# Charismatic and reformed?



## Romans922

Read things by Wayne Grudem, he is a reformed charismatic.


----------



## non dignus

Yes, absolutely, in my opinion.

They are messing with the canon. Even though they don't admit it. If they are getting revelation from God they must write it down and share it with the church.

And I'll bet my bottom dollar there is more bad doctrine than just the charismata. Are they baptist by any chance? Gosh....ya think? (no offense)

True doctrine and godliness hates invention.


----------



## non dignus

If its healing, that's great!! 

They can go into the cancer wards and do alot of good. Seriously.

If the members are closet praying in a different language I have no problem. Anything beyond that, especially doctinal, is way bad.


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by James McGrail_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> Yes, absolutely, in my opinion.
> They are messing with the canon. Even though they don't admit it. If they are getting revelation from God they must write it down and share it with the church.
> And I'll bet my bottom dollar there is more bad doctrine than just the charismata. Are they baptist by any chance? Gosh....ya think? (no offense)
> True doctrine and godliness hates invention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My question would be how far are they taking it? If it's tongues and healing, that's one thing. But you're right if it's 'word of knowledge', that's quite another. In fact the tongues and faith healing would make me feel very uncomfortable!
Click to expand...


When I was younger and more cockey I once responded to a charismatic with my own spiritual gift. He was extoling those gifts that he thought that we thought were dead, such as tongues, healings, and special revelations and predictions. I told him I had the gift of discernment, and that I discerned error here. He left me alone after that. I don't know why.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> When I was younger and more cockey I once responded to a charismatic with my own spiritual gift. He was extoling those gifts that he thought that we thought were dead, such as tongues, healings, and special revelations and predictions. I told him I had the gift of discernment, and that I discerned error here. He left me alone after that. I don't know why.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by James McGrail_
> I have run across a group in the last couple of years (I can't remember the name), that teaches clear calvinistic doctrine, and charismatic theology.
> My question: Are charismania and calvinism mutually exclusive?



It depends on what you mean by Calvinism. If it means "predestination," then, no they're not incompatible. There is a growing movement of predestinarian charismatics. I think this may describe C J Maheny and certainly describes Wayne Grudem and others.

I, for one, and Guido de Bres (the primary author of the Belgic Confession, 1561) for another, would not be happy with such a truncated definition of "Reformed" or "Calvinist." 

There is much more to being Reformed/Calvinist than predestination. Augustine, Gottschalk, Aquinas, and many others were predestinarian without being "Calvinist." Lutherans are predestinarians (they confess an unconditional election that can, nevertheless, be lost).

If we allow the Reformed confessions and confessional theologians to define "Reformed/Calvinist" then, no, anyone who claims to have direct revelations from God or to practice apostolic gifts is not Reformed.

Much of what is today called "Charismatic" was denounced in the 16th century as Anabaptist fanaticism:



> There be some who have daily some new command from God, to make known unto their brethren and strangers. Some are rapt into an extasie, and have their visage and countenance changed, lying upon the ground certain hours. Some Tremble and Quake for two or three hours together; after that, when they are come unto themselves, they prophecie and speak strange things, as if they had been in another world, or as if they had fallen from out of heaven: and they account to have that in common with the Apostle, when he was taken up into the third heaven.
> 
> ...As for that which they tax the Ministers, to be Ministers of the dead letter, one may plainly see the Lords taking vengeance upon the outrage offered unto his holy Word; smiting them with the spirit of giddiness, for having despised the true and only means of coming unto God, which is the Scripture and the Word of God. In the passage of the Corinthians where Paul saith, The letter killeth, and the Spirit quickeneth; let any closely consider, against whom the Apostle disputeth, and they will understand his drift. It is very evident that Paul in this place, had to do with false Apostles, who preached and extolled the Law without Christ, and caused the people to recoil from Salvation purchased by Christ, and the grace of the new Covenant, whereunto the Lord had promised to write his Law in the heart of the faithful: the Law then being separated from Christ, as a body without a soul; and nothing cometh from it but death, to those that are under it: it doth nothing but beat and strike the ears, without any quickening the soul, until by faith we are sent from it unto Christ, as from the Usher unto the Master; and then the Law will be found such as David sings it, The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is faithful, making Wise the simple: the commandments of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart, & c. Thus must we understand how it is said, The Letter killeth: Paul called the Law, The killing Letter, and saith, The Spirit quickeneth, i.e., The Ministry of the Gospel, which he opposeth unto the naked Law; and he himself calleth his preaching The Ministry of the Spirit.



I'm glad folks are re-discovering the doctrine of predestination. Let's pray they rediscover the rest of our soteriology, our Christology and our covenant theology (including the notion of canon and revelation!) etc.

rsc


----------



## Pilgrim




----------



## Pilgrim

I attended what amounts to a Reformed-Charismatic (the minister has a Yahoo group by that name) EPC church off and on for about a year or year and a half. I had been Calvinistic in the sense of embracing the doctrines of grace for several years, and attended this church while trying to figure out whether to be a Baptist or Presbyterian (Baptists are quite welcome there, and I think there are even some on the session). This church is what I would term mildly charismatic, especially compared with the numerous Oneness Pentecostals and Word-Faith adherents in my area. Some people there, including the pastor are charismatic, but most are not. The preaching was usually excellent and was the main reason I attended there. But I left there last summer and began regularly attending an OPC congregation, and will soon become a member d.v. I always kind of had the sense that if I became convinced of Presbyterianism that I would end up there. 

I think my EPC pastor friends' experience is different than most "Reformed-Charismatics" you hear about today in that instead of coming from charismaticism to an understanding of the doctrines of grace, his first pastorate was in the RPCNA, thus going from covenanter to charismatic!

[Edited on 1-8-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## BrianBowman

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> I'm glad folks are re-discovering the doctrine of predestination. Let's pray they rediscover the rest of our soteriology, our Christology and our covenant theology (including the notion of canon and revelation!) etc.
> 
> rsc



... in other words "discovery" themselves rightout of being Charismatics into the glorious light of simply being Biblical Christians! 

[Edited on 1-8-2006 by BrianBowman]


----------



## Pilgrim

I was never Charismatic per se, but until last summer my position for the previous several years could be described as "open, but cautious". However, after a series of events last summer I began to question my position and realized I could no longer stay on the fence. I came across the January 2002 issue of _New Horizons_ the theme of which was "Is the Bible Enough", which went a long way toward solidifying my position against neo-pentecostalism/charismaticism, particularly this article by Geoffrey Thomas: 
http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH02/01a.html

[Edited on 1-8-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## SmokingFlax

Dr. Clark.

Could you please identify the author of your earlier quote.
Thanks.

[Edited on 1-8-2006 by SmokingFlax]


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by James McGrail_
> I have run across a group in the last couple of years (I can't remember the name), that teaches clear calvinistic doctrine, and charismatic theology.
> My question: Are charismania and calvinism mutually exclusive?



The group you're thinking of is probably Sovereign Grace Ministries, formerly known as PDI. http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/
Their best known leaders are C.J. Mahaney and Joshua Harris. Mahaney is now on the council of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and spoke at Grace Community Church while John MacArthur was on sabbatical this summer. 

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church has a good number of Reformed-Charismatics as well.


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> And I'll bet my bottom dollar there is more bad doctrine than just the charismata. Are they baptist by any chance? Gosh....ya think? (no offense)



Wow! Some statement there....


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by SmokingFlax_
> Dr. Clark.
> 
> Could you please identify the author of your earlier quote.
> Thanks.
> 
> [Edited on 1-8-2006 by SmokingFlax]



Guido/Guy de Bres, the primary author of the Belgic Confession.

rsc


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Being Charismatic and Reformed isn't the big issue... is Charismatic phenomenon compatible with God's Word and true, orthodox, Christianity?



> 1 Cor 14:40 But all things should be done decently and in order.
> Heb 12:28 Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe


----------



## BrianBowman

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Being Charismatic and Reformed isn't the big issue... is Charismatic phenomenon compatible with God's Word and true, orthodox, Christianity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Cor 14:40 But all things should be done decently and in order.
> Heb 12:28 Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe
Click to expand...


 This is the real question that needs to be answered by those holding to various gradients of Charismatic viewpoints.


----------



## non dignus

> If its healing, that's great!!
> They can go into the cancer wards and do alot of good. Seriously.



Are there reports of healings by predestinarian charismaniacs? 

If so, the veracity of such reports are suspect if they don't go into the hospitals,

1) to heal childhood cancer, for example

2) to verify actual divine intervention by experts and then give testimony of such to the world. "Tell of His glorious deeds......"

Thus they are sinning by withholding the gifts for the body of Christ; OR
they are sinning by carrying the Lord's name in vain.

If I sound peeved it's because I used to believe the superstitions put forth by neo-Pentecostal teachers.


----------



## mybigGod

I have been a reformed baptist for a very long time and i have always tried to balance my reading with revival stuff, bios, and works that center on the Holy Spirit. I read some of the theological works of today and they are so intellectual and dry it leaves me longing for some of the old puritian works. 
I have always questioned the certianty of some today that speak as though the early churches experience was a thing of the past. In an effort to warn people about prophetic utterance crowd they have gone to great lengths to acknowlege that calvinism is supernatural but as to it working out in depending on the Holy Spirit for ministry, preaching, in all areas of spiritual service they seem to paint this picture of the Holy Spirits work as secret and personal.
Then there is the coming of the Holy Spirit, the sending of the Holy Spirit by Christ , the baptism of the early church with fire for witness books that are placed on the back shelves of the reformed library and never given attention as a normal systematic study as the other doctrines of grace. Yet the old reformers have written alot on this subject. 
We take a dogmatic stance on the work of the Spirit and limit the discussion on the text of scripture in this area which scripture can be crossed referenced in many ways. If i am writing something and its not warm then i must ask myself if i really understand the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, because it may be lacking the "unction".

[Edited on 1-9-2006 by mybigGod]

[Edited on 1-9-2006 by mybigGod]


----------



## Joseph Ringling

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> Yes, absolutely, in my opinion.
> 
> They are messing with the canon. Even though they don't admit it. If they are getting revelation from God they must write it down and share it with the church.
> 
> And I'll bet my bottom dollar there is more bad doctrine than just the charismata. Are they baptist by any chance? Gosh....ya think? (no offense)
> 
> True doctrine and godliness hates invention.



So because they are charismatic they just naturally have to be baptist right? So would it be fair of me to say that if someone believes they have to work for their salvation that they must be paedo? Or can both be human and capable of error?


----------



## Ivan

bump


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by Joseph Ringling_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> Yes, absolutely, in my opinion.
> 
> They are messing with the canon. Even though they don't admit it. If they are getting revelation from God they must write it down and share it with the church.
> 
> And I'll bet my bottom dollar there is more bad doctrine than just the charismata. Are they baptist by any chance? Gosh....ya think? (no offense)
> 
> True doctrine and godliness hates invention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So because they are charismatic they just naturally have to be baptist right? So would it be fair of me to say that if someone believes they have to work for their salvation that they must be paedo? Or can both be human and capable of error?
Click to expand...


Joseph,
It's good to converse with you. 

I admit I jumped the gun a little bit in only one regard. There was (or is) something of charismatic "renewal" (ouch!) occuring in Roman Catholic circles. Since Roman Catholicism is paedobaptist, I could be accused of 'calling the kettle black'. 

However, when we do see 'creative' or 'inventive' denominations that have a hybrid character, it's safe to assume it's not paedobaptist, wouldn't you agree? By the way, paedobaptism is not an offshoot of orthodoxy, credo' is. Credobaptism is the hybrid which is not a good thing so late in the day- historically speaking. I would enjoy discussing this on another thread if you like. 

When 'credos' and 'paedos' share PuritanBoard it is good for conversation and iron sharpening iron. However we can get comfortable and think 'the other guy is alright theologically'. No it's not alright. We need to keep the boundaries well defined, in a friendly way.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> 
> They are messing with the canon. Even though they don't admit it. If they are getting revelation from God they must write it down and share it with the church.



I'm not Pentecostal. But I also don't agree with this logic used to rebut them.

After all, does Scripture record every revelation God has ever given to men? Does the Bible contain every word God has ever spoken to men? Certainly not! The Bible contains all we need to know for salvation, and the proper worship of God. But it doesn't contain everything He's ever said/revealed to men. Thus the argument above is not valid. Therefore, we should question charistmatics on other grounds.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> 
> They are messing with the canon. Even though they don't admit it. If they are getting revelation from God they must write it down and share it with the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not Pentecostal. But I also don't agree with this logic used to rebut them.
> 
> After all, does Scripture record every revelation God has ever given to men? Does the Bible contain every word God has ever spoken to men? Certainly not! The Bible contains all we need to know for salvation, and the proper worship of God. But it doesn't contain everything He's ever said/revealed to men. Thus the argument above is not valid. Therefore, we should question charistmatics on other grounds.
Click to expand...


In these last days, God has already spoken through Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2). So during these last days, we are to expect no more words from God or else the canon can be reopened.


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> In these last days, God has already spoken through Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2). So during these last days, we are to expect no more words from God or else the canon can be reopened.



Agreed. I get nervous when my pastor says that God told him to do something or a member testifies that God lead him to find his car keys.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> In these last days, God has already spoken through Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2). So during these last days, we are to expect no more words from God or else the canon can be reopened.



I am well aware of charismatic abuses. 

But I'm just curious how you define "these last days" in Hebrews 1:1-2?

Did "these last days" begin with the ministry of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, or what?


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> In these last days, God has already spoken through Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2). So during these last days, we are to expect no more words from God or else the canon can be reopened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am well aware of charismatic abuses.
> 
> But I'm just curious how you define "these last days" in Hebrews 1:1-2?
> 
> Did "these last days" begin with the ministry of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, or what?
Click to expand...


The last days began with Emmanuel. He spoke in person and through the pillars of the Church, the Apostles. After the ascension and with the end of the apostolic age, God ceased speaking until the Second Advent or the end of the last days.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> I am well aware of charismatic abuses.
> 
> But I'm just curious how you define "these last days" in Hebrews 1:1-2?
> 
> Did "these last days" begin with the ministry of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, or what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last days began with Emmanuel. He spoke in person and through the pillars of the Church, the Apostles. After the ascension and with the end of the apostolic age, God ceased speaking until the Second Advent or the end of the last days.
Click to expand...


How can you back this up, using Hebrews 1? So far, your argument seems to go like this:

1) According to Hebrews 1, in these "last days", God has spoken to us through his Son, *instead* of through prophecies, signs, etc.

2) Yet, at the same time, you are saying that God spoke to us *through* the signs, prophecies, etc. of the first century. And He didn't only do this through Christ personally, but also through the Apostles, and also through a number of other people (e.g. Agabus).


But #1 looks to me like it is contradictory to #2. Either the argument is "God spoke to us through Jesus *instead* of through charismata", or "God spoke to us through Jesus *through* charismata". Which is it? A person needs to pick one argument or the other . . . not both.

Furthermore, where does Scripture make a clear distinction between the church prior to the death of the last apostle, and the church after the death of the last apostle? Are you saying that, throughout the nations, there may have been people prophecying like Agabus, right up until the apostle John died? But then immediately after his death, all prophecy ceased? I am open to this idea, but I have no idea where Scripture says such a thing. Hebrews 1 certainly doesn't answer this question . . . it talks about God's revelation through His Son, not through other people. But if you argue that Christ could reveal Himself through Agabus (which I would agree), then why couldn't Christ reveal himself through the grandson of Agabus, sometime in the 2nd century?

I hope you don't mind all my questions. I am genuinely wanting to learn. I just do not think Hebrews 1 gives a convincing case for cessationism, at least not the way I have heard it presented. 

Are there any other texts that make you think cessation occurred at the time the Apostle John died? Or is Hebrews 1:1-4 the only text you are relying on for this doctrine?

I look forward to hearing more about this. Thank you for your patience with my questions.



[Edited on 1-11-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> I am well aware of charismatic abuses.
> 
> But I'm just curious how you define "these last days" in Hebrews 1:1-2?
> 
> Did "these last days" begin with the ministry of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, or what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last days began with Emmanuel. He spoke in person and through the pillars of the Church, the Apostles. After the ascension and with the end of the apostolic age, God ceased speaking until the Second Advent or the end of the last days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you back this up, using Hebrews 1? So far, your argument seems to go like this:
> 
> 1) According to Hebrews 1, in these "last days", God has spoken to us through his Son, *instead* of through prophecies, signs, etc.
> 
> 2) Yet, at the same time, you are saying that God spoke to us *through* the signs, prophecies, etc. of the first century. And He didn't only do this through Christ personally, but also through the Apostles, and also through a number of other people (e.g. Agabus).
> 
> 
> But #1 looks to me like it is contradictory to #2. Either the argument is "God spoke to us through Jesus *instead* of through charismata", or "God spoke to us through Jesus *through* charismata". Which is it? A person needs to pick one argument or the other . . . not both.
> 
> Furthermore, where does Scripture make a clear distinction between the church prior to the death of the last apostle, and the church after the death of the last apostle? Are you saying that, throughout the nations, there may have been people prophecying like Agabus, right up until the apostle John died? But then immediately after his death, all prophecy ceased? I am open to this idea, but I have no idea where Scripture says such a thing. Hebrews 1 certainly doesn't answer this question . . . it talks about God's revelation through His Son, not through other people. But if you argue that Christ could reveal Himself through Agabus (which I would agree), then why couldn't Christ reveal himself through the grandson of Agabus, sometime in the 2nd century?
> 
> I hope you don't mind all my questions. I am genuinely wanting to learn. I just do not think Hebrews 1 gives a convincing case for cessationism, at least not the way I have heard it presented.
> 
> Are there any other texts that make you think cessation occurred at the time the Apostle John died? Or is Hebrews 1:1-4 the only text you are relying on for this doctrine?
> 
> I look forward to hearing more about this. Thank you for your patience with my questions.
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 1-11-2006 by biblelighthouse]
Click to expand...


Joseph, good questions.

Hebrews 1 is not the lone scripture used for cessation as you are well aware. However it is an important truth to consider.

The verse:


> God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son"¦.



Unlike how God spoke to the Fathers and Prophets how did He speak through Jesus?

Jesus specifically discipled 13 men who were appointed to be the first stones of the New Testament Church.

God has spoken to His Church through the pillars of His Church specifically appointed by Christ. When Jesus spoke to the Apostles, He was speaking to the Church. Sure there were other sheep besides the Apostles at the time, but the Apostles were specifically called out (by Jesus) to be the stones that the Church will be built on. So everything we as a church do or say must be built on to, not in addition to, these foundation stones. The foundation is complete, we do not add to that foundation with revelation not recorded in Holy Scripture. The Eastern church will take this to say that Christ is still speaking to the Apostles per se, but through the Church as a body not as individual foundation stones. The Protestants assert that the canon was closed with the end of apostolic writings even before the Church collected them all into one document but the Church´s interpretation may be flawed.

Before the completion of the canon, some in the church did prophesy, but they were not Prophets on par with the likes of Moses, Isaiah, Micah or John the Baptist. We will take Paul´s writings and add them to scripture, but not some common Christian´s writings who had the gift of prophecy. It is implied in 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 that prophecies could contain information that was to be tested as bad or good,


> Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.


We must ask by what standard or rule did the New Testament Church test these prophecies? Was it by the Apostles doctrine along with scripture? If not, what else? Jesus´s words? Well, who knew Jesus´ words and was supernaturally granted remembrance by the Holy Spirit? You, me, the Pope, Benny Hinn? I don´t recall any of us being eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ. Do you see how this relates to Hebrews 1?

Today we see the entire revelation of God perfect and complete face to face as in a mirror (cf: 1 Corinthians 13:12 & James 1:23). If anyone "œprophesizes" in church today it is those who hold the completed word in their heart and proclaim it either by memory or recitation. We test what they say with what the word actually says. What else is missing if we still require prophets? And again what do we test their words with? Is it their interpretation that is prophetic? Then we can say Jerome, Aquinas, Augustine, Calvin, Luther, et al were prophets who gave us some good interpretations which we hold fast to. If they were prophets, then who is Paul calling teachers and how are they different? From Hebrews one we must ask who is Jesus, what did He say, who did He say it to and by what do we test these people´s words?

Regarding your second point: I cannot dogmatically assert that it all ended with the Apostle John´s last breath. It appears that at the early stages of the New Testament Church, the Apostles were acting under Christ´s Authority to do many miracles, speaking while filled with the Spirit, raising the dead, healing the sick, receiving specific revelations, etc. However, after some time it appears the signs were not as active even while they were still living. Paul was distressed with a personal thorn that God would not take away. He went from raising the dead to recommending wine for Timothy´s stomach illness. Perhaps the Apostolic sign era ended around 70 AD with the "œcoming of the Son of man?" I don´t know. Others more versed in eschatology can add light to that discussion. But it appeared that the "œwind" blew harder at the beginning than the end even among the Apostles.


----------



## biblelighthouse

Chris,

Thank you for your good responses.


I totally agree that the canon is closed. That wasn't where I was trying to go. However, regarding point #2, you said:



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> Regarding your second point: *I cannot dogmatically assert that it all ended with the Apostle John´s last breath.* It appears that at the early stages of the New Testament Church, the Apostles were acting under Christ´s Authority to do many miracles, speaking while filled with the Spirit, raising the dead, healing the sick, receiving specific revelations, etc. However, after some time it appears the signs were not as active even while they were still living. Paul was distressed with a personal thorn that God would not take away. He went from raising the dead to recommending wine for Timothy´s stomach illness. Perhaps the Apostolic sign era ended around 70 AD with the "œcoming of the Son of man?" I don´t know. Others more versed in eschatology can add light to that discussion. *But it appeared that the "œwind" blew harder at the beginning than the end even among the Apostles.*



On the one hand, I agree with you that the "'wind' blew harder at the beginning than the end".

But on the other hand, you said, "I cannot dogmatically assert that it all ended with the Apostle John´s last breath." And that is my point. On the one hand, I have to admit that I have not seen anything that I would call "healing" or "tongues" or "prophecy". But that is an argument from silence & personal experience. I would much prefer an argument from Scripture, but I honestly don't know where to find that argument.

Just for example, consider these two things that Scripture says happens in these "last days":



> God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, *has in these last days spoken to us by His Son*, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds (Hebrews 1:1-2)



-and-



> And it shall come to pass *in the last days*, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters *shall prophesy*, Your young men shall *see visions*, Your old men shall *dream dreams*. And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they *shall prophesy*. (Acts 2:17-18; cf. Joel 2:28-29)




Now here's my difficulty: 

If the "last days" in Heb. 1 are the same as the "last days" in Acts 2 / Joel 2, then we seem to have the opposite of cessationism. In other words, we can certainly say that God has spoken to us through His Son in these last days (Heb. 1), but Joel 2 and Acts 2 say that the last days *also* contain prophecies, visions, dreams, etc.

On the other hand, if the "last days" in Heb. 1 are supposed to be understood differently than the "last days" of Acts 2 / Joel 2, then how can we demonstrate that from Scripture?


In short, my question is this: 
How can we prove from Scripture that God won't send a prophecy to someone now, or a vision to someone now, or cause someone on the mission field to speak in a foreign tongue they never learned? --- Obviously, we believe the canon is closed. But I am talking more about the type of prophecy we see with a non-Apostle in the New Testament, i.e. Agabus (cf. Acts 11:28, 21:10-11). How do we *know* that God won't/doesn't still have Agabus-type people around?

I admit that I've never experienced such a thing. But lots of people in the Old Testament never experienced such a thing, either. When God does wonders, He usually doesn't show them to everyone. Are we just espousing a personal-experience-theology, or are there good Scriptural reasons to believe that prophecy, tongues, visions, dreams, etc. all ended in the first century?


Thank you for helping me think through this question.


----------



## youthevang

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> I am well aware of charismatic abuses.
> 
> But I'm just curious how you define "these last days" in Hebrews 1:1-2?
> 
> Did "these last days" begin with the ministry of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, or what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last days began with Emmanuel. He spoke in person and through the pillars of the Church, the Apostles. After the ascension and with the end of the apostolic age, God ceased speaking until the Second Advent or the end of the last days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you back this up, using Hebrews 1? So far, your argument seems to go like this:
> 
> 1) According to Hebrews 1, in these "last days", God has spoken to us through his Son, *instead* of through prophecies, signs, etc.
> 
> 2) Yet, at the same time, you are saying that God spoke to us *through* the signs, prophecies, etc. of the first century. And He didn't only do this through Christ personally, but also through the Apostles, and also through a number of other people (e.g. Agabus).
> 
> 
> But #1 looks to me like it is contradictory to #2. Either the argument is "God spoke to us through Jesus *instead* of through charismata", or "God spoke to us through Jesus *through* charismata". Which is it? A person needs to pick one argument or the other . . . not both.
> 
> Furthermore, where does Scripture make a clear distinction between the church prior to the death of the last apostle, and the church after the death of the last apostle? Are you saying that, throughout the nations, there may have been people prophecying like Agabus, right up until the apostle John died? But then immediately after his death, all prophecy ceased? I am open to this idea, but I have no idea where Scripture says such a thing. Hebrews 1 certainly doesn't answer this question . . . it talks about God's revelation through His Son, not through other people. But if you argue that Christ could reveal Himself through Agabus (which I would agree), then why couldn't Christ reveal himself through the grandson of Agabus, sometime in the 2nd century?
> 
> I hope you don't mind all my questions. I am genuinely wanting to learn. I just do not think Hebrews 1 gives a convincing case for cessationism, at least not the way I have heard it presented.
> 
> Are there any other texts that make you think cessation occurred at the time the Apostle John died? Or is Hebrews 1:1-4 the only text you are relying on for this doctrine?
> 
> I look forward to hearing more about this. Thank you for your patience with my questions.
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 1-11-2006 by biblelighthouse]
Click to expand...


Also, 1 Corinthians 13:9-10 proves that prophecy would cease. When some people read these verses they believe that Paul is speaking of Christ when he states, "But when the perfect comes." If Paul is speaking of Christ here, he is being very vague about it and what we know of Paul, he is never vague when He is speaking of Christ and Him crucified. Verse 9 and 10 are antithetical parallels. The word "part" is set against the word "perfect." We must not try to put our postmodern definitions to words when reading them in Scripture, but we must pay close attention to the definition in which the author gives to the word. Since the word "part" is antithetical to "perfect" then Paul can't mean perfect as meaning someone is perfect without sin. Instead Paul is meaning "completeness" or "wholeness." So when the "whole/complete/perfect" comes then the "part/partial/incomplete" will be done away with.

However, some will say that the above explanation makes no sense in light of verse 12 when Paul states, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then *face to face*." But according to the _analogia fidei_, it would be stange of the author to change subjects without giving any indication that He is now talking about heaven. Yes, the phrase "face to face" is used in the Scripture elsewhere with regards to heaven, but still we must keep things in context and understand the author's intent.

Therefore, there are no more new revelations. Let's say someone speaks a word of prophecy in the Netherlands. How is the whole body edified through a prophecy that some of us might not even hear? That is why we have the Scriptures because the Scriptures are suppose to keep us unified and keep us one. The body is not divided and the only way to be of one mind is to know what God is saying to all of us in all generations and that is through His Word.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by youthevang_
> 1 Corinthians 13:9-10 proves that prophecy would cease.



But it doesn't give a specific time, that prophecy would cease "at the close of the canon", or "at the end of the apostolic age", etc.

It just says that prophecy would cease "when the perfect comes". I have _always_ understood that to mean the end of the ages, when we are glorified.

But you are saying:



> _Originally posted by youthevang_
> 
> Verse 9 and 10 are antithetical parallels. The word "part" is set against the word "perfect." . . . Since the word "part" is antithetical to "perfect" then Paul can't mean perfect as meaning someone is perfect without sin. Instead Paul is meaning "completeness" or "wholeness." So when the "whole/complete/perfect" comes then the "part/partial/incomplete" will be done away with.




Ok . . . so when does this "completeness" or "wholeness" occur? 

I would _still_ argue that this doesn't happen until we are glorified. I am not utterly "complete" or "whole" yet.

But on the other hand, perhaps you are not talking about utter ontological completeness and wholeness. Perhaps you are just talking about the completeness and wholeness that a human heart has after it has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. But if this is the case, then Paul's passage makes no sense at all, because he and the Corinthians _already had this!_ And if that were the case, then prophecy, knowledge, etc. would have _already ceased prior to Paul's writing of 1 Corinthians_, but we know that is not the case (cf. chapters 12 & 14).

Thus, I am having trouble following your argument.



> _Originally posted by youthevang_
> 
> Therefore, there are no more new revelations. Let's say someone speaks a word of prophecy in the Netherlands. How is the whole body edified through a prophecy that some of us might not even hear? That is why we have the Scriptures because the Scriptures are suppose to keep us unified and keep us one. The body is not divided and the only way to be of one mind is to know what God is saying to all of us in all generations and that is through His Word.



Wait a minute . . . When someone spoke a word of prophecy in Corinth in 50 A.D., how was the body in Thessalonica edified? You seem to be missing the point that Paul is talking to a _local body_ in Corinth, not to the body of Christ as a whole, universally.


I'm still listening . . .



[Edited on 1-11-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Chris,
> 
> Thank you for your good responses.
> 
> 
> I totally agree that the canon is closed. That wasn't where I was trying to go. However, regarding point #2, you said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> Regarding your second point: *I cannot dogmatically assert that it all ended with the Apostle John´s last breath.* It appears that at the early stages of the New Testament Church, the Apostles were acting under Christ´s Authority to do many miracles, speaking while filled with the Spirit, raising the dead, healing the sick, receiving specific revelations, etc. However, after some time it appears the signs were not as active even while they were still living. Paul was distressed with a personal thorn that God would not take away. He went from raising the dead to recommending wine for Timothy´s stomach illness. Perhaps the Apostolic sign era ended around 70 AD with the "œcoming of the Son of man?" I don´t know. Others more versed in eschatology can add light to that discussion. *But it appeared that the "œwind" blew harder at the beginning than the end even among the Apostles.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the one hand, I agree with you that the "'wind' blew harder at the beginning than the end".
> 
> But on the other hand, you said, "I cannot dogmatically assert that it all ended with the Apostle John´s last breath." And that is my point. On the one hand, I have to admit that I have not seen anything that I would call "healing" or "tongues" or "prophecy". But that is an argument from silence & personal experience. I would much prefer an argument from Scripture, but I honestly don't know where to find that argument.
Click to expand...



I believe it ended with John, but I cannot dogmatically assert that it ended at his last breath, but probably earlier with the end of his Revelation. I did not mean to imply that more apostolic signs occurred after John, but that they ended even before he died.



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Just for example, consider these two things that Scripture says happens in these "last days":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, *has in these last days spoken to us by His Son*, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds (Hebrews 1:1-2)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -and-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it shall come to pass *in the last days*, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters *shall prophesy*, Your young men shall *see visions*, Your old men shall *dream dreams*. And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they *shall prophesy*. (Acts 2:17-18; cf. Joel 2:28-29)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now here's my difficulty:
> 
> If the "last days" in Heb. 1 are the same as the "last days" in Acts 2 / Joel 2, then we seem to have the opposite of cessationism. In other words, we can certainly say that God has spoken to us through His Son in these last days (Heb. 1), but Joel 2 and Acts 2 say that the last days *also* contain prophecies, visions, dreams, etc.
> 
> On the other hand, if the "last days" in Heb. 1 are supposed to be understood differently than the "last days" of Acts 2 / Joel 2, then how can we demonstrate that from Scripture?
Click to expand...


Everything in Joel happened already during the last days. Acts records events for each of Joel´s prophecies.




> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> In short, my question is this:
> How can we prove from Scripture that God won't send a prophecy to someone now, or a vision to someone now, or cause someone on the mission field to speak in a foreign tongue they never learned? --- Obviously, we believe the canon is closed. But I am talking more about the type of prophecy we see with a non-Apostle in the New Testament, i.e. Agabus (cf. Acts 11:28, 21:10-11). How do we *know* that God won't/doesn't still have Agabus-type people around?
> 
> I admit that I've never experienced such a thing. But lots of people in the Old Testament never experienced such a thing, either. When God does wonders, He usually doesn't show them to everyone. Are we just espousing a personal-experience-theology, or are there good Scriptural reasons to believe that prophecy, tongues, visions, dreams, etc. all ended in the first century?
> 
> 
> Thank you for helping me think through this question.



We prove from scripture that the final canon is sufficient and complete. If the missionary forgot to bring his Bible then shame on him.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> Everything in Joel happened already during the last days. Acts records events for each of Joel´s prophecies.




I agree. But that doesn't answer my question. How can you demonstrate from Scripture that none of these things still can occur today?

Proving that they already happened certainly does not prove that they don't happen anymore!


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> Everything in Joel happened already during the last days. Acts records events for each of Joel´s prophecies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. But that doesn't answer my question. How can you demonstrate from Scripture that none of these things still can occur today?
> 
> Proving that they already happened certainly does not prove that they don't happen anymore!
Click to expand...


I believe the answer rests in the sufficiency of scripture Jospeh.

Is scripture sufficient? I do hold to the view that the "œperfect" in 1 Corinthians 13 is referring to the completed word of God; however, I also believe that the argument can and has been settled without the use of that disputed interpretation.

If you were to prophecy or see a vision or dream a dream Joseph, could we or could we not add that to scripture, say after Revelation? Why not? Is it from God or not? 

Now God does direct our paths and cause all things, so in a sense, yes, philosophically even our most irrelevant , absurd dreams are caused ultimately by God. But is God the author of such? The question is who is the author of such prophecy, visions, dreams? Did God ultimately cause this post? Yes, is He the author? No. Does God author such dreams and visions today? If yes, who determines if this is so? Whatever God authors can be added to scripture. Are the Apostles around to approve prophecies and revelations today? That is important. The Apostolic witness is vital. But then again they didn´t witness the Church canon in the 6th century. Which seems problematic to such an argument


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> 
> They are messing with the canon. Even though they don't admit it. If they are getting revelation from God they must write it down and share it with the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not Pentecostal. But I also don't agree with this logic used to rebut them.
> 
> After all, does Scripture record every revelation God has ever given to men? Does the Bible contain every word God has ever spoken to men? Certainly not! The Bible contains all we need to know for salvation, and the proper worship of God. But it doesn't contain everything He's ever said/revealed to men. Thus the argument above is not valid. Therefore, we should question charistmatics on other grounds.
Click to expand...



What are you implying Joseph? The Canon is C L O S E D. God does NOT reveal Himself, specificallly, other than in Holy Scripture. This is why we have a Book, at all. 

Ever wonder WHY we (in our place in church history) have a Book rather than a prophet's word; an apostle's word?

Help me here....are you saying God speaks/directs (reveals) things to individuals? (That is Gnosticism, btw.)

Just wondering where you're at.

Robin


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> If you were to prophecy or see a vision or dream a dream Joseph, could we or could we not add that to scripture, say after Revelation? Why not? Is it from God or not?



Chris, I believe this argument is a fallacy.

Just because God speaks a word to somebody, gives them a dream, gives them a prophecy, or gives them a revelation, does NOT mean that the revelation given can be added to Scripture. Thus, your argument doesn't work. 

I agree that Scripture is complete. The canon is closed.

But throughout the Bible, from beginning to end, God said things and revealed things that didn't get put into the canon of Scripture. So what does the canon being closed have to do with it?


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> If you were to prophecy or see a vision or dream a dream Joseph, could we or could we not add that to scripture, say after Revelation? Why not? Is it from God or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris, I believe this argument is a fallacy.
> 
> Just because God speaks a word to somebody, gives them a dream, gives them a prophecy, or gives them a revelation, does NOT mean that the revelation given can be added to Scripture. Thus, your argument doesn't work.
> 
> I agree that Scripture is complete. The canon is closed.
> 
> But throughout the Bible, from beginning to end, God said things and revealed things that didn't get put into the canon of Scripture. So what does the canon being closed have to do with it?
Click to expand...


If God speaks then whatever he says is truth without question. If God spoke through me in form of a prophecy or revelation, then I can add such to the Bible with confidence, for whatever is authored by God is suitable for scripture. 

Proving that not all of God's words were added to Holy Scripture certainly does not prove that further revelation, visions or dreams from God cannot be added anymore.

If you were to prophecy or see a vision or dream a dream Joseph, could we or could we not add that to scripture, say after Revelation? Why not? Is it from God or not?


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> What are you implying Joseph?



Robin, I'm looking for a good Scriptural argument for cessationism. But I haven't heard a good argument yet. I'm still listening, though. I would LIKE to be able to tell my pentecostal brother that cessationism is true, and I would LIKE to be able to demonstrate it Biblically. But so far, I don't know how to do that.



> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> The Canon is C L O S E D.



I agree 100%. But what does that have to do with this discussion?



> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> God does NOT reveal Himself, specificallly, other than in Holy Scripture. This is why we have a Book, at all.



Please prove this to me from Scripture. I am not bothered by your assertion. But I would like to be able to prove it to my brother. Do you have any Scripture to back this up?

From what I can tell, God has said many things to men, and revealed many things to men, and done many things in front of men, since the beginning of time. And yet MANY of those things God did/said/revealed were never recorded in Scripture. Thus, it is NOT necessarily true that a lack of cessation would keep the canon from being closed. Why can God not continue to do such things after the canon is closed?

Thank you for your patience.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> If God spoke through me in form of a prophecy or revelation, then I can add such to the Bible with confidence, for *whatever is authored by God is suitable for scripture*.



Not true.

God has said things to people, which He nevertheless did NOT consider suitable for Scripture.

God has done things in front of people, which He nevertheless did NOT consider suitable to record in Scripture.

Thus, you are incorrect to say that "whatever is authored by God is suitable for Scripture." Your assertion is simply untrue, and is disproved by Scripture itself. God has authored many things which He chose NOT to put in the Bible.



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> If you were to prophecy or see a vision or dream a dream Joseph, could we or could we not add that to scripture, say after Revelation? Why not? Is it from God or not?



Nope. We could not add it to the Bible, because the canon is closed.

If it were from God, that would not necessarily make it Scripture. As I already pointed out, God has said many things to man which He didn't record in Scripture, and God has done many wonders in front of men, which He didn't record in Scripture.


God does NOT put everything He authors into Scripture, no matter how true or "revealed from God" a thing is. God has done much which He nevertheless left out of the Bible.


Again, I ask: What does the closing of the canon have to do with this discussion? It is irrelevant.





[Edited on 1-11-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> Everything in Joel happened already during the last days. Acts records events for each of Joel´s prophecies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. But that doesn't answer my question. How can you demonstrate from Scripture that none of these things still can occur today?
> 
> Proving that they already happened certainly does not prove that they don't happen anymore!
Click to expand...


Hey, J...

The answer lies in scrutinizing *WHY* the gifts happened back then! This means one must read (in context) those moments where the miracles of Christ occurred; the wonders of Acts; OT events, Etc. One must ignore their own personal interests and discover what the Lord has done -- to reveal Himself. - to honor His own Name.

Each and every miracle has a precise meaning for THAT moment it happened. And (as we can discover, the more we read) the big picture is Redemptive history --- where all the wonders add up to reveal God's decrees and actions to redeem His people.

Here's a mere excerpt of how the Lord taught/tested the Israelites:

Exodus 15:25-26

There the LORD made for them a statute and a rule, and there he tested them, saying, "If you will diligently listen to the voice of the LORD your God, and do that which is right in his eyes, and give ear to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you that I put on the Egyptians, for *I am the LORD, your healer* ......

But this poor excerpt suffers from lack of space to post the entire chapter here....in fact, the entire book of Exodus! It's like walking into the most fantastic, adventurous, dramatic Peter Jackson movie after one of those big special FX scenes! (The parting of the Red Sea.) (I hate being late to a great movie!) The awe and impact is reduced, even misconstrued when it's separated from the context!

As I said, the answer lies in noticing what God has done for Himself not in what we want for ourselves (powers to be like God) which is what fanaticism is really about -- to be honest.

Think about it.....

 

Robin


----------



## biblelighthouse

Robin,

So why couldn't God continue to do miracles now, to continue to honor His own Name?

You claim that the Bible teaches cessationism, yet you still have not managed to quote even ONE Scripture to back up your assertion.


Instead of giving me your personal opinion, as you did above, please give me an argument from Scripture.


Where does THE BIBLE say anything about cessationism? Where does Scripture say, that after the death of the last apostle, there will be no more prophecies, dreams, knowledge, tongues, etc.?

I need something stronger than your own opinion if I'm going to convince my pentecostal brother that he's going astray. I need something directly from the Word of God.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> If God spoke through me in form of a prophecy or revelation, then I can add such to the Bible with confidence, for *whatever is authored by God is suitable for scripture*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> God has said things to people, which He nevertheless did NOT consider suitable for Scripture.
> 
> God has done things in front of people, which He nevertheless did NOT consider suitable to record in Scripture.
> 
> Thus, you are incorrect to say that "whatever is authored by God is suitable for Scripture." Your assertion is simply untrue, and is disproved by Scripture itself. God has authored many things which He chose NOT to put in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> If you were to prophecy or see a vision or dream a dream Joseph, could we or could we not add that to scripture, say after Revelation? Why not? Is it from God or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. We could not add it to the Bible, because the canon is closed.
> 
> If it were from God, that would not necessarily make it Scripture. As I already pointed out, God has said many things to man which He didn't record in Scripture, and God has done many wonders in front of men, which He didn't record in Scripture.
> 
> 
> God does NOT put everything He authors into Scripture, no matter how true or "revealed from God" a thing is. God has done much which He nevertheless left out of the Bible.
> 
> 
> Again, I ask: What does the closing of the canon have to do with this discussion? It is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 1-11-2006 by biblelighthouse]
Click to expand...


John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

So thus the Church is the ultimate authority not Scripture?

You may want to look into Eastern Orthodoxy. Why does the Eastern church have this wrong?


----------



## Robin

Well, J, I know what it's like to have relatives to reason with abou this issue! 

I hope I can cover most of your points by saying:

Again...the best answer is to study lots (big chunks) of Text, all the while, aiming for the the meaning of the story. Not pulling-out stuff to apply to us. (O, the errors of prioritizing application!)

One thing to notice: Jesus' miracles are precise. He doesn't heal everybody. He doesn't feed everybody. Why does He choose to heal a blind man? (He is the light of the world) Why a leper? (He makes us clean from sin) Why doesn't He just come out and say "hey, I'm God, ..."?? (actually, he does in ways...) But the point being, Jesus is behaving in a deliberate, measured, authoritative way as he performs and acts in ministry. "So the Scriptures are fulfilled..." as he put it. And He means exactly that. See Luke 24 where he explains this to the Emmaus road disciples who didn't get it. Sometimes Jesus appears "mean" as when he spoke to the woman willing to be a "dog eating the crumbs under the table."

Some things I've noticed form the Text: miracles/healings always happen in the presence of unbelievers; all point to affirming the claims of either Jesus or the disciples or the validity of what God formerly wrote/said. Upshot: things happened to promote the Gospel proclamation. Healings never were subjective or trivial: back pain; tooth fillings -- they were always verifiable, public and again, in the face of unbelief.

See if you can get on this track of thinking, rather than focusing on tongues. The big picture. Go up higher and get an aerial view.

Unfortunately, the cessationist position gets misunderstood a lot. It's not saying God can't do XYZ -- rather it is noticing "what, why and when" God does XYZ.



r.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Joseph the question is: is the Bible sufficient or do we need more? Why or why not?

I cannot defend cessationism any other way.


----------



## Robin

Joseph, 

my opinions have reasons behind them....to be brief....try this:

Dr. Clark's church website:

http://www.oceansideurc.org/index.php?section=articles

Then scroll and click to:

Acts
Pentecostal Signs
--by Rev. Daniel R. Hyde, Modern Reformation 12:4 (July/August 2003) 4-6.

Here is the Biblical, Reformed view of what Pentecost was/is. Start here. Do not "look for a verse ..." ; look at the overall teaching (analogia fide) the whole-counsel of God, on the matter.

What precisely was the Day of Pentecost about?



r.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> Joseph the question is: is the Bible sufficient or do we need more? Why or why not?



Whether we "need" more or not is irrelevant. God is gracious, and often gives us far more than we need. I am still waiting for a Scriptural proof that God doesn't still work miracles. Show me a passage, any passage, that says that. 



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> I cannot defend cessationism any other way.



If you can't defend cessationism any other way, then you cannot defend cessationism, because God has done many things which He chose not to put in Scripture . . . thus proving that Scripture was not sufficient for His purposes in those circumstances.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Joseph,
> 
> my opinions have reasons behind them....to be brief....try this:
> 
> Dr. Clark's church website:
> 
> http://www.oceansideurc.org/index.php?section=articles
> 
> Then scroll and click to:
> 
> Acts
> Pentecostal Signs
> --by Rev. Daniel R. Hyde, Modern Reformation 12:4 (July/August 2003) 4-6.
> 
> Here is the Biblical, Reformed view of what Pentecost was/is. Start here.



Thank you for the link, Robin! I look forward to reading the article. I hope I get some good Scriptural arguments from it.



> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> What precisely was the Day of Pentecost about?



As far as I can tell, that question is irrelevant to this discussion. God said things to men prior to Pentecost, and still didn't write all of it in Scripture. God said things to men after Pentecost, and still didn't write all of it in Scripture. God did miracles before and after Pentecost, and still didn't write all of them in Scripture. Thus, I don't think the meaning of the day of Pentecost itself is exactly relevant to our discussion.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Joseph, why is the Eastern church wrong on Sola Scriptura?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Okay, I was asked to join in the conversation. 

Let me first say that I believe the scripture is finished. It is complete. There is nothing to be added to it. Everything is to be evaluated by the Holy scriptures. We are to test the spirits by it. No other words are to be added to scripture. 

Peter says that the scriptures are more sure than the voice of the Father in 2 Peter 1:16-19.

Let me ask you a question. Do you all pray for guidance? Do you all pray to understand the will of the Lord in specific areas sometime. Do you expect God to give you wisdom in understanding what to do in these situations. Does God still communicate through situations that arise in our lives. 

I believe that God does give wisdom and discernment. In order for him to answer some of our prayers he can communicate to us outside of the scripture. He can also reveal himself through Creation. 

The Holy Spirit does bear witness with our spirit somehow. Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 

In an earlier post someone was bashing healing and saying that if someone can heal they should go to the hospitals and heal. That is totally uncalled for. That isn't what the Apostles and people did. People came to the Apostles and Jesus. I'm not even sure Paul had the gift of healing. And calling Baptists heretics and the ones with the new doctrine. Credo's contend that Paedo's brought in new doctrine. This is still being debated. Baptism in the Early Church 

Sounds like we all know for sure what is going on. BTW. I don't believe the scriptures are perfect in and of themselves. Can anyone present a perfect manuscript. The court is still out on that one. We are still debating whether we like the eclectic Alexandrian text or the Majority text. Even the heavens are unclean before the Lord. He is the only Holy Perfect thing.

The tone of this thread is terrible. There are Charismatic Confessional Presbyterian's as well as there are Charismatic Baptists also. So quit slinging mud and look at the issues. We are all looking for God to communicate to us. We are all trying to communicate with Him. 

I believe that the Charis of God still can influence people and even possess them to do things that are supernatural. Do I speak in tongues. No. Do I heal. Well maybe not the way that you may be thinking but everytime I share the Gospel and someone is awakened i have been used to heal someone. That is the greater work. It is even more miraculous to me. Do I always use exact scriptures to do it. No. Sometimes I just tell truths and God works. God does speak through us. As Paul mentions that in 2 Corinthians 5:20.... Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 

Does God use us to give wisdom to others sometimes. Maybe. If he does it won't be anything that goes against the Canon of Scripture. That is for sure. More later.


----------



## turmeric

I am a cessationist yet I do believe God helps my poor elderly mom find her keys when she asks Him. I doubt it's a voice from the sky or anything and I don't want to see I & II Keys added to the Bible.

My main issue with Charismatic & Pentecostal theology is my main objection to Revivalism, I am concerned about the tendency to a perfectionistic & triumphalistic view of the Christian life, which doesn't take sin or the Gospel seriously enough, as well as tendencies to mysticism. However, I'm not sure it's fair to paint all Charismatics (particularly the ones subscribing to the doctrines of grace) with that brush. My 2 cents worth.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> My main issue with Charismatic & Pentecostal theology is my main objection to Revivalism, I am concerned about the tendency to a perfectionistic & triumphalistic view of the Christian life, which doesn't take sin or the Gospel seriously enough, as well as tendencies to mysticism. However, I'm not sure it's fair to paint all Charismatics (particularly the ones subscribing to the doctrines of grace) with that brush. My 2 cents worth.



 

I cannot stand revivalism. And I also have a major problem with perfectionism.

But I have still seen no Biblical evidence that God won't still miraculously heal someone, or enable a missionary to speak in a foreign tongue he hasn't learned, etc. --- If I could find such evidence, then great . . . lock up the pentecostal key, and throw it away. But we have no right to dismiss them out of hand, and ignore them just because we don't like them. If we really believe in the Scriptures, then we should be able to go to them and demonstrate clearly that cessationism is true. But so far, I haven't seen any Biblical proof.

I do look forward to reading Robin's article above. 


Randy, thank you for your post.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> Joseph, why is the Eastern church wrong on Sola Scriptura?



I am the wrong guy to ask. I don't know what the Eastern Church believes about Sola Scriptura. Nor do I have any idea why that would be relevant to our conversation.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Joseph,
> 
> my opinions have reasons behind them....to be brief....try this:
> 
> Dr. Clark's church website:
> 
> http://www.oceansideurc.org/index.php?section=articles
> 
> Then scroll and click to:
> 
> Acts
> Pentecostal Signs
> --by Rev. Daniel R. Hyde, Modern Reformation 12:4 (July/August 2003) 4-6.
> 
> Here is the Biblical, Reformed view of what Pentecost was/is. Start here. Do not "look for a verse ..." ; look at the overall teaching (analogia fide) the whole-counsel of God, on the matter.
> 
> What precisely was the Day of Pentecost about?
> 
> 
> 
> r.





Robin,

I read the article you suggested. It was very good. But it was also very elementary, covering things that I have known about Pentecost for quite a while.

I don't see how that article has anything to do with our discussion. I think we are pretty much in agreement about what happened at Pentecost. But so what? Surely you aren't suggesting that God's only display of miracles, healing, prophecy, tongues, knowledge, etc. was at Penecost?



Look, everyone . . . I am not asking for anything difficult:

You are asserting that after the death of the apostles, all of God's miracles ceased . . . no more healing, nor more tongues, no more prophecies, no more knowledge, etc.

I am simply asking you to prove your assertion from Scripture. Why is that such a difficult request?


So far, one person pointed out that the canon is closed. But that is a moot point, and irrelevant to this discussion, as I have clearly pointed out from Scripture. The canon being closed has nothing to do with the cessationism argument.

Also, someone has pointed me to an article with an elementary (though very good) overview of what happened at Pentecost. But this too is irrelevant. We can totally take Pentecost out of the picture, and the cessationism question would still remain unanswered.


Come on . . . *simply show me the Scriptures demonstrating cessationism*. This should be no more difficult that showing the Biblical warrant for the doctrine of the Trinity, or for infant baptism. I don't need a solitary prooftext. A cogent argument involving a number of related texts would be perfectly fine with me.


----------



## LawrenceU

I've not waded into this thread. But, Mr. Snyder- well said.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Joseph,
> What is/was the Day of Pentecost?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I can tell, that question is irrelevant to this discussion. ..... Thus, I don't think the meaning of the day of Pentecost itself is exactly relevant to our discussion.
Click to expand...


No offense, my brother....but, you're way off on this. (!)

If you're willing....think again, OK? This is precisely the direction to the answer about cessationism. 

O.....Dr. Clark (whistling)  Please tell us WHY understanding the Day of Pentecost affects our understanding of cessationism.

  

r.

(J, Danny's article will shed the light...on truth already revealed in the Text.)

[Edited on 1-12-2006 by Robin]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> No offense, my brother....



None taken.



> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> If you're willing....think again, OK? This is precisely the direction to the answer about cessationism.



Wonderful. If this is so clear, then you should have no problem at all with explaining what that article has to do with cessationism. Why don't you do so?




> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> O.....Dr. Clark (whistling)  Please tell us WHY understanding the Day of Pentecost affects our understanding of cessationism.





Now THERE is something we can agree on. I would love to hear Scriptural reasons for cessationism from Dr. Clark, or ANYBODY, for that matter.

Like I said, I can't tell my pentecostal younger brother that he is wrong because Robin "thought about it" and decided it was wrong, or because Chris has a really strong opinion on the subject.

I'm just a little frustrated that this thread has gone on this long without anyone bothering to point out cessationism in the Bible. If it is a correct doctrine, then it should be founded on the Bible, not on loud opinions.

I am still waiting for somebody to demonstrate cessationism from the Scriptures.


----------



## LawrenceU

> I'm just a little frustrated that this thread has gone on this long without anyone bothering to point out cessationism in the Bible. If it is a correct doctrine, then it should be founded on the Bible, not on loud opinions.
> 
> I am still waiting for somebody to demonstrate cessationism from the Scriptures.



And therein lies the crux. It is not a clear teaching. It is an inference.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I'm certainly not Dr. Clark and I hope to hear from him on this as well but I will offer what I have learned of the subject.

I think part of the disconnect on the thread has been on the use of the term _miracle_.

Many are careful to distinguish between the redemptive-historical use of signs and wonders (Miracles with a capital M) and special acts of Providence where God might supernaturally heal someone as an answer to prayer (miracles with a little m). I know John Frame has a problem with some of the hard lines that some draw between normal and special acts of Providence but I can't articulate them as well as he, nor will I try.

It is ironic that I was catching up on my Tape of the Month messages from Ligonier Ministries this week and R.C. Sproul was lecturing on the issue of miracles so I have some information at my fingertips that I have read and learned over a few years on the subject.

Joseph - If you're looking for the "killer verse" that is going to state "charismatic gifts have ceased" then there is no such verse. If you're speaking with charismatic or pentecostals there are deeper issues than the cessation of gifts to deal with. The discussion of gifts is a bit downstream. I'll try and move from my understanding of "Miracles" (capital M) and then discuss neo-Pentecostalism and its erroneous understanding of Pentecost and Acts with respect to charismatic gifts.

First, signs and wonders are clustered around certain epochs in Redemptive History. If you charted miracles on a timeline you will see miracles clustered around Moses and Joshua, Elijah and Elisha, and Jesus and the Apostles.

Moses is called by God to lead His people out of bondage but will he merely walk up to Pharaoh and state "Let my people go"? Will the people just follow him out of the desert?
"Yeah right Moses. God told you to leave here on consequence of death at the hands of the Egyptians..."


> Then Moses answered, "But behold, they will not believe me or listen to my voice, for they will say, 'The LORD did not appear to you.'" Ex 4:1


A reasonable question. The answer: *SIGNS* - making his hand leprous, turning his staff into a snake, water into blood, and, eventually, the plagues.

Moses represents the epoch of the Law. His authority is confirmed by signs and wonders. He is confirmed by Miracles with a capital M. His deputy, Joshua, is confirmed as successor by lesser wonders as he leads the people to capture the Promised Land.

Signs and wonders are then virtually silent for centuries.

Elijah bursts on the scene. Elijah represents the epoch of the Prophets. Through the Word spoken by him a 3 year draught ensues. A widow's oil and flour do not run out. He raises the dead. He calls down fire on the prophets of Baal. His deputy Elisha performs Miracles.

Signs and wonders are then virtually silent for centuries.

Christ comes and His ministry is literally ablaze with Miracles. Jesus confirms His ministry to John:


> (Matthew 11:2-5) Now when John heard in prison about the deeds of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples and said to him, "Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?"
> And Jesus answered them, "Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.



Nicodemus says to Christ:


> (John 3:2) This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him."



Christ's ministry was confirmed by His Miracles. His chief miracle, His resurrection, authenticated Him as the Son of God:


> (Romans 1:4) and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,



Miracles (with a capital M) continue with the Apostles as foundation layers. It is their foundational teaching that completes the Word of God.

The question is now: Have signs and wonders ceased?

Well nobody ever says so but the question, with respect to the type of signs and wonders that I'm talking about, would be this: To what end?

Signs and wonders have a definite purpose in Scripture of the type I'm talking about. If a person has been given a gift of healing and is correlating their gift to the miraculous power that Christ or the Apostles or Prophets had then I would have a problem with that correlation. Christ and the Apostles could have healed everybody they touched but there were specific reasons for the healings. Certainly I do not want to downplay the mercy and compassion that attended them but chief among the reasons was to authenticate authority.

Thus, the question of cessation has less to do with the question: "Does God still heal?" and more with the question "Are there Miracle workers?"

Reformed theology does not teach that God doesn't answer prayer or even still heal in what we might call supernatural ways. There are two issues with this though. First, I don't really believe He endows healers that channel healing power from Him. There just isn't a warrant for that idea from Scripture independent of any "meaning" behind why God is moving in such a way. Secondly, if you or I never witness a Miracle again in our entire lifetime, do we have sufficient reason to trust God based on what He has already proven through whom He has authenticated? Absolutely!

The issue is one of pattern. Signs and wonders are not continuous in Redemptive History and have specific purposes and accompany epochs. Nowhere are we given reason to expect that such Miracle working will just be given arbitrarily to people to work wonders apart from any redemptive historical purpose. That's the closest thing I can do to proving to you that Miracles (with a capital M) have ceased. I'm certain others could do a far better job. I do believe, however, that a person who claims that such things are normative today because they're normative in Exodus, Kings, the Gospel, and Acts have more work to do to show that modern day signs, wonders, or displays of charismatic gifts have little more purpose than making people happy.

My fingers are getting tired but I do want to proceed to the issue of neo-Pentecostalism and their misunderstanding with respect to charismatic gifts. It is very reductionistic but my time is short.

Neo-Pentecostals look at the narrative history presented in Acts and form doctrinal conclusions based on what they witness in Acts beginning with Pentecost:

Ah, these disciple of Christ had been baptized but now they are sitting in a room and are baptized with the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues.

Peter goes to Cornelius' house:

As Peter is preaching Cornelius and his household begin speaking in tongues.

Tongue speaking then occurs, en masse, among Samaritan believers and later Gentile believers in Acts.

Conclusion: Charismatic gifts are normative and there is a second baptism of the Holy Spirit. We have four instances of this.

That's not the interpretation given for the display of gifts in Acts itself:


> (Acts 11:17) *If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?"* When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life."


In other words, everybody receives the same gift so God could wake everybody up and say "...yeah they're one of you!!" There is neither Jew nor Greek.

Looking at narratives to form a teaching, as the neo-Pentecostals do, leads to a false conclusion from the pattern they detect. Narratives are not always the best place to form doctrine as compared to didactic teaching.

So much of this debate becomes charged with the "...you're quenching the Spirit..." claim by those who think we're tying God's hands. In the end my purpose was to show:

1. That Miracles served a particular purpose in Scripture and we ought to be careful in looking at what an Apostle did and saying "Yeah that's normal so we should expect that..."

2. God answers prayer in exceptional and "ordinary" ways as the one who governs and upholds all things. It is not exceptional for Him but out of the ordinary for us when a cancer disappears. We can seek God in prayer for these special acts of providence and healing and glorify Him when He answers it. I would not call it a miracle only because I prefer to protect the status given to signs and wonders as in 1.

3. If God never displays a sign or wonder in my life I have sufficient reason to trust and obey that which has already been authenticated. I believe the ultimate Miracle - the resurrection that confirmed Christ as the Son of God!

4. Much of charismatic or pentecostal theology is formed on faulty assumptions based on narrative and inference rather than didactic teaching.

5. If tongues or prophecy or other extraordinary gifts exist then I have not witnessed them truly exercised. I used to be a charismatic Christian. I believe God has the power to do such things but I also believe that gifts exist for an edifying purpose and I've never seen them exercised in a way that edifies. If somebody can give me Scriptural reasons to believe what purpose tongue-speaking or Prophesying (with a capital P though I believe that preaching is a form of it I'm talking about the "God's going to do this..." variety) would have in this Church epoch.

In Christ,

[Edited on 1-12-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Michael Butterfield

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by James McGrail_
> I have run across a group in the last couple of years (I can't remember the name), that teaches clear calvinistic doctrine, and charismatic theology.
> My question: Are charismania and calvinism mutually exclusive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on what you mean by Calvinism. If it means "predestination," then, no they're not incompatible. There is a growing movement of predestinarian charismatics. I think this may describe C J Maheny and certainly describes Wayne Grudem and others.
> 
> I, for one, and Guido de Bres (the primary author of the Belgic Confession, 1561) for another, would not be happy with such a truncated definition of "Reformed" or "Calvinist."
> 
> There is much more to being Reformed/Calvinist than predestination. Augustine, Gottschalk, Aquinas, and many others were predestinarian without being "Calvinist." Lutherans are predestinarians (they confess an unconditional election that can, nevertheless, be lost).
> 
> If we allow the Reformed confessions and confessional theologians to define "Reformed/Calvinist" then, no, anyone who claims to have direct revelations from God or to practice apostolic gifts is not Reformed.
> 
> Much of what is today called "Charismatic" was denounced in the 16th century as Anabaptist fanaticism:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There be some who have daily some new command from God, to make known unto their brethren and strangers. Some are rapt into an extasie, and have their visage and countenance changed, lying upon the ground certain hours. Some Tremble and Quake for two or three hours together; after that, when they are come unto themselves, they prophecie and speak strange things, as if they had been in another world, or as if they had fallen from out of heaven: and they account to have that in common with the Apostle, when he was taken up into the third heaven.
> 
> ...As for that which they tax the Ministers, to be Ministers of the dead letter, one may plainly see the Lords taking vengeance upon the outrage offered unto his holy Word; smiting them with the spirit of giddiness, for having despised the true and only means of coming unto God, which is the Scripture and the Word of God. In the passage of the Corinthians where Paul saith, The letter killeth, and the Spirit quickeneth; let any closely consider, against whom the Apostle disputeth, and they will understand his drift. It is very evident that Paul in this place, had to do with false Apostles, who preached and extolled the Law without Christ, and caused the people to recoil from Salvation purchased by Christ, and the grace of the new Covenant, whereunto the Lord had promised to write his Law in the heart of the faithful: the Law then being separated from Christ, as a body without a soul; and nothing cometh from it but death, to those that are under it: it doth nothing but beat and strike the ears, without any quickening the soul, until by faith we are sent from it unto Christ, as from the Usher unto the Master; and then the Law will be found such as David sings it, The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is faithful, making Wise the simple: the commandments of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart, & c. Thus must we understand how it is said, The Letter killeth: Paul called the Law, The killing Letter, and saith, The Spirit quickeneth, i.e., The Ministry of the Gospel, which he opposeth unto the naked Law; and he himself calleth his preaching The Ministry of the Spirit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad folks are re-discovering the doctrine of predestination. Let's pray they rediscover the rest of our soteriology, our Christology and our covenant theology (including the notion of canon and revelation!) etc.
> 
> rsc
Click to expand...


A BIG


----------



## Contra_Mundum

There are two recorded instances of _extraordinary_ Spirit baptism with accompanying evidences of extrordinary endowment in the NT. Acts 2:1-4 (Jews inauguration), and 10:44-46 accompanied by gospel preaching (Gentiles inauguration). *Beside these two instances, there are no other examples of extraordinary Spirit baptism such as comes apart from the laying on of hands of the apostles.*

The remainder of instances (e.g. 8:17; 19:6) included preaching the gospel and the laying on of hands by the apostles (not even Phillip could do it). The power to bestow Jesus' gifts (Eph. 4:8) was a power delegated only to apostles (see 8:19ff). Likewise, it was the apostles' duty as eyewitnesses (Acts 1:8) to the Christ's majesty and teaching to superintend the inscripturation of Jesus' Revelation--both his person and doctrine. But until that word was _perfected_ (complete), prophets were necessary and valuable, primarily to teach NT doctrine when as yet it was not all written down. In other words, they fit the need of the hour.

Questions:
Has the Holy Spirit been poured out in the same way, inaugurally, again, any time in the last 2000 years? No.

Have there been any additional apostles? No.

Could anyone but an apostle perform the "signs of an apostle", except those to whom the apostles had been permitted to share the gifts? No.

Could the power to "grant the Holy Spirit" (i.e. the signs) be given to any (see example of Simon Magus above). No, the gift could be shared, but not the power/authorization to share the gift. So for example, Corinthian tongue-speakers couldn't give anyone else the gift.


*No more apostles = no more extraordinary gifts.* The church doesn't need another founding. We do not need either one, so we don't have either one.


Anomalies, or non-patterned occurences--whatever may be made of them, and they have been discussed here on the PB before--they cannot overthrow a Scriptural doctrine if it is true. No one denies God can work miracles, or do what he pleases. The issue is: What has he told us is his rule? On what do we base our doctrine? If something happens that we can't understand or doesn't fit our expectations, we don't simply throw up our hands and throw out our doctrine, especially if it is essentially correct. The explanation could be something we haven't considered, and has no impact at all on our doctrine, although we thought it possibly related.

God works when, where, and how he pleases. He has also told us what we can expect, and so we shouldn't look expctantly for other things, or lurch for the "miraculous" or "prophetic" explanation as soon as something happens we have a hard time explaining according to our current understanding.

[Edited on 1-12-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just a little frustrated that this thread has gone on this long without anyone bothering to point out cessationism in the Bible. If it is a correct doctrine, then it should be founded on the Bible, not on loud opinions.
> 
> I am still waiting for somebody to demonstrate cessationism from the Scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And therein lies the crux. It is not a clear teaching. It is an inference.
Click to expand...


It is an inference, indeed - but I disagree that something being "an inference" and being "a clear teaching" is a true dichotomy. There are plenty of thing we all agree are clear as day, and yet are derived from Scripture inferentially, such as the doctrine of inerrancy and the canon, Sola Scriptura, the Trinity and Limited Atonement.

Joseph, regarding the Scriptural basis for cessationism, normally I would want to freshly discuss it here, but I don't have the time to at the moment. I have commented and argued somewhat extensively on the matter elsewhere though, and you can find some of my thoughts on the issue from Scripture here, here, here, here, here, here and here. In each of those threads, I deal with Scripture directly and with systematic issues as well, the balance between those two varying between each thread. While I don't have enough time right now to get into an entire debate with several people via this thread, feel free to e-mail me if you have comments or questions regarding any of my points (exegetical, systematic, or just general) and I'll be glad to discuss it.

Also, as you will see me mentioning in a few of those threads, I would strongly recommend you get a copy of O. Palmer Robertson's _The Final Word_. It is extremely short (just over 100 pages if memory serves me) yet _very_ exegetically-focused and to-the-point. It was the book that finally convinced me of cessationism when I was planning to join a Sovereign Grace church.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Okay, I was asked to join in the conversation.
> 
> Let me first say that I believe the scripture is finished. It is complete. There is nothing to be added to it. Everything is to be evaluated by the Holy scriptures. We are to test the spirits by it. No other words are to be added to scripture.
> 
> Peter says that the scriptures are more sure than the voice of the Father in 2 Peter 1:16-19.
> 
> Let me ask you a question. Do you all pray for guidance? Do you all pray to understand the will of the Lord in specific areas sometime. Do you expect God to give you wisdom in understanding what to do in these situations. Does God still communicate through situations that arise in our lives.
> 
> I believe that God does give wisdom and discernment. In order for him to answer some of our prayers he can communicate to us outside of the scripture. He can also reveal himself through Creation.
> 
> The Holy Spirit does bear witness with our spirit somehow. Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
> 
> In an earlier post someone was bashing healing and saying that if someone can heal they should go to the hospitals and heal. That is totally uncalled for. That isn't what the Apostles and people did. People came to the Apostles and Jesus. I'm not even sure Paul had the gift of healing. And calling Baptists heretics and the ones with the new doctrine. Credo's contend that Paedo's brought in new doctrine. This is still being debated. Baptism in the Early Church
> 
> Sounds like we all know for sure what is going on. BTW. I don't believe the scriptures are perfect in and of themselves. Can anyone present a perfect manuscript. The court is still out on that one. We are still debating whether we like the eclectic Alexandrian text or the Majority text. Even the heavens are unclean before the Lord. He is the only Holy Perfect thing.
> 
> The tone of this thread is terrible. There are Charismatic Confessional Presbyterian's as well as there are Charismatic Baptists also. So quit slinging mud and look at the issues. We are all looking for God to communicate to us. We are all trying to communicate with Him.
> 
> I believe that the Charis of God still can influence people and even possess them to do things that are supernatural. Do I speak in tongues. No. Do I heal. Well maybe not the way that you may be thinking but everytime I share the Gospel and someone is awakened i have been used to heal someone. That is the greater work. It is even more miraculous to me. Do I always use exact scriptures to do it. No. Sometimes I just tell truths and God works. God does speak through us. As Paul mentions that in 2 Corinthians 5:20.... Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
> 
> Does God use us to give wisdom to others sometimes. Maybe. If he does it won't be anything that goes against the Canon of Scripture. That is for sure. More later.



Just popping in briefly - I have discussed this at length elsewhere, so I will leave it to others here - to say that there is a difference between revelation and illumination.

Randy, I think you may be conflating the two.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> Joseph, why is the Eastern church wrong on Sola Scriptura?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am the wrong guy to ask. I don't know what the Eastern Church believes about Sola Scriptura. Nor do I have any idea why that would be relevant to our conversation.
Click to expand...


Well if you do not know what the Eastern Church believes about Sola Scriptura then of course you wouldn't understand the question's relevance.

Your view on God, revelation and scripture would not be met with much objection by the Eastern Orthodox church. Discover the errors of the EOC´s stance on Sola Scriptura and you will discover the errors of the reasoning´s you have expressed in this thread.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> Your view on God, revelation and scripture would not be met with much objection by the Eastern Orthodox church. Discover the errors of the EOC´s stance on Sola Scriptura and you will discover the errors of the reasoning´s you have expressed in this thread.



Sorry, I'm not too interested in studying the Eastern Orthodox church's stance on Sola Scriptura. I happy enough with the Reformed view of it, and I think I will just stick with taht.

I would prefer that someone have the courtesy to simply point out a good Scriptural argument, instead of sending me on a wild goose chase with the EO church. Why don't *you* explain to me what you think is wrong with my view of Sola Scriptura?


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> Joseph, regarding the Scriptural basis for cessationism, normally I would want to freshly discuss it here, but I don't have the time to at the moment. I have commented and argued somewhat extensively on the matter elsewhere though, and you can find some of my thoughts on the issue from Scripture here, here, here, here, here, here and here. In each of those threads, I deal with Scripture directly and with systematic issues as well, the balance between those two varying between each thread. While I don't have enough time right now to get into an entire debate with several people via this thread, feel free to e-mail me if you have comments or questions regarding any of my points (exegetical, systematic, or just general) and I'll be glad to discuss it.
> 
> Also, as you will see me mentioning in a few of those threads, I would strongly recommend you get a copy of O. Palmer Robertson's _The Final Word_. It is extremely short (just over 100 pages if memory serves me) yet _very_ exegetically-focused and to-the-point. It was the book that finally convinced me of cessationism when I was planning to join a Sovereign Grace church.



Thank you very much for these resources!

I look forward to going through your threads, and also to reading that book.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> There are two recorded instances of _extraordinary_ Spirit baptism with accompanying evidences of extrordinary endowment in the NT. Acts 2:1-4 (Jews inauguration), and 10:44-46 accompanied by gospel preaching (Gentiles inauguration). *Beside these two instances, there are no other examples of extraordinary Spirit baptism such as comes apart from the laying on of hands of the apostles.*



I agree.



> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> 
> The remainder of instances (e.g. 8:17; 19:6) included preaching the gospel and the laying on of hands by the apostles (not even Phillip could do it). The power to bestow Jesus' gifts (Eph. 4:8) was a power delegated only to apostles (see 8:19ff). Likewise, it was the apostles' duty as eyewitnesses (Acts 1:8) to the Christ's majesty and teaching to superintend the inscripturation of Jesus' Revelation--both his person and doctrine. But until that word was _perfected_ (complete), prophets were necessary and valuable, primarily to teach NT doctrine when as yet it was not all written down. In other words, they fit the need of the hour.
> 
> Questions:
> Has the Holy Spirit been poured out in the same way, inaugurally, again, any time in the last 2000 years? No.



I agree.

But it does not therefore follow that miracles are utterly a thing of the past. God did lots of miracles prior to Pentecost, and God did lots of miracles prior to Pentecost. So it is a fallacy to suggest that the lack of Pentecost (inauguration) is an argument for the lack of miracles.



> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> 
> Have there been any additional apostles? No.



I agree.



> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> 
> Could anyone but an apostle perform the "signs of an apostle", except those to whom the apostles had been permitted to share the gifts? No.



I'm not sure I would agree here. Were all the people speaking in tongues in Acts 2 given that ability through the apostles, or directly from the Holy Spirit? I would argue that the ability came directly from the Holy Spirit, not passing "through" the Apostles first.

(By the way, I completely recognize that what goes on in modern charismatic churches is more "Corinthian" than "Pentecostal" . . . the people in Acts 2 were not speaking gibberish. To the contrary, everyone UNDERSTOOD what they were saying.)

I personally have not experienced or seen "speaking in tongues" as in Acts 2. But I have read about a number of cases in which foreign missionaries have come to a place where they don't speak the native language, and then suddenly started preaching the Gospel in the native tongue, without having learned it. This shocks the natives, sometimes keeps them from going hostile, and invariably brings about new converts. Mind you, what is being said is NOT new revelation; it's just the simple gospel presented in a foreign tongue. And, it is NOT some "ability" given to anyone that can be called up at will. God just does what He wants, when He wants, to spread the Gospel and glorify Himself. So, what . . . am I supposed to say these missionaries are all liars? 

I am NOT suggesting that God gives anyone the ability to heal indescriminately, or speak in tongues to bring about new revelation, etc. I frankly don't even think Agabus had the ability to forsee the future at will in Acts. So I'm not talking about people being given special Apostolic "sign gifts". I'm just talking about God acting whenever, wherever, and however He wants.



> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> 
> Could the power to "grant the Holy Spirit" (i.e. the signs) be given to any (see example of Simon Magus above). No, the gift could be shared, but not the power/authorization to share the gift. So for example, Corinthian tongue-speakers couldn't give anyone else the gift.



I agree.



> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> 
> Anomalies, or non-patterned occurences--whatever may be made of them, and they have been discussed here on the PB before--they cannot overthrow a Scriptural doctrine if it is true. No one denies God can work miracles, or do what he pleases.



This is exactly what I am getting at, Bruce. If God wants to cause a foreign missionary to speak the Gospel in a language he didn't know, then God can certainly do that. If God wants to cause a cancer tumor to disappear, baffling doctors, then God can certainly do that. If God wants to grant someone foreknowledge of an impending drought or famine, God can certainly do that.



> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> 
> God works when, where, and how he pleases. He has also told us what we can expect, and so we shouldn't look expctantly for other things . . .



I agree. I like the way you put it. On the one hand, "God works when, where, and how he pleases." Thus, a miracle directly from God is not an impossibility today. Nevertheless, you are also correct that "we shouldn't look expectantly" for things like that. Therefore, I don't go seeking for a gift of tongues, prophecy, healing, etc. Nevertheless, there are some isolated cases where I would have a really hard time calling a person a liar, unless some very solid Scriptural groundwork could be laid, which rules out the possibility of the miraculous in these days.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> Your view on God, revelation and scripture would not be met with much objection by the Eastern Orthodox church. Discover the errors of the EOC´s stance on Sola Scriptura and you will discover the errors of the reasoning´s you have expressed in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I'm not too interested in studying the Eastern Orthodox church's stance on Sola Scriptura. I happy enough with the Reformed view of it, and I think I will just stick with that.
> 
> I would prefer that someone have the courtesy to simply point out a good Scriptural argument, instead of sending me on a wild goose chase with the EO church. Why don't *you* explain to me what you think is wrong with my view of Sola Scriptura?
Click to expand...


I did. I believe scripture is sufficient and every word of God is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. I understand you affirm such as well, but your view stated here is cloudy in regards to the sufficiency of scripture and leans more eastward. If God speaks, then His words are profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. Now is scripture alone sufficient for such, or is scripture plus the church´s prophecies? If both, then we should abide by them equally. So are you bound by all seven eceumenical councils?


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ... I'm looking for a good Scriptural argument for cessationism. I would like to be able to tell my pentecostal brother that cessationism is true, and I would LIKE to be able to demonstrate it Biblically. But so far, I don't know how to do that.
> 
> From what I can tell, God has said many things to men, and revealed many things to men, and done many things in front of men, since the beginning of time. And yet MANY of those things God did/said/revealed were never recorded in Scripture. ... Why can God not continue to do such things after the canon is closed?



Joseph, I've been thinking about your situation....

Many of my teachers say that countering classic, charismatic pentecostal assertions is very difficult. Why? Certainly not because Scripture is inadequate - but because of the intense emotional investment on their part. Their worldview is so entrenched in feeling and seeing God (which isn't trusting the Word, btw.)

One way to meet the challenge is first to assess the relationship. If it's one you value and can be allowed to TEACH what Scripture really does teach....how wonderful! Yet, this takes time and effort - now falling into the "gentle teacher" of Timothy category. 

The best way to teach is to stop yanking verses out, playing the useless game of "verse ping-pong" (doing violence to the Text.) Instead, read whole books/chapters intact and let them speak for themselves. What does the whole book/letter say and (then) mean?

The book of Acts has roughly 14 moments where the Holy Spirit said/did things to/for someone to do XYZ. Each event related to establishing the Gospel. None were individualistic (Paul finding his car keys...) And all the events stem from the information in the first 2 chapters (yes, the D o P matters!!! -- it is the reversal of the Tower of Babel, btw. It's related to Ezekiel 37.) Get it? Then discussion should include the OT because it is part understanding why/how God speaks and acts in (the Church) a certain way, different but related to what happened before. God is not schizophrenic. He's progressively unfolding His Story in human history.

You asked for "a verse" stating cessation. But, where in the Bible is the word "trinity?" Why do we believe God is triune? Where does it say THAT? (you see the point?)

Jesus warns about the evils of looking for signs. Don't neglect Christ's whole counsel on the matter. This should trouble any "professing Christian" involved in expressions of signs/gifts, Etc.

Instead of speculating about what God might have done outside of Scripture.....deal with what we know God did reveal. Yes, God obviously has done things far beyond His written Word. But we have a Book for a very important reason. A library of 66 books, of God speaking to man, isn't enough?! Oy!

God has put His Promise in writing -- in a Book -- God likes books; He's got a few of them....which He will refer to on the Last Day. (Revelation 20:11-15) 



r.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> You asked for "a verse" stating cessation. But, where in the Bible is the word "trinity?" Why do we believe God is triune? Where does it say THAT? (you see the point?)



Robin, now you are parroting MY point that I already made earlier in this thread. Cessationism should be no harder to demonstrate than the Trinity, or infant baptism.

If you ask me to prove the doctrine of the Trinity from Scripture, I can do it. It will take me more than one single verse, but I can do it.

If you ask me to prove infant baptism from Scripture, I can do it. It will take me several passages to do so, but I can do it.

So, why can't you do the same thing with the doctrine of cessationism? Even if it takes you multiple texts, why can't you clearly lay out for me where the Bible teaches it? I CAN do that for both the Trinity and paedobaptism.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Why don't *you* explain to me what you think is wrong with my view of Sola Scriptura?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did.
Click to expand...


Then please point out where you did so. I obviously missed it.



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> I believe scripture is sufficient and every word of God is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.



I agree wholeheartedly. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is an excellent passage that I rely on heavily.



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> I understand you affirm such as well,



Thank you.



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> but your view stated here is cloudy in regards to the sufficiency of scripture and leans more eastward.



Please explain why you think this is so.



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> If God speaks, then His words are profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. Now is scripture alone sufficient for such, or is scripture plus the church´s prophecies?



I have two things to say in answer to this question:

1) Of course Scripture is sufficient. But since when does God stop with merely "sufficiently" meeting the needs of His people? For example, is Scripture sufficient for someone to be saved? Of course. Just silently hand a person a Bible, and God could save them during their reading. But God goes past what is sufficient, and piles on blessings. He sends preachers to verbally share the gospel. God draws people to Himself by showing sinners how godly people live . . . which can be very attractive to people. Is Scripture alone sufficient? Of course. But that doesn't mean that God uses no other means to drawing people to Himself.

2) Think about when 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was written. It was primarily written concerning the OLD TESTAMENT. And frankly, it is TRUE even if it is applied only to the OT. The Old Testament is sufficient to bring a person to salvation (cf. the Ethiopian in Acts 8), and to instruct people in righteousness. --- Just think about it: The Book of Revelation wasn't even WRITTEN yet when Paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:16-17. And it was true regarding all Scripture that had been written. *Thus, all Scripture written prior to 2 Timothy was "sufficient". --- Does it therefore follow that God had no reason to write the book of Revelation?* Of course not. But your logic would require us to answer "yes" to this question. When Paul wrote 2 Timothy, Scripture was quite "sufficient", even though Revelation had not been written yet. Nevertheless, God, in His superabounding graciousness, had even more to give to the church. So, your argument proves way too much, and would necessitate a trimming of the canon if taken to its logical conclusion.



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> So are you bound by all seven eceumenical councils?



Nope. In fact, I reject the conclusions reached by the 7th.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> Joseph, regarding the Scriptural basis for cessationism, normally I would want to freshly discuss it here, but I don't have the time to at the moment. I have commented and argued somewhat extensively on the matter elsewhere though, and you can find some of my thoughts on the issue from Scripture here,



First of all, I want to thank you for all the good links you gave me back to previous discussions on this issue.

Second, I want to quote something you said in one of those discussions, and then respond to it:



> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> One also cannot escape the fact that if God still reveals today, His Word in the Bible is insufficient for our instruction and living today, by the very definition of the word "sufficient."



I respectfully disagree. I think there is a fallacy in your definition of "sufficient". 

Here is an accurate definition:



> sufÂ·fiÂ·cient ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-fshnt)
> adj.
> *Being as much as is needed. *
> Archaic. Competent; qualified.
> 
> sufÂ·ficientÂ·ly adv.
> Synonyms: sufficient, *adequate*, enough
> These adjectives mean being *what is needed without being in excess*: has sufficient income to retire comfortably; bought an adequate supply of food; drew enough water to fill the tub.



You see, the correct definition for "sufficient" is "as much as needed" or "adequate".

But you are using the word quite differently. You are assuming that "sufficient" means "so high that nothing can be added to it" . . . superabundantly supplying not only all needs, but also going as far beyond that as is possible.

According to your definition of "sufficient", I would agree with your statement. "if God still reveals today, His Word in the Bible is insufficient for our instruction and living today".

But, your implied definition for "sufficient" is incorrect. God's Word is sufficient, but that does not mean there is nothing else He can say/do/reveal/etc.


Let me illustrate:

Suppose I give you 1000 pounds of potatoes, carrots, and peas. And then suppose I give you a freezer full of chicken. Then suppose I lock you up in your house for 2 months. Have I given you a *sufficient* amount of food to sustain your life during that time? Yes, of course I have.

Nevertheless, just because you have *sufficient* sustenance, does that mean that there is nothing more I could do for you if I wanted to? Wouldn't you appreciate it if I brought you an ice cream cone once in a while? Or how about a nice juicy steak?


My point is most emphatically NOT to say that the Bible just has the bare essentials, and no more. That is certainly NOT true. It is a veritable smorgasboard, and I LOVE it. It is certainly sufficient for all we need. In fact, as I pointed out in one of my posts above, the Bible was sufficient for our needs before it was even all written. 2 Tim. 3:16 was written before Revelation was penned, so the Bible WAS sufficient before its last book even existed.

My point IS to demonstrate your errant use of the word "sufficient". Even if something is sufficient, it does NOT follow that nothing more can be added.

*God's Word is sufficient* for all we need. Even if all preachers were abolished, even if all Christians quit living outwardly righteous lives, even if God never did any miracles under any circumstances whatsoever, just silently handing out Bibles would still be sufficient to bring people to Christ. But God is gracious, and even though we don't _need_ more than the Bible, God is still happy to supply more than we could even ask or think.

Thus, when I hear a story about a foreign missionary suddenly preaching the gospel in a foreign language without having learned it first, I tend to believe it. As superabundantly gracious as our Lord is, why _wouldn't_ He do things like this to bring glory to His name? 

I have never personally seen what I would call a "miracle". But I have no trouble believing that God still performs them in certain cases. I don't go looking for them. The Bible is sufficient for me, and so I don't need to see any miracles. But it doesn't bother me if God still wants to do them anyway, to suit His own purposes.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Okay, I was asked to join in the conversation.
> 
> Let me first say that I believe the scripture is finished. It is complete. There is nothing to be added to it. Everything is to be evaluated by the Holy scriptures. We are to test the spirits by it. No other words are to be added to scripture.
> 
> Peter says that the scriptures are more sure than the voice of the Father in 2 Peter 1:16-19.
> 
> Let me ask you a question. Do you all pray for guidance? Do you all pray to understand the will of the Lord in specific areas sometime. Do you expect God to give you wisdom in understanding what to do in these situations. Does God still communicate through situations that arise in our lives.
> 
> I believe that God does give wisdom and discernment. In order for him to answer some of our prayers he can communicate to us outside of the scripture. He can also reveal himself through Creation.
> 
> The Holy Spirit does bear witness with our spirit somehow. Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
> 
> In an earlier post someone was bashing healing and saying that if someone can heal they should go to the hospitals and heal. That is totally uncalled for. That isn't what the Apostles and people did. People came to the Apostles and Jesus. I'm not even sure Paul had the gift of healing. And calling Baptists heretics and the ones with the new doctrine. Credo's contend that Paedo's brought in new doctrine. This is still being debated. Baptism in the Early Church
> 
> Sounds like we all know for sure what is going on. BTW. I don't believe the scriptures are perfect in and of themselves. Can anyone present a perfect manuscript. The court is still out on that one. We are still debating whether we like the eclectic Alexandrian text or the Majority text. Even the heavens are unclean before the Lord. He is the only Holy Perfect thing.
> 
> The tone of this thread is terrible. There are Charismatic Confessional Presbyterian's as well as there are Charismatic Baptists also. So quit slinging mud and look at the issues. We are all looking for God to communicate to us. We are all trying to communicate with Him.
> 
> I believe that the Charis of God still can influence people and even possess them to do things that are supernatural. Do I speak in tongues. No. Do I heal. Well maybe not the way that you may be thinking but everytime I share the Gospel and someone is awakened i have been used to heal someone. That is the greater work. It is even more miraculous to me. Do I always use exact scriptures to do it. No. Sometimes I just tell truths and God works. God does speak through us. As Paul mentions that in 2 Corinthians 5:20.... Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
> 
> Does God use us to give wisdom to others sometimes. Maybe. If he does it won't be anything that goes against the Canon of Scripture. That is for sure. More later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just popping in briefly - I have discussed this at length elsewhere, so I will leave it to others here - to say that there is a difference between revelation and illumination.
> 
> Randy, I think you may be conflating the two.
Click to expand...


Conflating...... Mixing the two together. I learned a new word. 

Revelation of Christ is already set. We need illumination on the revelation. 

Does that sound better Fred?


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Why don't *you* explain to me what you think is wrong with my view of Sola Scriptura?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then please point out where you did so. I obviously missed it.
Click to expand...

 
I simply affirm the Protestant position of Sola Scriptura that God is done speaking to His Church until the second advent. You are taking a contrary position that states the canon is closed but God still speaks through the Church. Which is the anti-sola scriptura position and why the EOC is bound by not only scripture but also by eceumenical councils. If we can not agree with this sola stance then there is no point in debating anything else.



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> but your view stated here is cloudy in regards to the sufficiency of scripture and leans more eastward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain why you think this is so.
Click to expand...


You state that the canon is closed but the church can still receive God´s word through prophetic utterance but that in such cases we could not add those words to Holy Scripture. To which I ask is it or is it not God´s word, if not where does it come from? Perhaps we should define prophecy.



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> If God speaks, then His words are profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. Now is scripture alone sufficient for such, or is scripture plus the church´s prophecies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have two things to say in answer to this question:
> 
> 1) Of course Scripture is sufficient. But since when does God stop with merely "sufficiently" meeting the needs of His people? For example, is Scripture sufficient for someone to be saved? Of course. Just silently hand a person a Bible, and God could save them during their reading. But God goes past what is sufficient, and piles on blessings. He sends preachers to verbally share the gospel. God draws people to Himself by showing sinners how godly people live . . . which can be very attractive to people. Is Scripture alone sufficient? Of course. But that doesn't mean that God uses no other means to drawing people to Himself.
Click to expand...


I have no problem with this, but we are talking about divine utterance. God uses other means, but we do not declare those means alone to be sufficient for instruction, reproof, etc. When God speaks, those words are words of eternal life, words man can live by alone. If God speaks through a eceumenical council or a gifted congregant, then we can either say thus says the Lord or attribute the council or congregant´s knowledge of scripture as "œprophecy."



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 2) Think about when 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was written. It was primarily written concerning the OLD TESTAMENT. And frankly, it is TRUE even if it is applied only to the OT. The Old Testament is sufficient to bring a person to salvation (cf. the Ethiopian in Acts 8), and to instruct people in righteousness. --- Just think about it: The Book of Revelation wasn't even WRITTEN yet when Paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:16-17. And it was true regarding all Scripture that had been written. *Thus, all Scripture written prior to 2 Timothy was "sufficient". --- Does it therefore follow that God had no reason to write the book of Revelation?* Of course not. But your logic would require us to answer "yes" to this question. When Paul wrote 2 Timothy, Scripture was quite "sufficient", even though Revelation had not been written yet. Nevertheless, God, in His superabounding graciousness, had even more to give to the church. So, your argument proves way too much, and would necessitate a trimming of the canon if taken to its logical conclusion.



As an interesting aside, again the EOC would applaud you with such an argument. I have talked with Westminster Philly students and even had some email exchanges with Michael Horton about the lack of attention given to the EOC. As far as WTS - Philly goes, they do not address the EOC much at all. I am not sure about Dallas, but it appears you have heard little about the East in your training as well. I will simply say be careful, you are toeing the line between sola scriptura and it´s antithesis.


Scripture is sufficient precanon and post canon. When 2 Timothy was written the Church had the OT AND the Apostles until the revelation was complete (the perfect comes). We no longer have Apostles, but we do have what God saw good to maintain in the canon. The timing of 2 Timothy is irrelevant. Paul´s point is that scripture is sufficient. The churches in those days ask as well as us, what is scripture? Peter affirmed, precanon, that Paul´s words were scripture (2 Peter 3:16). We affirm the same today as those early churches did who may not have had all of Paul´s letters at the time of 2 Timothy. 

So scripture was sufficient even during the day when 2 Timothy was written and Revelation was not. The difference is, those churches had Apostles and gifts available to them that we no longer need now that we see face to face with God´s complete revelation.

But again, why am I defending sola scriptura?


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> You state that the canon is closed but the church can still receive God´s word through prophetic utterance but that in such cases we could not add those words to Holy Scripture. To which I ask is it or is it not God´s word, if not where does it come from? Perhaps we should define prophecy.



1) Just because something is a word from God, does not mean that it can be added to Scripture. How many miracles did Jesus do that were never recorded in the Bible? How many words did Jesus speak that were not recorded in Scripture? Jesus even wrote something on the ground with His finger, and we don't know what it was. God spoke to people both in the OT and the NT, and in various cases, we do not have a written record of what God said.

2) By "prophecy", I am not talking about Moses being a prophet of God and writing Scripture, or Isaiah being a prophet of God and writing Scripture. Rather, I am talking about the likes of Agabus, to whom God gave prophetic knowledge of the future. Agabus correctly prophecied a famine (Acts 11:28), and he also correctly prophecied the binding/imprisonment of Paul (Acts 21:10-11). Now, according to 1 Cor. 12, Agabus wasn't the only prophet around in those days. Thus, others were prophets, and yet their prophecies were not recorded in Scripture. Not all prophecies are Scripture! I have never experienced predictive prophecy. I don't know whether God does that anymore or not. But why _shouldn't_ I leave the "door open", so to speak? Why _couldn't_ there be another Agabus? This is the question to which I am waiting to hear an answer.



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> As an interesting aside, again the EOC would applaud you with such an argument. I have talked with Westminster Philly students and even had some email exchanges with Michael Horton about the lack of attention given to the EOC. As far as WTS - Philly goes, they do not address the EOC much at all. I am not sure about Dallas, but it appears you have heard little about the East in your training as well. I will simply say be careful, you are toeing the line between sola scriptura and it´s antithesis.



I am being careful to remain true to Scripture, and not to go dogmatically beyond what it teaches. Cessationism certainly fits my personal experience. But according to what I see in Scripture, I cannot make a Biblical case for cessationism (at least not yet).



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> But again, why am I defending sola scriptura?



I don't know why you are defending it, since I too affirm it. I believe that Scripture is sufficient for us today. We don't need anything else.


But just because we don't _need_ anything else, doesn't mean that God won't still _graciously give_ us anything else.

Lasagna & broccoli may be _sufficient_ for your health and nutrition.
But that doesn't mean that your wife can't go above and beyond the call of duty, and also bake you some nice chocolate chip cookies once in a while. Do you need them? No. Is the lasagna and broccoli sufficient? Yes. But do you still appreciate the cookies? Of course.





[Edited on 1-12-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Joseph, a response would involve reiteration of what I have already said.

I do not have the time to repeat myself. Hopefully someone will give you the answer you are looking for. Perhaps it is contained in the numerous threads discussing the same topic, let us know when you find it.

Until then grace and peace brother.

[Edited on 1-12-2006 by ChristopherPaul]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> Joseph, a response would involve reiteration of what I have already said.



A reiteration would not help, because your arguments seem to be lacking.

You seem to have a faulty definition for the word "sufficient". (See my related reply to Christopher Blum above.)

Also, you have failed to demonstrate that cessationism has _anything_ to do with sola scriptura. You have asserted it loudly, but have not produced any Scriptural argument to that effect.



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> I do not have the time to repeat myself. Hopefully someone will give you the magic answer you are looking for. Perhaps it is contained in the numerous threads discussing the same topic, let us know when you find it.



That is a low blow, and I would appreciate an apology.

I'm not looking for a "magic answer". I'm simply looking for a Scriptural answer.

I can explain the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity from Scripture, even though I have to consult a number of passages to do so.

I can explain the Biblical doctrine of infant baptism from Scripture, even though I have to consult a number of passages to do so.

Likewise, if cessationism is true, then I expect you to be able to make your case from Scripture, even if you have to put together a number of passages to do so. If you're ever willing to do this, then please be my guest.



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> Until then grace and peace brother.



Grace and peace to you, too, Chris. I am disappointed that you have chosen to bow out of the conversation, instead of simply presenting Scriptural evidence to back up your assertion. But that is your call. If you don't have time to engage this discussion from a Scriptural standpoint, then you don't have the time. I run out of time from time to time too, and do not always have time to discuss things on the PB. So if time is the issue, then I can understand.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> That is a low blow, and I would appreciate an apology.



I apologize, apparently my sarcasm gets out of control at times. I am sorry.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> That is a low blow, and I would appreciate an apology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize, apparently my sarcasm gets out of control at times. I am sorry.
Click to expand...


Thank you, Chris!! I very much appreciate it. Too rarely do I actually see apologies around here. (Though I see them more often here than on any other board!)

Whether you can see it or not, I am genuinely trying to wrestle with this issue via the Scriptures, and so I am really not looking for some "magic fix". So thank you for retracting that comment.

I too have a big problem with sarcasm, and my attitude gets out of control at times. I really hope I didn't say anything to personally offend you, Chris. If I did, I apologize . . . and please point it out to me so I can apologize specifically.


In any case, thank you for your apology. It is greatly appreciated.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

The typical Pentecostal argument is that the phenomena of Acts and 1 Cor are distinct. I reject this claim. I find no evidence in 1 Cor that the phenomena are distinct at all. They are a part of the same apostolic, revelational, covenantal package. 

The Ascension culminates the saving work of Christ. He is raised, he is ascended, he fulfills Ps 110. He is the King to whom king David bows and he is the Adon who fulfilled the terms of the covenant contracted (yes, I said contracted) with Yahweh from all eternity (see the book of Hebrews). 

Pentecost, in its own way, is the culmination of redemptive-historical work of God the Spirit. The Glory-cloud who hovered over the temple and who lead us out of Egypt has now descended upon and subsequently (1 Pet 4) hovers over the church-temple. 

What was confused at Babel is reversed at Pentecost. The gospel is going forth to every tribe, tongue, and nation. Jews are being baptized/circumcised into the covenant community in the New Covenant as if they were Gentile converts and Gentile converts are being baptized/circumcised as if they were Jews. 

Pentecost is about the objective work of the Spirit in advancing the kingdom through the foolishness of preaching and about confirming that message with displays of apostolic Holy Spirit power, not about private religious experience or ecstasy. Glossolalia means "œnatural languages." Full stop.

Pentecost has nothing to do with two kinds of Christians, a higher life or a second blessing. Pentecost has nothing to do with having enough faith to do anything. Pentecost is about the saving work of the Triune God in history. 

Pentecost is about the development of revelation, not setting a pattern for contemporary church life any more than the Noahic flood is a pattern for neighborhood evangelism. We are not called to open the fire hydrants, and plug the storm drains during a thunderstorm in order to call our neighbors to Christ. Neither are we called to try to replicate raising folk from the dead, healing them, or speaking in foreign languages without training.

Pentecost is meant to be Pentecost just as the Passover is meant to be the Passover. It wasn´t meant to be replicated. Observed, yes, but we never (under Moses, before the incarnation) went about slaughtering the firstborn of the nearest Gentile town on Pascha. 

So Pentecost should be remembered, not replicated, as if that were possible.

These phenomena (speaking in known foreign languages under the direct inspiration of the Spirit etc) are apostolic phenomena in the same way that seeing chariots of fire or being taken into the heavenly courts or being divinely transported are part of the OT prophetic office and revelation. Some of these phenomena occur in the NT also as part of the canonical revelation. 

If we allow the biblical phenomena to be as wonderful as they really were, and if we're honest about what passes for "Pentecostal" phenomena today, the discrepancy is quite large. I don´t see ANY of them doing ANYTHING like what the Apostles did. If they´re bit by a poisonous snake, they get sick. Paul didn´t. If they get stoned, they die, Paul didn´t (but Stephen did! "“ maybe he didn´t have enough faith? That´s what Luke wants to think, right? If Stephen had enough faith, he could have walked right through the stones? Well, that´s what Wayne said at ETS 15 years ago or so; if he´d had enough faith, he could have healed his neighbor"¦.)

As to the demand for a biblical proof text or argument for cessationism, I reject the premise, namely, that the burden of proof is on cessationists. The scripture was written in the period of prophetic and apostolic revelation. The NT is full (although the epistles have relatively less reflection on or narrative concerning the charismata) of discussion about and narrative about the charismata. The NT was written to folks living in those circumstances.

To say, "œshow me where the NT says that in the post-apostolic era these things won't happen," is a false test. Show me where the NT says unambiguously that anything on this order will or won't happen in the post-apostolic age. What we´re meant to be doing is preaching the law and the gospel (if we could get this right, we´d be ahead of where we are now), administering the sacraments faithfully, administering discipline faithfully and loving one another. That´s it. That´s as "œSpiritual" (note the upper case S) as it gets in the inter-regnum, until Jesus comes.

Cessationism is better called "œcanonism" or "œcovenantalism" or some such. The reason that Reformed folk (see the quotations from G. de Bres above) do not expect or ask for extra-canonical or non-canonical revelations or other canonical gifts is because of the relation between covenant and canon. This has been sketched out by Ridderbos, Kline, and Gaffin in several books. 

The outline is this: Scripture is a covenantal document. It is, as a whole, a the history, the promises, and the stipulations (i.e., the law and the gospel) of the covenant and kingdom. The king has entered into a covenant with his people. He has narrated his saving acts for us (the gospel) and announced it to us, and imposed on us the condition (faith) of benefiting from his covenant and the consequent stipulations of his covenant (the moral obligations of the Christian life). As a treaty document then, Scripture is inviolable. Paul makes this point in Gal 3;15. See Kline, _Treaty of the Great King_ for a treatment of the entirety of Deut as just such a treaty document. This explains the warnings in Deut and Rev about not tampering with the books. Do they apply to the entire canon? Not directly, but indirectly. Directly, they apply to the books in question, but they witness to the structure of Scripture and the intent generally not to open the canon.

Ok, so let´s say that we accept a closed canon. Grudem does as does M L-Jones. I take these as the strongest proponents of extra-canonical revelation.

I read this stuff years ago when I was tempted by Pentecostalism (yes, I was tempted quite seriously). As I recall, Grudem appeals to Agabus (Acts 11:28) as a precedent for non-canonical revelation that can be false or falsified.

I respond: so what? What´s the point of extra-canonical revelation that is false or falsified? I can do that without the Spirit! Where does one derive from Scripture an expectation that the Spirit can inspire prophets to err? Does anyone really want to build a case for Spirit-inspired, extra-canonical prophecy that is potentially false on the example of Agabus? Is that why God included Agabus in the canon? As an example for us on how to get prophecy wrong?

This is just silly.

Wayne is a baby-boomer who is conservative but wants the sort of religious intensity and ecstasy the Pentecostals have, but he wants it in a respectable, predestinarian, middle-class sort of way. 

This isn´t about theology or exegesis. It´s about psychology and emotions. It´s about the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience. Whoever mentioned revivalism is close. 

This is a long discussion "“ I try to make the case in an upcoming book (not even finished yet) but some Reformed folk have felt "œleft out" for a long time. 

That´s why Modern religion, even in many confessional churches, is not about the objective or the historical or the doctrinal, it´s about the subjective, the personal, and increasingly the ontological (Plato or Plotinus is making a huge comeback. The Creator/creature distinction is being chucked right out). 

We live in the time between the advents. The signs that Jesus left are Word, water, bread, and wine. That´s it. Not enough? Too bad. I´m sorry. Jesus is risen. The tomb is empty. That´s all we get until he comes back. Barren? Really? "œLo I will be with you always"¦" is not barren! Boring? That´s just the problem, the cross has become boring. I fear that the real reason is because the theology of the cross won´t sell. 

I have an idea. Let´s be Christians instead of predestinarian enthusiasts. 

It´s worth a try.

rsc


----------



## Semper Fidelis

:APPLAUSE:


----------



## BrianBowman

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_*No more apostles = no more extraordinary gifts.* ---> The church doesn't need another founding. <--- We do not need either one, so we don't have either one



 What we as the Church do need is to build on the foundation already laid by the Apostles and Prophets, namely our crucified, rised, and ascended Lord "who has abolished death and brought light and immortality to light through the Gospel".


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> .....This isn´t about theology or exegesis. It´s about psychology and emotions. It´s about the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience. Whoever mentioned revivalism is close.
> 
> This is a long discussion "“ I try to make the case in an upcoming book (not even finished yet) but some Reformed folk have felt "œ*left out*" for a long time. ...
> rsc



Dr. Clark,

Are you going to title the new book: "_Left-Out_" ? 

 Robin


----------



## Robin

We live in the time between the advents. The signs that Jesus left are Word, water, bread, and wine. That´s it. Not enough? Too bad. I´m sorry. Jesus is risen. The tomb is empty. That´s all we get until he comes back. Barren? Really? "œLo I will be with you always"¦" is not barren! Boring? That´s just the problem, the cross has become boring. I fear that the real reason is because the theology of the cross won´t sell. 

I have an idea. Let´s be Christians instead of predestinarian enthusiasts. 

rsc


  

Thank you, Jesus, for leaving us with what we need....not what we want!

r.


----------



## mybigGod

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> The typical Pentecostal argument is that the phenomena of Acts and 1 Cor are distinct. I reject this claim. I find no evidence in 1 Cor that the phenomena are distinct at all. They are a part of the same apostolic, revelational, covenantal package.
> 
> The Ascension culminates the saving work of Christ. He is raised, he is ascended, he fulfills Ps 110. He is the King to whom king David bows and he is the Adon who fulfilled the terms of the covenant contracted (yes, I said contracted) with Yahweh from all eternity (see the book of Hebrews).
> 
> Pentecost, in its own way, is the culmination of redemptive-historical work of God the Spirit. The Glory-cloud who hovered over the temple and who lead us out of Egypt has now descended upon and subsequently (1 Pet 4) hovers over the church-temple.
> 
> What was confused at Babel is reversed at Pentecost. The gospel is going forth to every tribe, tongue, and nation. Jews are being baptized/circumcised into the covenant community in the New Covenant as if they were Gentile converts and Gentile converts are being baptized/circumcised as if they were Jews.
> 
> Pentecost is about the objective work of the Spirit in advancing the kingdom through the foolishness of preaching and about confirming that message with displays of apostolic Holy Spirit power, not about private religious experience or ecstasy. Glossolalia means "œnatural languages." Full stop.
> 
> Pentecost has nothing to do with two kinds of Christians, a higher life or a second blessing. Pentecost has nothing to do with having enough faith to do anything. Pentecost is about the saving work of the Triune God in history.
> 
> Pentecost is about the development of revelation, not setting a pattern for contemporary church life any more than the Noahic flood is a pattern for neighborhood evangelism. We are not called to open the fire hydrants, and plug the storm drains during a thunderstorm in order to call our neighbors to Christ. Neither are we called to try to replicate raising folk from the dead, healing them, or speaking in foreign languages without training.
> 
> Pentecost is meant to be Pentecost just as the Passover is meant to be the Passover. It wasn´t meant to be replicated. Observed, yes, but we never (under Moses, before the incarnation) went about slaughtering the firstborn of the nearest Gentile town on Pascha.
> 
> So Pentecost should be remembered, not replicated, as if that were possible.
> 
> These phenomena (speaking in known foreign languages under the direct inspiration of the Spirit etc) are apostolic phenomena in the same way that seeing chariots of fire or being taken into the heavenly courts or being divinely transported are part of the OT prophetic office and revelation. Some of these phenomena occur in the NT also as part of the canonical revelation.
> 
> If we allow the biblical phenomena to be as wonderful as they really were, and if we're honest about what passes for "Pentecostal" phenomena today, the discrepancy is quite large. I don´t see ANY of them doing ANYTHING like what the Apostles did. If they´re bit by a poisonous snake, they get sick. Paul didn´t. If they get stoned, they die, Paul didn´t (but Stephen did! "“ maybe he didn´t have enough faith? That´s what Luke wants to think, right? If Stephen had enough faith, he could have walked right through the stones? Well, that´s what Wayne said at ETS 15 years ago or so; if he´d had enough faith, he could have healed his neighbor"¦.)
> 
> As to the demand for a biblical proof text or argument for cessationism, I reject the premise, namely, that the burden of proof is on cessationists. The scripture was written in the period of prophetic and apostolic revelation. The NT is full (although the epistles have relatively less reflection on or narrative concerning the charismata) of discussion about and narrative about the charismata. The NT was written to folks living in those circumstances.
> 
> To say, "œshow me where the NT says that in the post-apostolic era these things won't happen," is a false test. Show me where the NT says unambiguously that anything on this order will or won't happen in the post-apostolic age. What we´re meant to be doing is preaching the law and the gospel (if we could get this right, we´d be ahead of where we are now), administering the sacraments faithfully, administering discipline faithfully and loving one another. That´s it. That´s as "œSpiritual" (note the upper case S) as it gets in the inter-regnum, until Jesus comes.
> 
> Cessationism is better called "œcanonism" or "œcovenantalism" or some such. The reason that Reformed folk (see the quotations from G. de Bres above) do not expect or ask for extra-canonical or non-canonical revelations or other canonical gifts is because of the relation between covenant and canon. This has been sketched out by Ridderbos, Kline, and Gaffin in several books.
> 
> The outline is this: Scripture is a covenantal document. It is, as a whole, a the history, the promises, and the stipulations (i.e., the law and the gospel) of the covenant and kingdom. The king has entered into a covenant with his people. He has narrated his saving acts for us (the gospel) and announced it to us, and imposed on us the condition (faith) of benefiting from his covenant and the consequent stipulations of his covenant (the moral obligations of the Christian life). As a treaty document then, Scripture is inviolable. Paul makes this point in Gal 3;15. See Kline, _Treaty of the Great King_ for a treatment of the entirety of Deut as just such a treaty document. This explains the warnings in Deut and Rev about not tampering with the books. Do they apply to the entire canon? Not directly, but indirectly. Directly, they apply to the books in question, but they witness to the structure of Scripture and the intent generally not to open the canon.
> 
> Ok, so let´s say that we accept a closed canon. Grudem does as does M L-Jones. I take these as the strongest proponents of extra-canonical revelation.
> 
> I read this stuff years ago when I was tempted by Pentecostalism (yes, I was tempted quite seriously). As I recall, Grudem appeals to Agabus (Acts 11:28) as a precedent for non-canonical revelation that can be false or falsified.
> 
> I respond: so what? What´s the point of extra-canonical revelation that is false or falsified? I can do that without the Spirit! Where does one derive from Scripture an expectation that the Spirit can inspire prophets to err? Does anyone really want to build a case for Spirit-inspired, extra-canonical prophecy that is potentially false on the example of Agabus? Is that why God included Agabus in the canon? As an example for us on how to get prophecy wrong?
> 
> This is just silly.
> 
> Wayne is a baby-boomer who is conservative but wants the sort of religious intensity and ecstasy the Pentecostals have, but he wants it in a respectable, predestinarian, middle-class sort of way.
> 
> This isn´t about theology or exegesis. It´s about psychology and emotions. It´s about the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience. Whoever mentioned revivalism is close.
> 
> This is a long discussion "“ I try to make the case in an upcoming book (not even finished yet) but some Reformed folk have felt "œleft out" for a long time.
> 
> That´s why Modern religion, even in many confessional churches, is not about the objective or the historical or the doctrinal, it´s about the subjective, the personal, and increasingly the ontological (Plato or Plotinus is making a huge comeback. The Creator/creature distinction is being chucked right out).
> 
> We live in the time between the advents. The signs that Jesus left are Word, water, bread, and wine. That´s it. Not enough? Too bad. I´m sorry. Jesus is risen. The tomb is empty. That´s all we get until he comes back. Barren? Really? "œLo I will be with you always"¦" is not barren! Boring? That´s just the problem, the cross has become boring. I fear that the real reason is because the theology of the cross won´t sell.
> 
> I have an idea. Let´s be Christians instead of predestinarian enthusiasts.
> 
> It´s worth a try.
> 
> rsc


Isnt the doctrine of the cross and how it applies to the believer full of subjective workings?
Are you saying that the post reformation revivals were just emotional and not a work of the Spirit?
If a person wants to preach a sermon on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit or any other doctrine other than the cross ,should the greater percentage of the message focus on Christ?

[Edited on 1-13-2006 by mybigGod]

[Edited on 1-13-2006 by mybigGod]


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> Isnt the doctrine of the cross and how it applies to the believer full of subjective workings?
> Are you saying that the post reformation revivals were just emotional and not a work of the Spirit?
> If a person wants to preach a sermon on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit or any other doctrine other than the cross ,should the greater percentage of the message focus on Christ?
> 
> [Edited on 1-13-2006 by mybigGod]
> 
> [Edited on 1-13-2006 by mybigGod]



Absolutely the application of the cross has subjective elements. We call that the application of redemption and the ordo salutis. 

The subjective element of Christianity is not in question. What is in question is the claim of ongoing Pentecostal/Apostolic power.

I have grave doubts about the 1st and 2nd great awakenings. The confessional folk of the time were deeply concerned about both for different reasons. I share their concerns.

A minister should preach the text of Scripture. Every text is either law or gospel or may contain both words. Every text is located in the history of salvation and must be so preached and every text, in some way or other, points us to Christ. We can't set arbitrary rules a priori. The sermon arises from the text.

When I speak of the "cross" I mean both the historic fact of the cross and a theological orientation. See 
http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/Suffering.html

rsc


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I want to pass on a testimony I heard in 1985. I can not testify to its truth but can only relate what was said by the testifier. 

I cannot remember the name of the gentleman who shared this but remember his testimony because it left an impression that God can act according to what he has had written down. I dont think it is a norm but I don't have any reason to doubt the gentleman was lying. 

He was raised in New York as a young Jew. He abandoned his faith and later married a woman who was Cuban if I remember correctly. She became a believer and was very burdened for her husbands salvation. One night as they were in bed she sat up and started speaking in the jewish dialect that he was raised with. He said that she wasn't familiar with it and that he hadn't used it since his youth. She didn't know it nor had heard it according to him. As she started speaking the words testified about how Jesus was the Messiah and Saviour of His people. It resulted in his conversion and walk with God. The gentleman didn't seem to be promoting a pentecostal life style even though the setting was of that sort. 

I don't find that to be out of sorts from what the scriptures tell. I couldn't refute the testimony. I didn't feel it was my place. If God choses to do that for one person or three thousand I am not going to dispute what He wants. If he choses to call on one soul by this method I have no problem with it. He calls us all by diverse workings but always by illumination of His written word.

[Edited on 1-13-2006 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## BrianBowman

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> .....This isn´t about theology or exegesis. It´s about psychology and emotions. It´s about the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience. Whoever mentioned revivalism is close.
> 
> This is a long discussion "“ I try to make the case in an upcoming book (not even finished yet) but some Reformed folk have felt "œ*left out*" for a long time. ...
> rsc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Clark,
> 
> Are you going to title the new book: "_Left-Out_" ?
> 
> Robin
Click to expand...



How about "Please Leave Me Behind" (which implies an obvious pique on the pre-Trib Rapture lunacy) ?


----------



## biblelighthouse

Dr. Clark,

First of all, I want to applaud you for your excellent refutation of what passes as "Pentecostalism" today. I fully agree with your arguments that refute the practices of modern "charismatic" churches.

I completely agree with you that glossolalia means "œnatural languages." There is no question that the hearers in Acts 2 *understood* what was being said. People were speaking languages they had not learned, publically proclaiming the glory of God.

I fully agree with you that "Pentecost is about the objective work of the Spirit in advancing the kingdom through the foolishness of preaching and about confirming that message with displays of apostolic Holy Spirit power, *not about private religious experience or ecstasy*."

I also totally agree that "*Pentecost has nothing to do with two kinds of Christians, a higher life or a second blessing*. Pentecost has *nothing to do with having enough faith* to do anything."

I also agree that "Pentecost is about the development of revelation, *not setting a pattern for contemporary church life*".

We also agree that we are NOT "called to try to replicate raising folk from the dead, healing them, or speaking in foreign languages without training."

As you said, "Pentecost should be remembered, not replicated". --- And this is precisely the error I think modern pentecostal churches have fallen into. They are trying to replicate Pentecost. It is an example of MAN trying to INITIATE Petecostal power, wheras Pentecost itself was initiated by GOD, not man.

And just as you said regarding modern charismatic churches, I fully agree that we "don´t see ANY of them doing ANYTHING like what the Apostles did." The discrepancy IS quite large.



Now, having laid out our agreements (which are many), I want to thank you for making your case as clearly as you have. --- *I also want to point out that my position is NOT that of modern pentecostal churches. Thus, I agree with your refutation of them. But my position is quite different, and you were refuting their position, not mine.* So thank you for giving me this chance to clearly distance myself from what passes as "pentecostalism" these days.

I do not believe man can initiate any duplication of Pentecost.
I do not believe we should be seeking out prophecy, tongues, healers, etc.

So what DO I believe?

I believe that God can still do whatever He wants to do.
And I see nothing in Scripture that suggests God is finished with miracles . . . nothing in the Bible which suggests that there is some cosmic shift that magically took place after the death of the last apostle.

If you want to say that a man cannot muster up enough faith to become a faith-healer, or to become a predictive prophet, or to speak in foreign languages without learning them, then I agree with you.

But if you want to say that God cannot (or will not) sovereignly *cause* someone to speak in a foreign language under certain circumstances, or if you want to say that God cannot (or will not) sovereignly *give* some piece of predictive knowledge to someone under certain circumstances, or if you want to say that God cannot (or will not) miraculously heal people under circumstances, *then the burden of proof is on you.* --- All of your arguments are *very effective* at refuting the silly *man-initiated* stuff that goes on in today's "pentecostal" churches. *But your arguments do not even begin to show a Scriptural warrant* for saying that *God lacks the prerogative to do whatever He wants, whenever He wants.*

Just as an isolated case in point, I have no problem at all with what Randy shared in a previous post:



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I want to pass on a testimony I heard in 1985. . . . God can act according to what he has had written down. I dont think it is a norm but I don't have any reason to doubt the gentleman was lying. . . . He was raised in New York as a young Jew. He abandoned his faith and later married a woman who was Cuban if I remember correctly. She became a believer and was very burdened for her husbands salvation. One night as they were in bed she sat up and started speaking in the jewish dialect that he was raised with. He said that she wasn't familiar with it and that he hadn't used it since his youth. She didn't know it nor had heard it according to him. As she started speaking the words testified about how Jesus was the Messiah and Saviour of His people. It resulted in his conversion and walk with God. The gentleman didn't seem to be promoting a pentecostal life style . . . I don't find that to be out of sorts from what the scriptures tell. I couldn't refute the testimony. I didn't feel it was my place. If God choses to do that for one person or three thousand I am not going to dispute what He wants. If he choses to call on one soul by this method I have no problem with it. He calls us all by diverse workings but always by illumination of His written word.




Now what, pray tell, is wrong with that? Whether this one particular instance is accurate or not, who is to say God never works this way? Why should we automatically assume that such people are lying? 

Please notice what is MISSING in the story above:

1) The Jewish man and his wife were not LOOKING for some awesome manifestation of the Spirit. They were not seeking miracles.

2) The "tongue" here was an understandable, natural language, just as we see in Acts 2. There is no gibberish here.

3) There is no new revelation here. When the wife spoke in a tongue that was unknown to herself, her husband simply heard her speaking the Gospel. In his own language, he was hearing that Jesus is the Messiah and the Saviour of His people.

4) This was not a permanent "gift". The wife did not retain any ability to "speak in tongues" at will. To the contrary, God Himself simply performed something miraculous that got the husband's attention, and got him to listen seriously to the Gospel message. This was a one-time event, sovereignly performed at God's own discretion.

5) The husband and wife never leapt to the conclusion that this is how God normally works. They simply seemed to recognize that God chose an interesting way to bring the Jewish man to faith in Christ. But they weren't going about telling everyone that "everyone else can do it to if they just have enough faith."


In other words, the story above looks NOTHING like what we see in run-of-the-mill "charismatic" churches. This was NOT a case of men seeking supernatural manifestations. To the contrary, this was simply a case of God sovereignly choosing to lead people to Himself in _whatever manner He pleases._



Dr. Clark, you said, "What we´re meant to be doing is preaching the law and the gospel . . . administering the sacraments faithfully, administering discipline faithfully and loving one another. That´s it." --- And I totally agree with you. I do not think we should be seeking anything "more spiritual" than what you have just said. But again, I am not talking about MAN seeking a "higher spiritual life", or anything of the sort. Rather, I am simply arguing for the FREEDOM of GOD to do what He wants, when He wants.


You said, "Wayne [Grudem] is a baby-boomer who is conservative but wants the sort of religious intensity and ecstasy the Pentecostals have, but he wants it in a respectable, predestinarian, middle-class sort of way. This isn´t about theology or exegesis. It´s about psychology and emotions. It´s about the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience. Whoever mentioned revivalism is close."

Again, I totally agree with you. I don't care at all about reviving revivalism, or about seeking religious ecstasy. I'm not looking to stroke my psyche and emotions. Again, I am merely arguing for the freedom of God to do what He wants.


Now, what Scriptural argument is there against *that*?


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_Again, I am merely arguing for the freedom of God to do what He wants.
> 
> 
> Now, what Scriptural argument is there against *that*?



None.

However, ask yourself does God have the "freedom" to contradict Himself? If revelation is done until the second advent, then we are to expect no new revelation in form of miraculous tongue or prophecy. Do you agree with that? Why couldn't Joseph Smith (Founder of Mormonism) be another Prophet or Apostles appointed much like Paul?

Did God say there will be no more Apostles, no more revelation after the Apostles and the Canon?

In these last days has God already spoken through Jesus or not?

I do not want to go around the horn again Joseph, but I believe you are allowing God to speak still, but nothing new in addition to Holy Scripture. Is this a fair statement summarizing your hypothetical conclusion?


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_Again, I am merely arguing for the freedom of God to do what He wants.
> 
> 
> Now, what Scriptural argument is there against *that*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None.
Click to expand...


Thank you.



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> However, ask yourself does God have the "freedom" to contradict Himself?



Certainly not.



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> If revelation is done until the second advent, then we are to expect no new revelation in form of miraculous tongue or prophecy. Do you agree with that? Why couldn't Joseph Smith (Founder of Mormonism) be another Prophet or Apostles appointed much like Paul?



I agree that there will be no more Apostles/Prophets of the likes of Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, etc. Thus, Joseph Smith being a true Prophet is out of the question.



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> Did God say there will be no more Apostles, no more revelation after the Apostles and the Canon?



I agree that there will be no more Apostles, and no more Scriptural revelation.



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> In these last days has God already spoken through Jesus or not?



Certainly. But what does that have to do with this conversation? As far as I know, there were still miracles after Hebrews 1 was written. In fact, there was even Scripture still left to be written (i.e. Revelation). So if Heb. 1:1-4 didn't stop miracles from being continued then, why should Heb. 1:1-4 keep miracles from happening now, if God wants to initiate them?



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> I do not want to go around the horn again Joseph, but I believe you are allowing God to speak still, but nothing new in addition to Holy Scripture. Is this a fair statement summarizing your hypothetical conclusion?



Yes, this is a fair statement. I think we are starting to understand each other.

I do NOT believe that there are any people walking around today like Moses, Isaiah, Peter, or Paul.

I do NOT believe that there is any Scripture left to be written. The canon is closed until Jesus physically returns.

I DO believe that God can still sovereignly cause someone to speak the Gospel in a foreign language, under certain circumstances that He sovereignly chooses. This is not new revelation. This is simply the Gospel being preached under unusual circumstances.

I DO believe that God can still sovereignly cause miraculous healings to occur. But I do NOT believe that we should be looking for "faith healers" like Benny Hinn.  I'm not talking about God giving men the ability to heal whomever they want. But I am talking about God healing whomever HE wants. If God wants to make a tumor miraculously disappear, then that is just what He will do, even today.

If there is any miraculous thing that I think may have ceased, it would be predictive prophecy. I certainly DO NOT believe that God will add anything to the canon of Scripture, or that there is any new revelation to be given to the church to tell us what to believe about God, how to live, how to worship, etc. Nevertheless, if there is any exception to this, I would think it would look something like Agabus. He did not give new revelation to the church about God, worship, eccesiology, etc. God simply gave him foreknowledge about an impending famine, so that he could warn his fellow Christians. I do not know if anything like this happens anymore or not. I certainly have not experienced it. And I am not seeking to experience it. But I would have trouble ruling it out as a possibility. It seems to me that God could give miraculous foreknowledge of a famine, drought, etc., without adding anything to the canon, and without adding anything to our Scriptural knowledge of God, worship, ecclesiology, etc. So, with a carefully restricted view, I could be persuaded that there could still be some God-initiated prophecy. But it would certainly NOT be of the ilk of Isaiah, Peter, Paul, etc. Agabus was not comparable to Moses or Paul.


Chris, I think we are getting somewhere here, and are beginning to understand each other a bit better. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Joseph,

As been argued before, there is no question whether God can do what he wants. I grant that God is completely free and able to replicate Pentecost today if he wills.

In the history of theology, this distinction is known as the distinction _de potentia Dei absoluta et ordinata. _ The nominalists speculated about what God might have done. To appeal to the absolute power of God is a straw man. No one in our tradition denies this power. 

The Protestants rejected speculation about this power. They taught us only to speak of what God *has* done and promised. What we´re arguing is _de potentia ordinata_. 

Where has God promised to continue apostolic phenomena? It cannot be shown from Scripture that God has promised to replicate Pentecost or the apostolic phenomena in the post-canonical era. It can only be argued that he can do or that he hasn´t said he won´t do. That is not sufficient for confessional Protestants. Again, please read the passages from de Bres. Please read my essay on the theology of glory. 
de Bres would regard your position as "œfanatical." You are making the Anabaptist argument. None of our confessional Protestant forefathers agree with you. None of our confessions speak as you do and we don't share your hermeneutic.

I contend that, for the reasons I specified, which you not apparently accept (the covenantal nature of the canon) we are not entitled to expect any such replication of Pentecost. The cosmic shift, of which you speak, is the death of the apostle John who was an eye-witness to Jesus and who was endowed with apostolic powers. When the last OT prophet died, the miracles associated with them died also. Israel existed in an inter-testamental silence for 400 years. We are in that silence. I understand that it is disturbing and that, in order to validate and confirm their faith, folk want to believe that apostolic phenomena continue. That is why I pointed to the sacraments. 

There is a fundamental difference between Reformed Christianity and fanaticism. We are content with the signs Christ has promised us. You are not. You want to be an apostle. It isn´t happening. You can´t raise the dead and you won´t and God hasn´t raised any dead folks in your midst and isn´t going to do. That´s a cosmic shift. The NT deacon was transported (or some such) from place to place by the direct operation of the Spirit. Even the most "œSpirit-filled" human today must get in his Dodge Caravan to get to the next healing service.

It´s odd, apparently God only causes "œtongues" (natural foreign languages) to be spoken where no one can verify it. 

As I said before I don´t accept your premise re the _onus probandi._ The only way to change that is to raise someone from the dead. Until then, as my old elder (from SE Missouri) used to say, "œYou´re just talkin´."

I´m aware of the various uncorroborated testimonies and I´ve heard folks refer to such and such a prophecy from 1985. My reply: See Warfield. He addressed all that nonsense in _Counterfeit Miracles_.

The difference between what someone heard about what someone was supposed to have done or had done to them is that there´s never ANY question in the apostolic record about what happened and by whom and its validity

The claims of miracles made by credulous Protestants are identical to the claims made by credulous medieval Christians about this set of bones healing that person or this ounce of the Blessed Virgin´s milk rendering that miracle. 

The Protestants who claim these things today claim them for the VERY SAME reason that the medievals did and that Roman Catholics do so today (how many miracles has the almost-sainted Mother Theresa already accomplished? She´s on the fast track to sainthood! What about the recently departed Holy Father himself? If he hasn´t done, he will and folk will look you right in the eye and say, "œIn 2005"¦" and they will give a specific place and specific details in order to give the story credibility.

Read Hoaxbusters.com. They have a database of such stories that circulate on the web.

Talk to a cop who "œworks" (as they say) fraud cases. They´ll tell you the same.

Blessedly, the Reformation set us free from this sort of credulity. I don´t have to credit so and so´s report of some mighty work the Spirit allegedly did through her. Why? I have the divinely inspired record of God´s saving works in history and I have the preached Gospel and I have the gospel made visible in the covenant signs and seals. We call this _sola Scriptura_. Neither you nor anyone else can lord it over my conscience and force me to credit things that are not explicitly or implicitly revealed in the covenantal canon. 

I´m content to muddle through, thank you very much. 

rsc

[Edited on 1-13-2006 by R. Scott Clark]

[Edited on 1-13-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> If revelation is done until the second advent, then we are to expect no new revelation in form of miraculous tongue or prophecy. Do you agree with that? Why couldn't Joseph Smith (Founder of Mormonism) be another Prophet or Apostles appointed much like Paul?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that there will be no more Apostles/Prophets of the likes of Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, etc. Thus, Joseph Smith being a true Prophet is out of the question.
Click to expand...


This is good to hear, could you explain briefly what Scriptural argument there is to support the cessation of such offices? 



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> In these last days has God already spoken through Jesus or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly. But what does that have to do with this conversation? As far as I know, there were still miracles after Hebrews 1 was written. In fact, there was even Scripture still left to be written (i.e. Revelation). So if Heb. 1:1-4 didn't stop miracles from being continued then, why should Heb. 1:1-4 keep miracles from happening now, if God wants to initiate them?
Click to expand...


Well I still do not buy this line of reasoning for reasons already stated. The key is the presence of Apostles specifically appointed by Christ to found His Church. The fact that the one epistle was not yet written yet does not mean that the Apostles who started the churches did not teach and instruct the churches on what would later be written down (permanently) in an apostolic epistle. In fact Paul specifically instructed Timothy to "retain the standard of sound words which you have *heard from me*, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 1:13) and to the Thessalonian church, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, *whether by word of mouth or by letter from us*.

Simply saying that Paul may have not yet penned something to one church yet therefore the command was not given to all has no merit. Thirteen Apostles were eye witnesses of the resurrected Christ and appointed to teach all that Jesus commanded. But not all 13 wrote or supervised a letter/gospel/epistle. Does that mean they did not teach the same commands Jesus gave to those who did write down Jesus words?

Why should Hebrews 1:1-4 stop miracles now if it did not then? Because there were still Apostles then delivering the same message via word of mouth before Hebrews 1 and after Hebrews 1. The key is the presence of Christ´s representatives or Apostles.



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> I do not want to go around the horn again Joseph, but I believe you are allowing God to speak still, but nothing new in addition to Holy Scripture. Is this a fair statement summarizing your hypothetical conclusion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is a fair statement. I think we are starting to understand each other.
> 
> I do NOT believe that there are any people walking around today like Moses, Isaiah, Peter, or Paul.
> 
> I do NOT believe that there is any Scripture left to be written. The canon is closed until Jesus physically returns.
Click to expand...


We agree. Now on to what constitutes "œprophecy."



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I DO believe that God can still sovereignly cause someone to speak the Gospel in a foreign language, under certain circumstances that He sovereignly chooses. This is not new revelation. This is simply the Gospel being preached under unusual circumstances.



This is a fair response, I can not dogmatically disagree.

Would God be contradicting canonized scripture if He enabled someone to have a special gifting that He said ceased? Are you talking about random prophecies or those who have the gift and know it and use it within the church?



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I DO believe that God can still sovereignly cause miraculous healings to occur. But I do NOT believe that we should be looking for "faith healers" like Benny Hinn.  I'm not talking about God giving men the ability to heal whomever they want. But I am talking about God healing whomever HE wants. If God wants to make a tumor miraculously disappear, then that is just what He will do, even today.



I agree, but you are off topic. You did not describe a miraculous gift, but a divine act of God. Do people still have the Spiritual gift of supernatural healing?



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> If there is any miraculous thing that I think may have ceased, it would be predictive prophecy. I certainly DO NOT believe that God will add anything to the canon of Scripture, or that there is any new revelation to be given to the church to tell us what to believe about God, how to live, how to worship, etc. Nevertheless, if there is any exception to this, I would think it would look something like Agabus. He did not give new revelation to the church about God, worship, eccesiology, etc. God simply gave him foreknowledge about an impending famine, so that he could warn his fellow Christians. I do not know if anything like this happens anymore or not. I certainly have not experienced it. And I am not seeking to experience it. But I would have trouble ruling it out as a possibility. It seems to me that God could give miraculous foreknowledge of a famine, drought, etc., without adding anything to the canon, and without adding anything to our Scriptural knowledge of God, worship, ecclesiology, etc. So, with a carefully restricted view, I could be persuaded that there could still be some God-initiated prophecy. But it would certainly NOT be of the ilk of Isaiah, Peter, Paul, etc. Agabus was not comparable to Moses or Paul.



No revelatory or predictive prophecy, but still men gifted with the spiritual gift of prophecy? Should we or should we not strive to know our gift(s)? Should we tell the church what our gift is? Should we use it under the discipline of the church?

Do you agree that those gifted with prophecy, had the ability to proclaim God´s word? Do preachers prophecy when they proclaim God´s word? How about when you are in conversation with a group of Christians and a scripture "œpops" into your head that will add clarity to the discussion? Is that a prophecy?

Does God ultimately cause that scripture to come to mind? Yes, He ultimately causes everything. So do some have a special gifting that goes beyond hiding the word in the heart and recalling what is faithfully studied? And if they do, then would you agree that they can and should recognize this gift and use it in an organized manner governed by the church? Is this an office and is it greater than the office of Pastor (cf: Ephesians 4)?




> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Chris, I think we are getting somewhere here, and are beginning to understand each other a bit better. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.



I agree, and have been edified by this discussion, thank you brother.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Very well said Dr. Clark, I appreciate your time.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> As been argued before, there is no question whether God can do what he wants. I grant that God is completely free and able to replicate Pentecost today if he wills.



Thank you very much. For the most part, this is what I'm arguing. I have not personally experienced any modern-day Pentecost. But I have a problem with anyone dogmatically asserting that God doesn't do miracles today under any circumstances.

How about healing, in particular? Does God personally shock doctors sometimes, and cause terminal patients to inexplicably get healthy? Or do you take a deistic view of medicine? Did God just "wind up the clock" with our health, just to let it unwind according to "natural laws", or does God still supernaturally cause people to inexplicably recover from serious illnesses, due to His sovereign will? I'm not talking about faith-healers, Dr. Clark. I'm talking about God's prerogative to do what he wants. Otherwise, why bother praying for the sick?



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Where has God promised to continue apostolic phenomena?



You keep missing the point. I'm not talking about apostolic phenomina. I have not been talking about it the whole time.

I'm talking about God-originated phenomina, not "gifts" placed upon people to use at will.

James 5:14-15 says, "*Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up.* "

Are you suggesting that we should no longer pray for the sick? Are you suggesting that God doesn't still supernaturally heal people? Was James 5 written for us, or not?



Dr. Clark, you said something that is WAY out of line, proving that you have been ignoring me, and I would very much appreciate an apology. You said:



> We are content with the signs Christ has promised us. You are not. You want to be an apostle. It isn´t happening. You can´t raise the dead and you won´t and God hasn´t raised any dead folks in your midst and isn´t going to do.



Dr. Clark, that statement is false, slanderous, and unbecoming a Christian of high standing such as yourself.

1) I AM content with the signs Christ has promised us. I have repeatedly said that I have seen no miracles, and I am seeking no miracles. That does not mean that I don't believe God still works miracles when and where he wants to. You are out of line to accuse me of not being content with what Christ has promised us.

2) I do not want to be an apostle. And I have never said that I want to be an apostle. In fact, I don't believe there are any apostles alive today. And I am not even out seeking the miraculous. This accusation is utterly false and slanderous.

3) I never claimed to be able to raise the dead, so your point is moot. And you have no right to pontificate and say with authority what God will and will not do. If God wants to raise the dead today, then He will do so. You are going past what Scripture says. Does it say that the dead will be raised in our day? No. But you are authoritatively proclaiming that they certainly will not be raised. And unless you have received some post-canonical revelation from God (!) you frankly just don't know that with certainty.


Please apologize for your slander, Dr. Clark. Please retract your false accusations.




> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Blessedly, the Reformation set us free from this sort of credulity. I don´t have to credit so and so´s report of some mighty work the Spirit allegedly did through her. Why? I have the divinely inspired record of God´s saving works in history and I have the preached Gospel and I have the gospel made visible in the covenant signs and seals. We call this _sola Scriptura_. Neither you nor anyone else can lord it over my conscience and force me to credit things that are not explicitly or implicitly revealed in the covenantal canon.



Thus, you think you have the right to call a brother in Christ a liar to his face if he tells you God did something miraculous for him. Suppose that Jewish man walked up to you in person and told you what happened with his wife. Would you simply call him a liar to his face? Now THAT seems arrogant to me. Who am I to call him a liar? Who am I to judge whether God worked specially in his life, or whether he's just mimicing medieval saint stories? Who gives me that authority?

I would rather just give the fellow the benefit of the doubt. Cessationism certainly seems to be true in my own personal life. I have seen no miracles that I know of. But if someone wants to tell me that God healed them of cancer, or conveyed the Gospel to them in an unusual way, who am I to call them a liar? What Scripture can I point them to in order to PROVE that God CERTAINLY will not do anything miraculous after the apostolic age? How can I PROVE from Scripture that we are in the same "silent age" as the 400 years prior to the New Testament? Such musings as yours _may_ be correct. But I have no way of _proving_ them correct.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> I agree that there will be no more Apostles/Prophets of the likes of Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, etc. Thus, Joseph Smith being a true Prophet is out of the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is good to hear, could you explain briefly what Scriptural argument there is to support the cessation of such offices?
Click to expand...


From what I can tell, Paul seems to say that the requirements for the making of an Apostle include the physical seeing of the Resurrected Christ. And Paul calls himself an Apostle born out of time, pointing to himself being the last Apostle.



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> Why should Hebrews 1:1-4 stop miracles now if it did not then? Because there were still Apostles then delivering the same message via word of mouth before Hebrews 1 and after Hebrews 1. The key is the presence of Christ´s representatives or Apostles.



Fair enough. We disagree that God requires Apostolic presence in order to perform miracles. But at least I understand what your position is. Personally, I think God can still do a miracle if He wants to, without there being any Apostles around.



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> I do not want to go around the horn again Joseph, but I believe you are allowing God to speak still, but nothing new in addition to Holy Scripture. Is this a fair statement summarizing your hypothetical conclusion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is a fair statement. I think we are starting to understand each other.
> 
> I do NOT believe that there are any people walking around today like Moses, Isaiah, Peter, or Paul.
> 
> I do NOT believe that there is any Scripture left to be written. The canon is closed until Jesus physically returns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We agree.
Click to expand...


Praise the Lord!!!



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> Now on to what constitutes "œprophecy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I DO believe that God can still sovereignly cause someone to speak the Gospel in a foreign language, under certain circumstances that He sovereignly chooses. This is not new revelation. This is simply the Gospel being preached under unusual circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a fair response, I can not dogmatically disagree.
Click to expand...


Praise the Lord!!!



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> Would God be contradicting canonized scripture if He enabled someone to have a special gifting that He said ceased? Are you talking about random prophecies or those who have the gift and know it and use it within the church?



I'm not talking about special "gifting". I'm not talking about God giving someone the "gift of healing", or the "gift of tongues". I'm just talking about God's prerogative to personally do miracles whenever He wants, in this present day.



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I DO believe that God can still sovereignly cause miraculous healings to occur. But I do NOT believe that we should be looking for "faith healers" like Benny Hinn.  I'm not talking about God giving men the ability to heal whomever they want. But I am talking about God healing whomever HE wants. If God wants to make a tumor miraculously disappear, then that is just what He will do, even today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, but you are off topic. You did not describe a miraculous gift, but a divine act of God. Do people still have the Spiritual gift of supernatural healing?
Click to expand...


I very seriously doubt it. I am talking about divine acts of God, not miraculous gifts.



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> How about when you are in conversation with a group of Christians and a scripture "œpops" into your head that will add clarity to the discussion? Is that a prophecy?



No. That's illumination.



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> Is this an office and is it greater than the office of Pastor (cf. Ephesians 4)?



I haven't thought that deeply about it. Good question. Perhaps it is gone as an office. Again, I was focusing on acts of God, not special "gifts" imparted to individuals.



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Chris, I think we are getting somewhere here, and are beginning to understand each other a bit better. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, and have been edified by this discussion, thank you brother.
Click to expand...


I am being edified by this discussion, too, Chris. I appreciate your willingness to discuss all this. Thank you, my brother.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> have a problem with anyone dogmatically asserting that God doesn't do miracles today under any circumstances.



Joseph,

No one doubts that God continues to marvelous things today. Folk do get healed today without medical intervention. Ordinarily, however, they are healed (or not) through the "due use of ordinary means" to borrow from the SC. 

This is not apostolic, however, it is not connected to anyone´s faith or lack thereof, it´s not connected to exercise of any office or ongoing Pentecostal phenomena. 

Joseph, I talk directly or plainly or even forcefully to you (and others) because I care for you, because, as your older brother in Christ (I can see from your picture that I'm considerably older, more gray and balder!) I can see that you don´t understand fully what you´re saying. You don´t understand fully the theological and biblical and confessional implications of your arguments, claims, and suggestions. 

No, I´m not going to apologize. I haven´t sinned in this instance. I´ve spoken plainly to you. We disagree. That isn´t sin. I´m sorry that you´re upset, but you suggest that my pov is Deistic or at least you imply that is the implication of my argument. I understand that you think this and I´m not offended. It´s not personal Joseph. You represent a pov with which I strongly disagree and I´m giving the reasons why it´s wrong. 

Your most recent post illustrates my point well. To American evangelicals, living with mere Word and Sacrament, living in the valley of redemptive history as it were, sounds like Deism. It isn´t of course, but the fact that it seems so to you is revealing. This is quite like the argument that the confessionalists had with the revivalists in the 1st Great Awakening. As soon as my lot criticized your lot, the latter attacked the former as Deistic and unregenerate. This argument has been going intermittently for centuries and isn´t likely to stop anytime soon.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have told credulous folk that, indeed, they were deceived. I´m happy to have empirically verifiable evidence to the contrary. I don´t do it with pleasure, I do with out a sense of duty. I have also held the hands of schizophrenics and told them that the demons they saw coming out of the heating vents weren´t real. I make the comparison intentionally. In both cases, for different reasons, both sets of people are out of touch with reality.



> You keep missing the point. I'm not talking about apostolic phenomina [sic]. I have not been talking about it the whole time"¦.I'm talking about God-originated phenomina [sic]



- Joseph, run spell check before you post "“I say this as teacher; you´re a student in a graduate program!-rsc 



> James 5:14-15 says, "*Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up.* "



You can´t say, otoh, "œI´m not arguing for apostolic phenomena" and then turn around and argue for them. What did I say about all the apostolic phenomena? They occur in the apostolic setting. Does that promise extend in the same way to post-canonical Christian life? No. Does this passage give us hope that God might honor prayers so offered in faith? Yes. Does it bind him to do it? No. I always pray, "œFather, if it be your will"¦.". I think James tell us to say, "œLord willing." 

Nevertheless, the Reformed have reflected on this passage and if someone asks for a visit, we will come and we will anoint them. We do pray and hope. We also pray for grace for those who are struggling with suffering and death, to accept that providence and to endure.

I think I´ve said enough for now. 

As I keep saying Joseph, you need to do a lot more reading (and some more living) before you make theological decisions on these issues. You might read the volumes I recommended above. 

_Gratia et pax tibi._

rsc


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Joseph, it seems the discussion between you and I has turned and I am realizing that by "cessation" you are now referring to God's freedom to heal or illuminate. 

No one here that I know of denies that God is involved in healing whether it be through providence and a non-Christian medical doctor/surgeon, or an instance where the disease/tumor/headache suddenly "œheals itself" or disappears.

No one here that I know denies illumination where we as maturing believers become mighty in the scriptures and are providentially able to recall what we meditate on.

So has such healings and inspirations ceased "“ of course not. I pray for healing and wisdom and discernment. There is no problem with God granting such.

The whole debate regarding Cessationism usually refers to a "œnarrower sense to mean that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit among God's people have ceased."

There is a wide sense in the "œbelief that all supernatural activity of an unusual or miraculous nature has ceased."

My question to you is regarding the narrow definition, are people within the church still empowered with such spiritual gifts of healing, miracles, knowledge and prophecy?

I do not believe that God ever stopped healing or illuminating. But I will suspect an account of someone with a missing limb all of a sudden growing a replacement or someone who never read scripture reciting Psalm 39 in church.

So we can be clear, what is your stance regarding these distinctions?


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> No, I´m not going to apologize. I haven´t sinned in this instance.



Dr. Clark,

You explicitly accused me of not being "content with the signs Christ has promised us."

You explicitly accused me of wanting to "be an apostle".

You also implied that I had some expectation of being able to "raise the dead."


Now, please tell me why you don't think you have sinned in this instance. What warrant did you have for making those accusations? At the very least you could apologize, now that you recognize your accusations were utterly false.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> Joseph, it seems the discussion between you and I has turned and I am realizing that by "cessation" you are now referring to God's freedom to heal or illuminate.
> 
> No one here that I know of denies that God is involved in healing whether it be through providence and a non-Christian medical doctor/surgeon, or an instance where the disease/tumor/headache suddenly "œheals itself" or disappears.
> 
> No one here that I know denies illumination where we as maturing believers become mighty in the scriptures and are providentially able to recall what we meditate on.
> 
> So has such healings and inspirations ceased "“ of course not. I pray for healing and wisdom and discernment. There is no problem with God granting such.
> 
> The whole debate regarding Cessationism usually refers to a "œnarrower sense to mean that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit among God's people have ceased."
> 
> There is a wide sense in the "œbelief that all supernatural activity of an unusual or miraculous nature has ceased."
> 
> My question to you is regarding the narrow definition, are people within the church still empowered with such spiritual gifts of healing, miracles, knowledge and prophecy?



Not that I know of. I don't believe I have ever seen such a thing, nor have I heard a credible account of such a thing. God personally does amazing things, but He doesn't seem to be giving people "gifts" to do such things at will. --- God could still do so if He wanted to, but I don't see evidence that He is doing that kind of thing these days.



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> I do not believe that God ever stopped healing or illuminating. But I will suspect an account of someone with a missing limb all of a sudden growing a replacement or someone who never read scripture reciting Psalm 39 in church.
> 
> So we can be clear, what is your stance regarding these distinctions?



I agree with the distinction. And we both agree that God still heals/illuminates. I happen to believe God can still do anything else He wants to, even though I confess I have never seen such a thing, nor am I seeking it. 

The main story I have repeatedly heard, that seems credible to me, is an idea that fits well into what is called "concentric cessationism", the idea that cessation is true in most parts of the world, but not necessarily in those parts of the world which are hearing the Gospel for the very first time. I don't have any problem believing that God sovereignly may cause a person in a foreign country to speak the gospel in a new language, as a sign to the newly-reached people group. From what you've said, you don't believe this one particular thing happens. But other than that, it sounds like you and I are essentially in agreement.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> No, I´m not going to apologize. I haven´t sinned in this instance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Clark,
> 
> You explicitly accused me of not being "content with the signs Christ has promised us."
> 
> You explicitly accused me of wanting to "be an apostle".
> 
> You also implied that I had some expectation of being able to "raise the dead."
> 
> 
> Now, please tell me why you don't think you have sinned in this instance. What warrant did you have for making those accusations? At the very least you could apologize, now that you recognize your accusations were utterly false.
Click to expand...


These are logical and theological conclusions from the arguments you're making. These are directions your hermeneutic seems to be taking you.

You're making a bi-polar, dialectical argument. When it suits you argue like a Pentecostal and when that is noted and criticized you flee to the other pole, "I'm just arguing for God's freedom to work outside the ordinary means." No one denies the latter -- although one wonders how far you are willing to go. Are you willing to say that God is free to bring folk to faith without the preached gospel? If you say no, one could argue that you are denying God's freedom. You will reply, I guess, unless you're a universalist, that God has willed to reach the elect through the preaching of the gospel. 

I could be wrong in my inferences, but being wrong isn't sin.

Willfully misrepresenting your view would be wrong. I don't think I'm doing this.

As I tried to suggest earlier, I think I've said enough. I don't intend to continue this thread. 

Blessings,

rsc


----------



## non dignus

> One night as they were in bed she sat up and started speaking in the jewish dialect that he was raised with. He said that she wasn't familiar with it and that he hadn't used it since his youth. She didn't know it nor had heard it according to him. As she started speaking the words testified about how Jesus was the Messiah and Saviour of His people. It resulted in his conversion and walk with God.



That is good news. Where are they now? In an Arminian 'church' by any chance because they refuse to let go of their experience that night long ago?

I question the source of a miracle when the subject is thereby converted to TBN theology and defends it 'til the end.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> 
> 
> 
> One night as they were in bed she sat up and started speaking in the jewish dialect that he was raised with. He said that she wasn't familiar with it and that he hadn't used it since his youth. She didn't know it nor had heard it according to him. As she started speaking the words testified about how Jesus was the Messiah and Saviour of His people. It resulted in his conversion and walk with God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is good news. Where are they now? In an Arminian 'church' by any chance because they refuse to let go of their experience that night long ago?
> 
> I question the source of a miracle when the subject is thereby converted to TBN theology and defends it 'til the end.
Click to expand...


I don't know. I didn't say they were converted to TBN theology. I don't know where some of the people I have discipled are. Your attitude is terrible. I am not a fan of TBN. You are very assumptive and blindly critical. Please grow up a little.


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> 
> 
> 
> One night as they were in bed she sat up and started speaking in the jewish dialect that he was raised with. He said that she wasn't familiar with it and that he hadn't used it since his youth. She didn't know it nor had heard it according to him. As she started speaking the words testified about how Jesus was the Messiah and Saviour of His people. It resulted in his conversion and walk with God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is good news. Where are they now? In an Arminian 'church' by any chance because they refuse to let go of their experience that night long ago?
> 
> I question the source of a miracle when the subject is thereby converted to TBN theology and defends it 'til the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know. I didn't say they were converted to TBN theology. I don't know where some of the people I have discipled are. Your attitude is terrible. I am not a fan of TBN. You are very assumptive and blindly critical. Please grow up a little.
Click to expand...


Sir,
I spent three years in the neo-Pentecostal movement. 

I have heard many testimonies similar to the one you relate. They all had one thing in common: they could not be verified. There is a very poor track record of maintaining evidence and witnesses. The reason for slipshod history keeping? They just assume anyone who doesn't believe it at face value is a non-believer. To keep records would portend doubt on the part of the record keeper and be an affront to the Holy Spirit. 

They are tragically caught up in group-think; complete with traditions of superstitious nonsense passed off as holy ghost power. No one would dare utter that the emperor has no clothes. That would ruin the excitement.

and if there is no excitement, there is nothing.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> 
> 
> 
> One night as they were in bed she sat up and started speaking in the jewish dialect that he was raised with. He said that she wasn't familiar with it and that he hadn't used it since his youth. She didn't know it nor had heard it according to him. As she started speaking the words testified about how Jesus was the Messiah and Saviour of His people. It resulted in his conversion and walk with God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is good news. Where are they now? In an Arminian 'church' by any chance because they refuse to let go of their experience that night long ago?
> 
> I question the source of a miracle when the subject is thereby converted to TBN theology and defends it 'til the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know. I didn't say they were converted to TBN theology. I don't know where some of the people I have discipled are. Your attitude is terrible. I am not a fan of TBN. You are very assumptive and blindly critical. Please grow up a little.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sir,
> I spent three years in the neo-Pentecostal movement.
> 
> I have heard many testimonies similar to the one you relate. They all had one thing in common: they could not be verified. There is a very poor track record of maintaining evidence and witnesses. The reason for slipshod history keeping? They just assume anyone who doesn't believe it at face value is a non-believer. To keep records would portend doubt on the part of the record keeper and be an affront to the Holy Spirit.
> 
> They are tragically caught up in group-think; complete with traditions of superstitious nonsense passed off as holy ghost power. No one would dare utter that the emperor has no clothes. That would ruin the excitement.
> 
> and if there is no excitement, there is nothing.
Click to expand...


The gentleman I heard was just sharing his testimony. The situation wasn't in a setting that begged you to believe or join anything specific except that Jesus was the Messiah. I have had a lot of experience in dealing with the Copelandites (Word Faith) and their demonic teaching. I sympathize with your concern but ask that you quit using a blanket to cover all situations. Especially if you don't know them specifically. Name calling is childish. The way you started on this thread was childish also. Especially the way spoke about Baptists.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> I could be wrong in my inferences, but being wrong isn't sin.
> 
> Willfully misrepresenting your view would be wrong. I don't think I'm doing this.
> 
> As I tried to suggest earlier, I think I've said enough. I don't intend to continue this thread.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> rsc



Being wrong and using inferences can be sin. Accusing someone of character flaw is not something to be taken lightly. Especially if the judgment is possibly false. I think that can be called slander. An apology should be given. We are called to serve and love in humility. I believe your assumed inferences about Joe can go a long way being posted on this board. I think you owe Joe an apology.


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> 
> 
> 
> One night as they were in bed she sat up and started speaking in the jewish dialect that he was raised with. He said that she wasn't familiar with it and that he hadn't used it since his youth. She didn't know it nor had heard it according to him. As she started speaking the words testified about how Jesus was the Messiah and Saviour of His people. It resulted in his conversion and walk with God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is good news. Where are they now? In an Arminian 'church' by any chance because they refuse to let go of their experience that night long ago?
> 
> I question the source of a miracle when the subject is thereby converted to TBN theology and defends it 'til the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know. I didn't say they were converted to TBN theology. I don't know where some of the people I have discipled are. Your attitude is terrible. I am not a fan of TBN. You are very assumptive and blindly critical. Please grow up a little.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sir,
> I spent three years in the neo-Pentecostal movement.
> 
> I have heard many testimonies similar to the one you relate. They all had one thing in common: they could not be verified. There is a very poor track record of maintaining evidence and witnesses. The reason for slipshod history keeping? They just assume anyone who doesn't believe it at face value is a non-believer. To keep records would portend doubt on the part of the record keeper and be an affront to the Holy Spirit.
> 
> They are tragically caught up in group-think; complete with traditions of superstitious nonsense passed off as holy ghost power. No one would dare utter that the emperor has no clothes. That would ruin the excitement.
> 
> and if there is no excitement, there is nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gentleman I heard was just sharing his testimony. The situation wasn't in a setting that begged you to believe or join anything specific except that Jesus was the Messiah. I have had a lot of experience in dealing with the Copelandites (Word Faith) and their demonic teaching. I sympathize with your concern but ask that you quit using a blanket to cover all situations. Especially if you don't know them specifically. Name calling is childish. The way you started on this thread was childish also. Especially the way spoke about Baptists.
Click to expand...


The danger in such testimony would be to new converts who are making up their minds which church to join. Arminian 'churches' claim manifestations of God's active attention. True churches on the other hand claim more subtle manifestations. The neophyte is tempted to go after the signs and wonders thinking that God is not present in true churches.

OK. I was a bit sarcastic to my Baptist friends. But I won't compromise the sacraments. Reminding my friends to rethink their perspective is a duty of love. 

and I intend to do alot of loving here.:bigsmile:


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> 
> 
> OK. I was a bit sarcastic to my Baptist friends. But I won't compromise the sacraments. Reminding my friends to rethink their perspective is a duty of love.
> 
> and I intend to do alot of loving here.:bigsmile:


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> I won't compromise the sacraments. Reminding my friends to rethink their perspective is a duty of love.
> 
> and I intend to do alot of loving here.:bigsmile:


----------



## mybigGod

Dr. Clark 
Your most recent post illustrates my point well. To American evangelicals, living with mere Word and Sacrament, living in the valley of redemptive history as it were, sounds like Deism. It isn´t of course, but the fact that it seems so to you is revealing. This is quite like the argument that the confessionalists had with the revivalists in the 1st Great Awakening. As soon as my lot criticized your lot, the latter attacked the former as Deistic and unregenerate. This argument has been going intermittently for centuries and isn´t likely to stop anytime soon.

This is just a false representation of what really happened sir. You do not understand the significance of the impact on reformed evangelical churches. You try to duplicate the mass entrance of members in the reformed churches who became very faithful confessional members. Better than any person attending college to get a degree in name only.In fact its just wrong to attribute mass excitement to Satan, especially when it involves adding to the church more faithful members in that time than all the members put together today. Thank God for revival or you and i would not be singing those hymns. Respectfully.

[Edited on 1-16-2006 by mybigGod]


----------



## turmeric

It ain't necessarily so....


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> This is just a false representation of what really happened sir. You do not understand the significance of the impact on reformed evangelical churches.



Well, it could be that we just disagree.



> You try to duplicate the mass entrance of members in the reformed churches who became very faithful confessional members.



Some accounts argue that church attendance actually dropped after the 1GA!

There is no doubt that the 1GA produced the New Divinity and many Edwards scholars conclude that it was a legitimate development from the 1GA.



> Better than any person attending college to get a degree in name only.



So we're back to Gilbert Tennent again! Did you know that he repented of this sermon?



> In fact its just wrong to attribute mass excitement to Satan...



I don't recall doing this. 



> Thank God for revival or you and i would not be singing those hymns.



You help me make my point. Without the 1 and 2 GA we might well still be singing Psalms (with Calvin and all the 16th and 17th century Reformed) and not tunes by D L Moody and Sister Aimee (as much as Bob Godfrey secretly loves to sing them).

Another such GA and we'll have barking in "evangelical" churches...oh wait, that's already happening.

rsc

[Edited on 1-16-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## Augusta

> ...and not tunes by D L Moody and Sister Aimee (as much as Bob Godfrey secretly loves to sing them).


----------



## BrianBowman

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and not tunes by D L Moody and Sister Aimee (as much as Bob Godfrey secretly loves to sing them).
Click to expand...


Is it true that Bob Godfrey has a "secret crush" on the memory of Aimee Simple McPhearson?


----------



## Robin

Dr. Clark makes an important point with the hymns!

Not to dredge-up EP...I'm going through my library of hymnals (being a professional musician) preparing a set of arrangements, for work. It is quite enlightening to notice/trace the theological content of the hymns and sentimental-religious ballads; from the Geneva Psalter all the way down to the Azusa revival; Roman, Lutheran; to the most recent Trinity Hymnal. A theological-history lesson unto itself...

It's a grief to see the deterioration swell throughout the church-over time; all in the name of "revival."

One can learn an awful lot about theology from reading lots of hymnals; good, bad, ugly, silly. (More fun than reading the phone book!) It could be said that worship music can be an inroad to promoting bad theology.

A danger in Revivalist music: the strong emotional component of music validates a _godly_ origin of the bad theology.

"Revival" = is not what is appears to be, when tested with the Word.


r.


----------



## Robin

The Belgic Confession, Article 7 wisely states:

We believe that this Holy Scripture contains the will of God completely and that everything one must believe to be saved is sufficiently taught in it. For since the entire manner of service which God requires of us is described in it at great length, no one-- even an apostle or an angel from heaven, as Paul says ought to teach other than what the Holy Scriptures have already taught us. For since it is forbidden to add to or subtract from the Word of God, this plainly demonstrates that the teaching is perfect and complete in all respects. 

Therefore we must not consider human writings-- no matter how holy their authors may have been-- equal to the divine writings; nor may we put custom, nor the majority, nor age, nor the passage of time or persons, nor councils, decrees, or official decisions above the truth of God, for truth is above everything else. 

For all human beings are liars by nature and more vain than vanity itself. 

Therefore we reject with all our hearts everything that does not agree with this infallible rule, as we are taught to do by the apostles when they say, "Test the spirits to see if they are of God," and also, "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house."

Selah

Robin


----------



## Augusta




----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and not tunes by D L Moody and Sister Aimee (as much as Bob Godfrey secretly loves to sing them).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it true that Bob Godfrey has a "secret crush" on the memory of Aimee Simple McPhearson?
Click to expand...


There's nothing secret about it!

He'll take us on a tour of Sister's house, tomb, and, in the immortal words of Andy Griffith, "I don't know what all" at the drop of a hat. 

rsc


----------



## mybigGod

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> 
> This is just a false representation of what really happened sir. You do not understand the significance of the impact on reformed evangelical churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it could be that we just disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You try to duplicate the mass entrance of members in the reformed churches who became very faithful confessional members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some accounts argue that church attendance actually dropped after the 1GA!
> 
> There is no doubt that the 1GA produced the New Divinity and many Edwards scholars conclude that it was a legitimate development from the 1GA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better than any person attending college to get a degree in name only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we're back to Gilbert Tennent again! Did you know that he repented of this sermon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact its just wrong to attribute mass excitement to Satan...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't recall doing this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God for revival or you and i would not be singing those hymns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You help me make my point. Without the 1 and 2 GA we might well still be singing Psalms (with Calvin and all the 16th and 17th century Reformed) and not tunes by D L Moody and Sister Aimee (as much as Bob Godfrey secretly loves to sing them).
> 
> Another such GA and we'll have barking in "evangelical" churches...oh wait, that's already happening.
> 
> rsc
> 
> [Edited on 1-16-2006 by R. Scott Clark]
Click to expand...


Name one higher learning institution where every professor or faculty member is a strick confessionalist. What is the percentage of strick confessionalist in american christian higher education?

[Edited on 1-17-2006 by mybigGod]

[Edited on 1-17-2006 by mybigGod]


----------



## turmeric

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and not tunes by D L Moody and Sister Aimee (as much as Bob Godfrey secretly loves to sing them).
Click to expand...


You forgot Fanny Crosby! And whoever that guy was who wrote The Old Account Settled.

" There was a time on earth when in the books of Heaven
An old account was written of sins left unforgiven.
My name was at the top and many things below;
*I went unto the keeper and settled it long ago." *

[Edited on 1-17-2006 by turmeric]


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> Name one higher learning institution where every professor or faculty member is a strick confessionalist. What is the percentage of strick confessionalist in american christian higher education?



I think you want the word "strict." 

Well, let's see, Westminster Seminary California is chock full of strict confessionalists. 

How many schools must I name and to what end?

rsc


----------



## raderag

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> 
> Name one higher learning institution where every professor or faculty member is a strick confessionalist. What is the percentage of strick confessionalist in american christian higher education?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you want the word "strict."
> 
> Well, let's see, Westminster Seminary California is chock full of strict confessionalists.
> 
> How many schools must I name and to what end?
> 
> rsc
Click to expand...


I think many of the Lutheran seminaries (LCMS and WELS) require strict confessionalism. These denoms are much more confessional than Presbyterians as the do not usually allow any exceptions.


----------



## mybigGod

Here is the problem i am having in this discussion. First the books that i want to access are not availible on line so i have a choice between typing them out myself or just going back and forth here. My problem is that i do not agree with you on what is essential and what is non essential. Nor do i agree with you on your view of historical revivals. I can understand you saying that you preferr singing Psalms only ,but when in making them mandatory you are placing yourself above scripture. You also make the world you live in a very small one.
Now you will argue that the road is narrow and you are only obedient to the confession. I could argue that point on any thing i think is essential! I accept your convictions as your personal convictions but i think your insisting that everyone else follow the singing of Psalms is where you are wrong. There is obviously more people in America singing hymns than Psalms.This is confusing the essentials and non essentials historically.

I hold to the confession also. My problem with some of the modern day covenant theologians is that they major on the minors and minor on the majors. In doing this they have shut out most of America because the message is not alive.
You guys read baptism in every confessional statement. The reformers saw the problem with trusting in the "outward " and not focusing on the inward.
The central truth message of the gospel is that not one of us deserves new life and that the first shall be last and the last shall be first. God takes the foolish things of this world and confounds the wise. Understanding this first is incombant on being a strick confessionalist. Any one who thinks hes got this figured out will have his world turned upside down. I might add that revival is the paradigm for uprooting the tear system of man centered institutions.
I do not believe you about the strict confessionalist because there is a difference between signing a statement and actually working it out in the class room. Plus to you being a strick confessionalist is singing Psalms only and i know that is not practiced by the majority of professors. 
You say revival was just an emotional movement.Then you say that the carismatic movement in america is spreading false teaching and is just an emotional movement. Yet they have the majority of the americians. Obviously there is a place for excitement. You can be like an ostrach and use the narrow arguement or you can read Owen on Unity. Now, are all carismatic leaders who have wrong concepts of the Trinity unsaved? Are all of those who sit and listen to them unsaved?
Obviously what we lack today is acknowleging that God could use people outside our denomination even with us having differences in doctrines and being able to publically disagree with one another but acknowleging that God is using these foolish things to get the gospel spread. Also we should be working to persuade others to bring more into our fold. (This has nothing to do with sabbath worship.) M L Jones was a master at this.

[Edited on 1-17-2006 by mybigGod]

[Edited on 1-17-2006 by mybigGod]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> No one doubts that God continues to marvelous things today. Folk do get healed today without medical intervention. Ordinarily, however, they are healed (or not) through the "due use of ordinary means" to borrow from the SC.
> 
> This is not apostolic, however, it is not connected to anyone´s faith or lack thereof, it´s not connected to exercise of any office or ongoing Pentecostal phenomena.
> 
> 
> rsc



I agree with Dr. Clark here. I would like to chime in and say there is a cessation of the Apostolic office I believe. The proof in the pudding is that in Revelation 21:14 there are only twelve Apostles who are identified by there names in the walls. Thus rendering anyone afterwards not a true apostle in the biblical sense.

Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. 

There is cessation. I also do believe that ones trust in Christ and the ability to approach the Throne of Grace do give us who belong to him an ability to petition God for the miraculous. But it is along the lines of James.

(Jam 5:14) Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

(Jam 5:15) And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

(Jam 5:16) Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

I have seen this happen. I will testify to this.


[Edited on 1-17-2006 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I agree with Dr. Clark here. I would like to chime in and say there is a cessation of the Apostolic office I believe. The proof in the pudding is that in Revelation 21:14 there are only twelve Apostles who are identified by there names in the walls. Thus rendering anyone afterwards not a true apostle in the biblical sense.
> 
> Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.



But there were 13 Apostles.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Are you considering Judas....I don't think so. Or Matthias in Acts which was done chosen by lot, unlike Paul who was chosen by Christ. Paul was Chosen by Christ and not by lot, thus rendering him the true Apostle of the twelve. Just my humble opinion.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Are you considering Judas....I don't think so. Or Matthias in Acts which was done chosen by lot, unlike Paul who was chosen by Christ. Paul was Chosen by Christ and not by lot, thus rendering him the true Apostle of the twelve. Just my humble opinion.



I am not considering Judas, but his vacant office. Matthias was selected to fulfill scripture and took over the office left by Judas. So we have to assume Matthias is left out because of a technicality? His calling was not a true Apostolic calling? 

Unlike Paul, Matthias accompanied the other Apostles all the time that Jesus went in and out among them -- beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up -- and became a witness of the resurrection.

I agree with you that the office is no more, but it is easy for someone to respond by saying that the twelve hold a special office of those who were with Jesus since the beginning of His ministry, and after them more Apostles were indeed appointed (like Paul). Revelation 21 does not conclusively resolve the argument that the office of Apostle is no more.

Interesting nonetheless...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Could Peter have been premature in his leadership concerning Judas' replacement?

Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. 

The Psalm doesn't give any command on who is to appoint or how it would be appointed. Peter makes up the guidelines. Are they found in scripture anywhere else? Apostles are strictly chosen by Jesus and not by guidelines or lots. I am not so sure that Matthias is the twelvth Apostle. Acts is not a book to pull much doctrine or practice out of as it is more of an Historical account.

In other words I think Peter could have acted Prematurely. He is not infallible. He usually did react and act rather rashly.

[Edited on 1-18-2006 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Could Peter have been premature in his leadership concerning Judas' replacement?



Possible I suppose. The text does not say, "At this time Peter, *filled with the Holy Spirit (cf: Acts 4:8)*, stood up in the midst of the brethren, and said...."

This took place before the Joel Prophecy was fulfilled. We know from the gospels that Peter was quite rash at times prior to Pentecost.

That would be the only conclusion that can be made as far as I can see.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Peter also made other blunders such as going back to the circumcision which Paul confronted him about. Being an Apostle didn't make one perfect in all ways. I also believe that Pauls attitude toward John Mark may have been rather harsh. Thank God for Barnabas the Encourager who took Mark and separated from Paul. The Apostles didn't see all things perfectly but the written word of God is perfect. It reveals frailty in them and soundness, pureness, infallibility, and no error in all of the Scripture. We have a sure footing we can rely on. 

[Edited on 1-18-2006 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## A2JC4life

I find the arrogant attitudes of some of the posts in this thread offensive.  Is it really necessary to be sarcastic toward those brothers with which we disagree, simply because we disagree with them? If you are going to scoff at those of us (yes, I am one) who believe the gifts have NOT passed away, it is only fair that you be able to produce a compelling SCRIPTURE-BASED argument for your own position. Otherwise, is it too much to ask that you be RESPECTFUL in your discussion with/of us?

My husband and I believe that the typical "charismatic" church today is in error - usually the same errors addressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians. However, we believe that cessationists are just as out-of-balance as those who abuse the gifts. If we could ever, even once, hear a rational, Scriptural argument for the cessationist position, perhaps we would change our minds but, so far, that hasn't happened. The response we get is usually either a) I'm not going to talk about it, because it causes division (makes us wonder if they have anything to talk ABOUT), b) 1 Cor. 13 says prophecy will cease, and it's talking about the canon of Scripture (Do you still KNOW anything? Do you know EVERYTHING? Has KNOWLEDGE ceased? Among other things, this is a serious flaw in this particular application of this verse/passage.), or c) an emotional response that says that because I haven't experienced the gifts or because I have experienced an abuse of the gifts, I would rather just claim cessationism than actually deal with a Scriptural balance as described at length in 1 Corinthians.

I would love to see a cessationist sincerely and respectfully answer any or all of the following questions:

1) On what basis are you a cessationist? (Can you provide SCRIPTURE, or just opinion?)

2) On what basis do you assume that the only purpose for prophecy is/was the production of Scripture? (I can provide Scripture that asserts, or at LEAST strongly implies, the contrary. There are those we KNOW prophecied in NT times, because the Bible tells us so, but we do not have any of their prophecies in Scripture. The Corinthians were given specific instructions regarding how they were to properly use the gift of prophecy, but none of their prophecies are part of the canon of Scripture, nor were they given any instructions about passing these along to other local fellowships. There appears to be a clear distinction between God's Word for all Christians of all places and times, and God's word for a specific person or people at a particular time - which must, of course, line up with Scripture, what we know of the character of God, etc. God loves us individually as well as corporately.)

3) How is it consistent with covenant theology to say, in effect, that "that was only for THAT dispensation"?

4) (For many...) Why does it make you so upset to have to present a rational Scriptural argument for your position on this particular teaching, when you are well-acquainted with making similar arguments for other teaching in other areas (such as, for example, predestination)?

If cessationism really is SO obviously the more biblically-correct teaching, it should be very, very easy to present a rational, compelling argument with a Scriptural foundation.


----------



## 5solasmom

A2JC4life said:


> I find the arrogant attitudes of some of the posts in this thread offensive.  Is it really necessary to be sarcastic toward those brothers with which we disagree, simply because we disagree with them? If you are going to scoff at those of us (yes, I am one) who believe the gifts have NOT passed away, it is only fair that you be able to produce a compelling SCRIPTURE-BASED argument for your own position. Otherwise, is it too much to ask that you be RESPECTFUL in your discussion with/of us?
> 
> My husband and I believe that the typical "charismatic" church today is in error - usually the same errors addressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians. However, we believe that cessationists are just as out-of-balance as those who abuse the gifts. If we could ever, even once, hear a rational, Scriptural argument for the cessationist position, perhaps we would change our minds but, so far, that hasn't happened. The response we get is usually either a) I'm not going to talk about it, because it causes division (makes us wonder if they have anything to talk ABOUT), b) 1 Cor. 13 says prophecy will cease, and it's talking about the canon of Scripture (Do you still KNOW anything? Do you know EVERYTHING? Has KNOWLEDGE ceased? Among other things, this is a serious flaw in this particular application of this verse/passage.), or c) an emotional response that says that because I haven't experienced the gifts or because I have experienced an abuse of the gifts, I would rather just claim cessationism than actually deal with a Scriptural balance as described at length in 1 Corinthians.
> 
> I would love to see a cessationist sincerely and respectfully answer any or all of the following questions:
> 
> 1) On what basis are you a cessationist? (Can you provide SCRIPTURE, or just opinion?)
> 
> 2) On what basis do you assume that the only purpose for prophecy is/was the production of Scripture? (I can provide Scripture that asserts, or at LEAST strongly implies, the contrary. There are those we KNOW prophecied in NT times, because the Bible tells us so, but we do not have any of their prophecies in Scripture. The Corinthians were given specific instructions regarding how they were to properly use the gift of prophecy, but none of their prophecies are part of the canon of Scripture, nor were they given any instructions about passing these along to other local fellowships. There appears to be a clear distinction between God's Word for all Christians of all places and times, and God's word for a specific person or people at a particular time - which must, of course, line up with Scripture, what we know of the character of God, etc. God loves us individually as well as corporately.)
> 
> 3) How is it consistent with covenant theology to say, in effect, that "that was only for THAT dispensation"?
> 
> 4) (For many...) Why does it make you so upset to have to present a rational Scriptural argument for your position on this particular teaching, when you are well-acquainted with making similar arguments for other teaching in other areas (such as, for example, predestination)?
> 
> If cessationism really is SO obviously the more biblically-correct teaching, it should be very, very easy to present a rational, compelling argument with a Scriptural foundation.



Rachel!!!  

Welcome to PB! Fancy seeing you here!  

Dawn from HK


----------



## 5solasmom

I guess "welcome" doesn't really fit being that you've been here since last July.   

Well anywho....sorry all for the slight hijack!


----------



## gwine

> I find the arrogant attitudes of some of the posts in this thread offensive.


You need to consider the fact that this thread is a year old and doesn't even have some of the players on the PB anymore You might want to read some of the other threads from the time period as well. People sinned, people repented, and we moved on. And today, people are still sinning and people are still repenting. And, by God's grace, we will become more like Him as we learn how to interact here.

Just read the newer threads and compare them to the older ones. I've been here long enough that I can say that, even though we are still not like-minded (and never will be this side of heaven) and we still have a stubborn streak, there is more civility now than in the past, even with the newer members who have joined.



> John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.
> John 13:35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."


----------

