirm Jesus as Messiah, and that the Gospel was true, but that was just during the transition period recorded in Acts.


David, I'm not sure what the point of this post was, or the point of several of your last posts. You are merely repeating yourself or repeating what others have already said, not contributing anything new to the discussion. I would encourage you to just sit this one out now, and watch others interact about it. You've already made your positions known. I'm not trying to be mean, but it's hard to interact on this thread when it is filled with posts that are not helping it along. Blessings brother.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 18, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> David, I'm not sure what the point of this post was, or the point of several of your last posts. You are merely repeating yourself or repeating what others have already said, not contributing anything new to the discussion. I would encourage you to just sit this one out now, and watch others interact about it. You've already made your positions known. I'm not trying to be mean, but it's hard to interact on this thread when it is filled with posts that are not helping it along. Blessings brother.



And on that note, I'm probably tapping out. I'm not sure what new post or argument I could make (and that's probably true for any thread that's nine pages long!)

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 18, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Yes we do. Athanasius's _On the Incarnation_ for one. Gregory Thaumaturge is another. Gregory of Nazianzus received visions. Augustine, himself a cessationist, documents case after case in City of God.
> 
> This is basic church history.
> 
> Unless you mean reliable = infallibly inspired, in which case most of human knowledge isn't reliable.


I am just saying that while the Lord can and has at times still done healings amd miracles, there have been no documented miracle workers/healers in the way of theApostles themselves in church history.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 18, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> David, I'm not sure what the point of this post was, or the point of several of your last posts. You are merely repeating yourself or repeating what others have already said, not contributing anything new to the discussion. I would encourage you to just sit this one out now, and watch others interact about it. You've already made your positions known. I'm not trying to be mean, but it's hard to interact on this thread when it is filled with posts that are not helping it along. Blessings brother.


I was under the impression that the traditional Reformed view in regards to the supernatural gifts as evidenced by the Apostles ceased after John passed away, is that not the historical reformed viewpoint on this issue?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 18, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I was under the impression that the traditional Reformed view in regards to the supernatural gifts as evidenced by the Apostles ceased after John passed away, is that not the historical reformed viewpoint on this issue?


Yes, but everyone in this thread already knew that, and you already stated that several times. Jacob was asking more specific exegetical questions to get down to the roots of that tradition, and why it is (or isn't) justified. Simply repeating the obvious doesn't help the discussion at all.


----------

