B. B. Warfield's Book "Counterfeit Miracles"

[earl40]

It makes all the difference in the world. Your argument implied that everything that happened before Hebrews (the words you emphasized in the past tense) cuts off all future prophecy.

Yet, every NT scholar holds that Revelation was the last written book, so that is at least one more prophecy. That means your argument from Hebrews can't prove what you want it to prove.

3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

The point stands, in the past and future, to those who heard him to which the signs showed.

 

[RamistThomist]

3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

The point stands, in the past and future, to those who heard him to which the signs showed.

All the text proves is that people who heard him in the past saw signs confirmed. To read anything else into it is eisegesis.

 

[earl40]

All the text proves is that people who heard him in the past saw signs confirmed.

What this is saying is that God confirmed Himself with signs. Your sentence does not even make sense.

 

[RamistThomist]

What this is saying is that God confirmed Himself with signs. Your sentence does not even make sense.

Yeah, no one is disputing that God confirmed with signs. I think the original issue was whether all miracles were apostolic-signs, and I pointed out to at least once case that wasn't (James; whether James's miracles continued today is beside the point; it was at least one miracle-event that wasn't apostolic).

 

[bookslover]

Man, what a thread!

All I did was note the hundredth anniversary of Warfield's book - and now look at what this thread has gone and done. LOL

Not complaining - just marveling.

 

[RamistThomist]

Man, what a thread!

All I did was note the hundredth anniversary of Warfield's book - and now look at what this thread has gone and done. LOL

Not complaining - just marveling.

Such is the essence of a message board.

 

[RamistThomist]

Everyone was asking "But where is the medical documentation?" Normally, I wouldn't care, since for me it is an exegetical question, not an experiential one. But I was on Steve Hays' blog and I found this, if it means anything to anybody.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/modern-miracle-reports-with-evidence.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/modern-miracle-reports-with-evidence_15.html

 

[earl40]

Everyone was asking "But where is the medical documentation?" Normally, I wouldn't care, since for me it is an exegetical question, not an experiential one.

May I ask, if this is not too far off subject. What about those who witnessed the miracles Jesus and the Apostles performed? Were they not basing the answer to the question based on experience?

 

[RamistThomist]

May I ask, if this is not too far off subject. What about those who witnessed the miracles Jesus and the Apostles performed? Were they not basing the answer to the question based on experience?

Absolutely. But charismatics have normally been accused of "just doing experience." So I decided to try a different tact: just exegesis. Of course, I can go the experience route. I have the universal testimony of the church. But then people say, "We just believe the Bible," so what's the point?

There is a larger epistemological issue: we need to be careful of using the same skeptical arguments against modern miracle claims that atheists use against the Gospels.

 

[earl40]

Absolutely. But charismatics have normally been accused of "just doing experience." So I decided to try a different tact: just exegesis.

What exactly is the exegetical reason for your belief?

 

[RamistThomist]

What exactly is the exegetical reason for your belief?

I've probably been over it a dozen times already in this thread.

Exegetical might be too strong, since I didn't format my keyboard to use Greek terms. We'll go with textual:

1. 1 Cor 1, where Paul equates the duration of spiritual gifts until the time of Christ's return.
2. James 5--regardless of what this means exactly, and whether it expired or not, it was an example of miracles that had nothing to do with the apostles or with "confirming a message."
3. I'm trying to think of other areas. We've covered it on this thread and another thread this year around Spring time at least 20-30 times.
4. I pointed out that the past tenses in Hebrews 1 had nothing to do with whether prophecy expired or not. If it did, and if John wrote after Hebrews, then we have at least one instance of prophecy continuing after prophecy expired. That is a contradiction and is fatal to the whole argument.

 

[earl40]

I've probably been over it a dozen times already in this thread.

Exegetical might be too strong, since I didn't format my keyboard to use Greek terms. We'll go with textual:

1. 1 Cor 1, where Paul equates the duration of spiritual gifts until the time of Christ's return.
2. James 5--regardless of what this means exactly, and whether it expired or not, it was an example of miracles that had nothing to do with the apostles or with "confirming a message."
3. I'm trying to think of other areas. We've covered it on this thread and another thread this year around Spring time at least 20-30 times.
4. I pointed out that the past tenses in Hebrews 1 had nothing to do with whether prophecy expired or not. If it did, and if John wrote after Hebrews, then we have at least one instance of prophecy continuing after prophecy expired. That is a contradiction and is fatal to the whole argument.

Appreciate. Of course I disagree but another thread another day. If I get the energy I would like discuss these points one day, for I would not hope to think the PB would like to express and endorse that the continuation of the gifts for today is still going on.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Sure, but cessationists need to realize that Hinn isn't the standard of discussion, Keener is. And if we go by abuses, I can make "Pastor" Steven Anderson the standard of cessationism.

Thanks for the exchange, too. I don't recall ever practicing "the power gifts" (except for maybe one word of knowledge). So that's my story, for what it's worth.

Out of interest, thinking back to the time when you practiced one word of knowledge, a few questions about it: Was it a word of Scripture, or an extra - scriptural word of knowledge? Would you say it was an infallible word? Was it inspired by the Holy Ghost, and if not, in what sense was it a power gift (assuming this means one of the gifts of the Holy Ghost mentioned in the NT which you were practicing)?

 

[RamistThomist]

Was it a word of Scripture, or an extra - scriptural word of knowledge?

It was more of a summary of Scripture. I suppose, depending on the English translation, I could find a word-to-word correspondence.

Would you say it was an infallible word?

If it came from God, yes. But my understanding of the details is contingent (think of how Agabus's details don't fully match up with what he prophecied, though the prophecy was correct).

Was it inspired by the Holy Ghost

I hope so, otherwise I am channeling demons! Anyway, "inspired" is a loaded term. Shakespeare is inspiring, but not theopneustos. If you are asking if it is ex-spirated in the sense of theopneustos, no.

and if not, in what sense was it a power gift (assuming this means one of the gifts of the Holy Ghost mentioned in the NT which you were practicing)?

see above

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

It was more of a summary of Scripture. I suppose, depending on the English translation, I could find a word-to-word correspondence.



If it came from God, yes. But my understanding of the details is contingent (think of how Agabus's details don't fully match up with what he prophecied, though the prophecy was correct).



I hope so, otherwise I am channeling demons! Anyway, "inspired" is a loaded term. Shakespeare is inspiring, but not theopneustos. If you are asking if it is ex-spirated in the sense of theopneustos, no.



see above

Forgive me, but I don't fully understand your answers. When you say it was a summary of Scripture, do you mean you articulated a doctrine which was scriptural (with Scriptural backing perhaps), or paraphrased a verse of Scripture? Neither sound like gifts in the sense being discussed (I. E. Nobody i am aware of would be contending that the ability to do these things has ceased). Perhaps it would clarify if you told us what the word of knowledge was, assuming it is to edification.

I'm not sure what to make of the other answers, particularly in conjunction with each other. By "inspired by the Holy Spirit" of course I do mean Theopneustos - after all the Holy Spirit is God (not sure why this is a loaded term). You seem to disclaim this for your word of knowledge, but yet state that if it came from God it was infallible (tautology), and yet by disclaim in inspiration presumably you suggest it did not come from God, hence my confusion. Given all this, the "see above" at the end doesn't help to answer the question it is supposed to answer.

Can you clarify a little?

 

[RamistThomist]

When you say it was a summary of Scripture, do you mean you articulated a doctrine which was scriptural (with Scriptural backing perhaps), or paraphrased a verse of Scripture?

Paraphrased a verse. There are many verses like "Fear not" or "I will be with you" which could either be exact quotes or paraphases of larger statements.

By "inspired by the Holy Spirit" of course I do mean Theopneustos - after all the Holy Spirit is God (not sure why this is a loaded term)

In that case, no. I was not theopneustosed. But the word "inspired" is misleading because when you look at the English word and compare it to what the Spirit is actually doing, it isn't the people who are inspired. It is the Spirit who is ex-spiring (breathing out). Yet, we don't want to say the Holy Spirit expired!

You seem to disclaim this for your word of knowledge, but yet state that if it came from God it was infallible (tautology)

All of God's truths are infallible by definition. Yet, given the nature of epistemic warrant, I fully concede I could be wrong. That's just basic epistemology.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Paraphrased a verse. There are many verses like "Fear not" or "I will be with you" which could either be exact quotes or paraphases of larger statements.


In that case, no. I was not theopneustosed. But the word "inspired" is misleading because when you look at the English word and compare it to what the Spirit is actually doing, it isn't the people who are inspired. It is the Spirit who is ex-spiring (breathing out). Yet, we don't want to say the Holy Spirit expired!


All of God's truths are infallible by definition. Yet, given the nature of epistemic warrant, I fully concede I could be wrong. That's just basic epistemology.

So to get down to the bedrock of my question, if you could be wrong, how can it be a word of knowledge in the sense of a gift given by the Spirit? Does the Spirit give as gifts words of knowledge which could be wrong?

 

[RamistThomist]

So to get down to the bedrock of my question, if you could be wrong, how can it be a word of knowledge in the sense of a gift given by the Spirit? Does the Spirit give as gifts words of knowledge which could be wrong?

Does the Spirit give the gift of teaching so that teachers could be wrong? Certainly, as we know men who are skilled teachers (Doug Wilson) yet are terribly wrong.

I say that I could be wrong simply on the basis of epistemology: I don't have 100% certainty of anything. But given what Plantinga taught us about warranted epistemic beliefs, that's not a problem.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Everyone was asking "But where is the medical documentation?" Normally, I wouldn't care, since for me it is an exegetical question, not an experiential one. But I was on Steve Hays' blog and I found this, if it means anything to anybody.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/modern-miracle-reports-with-evidence.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/modern-miracle-reports-with-evidence_15.html

Thank you for the references.
I agree, ultimately the answers are decided exegetically. If people are going to claim apostolic type gifts today, we need to have a clear biblical understanding and criteria in order to evaluate such claims.

But from the references you gave, these could certainly fit the James 5 types of healing in answer to prayer, but not the apostolic gift of healing by command.

 

[Abeard]

Man, what a thread!

All I did was note the hundredth anniversary of Warfield's book - and now look at what this thread has gone and done. LOL

Not complaining - just marveling.

You've created a monster! haha

This must be a record or something.

 

[RamistThomist]

But from the references you gave, these could certainly fit the James 5 types of healing in answer to prayer, but not the apostolic gift of healing by command.

I think I can agree with that, though I think the "apostolic healing by command" wasn't 100%.

 

[earl40]

I think I can agree with that, though I think the "apostolic healing by command" wasn't 100%.

Of course in James 5 it is a promise, and if one was sick they were healed each and every time back then.

 

[RamistThomist]

Of course in James 5 it is a promise, and if one was sick they were healed each and every time back then.

Since that is a prescriptive passage, not descriptive, we have no stats on the matter. And the book of Proverbs is full of prescriptions which more often than not, aren't strictly true 100% of the time. And James is wisdom literature.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Does the Spirit give the gift of teaching so that teachers could be wrong? Certainly, as we know men who are skilled teachers (Doug Wilson) yet are terribly wrong.

I say that I could be wrong simply on the basis of epistemology: I don't have 100% certainty of anything. But given what Plantinga taught us about warranted epistemic beliefs, that's not a problem.

So how do you distinguish this word of knowledge which you believe to be a gift of the Holy Ghost from any other pronouncement you make?

 

[RamistThomist]

So how do you distinguish this word of knowledge which you believe to be a gift of the Holy Ghost from any other pronouncement you make?

Given what we know about epistemic warrant and belief-formation, there are several indicators:

1) it is immediate (not formed on the basis of any other belief)
2) a belief is generally a motion of the mind towards an object. In this case, the Holy Spirit gives the content without my mind willing that content to arise.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Given what we know about epistemic warrant and belief-formation, there are several indicators:

1) it is immediate (not formed on the basis of any other belief)
2) a belief is generally a motion of the mind towards an object. In this case, the Holy Spirit gives the content without my mind willing that content to arise.

So if something suddenly pops into your mind you believe it to be a gift of the Spirit?

I'm not trying to be obnoxious, I really don't understand the thinking. Perhaps an example would really be helpful in understanding where you are coming from here.

As I alluded to in my earlier post, we cannot assume that any thoughts, opinions or knowledge we have is word from God unless we are willing to claim it is infallible - the alternative to this is to concede that God could give a fallible word of knowledge. If the word in question is Scripture then of course we are absolutely warranted to claim this, but then it is not an extraordinary gift. If it is not Scripture then if we claim it is a word from God, we confess extra-Scriptural revelations from God - is this your position?

 

[Tom Hart]

The Holy Spirit gives the content without my mind willing that content to arise.

Years ago, at a wildly charismatic church in Toronto, a woman stood up and gave a "word of knowledge". She didn't speak long, and what she said was mostly different bits of Scripture cobbled together into a "prophecy". It wasn't wordless babble.

But what rules out an ecstatic utterance? How can you know that the Holy Spirit moved you? You've given no real answer to that question.

 

[RamistThomist]

But what rules out an ecstatic utterance?

Probably the fact I wasn't speaking or uttering anything at all.

How can you know that the Holy Spirit moved you? You've given no real answer to that question.

Because epistemologically it is a self-defeating question. It's what philosopher Roderick Chisholm called "the problem of criterion." I am not obligated to keep on giving justifications for my beliefs (which in turn will force me to give justifications for my justifications, and on to infinity).

If I am to know how I know something, I must have both an object of knowledge (p, word of wisdom in this case) and a criterion to validate p (we will call q.). I must also have something else: r, the fact that p satisfies q.

But this raises a problem. One can now ask “How do you know q and r?” What justifies my choosing this as a criterion? I must now satisfy the conditions with q’ and r’. But that isn’t good enough. How do I know q’ and r’? I must now satisfy those new conditions with q” and r”.

But to point towards an answer: I had asked God a question and immediately, before I had a chance to reflect on anything, a distinct proposition was in my head. The proposition glorified God, attacked Satan’s kingdom, and furthered my trust in Jesus. If that isn’t a sufficient criterion, nothing is.

 

[RamistThomist]

So if something suddenly pops into your mind you believe it to be a gift of the Spirit?

No.

we cannot assume that any thoughts, opinions or knowledge we have is word from God unless we are willing to claim it is infallible

Was Agabus infallible? Did he give 100% accurate correspondence to the facts?

If it is not Scripture then if we claim it is a word from God, we confess extra-Scriptural revelations from God - is this your position?

No. I am not using revelation in the sense you are. I am using it in the sense of the NT, which is simply "Unveiling." Numerous times apocalypsis/apocalypto is used in the NT it has nothing to do with what we call Scriptural canon.

 

[RamistThomist]

Here is why really pressing on the "how do you really, really know" line is dangerous. We all believe in the estimonium Spiritus sancti internum. So the question now is, "How do you really, really know that was from the Holy Spirit?" Can't use the Bible, since that would be circular reasoning since you got the idea from the Bible.

This is why knowledge doesn't equal justified, true belief. It is warranted, true belief.