Quote:
Originally Posted by Pergamum  I wouldn't advocate very much of what Neil Anderson proposes. And as far as the Apostle Paul's methodology, it is sometimes hard to tell what is normative and what is merely descriptive of what Paul did as a BIG A Apostle. |
You don't advocate Neil Anderson's approach, nor are you inclined to follow Paul's example. On what basis is this? It cannot be on the basis of scripture alone. To the best of my knowledge, the scriptures do not explicitly forbid either approach. Therefore, one's loyalty to the scriptures as the only rule of faith and practice should not preclude either approach. Also to the best of my knowledge the confessions, of lesser authority than the scriptures, are silent on the matter. Therefore loyalty to the confessions should not preclude either practice.
This leaves only cessationist presuppositions to preclude actively dealing with the netherworld supernatural--one's traditional Calvinistic culture, so to speak. Cessationism, like baptism and views of eschatology, is open to arguments either way between believers with absolute loyalty to the scripture. Since the entire scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation, reflect intermittent cessationism, the burden of proof is on those who insist on absolute cesstion in the current era. By intermittent cessationism, I mean that there were times and places when miracles were more common and times (like in Nazareth during Jesus' day) when they all but disappeared. Of the historical books (using that term broadly) I believe it is only Ruth and Esther that do not record miraculous events.
Am I missing something?