Before there was that mandate concerning medical records not being given out, there were still no documented healings that were able to be verified.
B. B. Warfield's Book "Counterfeit Miracles"
- Thread starter bookslover
- Start date
- Status
When the Apostle either spoke or wrote in regards to theology, were always right!
All Scripture is God-breathed. I know of no verse that supports your statement above.
You still have to address Peter's apparent theological error. I find your description of it as an error of application to be insufficient. It is clear that Peter had come under the influence of certain Jews who were teaching wrong theology (not merely wrong application).
Paul himself stated to Peter that he knew the truth of living under the grace of God now found in the New Covenant with God, but that under pressure from Judaizers, he was starting to waver from his former convictions. Not His theology was bad/wrong, but his application of what he knew was the right thing to do wasbeing addressed by Paul.
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
David,
Brother...I think both @Tom Hart & @BayouHuguenot are taking issue because your post have been broadly vague towards the latter half of this thread and need some refining.
Our actions have implications on our Theology. Hence even if one grants your claim: "that the Apostle Peter's theology was always right", ....Peter "applying it" wrongly would still yield that his Theology of Applying his Theology had erred. The Apostles did have flaws..and we should find hope in that. They had a special office yes, but they were still men. It seems Peter in a moment of weakness feared men more than the Lord, which is not a huge shocker (remember the rooster crow)
@OP
Very interesting indeed. We likely will need Warfield's book for the next 100 years as well, because "signs & wonders" are still demanded in this age that is becoming less and less satisfied with the WORD of God. May we remind ourselves even this hour of the beauty, majesty, and wonder we have in our copy of God's HOLY Word and may be we sobered in knowing that this Lord's Day we have a chance to be feed by that same Word from our overseers.
The language used in Gal. 2:4-16 seems to me to show Paul correcting Peter and others for behaviour arising out of incorrect theological positions. Paul's words are quite strong: "they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel", and even Barnabas was "carried away". Then he turns the discussion into an argument for justification by faith. More than a bit theological, if you ask me.
@Grant Jones
Warfield's Counterfeit Miracles is well worth a read. Very useful for navigating movements involving supposed signs and wonders. Warfield was brilliant and wrote with clarity and wit. A couple of times I burst out laughing.
Warfield's Counterfeit Miracles is well worth a read. Very useful for navigating movements involving supposed signs and wonders. Warfield was brilliant and wrote with clarity and wit. A couple of times I burst out laughing.
Indeed, wrong application is wrong theology.
I would tend to agree. A wrong application likely points to something deeper.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
It is a good book and among cessationist treatises, it is one of the best. (Gaffin's is the best. Macarthur's is the worst).
Warfield made a specific argument that both Dispensationalists and Reformed have used since: the cluster-miracles argument. Mind you, I think the argument is flawed but it is rhetorically brilliant
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Good luck finding a verse that says Peter had ex cathedra infallibility. Yes, his canonical writings are 100% right. But we have no evidence that any time he prefaced a verbal statement with, "Now I speak theology..." that he was necessarily going to be right. Sounds like a magical formula, actually.
Why do you say this? (Not a challenge; I’m genuinely curious. I’ve never read the work.)
When any of the Apostles were giving forth either verbally or in recorded form theology, they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to be always speaking truth.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
You have no evidence for this statement.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Because he realizes the issue can't be framed as Benny Hinn on one side and John Macarthur on the other. Also, he is more sensitive to the nuances of redemptive history. He also (rightly) rejects the idea that "when the perfect has come" = the end of the NT canon.
He also interacts with Grudem's exegesis in great detail, something Macarthur didn't do in Strange Fire.
Doesn't he though also watre down the Prophetic element to saying that at times it might be right, but others times can be wrong?
Jesus promised to the Apostlews the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth, so why would it not be spoken theology he would overlook to make sure was right?
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
O Palmer Robertson's "The Final Word" is also a helpful study on cessationism.
Regarding the apostle's use of healing gifts, I don't think they had the freedom to use them upon any personal whim. If that were the case, Paul could heal himself of his many injuries rather than endure the suffering, or heal Timothy's stomach rather then recommending wine for treatment. Even with Jesus, though he healed many, he did not heal all. They were led by the Spirit in their ministry. The healings were signs confirming the apostolic message, and this confirmation came as God wanted, not as men wanted it. Hebrews 2:3-4 is clear that God confirmed their testimony with the signs. The question then really is, what was the original role of the healing gifts, and does that role continue or not? And if the miracles do in fact continue, what is the function, and where is the evidence of the same kind of indisputable miracles? For instance, life-long paralytics walking? Deformed limbs restored? Blindness cured? The dead being raised?
In all my experience in Pentecostalism, alleged healings were more vague, unverifiable, or simply successful medical interventions (blessed by God certainly but nothing like apostolic miracles).
Regarding the apostle's use of healing gifts, I don't think they had the freedom to use them upon any personal whim. If that were the case, Paul could heal himself of his many injuries rather than endure the suffering, or heal Timothy's stomach rather then recommending wine for treatment. Even with Jesus, though he healed many, he did not heal all. They were led by the Spirit in their ministry. The healings were signs confirming the apostolic message, and this confirmation came as God wanted, not as men wanted it. Hebrews 2:3-4 is clear that God confirmed their testimony with the signs. The question then really is, what was the original role of the healing gifts, and does that role continue or not? And if the miracles do in fact continue, what is the function, and where is the evidence of the same kind of indisputable miracles? For instance, life-long paralytics walking? Deformed limbs restored? Blindness cured? The dead being raised?
In all my experience in Pentecostalism, alleged healings were more vague, unverifiable, or simply successful medical interventions (blessed by God certainly but nothing like apostolic miracles).
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
It doesn't logically follow that Jesus would guide them to all truth; therefore, every time they spoke on theological matters they were inerrant.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Continuationists like Moreland and Keener agree.
To show God's mercy and demonstrate the kingdom.
To show God's mercy and demonstrate the kingdom.
The literature is out there. Perusing the scholarly literature on this will show you where to look.
I don't dispute your experience, but that is what it is--your experience. Ultimately it comes down to exegesis.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
What he shows is that when the word "Prophet/prophesy" is used in Greek literature, it doesn't carry the same connotations as OT prophets. For instance, Agabus was wrong on a few particulars (he said the Jews would hand Paul over, when it was actually the Romans who saved Paul from the Jews).
Further, in the Old Testament disobeying a prophecy usually meant death, yet when the believers "spoke by the Spirit to Paul so that he would not go to Jerusalem," Paul ignored them.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
I will say that this is the one response that makes me work through the issues. I"ll probably bow out at this point. I have several Wayne Grudem book reviews I am working on at the moment.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
I agree with this, but the New Testament adds more significance to the signs than just these things. Ultimately, we have to establish exegetically if that added significance of confirming apostolic testimony is fundamental to the sign, or if the signs may continue without that important element once the apostles are gone.
I will peruse what sources I can, but if you could point me to specific authors documenting the extraordinary kind of healings I described above, I'd appreciate it.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Off the top of my head, and I haven't really looked at the literature since 2014. Give me a day or two. I"ll have to find my old bibliography.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
I have read Augustine's testimonies of miracles and they are from miraculous. I "sit" on my conviction. LOL
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
I have no idea what any of that means.
Ultimately, though, I don't really care if the events in Augustine's account happened or not. I base my theology off of exegesis, not off of "what is possible today because science and David Hume" or "my experience."
I simply brought Augustine up because people have this line that "miracles ceased in the early church." I groan whenever people say that. I've read 20,000 pages of "the early church fathers" over the past decade. Most people haven't. Suffice to say--that claim is false.
Last edited:
I should have stated it in this fashion then, as whenever in the Bible any Apostle tried to heal or spoke on theology, was infallible and healings always happened.
So the OT Prophets and the NT Apostles are under the same infallible footing, as their spoken and recorded words were inspired by God, but those with gift of prophecy were not to be used for any instruction, teaching, or doctrine, correct?
Hebrews 2:4 informs us that God used the Apostles to do signs and wonders in order to confirm that Jesus was the promised Messiah, and that the Gospel of Him was true, but notice the author of Hebrews wrote as if those gifts had already ceased in his time.
I do not think any are saying that miracles and healings from God ceased fully, but that the gifts to be able to do that ourselves ceased with death of John.
- Status
