-

Status
Not open for further replies.
PuritanSailor:

1. I don't think Agabus' prophecy was separate from the office of prophet. I think that "prophecy" in the NT functioned in three ways:
a) revelation (1 Cor. 14:30,31)
b) edification/exhortation (1 Cor 14:4)
c) prediction (Acts 11:28)

The significant thing I see in Agabus is that all that is recorded about his ministry is predictive prophecy, though he is mentioned in the office of a prophet twice.

2. In Acts 2, where we are given the description of the gift of tongues, those present "heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear we ever man in our own tongue, wherein we were born.... (then the list of the different people groups) ...we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God."

If you were suddenly enabled, while trying to give testimony to the wonderful works of God, to cross the boundary of language and be understood in a different tongue, then what would make you think it is not a non-revelatory form of this gift?

3. 1 Cor 14:6 lists revelation and doctrine as distinct from prophecy. If prophecy always equalled revelation or doctrine, why the distinction? Also, there were others who prophesied about Paul's imprisonment at Jerusalem. These predictions are not "revelatory" in the sense of binding doctrine. We are bound to believe it now only because the fulfillment of the prediction was inscripturated. But precisely because of that, I believe Agabus & these others are significant, as an example of predictive, non-revelatory prophecy.
As to tongues, the same verse seems to indicate that the tongue speaking is useless unless it is involved in one of these activites. Some of them do not involve revelation.

4. Both. Let me illustrate by asking you this: why do you believe that you sin? Is it because you find it consistent with experience, or scripture?

Obviously, I find the possibility taught in Scripture because of all of the above. I also wonder about the four daughters of Phillip who prophesied- if their prophesy was in the function of revelation, then what they said would have been binding, not just for other women, but for the whole church. As such, wouldn't they be in a position of authority over the men? (I am not sure about this argument, but considering that there are several functions of the gift of prophesy, it is wholly possible that the four daughters edified other women, or predicted events). Also, there is such a large volume of prophesying/tongue speaking that was not inscripturated. I do not believe that means it was automatically not revelatory; but there is a good gap where some, even much of this activity might not involve revelation, as indicated in 1 Cor. 14.
More than anything, there is no place in Scripture where it can be proved the Holy Spirit has told us He will cease operating in this way. I know that "whether there be prophecies, they shall fail" has been brought up, but consider this quote from a very good article defending your position by Lee Irons (arguments are compiled by him from Richard Gaffin & other sources):

'An agnostic note on I Corinthians 13:8-13
Some Cessationists, looking for the silver bullet argument against the continuance of tongues and prophecy, have attempted to identify "the perfect" with the completion of the NT canon. However, the better Cessationist exegetes admit that this interpretation cannot be sustained exegetically. The coming of "the perfect" (v. 10) must coincide with the coming of Christ, for it is only then that we will know even as we are known (v. 12).
If this is admitted, are we then forced to the opposite conclusion - that tongues and prophecy will continue until the Parousia? Not necessarily. "Paul might well have also mentioned inscripturation as a mode of revelation" which, like prophecy and tongues, is a "partial" mode of knowing God which will be superseded by "the perfect" at the Parousia. "But inscripturation has ceased. And if that be granted, then it is gratuitous to insist that this passage teaches that the modes of revelation mentioned, prophecy and tongues, are to continue functioning in the church until Christ's return." (Gaffin, p. 111)
"The time of the cessation of prophecy and tongues is an open question so far as this passage is concerned and will have to be decided on the basis of other passages and considerations." (Gaffin, p. 111) '
(In order to be fair, here is the link to the article, which is very good: http://www.upper-register.com/other_studies/prophecy_tongues.html)

I agree with Tryph and others that unless we have the authority of Scripture limiting the Holy Spirit's intervention in certain ways, it is presumptuous for us to do so.
I find it more consistent with Scripture not to deny the facts of experience, when the facts involved have to be either ignored or twisted to fit the pattern of a lie/delusion in order to believe that the supernatural intervention could not be the work of the Holy Spirit.
 
Heidi,

We must always resist the notion that a doctrine is not Biblical unless we can give a Biblical quotation stating the doctrine. If we hold to that standard, the Trinity is gone.

Consider the following:

1. Why does God reveal Himself?
2. In what ways (generally speaking) does He reveal Himself?
3. What does God accomplish in those ways?
4. What is the purpose of the Bible?
5. What would be the purpose of ongoing revelation?

Let me have your thoughts there and we can go on.
 
[quote:5761547e8b][i:5761547e8b]Originally posted by a mere housewife[/i:5761547e8b]
I agree with Tryph and others that unless we have the authority of Scripture limiting the Holy Spirit's intervention in certain ways, it is presumptuous for us to do so.
I find it more consistent with Scripture not to deny the facts of experience, when the facts involved have to be either ignored or twisted to fit the pattern of a lie/delusion in order to believe that the supernatural intervention could not be the work of the Holy Spirit. [/quote:5761547e8b]

I agree that we should not deny the facts of experience. But I disagree with your interpretation of those experiences. We cannot base doctrine on our interpretations of human experience, but on the Word of God. You are assuming it was a fact that men like Knox and Peden uttered these prophecies through the Holy Spirit. But that is what you have to prove from Scripture. We must judge the experience from the Word of God.

And this illustrates the flaw in your interpretation of these men. Prophecies in the NT were issued by people with the office of [i:5761547e8b]prophet[/i:5761547e8b] or apostle. Where in the NT does prophecy occur outside the offices of prophet or apostle? Agabus was a prophet. Phillip's daughters were prophets (and probably served women as you suggested). These offices were just like the offices of elder and deacon. They were overseen by the church. The spirits of the prophets were subject to the prophets (1Cor. 14;32). It is because of this I feel I can say with good authority in Scripture that such gifts have ceased. Even the "non-revelatory" prophecies you mentioned in the NT were still done by prophets and subject to the prophets.

Peden and Knox's predictions do not fit this NT description of prophecy. The prophecies were not under the oversight of the church authorities nor did they edify the church with these prophecies. They did not exercise the office of prophet in the church and were not subject to the spirit of the prophets. What other prophets were there to verify their predictions were of God? Just because we esteem these men, doesn't mean they were right in doing these things, nor does their correct prediction demand that such predictions were of God. It is entirely possible that they may have erred by uttering these predictions no matter how accurate they were.
 
I eat Post Mills for breakfast. But it makes me barfy:barfy:



[quote:54ca3e5a2c]
amil all the way baby!
[/quote:54ca3e5a2c]

:D
 
Mr. Greco,

Thanks for your response. It is not that I want a chapter & verse that "The Holy Spirit will no longer give these gifts." It is that I don't see in Scripture any support for the teaching that He no longer will supernaturally intervene in this way. The doctrine of the Trinity is implied all throughout Scripture, and in many places, it is inescapable. The teaching that the Holy Spirit will no longer work through predictions or tongues in the church has not been presented to me with the same inescapability of Scripture. If Scripture does not support it, why should it be the default position? The default position is that the Holy Spirit is sovereign, unlimited.

To answer your questions (please understand that I am answering to the best of my ability, not with a theological book open, and am willing to be corrected):
1. God reveals Himself because it is the purpose of creation to communicate His glory to intelligent creatures, specifically in redemption. All revelation points to the redemption of His people.

2. God reveals Himself now through His word. He communicates, though, through various means: such as providence, the means of grace, & supernatural interventions. All of these are subject to Scripture, and do not constitute new revelation.

3. He accomplishes the total redemption of His people from sin.

4. The purpose of the Bible is to be the authoritative and complete revelation of God, through which we receive knowledge and grace.

5. I don't believe there is any ongoing revelation. I don't think that a prediction or a person speaking what is already revealed in a different tongue is a new revelation. It is a means God has used to communicate with us & sustain us, just as He uses preaching or providence itself to do these things. But it is subject the word of God.

PuritanSailor:

I don't believe that I am basing my doctrine on experiences. I don't assume that men like Knox and Peden uttered through the Holy Spirit. I assume that unless Scripture teaches differently, the Holy Spirit is able to give predictions.
Scripture clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit did do this. Does Scripture teach that the Holy Spirit no longer does?
Is there any issue with my demonstration that even in NT times, they functioned both revelationally and non-revelationally? Because if not, then the fact that revelation has ceased does not bar the non-revelatory form of these gifts from still being granted to the church.
Were Phillip's daughters prophets? You assume that because they prophesied. Saul was not a prophet, yet Saul prophesied. Jonathan Edwards pointed out that the Holy Spirit can give a prophesy to anyone.
I think that your contention that they did not edify the church with these prophecies is not taking into account that members of the body (at least in Peden's case: I haven't read the account of Knox) were strengthened and sustained by the predictions given.
I think I should revise what I said earlier: the office of prophet may still exist-- the gift of prophesy may still be given to individuals, but it only functions in a non-revelatory form. There is never any indication in Scripture that prophets had revelation "under their control." Certainly, they could refrain from speaking (as could Knox and Peden); but revelation was not at their beck & call, neither was insight into the future.
How were they not subject to the church? If I visited a sick lady and encouraged her from Scripture without first okaying it with my deacons, would this be outside of the church? They were members of the church, and the church could have restrained their predictions. They were subject to Scripture, and, as such, their elders/deacons could have reproved them if what they spoke was against Scripture. It does not seem that all predictions took place inside the church building, in the assemblies.
I am very unwilling to say that Peden and Knox were in error. Their predictions pass the test given to us in Dueteronomy of accuracy & orthodoxy: there was no incorrect doctrinal content: they did not use the gift as false prophets to corrupt the doctrine of the church. Do you have Scriptural support for chalking up what has the signs of an intervention of the Holy Spirit to a false spirit?
 
Me Died Blue wrote: "But I am saying that no matter what you believe about them, if you believe God still uses prophecy today of any type, you either have to adopt some form of a fallible prophecy view, or else you have to deny Sola Scriptura. There's no way around it--if today's "prophecies" are of the same nature and authority as those in biblical times, we can kiss Sola Scriptura goodbye. If they are not, you have to accept that they are prophecies of some lesser nature, even if you don't totally agree with, say, Grudem or Piper on their nature."

I disagree. I imagine we understand Sola Scriptura differently. There is a thread on the church history web site that indirectly addresses this. In any event, it sounds like you take a view that Heiko Oberman and others have classified as Tradition 0, which is representative of anabaptsists of the Reformation era and is the dominant view in modern evangelical circles today. I advocate a more classic Reformed Tradition 1. This is exaplined in the other thread. I would also refer you to the best book on the subject The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison (although it does not address continuing revelation).

Anyway, revelation of gospel truth is ceased. Jesus is the Final Word. That is the meaning of the WCF. That is what also defines the contours of the canon. As Puritajns, Reformed, and Westminster divines recopgnized, that does not mean that God does not speak with new revelation in any sense. There is a difference between "Go to China and be a missionary" and "justification is by faith alone." Puritans and Reformed recognized the substantive differences and that is why we see the existience of new revelation built into Reformed ecclesiastical documents (such as the Church of Scotland's Book of Church Order) and Reformed / Puritan writings (such as Baxter's Christian Directory). If you want to see how they categorized different classes of revelation, see the sessional paper I cited earlier (especially the writings of Rutherford and Gillespie) or Baxter's Christian directory. They did not approach the matter in a way even faintly resembling Grudem. Yet, they are also different from the complete cessasionists of today.

It is also not the case that every new revelation is automatically on par with scripture. Else, Deut. 18 would be friviolous and unintelligible. There may be an ontolongical sameness but there is not an epistomological sameness, which is the point of Deut. 18.

You raised an issue about the canon somewhere along the line (and I was only able to skim most of the messages). The canon is more than a collection of God's revelations. It is only those revelations that God entrusted as having a permanent role in the worship of the church. Many revelations do not warrant this (indeed, there were a number described in the Bible that were not recorded, such as ones given to individuals that were to be sealed up).


Scott
 
The WCF is not a complete cessasionist document. It is cessationist in the primary sense that I have described and quoted others on, those regarding gospel truths. The sessional paper I cited makes that point adequately and explains where new revelation is open. There is no need to except to the Confession if one takes the view of the Church of Scotland, Gillespie, Baxter, Rutherford, Knox, Calvin, Luther, et al.

Scott
 
[quote:e86a8605bd][i:e86a8605bd]Originally posted by Scott[/i:e86a8605bd]
The WCF is not a complete cessasionist document. It is cessationist in the primary sense that I have described and quoted others on, those regarding gospel truths. The sessional paper I cited makes that point adequately and explains where new revelation is open. There is no need to except to the Confession if one takes the view of the Church of Scotland, Gillespie, Baxter, Rutherford, Knox, Calvin, Luther, et al.

Scott [/quote:e86a8605bd]

Scott,

With all due respect, I believe that you are confusing revelation with illumination. Revelation is by definition binding, and implies the insufficiency of the Word.

"Go to China as a missionary" is more correctly taken as a prompting of the Spirit as to the truth of the Word (say Romans 10:14ff) than direct revelation from God.

The WCF is a completely cessationist document as far as revelation goes, but obviously the Spirit still speaks to the believer - just always in accordance with what has been revealed in the Word.
 
Fred:

I am referring to the distinctions outlined by Rutherford, Baxter et al (I did not make these up). They did not mean inward illumination. The WCF is cessationist in some categories but not others.

Scott
 
scott, heres a question:

there's been plenty of times that i would be speaking to someone about the Gospel and on the way home, i think back to what i said and i wonder where in the world did i get that from. How could i articulate the doctrines of grace so well. Verses ive read once and for some reason they popped out of no where.

What would you call that?
 
Fred (and others):

I am making distinction used by Rutherford, Baxter, et al. Below is a quote from Rutherford, in which he divides internal revelation into the four following categories.

(1) Prophetical revelation;
(2) Revelation special to the elect only;
(3) Revelation of some facts peculiar to godly men;
(4) False and satanical revelation.

I think the area of disagreement we have is over item 3. Here is a quote from Samuel Rutherford, A Survey of Spiritual Antichrist (London, 1648):


1. Prophetical revelation is that irradiation of the mind that the Holy Ghost makes on the mind and judgment of the penmen of holy scripture, whether prophets or apostles and that by an immediate inbreathing of the mind and will of God on them, whether in visions, dreams, or any other way, without men, or the ministry or teaching of men, as he did to Isaiah, Jeremiah, Isa. 1:1; Jer. 1:1 or to Paul Gal. 1:1.

2. There is a special internal revelation, made of things in scripture, applied in particular to the souls of elect believers, by which, having heard and learned of the Father, Jn. 6:4; there is made known and revealed to them, by the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, what is the hope of their calling, and what is the riches of the glory of the inheritance in the saints, Eph. 1:17-19, and that revealed to them, which flesh and blood reveals not, but the Father of Christ, Matt. 16:17. And that which the Father reveals unto babes, and hides from the wise, and prudent, Matt. 11:25-26.

3. There is a 3rd revelation of some particular men, who have foretold things to come even since [b:5e59e49f5f]the ceasing of the canon of the word[/b:5e59e49f5f], as John Huss, Wycliffe, Luther, have foretold things to come, and they certainly fell out. And in our nation of Scotland, Mr. George Wishart foretold that Cardinal Beaton should not come out alive at the gates of the Castle of St. Andrews, but that he should die a shameful death; and he was hanged over the window that he did look out at, when he saw the man of God burnt. Mr. Knox prophesied of the hanging of the Lord of Grange. Mr. John Davidson uttered prophesies, known to many of the kingdom, diverse holy and mortified preachers in England have done the like.

4. No Familists, or Antinomians - no David George, nor H. Nicholas, no man ever of that gang, Randel or Wheelwright, or Den, or any other - that ever I heard of, being once engaged in the familistical way, ever did utter any but the fourth sort of lying and false inspirations. Mrs. Hutchison said she should be delivered from the Court of Boston miraculously as Daniel from the lions, which proved false. Becold prophesied of the deliverance of the town of Munster which was delivered to their enemies, and he and his prophet were tortured and hanged. David George prophesied of the raising of himself from the dead, which was never fulfilled.


Scott
 
Scott:

That is cool. That is the sense I was referring to also.

I think the point we all agree on is that the Canon is closed.

[Edited on 4-1-2004 by Wintermute]
 
BTW, I think Calvin had a similar understanding of how God operates. Note that he affirms that there were recipients of special revelation (apostles and evangelists) during the time of the Reformation. They had an extraordinary office but God would stir them up on occasion, even after the closing of the canon.

In Institutes, Bk. 4, cap. 3, sec. 4 he writes:

Those who preside over the government of the Church, according to the institution of Christ, are named by Paul, first, Apostles; secondly, Prophets; thirdly, Evangelists; fourthly, Pastors; and, lastly, Teachers; (Eph. 4: 11.) Of these, only the two last have an ordinary office in the Church. The Lord raised up the other three at the beginning of his kingdom, [b:0d8de40770]and still occasionally raises them up when the necessity of the times requires[/b:0d8de40770].

The nature of the apostolic function is clear from the command, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature," (Mark 16: 15.) No fixed limits are given them, but the whole world is assigned to be reduced under the obedience of Christ, that by spreading the Gospel as widely as they could, they might every where erect his kingdom. Accordingly, Paul, when he would approve his apostleship, does not say that he had acquired some one city for Christ, but had propagated the Gospel far and wide - had not built on another man's foundation, but planted churches where the name of his Lord was unheard. The apostles, therefore, were sent forth to bring back the world from its revolt to the true obedience of God, and every where stablish his kingdom by the preaching of the Gospel; or, if you choose, they were like the first architects of the Church, to lay its foundations throughout the world (I Cor.3:10).

By Prophets, he means not all interpreters of the divine will, but those who excelled by special revelation; none such now exist, or they are less manifest.

By Evangelists, I mean those who, while inferior in rank to the apostles, were next them in office, and even acted as their substitutes. Such were Luke, Timothy, Titus, and the like; perhaps also, the seventy (disciples whom our Saviour appointed in the second place to the apostles, (Luke 10: 1.)

According to this interpretation, which appears to me consonant both to the words and the meaning of Paul, those three functions were not instituted in the Church to be perpetual, but only to endure so long as churches were to be formed where none previously existed, or at least where churches were to be transferred from Moses to Christ; although [b:0d8de40770]I deny not, that afterward God occasionally raised up Apostles, or at least Evangelists, in their stead, as has been done in our time. For such were needed to bring back the Church from the revolt of Antichrist[/b:0d8de40770]. The office I nevertheless call extraordinary, because it has no place in churches duly constituted.

Scott

[Edited on 4-1-2004 by Scott]
 
Rephrasing

So perhaps the right question is not cessationist or non-cessationist (since everyone believes that nothing is to be added to the canon) but rather

Complete cessationist
or
Partial cessationist

Although it might be possible to narrow the debate even further. I think everyone agrees that revelatory gifts have ceased. Where we have areas of disagreement is in which gifts are revelatory. Are there any takers on trying to spell out the criteria for discovering this? Is it even possible?
 
Ruben:

I would suggest that the traditional Reformed and Puritan view, as outline by the excerpt from George Gillespie above is a good framework for defining what can still happen and what does not. A longer and good paper on the matter is here:
http://www.ecn.ab.ca/prce/books/prophecy/prophecy.htm

Richard Baxter's Christian Directory (a fine Puritan work) also has great, practical guidelines.

Complete cessastionists seem to be a departure from the Reformed and Puritan views (as represented by Calvin, Gillespie, Rutherford, Baxter, et al). I am curious about whether that is a dispensational influence. I am not saying that it is, but complete cessationism is a big part of dispensational thinking and often many Reformed people start out as dispensationalists (like me, for example). It is natural to read the Westminster Confession through a dispensational lens instead of a Reformed lens (informed by Calvin, Gillespie, Baxter, Luther, etc.).

Anyway, just a thought. I am not sure why so many otherwise Reformed people depart from Reformation teaching on this point and some even think that the Confession actually requires complete cessationism. The earlier question about whether someone who is not a complete cessationist can serve as an elder in the PCA is strange if the Confession is considered in the background of the Reformation.

Scott
 
At this point, so long as we do not forget this line:

[quote:3e70643598]
The office I nevertheless call extraordinary, because it has no place in churches duly constituted.
[/quote:3e70643598]

I would also caution using Baxter. He messes up justification, the atonement, and a number of other important doctrines. Usually we look to Baxter for practical advice on pastoral visitation and catechizing, but never as a theologian who helps us determine the ecclosiology of the church.

I am fine with what Calvin said int he way he said it - not allowing for new inspirtation but an extraordinary use of a man to recapture the truth of the Word. He saw this particularly exemplified of Luther.
 
[quote:79d09afa4d][i:79d09afa4d]Originally posted by Scott[/i:79d09afa4d]
Complete cessastionists seem to be a departure from the Reformed and Puritan views (as represented by Calvin, Gillespie, Rutherford, Baxter, et al). I am curious about whether that is a dispensational influence. I am not saying that it is, but complete cessationism is a big part of dispensational thinking and often many Reformed people start out as dispensationalists (like me, for example). It is natural to read the Westminster Confession through a dispensational lens instead of a Reformed lens (informed by Calvin, Gillespie, Baxter, Luther, etc.).
[/quote:79d09afa4d]
I don't think this is accurate. Most charasmatics are dispensationalists.
 
[quote:14c5e9d72a][i:14c5e9d72a]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:14c5e9d72a]

I don't think this is accurate. Most charasmatics are dispensationalists. [/quote:14c5e9d72a]

Most of them are dispensationalists when it comes to eschatology, but they don't like dispensationalism otherwise.
 
[quote:022e17ea8e][i:022e17ea8e]Originally posted by robot[/i:022e17ea8e]
[quote:022e17ea8e][i:022e17ea8e]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:022e17ea8e]

I don't think this is accurate. Most charasmatics are dispensationalists. [/quote:022e17ea8e]

Most of them are dispensationalists when it comes to eschatology, but they don't like dispensationalism otherwise. [/quote:022e17ea8e]
They hold to more than just eschatology. They also tend to be antinomian, cause the law is "OT" stuff.
 
[quote:2836af9c51][i:2836af9c51]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:2836af9c51]
[quote:2836af9c51][i:2836af9c51]Originally posted by robot[/i:2836af9c51]
[quote:2836af9c51][i:2836af9c51]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:2836af9c51]

I don't think this is accurate. Most charasmatics are dispensationalists. [/quote:2836af9c51]

Most of them are dispensationalists when it comes to eschatology, but they don't like dispensationalism otherwise. [/quote:2836af9c51]
They hold to more than just eschatology. They also tend to be antinomian, cause the law is "OT" stuff. [/quote:2836af9c51]

Yeah, that too:)
 
[quote:ce5f48cd6b][i:ce5f48cd6b]Originally posted by blhowes[/i:ce5f48cd6b]
I voted Cessationist. I think Patrick's post is a good summary of my reasons.

1 Corinthians 13:10 is probably the main verse that I've always been taught speaks of the cessation of the sign gifts.

1Co 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
1Co 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
1Co 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

Does anybody that understands Greek have any insights into what the first "that" in verse 10 refers to. I've always heard that its in the neuter person and therefore can't refer to the return of Jesus so it most likely refers to the completion of canon. I've also heard from others that it could refer to Christ's kingdom, and other things. What think ye?

Bob [/quote:ce5f48cd6b]


G'day Bob,

I'm a cessationist. However, I would make my arguments on other grounds. Many interpret *teleion* to refer to the canon predicated on the belief that because the adjective is neuter it therefore rules out the second coming because that refers to Jesus and thus it would be expected to be masculine (not neuter).

However, we may note that the neuter in the substantival adjective is often used for persons for various reasons (mostly stylistic). This is demonstrated by 1 Cor 1:27-28 the wise (neuter) etc are people. Heb 7:7 the lesser (neuter) refers to a person also see Matt 12:6 & 12:41 etc.
 
Charismatics I know are anti-dispensational in many respects. The most astute one I know (pursuing and advanced law degree at Oxford presently) rejects dispensationalism at least in part because it implies the cessastion of many gifts.

You are right that they do tend to be dispensational in that they divide Israel from the church, which is the heart of dispensationalism. As you mention they also tend to be antinomian or at least neonomian.

Scott
 
I think teleion in 1 Cor 13:10 is completion of the mystery of Christ which found in scripture and was validated in AD 70 with destruction of Jerusalem (see Rev 10:7)

VanVos

:)
 
[quote:b46b855b9b][i:b46b855b9b]Originally posted by Scott[/i:b46b855b9b]
Charismatics I know are anti-dispensational in many respects. The most astute one I know (pursuing and advanced law degree at Oxford presently) rejects dispensationalism at least in part because it implies the cessastion of many gifts.

You are right that they do tend to be dispensational in that they divide Israel from the church, which is the heart of dispensationalism. As you mention they also tend to be antinomian or at least neonomian.

Scott [/quote:b46b855b9b]

I heard a Reformed charismatic pastor say that cessastionists were dispinsational in there view of the NT. LOL. The Dispinsation of Gifts and then the dispinsation of cessastion. :bs2:
 
non cessationist

definitely non
for those that are so sure the gifts have ceased you are seeing through a very dim mirror. (I Cor 13)
The perfect (Christ) has not come, the end has not come so these gifts should still be in operation. we are not seeing Jesus face to face

jonathan
 
Paul - I agree with your cessationist position.
However, on the assertion that "the perfect refers to the closing of the canon..."
Prove it.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Paul - I agree with your cessationist position.
However, on the assertion that "the perfect refers to the closing of the canon..."
Prove it.
Click to expand...

o.k., But before I do that, would you agree that, in light of what i posted above, it cannot refer to heaven? If not, can you tell me what we will hope for in heaven?

Romans 8:

22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
Click to expand...

:up:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top