# Prove cessationism from the bible please.



## Osage Bluestem

I would like to see a proof for cessationism from the bible. I am having a hard time finding one and have been dealing with a pentacostal.


----------



## LeeJUk

I dont believe there is proof in the bible because cessationism is unbiblical. I mean the one scripture you can look at is 1 cor 13 but I don't believe at all that's speaking about the completion of the canon, it's speaking about the return of Christ. After that all there is is these logical arguments saying that God doesn't need these signs and wonders anymore because we have scripture and thus they have ceased, but that's all reading into the bible something that's not there. I know a lot of people will disagree with me but meh.


----------



## Skyler

When dealing with a pentecostal all you really have to do is show what the gifts meant then--you don't even have to prove that they've ceased, since what Pentecostalism has now isn't the same thing.

---------- Post added at 01:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:20 PM ----------

Take tongues for instance. There's a difference between speaking gibberish to God and speaking in an unknown tongue because, according to Acts, the "unknown tongue" is an actual [human] language.


----------



## rbcbob

See here
http://www.puritanboard.com/f34/gifts-spirit-58214/#post753497


----------



## Romans922

Hebrews 1:1-2


----------



## LeeJUk

Hebrews 1:1-2 was written when these gifts were still on going(according to your theology).


----------



## Romans922

Is that supposed to matter?


----------



## LeeJUk

Yes, how can that be a proof text for the cessation of gifts like prophecy if gifts were still in operation then?


----------



## Romans922

Logically according to that (false) argument, nothing in Scripture could be a proof text?

Besides, the Confession is clear on this point, of which you are outside the bounds, when it says, "I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.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 afterwards 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 makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased."

The proof text used is Hebrews 1:1-2. 


You might just want to go to the link on the PB that Bob linked to...


----------



## Skyler

Romans922 said:


> Logically according to that (false) argument, nothing in Scripture could be a proof text?


 
You lost me.

Lee's point is that Hebrews 1:1-2 is talking in the present tense about the times when the apostle wrote it--when, according to most people we would consider orthodox, God was still giving revelation.

How does that result in nothing in Scripture being a proof text?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

O. Palmer Robertson's book "The Final Word" is an excellent help in this area. I highly recommend it. And it's not too long a book either. 

Really, the whole argument hinges on what Scripture teaches concerning the unique and foundational role of the apostolic/prophetic office in the NT, and the unique function of the super-natural gifts in revealing the mystery of the gospel in this transitional period and confirming the apostolic testimony about Jesus. Once you understand that, cessationism is the logical conclusion. Once the eye-witnesses accomplished their mission and left their testimony in writing, the gifts confirming that testimony fulfilled their purpose and died with them. The foundation was laid, and we now build on it. It's a redemptive-historical move from the extra-ordinary time in biblical history to the ordinary. 

Not giving you an exhaustive argument here, just help in approaching the issues. Look at how Scripture describes the roles and functions and see if they still apply today.


----------



## chbrooking

Lee, 
I think it is important to clarify what you believe to be unceasing. Do you think special revelation is still open? Or is the canon closed? The reason I ask is that the phenomena usually associated with the discussion were, in fact, revelatory phenomena (and we can debate that if you'd like). While I can regard as my brother someone who believes that tongues continue -- though I would strongly disagree with him, and advocacy of that position on this board would, I think, violate the rules -- someone who believes that scripture itself is not complete is, I believe, beyond the pale of orthodoxy. Would you please clarify your position? Feel free to clarify your hermeneutic as well, as I think that's where the problem lies, but please clarify the doctrinal position you take on the issue.
Thanks,


----------



## nnatew24

LeeJUk said:


> Hebrews 1:1-2 was written when these gifts were still on going(according to your theology).


 
The end of this statement and the summary of the argument speaks of them in past tense, as if the gifts had ceased or were ceasing:



> "Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will."



Regardless, no proof text proves or disproves the gift issue. Your first mistake would be to look for that perfect text. A better option would be to first understand the purpose, use, and description of those gifts, where beyond a shadow of a doubt, something if not all of the miraculous gifts are not normative today. 

Thus, everybody is a cessationist in some sense, for nobody in their right mind believes all the gifts are functioning exactly the same as they did in the book of Acts. From there it's just a short flight of steps to affirming what seem obvious: that the miraculous gifts are not normative and have ceased.


----------



## Kiffin

Would it be fair game to argue that cessationism is argued from a logical flow of the unfolding of revelation in Scripture, but not that which is explicit?


----------



## VictorBravo

LeeJUk said:


> I dont believe there is proof in the bible because cessationism is unbiblical. I mean the one scripture you can look at is 1 cor 13 but I don't believe at all that's speaking about the completion of the canon, it's speaking about the return of Christ. After that all there is is these logical arguments saying that God doesn't need these signs and wonders anymore because we have scripture and thus they have ceased, but that's all reading into the bible something that's not there. I know a lot of people will disagree with me but meh.


 

Moderation

Lee, that is a pretty blanket contradiction to the first paragraph of the Confession you say you hold.



> I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation. 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 afterwards 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 makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; *those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased*.



We do not allow advocacy of unconfessional viewpoints here. You may ask questions on the topic, and, I'd suggest you read the resources suggested already before posting any more arguments contrary to the Confession.


----------



## eqdj

Check out Nathan Bingham's site Cessationism - Cessationist - Spiritual Gifts - The Ultimate Cessationism Resource



> After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will. (Hebrews 2:3-4)


----------



## Scott1

You may find helpful a PCA Pastoral letter on this topic generally:

PCA Historical Center: PCA Pastoral Letter on the Expeience of the Holy Spirit in the Church Today


----------



## MW

DD2009 said:


> I would like to see a proof for cessationism from the bible.


 
You just provided it -- "the Bible."


----------



## rbcbob

LeeJUk said:


> I dont believe there is proof in the bible because cessationism is unbiblical.* I mean the one scripture you can look at is 1 cor 13 but I don't believe at all that's speaking about the completion of the canon, it's speaking about the return of Christ. *After that all there is is these logical arguments saying that God doesn't need these signs and wonders anymore because we have scripture and thus they have ceased, but that's all reading into the bible something that's not there. I know a lot of people will disagree with me but meh.



1 Corinthians 13:8-12
The context of this passage is that concerning the ignorance of the Christians in the church at Corinth regarding the relationship between gifts and graces. Paul reminds them that they can have extraordinary, phenomenal gifts and yet be destitute of love and thus be lost in their sins (vss. 1-3).
“He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” ( 1 John 4:8)

Paul states at the end of the chapter in verse 13 that “love is the greatest”. Why is love the greatest? Because love never fails. Love will accompany you all the way into the eternal state. Not so with all the flashy phenomenal gifts that they were desiring.

1 Corinthians 13: 8 Love never fails εκπιπτει. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail καταργηθησονται; whether there are tongues, they will cease παυσονται; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away καταργηθησονται. 

Verse eight contains a triad __ prophecy, tongues, and knowledge __ which are contrasted with another triad in verse thirteen __ faith, hope, and love. The second triad consists of things that remain, whereas the first triad consists of things that cease, fail, or vanish away.
With what are faith, hope, and love contrasted? They are contrasted with prophecy, tongues, and knowledge. It should be apparent that if we make both of these triads continue throughout this present age until Christ returns then the apostle’s intended contrast is destroyed!
Paul says that love never fails [εκπιπτει ] the word means to fall down from or out of. So the meaning is that Love will never fall from its exalted position.
•	But prophecies (the extraordinary gift) shall be καταργεω “reduced to inactivity”.
•	Tongues shall παυω “stop, cease, leave off”. Compare the use of the word in Heb. 10:2 and in 1Pet 4:1.
•	Knowledge likewise shall be καταργεω “reduced to inactivity”. In this context just what knowledge is Paul talking about? Not spiritual and divine knowledge in general for surely there will be such knowledge hereafter in heaven as well as now on earth, and vastly more … knowledge of God, Christ, and spiritual things shall not vanish away but shall gloriously increase. By the phrase ‘knowledge shall pass away’ is meant a particular miraculous gift (see 1Cor 12:8) that was in operation in the Church of God in those days.
This knowledge was a Revelatory gift, i.e. it involved revealing directly to the possessor of the gift the mind and will of God. This is evidenced by its association with prophecy and tongues.

9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 

Paul says that we know, literally “we are presently knowing” εκ μερους “out of that which is partial” or “out of a portion of the whole.” Knowledge and prophecy were then coming forth in the period of Partial Revelation as contrasted with Completed Revelation as is seen in the following verses.
*10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. *

“But” says Paul by way of contrast “when comes that which is perfect …” . This phrase το τελειον that which is perfect is pivotal to the interpretation of the passage. The two Greek words are Neuter in gender and should be rendered the perfect thing. Whatever Paul had in mind when he wrote το τελειον it was, in its grammatical identity something neuter. If he had in mind Christ he would no doubt have written the masculine ο τελειος He who is perfect . * If what he was referring to was Christ’s return he would have written the feminine η τελεια as in the feminine τη παρουσια “the coming of our Lord” (1Thess 5:23). Whatever Paul did have in mind he alludes to it with the neuter το τελειον that perfect thing.*
So what is that perfect thing? The meaning of το τελειον is that which is brought to its end; finished; wanting nothing necessary to completeness; perfect.
Again the question comes: what is that perfect, that completed thing that the apostle was pointing to? It must be something apposite and juxtaposed to that which is partial mentioned in the previous verse. It is Revelatory, and since the category of the partial is Revelation then the category of the complete must be Revelation.
That Perfect Thing is the completed, inscripturated Revelation; the finished Word of God in both the Old and New Testaments.

11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 
Paul here, by way of illustration, administers a rebuke to the Corinthians. They have been behaving childishly in regard to the Extraordinary Gifts in general and Speaking in Tongues in particular. He illustrates this by saying that when he was a child he spoke, understood, and thought as a child, i.e. childlishly!
When however, “he became γεγονα [perfect tense] a man ” ανηρ that is, he completely entered manhood, he remained a man and did not return to childhood. He put away childish things. So too he is telling the Corinthians that the Church would one day reach Revelatory maturity and never return to childhood again.
It is a sign of spiritual childishness to want to go back to the time of the Church’s childishness. The time of the church’s childishness was the time of the extraordinary phenomenal gifts!
12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. 

Paul gives explanation here saying “For” or “Because” “we see now, at this present time, by means of a mirror [εσοπτρον _ a piece of highly polished metal ] dimly { αινιγματι literally, in an enigma, indistinctly}…
Paul’s point is that in their day the Corinthians, along with all other believers, had an uncompleted Bible; a partially polished metal shield in which they could dimly behold themselves. James had already taken up the imagery of a mirror in reference to the Word of God saying in chapter One and verse Twenty-three of his epistle “For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror εσοπτρον.
Paul again takes up this same imagery, although he employs a synonym of εσοπτρον in his second epistle to this same Corinthian church saying:
14 But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ.
15 But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart.
16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror [κατοπτριζω participle from κατοπτρον ] the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

So here in (13:12) Paul is showing them that in this era of partially completed revelation they see things dimly; they know things out of a part of an as yet uncompleted whole. But he points this out in order to bring out the contrast. This partiality and dimness have continued up to their present time, but….
Contrast relative to Time
“but then …” τοτε When? When that perfect thing i.e. the completed Scriptures have come. The Corinthians were seeing in their Hebrew bibles dimly, but then τοτε face to face προσωπον προς προσωπον 
Contrast relative to Quality
“face to face” How? Clearly as contrasted with dimly.
This phrase “face to face” has been popularly interpreted to mean the beholding God by the saints in glory. But the phrase as used in Scripture never refers to that glorious event. Rather the biblical usage consistently refers to the clear propositional revelation of the Word of God as contrasted with the less clear revelation of visions and dreams.
Numbers 12:6 Then He said, "Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. 7 Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. 8 I speak with him face to face, Even plainly, and not in dark sayings; And he sees the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant Moses?"
See also __ Exodus 33:9-11, 18-23; Deuteronomy 5:1-4
Thus Paul tells the Corinthians that then, when that perfect, completed thing has come their knowing shall no longer be dim but shall possess the precision that comes from the clear propositional revelation of God’s Word inscripturated and preserved to the Church to the end of the age.

13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Even though the phenomenal gifts of prophecy (direct revelation from God), tongues (languages known without being learned), and knowledge (intelligence never acquired by study) would not continue to abide in the Church throughout this age, and at the end of the age faith becomes sight (2Cor 5:6-7) and hope becomes fulfillment (Rom 8:22-25), nevertheless Love continues throughout eternity.


----------



## jayce475

rbcbob said:


> LeeJUk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont believe there is proof in the bible because cessationism is unbiblical.* I mean the one scripture you can look at is 1 cor 13 but I don't believe at all that's speaking about the completion of the canon, it's speaking about the return of Christ. *After that all there is is these logical arguments saying that God doesn't need these signs and wonders anymore because we have scripture and thus they have ceased, but that's all reading into the bible something that's not there. I know a lot of people will disagree with me but meh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Corinthians 13:8-12
> The context of this passage is that concerning the ignorance of the Christians in the church at Corinth regarding the relationship between gifts and graces. Paul reminds them that they can have extraordinary, phenomenal gifts and yet be destitute of love and thus be lost in their sins (vss. 1-3).
> “He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” ( 1 John 4:8)
> 
> Paul states at the end of the chapter in verse 13 that “love is the greatest”. Why is love the greatest? Because love never fails. Love will accompany you all the way into the eternal state. Not so with all the flashy phenomenal gifts that they were desiring.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 13: 8 Love never fails εκπιπτει. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail καταργηθησονται; whether there are tongues, they will cease παυσονται; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away καταργηθησονται.
> 
> Verse eight contains a triad __ prophecy, tongues, and knowledge __ which are contrasted with another triad in verse thirteen __ faith, hope, and love. The second triad consists of things that remain, whereas the first triad consists of things that cease, fail, or vanish away.
> With what are faith, hope, and love contrasted? They are contrasted with prophecy, tongues, and knowledge. It should be apparent that if we make both of these triads continue throughout this present age until Christ returns then the apostle’s intended contrast is destroyed!
> Paul says that love never fails [εκπιπτει ] the word means to fall down from or out of. So the meaning is that Love will never fall from its exalted position.
> •	But prophecies (the extraordinary gift) shall be καταργεω “reduced to inactivity”.
> •	Tongues shall παυω “stop, cease, leave off”. Compare the use of the word in Heb. 10:2 and in 1Pet 4:1.
> •	Knowledge likewise shall be καταργεω “reduced to inactivity”. In this context just what knowledge is Paul talking about? Not spiritual and divine knowledge in general for surely there will be such knowledge hereafter in heaven as well as now on earth, and vastly more … knowledge of God, Christ, and spiritual things shall not vanish away but shall gloriously increase. By the phrase ‘knowledge shall pass away’ is meant a particular miraculous gift (see 1Cor 12:8) that was in operation in the Church of God in those days.
> This knowledge was a Revelatory gift, i.e. it involved revealing directly to the possessor of the gift the mind and will of God. This is evidenced by its association with prophecy and tongues.
> 
> 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part.
> 
> Paul says that we know, literally “we are presently knowing” εκ μερους “out of that which is partial” or “out of a portion of the whole.” Knowledge and prophecy were then coming forth in the period of Partial Revelation as contrasted with Completed Revelation as is seen in the following verses.
> *10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. *
> 
> “But” says Paul by way of contrast “when comes that which is perfect …” . This phrase το τελειον that which is perfect is pivotal to the interpretation of the passage. The two Greek words are Neuter in gender and should be rendered the perfect thing. Whatever Paul had in mind when he wrote το τελειον it was, in its grammatical identity something neuter. If he had in mind Christ he would no doubt have written the masculine ο τελειος He who is perfect . * If what he was referring to was Christ’s return he would have written the feminine η τελεια as in the feminine τη παρουσια “the coming of our Lord” (1Thess 5:23). Whatever Paul did have in mind he alludes to it with the neuter το τελειον that perfect thing.*
> So what is that perfect thing? The meaning of το τελειον is that which is brought to its end; finished; wanting nothing necessary to completeness; perfect.
> Again the question comes: what is that perfect, that completed thing that the apostle was pointing to? It must be something apposite and juxtaposed to that which is partial mentioned in the previous verse. It is Revelatory, and since the category of the partial is Revelation then the category of the complete must be Revelation.
> That Perfect Thing is the completed, inscripturated Revelation; the finished Word of God in both the Old and New Testaments.
> 
> 11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
> Paul here, by way of illustration, administers a rebuke to the Corinthians. They have been behaving childishly in regard to the Extraordinary Gifts in general and Speaking in Tongues in particular. He illustrates this by saying that when he was a child he spoke, understood, and thought as a child, i.e. childlishly!
> When however, “he became γεγονα [perfect tense] a man ” ανηρ that is, he completely entered manhood, he remained a man and did not return to childhood. He put away childish things. So too he is telling the Corinthians that the Church would one day reach Revelatory maturity and never return to childhood again.
> It is a sign of spiritual childishness to want to go back to the time of the Church’s childishness. The time of the church’s childishness was the time of the extraordinary phenomenal gifts!
> 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
> 
> Paul gives explanation here saying “For” or “Because” “we see now, at this present time, by means of a mirror [εσοπτρον _ a piece of highly polished metal ] dimly { αινιγματι literally, in an enigma, indistinctly}…
> Paul’s point is that in their day the Corinthians, along with all other believers, had an uncompleted Bible; a partially polished metal shield in which they could dimly behold themselves. James had already taken up the imagery of a mirror in reference to the Word of God saying in chapter One and verse Twenty-three of his epistle “For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror εσοπτρον.
> Paul again takes up this same imagery, although he employs a synonym of εσοπτρον in his second epistle to this same Corinthian church saying:
> 14 But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ.
> 15 But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart.
> 16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
> 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
> 18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror [κατοπτριζω articiple from κατοπτρον ] the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.
> 
> So here in (13:12) Paul is showing them that in this era of partially completed revelation they see things dimly; they know things out of a part of an as yet uncompleted whole. But he points this out in order to bring out the contrast. This partiality and dimness have continued up to their present time, but….
> Contrast relative to Time
> “but then …” τοτε When? When that perfect thing i.e. the completed Scriptures have come. The Corinthians were seeing in their Hebrew bibles dimly, but then τοτε face to face προσωπον προς προσωπον
> Contrast relative to Quality
> “face to face” How? Clearly as contrasted with dimly.
> This phrase “face to face” has been popularly interpreted to mean the beholding God by the saints in glory. But the phrase as used in Scripture never refers to that glorious event. Rather the biblical usage consistently refers to the clear propositional revelation of the Word of God as contrasted with the less clear revelation of visions and dreams.
> Numbers 12:6 Then He said, "Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. 7 Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. 8 I speak with him face to face, Even plainly, and not in dark sayings; And he sees the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant Moses?"
> See also __ Exodus 33:9-11, 18-23; Deuteronomy 5:1-4
> Thus Paul tells the Corinthians that then, when that perfect, completed thing has come their knowing shall no longer be dim but shall possess the precision that comes from the clear propositional revelation of God’s Word inscripturated and preserved to the Church to the end of the age.
> 
> 13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
> 
> Even though the phenomenal gifts of prophecy (direct revelation from God), tongues (languages known without being learned), and knowledge (intelligence never acquired by study) would not continue to abide in the Church throughout this age, and at the end of the age faith becomes sight (2Cor 5:6-7) and hope becomes fulfillment (Rom 8:22-25), nevertheless Love continues throughout eternity.
Click to expand...

 
It's remarkable how many threads have had this post copied and pasted in it. The attacks on the ceasing of sign gifts simply don't cease.


----------



## Herald

jayce475 said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeeJUk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont believe there is proof in the bible because cessationism is unbiblical.* I mean the one scripture you can look at is 1 cor 13 but I don't believe at all that's speaking about the completion of the canon, it's speaking about the return of Christ. *After that all there is is these logical arguments saying that God doesn't need these signs and wonders anymore because we have scripture and thus they have ceased, but that's all reading into the bible something that's not there. I know a lot of people will disagree with me but meh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Corinthians 13:8-12
> The context of this passage is that concerning the ignorance of the Christians in the church at Corinth regarding the relationship between gifts and graces. Paul reminds them that they can have extraordinary, phenomenal gifts and yet be destitute of love and thus be lost in their sins (vss. 1-3).
> “He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” ( 1 John 4:8)
> 
> Paul states at the end of the chapter in verse 13 that “love is the greatest”. Why is love the greatest? Because love never fails. Love will accompany you all the way into the eternal state. Not so with all the flashy phenomenal gifts that they were desiring.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 13: 8 Love never fails εκπιπτει. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail καταργηθησονται; whether there are tongues, they will cease παυσονται; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away καταργηθησονται.
> 
> Verse eight contains a triad __ prophecy, tongues, and knowledge __ which are contrasted with another triad in verse thirteen __ faith, hope, and love. The second triad consists of things that remain, whereas the first triad consists of things that cease, fail, or vanish away.
> With what are faith, hope, and love contrasted? They are contrasted with prophecy, tongues, and knowledge. It should be apparent that if we make both of these triads continue throughout this present age until Christ returns then the apostle’s intended contrast is destroyed!
> Paul says that love never fails [εκπιπτει ] the word means to fall down from or out of. So the meaning is that Love will never fall from its exalted position.
> •	But prophecies (the extraordinary gift) shall be καταργεω “reduced to inactivity”.
> •	Tongues shall παυω “stop, cease, leave off”. Compare the use of the word in Heb. 10:2 and in 1Pet 4:1.
> •	Knowledge likewise shall be καταργεω “reduced to inactivity”. In this context just what knowledge is Paul talking about? Not spiritual and divine knowledge in general for surely there will be such knowledge hereafter in heaven as well as now on earth, and vastly more … knowledge of God, Christ, and spiritual things shall not vanish away but shall gloriously increase. By the phrase ‘knowledge shall pass away’ is meant a particular miraculous gift (see 1Cor 12:8) that was in operation in the Church of God in those days.
> This knowledge was a Revelatory gift, i.e. it involved revealing directly to the possessor of the gift the mind and will of God. This is evidenced by its association with prophecy and tongues.
> 
> 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part.
> 
> Paul says that we know, literally “we are presently knowing” εκ μερους “out of that which is partial” or “out of a portion of the whole.” Knowledge and prophecy were then coming forth in the period of Partial Revelation as contrasted with Completed Revelation as is seen in the following verses.
> *10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. *
> 
> “But” says Paul by way of contrast “when comes that which is perfect …” . This phrase το τελειον that which is perfect is pivotal to the interpretation of the passage. The two Greek words are Neuter in gender and should be rendered the perfect thing. Whatever Paul had in mind when he wrote το τελειον it was, in its grammatical identity something neuter. If he had in mind Christ he would no doubt have written the masculine ο τελειος He who is perfect . * If what he was referring to was Christ’s return he would have written the feminine η τελεια as in the feminine τη παρουσια “the coming of our Lord” (1Thess 5:23). Whatever Paul did have in mind he alludes to it with the neuter το τελειον that perfect thing.*
> So what is that perfect thing? The meaning of το τελειον is that which is brought to its end; finished; wanting nothing necessary to completeness; perfect.
> Again the question comes: what is that perfect, that completed thing that the apostle was pointing to? It must be something apposite and juxtaposed to that which is partial mentioned in the previous verse. It is Revelatory, and since the category of the partial is Revelation then the category of the complete must be Revelation.
> That Perfect Thing is the completed, inscripturated Revelation; the finished Word of God in both the Old and New Testaments.
> 
> 11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
> Paul here, by way of illustration, administers a rebuke to the Corinthians. They have been behaving childishly in regard to the Extraordinary Gifts in general and Speaking in Tongues in particular. He illustrates this by saying that when he was a child he spoke, understood, and thought as a child, i.e. childlishly!
> When however, “he became γεγονα [perfect tense] a man ” ανηρ that is, he completely entered manhood, he remained a man and did not return to childhood. He put away childish things. So too he is telling the Corinthians that the Church would one day reach Revelatory maturity and never return to childhood again.
> It is a sign of spiritual childishness to want to go back to the time of the Church’s childishness. The time of the church’s childishness was the time of the extraordinary phenomenal gifts!
> 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
> 
> Paul gives explanation here saying “For” or “Because” “we see now, at this present time, by means of a mirror [εσοπτρον _ a piece of highly polished metal ] dimly { αινιγματι literally, in an enigma, indistinctly}…
> Paul’s point is that in their day the Corinthians, along with all other believers, had an uncompleted Bible; a partially polished metal shield in which they could dimly behold themselves. James had already taken up the imagery of a mirror in reference to the Word of God saying in chapter One and verse Twenty-three of his epistle “For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror εσοπτρον.
> Paul again takes up this same imagery, although he employs a synonym of εσοπτρον in his second epistle to this same Corinthian church saying:
> 14 But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ.
> 15 But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart.
> 16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
> 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
> 18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror [κατοπτριζω articiple from κατοπτρον ] the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.
> 
> So here in (13:12) Paul is showing them that in this era of partially completed revelation they see things dimly; they know things out of a part of an as yet uncompleted whole. But he points this out in order to bring out the contrast. This partiality and dimness have continued up to their present time, but….
> Contrast relative to Time
> “but then …” τοτε When? When that perfect thing i.e. the completed Scriptures have come. The Corinthians were seeing in their Hebrew bibles dimly, but then τοτε face to face προσωπον προς προσωπον
> Contrast relative to Quality
> “face to face” How? Clearly as contrasted with dimly.
> This phrase “face to face” has been popularly interpreted to mean the beholding God by the saints in glory. But the phrase as used in Scripture never refers to that glorious event. Rather the biblical usage consistently refers to the clear propositional revelation of the Word of God as contrasted with the less clear revelation of visions and dreams.
> Numbers 12:6 Then He said, "Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. 7 Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. 8 I speak with him face to face, Even plainly, and not in dark sayings; And he sees the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant Moses?"
> See also __ Exodus 33:9-11, 18-23; Deuteronomy 5:1-4
> Thus Paul tells the Corinthians that then, when that perfect, completed thing has come their knowing shall no longer be dim but shall possess the precision that comes from the clear propositional revelation of God’s Word inscripturated and preserved to the Church to the end of the age.
> 
> 13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
> 
> Even though the phenomenal gifts of prophecy (direct revelation from God), tongues (languages known without being learned), and knowledge (intelligence never acquired by study) would not continue to abide in the Church throughout this age, and at the end of the age faith becomes sight (2Cor 5:6-7) and hope becomes fulfillment (Rom 8:22-25), nevertheless Love continues throughout eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's remarkable how many threads have had this post copied and pasted in it. The attacks on the ceasing of sign gifts simply don't cease.
Click to expand...


Jason,

Attack? You are in opposition to the very confession you claim to subscribe to. You do not have the liberty on this board to question use the word "attack" in response to those who are upholding the confession. Consider this a cease and desist warning.


----------



## timmopussycat

Bill, please reread Jason's post. He is not critiquing your response defending cessationism or any others that do so. Rather he is critiquing those attacking "the ceasing of sign gifts."


----------



## jayce475

Erm, I'll be the last person on earth to attack cessationism. Bill, Tim's right.


----------



## Herald

Jason, I misread your post. My apologies.


----------



## timmopussycat

rbcbob said:


> Verse eight contains a triad __ prophecy, tongues, and knowledge __ which are contrasted with another triad in verse thirteen __ faith, hope, and love. The second triad consists of things that remain, whereas the first triad consists of things that cease, fail, or vanish away.
> With what are faith, hope, and love contrasted? They are contrasted with prophecy, tongues, and knowledge. It should be apparent that if we make both of these triads continue throughout this present age until Christ returns then the apostle’s intended contrast is destroyed!



What follows is not intended as an attack on the doctrine of cessationism, but an alert that that there are some steps missing in the argument as here presented that will need to be addressed before presenting the argument outside the board. To announce that the termination of the first triad cannot be at the end of the present age is, at this point, a begging of the question untill we have determined on other grounds that the point of expiry of the first triad is NOT at the end of the present age. For Paul's stated contrast is not between an eternal revelation and partial and temporary revelatory gifts. Instead, his stated contrast is between eternally lasting love and the the temporary gifts. 



rbcbob said:


> *10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. *
> 
> “But” says Paul by way of contrast “when comes that which is perfect …” . This phrase το τελειον that which is perfect is pivotal to the interpretation of the passage. The two Greek words are Neuter in gender and should be rendered the perfect thing. Whatever Paul had in mind when he wrote το τελειον it was, in its grammatical identity something neuter. If he had in mind Christ he would no doubt have written the masculine ο τελειος He who is perfect . * If what he was referring to was Christ’s return he would have written the feminine η τελεια as in the feminine τη παρουσια “the coming of our Lord” (1Thess 5:23). Whatever Paul did have in mind he alludes to it with the neuter το τελειον that perfect thing.*
> So what is that perfect thing? The meaning of το τελειον is that which is brought to its end; finished; wanting nothing necessary to completeness; perfect.
> Again the question comes: what is that perfect, that completed thing that the apostle was pointing to? It must be something apposite and juxtaposed to that which is partial mentioned in the previous verse. It is Revelatory, and since the category of the partial is Revelation then the category of the complete must be Revelation.
> That Perfect Thing is the completed, inscripturated Revelation; the finished Word of God in both the Old and New Testaments.



Two observations. First, a possibility not here mentioned in the argument needs to be considered: there is one word repeatedly used in the NT to refer to the end of the world or the age which is always neuter when so used and Paul may have it in mind as the “perfect thing.” That word is “telos” used when discussing “the end” of the world (in Matt. 13:39), the end of the age (Matt. 24:6), and “the end” (1 Cor. 15:24). And the latter verse definitely represents the coming of a perfect thing, since Paul states that it is at that point that Christ hands over the kingdom to the Father so that God is all in alll (v.28). So one will need to be ready to adduce reasons why the ultimate end of the age could not have been in Paul's mind as the other half of his alluded to contrast.

Second, when the NT writers state a contrast, it may be observed that they do not always draw the second item in their contrast from what we think would be their relevant categories. For example, Christ, in Matt. 5:17, although denying that he will “destroy / annul” the Mosaic law does not, as we might expect, use an antonym of “destroy / annul” for his contrast. Instead he uses the word “fulfill / complete” to complete his contrasting description of what he is going to do. Before concluding that Paul MUST have understood the coming perfect thing to be of the same category as the first item in the contrast, additional proof that that was his intent will need to be on hand, ready to be provided.



rbcbob said:


> *12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. *
> 
> Paul gives explanation here saying “For” or “Because” “we see now, at this present time, by means of a mirror [εσοπτρον _ a piece of highly polished metal ] dimly { αινιγματι literally, in an enigma, indistinctly}…
> Paul’s point is that in their day the Corinthians, along with all other believers, had an uncompleted Bible; a partially polished metal shield in which they could dimly behold themselves.
> So here in (13:12) Paul is showing them that in this era of partially completed revelation they see things dimly; they know things out of a part of an as yet uncompleted whole. But he points this out in order to bring out the contrast. This partiality and dimness have continued up to their present time, but….
> Contrast relative to Time
> “but then …” τοτε When? When that perfect thing i.e. the completed Scriptures have come. The Corinthians were seeing in their Hebrew bibles dimly, but then τοτε face to face προσωπον προς προσωπον.
> Contrast relative to Quality
> “face to face” How? Clearly as contrasted with dimly.
> This phrase “face to face” has been popularly interpreted to mean the beholding God by the saints in glory. But the phrase as used in Scripture never refers to that glorious event. Rather the biblical usage consistently refers to the clear propositional revelation of the Word of God as contrasted with the less clear revelation of visions and dreams.
> Numbers 12:6 Then He said, "Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. 7 Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. 8 I speak with him face to face, Even plainly, and not in dark sayings; And he sees the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant Moses?"
> See also __ Exodus 33:9-11, 18-23; Deuteronomy 5:1-4
> Thus Paul tells the Corinthians that then, when that perfect, completed thing has come their knowing shall no longer be dim but shall possess the precision that comes from the clear propositional revelation of God’s Word inscripturated and preserved to the Church to the end of the age.



We must also be ready to come to grips with a final problem with this cessationist analysis. A charismatic may claim that this argument misreads the kind of knowledge referred to by Paul's words "face to face." It will be said that Paul's words entail the view that the "knowing" Paul refers to is that of a personal relationship; it is knowing a person, not just facts about a person. And what Paul emphasizes about this relationship is that our knowledge of the other person involved in the relationship is now incomplete but will THEN be a full knowledge JUST AS that person presently has full knowlege of ourselves: for we "have been fully known" seems to come before "then I shall fully know." Since the only one who presently has fulll knowledge of each of us is God, he must be the other person in the knowing relationship here described.

While Scripture itself is the complete revelation and foundation upon which the church stands (thank God for it!), the greatest teachers of the church consistently tell us that our apprehension and application of Scripture in and to our lives will always be incomplete while we are in these mortal bodies. So it appears that we can never fully apply all that is in Scripture in such a way that it can be said of us that we "know [God] fully, JUST AS [we] have been fully known [by Him]" while we remain in this life. It iis this line of thought that creates the fundamental charismatic resistance to the cessationist interpretation of these verses, and it is only when we can provide a Scriptural demonstration of how human beings can, in this present life know God JUST AS he fullly knows us, that we will be able to displace the charismatic's understanding of of this crucial text.


----------



## Heidelberg1

Hi, 

This message was preached in 2003 by Phil Johnson (who is an elder at the church where John MacArthur preaches.) I think it is a great response to the claims of the Charismatic movement, and it is done in a winsome way. The Charismatic Movement

Blessings,


----------



## ThomasCartwright

In the twentieth century the Day of Pentecost has become a source of confusion, embarrassment or division for believers. The speakers and listeners fully understand the tongues in Acts 2:4, which were an incidental convenience, albeit a miraculous one of 16 known languages, to the real purpose of leading three thousand to salvation. If genuine tongues speaking were truly existent today, it would be supernatural manifestations of other known languages. Another difficulty is that if tongues do not involve the mind, how can they ever be edifying to the speaker? Also, charismatics need to explain how if ecstatic utterances are non-cognitive why did the Apostle urge them to seek a translator? The tongues of 1 Corinthians 14 are presupposed by Paul as equivalent to those of Acts 2 for as Gordon Clark explains, “the word glossa can mean a tongue of land or a leathern thong, or the organ in one’s mouth; but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to find an instance in Greek where it means gibberish.”

Biblical tongues were not a prayer language and Paul cites Isaiah 28: 11-15 to explain that “tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not” (1 Cor 14:22), namely apostate Jews who had made a covenant with death by rebelliously rejecting the Word of God. It was not bestowed on any for mere display or self-glory. It should be noted that when Paul cites Old Testament precedent here he appeals both in the actual Old Testament context and, by his choice of words, he is referring to human languages. There is no indication that they did not engage their minds, as bypassing of the mind is thoroughly unbiblical (Mark 12:30; John 4:23; 1Cor 14:10). Such an existential leap will only surrender ones faculties to dangerous and evil influences.

Charismatic tongues are clearly not equivalent to Acts 2 tongues i.e. definite known languages so they fail at this hurdle. Their modern gift of “gibberish” lacks every mark of the biblical gift. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 12:10 and then chapter 14 in three occasions, Paul argues for interpreting or translating the tongues - only known languages can be translated. Even those who maintain that it is simply “a prayer language” such as an angelic tongue fail to demonstrate why every time an angel spoke in Scripture he used a human language. Secondly, v8 states that tongues “shall cease” and the verb _pauo _is a future middle, meaning that “tongues” would stop by themselves without a passive force acting on the subject. Therefore, they were never intended to be permanent in the Church throughout all ages.

Thirdly, they were for a sign to unbelieving Jews (Mark 16:17; 1 Cor 14:22) of actual human languages to preach the Word of God to foreigners in their own language. This purpose is now obsolete in the plan of redemption as the Gentiles are already grafted into the Church. Interestingly, sign miracles have a definite purpose and appear infrequently in Scripture; usually to authenticate a new era of revelation. Fourthly, Church history attests to the fact that these known language tongues have been done away with. The “experience” argument of Charismatics proves nothing other than they have had an experience. Ironically, Pentecostal missionaries also have to go to language school!

I believe that prophecies “shall fail,” and knowledge “shall vanish away” because “that which is perfect” (_to teleion_, which an adjective in the neuter gender) refers to the completion of the Canon of Scripture. As prophecies and knowledge are revelatory gifts, then it follows from the causal relationship of verses 9 and 10 “we know in part, and we prophesy in part” that the “perfect” thing we should logically expect to be revelatory also. Interestingly, the Greek word for “book” (_biblion_, which is neuter) and refers to the Scriptures. Although some say it refers to the Second Coming of Christ this word “perfect” (_to teleion_) is used 18 times in the NT and never once to the Second Coming of Christ. In addition, 2 Peter 1:19 does not imply that we now see through a “glass darkly” now as “we have also a more sure word of prophecy.” This Completed Canon we are told is absolutely sufficient for the doctrine and practice of a believer (2 Tim 3:16-17). This “glass darkly” therefore seems to be perceiving God’s will unclearly because of limited revelation before the completion of the Canon. In addition, making the word “perfect” the Second Coming of Christ also contradicts what Paul said in v13 “now abideth faith, hope, charity” as when Christ’s return we are told, “for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?” (Rom 8:24).

In conclusion, I believe the grammatical and contextual evidence weighs against any other interpretation than the traditional Protestant one that “perfect” means that completion of the Canon of Scripture. The gift of tongues was a gift of the Holy Spirit to the apostolic Church for a defined purpose for a limited time which has now passed. Modern Charismatic tongues are unscriptural in nature, in purpose and in use.


----------



## jayce475

Hi Dr Paul Ferguson  Wish I could attend more of your febc classes.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

To add a little to the excellent stuff already posted here: two posts on the topic from earlier, one a summation of Samuel Waldron's book on the gifts: _To Be Continued? Are the miraculous gifts for today?_

and a brief paper I gave to a class in Africa who were being troubled by Pentecostal evangelists: Talking points against the Pentecostal heresy.

Both are loaded with Scriptural proofs and arguments.


----------



## Claudiu

ThomasCartwright said:


> *Even those who maintain that it is simply “a prayer language” such as an angelic tongue fail to demonstrate why every time an angel spoke in Scripture he used a human language*. Secondly, v8 states that tongues “shall cease” and the verb _pauo _is a future middle, meaning that “tongues” would stop by themselves without a passive force acting on the subject. Therefore, they were never intended to be permanent in the Church throughout all ages.


 

That's one of the problems I've tackled when discussing this subject with Pentecostals/Charismatics. Whenever I stated that the "tongues" had to be a known language they would bring up the text when Paul says something along the lines of speaking in an "angelic tongue." They would then conclude that there are two types of "tongues"...the angelic and the known (somehow they were all speaking in the "angelic"). With the bold statement above that would be a good rebuttal to their claim. Thanks for posting that.


----------



## timmopussycat

Claudiu said:


> ThomasCartwright said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Even those who maintain that it is simply “a prayer language” such as an angelic tongue fail to demonstrate why every time an angel spoke in Scripture he used a human language*. Secondly, v8 states that tongues “shall cease” and the verb _pauo _is a future middle, meaning that “tongues” would stop by themselves without a passive force acting on the subject. Therefore, they were never intended to be permanent in the Church throughout all ages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one of the problems I've tackled when discussing this subject with Pentecostals/Charismatics. Whenever I stated that the "tongues" had to be a known language they would bring up the text when Paul says something along the lines of speaking in an "angelic tongue." They would then conclude that there are two types of "tongues"...the angelic and the known (somehow they were all speaking in the "angelic"). With the bold statement above that would be a good rebuttal to their claim. Thanks for posting that.
Click to expand...


One can also point out to naive Pentecostals, charismatics etc. that Paul's statement about tongues of angels is a hypothetical. Paul could be trumping their speaking in human languages by mentioning that even IF one spoke in the language of the angels but did not have love, nothing would be gained. There is no NT evidence whatsoever that tongues were actually anything other than known human languages.


----------



## lynnie

DD...you really ought to read this as you think the subject through. Poythress is an OPC guy, cessationist, and WTS prof. Yet at the end of this he details all kinds of amazing things that were happening back with the guys who wrote the confession and their brethren in that time period. Things that today the Pentecostals would claim as their own.

Modern Pentecostalism is off in so many ways that I have no doubt your friend is saying many unbiblical things. But to reject the sovereignty of God in non canonical, non new revelation, extraordinary providences ( that are still happening all over the world today) is an opposite extreme. The Reformed community needs to deal with its history and its great forebears honestly and with scholastic integrity. They believed in this stuff. They didn't call it demonic. They thanked God for it and submitted to the Holy Spirit in it. You gonna call Sam Rutherford non confessional? 

Vern Sheridan Poythress

[Published in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39/1 (1996): 71-101. Used with permission.] 

Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts


----------



## Claudiu

lynnie said:


> DD...you really ought to read this as you think the subject through. Poythress is an OPC guy, cessationist, and WTS prof. Yet at the end of this he details all kinds of amazing things that were happening back with the guys who wrote the confession and their brethren in that time period. Things that today the Pentecostals would claim as their own.
> 
> Modern Pentecostalism is off in so many ways that I have no doubt your friend is saying many unbiblical things. But to reject the sovereignty of God in non canonical, non new revelation, extraordinary providences ( that are still happening all over the world today) is an opposite extreme. The Reformed community needs to deal with its history and its great forebears honestly and with scholastic integrity. They believed in this stuff. They didn't call it demonic. They thanked God for it and submitted to the Holy Spirit in it. You gonna call Sam Rutherford non confessional?
> 
> Vern Sheridan Poythress
> 
> [Published in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39/1 (1996): 71-101. Used with permission.]
> 
> Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts


 

That kind of reminds me of this book someone mentioned to me before:

Amazon.com: 2000 Years of Charismatic Christianity (9780884198727): Eddie L. Hyatt: Books


----------



## MW

lynnie said:


> DD...you really ought to read this as you think the subject through. Poythress is an OPC guy, cessationist, and WTS prof. Yet at the end of this he details all kinds of amazing things that were happening back with the guys who wrote the confession and their brethren in that time period. Things that today the Pentecostals would claim as their own.
> 
> Modern Pentecostalism is off in so many ways that I have no doubt your friend is saying many unbiblical things. But to reject the sovereignty of God in non canonical, non new revelation, extraordinary providences ( that are still happening all over the world today) is an opposite extreme. The Reformed community needs to deal with its history and its great forebears honestly and with scholastic integrity. They believed in this stuff. They didn't call it demonic. They thanked God for it and submitted to the Holy Spirit in it. You gonna call Sam Rutherford non confessional?
> 
> Vern Sheridan Poythress
> 
> [Published in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39/1 (1996): 71-101. Used with permission.]
> 
> Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts


 
You say the reformed community needs to deal with its history with scholarly integrity. Have you investigated the history for yourself? Should you choose to do so, I have no doubt that scholarly integrity will require you to make a great difference between what "Pentecostals would claim as their own" and what our reformed forbears saw as a matter of experiential Christianity. As a matter of historical fact, they more willingly attributed Pentecostal-type claims to the work of the Devil than modern reformed people.


----------



## lynnie

Rev Winzer, did you read Vern's historical section at the end of his essay?

I'll be honest with you, I am a continuist but am so cynical that I'd probably say 99.99%of what goes on today in charismatic and Pentecostal circles is hype or maybe clairvoyant spirits ( demons). 

But I've read other history besides Poythress and these things happened in our great reformed past. I happen to think they didn't stop 300 years ago ( or 2000 years ago). I can't post on the new wading pool forum thread, but the opinion that continuists are seeking after this in every meeting is rediculous. The vast majority of what is today called prophecy is merely an exhortation or comforting or edifying reading of some scripture that is particularly applicable to the moment for one or more persons, and it is separate from the sermon. I have only on a very few occasions seen anything like what Poythress details. But it is no different than Agabus in Acts.

You want to argue with the Covenanters, Flavel, Rutherford, and Mather, go ahead. But at least let us be honest and admit that they received these things as the extraordinary workings of the holy spirit. 

It is as wrong to say these things ceased totally, as it is to think they should happen every sunday in every church, in my opinion.

Vern Poythress is an OPC confessional cessationist. Please read his essay.


----------



## timmopussycat

lynnie said:


> Rev Winzer, did you read Vern's historical section at the end of his essay?
> 
> I'll be honest with you, I am a continuist but am so cynical that I'd probably say 99.99%of what goes on today in charismatic and Pentecostal circles is hype or maybe clairvoyant spirits ( demons).
> 
> But I've read other history besides Poythress and these things happened in our great reformed past. I happen to think they didn't stop 300 years ago ( or 2000 years ago). I can't post on the new wading pool forum thread, but the opinion that continuists are seeking after this in every meeting is rediculous. The vast majority of what is today called prophecy is merely an exhortation or comforting or edifying reading of some scripture that is particularly applicable to the moment for one or more persons, and it is separate from the sermon. I have only on a very few occasions seen anything like what Poythress details. But it is no different than Agabus in Acts.
> 
> You want to argue with the Covenanters, Flavel, Rutherford, and Mather, go ahead. But at least let us be honest and admit that they received these things as the extraordinary workings of the holy spirit.
> 
> It is as wrong to say these things ceased totally, as it is to think they should happen every sunday in every church, in my opinion.
> 
> Vern Poythress is an OPC confessional cessationist. Please read his essay.


 
Lynnie there is a difference between recognizing an extraordinary event as an extraordinary work of the Holy Spirit and recognizing the same event as the regular exercise of a "gift" given to an individual for him to use. The former, as you correctly note, is what the reformed worthies well knew, the latter is what most charismatic / pentecostalism degenerates towards. The dispute between cessationists and continuationists is not ultimately about whether or not God does extraordinary things from time to time today - both sides agree that he does. But the heart of the disagreement is over the question of which theological explanation of these events is correct, those of Rutherford et al, those of modern charismatics. or perhaps even a third alternative.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

DD2009 said:


> I would like to see a proof for cessationism from the bible. I am having a hard time finding one and have been dealing with a pentacostal.


 
Dear brother,

Please get your hands on "Perspectives on Pentecost" by Dr. Richard Gaffin. It is a short work, a very sound biblical argument, and the best I have read on the subject. This is the most helpful thing I have read, having come from a pentecostal upbringing myself. 

In addition, Dr. Gaffin spoke on this subject at a conference this past weekend, which I was privileged to attend. You can access his lectures and listen to them here: Amoskeag Presbyterian Church


----------



## MW

lynnie said:


> Please read his essay.


 
You are asking me to read an essay that I read a number of years ago and have commented on numerous times. If you do a search on this board you should find a couple of the comments.

On the historical side of things, there are a number of important factors which beg to be considered. First, that some of the accounts are prime examples of hagiography. Secondly, the reformed system already has mechanisms for explaining the phenomenon -- the witness of the Spirit, faith and prayer. E.g., Rutherford says, "where faith is, it has the gift of prophesying and foresight there" (Quaint Sermons, 4). In knowing God through the Bible and the Spirit one develops an expectation of what God will do in particular moral circumstances. The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him. Thirdly, as Tim Cunningham has mentioned, there is a world of difference between extraordinary phenomenon exercised as a spiritual gift and the same phenomenon taking place in the course of providence. The reformed confessions are very strong on "ordinary means of grace," and make no allowance for extraordinary phenomena in the building up of the saints.


----------



## lynnie

_Lynnie there is a difference between recognizing an extraordinary event as an extraordinary work of the Holy Spirit and recognizing the same event as the regular exercise of a "gift" given to an individual for him to use. The former, as you correctly note, is what the reformed worthies well knew, the latter is what most charismatic / pentecostalism degenerates towards. The dispute between cessationists and continuationists is not ultimately about whether or not God does extraordinary things from time to time today - both sides agree that he does. But the heart of the disagreement is over the question of which theological explanation of these events is correct, those of Rutherford et al, those of modern charismatics. or perhaps even a third alternative._ 

_Thirdly, as Tim Cunningham has mentioned, there is a world of difference between extraordinary phenomenon exercised as a spiritual gift and the same phenomenon taking place in the course of providence._

Thank you for the replies. Actually, both sides do NOT agree that God does these things, in my conversational experience. I know TRs who would perhaps accept a miracle of healing but nothing in the Poythress essay; it would all be considered demonic or occult psychic. I appreciate your balanced replies and can see that my tone to Rev Winzer was overreacting....for what it is worth I have enormous respect for your posting so please forgive the heat of my response. I get tired of those who relegate anything and everything extraordinary to the realm of the demonic. 

The charismatic movement has gone off the deep end with elevating the subjective over the objective word, with expecting extraordinary every Sunday, with the concept of "my gift", and then of course Arminian dispensationalism. But I've seen many of them, myself included, end up in Reformed doctrine, and one of the biggest barriers to that is the idea they have that the Reformed are cessationist and don't believe in any supernatural workings of the holy spirit at all, ever. It is so hard to explain the middle ground. I don't think cessationism is a good term if you do believe miracles can still happen, like healing, but it is the catch all phrase to reject authoritative new revelation. I wish we could find a better term that admits some extraordinary level of holy spirit activity, without sounding like Benny Hinn.


----------



## jogri17

Romans922 said:


> Logically according to that (false) argument, nothing in Scripture could be a proof text?
> 
> Besides, the Confession is clear on this point, of which you are outside the bounds, when it says, "I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.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 afterwards 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 makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased."
> 
> The proof text used is Hebrews 1:1-2.
> 
> 
> You might just want to go to the link on the PB that Bob linked to...


 
Maybe the confession is wrong exegetically and out to be modified to say '' those former ways of God's revealing His wil unto His people being now ceased as the ordinary means. '' We changed the confession on civil government why not that?


----------

