# Is the Westminster Confession and the Baptist Confession of 1689 Cessationist?



## Eoghan (Feb 24, 2021)

You can find a comparison here https://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_lbcf.html

My question arises (again) from a Bible study on Genesis 40 last night. I take the view that special revelation has ceased and that everything we need is within the canon of scripture. (2 Timothy 3:15-17, Hebrews 2:3-4, " Timothy 4:20)

I was contradicted by an elder and minister who were of the opinion that God still speaks in dreams and prophesies (Acts 2:17)

As a former charismatic I am VERY aware of the door that is being opened. Important decisions about business and marriage partners should not be the subject of inward impressions, dreams, visions and prophecies. This is to open the door to mysticism. It is in my opinion much more in keeping with the mysticism of Roman Catholicism where visions and dreams are commonly currency. I want this door firmly closed, locked and bolted! My detractors feel that I am limiting God and denying that God can work any way He wants to.

[My post on personal visits by Jesus (https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-torn-veil-gulshan-esther.105152/#post-1270711) questions whether He still does 'house calls']


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 24, 2021)

For practical purposes it is, but men like Cameron and Cargill prophecied with accuracy.

Whether it resembles Catholicism or not is completely irrelevant to the question of whether it is logically true or false.


----------



## Eoghan (Feb 24, 2021)

The Roman Catholic Church accept the continuation of miracles and has panels set up to approve them. Were the reformed churches to accept the continuation of miracles I think it would require some investigative body. At present we rely on investigative reporters or the Great Randi who did a fantastic job of exposing charismatic healers and their "words of knowledge". 

I recall John MacArthur telling that one of his colleagues was prophesied to have an international ministry by a charismatic "prophet". At his grave some six months later John confronted him and was told that the prophesy was true, and that was why Satan took his life. Subjective experience is a guiding factor for charismatics. I recall Henry Krabbendam (?) telling the story of a couple that came to be married and finding out that both were divorced and had divorced as "the guilty party" to be together. They pressed on him that God meant for them to be together and that He should pray about it. He duly did and then caught himself thinking, "What am I doing, God has spoken in His word and here I am praying against His revealed will!" He refused to marry the adulterers (or pray about it!)

This incidentally is how Mormons start with their introduction to Joseph Smith. You are invited to pray about it and see if there is an inner witness to the truth of the book of Mormon. 

Did the Children's Crusade of 1212 AD not have it's origins in supposed "special revelation"?

Today we are familiar with the idea of vaccines which allow the body to fight off infections. They are given in advance of exposure to the infection and provide immunity. It is my contention that part of the job of a minister and the elders is to immunise the church membership against charismatic delusions and heresy. It should be proactive and, as was the practice of Paul, involve "reasoning from scripture" rather than experience. 

In reviewing the Baptist Confession I discovered it was revised in 1651 to counter the Quaker "inner light" method of interpreting scripture - more of which later.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 24, 2021)

Eoghan said:


> The Roman Catholic Church accept the continuation of miracles and has panels set up to approve them. Were the reformed churches to accept the continuation of miracles I think it would require some investigative body. At present we rely on investigative reporters or the Great Randi who did a fantastic job of exposing charismatic healers and their "words of knowledge".
> 
> I recall John MacArthur telling that one of his colleagues was prophesied to have an international ministry by a charismatic "prophet". At his grave some six months later John confronted him and was told that the prophesy was true, and that was why Satan took his life. Subjective experience is a guiding factor for charismatics. I recall Henry Krabbendam (?) telling the story of a couple that came to be married and finding out that both were divorced and had divorced as "the guilty party" to be together. They pressed on him that God meant for them to be together and that He should pray about it. He duly did and then caught himself thinking, "What am I doing, God has spoken in His word and here I am praying against His revealed will!" He refused to marry the adulterers (or pray about it!)
> 
> ...



That is a logical fallacy. You are pointing out moral failures (which no one denies) and not dealing with the issue. By the same logic, cessationism is false because Westboro Baptist Church exists.

In logic you cannot disprove an argument simply by noting how people behaved. At best, all you can really say is that there are dangers involved in continuationism. Absolutely. I myself have seen quite a bit. Logically, though, that is irrevelant.

And if we really want to play by that game, I have seen tyranny, legalism and literal suicide in cessationist churches. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Feb 24, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That is a logical fallacy. You are pointing out moral failures (which no one denies) and not dealing with the issue. By the same logic, cessationism is false because Westboro Baptist Church exists.
> 
> In logic you cannot disprove an argument simply by noting how people behaved. At best, all you can really say is that there are dangers involved in continuationism. Absolutely. I myself have seen quite a bit. Logically, though, that is irrevelant.
> 
> And if we really want to play by that game, I have seen tyranny, legalism and literal suicide in cessationist churches. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing.



I have a feeling you are wrong here.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 24, 2021)

Needs the extraordinary providence option which would encompass the sort of astute prophesying of the Reformation era. I'm not inclined to believe the later Covenanter stuff; the embellished stories of the Westminster assembly prove Scots were not beyond making up fantastical stories; but that is okay according to this view. I just did the final proof read of Durham's treatment of cessation of extraordinary gifts (on Prophecy) which will be in vol. 2 of the new edition of his commentary on Revelation which hopefully gets turned in to RHB on Monday March 1. It takes a rather strict cessationalist view why attempting to explain, carve out the exception of what a later writer placed as extraordinary providences. 
Been talking about this on and off for a while on the board. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-way-god-worked-in-the-ot.96163/#post-1175711

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Feb 24, 2021)

I think this question is assuming much that needs to be dealt with first. Without giving away my own position on these matters, here are some of the questions I am asking as I read the OP:

1) What is "cessationism"? It seems to me there are several varieties and flavors. Some would shun the idea of the Spirit even guiding the believer in any tangible way. Others would affirm the canon's closure, yet still argue for prophecies, words of knowledge, etc. (e.g., Grudem). Still others believe the canon is not closed and the Spirit is still inspiring (this, obviously, is heretical, but people do believe it).

2) How do we deal with the Confession's language when it speaks of "those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people"? What exactly is this talking about?

3) Having dealt with #1 and #2, what parameters are we to erect theologically to evaluate what is 1) within and without the bounds of "cessationism" and 2) within and without the bounds of the Confession's language? And how do we deal with the results?

As J. C. Ryle said (one of my favorite quotes):

It may be laid down as a rule, with tolerable confidence, that the absence of accurate definitions is the very life of religious controversy. If men would only define with precision the theological terms which they use, many disputes would die. Scores of excited disputants would discover that they do not really differ, and that their disputes have arisen from their own neglect of the great duty of explaining the meaning of words.​​_—_John Charles Ryle, _Knots Untied: Being Plain Statements on Disputed Points in Religion, from the Standpoint of an Evangelical Churchman_, 10th ed. (London: William Hunt and Company, 1885), 1.​

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 24, 2021)

earl40 said:


> I have a feeling you are wrong here.



Enter famous Ben Shapiro quote

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 24, 2021)

I'm not defending continuationism per se. I am just pointing out fallacious arguments. You don't want to try to debate someone like Michael Brown using the above arguments.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 24, 2021)

I wonder how many of these prophecies are like the most famous example, that Hus predicted the Reformation. Still striking, but not as overt as the later embellishment. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/goose/


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 24, 2021)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I wonder how many of these prophecies are like the most famous example, that Hus predicted the Reformation. Still striking, but not as overt as the later embellishment. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/goose/



Good point. Strictly speaking, in light of my earlier comment, even if Cameron was reported to prophecy, that doesn't logically prove continuationism any more than Roman Catholic silliness disproves it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eoghan (Feb 24, 2021)

I seem to recall Dr R. C. Sproul making the point that the Roman Catholic Church in it's dispute with Luther claimed it had miracles attesting to it's authority. Luther countered that the Reformation had miracles too, they were just confined to the New Testament era!

To speculate about predictions that men (or women) have made is to let the camel's nose in the tent. To concede that prophecy and dreams provide special revelation today is to welcome the camel into the tent!

Remember I come out of a charismatic background, people move house, change jobs or cease medication on the basis of "special revelation". Charismatics kill people when they stop medications or refuse to visit hospitals.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 24, 2021)

Eoghan said:


> I seem to recall Dr R. C. Sproul making the point that the Roman Catholic Church in it's dispute with Luther claimed it had miracles attesting to it's authority. Luther countered that the Reformation had miracles too, they were just confined to the New Testament era!
> 
> To speculate about predictions that men (or women) have made is to let the camel's nose in the tent. To concede that prophecy and dreams provide special revelation today is to welcome the camel into the tent!



This is a logical fallacy.


Eoghan said:


> Charismatics kill people when they stop medications or refuse to visit hospitals.



Except the leading charismatic debater, Michael Brown, repudiates that position. Even James White in his debates with Brown is fair on that point.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Feb 24, 2021)

If we’re going to discuss this topic fairly, I think it is best that we use each position’s best defenders. I don’t know who @BayouHuguenot has in mind, but I think of men like Grudem and Poythress for the continuationist side, and men like Gaffin for the cessationist side. Jacob is absolutely right in his calling foul on what has been said. The merits or demerits of any position cannot be based on the actions or character of its adherents. This is textbook _ad hominem_. We can discuss abuses, for sure, but what shows a position to be right or wrong is Scripture alone.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 24, 2021)

Taylor said:


> If we’re going to discuss this topic fairly, I think it is best that we use each position’s best defenders. I don’t know who @BayouHuguenot has in mind, but I think of men like Grudem and Poythress for the continuationist side, and men like Gaffin for the cessationist side. Jacob is absolutely right in his calling foul on what has been said. The merits or demerits of any position cannot be based on the actions or character of its adherents. This is textbook _ad hominem_. We can discuss abuses, for sure, but what shows a position to be right or wrong is Scripture alone.



Michael L. Brown is the best on the continuationist side. He is actually one of the best debaters in the Christian world today.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## ZackF (Feb 24, 2021)

Taylor has a good point. I try to find a definition in all disputes. Is cessationism a closing of the canon or what?


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Feb 24, 2021)

Taylor said:


> I think this question is assuming much that needs to be dealt with first. Without giving away my own position on these matters, here are some of the questions I am asking as I read the OP:
> 
> 1) What is "cessationism"? It seems to me there are several varieties and flavors. Some would shun the idea of the Spirit even guiding the believer in any tangible way. Others would affirm the canon's closure, yet still argue for prophecies, words of knowledge, etc. (e.g., Grudem). Still others believe the canon is not closed and the Spirit is still inspiring (this, obviously, is heretical, but people do believe it).
> 
> ...


As to #2, the Confession already told us what the former ways were by telling us that “afterwards....to commit the same wholly unto writing.” Formerly, there were divers manners.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 24, 2021)

Eoghan said:


> I seem to recall Dr R. C. Sproul making the point that the Roman Catholic Church in it's dispute with Luther claimed it had miracles attesting to it's authority. Luther countered that the Reformation had miracles too, they were just confined to the New Testament era!
> 
> To speculate about predictions that men (or women) have made is to let the camel's nose in the tent. To concede that prophecy and dreams provide special revelation today is to welcome the camel into the tent!
> 
> Remember I come out of a charismatic background, people move house, change jobs or cease medication on the basis of "special revelation". Charismatics kill people when they stop medications or refuse to visit hospitals.



It is no fallacy because no one has seen miracles after the closing of the cannon. Well that is what I believe.  Every time I ask someone to state a miracle they have seen it is simply a misclassification of a true sign and wonder.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 24, 2021)

earl40 said:


> It is no fallacy because no one has seen miracles after the closing of the cannon. Well that is what I believe.  Every time I ask someone to state a miracle they have seen it is simply a misclassification of a true sign and wonder.



I am not sure how the fallacy or not connects with what we are saying. If he is giving logical reasons why x is wrong (which with Scripture is the only thing that matters), and he then responds with scare stories, that is certainly a logical fallacy.

Here is a scare story: a cessationist pastor friend of mine committed suicide. Cessationism is bad. 

As to your second sentence, what my net don't catch isn't fish. Any time someone brings up counter evidence, you respond with "That doesn't count."


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 24, 2021)

ZackF said:


> Taylor has a good point. I try to find a definition in all disputes. Is cessationism a closing of the canon or what?



The difficulty there is finding where Scripture talks of the moment of the closing of the canon. Even worse, when Scripture uses revelation, more often than not it means an unveiling. Apocalupto almost never means "complete set of NT data which is now closed."

But let's assume that's what it does mean. There really isn't a logical connection between "the canon is closed" to "signs and wonders ceased today." I think an argument can be made, and Gaffin has done the best job, but by itself that isn't a good argument.

Or another case: Since the canon is closed, we can't cast out demons today. That's a bald non-sequitur.

Let's make it even worse: RC Sproul once called the canon a fallible collection of infallible documents. If it is a fallible collection, on what grounds can we say it is infallibly closed?


----------



## Eoghan (Feb 24, 2021)

I don't believe I stated that all charismatics at all times have always killed people. To assert what I have not is to create a straw man. What I am saying is that this is not how many angels can dance on the end of a pin! Belief in the continuation of "signs and wonders" has real world consequences. It can embolden people to act on feelings, or what others have said/prophesied.

My concern is to warn the flock of wolves and false shepherds in advance. Whilst most people agree with that in the abstract, it does seem to be something we are slow to do. Leaving aside specific individuals, I am struggling to find anyone mentioning the basic doctrines that form the bulwark against false teachers! 

When false teachers arise I don't think we should wait a decade to call them out. Sure Todd Bentley appears false now but isn't that hindsight?


Taylor said:


> I think this question is assuming much that needs to be dealt with first. Without giving away my own position on these matters, here are some of the questions I am asking as I read the OP:
> 
> 1) What is "cessationism"? It seems to me there are several varieties and flavors. Some would shun the idea of the Spirit even guiding the believer in any tangible way. Others would affirm the canon's closure, yet still argue for prophecies, words of knowledge, etc. (e.g., Grudem). Still others believe the canon is not closed and the Spirit is still inspiring (this, obviously, is heretical, but people do believe it).
> 
> ...


 I think it was David Hume who said something to the effect that the greatest obstacle to understanding was the definition of terms.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Feb 24, 2021)

Eoghan said:


> When false teachers arise I don't think we should wait a decade to call them out. Sure Todd Bentley appears false now but isn't that hindsight?



And why didn’t any of the “prophets” know about that snake?


----------



## earl40 (Feb 24, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Any time someone brings up counter evidence, you respond with "That doesn't count."



So give me an example that you thinks counts?


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 24, 2021)

It is not a fallacy to say that, once the door is opened to new revelation, there are going to be issues sorting it all out.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 24, 2021)

earl40 said:


> So give me an example that you thinks counts?



No. I have done that so many times on this board. I'm not going over that again. In any case, Keener's two volumes on miracles is the academic standard.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 24, 2021)

Tom Hart said:


> It is not a fallacy to say that, once the door is opened to new revelation, there are going to be issues sorting it all out.


Yes, but that's not what's been said. What's been said is that there have been bad people who subscribe to Belief A, and that therefore Belief A is wrong. That is a fallacy.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 24, 2021)

Tom Hart said:


> It is not a fallacy to say that, once the door is opened to new revelation, there are going to be issues sorting it all out.



In terms of whether a position is logically true or false, it is a fallacy. However, if he changes the tactic and says that it can be dangerous for a spiritual life, that is certainly a legitimate charge, and one I have a small degree of sympathy with.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 24, 2021)

Eoghan said:


> My concern is to warn the flock of wolves and false shepherds in advance.



That is certainly legitimate, but the way you framed the issue was that anyone who holds to continued revelation is in that camp. If person A holds to prophecy, is he a false shepherd and wolf. Would you call Michael L. Brown, a charismatic who is probably the leading Christian authority and debater worldwide on Judaism, a man who has written numerous, numerous volumes against charismatic excess, a wolf and false shepherd? If so, then you were imputing this to those views. If not, then I am glad to see you making distinctions.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 24, 2021)

Eyedoc84 said:


> And why didn’t any of the “prophets” know about that snake?



You can call in or write in to Michael Brown's program and ask him. I don't know the answer to the question, largely because I wasn't there then and normally avoid denominational/institutional politics.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 24, 2021)

Eoghan said:


> I think it was David Hume who said something to the effect that the greatest obstacle to understanding was the definition of terms.



Which is why I suggested looking at how the NT uses apocalupto. It almost never (in fact, I am sure it never does) speaks of revelation as a closed deposit of what can only be called Bible data. 

And then, as I noted above, there is the thorny problem--one EO apologists are keen to point out--is that what we call the canon is, as RC Sproul said, a fallible list of infallible books.


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 24, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Yes, but that's not what's been said. What's been said is that there have been bad people who subscribe to Belief A, and that therefore Belief A is wrong. That is a fallacy.


Where was that said? I seem to have missed it.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 24, 2021)

Tom Hart said:


> Where was that said? I seem to have missed it.


Read posts #3 and #4.


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 24, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> In terms of whether a position is logically true or false, it is a fallacy. However, if he changes the tactic and says that it can be dangerous for a spiritual life, that is certainly a legitimate charge, and one I have a small degree of sympathy with.


Of course I agree. I just haven't seen it stated that a belief in continued revelation is wrong because it's a papist thing.


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 24, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Read posts #3 and #4.


Still not seeing it.

I see that certain dangers are being pointed out, but I do not see any statement that the a thing is wrong because so-and-so does it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 24, 2021)

Tom Hart said:


> Of course I agree. I just haven't seen it stated that a belief in continued revelation is wrong because it's a papist thing.



The OP didn't actually make a logical argument. I think he intended it to be such, but that's probably why you didn't see it. He brought out the dangers of papism as a reason to reject continued revelation.

Read the 3rd post, first paragraph.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 24, 2021)

Tom Hart said:


> Still not seeing it.


Really? Post #3 is nothing but a list of bad things that people have done with continuationist theology, from Roman Catholics to Mormons, apparently as a logical base for why pastors should "immunise the church membership against charismatic delusions and heresy." If you're looking for a quote where someone commits the fallacy in the form of a nice and neat syllogism, you're not going to find it. But, as I'm sure you know, arguments do not have to be explicit to exist. It seems rather clear to me, anyway.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 24, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Really? Post #3 is nothing but a list of bad things that people have done with continuationist theology, from Roman Catholics to Mormons, apparently as a logical base for why pastors should "immunise the church membership against charismatic delusions and heresy." If you're looking for a quote where someone commits the fallacy in the form of a nice and neat syllogism, you're not going to find it. But, as I'm sure you know, arguments do not have to be explicit to exist. It seems rather clear to me, anyway.


Be careful you're not putting words (or neat syllogisms) in someone's mouth.

All I saw, after all, was a list of the dangers of continuationism. But so far that connection ("continuationists bad; therefore continuationism bad") has not been made.

I am unwilling to assume another's argument, and thus I cannot judge whether it is fallacious or no.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 24, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The OP didn't actually make a logical argument.


Correct.


BayouHuguenot said:


> I think he intended it to be such, but that's probably why you didn't see it.


I cannot pretend to know his intent.


BayouHuguenot said:


> He brought out the dangers of papism as a reason to reject continued revelation.


Not necessarily. Perhaps you are assuming his argument here. Why not press him on it instead? ("Are you saying that continuationism is to be rejected on the grounds that...?")


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 24, 2021)

I suspect part of the problem here may be the question "Does continuationism have within itself the checks and balances to prevent abuses"?


----------



## Taylor (Feb 25, 2021)

Tom Hart said:


> I am unwilling to assume another's argument, and thus I cannot judge whether it is fallacious or no.


I’m not assuming anything. I’m reading what was said, and it seemed plain to me. Just because you don’t see what I and others have seen doesn’t mean we are putting words into others’ mouths.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Feb 25, 2021)

Eoghan said:


> Is the Westminster Confession and the Baptist Confession of 1689 Cessationist?​


Yes. Both the Westminster and Baptist Confession state:

Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, *those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased*.​


----------



## TheInquirer (Feb 25, 2021)

OP asked a perfectly honest and valid question and his supposed logic on an example gets analyzed to death - how is that edifying?

I came to post the same thing Christopher did to get back on track.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 25, 2021)

Eoghan said:


> As a former charismatic I am VERY aware of the door that is being opened. Important decisions about business and marriage partners should not be the subject of inward impressions, dreams, visions and prophecies. This is to open the door to mysticism. It is in my opinion much more in keeping with the mysticism of Roman Catholicism where visions and dreams are commonly currency. I want this door firmly closed, locked and bolted! My detractors feel that I am limiting God and denying that God can work any way He wants to.





C. M. Sheffield said:


> Yes. Both the Westminster and Baptist Confession state:


As well as the Reformed confessions, it is worth reading Calvin's Institutes I:IX. Calvin addresses the issue of the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Word. Steve Lawson also addressed this in the 2013 Strange Fire conference.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Eoghan (Feb 25, 2021)

I honestly hesitated to add the third option in the poll. Given a binary option I believe most PB members would vote option 1. Adding the third option I really thought would reveal disunity. I am pleasantly surprised.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 25, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No. I have done that so many times on this board. I'm not going over that again. In any case, Keener's two volumes on miracles is the academic standard.


 I understand why you wish not to do such.  Now would this be a "standard" on par with scripture? If not why not, if you say these writings convey what you believe to be true events of God's immediate work in creation. In other words, you are saying Keener's work, being the standard, ought to be morally binding to every Christian to believe.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 25, 2021)

earl40 said:


> I understand why you wish not to do such.  Now would this be a "standard" on par with scripture? If not why not, if you say these writings convey what you believe to be true events of God's immediate work in creation. In other words, you are saying Keener's work, being the standard, ought to be morally binding to every Christian to believe.



Of course not. As Reformed we believe in the distinction between ministerial and magisterial authority. Only Anabaptists and EO ignore that distinction.

Example: are your words on the same level of Scripture? If no, why should I believe you?

That's not how epistemology works.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 25, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> OP asked a perfectly honest and valid question and his supposed logic on an example gets analyzed to death - how is that edifying?


I don’t understand this comment. Is not the point of discussions like these to get to razor’s edge precision? Are Christians supposed to be against logical rigor? The thread’s title asks about a _confession_, yet at several points the _OP_ brought up irrelevant material that, to some of us, detracted from the question itself. In analyzing the logic there, are we not actually trying to keep the thread on track? Again, this is a strange comment.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 25, 2021)

Logical fallacies make Christians look bad. In any case, I did suggest ways he could reframe his position without committing logical fallacies. For example, I have some concerns with charismatic excesses. That is certainly legit. 
However, pointing out horror stories when we are examining the truth claim of a position is a logical fallacy and we should avoid it.

Let's put it this way: if this were a formal debate I would have automatically won. All I had to do was point out that he failed to prove his position because he relied on fallacies.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 25, 2021)

And for the record, my position is roughly that of Poythress's. I think many charismatics looked silly after the Deep State stole the election. They got tied in with QAnon. Michael L. Brown, whom I have referenced numerous times, was quick to call them out. 








Debunking the March 4 Conspiracy Theories - The Line of Fire


[Download MP3] Dr. Brown focuses on the latest date set by QAnon conspiracy theorists for the reemergence of Donald Trump as president – and then urges us to move on. Watch live here 3-4 pm EST, and ...




thelineoffire.org





That said, I will hold people to logical rigor. That's how we grow in intellectual virtue.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 25, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Of course not. As Reformed we believe in the distinction between ministerial and magisterial authority. Only Anabaptists and EO ignore that distinction.
> 
> Example: are your words on the same level of Scripture? If no, why should I believe you?
> 
> That's not how epistemology works.



So if one believes the writings of someone who attests to a miracle, outside of scripture, why would you not say it is morally binding? That is exactly how epistemology works in how one defines justified belief from opinion.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 25, 2021)

earl40 said:


> So if one believes the writings of someone who attests to a miracle, outside of scripture, why would you not say it is morally binding? That is exactly how epistemology works in how one defines justified belief from opinion.



I don't see how it would be morally binding. You haven't given any reason why there would be some deontic operator within the belief system. Paul told the Thessalonians to test and evaluate prophecies. That meant they weren't automatically false or correct. 

And that isn't really how epistemology works. Whether I have satisfied all epistemic duties for a personal belief is irrelevant whether I believe someone else is morally obligated in believing what I believe.

I believe I have a wallet in my back pocket. I have reasonably good evidence for the belief. I don't see how the man in the street is morally obligated to also believe I have a wallet in my back pocket. 

Now, if I have because x miracle, you are obligated to change your life, that is a completely different claim. But no one is making that claim.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 25, 2021)

To return to the OP:

He asked a good question: is the WCF cessationist? I think for all practical and functional purposes it is. His actual post had nothing to do with that. That's where a study of dialectic and rhetoric comes into play.


----------



## TheInquirer (Feb 25, 2021)

Taylor said:


> I don’t understand this comment. Is not the point of discussions like these to get to razor’s edge precision? Are Christians supposed to be against logical rigor? The thread’s title asks about a _confession_, yet at several points the _OP_ brought up irrelevant material that, to some of us, detracted from the question itself. In analyzing the logic there, are we not actually trying to keep the thread on track? Again, this is a strange comment.


He asked a question and then gave examples how non-cessationist practices were damaging in other Christian denominations based on his experience as a charismatic and from what he has read. Those were examples that supported his initial question and concern and were not fallacies.

This is discussion forum, not a formal debate. OP was asking for information and help yet the two of you jump all over him. Give me a break. Just take a look at Jacob's comments about "if this was a debate I would have won" to get a bit more insight into his thinking. Is that why you post here, to win a debate?

And "razor's edge precision"? Is that a requirement for posting on this board? Do you want your every comment to be evaluated by this standard? Do you treat Christians at your church this way? Do you talk to your spouse this way, analyzing her every comment and example to see if it meets your standard of logical rigor and razor's edge precision? Try that offline and see how well that goes.

Frankly, a few of you come across as unnecessarily argumentative, unkind, and uncharitable in your answers and your speech is worthy of rebuke. Many here answer the same kinds of questions with charity, kindness, and helpfulness and set a good example for the rest of us at the same time using precision and carefulness in their answers without coming across as jumping down someone's throat and arguing about things that don't need to be argued about.



BayouHuguenot said:


> That's where a study of dialectic and rhetoric comes into play.



Jacob, you really think God expects every Christian to have the same level of study in dialectic and rhetoric that you do in order to make a comment on a Christian discussion forum? Sometimes I wonder by your posts what your purpose really is in quoting your extensive learning as sometimes it comes across as anything but edifying (hence your comment about winning a debate). And you think logical fallacies make Christians look bad...

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 25, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> Those were examples that supported his initial question and concern and were not fallacies.



No. They didn't support his initial question. His question was whether the WCF was cessationist. The answer to that question is to actually appeal to the WCF, what it actually says. Not once in his OP did he do that.


TheInquirer said:


> OP was asking for information and help yet the two of you jump all over him.



No he wasn't. Not in the actual post.


TheInquirer said:


> Is that why you post here, to win a debate?



Perhaps that might have been uncharitable on my part.


TheInquirer said:


> And "razor's edge precision"? Is that a requirement for posting on this board?



I think that is probably directed at Taylor.


TheInquirer said:


> Jacob, you really think God expects every Christian to have the same level of study in dialectic and rhetoric that you do in order to make a comment on a Christian discussion forum?



I never once said that.


TheInquirer said:


> Sometimes I wonder by your posts what your purpose really is in quoting your extensive learning as sometimes it comes across as anything but edifying (hence your comment about winning a debate).



I want people to think I am really smart.


TheInquirer said:


> And you think logical fallacies make Christians look bad



Whether I am being mean or not, logical fallacies do make Christians look bad.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 25, 2021)

My comment about dialectic was on how to lead people to the truth. Dialectic searches for the assumptions and logical implications of a position. Once we take those to their conclusion, we arrive at truth. I just thought Christians wanted to love God with their minds and be relentless in the search of truth. I know, I know, you didn't actually say that. It's not fun when people put words in your mouth.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 25, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> He asked a question and then gave examples how non-cessationist practices were damaging in other Christian denominations based on his experience as a charismatic and from what he has read. Those were examples that supported his initial question and concern and were not fallacies.
> 
> This is discussion forum, not a formal debate. OP was asking for information and help yet the two of you jump all over him. Give me a break. Just take a look at Jacob's comments about "if this was a debate I would have won" to get a bit more insight into his thinking. Is that why you post here, to win a debate?
> 
> ...


This comment is extreme.

Where have I been unkind, uncharitable, or argumentative? Please provide examples, and I will be quick and sincere to repent. You say this is a discussion forum, yet you seem very intent on policing the types of discussion that are allowed, according to some unwritten standard imposed arbitrarily by yourself. Brother, discussion presupposes dialogue between _different_ people with _different_ perspectives. If a couple of us are geared more toward fine-tuned speech and argumentation, then who are you to say we are not allowed to engage from that angle? I must ask, am I _really _being argumentative, or do you just not like or agree with my particular contribution? Because there is a marked difference between the two.

I cannot speak for Jacob, but the thing that bothers me the most is that you rebuke me for allegedly unkind speech, providing no specific examples (at least not yet), and then you have the gall to ask me such ridiculous questions, such as if I "treat Christians at our churches this way." How dare you. If you do not see the irony in the tone, content, and force of your post here, then there isn't much else I can say. Perhaps some plank removal is in order.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 25, 2021)

Moderating— please stick in future posts to answering the poll and the OP. All the analyzing of whether or not logical fallacies were committed is straying far from the topic.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 26, 2021)

Pointing out the abuses that have emerged from Charismatic beliefs is not necessarily a logical fallacy if it can be demonstrated that there is a logical connection between aberrant beliefs and aberrant conduct. A tree is to be judged by its fruit, after all. The Reformers were willing to cite the abuses of monasticism to demonstrate that, whatever the good intentions of early monastics, these things were the inevitable fruit of a corrupt system. So, no, I do not think that citing examples of Charismatic extremism to demonstrate the dangers of such a system of thought is a fruitless enterprise. The Westminster Confession states that with the completion of Holy Scripture "those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased." (1.8) What is likely to be the practical results when people believe that those former ways of God's revealing himself have not ceased after the completion of the biblical canon?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Eoghan (Feb 26, 2021)

Having studied the American Constitution I was surprised that it was designed with fallen human nature in mind. There are inherent (or were) checks and balances. 

I believe the confessions are Cessationist both in wording and intent. If we agree with them is it too much to ask _why_ we agree with them? 

If we concede that special revelation still can happen I cannot see there being any checks and balances to restrain speculation and feelings. Many ministers unwittingly (?) cultivate the expectation of special revelation when they start a sermon by saying, "God spoke to me this week..." A charismatic sitting in the congregation interprets this as the audible voice of God - the _Bath Kol_! A reformed Christian thinks the wording unfortunate and interprets the statement to mean the Holy Spirit giving insight into scripture.

I recall attending a charismatic church where a prophetic word was given. Taking away the claim to special revelation it would have passed as a normal sermon elsewhere but the "God told me" elevated it and made people pay attention. For me it had the opposite effect I felt the emphasis was human rather than divine. When a sermon is based and argued from scripture it may run counter to my thinking and feelings but it is spoken with authority and requires obedience and submission. I am struck by Paul's personal encounter which is not part of his preaching. Rather he expounds scripture, reasoning from scripture for three days.

My concern that once the camel's nose is in the tent, the rest will follow is genuine. If my minister can permit special visits and words of knowledge how do you judge it. As one minister put it if we test it against what God has already said in scripture and it agrees with it - what does it add to scripture? 

The answer of course is that God is using a highlighter to draw our attention to what is relevant. How do you counter that? I go back to what I said earlier: I want this door firmly closed, locked and bolted. We need to be proactive rather than reactive. When Krabbendam agreed to pray over the adulterers who claimed God wanted them married he was letting the camels nose in. 

The Biblical truths I feel are REALLY important in this regard are
* Christ's finished work and His seated posture in heaven (Jesus doesn't do housecalls)
* Angels mediate all revelation after the ascension (Paul only heard Christ's voice from heaven)
* Christ's going and absence now is replaced by the Holy Spirits coming (changing of the guard)
* The sufficiency of scripture (this is the nub of the argument)
* The purpose of miracles in authenticating the person of Christ and the message of the Apostles
* The role of the Holy Spirit in conversion (as distinct from human reasoning or miracles)
* Biblical accounts of entering God's presence - fear & awareness of sin (in contrast to the "coffee shop" anecdotes of charismatics)

What other Biblical truths come to your mind?


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 26, 2021)

Eoghan said:


> If we concede that special revelation still can happen I cannot see there being any checks and balances to restrain speculation and feelings.



Simple. Use your reason. Paul said to evaluate, not accept blindly. I am a fairly cynical and hard to manipulate person (and not necessarily for good reasons). If someone tells me that God said to do x, I would probably ignore them. 

If someone said x will happen, and it does happen, and it does correspond to the bible, I would probably say, "That's neat. Cool." And that's the end of the story. Everyone has this strange idea that if someone prophecies something or sees an angel, then the church is obligated to do....something or other. I don't know. One doesn't logically follow from the other.

Of course, that's moot for me since I go to a cessationist church.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 26, 2021)

Eoghan said:


> As one minister put it if we test it against what God has already said in scripture and it agrees with it - what does it add to scripture?



That begs the question, since no continuationist believes we are adding to Scripture. And the question itself is faulty. In one of the threads on this topic, that was brought up and Prof Duguid, himself no continuationist, pointed out the problems with it.






Accurately understanding "Reformed continuationism"


I think it’s correct to say that everything God wanted said in the Hebrews 1:1 sense, he said through his Son and disseminated it through his Son’s apostles. We have no real evidence that the book of Hebrews was written by an apostle.




www.puritanboard.com

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 26, 2021)

Eoghan said:


> If my minister can permit special visits and words of knowledge how do you judge it.



God assumes we are to grow to maturity (Eph. 4:13, etc.). This means we use wisdom, reason, and judgment, which implies rational discrimination.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Feb 26, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Everyone has this strange idea that if someone prophecies something or sees an angel, then the church is obligated to do....something or other. I don't know. One doesn't logically follow from the other.


If someone is speaking to you the direct word of God bu some new “prophecy”, how would you not be under obligation?


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 26, 2021)

Eyedoc84 said:


> If someone is speaking to you the direct word of God bu some new “prophecy”, how would you not be under obligation?



Prophecy is a slippery term. In the NT it usually means having access to future knowledge. That by itself is not a sufficient condition to be "Word of God." Antichrist will prophecy and do signs, but we won't be under obligation to believe him. 

And Word of God itself doesn't have a univocal meaning. There are cases in Scripture where the phrase word of God cannot be Bible or Canon.
The “Word” can be:

eternally set in the heavens (Ps. 119:89), but we don't imagine bibles floating in the sky.
the Logoi in the order of nature (Ps. 19:1-4).
Sown in the ministry of Christ (Mt. 13)
That which prevailed in Acts (12:24)

The last two examples probably could be applied as relating to the Bible, but even then the word isn't strictly identical to the Bible.


Further, if prophecy automatically equaled Scripture, then believers shouldn't have been told to test the prophecies.


----------



## lynnie (Feb 26, 2021)

One thing to remember is that the following people were not cessationist in the sense many TR use it.

Luther, Knox, Rutherford, Flavel, the Covenanters, Mather, (and not in this essay also Spurgeon.)









Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology


by Vern S. Poythress [Published in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39/1 (1996): 71-101. Used with permission. pdf here.] Abstract The Book of Revelation is inspired. Modern visio…




frame-poythress.org




( scroll down to the history if you never read it).

There are semantics and nuance, but in the end, the only conclusion is that our Reformed history has an understanding of the working of the Holy Spirit we need to be careful not to despise, even while rejecting most of today's charismatic movement.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 26, 2021)

lynnie said:


> One thing to remember is that the following people were not cessationist in the sense many TR use it.
> 
> Luther, Knox, Rutherford, Flavel, the Covenanters, Mather, (and not in this essay also Spurgeon.)
> 
> ...



I tentatively agree. The texts and biographies from that period clearly demonstrate that they were continuationist. Richard Cameron accurately prophesied (with eerie specificity) the deaths of several enemies of the covenant.

I used to use that argument. I don't anymore. Historical analysis and criticism of texts in that period wasn't very sophisticated. Many of these stories do sound a lot like the "lives of the Saints" in the early church. That doesn't make them wrong, but it should urge caution.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 26, 2021)

There is a frustration and concern that Eoghan is expressing as a private, not a public (i.e. not a minister), church member. Our confession of faith is cessationist, yet many pastors/churches that claim the WCF allow or promote continuationist teaching and practice.

The Bible doesn’t put the burden of discerning the validity of a minister’s doctrine on the laypeople, as such, but rather on those who are equipped to judge and discern. Every Christian should certainly strive to be discerning, but so many aren’t taught or well-read. But in a congregation where the minister is teaching and practicing continuationist (or other unconfessional) doctrine, it would be the duty of a concerned private member to address that through orderly means, I suppose? Unless the denomination has pretty much given in to such teaching. 

It’s sad, because private members/congregations are so often just hapless sitting ducks where wrong doctrine and practice are taught.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 26, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> But in a congregation where the minister is teaching and practicing continuationist (or other unconfessional) doctrine, it would be the duty of a concerned private member to address that through orderly means, I suppose?



That's legitimate, but I didn't get that from his posts. That might explain my push back. But if all he means is that unread (untaught?) laypeople are helpless before continuationist ministers, then I won't over analyze his posts anymore. That said, I've been in the ARP, PCA, OPC, and EPC and I have never experienced any continuationist doctrine.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 26, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> But if all he means is that unread (untaught?) laypeople are helpless before continuationist ministers


Of course the OP never said those words, those were mine. I meant only to describe what was being expressed (frustration and concern) (and possibly I wrongly assumed frustration).


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 26, 2021)

If you want a good response to continuationism, Poythress is the best. He puts a number of difficulties to the continuationist thesis (as it is practiced), yet he avoids all the mistakes in reasoning that some cessationists commit.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 26, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> If you want a good response to continuationism, Poythress is the best. He puts a number of difficulties to the continuationist thesis (as it is practiced), yet he avoids all the mistakes in reasoning that some cessationists commit.


What are your thoughts on Victor Budgen's "The Charismatics and the Word of God"?. A Reformed Baptist friend of mine highly praised this book. I have read it (many years ago) but have not read Poythress. 
​


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 26, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> What are your thoughts on Victor Budgen's "The Charismatics and the Word of God"?. A Reformed Baptist friend of mine highly praised this book. I have read it (many years ago) but have not read Poythress.
> ​



I haven't read it. I would be interested to see which scholarly works he interacts with. Any good treatment on the topic today (doesn't matter which side) has to address the following:

1. Craig Keener, _The Giver and the Gift.
2. _Gaffin, _Perspectives on Pentecost
3. _Grudem, Prophecy. I recommend Grudem with caution simply on the grounds that I *hate *ESS. I view it as functional quasi-Arianism.
4. Michael L. Brown. He is the #1 scholar on the topic.
5. Ruthven, _Cessation of the Charismata._

Waldron is good, too. He has publicly debated Brown and Storms, so he is aware of the best arguments on either side.

The best popular mid-level treatment is by the late Steve Hays. His blog is a gold-mine. He did an analysis of the Waldron-Brown debate which was fantastic.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 26, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> What are your thoughts on Victor Budgen's "The Charismatics and the Word of God"?. A Reformed Baptist friend of mine highly praised this book. I have read it (many years ago) but have not read Poythress.
> ​



The amazon reviews of it are good. He evidently argues that the "perfect" is the canon, which is faulty. If the canon is the perfect, and the perfect has come, then we have to have full knowledge, which we don't. Cessationists such as Macarthur and Gaffin have rejected that position.

If I come across a used copy, I might pick it up.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 26, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I haven't read it. I would be interested to see which scholarly works he interacts with. Any good treatment on the topic today (doesn't matter which side) has to address the following:
> 
> 1. Craig Keener, _The Giver and the Gift.
> 2. _Gaffin, _Perspectives on Pentecost
> ...


Budgen wrote in the late 1980's, thus written before many of these writings. Unfortunately I don't think it has been updated. 


BayouHuguenot said:


> The amazon reviews of it are good. He evidently argues that the "perfect" is the canon, which is faulty. If the canon is the perfect, and the perfect has come, then we have to have full knowledge, which we don't. Cessationists such as Macarthur and Gaffin have rejected that position.
> 
> If I come across a used copy, I might pick it up.


I understand Waldron rejects the canon argument.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheInquirer (Feb 27, 2021)

> Where have I been unkind, uncharitable, or argumentative? Please provide examples, and I will be quick and sincere to repent. You say this is a discussion forum, yet you seem very intent on policing the types of discussion that are allowed, according to some unwritten standard imposed arbitrarily by yourself. Brother, discussion presupposes dialogue between _different_ people with _different_ perspectives. If a couple of us are geared more toward fine-tuned speech and argumentation, then who are you to say we are not allowed to engage from that angle? I must ask, am I _really _being argumentative, or do you just not like or agree with my particular contribution? Because there is a marked difference between the two.
> 
> I cannot speak for Jacob, but the thing that bothers me the most is that you rebuke me for allegedly unkind speech, providing no specific examples (at least not yet), and then you have the gall to ask me such ridiculous questions, such as if I "treat Christians at our churches this way." How dare you. If you do not see the irony in the tone, content, and force of your post here, then there isn't much else I can say. Perhaps some plank removal is in order.



Well, I will admit and apologize for not giving you the same gentleness and charity I was demanding you show Eoghan so I was wrong on that count and own up to it.

No, I don't mind disagreement at all. Here is why I said what I did:

I perceived the OP was fighting a battle in the offline world and was coming here for help. I felt you and Jacob were ganging up on him on a minor point and not answering his question and raising arguments that didn't need to be raised - hence the accusation of being "argumentative." I felt he was being treated unfairly and attacked when he was merely asking for help through his question. That is what made me mad. 

I believe that one of the great benefits of this board is that for many of us, who feel so very alone in our battles for the truth in our churches, can come here for support and help. I have been frustrated in the past, and in this thread, that sometimes that help is treated as a debate session instead of in the spirit of helpfulness in which it is asked. To come here for help and then get smacked around after one is already "wounded from battle" is both demoralizing and discouraging.

The point I was making in regards to your "razor-sharp precision" remark is that we don't hold people to that same kind of speech standard in the real world (hence my examples of church and marriage) and wondered why you would be demanding that standard from the OP. Eoghan was not crafting a confessional statement therefore I felt he didn't need to be held to the standard of logic and precision both of you seemed you were calling him to. That is all I was saying. I apologize for not being clearer in explaining my thinking and writing in haste, thus making the situation worse.

So I own up to the fact that I responded too quickly and did not craft my response and complaint in gentleness or wisdom. Perhaps I should have flagged it and let the mods take care of it. I just felt our brother was being treated very unfairly when he was merely asking for help. My tendency is to jump in and say something when I feel others are not. Sometimes that is good, sometimes it is not wise.

Hopefully you can understand my perspective and why I said what I did. Once again, I own up to my own sin in not demonstrating the kind of patient, wise, and gentle response that many here model so well and what I was criticizing you and Jacob for. I clearly have a long way to go and you are right that there was some "plankishness" from my emotion and desire to defend a brother that kept me from writing clearly and patiently.

I do not wish to derail this thread further but I felt it right and honoring to the Lord to both apologize for my part in the argument and to also explain why I said what I did.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 2


----------



## Taylor (Feb 27, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> Well, I will admit and apologize for not giving you the same gentleness and charity I was demanding you show Eoghan so I was wrong on that count and own up to it.
> 
> No, I don't mind disagreement at all. Here is why I said what I did:
> 
> ...


Brother,

I warmly and sincerely accept your apology. I would like to offer my own, as well. I tend to react strongly when I feel taken by surprise. Instead of firing back, which was wrong, I should have tried to clarify my own thinking. Thus I committed the same thing of which I accused you. And for that, I too apologize, and humbly ask for your forgiveness.

In the end, this is one of the weaknesses of interacting online via text; too often it is difficult to detect tone in someone's writing. I will endeavor to be clearer and transparent about it in the future.

Again, please accept my apologies. And I pray you have a blessed Lord's Day!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Eoghan (Mar 4, 2021)

Update. At our zoom Bible study of last week modern dreams and visions (Acts 2) was being advocated following a study of Genesis 40 and Joseph's interpretation of dreams. I raised some objections and openly said I was a poacher turned gamekeeper (former charismatic). As a result the minister is organising a zoom discussion next week. 

"_I thought about what you proposed. A live video chat re: special revelation, would certainly allow people to express their feelings on the subject.

For me discussing an issue requires thought, reflection and a degree of intellectual effort to organise and then present the conclusions. That necessarily involves going away, thinking and probably drafting a response before finalising (probably with a fountain pen).

For that reason I would prefer not to participate in a zoom session._" 

As a Baptist I don't feel inhibited by the heirarchical nature of Presbyterian government. This is a recurring tension between our vacant Free Church and our interim moderator (?). He has for some twenty years or more being edging towards a continuationist position. There was supposed to be some agreement that he not bring his continuationist views to our church. He did and as a man charged with preaching the full counsel of God I have some sympathy with him. I am concerned that if the Church heirarchy becomes involved then he will be disciplined. My church prevented me putting that sermon on our church website.

So far we have courteously explained our positions. My respect for reformed presbyterian churches is that they retain a theological conviction that has been lost elsewhere. My congregation is cessationist and one of the elders is a former pentecostalist. Our neighbouring congregation is continuationist and would welcome "power evangelism" with miracles of healing and special revelation through dreams and young men & women prophesying.

I guess I am reassured by the almost unanimous acceptance of the cessationist position of the confessions but dissappointed at an inability to marshal the arguments that support that position. We accept the conclusion of others (Confessions) but do not seem able to articulate the doctrinal understanding which leads to it.


----------



## Josh Williamson (Mar 9, 2021)

You may find this article helpful: https://www.arbca.com/revelatory-gifts

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Eoghan (Mar 9, 2021)

Josh Williamson said:


> You may find this article helpful: https://www.arbca.com/revelatory-gifts


I do find it very helpful thank you Josh.


----------

