Accurately understanding "Reformed continuationism"

Status
Not open for further replies.
That won't work, since Jude said that while the gifts were operative, so the faith once delivered must by necessity include those gifts. But that's only if you want to use that argument.

The sign gifts were used By God to show that the Faith was authentic and real that the Apostles delivered, but the Faith delivered to us is the written revelation of the scriptures, not the Gifts.
 
God can still divinely heal even today, but none have been given that gift to heal, as its God doing it directly.

Again, that is an assertion. You are to *prove* that statement.

But part of the difficulty, as I've pointed out numerous times in this thread, is that both the Benny Hinn types and some cessationists think that anyone who has the gift of healing can heal whenever, just like New testament times. Except even in New Testament times, those who had the gift couldn't always heal.
 
but the Faith delivered to us is the written revelation of the scriptures, not the Gifts.

That is false, because when Jude wrote that statement, he necessarily wasn't talking about the Scriptures (since his letter wasn't yet Scripture, nor, probably, was Revelation).
 
So you would the Lord still operating today in all of the same ways did recorded to us down in Acts? Gifts of tongues, healings, and miracles for example?

Like on the mission field, yes. I leave tongues as an outlier because I am not sure exegetically what I think on that. Neither cessationist nor continuationist have me convinced.
 
As to "sign gifts," sure, some miracles validate the message or messenger. But some in the NT had nothing to do with that. If I or another person receive words in a dream from an angel, I am going to chalk that up to something "more than natural." But it isn't necessarily a "sign." Sign for whom?

26 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert place. 27 And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship 28 and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot” (Acts 8:26-29).

9 The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat” (Acts 10:9-13).


9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing there, urging him and saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” 10 And when Paul had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them

(Acts 16:9-10).
9 And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, “Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, 10 for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people”

And if they are "sign-gifts," and the gospel needed to be attested by power, then that means they must be (and usually are) operative on the mission field.
 
As to "sign gifts," sure, some miracles validate the message or messenger. But some in the NT had nothing to do with that. If I or another person receive words in a dream from an angel, I am going to chalk that up to something "more than natural." But it isn't necessarily a "sign." Sign for whom?

26 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert place. 27 And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship 28 and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot” (Acts 8:26-29).

9 The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat” (Acts 10:9-13).

9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing there, urging him and saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” 10 And when Paul had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them

(Acts 16:9-10).
9 And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, “Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, 10 for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people”

And if they are "sign-gifts," and the gospel needed to be attested by power, then that means they must be (and usually are) operative on the mission field.
Everything that happened in your quotes above were part of that unique time in which God worked through extraordinary means. It all testified to the coming of Christ and the ministry of the Apostles as sent by him. "Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds." (2 Corinthians 12:12). "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:30, 31).

It is the signs and wonders written about that now testify to Christ and his ministry through his apostles, not our continuing to perform them.
 
It is the signs and wonders written about that now testify to Christ and his ministry through his apostles, not our continuing to perform them.

Sure, but if I am at the hospital praying for healing, and I am a Christian, and God heals, that really doesn't have anything to do with proving Jesus is the Christ. And sometimes God heals out of compassion, whether they are "signs" or not.

Don't get me wrong. Some of these are signs, but noting they are signs doesn't prove that a) only the special gifts are sign gifts, b) they've ceased today (even though Paul never labels them as such in his epistles when he is talking about them*), and c) even if they happen, more often than not they don't have anything to do with Christ's economic ministry.

*Paul does note that tongues and prophecies are a sign for believer or unbeliever, but that has little to do with attesting the apostolic ministry.
 
Sure, but if I am at the hospital praying for healing, and I am a Christian, and God heals, that really doesn't have anything to do with proving Jesus is the Christ. And sometimes God heals out of compassion, whether they are "signs" or not.

That's my point; the signs and wonders of the apostolic age whether healing, or any other miracle, or visions and dreams, are no longer needed, in fact are precluded since to claim they're needed is to undermine God's means of evangelism which is through the powerful working of the word of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Edit to say: just in case it's not clear, I don't think anyone has said, or would say, that God doesn't have compassion on us and help us in many unseen ways, including healing us if that is his will. It is up to the workings of his providential will for us.
 
Last edited:
Jeri-

To answer your question to me, I don't know for sure, but I think it is linked to times when I am very devoted to intercession.

I also think it is more prevalent than we think but people are not aware of it in these terms . Recently I twice had cessationist women tell me that they had felt specifically led to pray for me and asked how I was doing. I told one that I had just had a molar pulled and a terrible jawbone abcess and was on narcotics and wanted to be dead for a day it was so bad. Something else was going on when the other one was praying.

I told them it was the holy spirit speaking to them and what I call a word of knowledge to pray for somebody and they just grinned. Call it what you like, it is the direct personal experiential reality of the holy spirit. I think the more we are devoted to prayer perhaps the more this will happen, but I can't say for certain. But I think we should be on the alert to those little inner impressions, and maybe call the person or write a note.....or give money or offer to help them out in some way. There is much suffering out there.
 
I think Earl40 was clear that miracles don't happen today.
Regeneration is the miracle that still happens- God raises dead people to life. I agree with Earl that miracles worked through men as seen in Scripture have ceased. When speaking of God healing, I meant that his unseen Providences may bring a turn for the better in health. That can happen to unbelievers as well as to Christians. The unbeliever feels lucky, the Christian thanks God, but the Christian also thanks God if not healed.
 
Jeri-

To answer your question to me, I don't know for sure, but I think it is linked to times when I am very devoted to intercession.

I also think it is more prevalent than we think but people are not aware of it in these terms . Recently I twice had cessationist women tell me that they had felt specifically led to pray for me and asked how I was doing. I told one that I had just had a molar pulled and a terrible jawbone abcess and was on narcotics and wanted to be dead for a day it was so bad. Something else was going on when the other one was praying.

I told them it was the holy spirit speaking to them and what I call a word of knowledge to pray for somebody and they just grinned. Call it what you like, it is the direct personal experiential reality of the holy spirit. I think the more we are devoted to prayer perhaps the more this will happen, but I can't say for certain. But I think we should be on the alert to those little inner impressions, and maybe call the person or write a note.....or give money or offer to help them out in some way. There is much suffering out there.
Thanks Lynnie. I appreciate your giving nature. Yet the experiences you claim set you apart from other people who (mistakenly) long for them but don’t have them. Why you and not others? It implies that if others who don’t hear from God in this way were more devoted to intercessory prayer and paid more attention to inner promptings, then they’d be led by the Spirit more often in the ways you’ve described.

Priscilla Shirer and Beth Moore basically teach the same thing and also relate their experiences with hearing from God. It comes down to being obedient or disobedient- disobedient if you ignore an inner prompting from the Holy Spirit. A serious charge.

Or is God just making friendly suggestions, ok if you didn’t hear him clearly, he’ll try again later when you’re more prayed up and paying better attention?
 
It's gift. God doesn't owe people gifts.

A gift that makes someone special. Make no mistake it makes them special, like those described in the bible. If God spoke to them directly or prompted them to pray differently, other than through the ordinary means He works with people today, that person is special like the Apostles.
 
A gift that makes someone special. Make no mistake it makes them special, like those described in the bible. If God spoke to them directly or prompted them to pray differently, other than through the ordinary means He works with people today, that person is special like the Apostles.

That's called the sin of pride, and one that applies to every gift. I have the gift of teaching and sometimes I feel really special teaching and then God had to humble me.

other than through the ordinary means He works with people today

That begs the question. If we were in Africa or Asia, we would be weird and they would be normal. Hume's principle of analogy would then work against us.
 
That's called the sin of pride, and one that applies to every gift. I have the gift of teaching and sometimes I feel really special teaching and then God had to humble me.

May I ask if you have in mind the following?
"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;"
Or are you thinking that you are a teacher of Math, English or some other subject in a public or private school?

Either way a teacher is special in that that calling is above the student.
 
May I ask if you have in mind the following?
"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;"
Or are you thinking that you are a teacher of Math, English or some other subject in a public or private school?

Either way a teacher is special in that that calling is above the student.

I have the gift of verbally communicating knowledge, both in a church and school setting (though I am not currently teaching in a church setting).

I don't have a logical problem with the word "special," but it does carry negative connotations, which is why I shy from using it.
 
That begs the question. If we were in Africa or Asia, we would be weird and they would be normal. Hume's principle of analogy would then work against us.

No begging here. I am saying that if anyone thinks they are seeing miracles or getting a word of knowledge, be it in Africa or Asia are simply wrong.
 
No begging here. I am saying that if anyone thinks they are seeing miracles or getting a word of knowledge, be it in Africa or Asia are simply wrong.

That is your conclusion. That is not a premised argument. Simply stating it by itself doesn't compel belief. Logically, one could refute your position by a single counter example. That's the danger with universal negatives. But we won't go there, since you have a priori ruled out any counter-examples to your position.
 
We need to nail down what "word of knowledge" meant in Scripture before trying to figure out whether later claims to a "word of knowledge" are valid claims.
 
We need to nail down what "word of knowledge" meant in Scripture before trying to figure out whether later claims to a "word of knowledge" are valid claims.

I had to give away my commentaries on Corinthians, but I will take a stab.

***...for I dare not say that since the days of the apostles there has never been, or that to the end of the world there shall never be, any raised up by God with such gifts, and for such administrations, as I have now described to be proper to prophets and evangelists, i.e., the foretelling of things to come... (George Gillespie, Miscellany Questions , Chapter 5, section 7, p. 30).***

I like where Gillespie is going, but I think word of knowledge is more about what is happening now, rather than a prediction of the future.

I think a good example is when Spurgeon received a word of knowledge about a thief in his congregation.
 
I had to give away my commentaries on Corinthians, but I will take a stab.

***...for I dare not say that since the days of the apostles there has never been, or that to the end of the world there shall never be, any raised up by God with such gifts, and for such administrations, as I have now described to be proper to prophets and evangelists, i.e., the foretelling of things to come... (George Gillespie, Miscellany Questions , Chapter 5, section 7, p. 30).***

I like where Gillespie is going, but I think word of knowledge is more about what is happening now, rather than a prediction of the future.

I think a good example is when Spurgeon received a word of knowledge about a thief in his congregation.
Jacob, I found that page here. Whatever else Gillespie is saying here in the full context of this chapter, it must be understood he's talking about the work of evangelists in taking the gospel: "...never be any raised up by God with such gifts, and for such administrations, as I have now described to be proper to Prophets and Evangelists..." I doubt that Gillespie has anything of the sort in mind that we're discussing in this thread, and which is the stuff of modern-day continuationism. For charismatics, the extraordinary is now the ordinary. Anyone can do it!
 
Last edited:
Jacob, I found that page here. Whatever else Gillespie is saying here in the full context of this chapter, it must be understood he's talking about the work of evangelists in taking the gospel: "...never be any raised up by God with such gifts, and for such administrations, as I have now described to be proper to Prophets and Evangelists..." I doubt that Gillespie has anything of the sort in mind that we're discussing in this thread, and which is the stuff of modern-day continuationism. For charismatics, the extraordinary is now the ordinary. Anyone can do it!

At the bare minimum, Gillespie rebuts extreme cessationism.
 
At the bare minimum, Gillespie rebuts extreme cessationism.
I have posted on this a couple of times going back to 2005 the year I joined the board. I compiled or at least became aware of this years before and posted on it in 1996 to the old Covieforum email group. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/525/page-6#post-127378
Since then Milne has covered most of the Puritan material in his 2007 published thesis. The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Cessation of Special Revelation The Majority Puritan Viewpoint on Whether Extra-Biblical Prophecy is Still Possible BY Garnet Howard Milne FOREWORD BY Joel Beeke
 
Well, ‘rebuts’ is too strong- he basically says that he would never say never. :)

Rebuts is the correct word. "Refutes" would be too strong. Refute is when you show the other position isn't truth-preserving. Rebut is when you offer a counter to their position. My use of Gillespie is to suggest that hyper-cessationism might be wrong. That is a rebuttal. The cessationist has a number of outs:

a) Gillespie is simply wrong.
b) These are corrupted texts.
c) Cessationism needs to be modified to account for Gillespie.

Because (a)-(c) exist, I can't use Gillespie to refute cessationism. I can rebut aspects of it, though.
 
Rebuts is the correct word. "Refutes" would be too strong. Refute is when you show the other position isn't truth-preserving. Rebut is when you offer a counter to their position. My use of Gillespie is to suggest that hyper-cessationism might be wrong. That is a rebuttal. The cessationist has a number of outs:

a) Gillespie is simply wrong.
b) These are corrupted texts.
c) Cessationism needs to be modified to account for Gillespie.

Because (a)-(c) exist, I can't use Gillespie to refute cessationism. I can rebut aspects of it, though.
If Gillespie was arguing against a position, I will give you “rebuttal.” But if he was just stating something in the midst of a treatise, I don’t. His saying that would only rebut the notion that Gillespie was opposed to extraordinary acts of the Spirit after the Apostles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top