We would agree that many of the gifts are still in operation, just not the ones that require an Apostles to use them.
John 14 v12 - support for charismatics?
- Thread starter Eoghan
- Start date
- Status
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
And I would say that "ones that require an Apostle to use them" is precisely the question that is begged.
They were the ones granted by God those sign gifts!
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
And that doesn't prove that the gifts were specifically limited to them. I am granted the gift of teaching but that doesn't mean it dies with me. !!!!
I agree with Calvin, Gill, Faucett, and Henry that Christ was addressing his apostles in John 14:12, just as in other of his statements in John about the power, knowledge, and understanding they would receive for witnessing to his death and resurrection after the Spirit was given (the book of Acts being the account of the outworking of the Spirit’s empowering). Getting the context right of many passages of Scripture used by charismatics for claims of continuationism would settle things (if they would listen).
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Getting the context right of many passages of Scripture used by cessationists for claims of cessationism would settle things (if they would listen).
As others, cessationists even, have noted in this thread, I don't use this verse as a proof-text. While there is zero evidence it is limited to the apostles, it is a moot point for me. Neither cessationists nor continuationists can really read their entire theology into that passage, which means that if the passage really did mean what x side thinks it means, it would solve very little.
Jacob, Eoghan’s pastor (I think) is using it as a proof text, and my comment was a general one in light of the fact.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
If your comment is aimed at his pastor, fine. While I am a continuationist, based off of Eoghan's comments, I do think the pastor-friend should take a step back and study. There are good defenses of continuationism and there are very bad defenses. If this is his argument (and admittedly we only have 1/2 of the conversation), then it is a very weak one.
Kinghezy
Puritan Board Sophomore
I am not interested in a cessationism versus continuationism debate, but did want to point out that cessationists wouldn't necessarily say the sign gifts are limited to the apostles. Rather, the argument (at least that I have heard) is they are limited to the apostolic age, to attest to the apostles' message as the gospel was in its infancy.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Strictly speaking, you are correct. I think in this thread we all got sloppy and collapsed the two lines of argument into one. On the other hand, if someone says the supernatural gifts are purely sign gifts (something Paul never says in his lists of spiritual gifts), then they are necessarily tied to the apostolic confirmation.
To which I would point out, what exactly were Philip's daughters "confirming" in the church?
Very good point, as God was confirming through the Apostles, but others were also being used in certain gifts. Also,. Must make a distinction between office of Prophets and one able to be used in gift if prophecy, as that gift was used until scriptures were completed. Apostles and Prorphets were to judge spirisl gifts of the signs and wonders type, but neither office still open today!
Stephen was associated with the Apostles though not one of them, and prophesying in church was not same as functioning as OT Prophet!
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Even if that is true it is irrelevant, since it depends on premises that I do not grant.
Thank you. You just admitted to a major part of Wayne Grudem's book. You are almost to being a continuationist.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Do we have any instance in scripture where this gift was used and documented as inspired prophesy?
The utterances were to be judged by Apostles and Prorphets, but we're not given forth as inspired doctrines, but as edification and exhortations!
No, for do not see the gift as giving forth inspired theology, but as more guidance and exhortations and edification!
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Sort of true. Grudem does not believe that prophets were to give forth inspired theology. That's specifically what they aren't giving. The Bible gives theology. Not me. Not an angel from heaven. "Prophesy" and its cognates almost always meant having knowledge you didn't previously have access to. It's nice to say that it means "guidance and exhortation," but that's not what the Greek says.
The NT uses the language of prophets as someone who can predict the future but not have divine authority (Titus 1:12; Luke 22:64; John 4.19).
Some prophecies were intentionally neglected (1 Cor. 14.30). Contrast this with Jehoikam’s disregard for Jeremiah’s prophecy. God gave him a death sentence for neglecting it. If NT prophecies were on the same field as OT, then we should make sure that all of this “potential canon” is gathered for the church. Yet Paul is making sure that isn’t happening. Some prophets won’t even be able to speak
Recall that John’s gospel portrays vividly Jesus’ conflict with the Scribes and Pharisees and the religious segregation and system they profited so handsomely from without any concern for what God desired.
I personally think this verse is at least alluding to the undoing of that false religion and the final breaking of its power over God’s people, both to ensnare the Jew and keep out the gentile. Christ’s conflict with the enemies of God and his faithfulness to death laid the foundation for it’s overthrow in so many ways, and set in motion it’s destruction.
Yet it was those hearing Christ’s words here that would be the ones to finish the fight so to speak, to finish work and by their faith and the public witness/testimony of Christ by the power and blessing of the Spirit that that mountain that had so captivated them was finally thrown into the sea.
Not that this would be the only referent in the text, it has broad profitable application. But the non violent (on the Christian side) overthrow of a thoroughly self serving Jewish religious system that is in bed with the Roman Empire at or nearing the height of it’s power and influence is an absolute dynamite of a work.
I think the work Christ was doing that he referred to was simply contending for faith in the living God against the enemies. On earth, Christ never saw his work come to fruition; though he knew it would through the Apostles work under the reign Of Christ through the power of the Spirit.
Works I (Christ) have been doing = contending for faith and righteousness against the enemies of God, ultimately dying in (apparent) failure (in an outward visible sense) as his enemies mocked and crucified him.
Works Christ is doing that the Apostles would also do = contending for faith and righteousness against the enemies of God (and many also being killed at their hands)
Greater works than these that the Apostles would do = contending unto the achieving of real, outward, visible, historical victories for the kingdom of God through the gospel, displacing the rulers and powers of darkness.
Last edited:
Prophets of God spoke inspired revelations from God, but those with gift of prophesy did not!
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Did those with the gift of prophecy speak knowledge that God revealed to their minds!
That would be the word of knowledge, but prophesy in Acts was Holy Spirit moving upon someone to speak for edification, exhortation, but not to give forth inspired as He did with the Prophets of OT.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
That's specifically not what the word or its cognates mean, plain and simple. By the time of the NT the word prophetes means one who has supernatural knowledge. That's it. I don't use the word "inspired" because it has such a slippery meaning. Further, the word prophetes doesn't have to mean divine authority, as evidenced below (The Talmud references are in Hebrew-Aramaic, obviously, but they show the overlap of concept):
*a philosopher is called a prophet of immortal nature (Dio Chrysostom).
* In the Babylonian Talmud (b.Sot. 13a) Rebekah prophecies as prediction, not authority.
*Miriam (b. Meg. 14a) does the same. As does Hannah (same reference).
*Josephus says John Hyrcanus is a prophetes, not because he had divine authority, but because he predicted the future (Ant. 13.299-300 and Wars 1.68-69).
*Philo refers to dreams as prophecies (Spec Leg 1.219).
*Paul quotes Epimenides who quoted "a prophet of their own," and that pagan certainly didn't speak with the authority of God!
*The High Priest's assistants slapped Jesus and said "prophesy," to which Jesus and they clearly meant "give knowledge beyond the sense-perception."
*The woman at the well said Jesus was a prophet because she recognized he had knowledge beyond sense-perception.
All of this clearly refutes the idea that prophet just means exhorter.
The office of the Prophet ceased after Apostolic era,and the gift to propesy was not the same as one being a Prophet. Prophets spoke infallible words if the Lord, while ones with gift to prophesy did not!
We are to seek the truth if the scriptures, not the words of fallible people exercising their gifts!
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
You didn't read a single thing I said.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
Scripture does seem to distinguish between Prophets, of which John the Baptist was the last (Luke 16:16; Hebrews 1:1-2), and prophets, which continued into the NT church (Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 14:3).
Similar circumstances seem to apply to Apostles (Mark 6:7; Revelation 21:14) and apostles (cf. Ephesians 4:11; Acts 14:14), Of course regarding Acts 14:14, the overall evidence appears to indicate that Paul was an Apostle (1 Corinthians 15:7-8), while Timothy was seemingly an apostle.
Just an observation...
Similar circumstances seem to apply to Apostles (Mark 6:7; Revelation 21:14) and apostles (cf. Ephesians 4:11; Acts 14:14), Of course regarding Acts 14:14, the overall evidence appears to indicate that Paul was an Apostle (1 Corinthians 15:7-8), while Timothy was seemingly an apostle.
Just an observation...
Last edited:
The OT Prophets and NT Apostles had unique callings and giftings, not to be continued and repeated moving forward. The CHURCH was built upon Jesus, and the theological foundations were laid by Prophets and Apostles!
I did, but why does God still need to confirm with gifts what has already been firmly established?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
If you had read what I wrote, you would have realized that I refuted what you were saying about prophecy.
I deny that the gifts sole purpose was to confirm something. That it did so is true, but you keep assuming that's the whole point. It's not.
Let's take your line of reasoning a step further: why does God need me to evangelize since he has already predestined everything?
If you read 1 Corinthians you will realize that Gifts are not given to authenticate a message (at least not primarily). Gifts are other-directed. They are for service.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
That has nothing to do with what he said. He notes how the term prophet isn't univocal. These gifts weren't solely used by the apostles. And if prophet is interchangeable with apostle, then you need to admit that Philip's daughters were apostles.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Back to the original post: the verse describes the worker as "he who believes in me," which doesn't limit it to the apostles. Now, I am not saying this necessarily means magical gifts. It might just mean that granny is really good at organizing pot luck fellowships. Admittedly, that's not in the text.
- Status
