RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
My church is open to these gifts. There have been supernatural instances with some members in our church.
The argument for cessationism seems extremely weak.
- Thread starter Ulster Fry
- Start date
- Status
I'm not sure wehre I was passive aggressive. I'm usually accused of being too forthright.
I didn't say it was a moral accusation. Ulster started responding to my posts as if I was making personal attacks. When I asked a question (with no assertions), he stated that I had hidden assumptions. I was asking questions because I was trying to estalish some common ground after things got off the rails. By that point, I had already offended him to the point where he thought I was trying to fight him and I was only trying to clean up some ideas that were all over the place.
I admit that I'm frustrated more at myself at this point because I lost an opportunity to redirect some thinking. That said, I was very frustrated at the way in which it seems you fold your arms in these arguments and don't seem of offer more than brief responses to some very extensive exegetical and theological analysis by Bruce. If anything your passive aggressive behavior was what irritated me the most in this thread and I should have been more mature when you responded to my post and I responded this AM.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I mentioned to Rev. Buchanan why I didn't find his exegesis persuasive. I didn't see why I had to respond with the same amount of exegesis when a surface-level reading seemed to imply continuity. I also didn't respond in detailed exegesis because there were other questions and lines of thought I wanted to explore more at the time.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
And if I gave terse answers, it was because I didn't want to keep speaking and say something that might inflame the situation.
Ulster Fry
Puritan Board Freshman
So Jacob is to blame for your own behaviour. Right.
Look, this is getting embarrassing. I think the thread has run its course and we should end things here. @Semper Fidelis as a staff member, don't you yourself have the power to lock the thread? I think this would be a good time to do so.
No. I admitted that I was not happy with my own manner of responding to Jacob. I've known him from a long time on the board. I was annoyed by his responses yesterdy and my initial respose to this thread was an attempt to redirect the issue to the broader concern.
When he responded, I responded poorly. I don't blame him for the way I responded to him early this AM. I was annoyed and my posts reflect it. I went and picked up my son and had time to reflect on things and then returned to the conversation after an hour and a half to try to get the convesation back on track.
By then, however, even my simple quesiton were interpreted as pugilisitc and the conversation could not recover.
I'm not wrtining in anger here or with accusation. When I say you are confused it is not a puglistic charge but my honest assessment. You quoted Hodge and I tried to show you that this is just standard Refromed cessationism. The only thing left to clean up was how to think about the continuation of spiritual gifts as such past the Apostolic era and whether or not there was an argument to be made that pulled together a number of Biblical and theological threads. As I stated, I said I would lay out what that thinking/argument from a Confessional cessationist would be to believe certain spiritual gifts have ceased in this era. As I predicted, you would not be persuaded. A good part of that was that I had already furstrated/angered you so my attempts to interact failed.
As to whether or not the Staff needs to step in, I'll leave that to them.
I can't assert that you intended otherwise so I accpet your explanation. I don't intend to be at odds with you and I think you know that, over the years, I've found you to be a profitable contributor here.
Ulster Fry
Puritan Board Freshman
As you know perfectly well, my frustration is with your attitude, not anything to do with the topic. Had you been able to make your points without your snide remarks and descending into pettiness, then we could have a conversation just fine.
You made a false apology, then when reprimanded for your passive aggressiveness, you boast about being known for being 'direct'. Can you not see how badly you come across with this sort of behaviour? That's why I think the thread should stop, to be honest, and that you should reflect on how you speak to those you disagree with, particularly as someone who holds such a highly esteemed office as yourself.
It's interesting to me that you make several accusations about my character and I have not responded in kind. JUst to be clear, I did not "boast" about being direct. I responded to the accusation that I was passive aggressive and noted that the complaint was that I am usually judged as too direct.
Just to leave it at this, please forgive me for my tone in earlier posts where I assigned motives to you. I was not being passive aggressive but directly accused you of motives that did not advance the conversation. I ought to have cleaned that up before the conversation continued because it shipwrecked the conversation when I tried to ask questions. I am sincerly sorry.
Grace and Peace.
Ulster Fry
Puritan Board Freshman
To be clear, I did not make any accusations about your character, and dealt entirely with your behaviour pertaining to this thread. I do not know anything about you outside of the board.
That being said, I much appreciate your apology and hope we can move on.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
I've just read through what I hadn't read yet in this long thread, and I have a few comments to make – so as to focus more tightly on what I see as the main issues, divested of extraneous matter..
Phil, I read what you said in post 50,
And no wonder your argument against cessationism is extremely weak. The area for examination has been so set up by you as to make a reliable assessment beyond reach.
Nor would I automatically rule out that some missionaries and others have "received some sort of vision or what they took to be God speaking to them". It is quite conceivable the Lord could send one of His "ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation" (Heb 1:14) to do this or that, or to flee a place that shall be destroyed in moments, etc.
Then you say, in post 101,
First, you bring up "miracles", when it is clear that the term remains undefined in its usage here, and that God can work apart from the laws of nature when He wills, often in answer to prayer. He has been healing and working His wonders – apart from normal providences – throughout the entire post-apostolic era! This cessationist (for such I am) would not require zero "miracles" in the early church.
As for the "people with gifts of miracles/healings etc if we make that distinction" – you and Jacob have sought to bring into the discussion here at a confessional Reformed & Presbyterian board some of the more extreme cotinuationists / charismatics as norms to be used to assess these things!
I can appreciate J.P. Moreland, and his church, Dwelling Place Anaheim (formally, Vineyard Anaheim church) – as he seems to be a godly and respectable man. My first church, upon my conversion some 55 years ago, was an old holiness Pentecostal church, and I have at times been in charismatic churches up through the years to my great benefit, but I hold that they seriously err in vision and in spirit, and are not to be brought into the precincts of this Reformed board.
Likewise with Michael L. Brown, and his theology and his church. I like the man, and have benefited greatly from his Answering Jewish Questions series of books, and his other work on OT matters, but his views on spirituality are not such as are appropriate here. Do I really need to critique the charismatic field and its distinctives to make this point? Would it not be equivalent to bringing in Arminian and Pelagian – respectively – John Wesley and Charles G. Finney as exemplars of theological truths and their fine points? They may have some merit in some areas, yet both are alien to our doctrine and practice, and are unwelcome according to our confessional requirements here at PB. As are the outspoken continuationist men you seek to hold as exemplars here.
I can see godly people fasting and praying in their churches for healings, and the Lord granting their supplications. But the gift now as per its existence in the 1 cent. church, I do not see it, though I believe it could be as in the previous sentence.
Pastor Bruce's remarks in his post #109, and Jacob's attempt at rebuttal in his post #110, illustrate another important point (which pastor Bruce answers in post #115 – as Rich @Semper Fidelis does also in his later posts) : What is most crucial for the health of the body of Christ are the teaching and pastoral gifts of the undershepherds of the flock so as to bring the flocks into robust maturity of spiritual life and love spoken of in Ephesians 4:1-16. The health of the body, while significant and important, pales in comparison to its spiritual health and maturity. Spiritual health will sustain both persons and flocks when times of great darkness and calamity befall them or the wider society in general.
Gentlemen, in your thinking to support your anti-confessional views of gifts and extraordinary providences by bringing in the testimonies of men like Brown and Moreland – among others mentioned by you (albeit godly and respectable men, I gather) – you really do violate our own PB standards in these particular respects.
This is not a free-for-all generic evangelical board, but strictly Reformed, and these others are markedly not Reformed. We are not to be judged and assessed by their standards! I will repeat myself, Phil, and Jacob, your arguments against cessationism are extremely weak, apart from their inappropriateness here.
I do believe God heals today; I do believe He may send His angels to minister to – speak or otherwise assist – His children here. Our Saviour, who dearly loves us, may well bring extraordinary providences upon us. I believe that the Presence of our God manifested to our awareness by the Holy Spirit revealing Jesus Christ to us – filling us with the power and glory of His Person, strengthening us and giving us "the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him" (Eph 1:17) is greater than the lesser gift of some being healed.
I do not believe that the LORD, since the closing of the canon when the apostle John died, gives any further direct verbal revelation to individuals apart from His written word in the Bible. The Bible alone is the word of God. He surely does give us further revelation through His extant word, but not apart from it. We are not to add to it.
I will not deny that He may give an individual a prophetic glimpse concerning one thing or another upon rare occasion. But the final word of the matter is this:
Phil, I read what you said in post 50,
This so expands the issue with hypothetical and anecdotal material as to make it impossible to really deal with what you are calling Cessationism. Where some may have "believed to have received some sort of vision or what they took to be God speaking to them, say, to go and do x in place y? I'm not sure I can automatically rule out that such a thing can occur in the post apostolic era, and some missionaries have made such claims as these". Yet this is the area in which you want to try the validity or not of the cessationist view? No wonder the thread has gone to 222+ posts, and is such a mess!
And no wonder your argument against cessationism is extremely weak. The area for examination has been so set up by you as to make a reliable assessment beyond reach.
Nor would I automatically rule out that some missionaries and others have "received some sort of vision or what they took to be God speaking to them". It is quite conceivable the Lord could send one of His "ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation" (Heb 1:14) to do this or that, or to flee a place that shall be destroyed in moments, etc.
Then you say, in post 101,
Again, Phil, you stake out areas that are so indistinct, and unverifiable, and then suppose "the cessationist would require this to be 0 in the post-apostolic era"!
First, you bring up "miracles", when it is clear that the term remains undefined in its usage here, and that God can work apart from the laws of nature when He wills, often in answer to prayer. He has been healing and working His wonders – apart from normal providences – throughout the entire post-apostolic era! This cessationist (for such I am) would not require zero "miracles" in the early church.
As for the "people with gifts of miracles/healings etc if we make that distinction" – you and Jacob have sought to bring into the discussion here at a confessional Reformed & Presbyterian board some of the more extreme cotinuationists / charismatics as norms to be used to assess these things!
I can appreciate J.P. Moreland, and his church, Dwelling Place Anaheim (formally, Vineyard Anaheim church) – as he seems to be a godly and respectable man. My first church, upon my conversion some 55 years ago, was an old holiness Pentecostal church, and I have at times been in charismatic churches up through the years to my great benefit, but I hold that they seriously err in vision and in spirit, and are not to be brought into the precincts of this Reformed board.
Likewise with Michael L. Brown, and his theology and his church. I like the man, and have benefited greatly from his Answering Jewish Questions series of books, and his other work on OT matters, but his views on spirituality are not such as are appropriate here. Do I really need to critique the charismatic field and its distinctives to make this point? Would it not be equivalent to bringing in Arminian and Pelagian – respectively – John Wesley and Charles G. Finney as exemplars of theological truths and their fine points? They may have some merit in some areas, yet both are alien to our doctrine and practice, and are unwelcome according to our confessional requirements here at PB. As are the outspoken continuationist men you seek to hold as exemplars here.
I can see godly people fasting and praying in their churches for healings, and the Lord granting their supplications. But the gift now as per its existence in the 1 cent. church, I do not see it, though I believe it could be as in the previous sentence.
Pastor Bruce's remarks in his post #109, and Jacob's attempt at rebuttal in his post #110, illustrate another important point (which pastor Bruce answers in post #115 – as Rich @Semper Fidelis does also in his later posts) : What is most crucial for the health of the body of Christ are the teaching and pastoral gifts of the undershepherds of the flock so as to bring the flocks into robust maturity of spiritual life and love spoken of in Ephesians 4:1-16. The health of the body, while significant and important, pales in comparison to its spiritual health and maturity. Spiritual health will sustain both persons and flocks when times of great darkness and calamity befall them or the wider society in general.
Gentlemen, in your thinking to support your anti-confessional views of gifts and extraordinary providences by bringing in the testimonies of men like Brown and Moreland – among others mentioned by you (albeit godly and respectable men, I gather) – you really do violate our own PB standards in these particular respects.
This is not a free-for-all generic evangelical board, but strictly Reformed, and these others are markedly not Reformed. We are not to be judged and assessed by their standards! I will repeat myself, Phil, and Jacob, your arguments against cessationism are extremely weak, apart from their inappropriateness here.
I do believe God heals today; I do believe He may send His angels to minister to – speak or otherwise assist – His children here. Our Saviour, who dearly loves us, may well bring extraordinary providences upon us. I believe that the Presence of our God manifested to our awareness by the Holy Spirit revealing Jesus Christ to us – filling us with the power and glory of His Person, strengthening us and giving us "the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him" (Eph 1:17) is greater than the lesser gift of some being healed.
I do not believe that the LORD, since the closing of the canon when the apostle John died, gives any further direct verbal revelation to individuals apart from His written word in the Bible. The Bible alone is the word of God. He surely does give us further revelation through His extant word, but not apart from it. We are not to add to it.
I will not deny that He may give an individual a prophetic glimpse concerning one thing or another upon rare occasion. But the final word of the matter is this:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (2 Tim 3:16, 17).
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
I would recommend this thread be closed to keep more inappropriate material from being disseminated.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
You can say my arguments are weak. I say they're fine, so that's that. My rebuttal wasn't an "attempted rebuttal." It was a rebuttal. I think you meant to say "attempted refutation." I didn't intend to refute him. A rebuttal simply stops the claim. A refutation shows how the claim fails to have truth-value. As it stands, my rebuttal is fine. I didn't put any defeaters in it (though I do have some against Bruce's argument).
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I'm not using "their standards." I'm not a relativist. Truth is truth. Either what they are saying is true or false and can be demonstrated as such. You mentioned the other aspects of their theology. Duly noted. That, however, has nothing to do with whether a truth claim is true or false.
Ulster Fry
Puritan Board Freshman
Thanks for your post Steve. I want to point you to the title of the thread:
The argument for cessationism seems extremely weak
The key word here is 'seems'. I was asking a legitimate question and was hoping for some insight. In terms of inappropriate posts, you'll have to be specific what I posted which was inappropriate, but the last theologian I entered into the discussion was Charles Hodge and I said that it most represents what I think at this point (or option 2 in the 4 options which Jacob posted above). I honestly don't know what to say if that makes me unconfessional and unwelcome. When I mentioned the likes of Brown or NT Wright or whoever, I was looking for good arguments against what they say. I wasn't blowing their trumpets.At the end of the day, and after the debacle of last night, I have made the decision to log off Puritan Board. I have tried to be genuine in my questions and attempts to have discussions on various topics, but I feel like there is more hostility than edification at which point it isn't worth it for anyone involved.
Moderating: It seems the thread has reached its end of profitability (a good while back), so bidding it adieu.
- Status
