Charismatic and reformed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joseph,

As been argued before, there is no question whether God can do what he wants. I grant that God is completely free and able to replicate Pentecost today if he wills.

In the history of theology, this distinction is known as the distinction de potentia Dei absoluta et ordinata. The nominalists speculated about what God might have done. To appeal to the absolute power of God is a straw man. No one in our tradition denies this power.

The Protestants rejected speculation about this power. They taught us only to speak of what God has done and promised. What we´re arguing is de potentia ordinata.

Where has God promised to continue apostolic phenomena? It cannot be shown from Scripture that God has promised to replicate Pentecost or the apostolic phenomena in the post-canonical era. It can only be argued that he can do or that he hasn´t said he won´t do. That is not sufficient for confessional Protestants. Again, please read the passages from de Bres. Please read my essay on the theology of glory.
de Bres would regard your position as "œfanatical." You are making the Anabaptist argument. None of our confessional Protestant forefathers agree with you. None of our confessions speak as you do and we don't share your hermeneutic.

I contend that, for the reasons I specified, which you not apparently accept (the covenantal nature of the canon) we are not entitled to expect any such replication of Pentecost. The cosmic shift, of which you speak, is the death of the apostle John who was an eye-witness to Jesus and who was endowed with apostolic powers. When the last OT prophet died, the miracles associated with them died also. Israel existed in an inter-testamental silence for 400 years. We are in that silence. I understand that it is disturbing and that, in order to validate and confirm their faith, folk want to believe that apostolic phenomena continue. That is why I pointed to the sacraments.

There is a fundamental difference between Reformed Christianity and fanaticism. We are content with the signs Christ has promised us. You are not. You want to be an apostle. It isn´t happening. You can´t raise the dead and you won´t and God hasn´t raised any dead folks in your midst and isn´t going to do. That´s a cosmic shift. The NT deacon was transported (or some such) from place to place by the direct operation of the Spirit. Even the most "œSpirit-filled" human today must get in his Dodge Caravan to get to the next healing service.

It´s odd, apparently God only causes "œtongues" (natural foreign languages) to be spoken where no one can verify it.

As I said before I don´t accept your premise re the onus probandi. The only way to change that is to raise someone from the dead. Until then, as my old elder (from SE Missouri) used to say, "œYou´re just talkin´."

I´m aware of the various uncorroborated testimonies and I´ve heard folks refer to such and such a prophecy from 1985. My reply: See Warfield. He addressed all that nonsense in Counterfeit Miracles.

The difference between what someone heard about what someone was supposed to have done or had done to them is that there´s never ANY question in the apostolic record about what happened and by whom and its validity

The claims of miracles made by credulous Protestants are identical to the claims made by credulous medieval Christians about this set of bones healing that person or this ounce of the Blessed Virgin´s milk rendering that miracle.

The Protestants who claim these things today claim them for the VERY SAME reason that the medievals did and that Roman Catholics do so today (how many miracles has the almost-sainted Mother Theresa already accomplished? She´s on the fast track to sainthood! What about the recently departed Holy Father himself? If he hasn´t done, he will and folk will look you right in the eye and say, "œIn 2005"¦" and they will give a specific place and specific details in order to give the story credibility.

Read Hoaxbusters.com. They have a database of such stories that circulate on the web.

Talk to a cop who "œworks" (as they say) fraud cases. They´ll tell you the same.

Blessedly, the Reformation set us free from this sort of credulity. I don´t have to credit so and so´s report of some mighty work the Spirit allegedly did through her. Why? I have the divinely inspired record of God´s saving works in history and I have the preached Gospel and I have the gospel made visible in the covenant signs and seals. We call this sola Scriptura. Neither you nor anyone else can lord it over my conscience and force me to credit things that are not explicitly or implicitly revealed in the covenantal canon.

I´m content to muddle through, thank you very much.

rsc

[Edited on 1-13-2006 by R. Scott Clark]

[Edited on 1-13-2006 by R. Scott Clark]
 
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

If revelation is done until the second advent, then we are to expect no new revelation in form of miraculous tongue or prophecy. Do you agree with that? Why couldn't Joseph Smith (Founder of Mormonism) be another Prophet or Apostles appointed much like Paul?

I agree that there will be no more Apostles/Prophets of the likes of Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, etc. Thus, Joseph Smith being a true Prophet is out of the question.

This is good to hear, could you explain briefly what Scriptural argument there is to support the cessation of such offices?

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

In these last days has God already spoken through Jesus or not?

Certainly. But what does that have to do with this conversation? As far as I know, there were still miracles after Hebrews 1 was written. In fact, there was even Scripture still left to be written (i.e. Revelation). So if Heb. 1:1-4 didn't stop miracles from being continued then, why should Heb. 1:1-4 keep miracles from happening now, if God wants to initiate them?

Well I still do not buy this line of reasoning for reasons already stated. The key is the presence of Apostles specifically appointed by Christ to found His Church. The fact that the one epistle was not yet written yet does not mean that the Apostles who started the churches did not teach and instruct the churches on what would later be written down (permanently) in an apostolic epistle. In fact Paul specifically instructed Timothy to "retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 1:13) and to the Thessalonian church, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

Simply saying that Paul may have not yet penned something to one church yet therefore the command was not given to all has no merit. Thirteen Apostles were eye witnesses of the resurrected Christ and appointed to teach all that Jesus commanded. But not all 13 wrote or supervised a letter/gospel/epistle. Does that mean they did not teach the same commands Jesus gave to those who did write down Jesus words?

Why should Hebrews 1:1-4 stop miracles now if it did not then? Because there were still Apostles then delivering the same message via word of mouth before Hebrews 1 and after Hebrews 1. The key is the presence of Christ´s representatives or Apostles.

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

I do not want to go around the horn again Joseph, but I believe you are allowing God to speak still, but nothing new in addition to Holy Scripture. Is this a fair statement summarizing your hypothetical conclusion?

Yes, this is a fair statement. I think we are starting to understand each other.

I do NOT believe that there are any people walking around today like Moses, Isaiah, Peter, or Paul.

I do NOT believe that there is any Scripture left to be written. The canon is closed until Jesus physically returns.

We agree. Now on to what constitutes "œprophecy."

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
I DO believe that God can still sovereignly cause someone to speak the Gospel in a foreign language, under certain circumstances that He sovereignly chooses. This is not new revelation. This is simply the Gospel being preached under unusual circumstances.

This is a fair response, I can not dogmatically disagree.

Would God be contradicting canonized scripture if He enabled someone to have a special gifting that He said ceased? Are you talking about random prophecies or those who have the gift and know it and use it within the church?

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
I DO believe that God can still sovereignly cause miraculous healings to occur. But I do NOT believe that we should be looking for "faith healers" like Benny Hinn. :barfy: I'm not talking about God giving men the ability to heal whomever they want. But I am talking about God healing whomever HE wants. If God wants to make a tumor miraculously disappear, then that is just what He will do, even today.

I agree, but you are off topic. You did not describe a miraculous gift, but a divine act of God. Do people still have the Spiritual gift of supernatural healing?

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
If there is any miraculous thing that I think may have ceased, it would be predictive prophecy. I certainly DO NOT believe that God will add anything to the canon of Scripture, or that there is any new revelation to be given to the church to tell us what to believe about God, how to live, how to worship, etc. Nevertheless, if there is any exception to this, I would think it would look something like Agabus. He did not give new revelation to the church about God, worship, eccesiology, etc. God simply gave him foreknowledge about an impending famine, so that he could warn his fellow Christians. I do not know if anything like this happens anymore or not. I certainly have not experienced it. And I am not seeking to experience it. But I would have trouble ruling it out as a possibility. It seems to me that God could give miraculous foreknowledge of a famine, drought, etc., without adding anything to the canon, and without adding anything to our Scriptural knowledge of God, worship, ecclesiology, etc. So, with a carefully restricted view, I could be persuaded that there could still be some God-initiated prophecy. But it would certainly NOT be of the ilk of Isaiah, Peter, Paul, etc. Agabus was not comparable to Moses or Paul.

No revelatory or predictive prophecy, but still men gifted with the spiritual gift of prophecy? Should we or should we not strive to know our gift(s)? Should we tell the church what our gift is? Should we use it under the discipline of the church?

Do you agree that those gifted with prophecy, had the ability to proclaim God´s word? Do preachers prophecy when they proclaim God´s word? How about when you are in conversation with a group of Christians and a scripture "œpops" into your head that will add clarity to the discussion? Is that a prophecy?

Does God ultimately cause that scripture to come to mind? Yes, He ultimately causes everything. So do some have a special gifting that goes beyond hiding the word in the heart and recalling what is faithfully studied? And if they do, then would you agree that they can and should recognize this gift and use it in an organized manner governed by the church? Is this an office and is it greater than the office of Pastor (cf: Ephesians 4)?


Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Chris, I think we are getting somewhere here, and are beginning to understand each other a bit better. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

I agree, and have been edified by this discussion, thank you brother.
 
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
As been argued before, there is no question whether God can do what he wants. I grant that God is completely free and able to replicate Pentecost today if he wills.

Thank you very much. For the most part, this is what I'm arguing. I have not personally experienced any modern-day Pentecost. But I have a problem with anyone dogmatically asserting that God doesn't do miracles today under any circumstances.

How about healing, in particular? Does God personally shock doctors sometimes, and cause terminal patients to inexplicably get healthy? Or do you take a deistic view of medicine? Did God just "wind up the clock" with our health, just to let it unwind according to "natural laws", or does God still supernaturally cause people to inexplicably recover from serious illnesses, due to His sovereign will? I'm not talking about faith-healers, Dr. Clark. I'm talking about God's prerogative to do what he wants. Otherwise, why bother praying for the sick?

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Where has God promised to continue apostolic phenomena?

You keep missing the point. I'm not talking about apostolic phenomina. I have not been talking about it the whole time.

I'm talking about God-originated phenomina, not "gifts" placed upon people to use at will.

James 5:14-15 says, "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. "

Are you suggesting that we should no longer pray for the sick? Are you suggesting that God doesn't still supernaturally heal people? Was James 5 written for us, or not?



Dr. Clark, you said something that is WAY out of line, proving that you have been ignoring me, and I would very much appreciate an apology. You said:

We are content with the signs Christ has promised us. You are not. You want to be an apostle. It isn´t happening. You can´t raise the dead and you won´t and God hasn´t raised any dead folks in your midst and isn´t going to do.

Dr. Clark, that statement is false, slanderous, and unbecoming a Christian of high standing such as yourself.

1) I AM content with the signs Christ has promised us. I have repeatedly said that I have seen no miracles, and I am seeking no miracles. That does not mean that I don't believe God still works miracles when and where he wants to. You are out of line to accuse me of not being content with what Christ has promised us.

2) I do not want to be an apostle. And I have never said that I want to be an apostle. In fact, I don't believe there are any apostles alive today. And I am not even out seeking the miraculous. This accusation is utterly false and slanderous.

3) I never claimed to be able to raise the dead, so your point is moot. And you have no right to pontificate and say with authority what God will and will not do. If God wants to raise the dead today, then He will do so. You are going past what Scripture says. Does it say that the dead will be raised in our day? No. But you are authoritatively proclaiming that they certainly will not be raised. And unless you have received some post-canonical revelation from God (!) you frankly just don't know that with certainty.


Please apologize for your slander, Dr. Clark. Please retract your false accusations.


Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Blessedly, the Reformation set us free from this sort of credulity. I don´t have to credit so and so´s report of some mighty work the Spirit allegedly did through her. Why? I have the divinely inspired record of God´s saving works in history and I have the preached Gospel and I have the gospel made visible in the covenant signs and seals. We call this sola Scriptura. Neither you nor anyone else can lord it over my conscience and force me to credit things that are not explicitly or implicitly revealed in the covenantal canon.

Thus, you think you have the right to call a brother in Christ a liar to his face if he tells you God did something miraculous for him. Suppose that Jewish man walked up to you in person and told you what happened with his wife. Would you simply call him a liar to his face? Now THAT seems arrogant to me. Who am I to call him a liar? Who am I to judge whether God worked specially in his life, or whether he's just mimicing medieval saint stories? Who gives me that authority?

I would rather just give the fellow the benefit of the doubt. Cessationism certainly seems to be true in my own personal life. I have seen no miracles that I know of. But if someone wants to tell me that God healed them of cancer, or conveyed the Gospel to them in an unusual way, who am I to call them a liar? What Scripture can I point them to in order to PROVE that God CERTAINLY will not do anything miraculous after the apostolic age? How can I PROVE from Scripture that we are in the same "silent age" as the 400 years prior to the New Testament? Such musings as yours may be correct. But I have no way of proving them correct.
 
Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
Originally posted by biblelighthouse

I agree that there will be no more Apostles/Prophets of the likes of Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, etc. Thus, Joseph Smith being a true Prophet is out of the question.

This is good to hear, could you explain briefly what Scriptural argument there is to support the cessation of such offices?

From what I can tell, Paul seems to say that the requirements for the making of an Apostle include the physical seeing of the Resurrected Christ. And Paul calls himself an Apostle born out of time, pointing to himself being the last Apostle.

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

Why should Hebrews 1:1-4 stop miracles now if it did not then? Because there were still Apostles then delivering the same message via word of mouth before Hebrews 1 and after Hebrews 1. The key is the presence of Christ´s representatives or Apostles.

Fair enough. We disagree that God requires Apostolic presence in order to perform miracles. But at least I understand what your position is. Personally, I think God can still do a miracle if He wants to, without there being any Apostles around.

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

I do not want to go around the horn again Joseph, but I believe you are allowing God to speak still, but nothing new in addition to Holy Scripture. Is this a fair statement summarizing your hypothetical conclusion?

Yes, this is a fair statement. I think we are starting to understand each other.

I do NOT believe that there are any people walking around today like Moses, Isaiah, Peter, or Paul.

I do NOT believe that there is any Scripture left to be written. The canon is closed until Jesus physically returns.

We agree.

Praise the Lord!!!

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

Now on to what constitutes "œprophecy."

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
I DO believe that God can still sovereignly cause someone to speak the Gospel in a foreign language, under certain circumstances that He sovereignly chooses. This is not new revelation. This is simply the Gospel being preached under unusual circumstances.

This is a fair response, I can not dogmatically disagree.

Praise the Lord!!!

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

Would God be contradicting canonized scripture if He enabled someone to have a special gifting that He said ceased? Are you talking about random prophecies or those who have the gift and know it and use it within the church?

I'm not talking about special "gifting". I'm not talking about God giving someone the "gift of healing", or the "gift of tongues". I'm just talking about God's prerogative to personally do miracles whenever He wants, in this present day.

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
I DO believe that God can still sovereignly cause miraculous healings to occur. But I do NOT believe that we should be looking for "faith healers" like Benny Hinn. :barfy: I'm not talking about God giving men the ability to heal whomever they want. But I am talking about God healing whomever HE wants. If God wants to make a tumor miraculously disappear, then that is just what He will do, even today.

I agree, but you are off topic. You did not describe a miraculous gift, but a divine act of God. Do people still have the Spiritual gift of supernatural healing?

I very seriously doubt it. I am talking about divine acts of God, not miraculous gifts.

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

How about when you are in conversation with a group of Christians and a scripture "œpops" into your head that will add clarity to the discussion? Is that a prophecy?

No. That's illumination.

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

Is this an office and is it greater than the office of Pastor (cf. Ephesians 4)?

I haven't thought that deeply about it. Good question. Perhaps it is gone as an office. Again, I was focusing on acts of God, not special "gifts" imparted to individuals.

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Chris, I think we are getting somewhere here, and are beginning to understand each other a bit better. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

I agree, and have been edified by this discussion, thank you brother.

I am being edified by this discussion, too, Chris. I appreciate your willingness to discuss all this. Thank you, my brother.
 
have a problem with anyone dogmatically asserting that God doesn't do miracles today under any circumstances.

Joseph,

No one doubts that God continues to marvelous things today. Folk do get healed today without medical intervention. Ordinarily, however, they are healed (or not) through the "due use of ordinary means" to borrow from the SC.

This is not apostolic, however, it is not connected to anyone´s faith or lack thereof, it´s not connected to exercise of any office or ongoing Pentecostal phenomena.

Joseph, I talk directly or plainly or even forcefully to you (and others) because I care for you, because, as your older brother in Christ (I can see from your picture that I'm considerably older, more gray and balder!) I can see that you don´t understand fully what you´re saying. You don´t understand fully the theological and biblical and confessional implications of your arguments, claims, and suggestions.

No, I´m not going to apologize. I haven´t sinned in this instance. I´ve spoken plainly to you. We disagree. That isn´t sin. I´m sorry that you´re upset, but you suggest that my pov is Deistic or at least you imply that is the implication of my argument. I understand that you think this and I´m not offended. It´s not personal Joseph. You represent a pov with which I strongly disagree and I´m giving the reasons why it´s wrong.

Your most recent post illustrates my point well. To American evangelicals, living with mere Word and Sacrament, living in the valley of redemptive history as it were, sounds like Deism. It isn´t of course, but the fact that it seems so to you is revealing. This is quite like the argument that the confessionalists had with the revivalists in the 1st Great Awakening. As soon as my lot criticized your lot, the latter attacked the former as Deistic and unregenerate. This argument has been going intermittently for centuries and isn´t likely to stop anytime soon.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have told credulous folk that, indeed, they were deceived. I´m happy to have empirically verifiable evidence to the contrary. I don´t do it with pleasure, I do with out a sense of duty. I have also held the hands of schizophrenics and told them that the demons they saw coming out of the heating vents weren´t real. I make the comparison intentionally. In both cases, for different reasons, both sets of people are out of touch with reality.

You keep missing the point. I'm not talking about apostolic phenomina [sic]. I have not been talking about it the whole time"¦.I'm talking about God-originated phenomina [sic]

- Joseph, run spell check before you post "“I say this as teacher; you´re a student in a graduate program!-rsc

James 5:14-15 says, "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. "

You can´t say, otoh, "œI´m not arguing for apostolic phenomena" and then turn around and argue for them. What did I say about all the apostolic phenomena? They occur in the apostolic setting. Does that promise extend in the same way to post-canonical Christian life? No. Does this passage give us hope that God might honor prayers so offered in faith? Yes. Does it bind him to do it? No. I always pray, "œFather, if it be your will"¦.". I think James tell us to say, "œLord willing."

Nevertheless, the Reformed have reflected on this passage and if someone asks for a visit, we will come and we will anoint them. We do pray and hope. We also pray for grace for those who are struggling with suffering and death, to accept that providence and to endure.

I think I´ve said enough for now.

As I keep saying Joseph, you need to do a lot more reading (and some more living) before you make theological decisions on these issues. You might read the volumes I recommended above.

Gratia et pax tibi.

rsc
 
Joseph, it seems the discussion between you and I has turned and I am realizing that by "cessation" you are now referring to God's freedom to heal or illuminate.

No one here that I know of denies that God is involved in healing whether it be through providence and a non-Christian medical doctor/surgeon, or an instance where the disease/tumor/headache suddenly "œheals itself" or disappears.

No one here that I know denies illumination where we as maturing believers become mighty in the scriptures and are providentially able to recall what we meditate on.

So has such healings and inspirations ceased "“ of course not. I pray for healing and wisdom and discernment. There is no problem with God granting such.

The whole debate regarding Cessationism usually refers to a "œnarrower sense to mean that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit among God's people have ceased."

There is a wide sense in the "œbelief that all supernatural activity of an unusual or miraculous nature has ceased."

My question to you is regarding the narrow definition, are people within the church still empowered with such spiritual gifts of healing, miracles, knowledge and prophecy?

I do not believe that God ever stopped healing or illuminating. But I will suspect an account of someone with a missing limb all of a sudden growing a replacement or someone who never read scripture reciting Psalm 39 in church.

So we can be clear, what is your stance regarding these distinctions?
 
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

No, I´m not going to apologize. I haven´t sinned in this instance.

Dr. Clark,

You explicitly accused me of not being "content with the signs Christ has promised us."

You explicitly accused me of wanting to "be an apostle".

You also implied that I had some expectation of being able to "raise the dead."


Now, please tell me why you don't think you have sinned in this instance. What warrant did you have for making those accusations? At the very least you could apologize, now that you recognize your accusations were utterly false.
 
Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
Joseph, it seems the discussion between you and I has turned and I am realizing that by "cessation" you are now referring to God's freedom to heal or illuminate.

No one here that I know of denies that God is involved in healing whether it be through providence and a non-Christian medical doctor/surgeon, or an instance where the disease/tumor/headache suddenly "œheals itself" or disappears.

No one here that I know denies illumination where we as maturing believers become mighty in the scriptures and are providentially able to recall what we meditate on.

So has such healings and inspirations ceased "“ of course not. I pray for healing and wisdom and discernment. There is no problem with God granting such.

The whole debate regarding Cessationism usually refers to a "œnarrower sense to mean that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit among God's people have ceased."

There is a wide sense in the "œbelief that all supernatural activity of an unusual or miraculous nature has ceased."

My question to you is regarding the narrow definition, are people within the church still empowered with such spiritual gifts of healing, miracles, knowledge and prophecy?

Not that I know of. I don't believe I have ever seen such a thing, nor have I heard a credible account of such a thing. God personally does amazing things, but He doesn't seem to be giving people "gifts" to do such things at will. --- God could still do so if He wanted to, but I don't see evidence that He is doing that kind of thing these days.

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

I do not believe that God ever stopped healing or illuminating. But I will suspect an account of someone with a missing limb all of a sudden growing a replacement or someone who never read scripture reciting Psalm 39 in church.

So we can be clear, what is your stance regarding these distinctions?

I agree with the distinction. And we both agree that God still heals/illuminates. I happen to believe God can still do anything else He wants to, even though I confess I have never seen such a thing, nor am I seeking it.

The main story I have repeatedly heard, that seems credible to me, is an idea that fits well into what is called "concentric cessationism", the idea that cessation is true in most parts of the world, but not necessarily in those parts of the world which are hearing the Gospel for the very first time. I don't have any problem believing that God sovereignly may cause a person in a foreign country to speak the gospel in a new language, as a sign to the newly-reached people group. From what you've said, you don't believe this one particular thing happens. But other than that, it sounds like you and I are essentially in agreement.
 
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

No, I´m not going to apologize. I haven´t sinned in this instance.

Dr. Clark,

You explicitly accused me of not being "content with the signs Christ has promised us."

You explicitly accused me of wanting to "be an apostle".

You also implied that I had some expectation of being able to "raise the dead."


Now, please tell me why you don't think you have sinned in this instance. What warrant did you have for making those accusations? At the very least you could apologize, now that you recognize your accusations were utterly false.

These are logical and theological conclusions from the arguments you're making. These are directions your hermeneutic seems to be taking you.

You're making a bi-polar, dialectical argument. When it suits you argue like a Pentecostal and when that is noted and criticized you flee to the other pole, "I'm just arguing for God's freedom to work outside the ordinary means." No one denies the latter -- although one wonders how far you are willing to go. Are you willing to say that God is free to bring folk to faith without the preached gospel? If you say no, one could argue that you are denying God's freedom. You will reply, I guess, unless you're a universalist, that God has willed to reach the elect through the preaching of the gospel.

I could be wrong in my inferences, but being wrong isn't sin.

Willfully misrepresenting your view would be wrong. I don't think I'm doing this.

As I tried to suggest earlier, I think I've said enough. I don't intend to continue this thread.

Blessings,

rsc
 
One night as they were in bed she sat up and started speaking in the jewish dialect that he was raised with. He said that she wasn't familiar with it and that he hadn't used it since his youth. She didn't know it nor had heard it according to him. As she started speaking the words testified about how Jesus was the Messiah and Saviour of His people. It resulted in his conversion and walk with God.

That is good news. Where are they now? In an Arminian 'church' by any chance because they refuse to let go of their experience that night long ago?

I question the source of a miracle when the subject is thereby converted to TBN theology and defends it 'til the end.
 
Originally posted by non dignus
One night as they were in bed she sat up and started speaking in the jewish dialect that he was raised with. He said that she wasn't familiar with it and that he hadn't used it since his youth. She didn't know it nor had heard it according to him. As she started speaking the words testified about how Jesus was the Messiah and Saviour of His people. It resulted in his conversion and walk with God.

That is good news. Where are they now? In an Arminian 'church' by any chance because they refuse to let go of their experience that night long ago?

I question the source of a miracle when the subject is thereby converted to TBN theology and defends it 'til the end.

I don't know. I didn't say they were converted to TBN theology. I don't know where some of the people I have discipled are. Your attitude is terrible. I am not a fan of TBN. You are very assumptive and blindly critical. Please grow up a little.
 
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Originally posted by non dignus
One night as they were in bed she sat up and started speaking in the jewish dialect that he was raised with. He said that she wasn't familiar with it and that he hadn't used it since his youth. She didn't know it nor had heard it according to him. As she started speaking the words testified about how Jesus was the Messiah and Saviour of His people. It resulted in his conversion and walk with God.

That is good news. Where are they now? In an Arminian 'church' by any chance because they refuse to let go of their experience that night long ago?

I question the source of a miracle when the subject is thereby converted to TBN theology and defends it 'til the end.

I don't know. I didn't say they were converted to TBN theology. I don't know where some of the people I have discipled are. Your attitude is terrible. I am not a fan of TBN. You are very assumptive and blindly critical. Please grow up a little.

Sir,
I spent three years in the neo-Pentecostal movement.

I have heard many testimonies similar to the one you relate. They all had one thing in common: they could not be verified. There is a very poor track record of maintaining evidence and witnesses. The reason for slipshod history keeping? They just assume anyone who doesn't believe it at face value is a non-believer. To keep records would portend doubt on the part of the record keeper and be an affront to the Holy Spirit.

They are tragically caught up in group-think; complete with traditions of superstitious nonsense passed off as holy ghost power. No one would dare utter that the emperor has no clothes. That would ruin the excitement.

and if there is no excitement, there is nothing.
 
Originally posted by non dignus
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Originally posted by non dignus
One night as they were in bed she sat up and started speaking in the jewish dialect that he was raised with. He said that she wasn't familiar with it and that he hadn't used it since his youth. She didn't know it nor had heard it according to him. As she started speaking the words testified about how Jesus was the Messiah and Saviour of His people. It resulted in his conversion and walk with God.

That is good news. Where are they now? In an Arminian 'church' by any chance because they refuse to let go of their experience that night long ago?

I question the source of a miracle when the subject is thereby converted to TBN theology and defends it 'til the end.

I don't know. I didn't say they were converted to TBN theology. I don't know where some of the people I have discipled are. Your attitude is terrible. I am not a fan of TBN. You are very assumptive and blindly critical. Please grow up a little.

Sir,
I spent three years in the neo-Pentecostal movement.

I have heard many testimonies similar to the one you relate. They all had one thing in common: they could not be verified. There is a very poor track record of maintaining evidence and witnesses. The reason for slipshod history keeping? They just assume anyone who doesn't believe it at face value is a non-believer. To keep records would portend doubt on the part of the record keeper and be an affront to the Holy Spirit.

They are tragically caught up in group-think; complete with traditions of superstitious nonsense passed off as holy ghost power. No one would dare utter that the emperor has no clothes. That would ruin the excitement.

and if there is no excitement, there is nothing.

The gentleman I heard was just sharing his testimony. The situation wasn't in a setting that begged you to believe or join anything specific except that Jesus was the Messiah. I have had a lot of experience in dealing with the Copelandites (Word Faith) and their demonic teaching. I sympathize with your concern but ask that you quit using a blanket to cover all situations. Especially if you don't know them specifically. Name calling is childish. The way you started on this thread was childish also. Especially the way spoke about Baptists.
 
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark


I could be wrong in my inferences, but being wrong isn't sin.

Willfully misrepresenting your view would be wrong. I don't think I'm doing this.

As I tried to suggest earlier, I think I've said enough. I don't intend to continue this thread.

Blessings,

rsc

Being wrong and using inferences can be sin. Accusing someone of character flaw is not something to be taken lightly. Especially if the judgment is possibly false. I think that can be called slander. An apology should be given. We are called to serve and love in humility. I believe your assumed inferences about Joe can go a long way being posted on this board. I think you owe Joe an apology.
 
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Originally posted by non dignus
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Originally posted by non dignus
One night as they were in bed she sat up and started speaking in the jewish dialect that he was raised with. He said that she wasn't familiar with it and that he hadn't used it since his youth. She didn't know it nor had heard it according to him. As she started speaking the words testified about how Jesus was the Messiah and Saviour of His people. It resulted in his conversion and walk with God.


That is good news. Where are they now? In an Arminian 'church' by any chance because they refuse to let go of their experience that night long ago?

I question the source of a miracle when the subject is thereby converted to TBN theology and defends it 'til the end.

I don't know. I didn't say they were converted to TBN theology. I don't know where some of the people I have discipled are. Your attitude is terrible. I am not a fan of TBN. You are very assumptive and blindly critical. Please grow up a little.

Sir,
I spent three years in the neo-Pentecostal movement.

I have heard many testimonies similar to the one you relate. They all had one thing in common: they could not be verified. There is a very poor track record of maintaining evidence and witnesses. The reason for slipshod history keeping? They just assume anyone who doesn't believe it at face value is a non-believer. To keep records would portend doubt on the part of the record keeper and be an affront to the Holy Spirit.

They are tragically caught up in group-think; complete with traditions of superstitious nonsense passed off as holy ghost power. No one would dare utter that the emperor has no clothes. That would ruin the excitement.

and if there is no excitement, there is nothing.

The gentleman I heard was just sharing his testimony. The situation wasn't in a setting that begged you to believe or join anything specific except that Jesus was the Messiah. I have had a lot of experience in dealing with the Copelandites (Word Faith) and their demonic teaching. I sympathize with your concern but ask that you quit using a blanket to cover all situations. Especially if you don't know them specifically. Name calling is childish. The way you started on this thread was childish also. Especially the way spoke about Baptists.

The danger in such testimony would be to new converts who are making up their minds which church to join. Arminian 'churches' claim manifestations of God's active attention. True churches on the other hand claim more subtle manifestations. The neophyte is tempted to go after the signs and wonders thinking that God is not present in true churches.

OK. I was a bit sarcastic to my Baptist friends. But I won't compromise the sacraments. Reminding my friends to rethink their perspective is a duty of love.

and I intend to do alot of loving here.:bigsmile:
 
Originally posted by non dignus


OK. I was a bit sarcastic to my Baptist friends. But I won't compromise the sacraments. Reminding my friends to rethink their perspective is a duty of love.

and I intend to do alot of loving here.:bigsmile:

:D
 
Dr. Clark
Your most recent post illustrates my point well. To American evangelicals, living with mere Word and Sacrament, living in the valley of redemptive history as it were, sounds like Deism. It isn´t of course, but the fact that it seems so to you is revealing. This is quite like the argument that the confessionalists had with the revivalists in the 1st Great Awakening. As soon as my lot criticized your lot, the latter attacked the former as Deistic and unregenerate. This argument has been going intermittently for centuries and isn´t likely to stop anytime soon.

This is just a false representation of what really happened sir. You do not understand the significance of the impact on reformed evangelical churches. You try to duplicate the mass entrance of members in the reformed churches who became very faithful confessional members. Better than any person attending college to get a degree in name only.In fact its just wrong to attribute mass excitement to Satan, especially when it involves adding to the church more faithful members in that time than all the members put together today. Thank God for revival or you and i would not be singing those hymns. Respectfully.

[Edited on 1-16-2006 by mybigGod]
 
This is just a false representation of what really happened sir. You do not understand the significance of the impact on reformed evangelical churches.

Well, it could be that we just disagree.

You try to duplicate the mass entrance of members in the reformed churches who became very faithful confessional members.

Some accounts argue that church attendance actually dropped after the 1GA!

There is no doubt that the 1GA produced the New Divinity and many Edwards scholars conclude that it was a legitimate development from the 1GA.

Better than any person attending college to get a degree in name only.

So we're back to Gilbert Tennent again! Did you know that he repented of this sermon?

In fact its just wrong to attribute mass excitement to Satan...

I don't recall doing this.

Thank God for revival or you and i would not be singing those hymns.

You help me make my point. Without the 1 and 2 GA we might well still be singing Psalms (with Calvin and all the 16th and 17th century Reformed) and not tunes by D L Moody and Sister Aimee (as much as Bob Godfrey secretly loves to sing them).

Another such GA and we'll have barking in "evangelical" churches...oh wait, that's already happening.

rsc

[Edited on 1-16-2006 by R. Scott Clark]
 
Dr. Clark makes an important point with the hymns!

Not to dredge-up EP...I'm going through my library of hymnals (being a professional musician) preparing a set of arrangements, for work. It is quite enlightening to notice/trace the theological content of the hymns and sentimental-religious ballads; from the Geneva Psalter all the way down to the Azusa revival; Roman, Lutheran; to the most recent Trinity Hymnal. A theological-history lesson unto itself...

It's a grief to see the deterioration swell throughout the church-over time; all in the name of "revival."

One can learn an awful lot about theology from reading lots of hymnals; good, bad, ugly, silly. (More fun than reading the phone book!) It could be said that worship music can be an inroad to promoting bad theology.

A danger in Revivalist music: the strong emotional component of music validates a godly origin of the bad theology.

"Revival" = is not what is appears to be, when tested with the Word.

:2cents:
r.
 
The Belgic Confession, Article 7 wisely states:

We believe that this Holy Scripture contains the will of God completely and that everything one must believe to be saved is sufficiently taught in it. For since the entire manner of service which God requires of us is described in it at great length, no one-- even an apostle or an angel from heaven, as Paul says ought to teach other than what the Holy Scriptures have already taught us. For since it is forbidden to add to or subtract from the Word of God, this plainly demonstrates that the teaching is perfect and complete in all respects.

Therefore we must not consider human writings-- no matter how holy their authors may have been-- equal to the divine writings; nor may we put custom, nor the majority, nor age, nor the passage of time or persons, nor councils, decrees, or official decisions above the truth of God, for truth is above everything else.

For all human beings are liars by nature and more vain than vanity itself.

Therefore we reject with all our hearts everything that does not agree with this infallible rule, as we are taught to do by the apostles when they say, "Test the spirits to see if they are of God," and also, "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house."

Selah

Robin
 
Originally posted by BrianBowman
Originally posted by Augusta
:ditto:
...and not tunes by D L Moody and Sister Aimee (as much as Bob Godfrey secretly loves to sing them).
:lol:

Is it true that Bob Godfrey has a "secret crush" on the memory of Aimee Simple McPhearson?

There's nothing secret about it!

He'll take us on a tour of Sister's house, tomb, and, in the immortal words of Andy Griffith, "I don't know what all" at the drop of a hat.

rsc
 
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
This is just a false representation of what really happened sir. You do not understand the significance of the impact on reformed evangelical churches.

Well, it could be that we just disagree.

You try to duplicate the mass entrance of members in the reformed churches who became very faithful confessional members.

Some accounts argue that church attendance actually dropped after the 1GA!

There is no doubt that the 1GA produced the New Divinity and many Edwards scholars conclude that it was a legitimate development from the 1GA.

Better than any person attending college to get a degree in name only.

So we're back to Gilbert Tennent again! Did you know that he repented of this sermon?

In fact its just wrong to attribute mass excitement to Satan...

I don't recall doing this.

Thank God for revival or you and i would not be singing those hymns.

You help me make my point. Without the 1 and 2 GA we might well still be singing Psalms (with Calvin and all the 16th and 17th century Reformed) and not tunes by D L Moody and Sister Aimee (as much as Bob Godfrey secretly loves to sing them).

Another such GA and we'll have barking in "evangelical" churches...oh wait, that's already happening.

rsc

[Edited on 1-16-2006 by R. Scott Clark]

Name one higher learning institution where every professor or faculty member is a strick confessionalist. What is the percentage of strick confessionalist in american christian higher education?

[Edited on 1-17-2006 by mybigGod]

[Edited on 1-17-2006 by mybigGod]
 
Originally posted by Augusta
:ditto:
...and not tunes by D L Moody and Sister Aimee (as much as Bob Godfrey secretly loves to sing them).
:lol:

You forgot Fanny Crosby! And whoever that guy was who wrote The Old Account Settled.

" There was a time on earth when in the books of Heaven
An old account was written of sins left unforgiven.
My name was at the top and many things below;
I went unto the keeper and settled it long ago."

[Edited on 1-17-2006 by turmeric]
 
Name one higher learning institution where every professor or faculty member is a strick confessionalist. What is the percentage of strick confessionalist in american christian higher education?

I think you want the word "strict."

Well, let's see, Westminster Seminary California is chock full of strict confessionalists.

How many schools must I name and to what end?

rsc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top