Brief argument(s) for cessationism?

[timmopussycat]

Can anyone answer this:
For purposes of the question, let us assume:

1) "speaking in an unknown tongue," as part of corporate worship is not taken as new revelation of biblical doctrine of any kind

2) "speaking in an unknown tongue" requires an immediate "gift of interpretation" to follow it immediately in corporate worship

What would be the corporate worship purpose now?


timmopussycat
Revelaing the secrets of a visitors heart could be done by this means to give one example. Or encouraging the faith of a Jewish convert as may have happened in the Smith case previously mentioned.

Are you saying something like, in a corporate worship service, a tongue and interpretation would be used to disclose:

1) possible sin of someone there (like Ananias and Sapphira)?
2) exhort (encourage) with God's Word a new believer in the faith?

Both are possibilities.

-----Added 3/2/2009 at 06:03:17 EST-----

A couple thoughts and a question

timmopussycat

This argument is actually very strong. If God had limited himself to the framework of human logical expectations, Jesus would never have healed on the sabbath - to give but one examaple. The law says don't work on the sabbath, the Pharisees deduced that healing was work.
Yes, but neither premise was correct according to God's Word as it existed at that time- Healing, as an action, was not "work" ever prohibited by the forth commandment and, Jesus was in fact the Son of God with authority to heal.

So Pharisees had simply made up laws pertaining to righteousness, there was no problem with God's original revelation through Scripture, nor any limitation imposed by it.

Granted that the Pharisees had misunderstood healing to be a work when it is not and that Jesus was the Son of God with authority to heal: neither of these points are at issue. The question is does God always follow human logic and the answer is clearly "No" because he dissents from the Pharisees logic.

The claim that neither premise of the Pharisaic syllogism is correct is wrong. "Work" was specifically forbidden under the law. See e.g., Exd 20:10 But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates. See also Ex 23:12; 31:14, 15; and Ex 35:2 which notes that anybody who works on the Sabbath is to be put to death.

So the Pharisees began with one correct premise "work was forbidden on the Sabbath" and one incorrect one, that healing was unacceptable because it was work. It was the incorrect second premise that nullified their logic.

Notice how the structure of the argument that Eph 2:20 prohibits situational revelation is the same. Let me adjust a previously made remark to emphasize the point

Premise 1: The NT says that canonical revelation is foundational for the church, [correct premise].
Premise 2: Cessationists premise that situational revelation must expire together with canonical revelation. It is this second premise that must be proved by GNC before one can use Eph. 2:20 to prove the cessation of the spiritual gifts.

It is difficult to understand this because, based on discussions about it, "cessationism" seems to be understood in different ways. Nobody really asserts miracles have ceased, or that God is in any way limited in causing them.

Agreed.

 

[Scott1]

Can anyone answer this:
For purposes of the question, let us assume:

1) "speaking in an unknown tongue," as part of corporate worship is not taken as new revelation of biblical doctrine of any kind

2) "speaking in an unknown tongue" requires an immediate "gift of interpretation" to follow it immediately in corporate worship

What would be the corporate worship purpose now?


timmopussycat
Revelaing the secrets of a visitors heart could be done by this means to give one example. Or encouraging the faith of a Jewish convert as may have happened in the Smith case previously mentioned.

Are you saying something like, in a corporate worship service, a tongue and interpretation would be used to disclose:

1) possible sin of someone there (like Ananias and Sapphira)?
2) exhort (encourage) with God's Word a new believer in the faith?

Both are possibilities.

Allowing that God could extraordinarily do such a thing (because He is not limited),

1) Why would God "call out" someone's sin in an unknown tongue, then translate into a known one? It seems there would be no point whatsoever in the original unknown tongue? (In the case of Ananias and Sapphira, their deceit was revealed by the Holy Spirit, but in a known tongue)

2) Why would God encourage a new believer in the faith with an exhortation from His Word first in a tongue unknown to that person, then translate it? Since Scripture is already there for that person to read and hear in his own language to start with?

Is there any instance of speaking in an unknown tongue, followed by an interpretation into a known tongue in Scripture to:

1) "call out" someone's sin during public worship
2) "exhort" someone in public worship first in a language not known to him, then to interpret it

Realizing God can do anything, is there one single example of "speaking in unknown tongues" being used this way in all of Scripture?

 

[timmopussycat]

I don't accept G&P's redefinition of prophet. Nor do I accept that NT prophets are mentioned in Eph 2:20 for the only prophets whose role was "foundational" for the church, (the context of the verse), were the OT prophets including Moses.

While I thoroughly disagree that Eph. 2:20 is speaking of OT prophets and I will demonstrate exegetically why here in a minute but I must first state Sir that being that you then you have no other means or source as to a different form of revelation which would entail that there is only but one kind of a revelatory function and that Tongues, Prophecy, and the Gift of Knowledge served as this revelatory process and function then these revelatory gifts have ceased less you continue to leave an open cannon that we can continue to add whatever God has revealed to someone in direct form either by tongues or prophecy, remember tongues became prophecy when interpretated according to 1 Cor. 14 and prophecy was not only foretelling but also forthtelling. Therefore if tongues and prophecy are revelational and still do exist then the revelational process is still active and the Church would have a second authoratative rule to doctrine etc....Holy Writ and Verbal revelation and Sola Scriptura goes right out the window along with its counterpart the Sufficiency of Scripture hence Holy Writ is not our Sole source of revelation and is not sufficient for our everyday practice, life and doctrine etc...

One of the worst discussion errors I see repeatedly committed by Christians of all parties is that we will insist on accusing those who disagree with us of necessarily holding to consequences of their views which have been specifically disavowed. Now there is a logic of ideas and sometimes people are forced by that logic to conclusions they had denied when they intially held a new position, but in all cases we need to pay attention to the reasons for holding that the consequences don't follow. Allowing that particular instances of claimed situational revelation may be valid does not in any way add to the canon. Paul specifically told us that he laid a foundation in Corinth as a wise master builder and that foundation was Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 3:10,11). That foundation we have inScriputurated in the NT and the NT tells us that it cannot be added to. So if any additional revelation is to occur at all it will not be canonical (Rev. 22:18)

Timmo you stated.....

As Paul says "no other foundation" can be laid. If any genuinely new revelation occurs, it will not add to or contradict the foundation. By elimination, if any genuine revelation occurs today, it can only be situational guidance for particular people in particular times and places.

Who says that it won't add to the foundation? Seems to me that your are implying two different forms of Revelation, and if so, from where in scripture do you get this impression?

To take but one example, Paul allows that a prophecy might happen in the Corinthian assembly that might reveal the heart secrets of a visiting unbeliever (1 Cor 14: 23-5). Now those secrets would have been presumably something different in content than any of the following: the OT descriptions of the God with whom we have to do, prophecies of the coming Messiah recorded by the OT prophets, nor the Apostolic witness to Christ recorded in the Gospels, nor the Apostolic guidance to the church, which items make up the foundation of the Apostles and prophets. To use Paul's metaphor in Corinthians canonical revelation is foundational, but situational revelation, if it occurs is revelation that presumes on and is built on that foundation. It is a wall or a roof not the foundation.

Doesn't really matter in my opinion that you call it situational revelation or not, its still some sort of revelation that you must account for and AGAIN if there are "situational revelation" then scripture is NOT sufficient, bottom line and therefore out of accord with the doctrine of the Sufficiency of Scripture and Sola Scriptura no matter how you wanna look at it.

But it is Scripture that tells us that situational prophecy occurred alongside canonical revelation in both OT and NT. It is Scripture that clearly tells us that the foundation of Jesus Christ was laid in the Apostolic times and that nothing more can be added to it. And that is the point sola Scriptura must safeguard. But alongside canonical revelation is situational revelation and Scripture does not directly tell us that God has stopped using it at any point, nor does it As far as I know provide a statement from which we by GNC necessarily readch that conclusion.

And I think that you and others are mistaking or confusing the inward guidance of the ILLUMINATION of the Holy Spirit with revelation.

As a practical matter in my own life I am happier discussing such guidance in terms of illumination. I do think illumination is real and does occur. The question is whether some other things occur alongside it.

BUT......since the NT prophet IS foundational and Eph. 2:20 is speaking of these prophets and not OT prophets then it follows that these NT prophets gave revelation and these NT prophets are foundational therefore revelation ceased hence prophesy ceases with them.

Allow me to demonstrate 3 exegetical reasons that Eph. 2:20 is speaking of NT prophets despite what some have argued for OT prophets(Calvin and few others)

1. Very simply, the apostles are mentioned first. This would be unlikely if OT prophets, who PRECEEDED the apostles in history, were in view here. As a matter of fact as I already noted in the other post, the two offices are grouped together three times and in each of those times we see this order: apostle first then prophets (2:20;3:5;4:11). This strongly counters to the view that the OT prophets are in view.

The prophets were servants over God's house. Christ was a Son over that house and the apostles as his agents would "be guided into all the truth" (John 14:12,13): the prophets did not have all truth revealed to them.

2. We would all agree that context is vital to the proper exposition of any verse. Ken Gentry better explains...."we should note that in the very next sentence in the Greek (a mere eight verses later in the English) Paul again refers to "the apostles and the prophets". In Ephesians 3:5 his reference is unquestionably speaking of the New Testament prophets: "which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His Holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit".

And I agree that 3:5 the reference is certainly to the NT prophets for the reason you cite. But what exactly was revealed to them? It was the canonical truth that Gentiles are fellow heirs with Jews. But that truth had already been prophesied centuries earlier by Amos and others in the canonical scripture which is the foundation of the church. The NT writers seem to have made a difference between the OT canonical prophecy and current prophets as far as testing was concerned: they used OT to test all things including Apostolic testimony Acts 17:11, perhaps 1 Thess 5:19-21 by the OT scriptures 2 Pt. 1:19 (in Peter the prophetic word must be the Scriptures otherwise we have the spectacle of an apostle submitting his words to the judgment of an NT prophet.

He continues...."The Greek word nun ("now") in Ephesians 3:5 speaks of a present reality, not one from antiquity. The fact that this truth was not "made known" to "other generations" to the same degree ("as"), is significant, as well. The freshness of the revelation strongly supports the contemporaneous nature of the ones to whom it was made: the prophets, as well as the apostles. Hence, they are New Testament era prophets, not Old Testament ones."

see above for the problem with too quickly concluding that NT prophets are meant in Eph 2:20. And I agree that Eph 3:5 refers to the then present reality of NT prophets.

3. Again in Ephesians 4:11 Paul mentions again the apostles and prophets but this time he mentions them as "gifts" given to the Church since Christ's ascension which is referred to in verses 8-10. Verse 7 states: "to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift." Verse 11 Paul continues " And He(Christ) gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers". Therefore since prophets are given as gifts along with the apostles, as a consequence of Christ ascension, they must be NT prophets. [/QUOTE}

And I have no problem allowing that NT prophets were gifts to the church. But we nowhere see them coming out with novel and canonical revelation which was the role of the OT foundational prophet.

So it is no doubt, taking into account the whole context of this theme in Ephesians, Paul had NT prophets in mind not the OT prophets. Therefore NT prophets were foundational, the foundation was laid hence prophecy ceased.

Unfortunately you have not proved your premise. See above.

 

[MW]

A completed foundation needs no additions so long as the building stands, but the church still may profit from being prepared to address particular situations and it still must obey the command to evangelize and still requires divine action in one form or another if that command is to result in success.

If this "situational revelation" is functioning in the context of a closed canon, is fallible, is subject to the rules of decency and order, and is to be proved to be agreeable to the Word of God, I fail to see how it is anything other than exposition and application of the Word -- which the reformed tradition has often called "prophesying."

 

[timmopussycat]

Are you saying something like, in a corporate worship service, a tongue and interpretation would be used to disclose:

1) possible sin of someone there (like Ananias and Sapphira)?
2) exhort (encourage) with God's Word a new believer in the faith?

Both are possibilities.

Allowing that God could extraordinarily do such a thing (because He is not limited),

1) Why would God "call out" someone's sin in an unknown tongue, then translate into a known one? It seems there would be no point whatsoever in the original unknown tongue? (In the case of Ananias and Sapphira, their deceit was revealed by the Holy Spirit, but in a known tongue)

I don't know. But Paul does command that tongues not take place in the assembly unless an interpreter was present and he seems to think that the only time tounges are equal to prophecy is when an interpreter is present so that the church is built up. 1 Cor. 14:7. If an interpreter is present, Paul values the gifts equally.

[2) Why would God encourage a new believer in the faith with an exhortation from His Word first in a tongue unknown to that person, then translate it? Since Scripture is already there for that person to read and hear in his own language to start with?

Maybe tongues can, in particular circumstances, destroy intellectual resistance to the gospel and encourage faith.
In the case of the Smith incident referenced above what is claimed to have happened was that a prayer in a (claimed) humanly unlearned language (actually a specific dialect of French) was prayed, then interpreted by someone with no human knowledge of the language. In the assembly that day was a Jewish girl who, after the meeting met Smith and asked why the one lady prayed in French and the other translated. Smith says he was able to ask "Would you believe that neither of those ladies knows French?" and from there show that what happend was the biblical gift of tongues. That girl turned out to be a French major and knew the specific dialect and knew it was a perfect translation. With this evidence in front of her she said "I must accept Jesus Christ now, before we go any further."

Is there any instance of speaking in an unknown tongue, followed by an interpretation into a known tongue in Scripture to:

1) "call out" someone's sin during public worship
2) "exhort" someone in public worship first in a language not known to him, then to interpret it

Realizing God can do anything, is there one single example of "speaking in unknown tongues" being used this way in all of Scripture?

No but Paul regulated "tongues" in the assembly as permissible if an interpreter was present.

-----Added 3/2/2009 at 07:14:15 EST-----

A completed foundation needs no additions so long as the building stands, but the church still may profit from being prepared to address particular situations and it still must obey the command to evangelize and still requires divine action in one form or another if that command is to result in success.

If this "situational revelation" is functioning in the context of a closed canon, is fallible, is subject to the rules of decency and order, and is to be proved to be agreeable to the Word of God, I fail to see how it is anything other than exposition and application of the Word -- which the reformed tradition has often called "prophesying."

If situational revelation continues then something like the following two examples may occur: first, in a worship service next Sunday a prophet at the local Pentecostal church here in Vancouver might prophesy that Australia will have a new series of brush fires centered around Rockhampton. The pastor, recognizing the possiblity of true prophecy might encourage his flock to donate a little extra to the offering this week to help the brothers in the AFC Rockhamption minister to their neighbours in case the fires break out next Monday.
Or, same Vancouver Pentecostal church is visited by a certain geologist next Sunday. That gentleman (if my source is correct) learned some information in a conversation that led to the finding of a $200 plus million diamond mine but never has provided any monetary compensation to the man who gave him that information. A prophet says "There's a man here who made himself millions without compensating the man who gave him the information by which he did so." The geologist falls down and cries out "God is truly among you". Neither of these events would involve pastoral exposition of the word and only the first would involve application.

 

[Scott1]

Both are possibilities.

Allowing that God could extraordinarily do such a thing (because He is not limited),

1) Why would God "call out" someone's sin in an unknown tongue, then translate into a known one? It seems there would be no point whatsoever in the original unknown tongue? (In the case of Ananias and Sapphira, their deceit was revealed by the Holy Spirit, but in a known tongue)

I don't know. But Paul does command that tongues not take place in the assembly unless an interpreter was present and he seems to think that the only time tounges are equal to prophecy is when an interpreter is present so that the church is built up. 1 Cor. 14:7. If an interpreter is present, Paul values the gifts equally.

[2) Why would God encourage a new believer in the faith with an exhortation from His Word first in a tongue unknown to that person, then translate it? Since Scripture is already there for that person to read and hear in his own language to start with?

Maybe tongues can, in particular circumstances, destroy intellectual resistance to the gospel and encourage faith.
In the case of the Smith incident referenced above what is claimed to have happened was that a prayer in a (claimed) humanly unlearned language (actually a specific dialect of French) was prayed, then interpreted by someone with no human knowledge of the language. In the assembly that day was a Jewish girl who, after the meeting met Smith and asked why the one lady prayed in French and the other translated. Smith says he was able to ask "Would you believe that neither of those ladies knows French?" and from there show that what happend was the biblical gift of tongues. That girl turned out to be a French major and knew the specific dialect and knew it was a perfect translation. With this evidence in front of her she said "I must accept Jesus Christ now, before we go any further."

I think we are all agreed we could not base a court case on this kind of anecdotal (hearsay) evidence- let alone biblical doctrine on anything like the "Smith incident."

Is there any instance of speaking in an unknown tongue, followed by an interpretation into a known tongue in Scripture to:

1) "call out" someone's sin during public worship
2) "exhort" someone in public worship first in a language not known to him, then to interpret it

Realizing God can do anything, is there one single example of "speaking in unknown tongues" being used this way in all of Scripture?

No but Paul regulated "tongues" in the assembly as permissible if an interpreter was present.

Yes, in I Cor. 14 it requires an interpretation (into a known language). But it seems that in that context (I Cor 14), unknown tongues and interpretation gifts were being used for new revelation, as the canon of Scripture was not yet complete. So, you are agreeing the Scripture does not give us one positive example of these two spiritual gifts, in tandem, being used in the above manner. Rather, it seems you are suggesting either:

1) the purpose may have changed
2) the purpose may have been more broad than that given in Scripture
3) there is another purpose given for this (though not an example) elsewhere in Scripture
4) these gift purposes would be very rare, "extraordinary," almost "one off" sorts of occurrences.


It seems to me we would have to have Scriptural regulation of purpose for both 1) and 2) to validate it today.

Where do we find that?

Is there another purpose of these gifts in tandem elsewhere in Scripture?

What's particularly difficult here is that I Cor 14 is in the context of public worship. It does not appear to be of the "extraordinary occurrence" nature nor something confined to personal or family incidents of worship. It is centered on public worship, of which we know Scripture teaches the ordinary "means of grace" are given through the Word, prayer, and the sacraments- the Word completed by the foundation of the prophets and the apostles, prayer continues to and through the completed work of Christ's resurrection, with the sacraments having that as the same object.

And while God was, is and forever shall be able to operate miraculously, those "ordinary means" are given now whereas as that was not quite the case at that time in the Corinthian church.

 

[MW]

The pastor, recognizing the possiblity of true prophecy might encourage his flock to donate a little extra to the offering this week

The word I have emboldened indicates that this is "strange" revelation. It supposes God might reveal Himself in such a way as to set out the future but lay no moral demand on the recipients of His message. This is the revelation of the soothsayer, not the forthteller of God's Word. God's Word requires the speaker and hearer to invest themselves in what He has revealed. To speak of what a man might do when God makes His Will known is to leave room for continuing revelation without the moral obligation which that entails. This fits in nicely with the hit and miss nature of such things. Though nine hundred and ninety nine predictive statements might miss the mark, here is a scheme devised whereby one can claim as prophetic the odd one out of a thousand occurrences which seems to bear a similarity to the predictive statement. Of course, if the biblical mandate for testing prophets was fully operative, the nine hundred and ninety nine stonings which preceded the lucky guess probably would have given the lucky guesser pause before laying claim to speak on behalf of God.

 

[Herald]

Maybe tongues can, in particular circumstances, destroy intellectual resistance to the gospel and encourage faith.

I am not aware of any instance where an outside agency is needed to assist in understanding and believing the gospel. Perhaps you can point me to a passage in scripture that proves the insufficiency of the gospel message as part of the effectual call.

 

[timmopussycat]

The pastor, recognizing the possiblity of true prophecy might encourage his flock to donate a little extra to the offering this week

The word I have emboldened indicates that this is "strange" revelation. It supposes God might reveal Himself in such a way as to set out the future but lay no moral demand on the recipients of His message. This is the revelation of the soothsayer, not the forthteller of God's Word. God's Word requires the speaker and hearer to invest themselves in what He has revealed. To speak of what a man might do when God makes His Will known is to leave room for continuing revelation without the moral obligation which that entails.

And you have not noticed that my possible contemporary parallel of a sign gift of prophecy is an exact repition of the essentials of Agabus' famine prophecy. Agabus was not a soothsayer, but Scripture does not record that he himself provided the application to his prophecy. Rather it is recorded that "the disciples determined ... to send relief to the brothers living in Judea." (Acts 11:27-9).
As for "the pastor 'might' encourage" in my orignial post, that presumed that the pastor was not the prophet and so his action is is no part of the revelation to the contemporary prophet (which was the subject of the post), but only what a contemporary Pentecostal pastor might be likely to do in such a case. To avoid the red herring let me rewrite the sentence in my example and say that "after hearing such a prophecy the Pentecostal church down the street decided to send funds for fire relief to AFC Rockhampton."

This fits in nicely with the hit and miss nature of such things. Though nine hundred and ninety nine predictive statements might miss the mark, here is a scheme devised whereby one can claim as prophetic the odd one out of a thousand occurrences which seems to bear a similarity to the predictive statement. Of course, if the biblical mandate for testing prophets was fully operative, the nine hundred and ninety nine stonings which preceded the lucky guess probably would have given the lucky guesser pause before laying claim to speak on behalf of God.

If you substitute "here is an example of the application of the biblical criteria for testing prophecies by which the church may test incidents that claim to be prophecies and rightly reject the false" for the clause "here is a scheme devised whereby one can claim as authentic the odd one of a thousand occurances whereby one can claim as prophetic the odd one out of a thousand occurances which seems to bear a similarity to the predictive statement," I would entirely agree with you that a "prophet", facing a church that routinely employed such criteria would have second thoughts before speaking. In such a case, even though we do not stone false prophets today, the first proven false prophecy would be more than personally embarassing; it would discredit any "prophetic ministry" in the eyes of the church. After that everybody would know he wasn't a prophet.

-----Added 3/2/2009 at 09:24:45 EST-----

Good exchanges, all.

What do we mean by "apostolic testimony"?

Wasn't the "apostolic testimony" canon, that is, Scripture?

Yes it is.

[So, in a sense, we are not saying the "revelation" of new testament canon had to be substantiated by the same old testament "revelation"? (e.g. though the Bereans were noble for checking what the apostle Paul said against Old Testament scripture, what the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture in the New Testament says might supersede, in its own right, Old Testament Scripture)

Indeed the possibility did occur in Scripture. But once the Scriptural foundation is complete and we are told it is so completed, then there is no possibility that further revelation will be foundational (canonical).

-----Added 3/2/2009 at 09:44:17 EST-----

Allowing that God could extraordinarily do such a thing (because He is not limited),

1) Why would God "call out" someone's sin in an unknown tongue, then translate into a known one? It seems there would be no point whatsoever in the original unknown tongue? (In the case of Ananias and Sapphira, their deceit was revealed by the Holy Spirit, but in a known tongue)

I don't know. But Paul does command that tongues not take place in the assembly unless an interpreter was present and he seems to think that the only time tounges are equal to prophecy is when an interpreter is present so that the church is built up. 1 Cor. 14:7. If an interpreter is present, Paul values the gifts equally.

Maybe tongues can, in particular circumstances, destroy intellectual resistance to the gospel and encourage faith.
In the case of the Smith incident referenced above what is claimed to have happened was that a prayer in a (claimed) humanly unlearned language (actually a specific dialect of French) was prayed, then interpreted by someone with no human knowledge of the language. In the assembly that day was a Jewish girl who, after the meeting met Smith and asked why the one lady prayed in French and the other translated. Smith says he was able to ask "Would you believe that neither of those ladies knows French?" and from there show that what happend was the biblical gift of tongues. That girl turned out to be a French major and knew the specific dialect and knew it was a perfect translation. With this evidence in front of her she said "I must accept Jesus Christ now, before we go any further."

I think we are all agreed we could not base a court case on this kind of anecdotal (hearsay) evidence- let alone biblical doctrine on anything like the "Smith incident."

Timmo says this section should be outside all quotation marks.

I agree that at present we can't fully accept Smith's account, but if Pastor Smith or someone present that night was to visit us bringing the Jewish convert of the evening and both of them echoed Smith's tale, our visitors would be presenting us with the following situation. They would be telling us that they saw an exact parallel of the spiritual gift of tongues in action and producing the biblical effects of prompting a question that led to biblical exposition of the gospel. And we would have to judge whether their narrative was a lie, a misunderstanding of what had occurred or the truth. Unless we had reason to discredit them or their account we could not conclude they were liars, unless we can show from Scripture that what they thought had happened could not happen, we could not show them mistaken, and because what occurred is an exact parallel to the biblical use of tongues, we cannot prove it unbiblical short of demonstrationing that some Scriptural statement establishes, as a GNC consequence therefrom, that God has retired the "spiritual gifts".

In any case, whether true, mistaken or false, it is incidents of this type in which the biblical gifts seem to be paralleled in detail that present the real standard for biblical gifts that a proponent must reach, an agnostic must assess and an opponent must take into account.

Is there any instance of speaking in an unknown tongue, followed by an interpretation into a known tongue in Scripture to:

1) "call out" someone's sin during public worship
2) "exhort" someone in public worship first in a language not known to him, then to interpret it

Realizing God can do anything, is there one single example of "speaking in unknown tongues" being used this way in all of Scripture?

[quote = Timmo] No but Paul regulated "tongues" in the assembly as permissible if an interpreter was present.

Yes, in I Cor. 14 it requires an interpretation (into a known language). But it seems that in that context (I Cor 14), unknown tongues and interpretation gifts were being used for new revelation, as the canon of Scripture was not yet complete. So, you are agreeing the Scripture does not give us one positive example of these two spiritual gifts, in tandem, being used in the above manner. Rather, it seems you are suggesting either:

1) the purpose may have changed
2) the purpose may have been more broad than that given in Scripture
3) there is another purpose given for this (though not an example) elsewhere in Scripture
4) these gift purposes would be very rare, "extraordinary," almost "one off" sorts of occurrences.

It seems to me we would have to have Scriptural regulation of purpose for both 1) and 2) to validate it today.

Where do we find that?

Is there another purpose of these gifts in tandem elsewhere in Scripture?

What's particularly difficult here is that I Cor 14 is in the context of public worship. It does not appear to be of the "extraordinary occurrence" nature nor something confined to personal or family incidents of worship. It is centered on public worship, of which we know Scripture teaches the ordinary "means of grace" are given through the Word, prayer, and the sacraments- the Word completed by the foundation of the prophets and the apostles, prayer continues to and through the completed work of Christ's resurrection, with the sacraments having that as the same object.

And while God was, is and forever shall be able to operate miraculously, those "ordinary means" are given now whereas as that was not quite the case at that time in the Corinthian church.

We must presume that Paul had followed his usual practice and ordained competent elders in Corinth before leaving for he tells them to be in subjection to the "household of Stephanus". So presuming the absence of a competent teaching ministry, particularly after Paul tells us he has laid the foundation, is simply unsupported assertion.

 

[MW]

And you have not noticed that my possible contemporary parallel of a sign gift of prophecy is an exact repition of the essentials of Agabus' famine prophecy. Agabus was not a soothsayer, but Scripture does not record that he himself provided the application to his prophecy. Rather it is recorded that "the disciples determined ... to send relief to the brothers living in Judea." (Acts 11:27-9).

There is nothing in your fairytale example which parallels the prophetic utterance of Agabus except a conglomeration of phenomena. The very fact that naive minds might see something marvellous in a fabrication of events which mimics NT phenomena is a clear indication of the pseudonymity involved. Agabus was a reputed prophet -- "and there stood up one of them," i.e., one of the prophets from Jerusalem. He prophesied with clear testimony of the Holy Spirit -- the event was "signified by the Spirit." It was so clearly received as coming from the Spirit that the disciples determined to send relief, not to the whole world, but "unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea," the very locality the prophets originated from. We do not expect an historical narrative intended to show the nearness of the church at Antioch with the church at Jerusalem to provide a pattern of paranormal activity, and therefore the lack of moral demand in the historical notice is no indication that there was not one given. Half of the problem with the continuationist approach to Scripture is that it doesn't read Scripture for the purpose of discovering God's will, but of confirming the fanatical ideas of the reader. Such fanaticism reads modern day counterfeit experiences into the narrative with the disastrous result of producing a sui generis type of "revelation" which was never known in the history of true revelation.

 

[MW]

There has been enough scope given to the continuationist viewpoint, and perhaps more than enough, given that this board maintains that the former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people have now ceased (WCF 1:1). Having discussed the matter with other moderators I am going to close out any further opportunities to avow and defend the continuing revelation position, while leaving open the thread to discuss its original intention, which was to evaluate argument(s) for cessationism.

 

[Roldan]

There has been enough scope given to the continuationist viewpoint, and perhaps more than enough, given that this board maintains that the former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people have now ceased (WCF 1:1). Having discussed the matter with other moderators I am going to close out any further opportunities to avow and defend the continuing revelation position, while leaving open the thread to discuss its original intention, which was to evaluate argument(s) for cessationism.

Awwww man!! LOL Just when I was getting warmed up but its coo

 

[MW]

Awwww man!! LOL Just when I was getting warmed up but its coo

Feel free to continue to present the argument(s) for cessation, as per the original post.

 

[Scott1]

timmopussycat

Timmo says this section should be outside all quotation marks.

I agree that at present we can't fully accept Smith's account,

The point is, Christians do not base authoritative revelation of God on subjective experience or accounts like this.

That doesn't take away from the fact many of us have seen or experienced things we cannot explain and do not understand. It also doesn't take away from the fact that God still can do miraculous things without any limitation. That is His nature.

We "know" what we saw or experienced but that does not mean we interpret it biblically. That is why it is so important to evaluate in light of (the whole of) Scripture.

Certainly, there are things we do not or cannot know (cf "the secret things of God" Deuteronomy 29:29). It is a form of idolatry, rebellion and conceit to imagine we can know things God has not chosen to reveal or that we could not contain (cf John Calvin quoted the maxim, "Finitum Non Capax Infinitum." Yet man, in his sin, seeks that.

We have to admit this a fundamental problem within charismatic/pentecostal communions today, in terms of their understanding or not teaching systematically the authority of Scripture, the doctrine of God, the nature of idolatry, etc.)


but if Pastor Smith or someone present that night was to visit us bringing the Jewish convert of the evening and both of them echoed Smith's tale, our visitors would be presenting us with the following situation. They would be telling us that they saw an exact parallel of the spiritual gift of tongues in action and producing the biblical effects of prompting a question that led to biblical exposition of the gospel. And we would have to judge whether their narrative was a lie, a misunderstanding of what had occurred or the truth. Unless we had reason to discredit them or their account we could not conclude they were liars, unless we can show from Scripture that what they thought had happened could not happen,
I understand what you are saying here but don't think that is quite right. The regulative principle applies. It's not a case of "everything is doctrine unless excluded. It's the exact opposite.

Also, when someone is asking us to base doctrine or at least validate doctrine by the experience, the burden of proof would seem to be more on them.

Think of this- what if I "saw" and relayed an experience the opposite of the one you cite. Would the burden of proof really be on you to prove that it "could not happen"? In addition, we know already "All things are possible with God." But that doesn't mean that everything is not evaluated within the context of His revealed will- that is, the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture.


we could not show them mistaken, and because what occurred is an exact parallel to the biblical use of tongues, we cannot prove it unbiblical short of demonstrationing that some Scriptural statement establishes, as a GNC consequence therefrom, that God has retired the "spiritual gifts".

In any case, whether true, mistaken or false, it is incidents of this type in which the biblical gifts seem to be paralleled in detail that present the real standard for biblical gifts that a proponent must reach, an agnostic must assess and an opponent must take into account.

I don't think the reformed theology is in any sense "agnostic"- particularly in regard to God's ability to do miraculous things nor that God did, in a few instances, cause some people to speak in an unknown tongue, followed immediately by interpretation into a known one.

The question is how we evaluate it within the context of the whole of God's revealed will that is, the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture- the ordinary means by which we grow in grace and knowledge of Him.

 

[timmopussycat]

I agree that at present we can't fully accept Smith's account,

The point is, Christians do not base authoritative revelation of God on subjective experience or accounts like this.

That doesn't take away from the fact many of us have seen or experienced things we cannot explain and do not understand. It also doesn't take away from the fact that God still can do miraculous things without any limitation. That is His nature.

We "know" what we saw or experienced but that does not mean we interpret it biblically. That is why it is so important to evaluate in light of (the whole of) Scripture.

Certainly, there are things we do not or cannot know (cf "the secret things of God" Deuteronomy 29:29). It is a form of idolatry, rebellion and conceit to imagine we can know things God has not chosen to reveal or that we could not contain (cf John Calvin quoted the maxim, "Finitum Non Capax Infinitum." Yet man, in his sin, seeks that.

We have to admit this a fundamental problem within charismatic/pentecostal communions today, in terms of their understanding or not teaching systematically the authority of Scripture, the doctrine of God, the nature of idolatry, etc.)

Sorry, that won't do. You are making a common cessationist error in this discussion: you are confusing unbiblical charismania that do not conform to the biblical criteria that regulate the gifts with contemporary biblical parallels of sign gifts should they occur. And the two are not the same. I hold no brief for the former, but the real situation that I assert must be addressed is the question posed by the latter.

but if Pastor Smith or someone present that night was to visit us bringing the Jewish convert of the evening and both of them echoed Smith's tale, our visitors would be presenting us with the following situation. They would be telling us that they saw an exact parallel of the spiritual gift of tongues in action and producing the biblical effects of prompting a question that led to biblical exposition of the gospel. And we would have to judge whether their narrative was a lie, a misunderstanding of what had occurred or the truth. Unless we had reason to discredit them or their account we could not conclude they were liars, unless we can show from Scripture that what they thought had happened could not happen,

I understand what you are saying here but don't think that is quite right. The regulative principle applies. It's not a case of "everything is doctrine unless excluded." It's the exact opposite.

The doctrine being tested is the claim that the sign gifts have expired. There is no direct Scriptural statement that the gifts have expired and As far as I know no Scriptural statement from which such a conclusion may be derived by GNC. The entire possibility of the cessationist position turns on whether such a conclusion can be demonstrated to be biblical. If it cannot, one cannot hold the regulative principle in itself rules the gifts abolished.

If a prima facie parallel to the sign gifts occurs, and it matches the biblical criteria for the same, we have to be certain our theological understanding that the sign gifts have expired is, in fact, correct.

Also, when someone is asking us to base doctrine or at least validate doctrine by the experience, the burden of proof would seem to be more on them.

One of the things we know from Scripture is the immutability of God. If he acted one way in the past, it is biblically legitimate to assume that he will continue to act the same way in the present and the future until he tells us differently. The New Covenant began at the cross and continues today. God acted via the sign gifts in early days of the new covenant, so it is an axiom of biblical theology that we may assume God may act in the same ways throughout the New Covenant unless he tells us differently. Therefore, it is the continuationist who may legitimately ask the cessationist to supply a Scriptural proof for his own claim while the continuationist need not.

Let me prove the point. You would assert and be biblically correct in doing so that Pastors and Teachers remain in the church today. Should someone claim that those two gifts had been abolished at the end of the canon, you would be biblically correct to demand a biblical proof for that assertion while seeing no need to supply one for your own view beyond noting that Scripture tells us that God has given these gifts to the church in the New Covenant.

What you may not realize is that a lot of the cessationsist postiion is largely a reaction to the false miracles of the Roman church by the Protestant fathers. Instead of pointing out that the Roman "miracles" either did not conform to the biblical pattern, were early enough that the church was not heretical, or were examples non-gift miraclesigether with the biblical point that the bible tells us that any "miracle" occuring in a context where false doctrine is in authority is not from God. Any of these would have been the biblical answers to Rome's false claims, but they ovverreacted and threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Think of this- what if I "saw" and relayed an experience the opposite of the one you cite. Would the burden of proof really be on you to prove that it "could not happen"? In addition, we know already "All things are possible with God." But that doesn't mean that everything is not evaluated within the context of His revealed will- that is, the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture.

Of course we evaluate every doctrinal and experiential claim by Scripture and it is Scripture that tells us to regulate the exercise of gifts and to test anything claiming to be gifts in some cases providing criteria for us to apply.

we could not show them mistaken, and because what occurred is an exact parallel to the biblical use of tongues, we cannot prove it unbiblical short of demonstrationing that some Scriptural statement establishes, as a GNC consequence therefrom, that God has retired the "spiritual gifts".

In any case, whether true, mistaken or false, it is incidents of this type in which the biblical gifts seem to be paralleled in detail that present the real standard for biblical gifts that a proponent must reach, an agnostic must assess and an opponent must take into account.

I don't think the reformed theology is in any sense "agnostic"- particularly in regard to God's ability to do miraculous things nor that God did, in a few instances, cause some people to speak in an unknown tongue, followed immediately by interpretation into a known one.

The question is how we evaluate it within the context of the whole of God's revealed will that is, the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture- the ordinary means by which we grow in grace and knowledge of Him.

I agree - but the question is What exactly do the Scriptures teach on the point? If they teach that the gifts expire in the post - Apostolic age, then we cannot judge contemporary parallels to be recurrances of the gifts and must discover the different but biblically correct explanation. If we cannot provide a Scriptural statement and derive from it by GNC the conclusion that the gifts have expired, then when confronted with a contemporary parallel to the gifts, it will be impossible to confessionaly enforce a denial of the possibility that the gifts continue since without a demonstration by GNC from Scripture that the gifts cease we do not meet the WCF's burden of proof for settling controversies.

 

[Scott1]

Thanks for the detailed interaction.

My thoughts are below.

I agree that at present we can't fully accept Smith's account,

I might only add we really can’t base any doctrinal belief on something like this at all.

Sorry, that won't do. You are making a common cessationist error in this discussion: you are confusing unbiblical charismania that do not conform to the biblical criteria that regulate the gifts with contemporary biblical parallels of sign gifts should they occur. And the two are not the same. I hold no brief for the former, but the real situation that I assert must be addressed is the question posed by the latter.

Really, we are talking about what we base doctrine on. In no way do we base it on experience, “charismatic phenomenon” or otherwise.

Remember that charismatic/Pentecostal communions are:

Arminian-influenced + dispensational + no confession

As best I know, there are not any that have a systematic confession bound by a confession. This does not mean there are not Christians, that they do not hold some biblical doctrine in common with reformed theology, but there is no systematic biblical theology to bind it in place. That’s why there is such a high regard given to uncorroborated stories, experiences, and the teachings of individual charismatic leaders. That’s only a general point.
The phenomenon does not validate Scripture, it is the reverse. Scripture must validate our experience, phenomena, etc. and we must seek that out.




The doctrine being tested is the claim that the sign gifts have expired. There is no direct Scriptural statement that the gifts have expired and As far as I know no Scriptural statement from which such a conclusion may be derived by GNC.

Actually, there is a credible biblical basis for believing that:

I Corinthians 13
8Charity 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.
9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

I’m only saying what I think you would carefully acknowledge (there is a biblical basis, implicitly, by good an necessary consequence for believing that the I Corinthians 12 gifts have ceased).

(Having said that, like you, I think this passage is referring to perfection in heaven.)


The entire possibility of the cessationist position turns on whether such a conclusion can be demonstrated to be biblical. If it cannot, one cannot hold the regulative principle in itself rules the gifts abolished.

If a prima facie parallel to the sign gifts occurs, and it matches the biblical criteria for the same, we have to be certain our theological understanding that the sign gifts have expired is, in fact, correct.

The regulative principle does govern whether we use things like the “Smith incident” to be used as a basis for doctrine.

Remember, Scripture regulates explicitly or implicitly (by good and necessary consequence) “experience,” not the other way around. Charismatic/Pentecostal communions fundamentally get that backwards and are not bound to a confessional systematic theology so it is often not explicit doctrine, rather it is left unclear or presumed by their practice.


One of the things we know from Scripture is the immutability of God. If he acted one way in the past, it is biblically legitimate to assume that he will continue to act the same way in the present and the future until he tells us differently. The New Covenant began at the cross and continues today. God acted via the sign gifts in early days of the new covenant, so it is an axiom of biblical theology that we may assume God may act in the same ways throughout the New Covenant unless he tells us differently. Therefore, it is the continuationist who may legitimately ask the cessationist to supply a Scriptural proof for his own claim while the continuationist need not.

I think this is a strong argument that God is indeed immutable and that there is continuity in his purposes. Reformed theology is very much based on this, which comes from its central doctrine- that of the Doctrine of God.
As long as we understand that God completes and fulfills His purposes too such as fulfilling ceremonial law in the completed atoning work of Christ. Here, a very important consideration is, what is fulfilled when God completed the canon of Scripture?


Let me prove the point. You would assert and be biblically correct in doing so that Pastors and Teachers remain in the church today. Should someone claim that those two gifts had been abolished at the end of the canon, you would be biblically correct to demand a biblical proof for that assertion while seeing no need to supply one for your own view beyond noting that Scripture tells us that God has given these gifts to the church in the New Covenant.

What you may not realize is that a lot of the cessationsist postiion is largely a reaction to the false miracles of the Roman church by the Protestant fathers. Instead of pointing out that the Roman "miracles" either did not conform to the biblical pattern, were early enough that the church was not heretical, or were examples non-gift miraclesigether with the biblical point that the bible tells us that any "miracle" occuring in a context where false doctrine is in authority is not from God. Any of these would have been the biblical answers to Rome's false claims, but they ovverreacted and threw the baby out with the bathwater.

The only appeal for doctrinal error should be to what the Holy Spirit, speaking through Scripture says. It is not a subjective case of “overreaction” or “balance”- it’s what God has revealed through His Word.

Of course we evaluate every doctrinal and experiential claim by Scripture and it is Scripture that tells us to regulate the exercise of gifts and to test anything claiming to be gifts in some cases providing criteria for us to apply.

we could not show them mistaken, and because what occurred is an exact parallel to the biblical use of tongues, we cannot prove it unbiblical short of demonstrationing that some Scriptural statement establishes, as a GNC consequence therefrom, that God has retired the "spiritual gifts".

In any case, whether true, mistaken or false, it is incidents of this type in which the biblical gifts seem to be paralleled in detail that present the real standard for biblical gifts that a proponent must reach, an agnostic must assess and an opponent must take into account.

I don't think the reformed theology is in any sense "agnostic"- particularly in regard to God's ability to do miraculous things nor that God did, in a few instances, cause some people to speak in an unknown tongue, followed immediately by interpretation into a known one.

The question is how we evaluate it within the context of the whole of God's revealed will that is, the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture- the ordinary means by which we grow in grace and knowledge of Him.

I agree - but the question is What exactly do the Scriptures teach on the point? If they teach that the gifts expire in the post - Apostolic age, then we cannot judge contemporary parallels to be recurrances of the gifts and must discover the different but biblically correct explanation. If we cannot provide a Scriptural statement and derive from it by GNC the conclusion that the gifts have expired, then when confronted with a contemporary parallel to the gifts, it will be impossible to confessionaly enforce a denial of the possibility that the gifts continue since without a demonstration by GNC from Scripture that the gifts cease we do not meet the WCF's burden of proof for settling controversies.

Yes, Scripture is the basis for informing our view on this, not experiences.

 

[Claudiu]

The major argument I hear for cessationism is that the gifts stopped when the canon was completed. Now we have to establish when the canon was completed. Was it when John finished the book of revelation or when the whole Bible as we know it today was put together. Either way it doesn't matter actually. The point is that even when the Bible was completed, it was in other languages that most people would not know. (Hebrew, Greek, Latin). Now using the argument that the gifts ceased when the canon was completed because now the believers had the Word of God to look to doesn't necessarily hold true. The believers, even though they had the Word of God, could not even read it (only some of the folks, and we know they perverted it, so the masses were not even getting the real word in some cases). So, some use the argument that with the completion of the canon the gifts ceased because the people now had the Bible to look at instead of the gifts being necessary for revelation. However, if the people can't even use the Bible, in the sense that people argue it to be (looking at the Word for what God is saying), then the people aren't getting any revelation at all (because people argue that the gifts ceased with the completion of the canon, yet the canon isn't in the language people understand).

I don't know if my point makes any sense. But what I am trying to get at is that even when the canon was complete, using the argument that now the people have the Bible to look at and the gifts now have to cease doesn't really hold. Yes the canon was complete, in the sense that every book that was to be in the Bible was completed, but saying the gifts ceased right at that moment, to me, is not that strong of an argument. The reason, because then using the argument that the people now have the Word to look at isn't true. Only, some people had the word. (but some people already had part of the word before the canon was completed: the gospels and some of the letters from Paul). The majority of the people could not use the Bible in the sense that the argument goes to, that they could look at it and not need the gifts, because they really couldn't even look at the Bible.

Thus, even with the canon being completed, the Bible wasn't used in the way the argument goes (that the gifts ceased, because people could look at something better..the Bible)..when most people couldn't even read the Bible

 

[Contra_Mundum]

CEC,
The argument for the Scripture' sufficiency has nothing to do with how many people happen to have Bibles of their own, or written portions of the Scripture in their possession, or literacy.

Most people didn't have such things in the early 1500s (perhaps less than in the days of the NT). And yet that was the day of great revival... why? Because of the preaching of the Scriptures, the whole counsel of God, a full and complete canon.

The Reformation was not dependent on supernatural revelations, but was explicitly a rejection of anything beside the Finished Word.

 

[Claudiu]

CEC,
The argument for the Scripture' sufficiency has nothing to do with how many people happen to have Bibles of their own, or written portions of the Scripture in their possession, or literacy.

Most people didn't have such things in the early 1500s (perhaps less than in the days of the NT). And yet that was the day of great revival... why? Because of the preaching of the Scriptures, the whole counsel of God, a full and complete canon.

The Reformation was not dependent on supernatural revelations, but was explicitly a rejection of anything beside the Finished Word.

Thank you....that makes sense

 

[timmopussycat]

Thanks for the detailed interaction.

My thoughts are below.

I might only add we really can’t base any doctrinal belief on something like this at all.

Sorry, that won't do. You are making a common cessationist error in this discussion: you are confusing unbiblical charismania that do not conform to the biblical criteria that regulate the gifts with contemporary biblical parallels of sign gifts should they occur. And the two are not the same. I hold no brief for the former, but the real situation that I assert must be addressed is the question posed by the latter.

Really, we are talking about what we base doctrine on. In no way do we base it on experience, “charismatic phenomenon” or otherwise.

Remember that charismatic/Pentecostal communions are:

Arminian-influenced + dispensational + no confession

As best I know, there are not any that have a systematic confession bound by a confession. This does not mean there are not Christians, that they do not hold some biblical doctrine in common with reformed theology, but there is no systematic biblical theology to bind it in place. That’s why there is such a high regard given to uncorroborated stories, experiences, and the teachings of individual charismatic leaders. That’s only a general point.
The phenomenon does not validate Scripture, it is the reverse. Scripture must validate our experience, phenomena, etc. and we must seek that out.

Some and perhaps most charismatic churches fit your description but not all do, particularly within independant Pentecostal churches. The the pastor of the independant Pentecostal church in which I was born again was soteriologically alvinist and so anti-dispensational that Beotemer's book "The Millinium" was his standard resource for eschatology.

And you are wandering from the point. The only consideration that should govern whether or not the gifts continue today is whether Scripture so teaches, not whether or not the holder of one doctrine is clearly in error on others.

The doctrine being tested is the claim that the sign gifts have expired. There is no direct Scriptural statement that the gifts have expired and As far as I know no Scriptural statement from which such a conclusion may be derived by GNC.

Actually, there is a credible biblical basis for believing thatI’m only saying what I think you would carefully acknowledge (there is a biblical basis, implicitly, by good an necessary consequence for believing that the I Corinthians 12 gifts have ceased).

I Corinthians 13
8Charity 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.
9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

(Having said that, like you, I think this passage is referring to perfection in heaven.)

While some have interpreted the moment when the gifts cease as the creation of the canon on the basis of this passage, the following consequences are strong enough to render the view that the gifts expire on the basis of this passage as certainly not provable by good and necessary consequence therof.

The problematic consequences are, from least to strongest:
1) "Knowledge" taken abstractly cannot be said to expire with the coming of the canon. It might be a reference to a "word of knowledge". But Paul well knew that the Corinthians who thought they had the gifts were exercising them repeatedly (14:27). So we might expect him to write "words of knowledge" here in 13:8 paralleling the plural of prophecies and tongues.
Paul has also referred to knowledge in 13:2 but the term he uses is all knowledge. The context's mention of "understanding all mysteries" suggests, given Paul's usage of mystery elswhere to refer to previously hidden doctrinal truths that the knowledge Paul refers to here is doctrinal knowledge. Nothing in the context between v. 2 and v. 8 suggests any change in the meaning of knowledge. And whatever else may be said of doctrinal knowledge, it did not pass away with canon completion.
2) The point at which tongues fail, prophecies cease and knowledge passes away is linked with the coming of the perfect and the ceasing of the partial.
When this event occurs something else happens. Now we know in part, then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. (v. 12)

Since neither abstract knowledge nor doctrinal knowledge can be said said to know someone in this way, know in v. 12 cannot be doctrinal knowledge but relational knowlege. Paul now knows someone in part, but when the partial is superseded by the perfect, Paul shall know someone even as he has been fully known by that someone. Since Paul has been fully known by someone and shall know fully even as he has been known "know fully" must refer to his achieving a full relational knowledge of someone.

The one thing the perfect coming cannot mean is canon completion. For as we have seen above doctrinal knowlege did not disappear with the coming of the canon. (In addition if these gifts vanish then by parity of reasoning we should expect all the gifts to vanish, which means anybody claiming that the gifts expire with canon completion must also by necessary consequence also claim that pastors and teachers have gone with prophecy and tongues.)
That leaves us looking for a situation in which doctrinal knowledge disappears and relational knowledge is made perfect. There are only two possibilities, Paul's death or the end of the church age.

Paul's death won't work. True at his death Paul will no doubt know Christ and God fully even as he has been fully known now by them and his doctrinal knowledge will be swallowed up in the perfection of his relational experience of the Trinity (as will be true of every Christian's at the end of the age), but the consequences are unacceptable. For one thing Paul died before the late date composition of Revelation and possibly before Hebrews and Jude were written. Holding to Paul's death for the close of canon may render any or all of these books uncanonical if late date composition is proven.

Cessationists need another Scripture in order to confessionally prove the non-continuance of the gifts today.

The entire possibility of the cessationist position turns on whether such a conclusion can be demonstrated to be biblical. If it cannot, one cannot hold the regulative principle in itself rules the gifts abolished.

If a prima facie parallel to the sign gifts occurs, and it matches the biblical criteria for the same, we have to be certain our theological understanding that the sign gifts have expired is, in fact, correct.

The regulative principle does govern whether we use things like the “Smith incident” to be used as a basis for doctrine.

Remember, Scripture regulates explicitly or implicitly (by good and necessary consequence) “experience,” not the other way around. Charismatic/Pentecostal communions fundamentally get that backwards and are not bound to a confessional systematic theology so it is often not explicit doctrine, rather it is left unclear or presumed by their practice.

I agree that Scripture regulates experience; the question is what does it define as legitimate experience today. I am not using the Smith incident to prove doctrine: I cite it because it exemplifies the kind of incident that, because it is an exact parallel to the biblical gift in action and hence cannot be ruled unscriptural by the bible's own criteria for gift use, presents to us the question "Do the gifts continue or no?" in its most acute form. Attacking any other type of "charismatic gift" seems to me to be attacking a straw man.

One of the things we know from Scripture is the immutability of God. If he acted one way in the past, it is biblically legitimate to assume that he will continue to act the same way in the present and the future until he tells us differently. The New Covenant began at the cross and continues today. God acted via the sign gifts in early days of the new covenant, so it is an axiom of biblical theology that we may assume God may act in the same ways throughout the New Covenant unless he tells us differently. Therefore, it is the continuationist who may legitimately ask the cessationist to supply a Scriptural proof for his own claim while the continuationist need not.

Let me prove the point. You would assert and be biblically correct in doing so that Pastors and Teachers remain in the church today. Should someone claim that those two gifts had been abolished at the end of the canon, you would be biblically correct to demand a biblical proof for that assertion while seeing no need to supply one for your own view beyond noting that Scripture tells us that God has given these gifts to the church in the New Covenant.

What you may not realize is that a lot of the cessationsist postiion is largely a reaction to the false miracles of the Roman church by the Protestant fathers. Instead of pointing out that the Roman "miracles" either did not conform to the biblical pattern, were early enough that the church was not heretical, or were examples non-gift miraclesigether with the biblical point that the bible tells us that any "miracle" occuring in a context where false doctrine is in authority is not from God. Any of these would have been the biblical answers to Rome's false claims, but they ovverreacted and threw the baby out with the bathwater.

I think this is a strong argument that God is indeed immutable and that there is continuity in his purposes. Reformed theology is very much based on this, which comes from its central doctrine- that of the Doctrine of God.
As long as we understand that God completes and fulfills His purposes too such as fulfilling ceremonial law in the completed atoning work of Christ. Here, a very important consideration is, what is fulfilled when God completed the canon of Scripture?

.

And this is why Paul's word foundation is so important in Eph 2:20. Paul uses that word in other places notably 1 Cor. 3. There he himself laid the foundation and said that the foundation was Christ and that no other foundation could be laid. When God completed the canon he completed the foundation: the canon contains all we need to lay the foundation of the church (were we starting from scratch in an unevangelized location).
It contains the prophetic testimony of the need for Christ, prophetic testimony to his coming the Apostolic preaching of the fulfilment of the prophetic testimony. The prophets of Eph 2:20 cannot be NT prophets for those prophets did not provide foundational doctrinal material that the Apostles claimed was fulfilled in Christ.

The only appeal for doctrinal error should be to what the Holy Spirit, speaking through Scripture says. It is not a subjective case of “overreaction” or “balance”- it’s what God has revealed through His Word.

Of course we evaluate every doctrinal and experiential claim by Scripture and it is Scripture that tells us to regulate the exercise of gifts and to test anything claiming to be gifts in some cases providing criteria for us to apply.

I don't think the reformed theology is in any sense "agnostic"- particularly in regard to God's ability to do miraculous things nor that God did, in a few instances, cause some people to speak in an unknown tongue, followed immediately by interpretation into a known one.

The question is how we evaluate it within the context of the whole of God's revealed will that is, the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture- the ordinary means by which we grow in grace and knowledge of Him.

I agree - but the question is What exactly do the Scriptures teach on the point? If they teach that the gifts expire in the post - Apostolic age, then we cannot judge contemporary parallels to be recurrances of the gifts and must discover the different but biblically correct explanation. If we cannot provide a Scriptural statement and derive from it by GNC the conclusion that the gifts have expired, then when confronted with a contemporary parallel to the gifts, it will be impossible to confessionaly enforce a denial of the possibility that the gifts continue since without a demonstration by GNC from Scripture that the gifts cease we do not meet the WCF's burden of proof for settling controversies.

Yes, Scripture is the basis for informing our view on this, not experiences.

 

[Scott1]

Thanks for the detailed interaction.

My thoughts are below.

Some and perhaps most charismatic churches fit your description but not all do, particularly within independant Pentecostal churches. The the pastor of the independant Pentecostal church in which I was born again was soteriologically alvinist and so anti-dispensational that Beotemer's book "The Millinium" was his standard resource for eschatology.

The description was
"Arminian influenced" + "dispensational" + "no confession"

versus reformed theology as a minimum...

"Calvinism" + "covenant theology" + "confession"

As far as I am aware, it fits every charismatic/pentecostal church, including the one you mention (as it has no binding confession of faith).

Incidentally, does your home church has a web site? (I would like to research this- a fully Calvinist, covenantal church describing itself as independent Pentecostal).



And you are wandering from the point. The only consideration that should govern whether or not the gifts continue today is whether Scripture so teaches, not whether or not the holder of one doctrine is clearly in error on others.

The point was that there are not really any charismatic/pentecostal "reformed" denominations, which still stands, even by the example of your former denomination.



While some have interpreted the moment when the gifts cease as the creation of the canon on the basis of this passage, the following consequences are strong enough to render the view that the gifts expire on the basis of this passage as certainly not provable by good and necessary consequence therof.

The problematic consequences are, from least to strongest:
1) "Knowledge" taken abstractly cannot be said to expire with the coming of the canon. It might be a reference to a "word of knowledge". But Paul well knew that the Corinthians who thought they had the gifts were exercising them repeatedly (14:27). So we might expect him to write "words of knowledge" here in 13:8 paralleling the plural of prophecies and tongues.
Paul has also referred to knowledge in 13:2 but the term he uses is all knowledge. The context's mention of "understanding all mysteries" suggests, given Paul's usage of mystery elswhere to refer to previously hidden doctrinal truths that the knowledge Paul refers to here is doctrinal knowledge. Nothing in the context between v. 2 and v. 8 suggests any change in the meaning of knowledge. And whatever else may be said of doctrinal knowledge, it did not pass away with canon completion.
2) The point at which tongues fail, prophecies cease and knowledge passes away is linked with the coming of the perfect and the ceasing of the partial.
When this event occurs something else happens. Now we know in part, then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. (v. 12)

Since neither abstract knowledge nor doctrinal knowledge can be said said to know someone in this way, know in v. 12 cannot be doctrinal knowledge but relational knowlege. Paul now knows someone in part, but when the partial is superseded by the perfect, Paul shall know someone even as he has been fully known by that someone. Since Paul has been fully known by someone and shall know fully even as he has been known "know fully" must refer to his achieving a full relational knowledge of someone.

The one thing the perfect coming cannot mean is canon completion. For as we have seen above doctrinal knowlege did not disappear with the coming of the canon. (In addition if these gifts vanish then by parity of reasoning we should expect all the gifts to vanish, which means anybody claiming that the gifts expire with canon completion must also by necessary consequence also claim that pastors and teachers have gone with prophecy and tongues.)
That leaves us looking for a situation in which doctrinal knowledge disappears and relational knowledge is made perfect. There are only two possibilities, Paul's death or the end of the church age.

Paul's death won't work. True at his death Paul will no doubt know Christ and God fully even as he has been fully known now by them and his doctrinal knowledge will be swallowed up in the perfection of his relational experience of the Trinity (as will be true of every Christian's at the end of the age), but the consequences are unacceptable. For one thing Paul died before the late date composition of Revelation and possibly before Hebrews and Jude were written. Holding to Paul's death for the close of canon may render any or all of these books uncanonical if late date composition is proven.

Cessationists need another Scripture in order to confessionally prove the non-continuance of the gifts today.

Again, this point was made earlier, but for those following, we are only meaning the I Corinthians 12 gifts when we say "gifts" Most of the other gifts, helps, mercy, faith, administration, "motivational gifts" described elsewhere are not being discussed here.

Because charistmatic/pentecostal theology is [wrongly] focused and prioritized on this small set of "gifts" (see I Cor. 14) the many other "gifts" and giftings tend to get lost in the discussion. Reformed theology is not arguing all God's gifts have at all ceased.





I agree that Scripture regulates experience; the question is what does it define as legitimate experience today. I am not using the Smith incident to prove doctrine: I cite it because it exemplifies the kind of incident that, because it is an exact parallel to the biblical gift in action and hence cannot be ruled unscriptural by the bible's own criteria for gift use, presents to us the question "Do the gifts continue or no?" in its most acute form. Attacking any other type of "charismatic gift" seems to me to be attacking a straw man.


I'm glad you acknowledge a second had account of the "Smith incident" is of no value in determining our doctrine on this (or anything).
.

And this is why Paul's word foundation is so important in Eph 2:20. Paul uses that word in other places notably 1 Cor. 3. There he himself laid the foundation and said that the foundation was Christ and that no other foundation could be laid. When God completed the canon he completed the foundation: the canon contains all we need to lay the foundation of the church (were we starting from scratch in an unevangelized location).
It contains the prophetic testimony of the need for Christ, prophetic testimony to his coming the Apostolic preaching of the fulfilment of the prophetic testimony. The prophets of Eph 2:20 cannot be NT prophets for those prophets did not provide foundational doctrinal material that the Apostles claimed was fulfilled in Christ.



I agree - but the question is What exactly do the Scriptures teach on the point? If they teach that the gifts expire in the post - Apostolic age, then we cannot judge contemporary parallels to be recurrances of the gifts and must discover the different but biblically correct explanation. If we cannot provide a Scriptural statement and derive from it by GNC the conclusion that the gifts have expired, then when confronted with a contemporary parallel to the gifts, it will be impossible to confessionaly enforce a denial of the possibility that the gifts
"these" gifts-

To summarize, there is a biblical basis for believing that these gifts were fulfilled in the completing of the canon of Scripture. That has been given above- but clearly there is a basis.

It's also clear that there are some reformed who, while not finding that reasoning persuasive, would allow the possibility of God, at least extraordinarily, operating in such a way but only within the context of the completed revelation of God through Scripture and that (Scripture) being an ordinary means of grace, not extraordinary manifestation of this kind.

continue since without a demonstration by GNC from Scripture that the gifts cease we do not meet the WCF's burden of proof for settling controversies.

Thank you now, Tim, for the interaction.
May God use it to give us all discernment- for His Honor and His Glory.

 

[timmopussycat]

Some and perhaps most charismatic churches fit your description but not all do, particularly within independant Pentecostal churches. The the pastor of the independant Pentecostal church in which I was born again was soteriologically alvinist and so anti-dispensational that Beotemer's book "The Millinium" was his standard resource for eschatology.

The description was
"Arminian influenced" + "dispensational" + "no confession"

versus reformed theology as a minimum...

"Calvinism" + "covenant theology" + "confession"

As far as I am aware, it fits every charismatic/pentecostal church, including the one you mention (as it has no binding confession of faith).
Incidentally, does your home church has a web site? (I would like to research this- a fully Calvinist, covenantal church describing itself as independent Pentecostal).

That church no longer exists. And at a mininmum your descripition added dispensational which this church was not.

And you are wandering from the point. The only consideration that should govern whether or not the gifts continue today is whether Scripture so teaches, not whether or not the holder of one doctrine is clearly in error on others.

The point was that there are not really any charismatic/pentecostal "reformed" denominations, which still stands, even by the example of your former denomination.

Denonms arn't the point. What is at issue is whether something is biblical or not. And that's the only point. Guilt by association and other illogical arguements are not only logical errors, they are not permitted by the WCF in the settling of religious controversy.

Again, this point was made earlier, but for those following, we are only meaning the I Corinthians 12 gifts when we say "gifts" Most of the other gifts, helps, mercy, faith, administration, "motivational gifts" described elsewhere are not being discussed here.

Because charistmatic/pentecostal theology is [wrongly] focused and prioritized on this small set of "gifts" (see I Cor. 14) the many other "gifts" and giftings tend to get lost in the discussion. Reformed theology is not arguing all God's gifts have at all ceased.

Unfortunately,if any gifts expire with the Apostles than any gift that is listed with the Apostles also must be presumed to vanish. Included in that list is Pastors and Teachers.

but the question is What exactly do the Scriptures teach on the point? If they teach that the gifts expire in the post - Apostolic age, then we cannot judge contemporary parallels to be recurrances of the gifts and must discover the different but biblically correct explanation. If we cannot provide a Scriptural statement and derive from it by GNC the conclusion that the gifts have expired, then when confronted with a contemporary parallel to the gifts, it will be impossible to confessionaly enforce a denial of the possibility that the gifts "these" gifts-

To summarize, there is a biblical basis for believing that these gifts were fulfilled in the completing of the canon of Scripture. That has been given above- but clearly there is a basis.

It's also clear that there are some reformed who, while not finding that reasoning persuasive, would allow the possibility of God, at least extraordinarily, operating in such a way but only within the context of the completed revelation of God through Scripture and that (Scripture) being an ordinary means of grace, not extraordinary manifestation of this kind.

A mostly correct summary. But before you get into a debate with an intelligent cessationist you had better find a Scripture that will, by GNC, prove the point that God has retired the gifts.

 

[MW]

That leaves us looking for a situation in which doctrinal knowledge disappears and relational knowledge is made perfect. There are only two possibilities, Paul's death or the end of the church age.

I cannot see how Paul could be speaking about "doctrinal knowledge" or how it could possibly fail so far as the believer's experience is concerned either on earth or in heaven. "Face to face" knowledge, when referring to the communication of truth to Moses, referred to the mode rather than the content of knowledge. That the content of knowledge cannot be the referent in 1 Cor. 13 is reinforced by the fact that humans will never know God to the extent that they are known by God -- they never attain to omniscience. But it is quite in keeping with the Scriptural way of speaking about knowledge to conclude that Paul is dealing with a manner of knowing the truth of God which varies even in this life. The new covenant itself promises that all God's people shall know Him, and thus does away with the intermediary of priests. In the same way the apostle is drawing attention to a mode of communication which is not dependent on the gifts of others, but is a characteristic of a "mature" (perfect) Christian state which abides in faith, hope, and charity. The abiding of faith and hope along with charity, in contrast to the failing of "charismata" as modes of communication, is indicative of the present state of believers who walk by faith and are saved by hope. These themselves shall cease when faith is turned to sight and hope becomes a present possession in heaven; charity is the greatest because it abides for ever.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

To follow Armorbearer's lead, and to reinforce something he wrote earlier, I will quote from B.B. Warfields book, Counterfeit Miracles:

The connection of the supernatural gifts with the Apostles is so obvious that one wonders that so many students have missed it, and have sought an account of them in some other quarter. The true account has always been recignized, however, by som of the more careful students of the subject. It has been clearly set forth, for example, by Bishop Kaye. "I may be allowed to state the conclusion,' he writes, "to which I have myself been led by a comparison of the statements in the Book of Acts with the writings of the Fathers of the second century. My clonclusion then is, that the power of working miracles was not extended beyond the disciples upon whom the Apostles conferred it by the imposition of their hands. As the number of these disciples gradually diminished, the instances of the exercise of miraculous powers became continually less frequent, and ceased entirely at the death of the last individual on whom the hands of the Apostles had been laid. That event would, in the natural course of things, take place before the middle of the second century - at a time when Christianity, having obtained a footing in all the provinces of the Roman Empire, the miraculous gifts conferred upon the first teachers had performed their appropriate office - that of proving to the world that a new revelation had been given from heaven ... Whatever we may think of the specific explanation which Bishop Kaye presents of the language of the second=century Fathers, we can scarcely fail to perceive that hte confinement of the supernatural gifts by the Scriptures to those who had them conferred upon them by the Apostles, affords a ready explanation of all the historical facts

He continues:

It exxplains the unobserved dying out of these gifts. It even explains - what might at first sight seem inconsistent with it - the failure of allusion to them in the first half of the second century. The great missionary Apostles, Paul and Peter, had passed away by A.D. 68, and apparently only John was left in extreme old age until the last decade of the first century. We know of course of John's pupil Polycarp; we may add perhaps an Ignatius, a Papial, a Clement, possibly a Hermas, or even a Leucius; but at the most there are few of whom we know with any definiteness. That Justin and Irenaeus and their contemporaries allude to miracle=working as a thing which had to their knowledge existed in their day, and yet with which they seem to have little exact personal acquaintance, is also explained ... If we once lay first hold upon the biblical principle which governed the distribution of the miraculous gifts, in a word, we find that we have in our hands a key which unlocks all the historical puzzles connected with them.

And, finally:

There is, of course, a deeper principle recognizable here, of which the actual attachment of the charissmata of the Apostolic Church to the mission of the Apostles iss but an illustration. This deeper principle may be reached by us through the perception, more broadly, of the inseparable connection of miracles with revelation, as its mark and credential; or, more narrowly, of the summing up of all revelation, finally, in Jesus Christ. Miracles do not appear on the page of Scripture vagrantly, here, there, and elsewhere indifferently, without assignable reason, They belong to revelation periods, and appear only when God is speaking to His people through accredited messengers, declaring His gracious purposes. Their abundant display in the Apostolic Church is the mark of the richness of the Apostolic age in revelation; and when this revelation period closed, the period of miracle-working had passed by also, as a mere matter of course.

Pastor Winzer was right on the mark when he said that the confirment of the Gifts was done only through the Apostolic ministry. Since the Apostles have all died off, we have no one to confer the Gifts to the disciples.

Blessings,

Rob

 

[Scott1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott1 View Post
Again, this point was made earlier, but for those following, we are only meaning the I Corinthians 12 gifts when we say "gifts" Most of the other gifts, helps, mercy, faith, administration, "motivational gifts" described elsewhere are not being discussed here.

Because charistmatic/pentecostal theology is [wrongly] focused and prioritized on this small set of "gifts" (see I Cor. 14) the many other "gifts" and giftings tend to get lost in the discussion. Reformed theology is not arguing all God's gifts have at all ceased.

timmopussycat
Unfortunately,if any gifts expire with the Apostles than any gift that is listed with the Apostles also must be presumed to vanish. Included in that list is Pastors and Teachers.

Tim, while your points have been thoroughly interacted with, you add this at the end.

The argument "any gift listed with the Apostles must be presumed to vanish..." is illogical.

Saying that if one does not believe in the present operation of the I Cor. 12 "charismatic gifts" then one cannot believe in the giftings given to Pastors and Teachers does not help make your point. It is illogical. It does not represent what you are arguing against at all.

Most all Christians people believe in the Romans 12:6-8 gifts and Ephesians 4:11 gifts, that they continue as part of Christ's church. Indeed, we rely on them every day.