-

[Herald]

I will take a soft-cessationist stand. I look at it this way: the biblical gift of tongues is a known language. Let the that be the norm for tongues and you will see the "gift" vanish.

[Edited on 10-17-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Scot
What all false gospels hold in common is the adding of further revelation to God's revealed written word. I consider tongues speaking assemblies on the same level as Seventh Day Adventists, Roman Catholics, Mormons, etc. They all have additional revelation whether it's written or otherwise.

While I am ardent cessationist, and could not agree more with the belief that continuationist views are unbiblical and truly dangerous to the Church, I would strongly encourage you to rethink this stance. A problem I see at the heart of your statement is that it misses the mark on what all false gospels have in common: It is fully possible to twist Scripture in such a way so as to believe a false gospel without explicitly adding to Scripture; on the other hand, all false gospels have the common factor that they do not save, and that is because they distort the very thing by which we are fully saved, which is the Cross of Christ. Thus, if someone truly understands and fully embraces such a "gospel," such as your three examples above, that person is not saved. Likewise, any converted persons in such instututions are only saved in spite of the stance of their institution, meaning such people either do not truly understand that false gospel or else they do not fully embrace it at heart.

The problem with your claim above is that charismatic claims of further revelation do not automatically negate or change the Gospel of Christ's atoning work on the Cross - and such a connection would have to be proven in order to justify a claim of the apostasy of all charismatics, such as George Gillespie or contemporaries like Piper and Grudem. Would you honestly say that anyone who truly understands and fully embraces the charismatic position is not saved, and that all churches that do the same are false churches? That is frankly an extremely far-fetched claim, and is furthermore a claim with which all the historic churches of Reformed Christendom would disagree.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Scot
Patrick,

Do you really think that a true christian should remain in such a setting (charismatic church)?

What all false gospels hold in common is the adding of further revelation to God's revealed written word. I consider tongues speaking assemblies on the same level as Seventh Day Adventists, Roman Catholics, Mormons, etc. They all have additional revelation whether it's written or otherwise.

I agree with much of your advise to Matt. I don't believe that he should argue or cause an uproar. I do however, believe that if possible, he should leave.

I think, as Chris has pointed out, that you need to rethink your position. Most charasmatics are evangelical and zealous in evangelism. I cannot tell you how many Reformed people I have met who became Christians in those fellowships, including myself. Though I do believe them to be in serious error, I do not think they are hopeless or necessarily preaching a false gospel. They may be inconsistent on many issues. But when it comes to trusting Christ alone, they will fully cling to Him. And God blesses His faithful ones who use His means of grace, no matter how corrupt the institution may be.

Regarding Matt, he is still living under his parents, and thus owes them obedience and respect. When he gets out on His own, I would hope he has opportunity to find a more doctrinally sound church. But until then, this church is where God has placed him and he must be faithful there.

 

[Scot]

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book" Rev. 22:18

Is this verse not saying that those who add to God's word are under his judgment? Are not the charismatic/tongues speaking churches adding to scripture?

I'll admit that I'm not a great theologian by any means, so I'm willing to listen to other interpretations of the text.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Scot
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book" Rev. 22:18

Is this verse not saying that those who add to God's word are under his judgment? Are not the charismatic/tongues speaking churches adding to scripture?

I'll admit that I'm not a great theologian by any means, so I'm willing to listen to other interpretations of the text.

As this thread has pointed out, charasmatics don't consider themselves to be adding to God's Word. They would all agree the Canon is closed. They are inconsistent for sure. But they for the most part still hold to a simple gospel message, and do not add anything to Scripture. There are certainly wackos out there who try to add things (i.e. the Vineyard movement and some cults), but for the most part, their "prophecies" involve personal exhortations and predictions of the future, not trying to develop new doctrines. Again, it's inconsistent but they are usually not so bold as to claim apostolic authority and add to Scripture.

[Edited on 10-17-2005 by puritansailor]

 

[Scot]

Patrick,

I don't think it matters if they're claiming to do it or not. The question is "Are they doing it?"

If someone says that God is speaking through them in a tongue (or spoke to them in a vision, dream, etc.) they believe that God is still speaking. If this is the case, then it's equal to scripture and they are adding whether they admit it or not.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

This was covered way earlier when the thread first started but since I was not here then I'll repost this which I also posted on the Charismatic Calvinist thread but seems appropriate to post here as well. While not all the Scots expressed themselves as carefully on this subject, I believe putting their "prophecies" under the heading of extraordinary providences is the best solution. This doesn't address the "miracles" claimed for some of the later Covenanter field preachers, which I suspect are hagiographical, but be that as it may the following is what I've collected over the years on the subject of the Scottish prophets from the earlier covenanters For what it's worth.


Scottish Prophets?

Sources: George Gillespie, "œMiscelleany," Works: Presbyterian´s Armoury (1844-46). Whether these Prophets and Prophesyings in the Primitive church, 1 Cor. 14; 121:28; Eph. 4:11, were extraordinary, and so not to Continue"¦ 26-36.
Samuel Rutherfurd, Survey of Spiritual Antichrist, (London, 1648) 42-45.
James Durham, Commentary on Revelation, "œConcerning Prophesying" (many editions; see Old Paths 2000 edition).
Autobiography and Life of Robert Blair, edited by Thomas M´Crie (Wodrow Society, 1848). 97-98; 494.
Thomas M´Crie the younger, Story of the Scottish Church, 124
John Kennedy, The Days of Our Fathers in Ross-Shire, appendix, "œThe secret of the Lord. (4th edition, 1867).

The generation of the Second Reformation did not utter claims of prophecies without some of them at least identifying how these "œprophecies" were to be understood. Robert Blair experienced something on a minor scale of what is attributed to Knox, Welsh, and other Scots of later periods. From Life of Robert Blair:

"œIf any of my relations, reading these things, shall stumble, that both now and heretofore I have mentioned what hath been revealed to me of events to come, seeing revelations are now ceased, and we are to stick close to the revealed will of God in the Scriptures, for their satisfaction I answer as follows: That if an angel from heaven should reveal anything contrary to the Scriptures, or offer to add anything to that perfect rule of faith and manners, he ought to be accursed, and much more if any man on earth should offer to do the same. This accursed way of revelation we leave to Papists and other sectaries. But, in the meantime, it ought not to be denied that the Lord is pleased sometimes, to his servants, especially in a suffering condition, to reveal some events concerning themselves and that part of the Church of God wherein they live; innumberable examples whereof might be produced, and not a few within this same land; as to the blessed martyr Wishart, Mr. Knox, Mr. Davidson, Mr. Welsh, and Mr. Patrick Simson of Stirling. This I write under protestation that I compare not myself with these I have now mentioned."

He comments very briefly on this again on his death bed and utters a "˜prophecy´ concerning the traitor Archb. Sharp. (494).

"œAfter he had very Christianly, gravely and solemnly blessed his wife and all his children, speaking to them severally, commending or admonishing them as he judged expedient; his eldest son that was then alive said to him, "˜The worst and best of men have their first and second thoughts, they have their thoughts and after thoughts. Now, sir, God has given you time for your after thoughts of your way and carriage in the world, and we would hear what are now your after-thoughts.´ To whom he said, "˜I have again and again thought upon my ways, and communed with my heart, and as for my public actings and carriage, in reference to the Lord´s work, if I begin again, I would just do as I have done.´ Thereafter his son said, "˜Now, sir, hen the Lord is to remove you from us, though we have often heard you express yourself in reference to the Lord´s work and his people, we desire to hear of you what are now your hopes of the Lord´s reviving his work and delivering his people?´ To whom he said, "˜David, you know that I never pretended to a spirit of prophecy, though this I will say, that the Lord hath revealed much of his mind and will concerning myself and near relations to me, and I have foretold somethings concerning myself and my nearest relations; but as touching the certainty of the thing, I mean the reviving of the Lord´s work, and thereby the delivering of his people, I have no doubt of it, though I cannot say that the set time is come, yea, I doubt not but the Lord will (and with the next three words he lifted up his right hand) rub, rub, rub, still lifting up his hand higher and higher, and then brings it down with a thump), shame upon Sharp and all his complices.´ He often repeated the words of the twenty-third psalm, especially ver. 4. One time he repeated the whole seventy-first psalm, which he used to call his own psalm."

Thomas McCrie the younger comments on the above passage:

"œThere is much implied in these words, "˜especially in a suffering condition.´ We know not what it is to suffer for the gospel, and therefore know not "˜the consolations of Christ,´ which abound under these sufferings. It is only when the Master sees his servants sick and exhausted, and ready to perish in his service, that he brings forth such cordials to recruit their spirits." (The Story of the Scottish Church, p. 124).

James Durham has a digression, "œConcerning Prophesying," in his Commentary on Revelation.

"œAssert. 2. Yet it is not altogether to be denied, but that the Lord may, in particulars of the last kind, sometimes, reveal himself to some, by foretelling events before they come, such as the famine that Agabus foretold of, or Paul´s imprisonment were; of such the history of the martyrs and saints do sometime make mention: and particularly, Athansius is often advertised of hazards, as is recorded, and in the verity cannot be denied: and of this sort there were many at the reviving of the light of the gospel, who, by foretelling of particular vents, were famous, as John Hus, his foretelling within an hundred years after him, to follow the outbreaking of reformation . . . of many such many were in this land, as Messrs. Wishart, Knox, Welch, Davidson, etc. And this cannot be said altogether to be made void: for, although God hath now closed the canon of scripture, yet that he should be restrained in his freedom, from manifesting of himself thus, there is no convincing ground to bear it out, especially when experience hath often proven the contrary in the most holy men. Yet, 1. This is not habitual or ordinary to any, but is singular at some few times, and in some few cases. 2. Every persuasion of mind before the event come, and answerableness in it when it cometh, will not be sufficient to make it pass for a prophectical foreknowledge, more than when in dreams it may often so fall out. 3. This will not denominate one to be a prophet, although, in some singular events, God maketh this use of him. 4. Nor can such predictions warrant any to do a thing as a duty, which otherwise would not be warrantable unto them. 5. There is difference to be put betwixt the simple foretelling of an event, which may be of God, and a conclusion which may be drawn therefrom; this may be of ourselves, as we may see in the predictions of these, Acts 21, who foretold of Paul´s imprisonment at Jerusalem, yet was not that to divert him from his going there, as many collected; that therefore was not from God, as Paul´s pressure in the spirit to go notwithstanding, doth clear; every such prediction therefore cannot be made a rule of duty, seeing the Lord may have other good ends of trial, advertisement and confirmation in it. And we will not find, that any have made use of such particular revelations, as from them to press a duty upon others, that would not otherwise be warantable, although,, when it concurreth with other grounds, it may have its weight for swaying in lawful things."

This is more guarded than Gillispie´s comment on page 26 of the Miscellany Questions (see Stillwaters reprint of Hetherington edition).
The following is cited in Treasury of the Scottish Covenant by Johnston:

"œI acknowledge the instances that have been published in Fleming´s "œFufilling" and in other books seem a specious plea that one kind of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit still continues. I think Mr. Gillespie of Carnock [cmc-not George Gillespie] has given a satisfying answer. Human sagacity by attending to the operation of natural and moral causes may form shewd conjectures." John Erskine

Here is something from Samuel Rutherford published after he left the Westminster Assembly and after the WCF was adopted by the Church of Scotland. Samuel Rutherford, A Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist (London, 1648).

p. 38. Chapter 8 Of Revelation and Inspirations
As Swenchknfeld and his; so Familists and Antinomians now, as also the Nicolaitans, of which hereafter, were all for immediate inspirations, revelations, without scripture, or indeavours or studying, or books or reading. It was observed in New England, when
p. 39
Familists grew, that, especially in the Towne of Boston and in other parts of New England, Familists devised such a difference between the covenant of works, and of grace, especially after a sermon preached by M. Wheelewreight a prime Familists, that he that will not renounce (saith the author of the story of the rise, reigne. See pag. 24, 25) his sanctification, and wait for an immediate revelation of the Spirit, cannot be admitted, be he never so Godly, and is looked on as an enemy to Christ, and he that is already in the Church and will not acknowledge this new light, is undervalued.
Now as touching revelations and inspirations of the Spirit, I conceave with all submission to the Learned and Godly.
1. There is a twofold revelation, one of the letter of the word and Gospell, this is nothing, but the Lord´s active uttering of his will and Gospell which was hid before as Ephes. 3:9-10, Ezech. 20:11-12, Hosea 8:12; Rev. 1:19. This is a revelation proper and immunicable to any, for God only did devise the Gospel; when neither Man nor Angel could dreame of a way of redemption for lost man and reveeled to Adam that the seed of the woman, Jesus Christ, should breake the head of the Serpent, and dissolve the workes of Satan. This revelation of the letter of the Gospell is made to thousands, that never believe, and therefore though it be but literall and externall, yet none could thus reveale the minde of god to Prophets and Apostles, but God onely, as none were inspired of God, but writers of Cannonnick scripture, and Scripture onely is given by divine inspiration, 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pe. 1:21, & as this revelation active is God´s onely, so from him as the author and fountaine, men doe as Herolds carry this message of revelation to others: so passively, it is common to believers and unbelleevers, for the letter of the Gospell may be revealed to all within the visible Church, and yet the most part are destituted of an internall revelation. Therefore there is an internall revelation, of things that men believe. And this I conceave to be foure-fold.
1. Propheticall.
2. Speciall to the elect only.
3. Of some facts peculiar to Godly men.
4. False and Satanicall.

[1.] Propheticall Revelation is that irradiation of the minde that the Holy Ghost makes on the minde and judgment of the penmen of holy scripture, whether Prophets or Apostles and that by an
p. 40
immediate in-breathing of the minde and will of God on them, whether in visions, dreames, or any other way, without men, or the ministery or teaching of men, as he did to Esaiah, Jeremiah, Isa. 1:1. Jer. 1:1 or to Paul, Gal. 1:11. Paul an Apostle not to men, neither by men, 11, 12. but I certifie you, brethren, that the Gospell which was preached by me, is not after man, for I neither received it of man neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. 15, 16. But when it pleased god to reveale his sonne in me, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither went I up to Jerusalem, to them that were Apostles before me, but I went into Arabia, and returned againe unto Damascus. Ephes. 3:2, 3. If yee have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God, which is in me to you ward, how that by revelation he made knowne unto me the mystery, &c. I dispute not of the way of the Lord´s imprinting the speeches, images, and representations of his minde to Prophets and Apostles; I conceave it is the same way, that God revelaed himself to Jeremiah 1:11-13, &c and to Paul Act 16:9-10, and that as Ezechiel 3:14. so John the Apostle Re. 1:10 was in the Spirit, and saw, by an immediate brightnesse of light, perfectly & understandingly the will & minde of Christ, in what they prophecied and wrote. And this Revelation is so far from being beside the mind of God, that it is formally the express word sense and mind of God: if Fami. Have such Revelations. 1. they see the Visions of God. 2. They speake as acted by the Spirit immediately, and so we are with the like certainty of faith to believe what H. Nicholas Wheelwright, Mrs. Hutchison, M. Del, Saltmarsh, Beacon, Den, Crispe, Collier, &c. speake and write, as we are to believe the writings and sayings of the Prophets and the Apostles, and both must be alike to us, the mouth of the Lord: and what they both write or preach must be the object of our faith, and their writings must be added to the booke of the revelation, which is forbidden. Rev. 22:17-19, Deut. 12:32, Deut. 30:5-6. This is the Anti-Christ himself. 3. Let them shew the singes of the Apostle-ship; by miracles and speaking with tongues and foretelling things contingent, that are to come; and we shall believe them; Familists produce your strong reasons.
2. There is a speciall internall revelation, made of things in scripture, applied in particular to the soules of elect believers, by which, having heard and learned of the Father Joh. 6:4.
p. 41
there is made known and revealed to them, by the Spirit of wisedome and revelation, what is the hope of their calling, and what is the riches of the glory of the inheritance in the Saints. Ephes. 1:17-19. and that revealed to them, which flesh and blood revealeth not, but the Father of Christ, Matt. 16:17. And that which the Father revealeth unto babes, and hides from the wise and prudent, Matt. 11:25-26. And this is common to all that believe, and not ingrossed as peculiar to the Familists and Antinomians onely, for if it were, then my faith should be in vaine, and I have fallen from my portion and share in Christ, and of the inheritance of the Saints in light, for there should be no converts in the world but Familists onely.
Now this Revelation is a cleare evidence in the conscience by the Testimony of the Spirit, that I am a child of God Rom. 8:16 whether it be immediate; or from speaking signs and markes of sanctification 1 Joh. 1:3 1 Joh. 3:14, 18-20. 2. It is the knowledge of no new article which is not conteined in the word in the Generall, and is not proper and incommunicable to none but to Antinomians, but is the mystery of the Spirit revealing these things, that are gratiously given to us of God. 1 Cor. 2:12. even to all believers. 3. It´s true as touching me, by name it is not revealed nor written in scripture in expresse words, and that I am by name written in the Lamb´s booke of life, and a child and sonne of God and an heire annexed with Christ, of life and glory, nor are the individuall and numericall manifestations and inshinings, flowings, motions, inbreathings, outgoings of the Spirit of life, and stirrings of the new birth, to John rather than to Mary, to this beleever rather than to another in Spaine, written in the Scripture: yet the Spirit acts never ordinarily, but a beleever may know and heare the noise of his feet; now if all these individuall manifestations, ebbings and flowings of tydes of free grace were written, then should also be written their degrees lesse or more of Christ, the names of the believing Saints, that can say I Paul, I John, I Anne, &c. Live not, but Christ lives in me; for these I presume adde a numericall particular and individuall being to every single act or motion of the dispensation of grace, and if all were in number, weight, and measure written in scripture, the world (as John saith of Christ´s facts) should not conteine the bookes, that should be written.
The Holy Ghost speaking of a collective body the Church
p. 42
and spouse of Christ in Solomon´s song, in the book of the Psalms and of the Lamentations of Jeremiah, shewes us of the outgoings, incomings of the beloved in the soule, of his cloudings and outshinings of free love, of the acts of the hands of Christ, Can. 5. Touching the handles of the barre, and the smel of the myrrhe of Christ, that he leaves behind him when he is departed, of the soul´s feelings of the impressions, or the withdrawings of Christ, as if the whole Church Catholicke of Invisible believers (for so the Church is taken especially, Psal. 45. and in the booke of Solomon´s song) were but one particular beleever, which is a demonstration that the particular actings of the spirit of grace cannot be written in the scriptures, yet are they not to be thought unlawfull revelations, and destitute of the word, no more than we can say, all the particular actings of devils & of all wicked men, since the creation, of whoring, swearing, Idol-worship, lying, stealing, oppressing, mis-beleeving, &c, are not contrary to the expresse law of the Holy Ghost speaking in the word, because these sinnefull actes are not particularly all specified and written in scripture, with the names of the actors.
3. There is a 3 revelation of some particular men, who have foretold things to come even since the ceasing of the Canon of the word, as John Huse, Wickeliefe, Luther, have foretold things to come, and they certainly fell out, and in our nation of Scotland, M. George Wishart foretold that Cardinall Beaton should not come out alive at the Gates of the Castle of St. Andrewes, but that he should dye a shamefull death, and he was hanged over the window that he did look out at, when he saw the man of God burnt, M. Knox prophecied of the hanging of the Lord of Grange, M. Joh. Davidson uttered prophecies, knowne to many of the kingdome, diverse Holy and mortified preachers in England have done the like; no Familists, or Antinomians, no David George, nor H. Nicholars, no man ever of that Gang, Randel or Wheelwright, or Den, or any other, that ever I heard of, being once ingaged in the Familisticall 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 Lyons, which proved false, Becold prophecied of the deliverance of the Towne of Munster which was delivered to their enemies, and he and his Prophet were tortured and hanged, David George prophecied of the raising of himself from the dead, which was never fulfilled, now the differences between the third and fourth revelations, I place in these: 1. These worthy reformers did tye no man to believe their prophecies as scriptures, we are to give faith, to the predictions of Prophets and Apostles, foretelling facts to come, as to the very word of God, they never gave themselves out as organs immediately inspired by the Holy Ghost, as the Prophets doe, and as Paul did Rom. 11 prophecying of the calling of the Jews, and John, Rev. 1:10 and through the whole booke; yea they never denounced judgment against those that believe not their predictions, of these particular events and facts as they are such particular events & facts, as the Prophets and Apostles did. But Mrs. Hutchison said Rise, Reigne, p. 61 art. 27. That her particular revelations about future events, were as infallible as any scripture, and that she is bound as much to believe them as the Scripture, for the same Holy Ghost is author of both, Mr. Cornwell and Familists of old England say she and hers were the more spirituall and only Saints in New England, and the rest were but Antichristian persecutors. It´s knowne they held revelations without and beside the word of God, Rise, reigne, er 40. and said the whole letter of the Scripture holdes forth a covenant of workes, er. 9. And so the whole letter of the Scripture, Law, or Gospell is abolished to believers, and doth no more oblige them, then the covenant of workes can curse those that are under grace. For T Collier Marrow of Christianity, pag. 25, 26, saith many spiritually enlightened of late, are brought to Gospell-injoyments, some either way which is spirituall, then by verball preaching; but Familists take the word preached for the printed inkie letter, or the aire, dead sound of the Gospell, we take it for the letter and sound of preaching, as it includes the thing signified, to wit, Christ, and all his promises, in which sense the sounding of the Gospel heard worketh many yeares after it is preached, and the word long agoe preached may be awaked up by a sad affliction, an inspiration from god, and produce the worke of conversion, and still it is the word of truth in the scripture that produceth faith as it is the same seed thaty lyeth many monthes under the clod and groweth and bringeth forth fruit after: And we know Antinomians reject the scriptures and build all upon inward revelations, as their binding and obliging rule. Del, ser. Page. 26. Saltmarsh, free grace, page. 146.

p. 44.
2. The events revealed to Godly and sound witnesses of Christ are not contrary to the word: But Becold, John Mathie, and Joh. Schykerus (who kild his brother for no fault) and other Euthysiasts of that murthering Spirit Sathan who killed innocent men, expressly against the sixt command. Thou shalt not Kill, and taught the Boures of Germany to rise and kill all lawfull Magistrates, because they were no Magistrates; upon the pretence of the Impulsions and Inspirations of the Holy Ghost, were acted by inspirations against the word of God; All that the Godly reformers foretold of the tragicall ends of the proclaimed enemies of the Gospell, they were not actors themselves in murthering these enemies of god, nor would M. Wishart command or approve that Norman and Joh. Leslyes should kill the Cardinall Beaton, as they did.
2. They had a generall rule going along that Evill shall hunt the wicked man: onely a secret harmelesse, but an extraordinary strong impulsion, of a Scripture-spirit leading them, carried them to apply a generall rule of divine justice, in their predictions, to particular Godlesse men, they themselves onely being foretellers not copartners of the act.
3. They were men sound in the faith opposite to Popery, Prelacy, Socinianisme, Papisme, Lawless Enthyusiansme, Antinomianisme, Arminianisme, Arrianisme, and what else is contrary to sound doctrine, all these being wanting in such as hold this fourth sort of revelations we cannot judge them but Santanicall having these characters. 1. They are not pure and harmelesse; but thrust men on upon bloody and wicked practices forbidden by God: Though God bad Abrahma Kill his only son for him, to try his obedience, yet God countermanded him, and would not have him act accordingly: these Spirits actually kill the innocent upon a pretended Spirit´s impulsion. 2. They have no rule of the word to countenance them, and if thy lead men from the Law & the Testimony, it is because there is no light in them, Is. 8:20. 3. These revelations lodge in men of rotten and corrupt minds destitute of the truth, and they are opposite and destructive to sanctification. 4. They argue the scriptures to be imperfect, and to be a lamed and maneked directory, of faith and manners, contrary to Scripture, Psa. 19:7-9. 2 Tim. 3:15-16. Luke 16:30-31. John 20:30-31. Acts 26:22. Psal. 119:105, &c.
4. Then the Scripture shall not decide all controverted truthes,
p. 45
nor be that, by which we shall finde the truth and the rule of trying of the Spirit, whether they be of God, or no, contrary to Io. 39. 1 Thess. 5:21. [5] And contrary to the laudable example of the noble Bereans who tried Paul´s doctrine by the Scriptures Act. 17:11. 6. Christ´s knock and stirrings on the heart, sounds and breathes the breathings of God in his word, the Devil´s knock is a dumbe and dead knock and is destitute of the word of truth. 7. Men doe and act all things from their own Spirit, and walke in th elight of their own Sparkes and there is no end of erring and wandring from God, when they act by no certaine knowne rule of the word.

The following email has some useful information and thoughts, from the first exchange I had on this subject back in 1996.

Subject: Re: Covie-forum (May 16, 1996)
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 23:42:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Phil Pockras
To: "œDouglas W. Comin"
<snip>
[Dean Smith had written]
Warfield and Cessationism
While I appreciate much of what Warfield has written, there is a need for caution in regarding Warfield as articulating the "œReformed Position" on spiritual gifts. Martyn Lloyd-Jones in "œJoy Unspeakable" challenges Reformed people to recover the deep emphasis and experience of the Holy Spirit that the Puritans had.
In reviewing Covenanter history, I was amazed to discover that Alexander Peden was known as "œthe Prophet" since he made so many prophecies that came true (he was not viewing these as new revelation equal to the Scripture). There were dramatic healings, including one case of restoring to life a man who had been dead for 48 hours.
The above items are all documented in John Howie´s "œThe Scots Worthies".
I believe that Warfield would insist that these people were either greatly deluded or were heretics. When I talked with Richard Gaffin from Westminster Seminary last year, (one of the leading cessationists) he was very careful to say that *he* would not want to say that these things could not happen. I am not seeking to prophesy, heal, etc. However, I am concerned about a principle which says that *anytime* these >things occur, they *must* be counterfeit. If so, the Covenanters are in big trouble!!!
I´m sure we´ll have more discussion!!

[response from Phil]
Oh, I spose so! We need to distinguish, as Norman Shepherd taught us at Westminster, between extraordinary gifts and extraordinary providences. I don´t know what Baby Warfield would have thought of these things. That they happened is undeniable. Many of us have had extraordinary providences as well. Weeks ago, as I was washing the dishes ("œLe Dishwasher, c´est moi."), I had a sudden strong impression that the senior elder at Dervock congregation had died, and I immediately started praying for the family. I found out shortly afterward that that´s what had, indeed, happened, and at that time. I´d heard of this sort of thing before, but never experienced it before. OK. Now, do I have the gift of discernment, like Peter with Simon Magus or Ananias and Sapphira? Don´t I wish! No, it was an extraordinary providence, I trust indeed from the Lord, but not an extraordinary gift.
Mr Coldwell has, since this was brought up by Mr Smith, brought in more material that is very helpful on this issue. I urge all who are following this thread to view or re-view it.

Thanks for the input!
Phil Pockras
Minister, Belle Center, OH, USA, congregation
Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Scot
Patrick,

I don't think it matters if they're claiming to do it or not. The question is "Are they doing it?"

If someone says that God is speaking through them in a tongue (or spoke to them in a vision, dream, etc.) they believe that God is still speaking. If this is the case, then it's equal to scripture and they are adding whether they admit it or not.

Of course they are being inconsistent. But the gospel is there. The 3 marks are there, and so available for God to nourish the faithful depsite the corruption. The visible church is more or less pure. They are on the lesser side. But God still works among them. Have you always had your theology straight? Did God bless you in spite of that?

 

[Scot]

Originally posted by puritansailor
Of course they are being inconsistent. But the gospel is there. The 3 marks are there, and so available for God to nourish the faithful depsite the corruption. The visible church is more or less pure. They are on the lesser side. But God still works among them. Have you always had your theology straight? Did God bless you in spite of that?

I understand where you're coming from. It's just, for me, the warning in Rev. 22:18 seems very strong. If you're adding, you're under judgment. It seems to me that God is equating further revelation to a false gospel. If not, they would not be under judgment.

I'm not saying that people cannot be saved who are there but I think God will bring them out.

Have you always had your theology straight?

I probably never have had it all straight! :bigsmile:

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Scot

Originally posted by puritansailor
Of course they are being inconsistent. But the gospel is there. The 3 marks are there, and so available for God to nourish the faithful depsite the corruption. The visible church is more or less pure. They are on the lesser side. But God still works among them. Have you always had your theology straight? Did God bless you in spite of that?

I understand where you're coming from. It's just, for me, the warning in Rev. 22:18 seems very strong. If you're adding, you're under judgment. It seems to me that God is equating further revelation to a false gospel. If not, they would not be under judgment.

I'm not saying that people cannot be saved who are there but I think God will bring them out.

You are right. It is a strong warning. And they will be held accountable to it in the end for sure.

Have you always had your theology straight?

I probably never have had it all straight! :bigsmile:

Me neither

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Scot

Originally posted by puritansailor
Of course they are being inconsistent. But the gospel is there. The 3 marks are there, and so available for God to nourish the faithful depsite the corruption. The visible church is more or less pure. They are on the lesser side. But God still works among them. Have you always had your theology straight? Did God bless you in spite of that?

I understand where you're coming from. It's just, for me, the warning in Rev. 22:18 seems very strong. If you're adding, you're under judgment. It seems to me that God is equating further revelation to a false gospel. If not, they would not be under judgment.

Considering the context and setting in which that verse was being written, as well as the words of the verse itself, I understand it to be specifically referring to someone attempting to add content to the Book of Revelation. It says, "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book" (Rev. 22:18, emphasis mine). The "them" to which people are forbidden from adding is referring to the "words of the prophecy of this book," and John was referring to that book he was writing at the time, before the New Testament was one book.

As Patrick rightly noted, most charismatics do not believe their received "prophecies" to be on the same level as Scripture, much less to be viewed as additional content to the Book of Revelation. Thus, charismatic claims of extra-biblical revelation are inconsistent and unbiblical to be sure, but not because of Revelation 22:18. Hence, such claims in and of themselves would not biblically bring on the judgment mentioned in that verse.

 

[Scot]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
I understand it to be specifically referring to someone attempting to add content to the Book of Revelation.

I've heard that interpretation before. I disagree because the Bible is one book. Revelation does not stand on it's own. If you add to the book of Revelation, you've added to the entire Bible.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Scot

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
I understand it to be specifically referring to someone attempting to add content to the Book of Revelation.

I've heard that interpretation before. I disagree because the Bible is one book. Revelation does not stand on it's own. If you add to the book of Revelation, you've added to the entire Bible.

Indeed, if someone attempts to add content to the Book of Revelation, they would be adding to the New Testament (and thus the Bible) as a whole. But the converse is not true, namely that someone who claims to receive words from God apart from the Bible would be specifically adding to the Book of Revelation.

That distinction is why the meaning of the "book" to which John refers is so important as well. All of God's Word is inerrantly inspired, but it is also always consistent with the context of time and culture in which it was written. In light of that, think specifically of the people reading Revelation shortly after it was written. There is no possible way for them to have understood his warning to refer to anything other than the book itself, as the New Testament had not yet been canonized into one book.

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by Scot

Originally posted by puritansailor
Of course they are being inconsistent. But the gospel is there. The 3 marks are there, and so available for God to nourish the faithful depsite the corruption. The visible church is more or less pure. They are on the lesser side. But God still works among them. Have you always had your theology straight? Did God bless you in spite of that?

I understand where you're coming from. It's just, for me, the warning in Rev. 22:18 seems very strong. If you're adding, you're under judgment. It seems to me that God is equating further revelation to a false gospel. If not, they would not be under judgment.

Considering the context and setting in which that verse was being written, as well as the words of the verse itself, I understand it to be specifically referring to someone attempting to add content to the Book of Revelation. It says, "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book" (Rev. 22:18, emphasis mine). The "them" to which people are forbidden from adding is referring to the "words of the prophecy of this book," and John was referring to that book he was writing at the time, before the New Testament was one book.

As Patrick rightly noted, most charismatics do not believe their received "prophecies" to be on the same level as Scripture, much less to be viewed as additional content to the Book of Revelation. Thus, charismatic claims of extra-biblical revelation are inconsistent and unbiblical to be sure, but not because of Revelation 22:18. Hence, such claims in and of themselves would not biblically bring on the judgment mentioned in that verse.

I concur. Most charismatics have no intention of adding to scripture. Are tongues misguided? Yes. Harmful to the church? Yes. Evidence of not being saved (under a false gospel)? No. My major problem with charismatic churches has more to do with the heresy that one MUST speak in tongues in order to prove they are saved. Let me carefully state that it seems to be a minority of charismatic/pentecostal churches that hold to this view. Those churches that do hold to tongues as evidence of salvation are not merely misguided, they are heretical and preach a false gospel.

My secondary problem is with the caste system that tongues creates within the church. There are "haves" and "have-nots." But this problem is not relegated just to the tongues debate. Paedos and Credos fall into that trp. But I digress......


[Edited on 10-17-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Just like Arminians, charismatics may be saved.

I would suspect the genuineness of the salvation of a charismatic who embraces the claim that they can add to scripture. The fact is, most will deny such and try to argue out of such an accusation because they certainly do not believe they add to scripture even though if they logically carried out their claims that is what they end up with.

It is similar to Arminians who are really Calvinists in belief (deep down) but Arminian in teaching and understanding. If an Arminian actually embraced the accusation that their works are required in saving themselves, thus openly denying such passages as Ephesians 2:8-9, then I would suspect their conversion. Most Arminians will deny that works instead of grace saved them, even though their logic leads to such a conclusion. This is why there is tension right? Charismatics do not like to hear such accusations the same as Arminians are not comfortable with the accusations against them.

 

[Scot]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Indeed, if someone attempts to add content to the Book of Revelation, they would be adding to the New Testament (and thus the Bible) as a whole. But the converse is not true, namely that someone who claims to receive words from God apart from the Bible would be specifically adding to the Book of Revelation.

That distinction is why the meaning of the "book" to which John refers is so important as well. All of God's Word is inerrantly inspired, but it is also always consistent with the context of time and culture in which it was written. In light of that, think specifically of the people reading Revelation shortly after it was written. There is no possible way for them to have understood his warning to refer to anything other than the book itself, as the New Testament had not yet been canonized into one book.

I understand your argument Chris but I think we must keep in mind that God inspired John to write what he did (I know you understand that). Just because John would have only had the book of Revelation in mind doesn´t mean that God didn´t have a broader meaning. Like I said, you can´t separate Revelation from the rest of the Bible. It´s one book. If you add to the book of revelation, you´ve added to the whole Bible. If you add to any other of the books, you´ve added to Revelation as well because they are a cohesive whole. It´s also curious that we don´t have that warning at the end of any of the other books. Just when we come to the end of God´s complete revelation to us (the entire Bible). I believe that God is telling us "œo.k., my revelation to you is complete. Do not add or take away from it. If you do, you are under my judgment."

If someone is saying that God is still speaking to them then they are saying that God's revelation to us is not complete. They are adding to scripture whether they write it down or not. They may deny it but that's what they're doing. They are opening themselves up to satanic activity because satan still breaks the silence between the supernatural and the natural. God does not. His only communication to us today is through the holy scriptures.

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
The fact is, most will deny such and try to argue out of such an accusation because they certainly do not believe they add to scripture even though if they logically carried out their claims that is what they end up with.

That's my point. It doesn't matter if they're trying to add to scripture or not. They are.

Every false gospel has either a wider authority or a lesser authority than the Bible. Look at all of them: Muslims (koran), Seventh Day Adventists (Ellen G. White inspired writings), Roman Catholics (infallible utterances of the pope, visions of Fatima, Apocrypha books, etc), Mormons (book of Mormon), Charismatics (tongues, visions, dreams, etc.).

All of these have one thing in common. They're not satisfied with the Bible ALONE. They want something more than what God has revealed to us.

Can God have mercy on people in these kinds of gospels? Absolutely. Don't misunderstand me on that. Nevertheless, I believe that they are false gospels.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Again Scot, you need to be careful in throwing charasmatics into those categories. For the most part, they do not add extra doctrines to Scripture by their prophecies (unlike all the other groups you named). They fully believe in the biblical Trinity, the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, and reject (in theory) salvation by works. Certianly there are inconsistencies. And there are some more extreme folks who do get cultish and legalistic, requiring tongues for salvation or adherence to certain "prophets" or ministers, and certainly these would fall under the false gospel category. There are others who are Oneness Pentacostals and would fall under that category as well. But most do not do this. I think you will find that you have many brothers in the faith in that movement, as loaded down with error as they may be.

[Edited on 10-18-2005 by puritansailor]

 

[Scot]

Originally posted by puritansailor
Again Scot, you need to be careful in throwing charasmatics into those categories. For the most part, they do not add extra doctrines to Scripture by their prophecies (unlike all the other groups you named). The fully believe in the biblical Trinity, the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, and reject (in theory) salvation by works. Certianly there are inconsistencies. And there are some more extreme folks who do get cultish and legalistic, requiring tongues for salvation or adherence to certain "prophets" or ministers, and certainly these would fall under the false gospel category. There are others who are Oneness Pentacostals and would fall under that category as well. But most do not do this. I think you will find that you have many brothers in the faith in that movement, as loaded down with error as they may be.

Patrick,

Let me ask you this:

Even if someone is not adding extra doctrines to scripture by their prophecies, revelations, etc. are they not still adding to the word of God by claiming God is still speaking?

God often repeats doctrines more than once in scripture. Sometimes almost word for word. For example, some charismatics say that they are not recieving new doctrine through tongues, they say that God is just emphasizing something in scripture. This arguement doesn't hold up because if God wanted it emphasized another time, he would have done it again in scripture (like he often does).

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Scot
Patrick,

Let me ask you this:

Even if someone is not adding extra doctrines to scripture by their prophecies, revelations, etc. are they not still adding to the word of God by claiming God is still speaking?

God often repeats doctrines more than once in scripture. Sometimes almost word for word. For example, some charismatics say that they are not recieving new doctrine through tongues, they say that God is just emphasizing something in scripture. This arguement doesn't hold up because if God wanted it emphasized another time, he would have done it again in scripture (like he often does).

I'm not downplaying their error at all. It is very grevious. But when you go to church there, what will you hear preached? Who do they say Jesus is and what does He do for sinners? You will hear the gospel. It may be muddied up by errors, but it's still there. You can't say that about Mormons, JW's, Muslims, etc. Christ is sustaining that lampstand, though it may be dim.

 

[Scot]

A brother on the board was kind enough to send me these quotes:

Matthew Henry's commentary says:

It is confirmed by a most solemn sanction, condemning and cursing all who should dare to corrupt or change the word of God, either by adding to it or taking from it, v. 18, 19. He that adds to the word of God draws down upon himself all the plagues written in this book; and he who takes any thing away from it cuts himself off from all the promises and privileges of it. This sanction is like a flaming sword, to guard the canon of the scripture from profane hands. Such a fence as this God set about the law (Deut. iv. 2), and the whole Old Testament (Mal. iv. 4), and now in the most solemn manner about the whole Bible, assuring us that it is a book of the most sacred nature, divine authority, and of the last importance, and therefore the peculiar care of the great God.

Matthew Poole's commentary:

Rev 22:18. I Christ, or I John, testify to every one to whose hands or ears the words of this book shall come, That if any man shall invent new prophecies contrary to the prophecies contained in this book, God shall severely punish him, by adding to him the plagues threatened against sinners in this book.

Rev 22:19. Divines generally do further extend the sense of these two verses, considering this as the last portion of holy writ, not only placed last in our Bibles, but revealed and written last. They conceive these verses the seal of all canonical Scripture, and that God here denounces a curse to those who shall pretend any new revelations of his will, other than what are to be found in the books of the Old and New Testament; as also against all those who shall deny, corrupt, or deprave any part of them. God, as to such persons, saith, they shall not have any such part or portion in heaven, as they would pretend a right to, or seemed to have.

Fisher's Catechism (59.6):

the canon of scripture is concluded, and therefore no new revelations and institutions are to be expected, Rev 22:18-19.

Calvin's InstitutesII 9, 2:

I deny that those assemble in the name of Christ who, disregarding his command by which he forbids anything to be added to the word of God or taken from it, determine everything at their own pleasure, who, not contented with the oracles of Scripture, that is, with the only rule of perfect wisdom, devise some novelty out of their own head (Deut 4:2; Rev 22:18).

Robert Shaw's Exposition of the WCF, 1.6:

So complete is the Scripture, that its Author has peremptorily prohibited either to add to, or to diminish ought from it."”Deut 4:2; Rev 22:18-19.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Scot
Like I said, you can´t separate Revelation from the rest of the Bible. It´s one book. If you add to the book of revelation, you´ve added to the whole Bible. If you add to any other of the books, you´ve added to Revelation as well because they are a cohesive whole. It´s also curious that we don´t have that warning at the end of any of the other books. Just when we come to the end of God´s complete revelation to us (the entire Bible). I believe that God is telling us "œo.k., my revelation to you is complete. Do not add or take away from it. If you do, you are under my judgment."

The sentence I highlighted above is the part on which we disagree. I naturally agree that one who has added to Revelation has added to God's Word as a whole - but not that one who has added to God's Word as a whole has also done the equivalent of adding specifically to Revelation. The foundation behind my view on that is that different parts of Scripture biblically serve different purposes. The Torah had a specific place and purpose among the rest of the Scripture under the Old Covenant. Similarly, the Psalms serve a unique purpose. Furthermore, the Decalogue has a unique, summarizing role among the hundreds of commandments in Scripture. Would you consider an addition or ommision from the Bible such as the differences in verse inclusion between newer and older manuscripts to be on the same level as adding an eleventh commandment to the Decalogue? I could go on, but the point is that different parts of Scripture have different places in the Bible's unified role as God's Word to us. That is why a mere appeal to the inspiration of Scripture as a whole does not automatically and necessarily render the warning of Revelation 22:18 as applying to the entire Bible.

But at this point, the tangent of whether or not that verse applies to the whole Bible or just the Book of Revelation is not even the important issue: For even if it does in fact apply to the whole Bible, the key issue we are discussing here is whether charismatic churches should be considered false churches with a false Gospel on the same level as Mormon churches, Jehovah's Witnesses and Roman Catholic churches. And the key point is that even if Revelation 22:18 is referring to the whole of Scripture, much evidence would need to be presented for the curse and judgment of which it speaks to always be an eternal, salvific one in nature. We are also told, for instance, that he who partakes of the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner is guilty of profaning Christ and brings judgment upon himself. Yet I doubt anyone would claim that any church (or individual) that serves (or partakes of) the Supper in a less than biblical way (e.g. intinction, grape juice, less than complete examination, etc.) is automatically preaching (or believing) a false Gospel. Likewise, even if Revelation 22:18 is specifically declaring a curse and judgment for those who add to any of God's Word, how does that necessarily constitute a false gospel on the part of such people any more than does the judgment promised to those who profane Christ through the Supper? Why is a church that practices charismatic gifts any less a true church than is a cessationist church that practices intinction or doesn't sufficiently examine its partakers?

Originally posted by Scot
Every false gospel has either a wider authority or a lesser authority than the Bible. Look at all of them: Muslims (koran), Seventh Day Adventists (Ellen G. White inspired writings), Roman Catholics (infallible utterances of the pope, visions of Fatima, Apocrypha books, etc), Mormons (book of Mormon), Charismatics (tongues, visions, dreams, etc.).

All of these have one thing in common. They're not satisfied with the Bible ALONE. They want something more than what God has revealed to us.

What about the gospel of the New Perspective on Paul with its understanding of imputation and justification? What about semi-Pelagianism? Proponents of those views and other views only twist Scripture to come to their false gospel, they do not come to it through extra-biblical sources. That goes to show the flaw in your parallel of further revelation being the common mark of all false gospels. Rather, that common mark is the distortion in one way or another of the atonement of Christ's work on the Cross. In deciding whether or not a church preaches (or an individual believes) a false gospel on the same level as Rome or Mormonism, how can we possibly ignore the factor that Patrick pointed out of how at a charismatic church (such as a Sovereign Grace church) you would hear the message of salvation by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ's atoning work on the Cross alone preached, whereas you would not hear that message preached at a Mormon church, a Jehovah's Witnesses hall or a Roman Catholic church?

 

[Richard King]

All good info and good input for further consideration.
I have seen TONS of misuse of the scripture on this topic
...but I have seen something fairly miraculous in my life.
So I dare not deny supernatural power of God as I am sure no one would but I don't feel qualified enough to say this is the box he operates in.

My fear...and maybe I should get over it...is
I am afraid to say what the Holy Spirit can and cannot do.
That is all I am saying.
I just haven't studied enough scripture to claim I know the way the Spirit operates or the boundaries within which the Spirit works.
Just one more thing I need to study.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Richard King
All good info and good input for further consideration.
I have seen TONS of misuse of the scripture on this topic
...but I have seen something fairly miraculous in my life.
So I dare not deny supernatural power of God as I am sure no one would but I don't feel qualified enough to say this is the box he operates in.

Just to clarify, you are correct that no one here would deny the supernatural power of God to work special providences such as what you mentioned seeing in your life. The only type of those providences that the Reformed confessions state have ceased are those of a revelatory nature, most notably prophecy and tongues. Furthermore, they also assert that while such supernatural acts can and do occur today, they do not have the same significance in revealing aspects of God's redemptive plan that the miracles of the biblical era did.

It is important to recognize that the reason those things have ceased is that before Christ, their full purpose was to point to Him, and during His time on earth, all of His miracles made plain something about God's redemptive plan through Him that was previously vague. Furthermore, in Christ "are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col. 2:3), and Christ told the apostles that "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you" (John 16:12-14, emphasis mine). So here we see that the purpose of the apostles and their writings was to confirm, clarify and expound on Christ and His message. In light of that, since He specifically promised them that the Spirit would guide them into all such truth, there is no place for such apostolic revelations after that truth was made plain through the apostles and the New Testament Scriptures (Eph. 3:4-5).

Originally posted by Richard King
My fear...and maybe I should get over it...is
I am afraid to say what the Holy Spirit can and cannot do.
That is all I am saying.
I just haven't studied enough scripture to claim I know the way the Spirit operates or the boundaries within which the Spirit works.
Just one more thing I need to study.

Because of the incomprehensibility of God, there is a very real and significant sense in which no one can understand so much of the deepest mystery regarding God's nature and how and why He works. But the norm for Scriptural references to "mysteries" are those things that were previously unknown, but now revealed - and we should seek no more and no less than to understand those mysteries, which were intended for us to understand and are thus laid out in Scripture. I can certainly relate in feeling like the present topic of discussion is a mystery of the former type, and wondering if I would ever understand clearly enough what Scripture lays out on it. For a very brief yet helpful starting point in that exegetical study, I recommend O. Palmer Robertson's The Final Word.

Even beyond the single issue of the revelatory gifts and miraculous signs, I can relate to your sense of hesitation in making a committal judgment on almost anything regarding the bounds in which God works, and the biblical nature of spirituality itself and how grace and spiritual blessings are given and intended to be received. For an excellent introductory study on those issues, I highly recommend you get a copy of Michael Horton's In the Face of God. I said more about that and Robertson's book, as well as the current topic, here.