Cessationist or no? Why?#2 - Page 2

a mere housewife · #41 (**permalink**) 03-30-2004, 04:51 PM

"can God be questined? Therefore, if someone spoke something that GOD revealed to him then to question him would be to question God."

Paul, God cannot be questioned, but the men who claim to speak for God can. Otherwise the Bereans would have been berated. Beratedeans! (Just a little humor there... thought I'd point it out in case it wasn't recognizable.)

Again, (not to beat a dead horse) this involves doctrine. God has completed doctrinal revelation in Scripture. We don't need somebody to come along and tell us credo or paedo baptism is right or wrong because God told them. God has told us. Also, we are instructed (by God) to try the spirits. So if someone comes along claiming to speak for God, it is our DUTY to question/put them to the test.

[Edited on 3-30-2004 by a mere housewife]

Joshua · #42 (**permalink**) 03-30-2004, 05:06 PM

[quote:b58c93eece]
Also, we are instructed (by God) to try the spirits. So if someone comes along claiming to speak for God, it is our DUTY to question/put them to the test.
[/quote:b58c93eece]

Ok, the horse has been beaten.

Just JOSHin'. Let's take this scenario on it. It's not a doctrinal issue, so it has nothing to do with revelatory things. So, these predictions, promptings, or inclinations that come from God to Christians.

Elder A has been praying what to do about a certain situation (not doctrinal or revelatory, just practical) and he gets this confirmation, prediction, prompting, inclination from God on what to do.

Elder B has been praying what to do as well and gets a confirmation, prediction, prompting, inclination from God, but it's not the same thing as Elder A recieved.

Both Elder A and Elder B are good, godly, biblical men, but their promptings are different. Who's right? Which prompting to which Elder was REALLY from God? Neither promptings were in violation of Scripture. What do you do?

raderag · #43 (**permalink**) 03-30-2004, 05:09 PM

[quote:d40031c3a5][i:d40031c3a5]Originally posted by joshua[/i:d40031c3a5]
[quote:d40031c3a5]
Also, we are instructed (by God) to try the spirits. So if someone comes along claiming to speak for God, it is our DUTY to question/put them to the test.
[/quote:d40031c3a5]

Ok, the horse has been beaten.

Just JOSHin'. Let's take this scenario on it. It's not a doctrinal issue, so it has nothing to do with revelatory things. So, these predictions, promptings, or inclinations that come from God to Christians.

Elder A has been praying what to do about a certain situation (not doctrinal or revelatory, just practical) and he gets this confirmation, prediction, prompting, inclination from God on what to do.

Elder B has been praying what to do as well and gets a confirmation, prediction, prompting, inclination from God, but it's not the same thing as Elder A recieved.

Both Elder A and Elder B are good, godly, biblical men, but their promptings are different. Who's right? Which prompting to which Elder was REALLY from God? Neither promptings were in violation of Scripture. What do you do? [/quote:d40031c3a5]

Wait to see what happens, and then stone the one that is wrong. :shocked:

a mere housewife · #44 (**permalink**) 03-30-2004, 05:33 PM

Josh, I think that since we are to try the spirits, we ought to simply see which option is more Biblical. If both are Biblical, which makes more common sense, or is more feasible in the situation? Every person who is involved in the decision has to weigh those things for themselves before the Lord. The "promptings" of either elder have no weight except as they line up with the Word of God.

[Edited on 3-30-2004 by a mere housewife]

Me Died Blue · #45 (**permalink**) 03-30-2004, 05:59 PM

[quote:991bf57f14][i:991bf57f14]Originally posted by Scott[/i:991bf57f14]
Me Died Blue: There are alternatives other than Grudem and others. I would direct you to the paper I posted, which expresses a position contained in mainstream historic Reformed thought. There is nothing about falible prophecies like Grudem teaches.

Scott [/quote:991bf57f14]

I'm not saying that all non-cessationists have to believe the exact same details about the nature of prophecies today and how God gives them. But I [i:991bf57f14]am[/i:991bf57f14] saying that no matter what you believe about them, if you believe God still uses prophecy today of [i:991bf57f14]any[/i:991bf57f14] type, you either [i:991bf57f14]have to[/i:991bf57f14] adopt some form of a fallible prophecy view, or else you have to deny Sola Scriptura. There's no way around it--if today's "prophecies" are of the same nature and authority as those in biblical times, we can kiss Sola Scriptura goodbye. If they are not, you have to accept that they are prophecies of [i:991bf57f14]some[/i:991bf57f14] lesser nature, even if you don't totally agree with, say, Grudem or Piper on their nature.

In Christ,

Chris

[Edited on 3-30-2004 by Me Died Blue]

a mere housewife · #46 (**permalink**) 03-30-2004, 06:12 PM

God revealed things to Paul. They were correct. Paul told them to the Bereans. But the Bereans still had to search the Scriptures and check Paul out. I think your idea that a person who has something revealed to them by God should not be questioned is not born out by cases in the NT where this actually happened. It is not consistent with God's command that we try the spirits. The implication is that some of them are going to be right, and some wrong. Otherwise, He could have just said "reject the spirits." Some of these things will be from God, and some from elsewhere. The Holy Spirit meets His own standard. But nothing else does.

In everything, the Bible is authoritative revelation. This is what we try the spirits by. No new interpretation is exempt from its authority. Otherwise, it would be revelation-- adding to the word of God.

Personally, I am not arguing for "new interpretations." I am saying that God can give a prediction of a circumstance, which it does not require any new interpretation of Scripture or any revision of doctrine to receive-- no more than the circumstance itself.

(I revised this because I spoke incorrectly in the "spirits" part-- as if there were more than one Spirit from God.)

[Edited on 3-30-2004 by a mere housewife]

Me Died Blue · #47 (**permalink**) 03-30-2004, 06:12 PM

[quote:93b0ceeacd][i:93b0ceeacd]Originally posted by a mere housewife[/i:93b0ceeacd]
Josh, I think that since we are to try the spirits, we ought to simply see which option is more Biblical. If both are Biblical, which makes more common sense, or is more feasible in the situation? Every person who is involved in the decision has to weigh those things for themselves before the Lord. The "promptings" of either elder have no weight except as they line up with the Word of God.

[Edited on 3-30-2004 by a mere housewife] [/quote:93b0ceeacd]

But Heidi, in saying that if the revelations aren't clear, we should resort to wise, responsible decision-making based on biblical principles, you're throwing out the nature and implications that are inevitably attached to prophetic revelation. If God still gives revelations today, they could not be taken lightly, and mustn't be ignored if they are given. If God was indeed giving a revelation today, but because it wasn't "clear" right away you discarded it and resorted to personal, responsible decision-making based only on Scripture, you would be disregarding God's words and sinning in such. But if God, on the other hand, wants us to make decisions simply by responsible, wise, biblically-guided steps, He would not give new revelation.

In summary, if God gives new revelation, you mustn't simply disregard it if it isn't clear, and resort to your own judgment guided by Scripture, as that would be a slap in His face. Conversely, if God intends or permits us to make our decision and/or judgment in a particular situation simply by exercising responsible, wise decision-making based on biblical principles, He would not give a revelation in that instance. You can't have both; you have to choose one or the other in any given instance. And that is where the problem for non-cessationists comes in when a prophecy they think God is giving is "unclear."

In Christ,

Chris

Me Died Blue · #48 (**permalink**) 03-30-2004, 06:14 PM

Well said, Paul. You must have posted that right as I was writing my response

.

Chris

Saiph · #49 (**permalink**) 03-30-2004, 06:17 PM

[quote:10f95327c7]
I am saying that God can give a prediction of a circumstance, which it does not require any new interpretation of Scripture or any revision of doctrine to receive-- no more than the circumstance itself.

[/quote:10f95327c7]

I agree. I call that a premonition.

I see a dog get hit by a car in a vision/dream.
The next day it happens.

That event does not need to be added to the Bible, nor does it change any of the truth of the Bible.

The only problem is where did it come from ? ?

1. God
2. A demon
3. Hallucination (imbalance of chemicals in my brain)
4. Illusion (Smoke and mirrors)

Can a Christian receive subjective impressions from demonic manipulation ? ? ?

I am not sure.

a mere housewife · #50 (**permalink**) 03-30-2004, 06:25 PM

"In summary, if God gives new revelation, you mustn't simply disregard it if it isn't clear, and resort to your own judgment guided by Scripture, as that would be a slap in His face."

God does not give new revelation. All the revelation that has been given is in the Bible. God tells us to judge every spirit, whether sent by Him or not, by His Word. Of course nothing from God would contradict His own word. If it does, it is not from Him. Also, God would not give two contradictory interpretations. So only one of them is Biblical. You take them both to the Bible. But you don't need the interpretation because you already have the Bible! That is why I don't think that God gives me an interpretation that is binding for you. That would be revelation: that would be doctrine. God does not give that anymore.

If God reveals something about a circumstance, this is not an application of His word. It is not a binding thing for the church. It is a prediction that such and such will come to pass. There is nothing you can do about it, except be prepared, or, be comforted that the Lord is sovereign, knew all about it before it came, when it does happen.

I think Chris that you finally understood when you said the prophecy of today is different than the prophecy of Scripture. That is what I have been saying all along. A prediction is not a revelation.

Optimus · #51 (**permalink**) 03-30-2004, 06:25 PM

opps, i clicked on non-cess, obviously i meant to put cesse

Me Died Blue · #52 (**permalink**) 03-30-2004, 06:25 PM

[quote:5d9c5ea2d5][i:5d9c5ea2d5]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:5d9c5ea2d5]
[quote:5d9c5ea2d5]
I am saying that God can give a prediction of a circumstance, which it does not require any new interpretation of Scripture or any revision of doctrine to receive-- no more than the circumstance itself.

[/quote:5d9c5ea2d5]

I agree. I call that a premonition.

I see a dog get hit by a car in a vision/dream.
The next day it happens.

That event does not need to be added to the Bible, nor does it change any of the truth of the Bible.

The only problem is where did it come from ? ?

1. God
2. A demon
3. Hallucination (imbalance of chemicals in my brain)
4. Illusion (Smoke and mirrors)

Can a Christian receive subjective impressions from demonic manipulation ? ? ?

I am not sure. [/quote:5d9c5ea2d5]

Indeed, it does not change the truth of the Bible or "add" to the Bible per se. But it is still a new revelation from God by nature, and if God still gives new revelations of [i:5d9c5ea2d5]any[/i:5d9c5ea2d5] kind today regarding [i:5d9c5ea2d5]any[/i:5d9c5ea2d5] circumstance, then that [i:5d9c5ea2d5]does[/i:5d9c5ea2d5] mean that Scripture alone is not sufficient to sustain the Christian life, and it does not contaion God's [i:5d9c5ea2d5]full[/i:5d9c5ea2d5] will for us in this life. Thus, cessationists say that any prophecy today contradicts Sola Scriptura, not because it might challenge or contradict Scripture, but simply because it inevitably renders Scripture as less than [i:5d9c5ea2d5]fully[/i:5d9c5ea2d5] sufficient to give Christians God's will for their lives in this age.

In Christ,

Chris

Saiph · #53 (**permalink**) 03-30-2004, 06:29 PM

[quote:9b4db5a70a]
Indeed, it does not change the truth of the Bible or "add" to the Bible per se. But it is still a new revelation from God by nature, and if God still gives new revelations of any kind today regarding any circumstance, then that does mean that Scripture alone is not sufficient to sustain the Christian life, and it does not contaion God's full will for us in this life. Thus, cessationists say that any prophecy today contradicts Sola Scriptura, not because it might challenge or contradict Scripture, but simply because it inevitably renders Scripture as less than fully sufficient to give Christians God's will for their lives in this age.

[/quote:9b4db5a70a]

If you are right then these premonitions that come true are happenstance. And God is not in control of every atomic particle in the universe.

So, I err on the side of God's sovereignty and allow for different "types" of revelation in an open system.

This is where I make a distinction betwen "covenental" special revelation and "Miraculous" general revelation(which may include the demonic).

[Edited on 3-30-2004 by Wintermute]

Me Died Blue · #54 (**permalink**) 03-30-2004, 06:33 PM

[quote:f6db7ff8e5][i:f6db7ff8e5]Originally posted by a mere housewife[/i:f6db7ff8e5]
I think Chris that you finally understood when you said the prophecy of today is different than the prophecy of Scripture. That is what I have been saying all along.[/quote:f6db7ff8e5]

EXACTLY! This is precisely what I have been trying to argue is the inevitable view one must adopt if they believe God can give prophecies today--and finally a non-cessationist admitted it! This is one of the huge problems I see with the non-cessationist view--in order not to contradict Sola Scriptura, one must hold, as you said, that "the prophecy of today is different than the prophecy of Scripture." However, the Bible [i:f6db7ff8e5]nowhere[/i:f6db7ff8e5] says that such a change in the nature of prophecy will ever happen. The only prophecy that is ever referenced or described in the Bible is absolute revelational, Gospel truth prophecy. And since prophecy was such a major thing in the religious culture of the time, don't you think that God would have told us of such a huge change in its nature? But he didn't--and since the Bible never speaks of a "lesser" form of prophecy as such, I think that the modern view that there is such a prophecy greatly cheapens what prophecy even is, and takes away its wonderful stature in the history of Christendom by making it a cheap, secondary type never mentioned in Scripture.

In Christ,

Chris

Joshua · #55 (**permalink**) 03-30-2004, 06:37 PM

[quote:39b24aca0c][i:39b24aca0c]Originally posted by raderag[/i:39b24aca0c]
[quote:39b24aca0c][i:39b24aca0c]Originally posted by joshua[/i:39b24aca0c]
[quote:39b24aca0c]
Also, we are instructed (by God) to try the spirits. So if someone comes along claiming to speak for God, it is our DUTY to question/put them to the test.
[/quote:39b24aca0c]

Ok, the horse has been beaten.

Just JOSHin'. Let's take this scenario on it. It's not a doctrinal issue, so it has nothing to do with revelatory things. So, these predictions, promptings, or inclinations that come from God to Christians.

Elder A has been praying what to do about a certain situation (not doctrinal or revelatory, just practical) and he gets this confirmation, prediction, prompting, inclination from God on what to do.

Elder B has been praying what to do as well and gets a confirmation, prediction, prompting, inclination from God, but it's not the same thing as Elder A recieved.

Both Elder A and Elder B are good, godly, biblical men, but their promptings are different. Who's right? Which prompting to which Elder was REALLY from God? Neither promptings were in violation of Scripture. What do you do? [/quote:39b24aca0c]

Wait to see what happens, and then stone the one that is wrong. :shocked: [/quote:39b24aca0c]

a mere housewife · #56 (**permalink**) 03-30-2004, 06:37 PM

'Indeed, it does not change the truth of the Bible or "add" to the Bible per se. But it is still a new revelation from God by nature, and if God still gives new revelations of any kind today regarding any circumstance, then that does mean that Scripture alone is not sufficient to sustain the Christian life, and it does not contaion God's full will for us in this life.'

God sustains us through various means. But I daresay that the sustaining grace we receive from brothers or sisters in Christ would not come under fire as contradicting Sola Scriptura. Neither would the providential circumstances themselves that help to sustain our faith be accused of taking away from the sufficiency of Scripture. Sustaining us through various means takes nothing away from Sola Scriptura, because all means are subject to the Word of God. If they are from Him, they will, of course, be in line with it.

The horse has been utterly slain. He & I can't keep it up any longer.

a mere housewife · #57 (**permalink**) 03-30-2004, 06:41 PM

Blue: one final thing:

"finally a non-cessationist admitted it" This non-cessationist has been flailing the horse with it ever since the discussion began.

A clarification: by "the prophecy of Scripture" I mean revelation (because that is what you meant by it, and I was quoting you). Not Agabus. That kind of predictive prophecy hasn't changed: in fact, Agabus sets the type for that kind of prophecy.

[Edited on 3-31-2004 by a mere housewife]

Saiph · #58 (**permalink**) 03-30-2004, 06:49 PM

[quote:9ce43b7f6e]
does mean that Scripture alone is not sufficient to sustain the Christian life, and it does not contaion God's full will for us in this life?
[/quote:9ce43b7f6e]

Scripture is the highest [b:9ce43b7f6e]Authority[/b:9ce43b7f6e], but not the only source of sustaining grace.

We have the Spirit indwelling us and illuminating the Scriptures to us. We also have providence working for us and our salvation. (discipline, blessing, etc . . )

Consider Job 33 14-20

For God speaks in one way,
and in two, though man does not perceive it.
In a dream, in a vision of the night,
when deep sleep falls on men,
while they slumber on their beds,
then he opens the ears of men
and terrifies them with warnings,
that he may turn man aside from his deed
and conceal pride from a man;
he keeps back his soul from the pit,
his life from perishing by the sword.
"Man is also rebuked with pain on his bed
and with continual strife in his bones,
so that his life loathes bread,
and his appetite the choicest food.

[Edited on 3-30-2004 by Wintermute]

py3ak · #59 (**permalink**) 03-31-2004, 01:06 AM

Patrick,

Sorry for misunderstanding you. Certainly, the apostles had supervision over what happened, and were frequently correcting errors. As far as I can tell, though, that does not make gifts given to a person who was not an apostle "the signs of an apostle." That is why your original argument leaves me unmoved.

Matt,

In answer to your Muslim objection, two things. One, you seem to be assuming that I view a miracle as necessarily confirming revelation. I have not stated that. I have no doubt that miracles were used in that way, but they also had another purpose, concomitant with the confirmation. Show me where in Scripture this other purpose (showing mercy) has ceased.
Two, we are given two ways to test prophets. One is by accuracy; the other is by orthodoxy. A prophet must pass both tests in order to be received. It is not enough for accuracy to be present: orthodoxy is likewise necessary. Mohammad, alleged miracles notwithstanding, is not orthodox. Isaiah 8:20 is as present and vital in this non-cessationist's Bible as in yours, I think.
If you were planning on basing a large part of your argument on the ages of the church corresponding to the gifts listed in 1 Corinthians 12:28 you may want to look again: you listed prophets, apostles whereas apostles come first, then prophets. Perhaps I misunderstood or you mistyped, but it seemed like you were saying that each of those gifts corresponds to a different age --but that leaves us without an OT epoch. Could you elucidate this point?
On your response to point 2, isn't it interesting that only in the "early" Corinthian epistles did Paul regulate the Lord's Supper? I'm not sure what you mean by the comment on headcoverings. I understand that effusions of miracles have primarily occurred in distinct phases. (Do you think Hezekiah's sundial and plaster of figs count as a miracle? or Joshua's long day? or the wonder that Manoah and his wife witnessed?) This seems to me like your strongest line. However, I have still two things to say about this. One is that what would be involved to actually make the totality of your case is a demonstration that tongues, predictions, etc., were all bound up with miracles. In 1 Corinthians 12 I do not see any differentiation in the listing of healings as opposed to governments. In other words, perhaps the "miracles come in epochal bursts" line will work for miracles. But does it take away the gift of helps? Does it prove that "helps" is not for the church today? Another thing is that the fact that miracles happened in epochs in the past is no indication that we may not have epochs again. Now please don't read into that the notion that I want to have a miracle crusade. How do you Biblically demonstrate that those seasons of miracles were the only seasons of miracles? Because revelation is complete? What about all the times when revelation happened without miracles, e.g., Jeremiah? Do you affirm that revelation may come without miracles, but no miracles without revelation? On what basis?

I believe you misunderstood me about Paul's binding. Of course, being inscripturated, Paul's binding is binding. However, as far as I am aware it is not a doctrine. (No systematic theology I've seen has a "Paulology" section, at any rate.)

Can you prove that tongues and interpretation were revelatory? Could they not have been preaching? How do we delineate between revelatory and non-revelatory? I'm sorry about your revelation, though; it doesn't pass the test because it's not accurate. Besides, if it were accurate it would be self-defeating. I do agree with your statement that teaching and preaching is not the same thing at all as revealing. What I am driving at is the basis on which we distinguish what constitutes revelation, and what does not constitute revelation.

I believe that you misunderstood my happy inconsistency. I am willing to be convinced that certain gifts have ceased. But I am only willing to be convinced that they have ceased because of Scriptural testimony. However, you highlight the issue when you say "either the gifts of revelation have ceased or they have not." Indeed. But which gifts were revelatory? Take the "word of wisdom" as a for instance. Revelatory? Non-revelatory? How do we know? These are sincere questions.

Please demonstrate that "all things necessary for life and godliness" or the faith "once delivered" is equivalent to "knowing as we have been known."

The Diglossia theory is interesting --but again Corinthians constitutes a problem for it, as do the extra-Biblical documentation of tongues. And again, what is the point of the people saying that everyone speaking was a Galilean and yet they heard in the tongue in which they were born? Columbo's stretching a bit far, I think.

But perhaps we are speaking past one another. I, for the sake of convenience, make a distinction between factual prediction that is accurate, and revelation (both come from God and have information that could not otherwise have been known: the difference is in the content). I am not sure if you do or not.

By the way, I have a thread on "Sign and Seal" in the CT forum that is beginning to languish though I am not quite clear on the typical paedo-baptist answers to the questions I posted there. Please take a look if you have the time.

Josh,
I deny your scenario. I know of no documentation of such a scenario. Here is a scenario from Scotland, though.
One of the most remarkable prophetic Scottish Covenanters was Alexander Peden (1626-1686). His prophetic ministry was so outstanding he was called Prophet Peden.
In 1682, Peden performed the wedding ceremony for the godly couple John Brown and Isable Weir. After the ceremony, he told Isabel she had gotten a good man for her husband, but that she would not enjoy him long. He advised her to prize his company and to keep a linen burial sheet close by, for when she least expected it her husband would come to a bloody end.
About three years later, Peden spent the night of April 30, 1685, at the Browns' home in Priesthill. Peden left the house before dawn. As he was leaving they heard him repeating these words to himself, "Poor woman, a fearful morning. A dark, misty morning." Not long after Peden had left, John Graham of Claverhouse arrived with a group of soldiers. Graham gave John Brown an opportunity to repent of his conviction that Christ was the head of the church rather than the King of England. Brown refused. "Then go to your prayers, for you shall immediately die," replied Graham. Brown prayed, turned to his wife Isabel and said, "You see me summoned to appear, in a few minutes, before the court of heave