Cessationist or no? Why?#2 - Page 3

Radar · #81 (**permalink**) 03-31-2004, 05:25 PM

How does Hebrews 1 provide the answer that 1 Cor 13 refers to the completed canon, when Hebrews was in all likelihood not the final scripture to be written?

fredtgreco · #82 (**permalink**) 03-31-2004, 05:28 PM

[quote:70a2a0fc04][i:70a2a0fc04]Originally posted by twogunfighter[/i:70a2a0fc04]
Quick side question: Can one be a non-cessationist and be a PCA elder? [/quote:70a2a0fc04]

Like almost everything in the PCA today, the answer is - it depends. The real answer should be no, since the WCF is clearly cessationist, and the doctrine of Scripture and revelation is probably the most fundamental doctrine. I would never vote to allow ordination of a non-cessationist (either at the Sessional or Presbytery level)

Optimus · #83 (**permalink**) 03-31-2004, 05:35 PM

[quote:c98f943dad]
I would never vote to allow ordination of a non-cessationist
[/quote:c98f943dad]:wr51:

Amen

wsw201 · #84 (**permalink**) 03-31-2004, 05:37 PM

[quote:ee4964b67b][i:ee4964b67b]Originally posted by twogunfighter[/i:ee4964b67b]
Quick side question: Can one be a non-cessationist and be a PCA elder? [/quote:ee4964b67b]

Whether Elder or Deacon, they would have to make known their exception to the Standards. Then the Session or Presbytery would have to allow that exception for them to be ordained or remain an officer. I would be shocked if the exception would be allowed.

fredtgreco · #85 (**permalink**) 03-31-2004, 05:39 PM

[quote:922e012726][i:922e012726]Originally posted by Radar[/i:922e012726]
How does Hebrews 1 provide the answer that 1 Cor 13 refers to the completed canon, when Hebrews was in all likelihood not the final scripture to be written?

[/quote:922e012726]

The purpose of revelation is to reveal Christ. Christ is the "final word" of God, who expressly reveals the Father (Heb 1:1-3) There is no other word needed. God has said it all.

To seek further revelation is to denigrate Christ, the sufficiency of the Word and the purpose of revelation. It is to seek some sort of "magical experience" which relieves one of the oh-so-tedious task of actually searching the Word for Biblical principles and then applying them.

a mere housewife · #86 (**permalink**) 03-31-2004, 05:52 PM

'To seek further revelation is to denigrate Christ, the sufficiency of the Word and the purpose of revelation. It is to seek some sort of "magical experience" which relieves one of the oh-so-tedious task of actually searching the Word for Biblical principles and then applying them. '

I wholeheartedly agree. I think that the non-cessationists in this thread would all be grossly misrepresented if this statement is supposed to negatively characterize our position.

We do not believe in continuing revelation.

We believe that God still grants miraculous gifts in special situations, but that these gifts are no longer at all revelatory in nature. We also believe that any claim to such gifts MUST be subject to the scrutiny of Scripture, which is complete.

We do not believe that we ought to seek such gifts. We are to seek the best gifts, and these never were the best.

Perhaps this position is being so confused because we are calling ourselves "non-cessationists." Ought we to invent a different term, so as not to be confused any longer with those who hold to continuing revelation?

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

fredtgreco · #87 (**permalink**) 03-31-2004, 06:07 PM

[quote:e7eb6d0617][i:e7eb6d0617]Originally posted by a mere housewife[/i:e7eb6d0617]
'To seek further revelation is to denigrate Christ, the sufficiency of the Word and the purpose of revelation. It is to seek some sort of "magical experience" which relieves one of the oh-so-tedious task of actually searching the Word for Biblical principles and then applying them. '

I wholeheartedly agree. I think that the non-cessationists in this thread would all be grossly misrepresented if this statement is supposed to negatively characterize our position.

We do not believe in continuing revelation.

We believe that God still grants miraculous gifts in special situations, but that these gifts are no longer at all revelatory in nature. We also believe that any claim to such gifts MUST be subject to the scrutiny of Scripture, which is complete.

We do not believe that we ought to seek such gifts. We are to seek the best gifts, and these never were the best.

Perhaps this position is being so confused because we are calling ourselves "non-cessationists." Ought we to invent a different term, so as not to be confused any longer with those who hold to continuing revelation?

[Edited on 3-31-2004 by a mere housewife] [/quote:e7eb6d0617]

Heidi,

I absolutely agree with your statement - you are [b:e7eb6d0617]not[/b:e7eb6d0617] a non-cessationist, since by definition a the cessationist believes that all revelation has ceased.

I have a question for you though - what do you think the purpose of the miraculous gifts was/is?

It appears to me (as most Reformed theologians) that the purpose was to authenticate the Word of God and the messenger of God (see Ex. 3-4, Warfield's [u:e7eb6d0617]Counterfeit Miracles[/u:e7eb6d0617], Chantry's [u:e7eb6d0617]Signs of the Apostles[/u:e7eb6d0617]). That is why miracle [b:e7eb6d0617]workers[/b:e7eb6d0617] no longer exist. But that does not mean that God cannot work "without, above, or against" means (to use the Confession's language at 5.3). So we affirm that "miracles" (in the sense of extraordinary providences) can exist, but that no person is given the "gift" or miracle working (since there is no more revelation) .

Does that make any sense?

a mere housewife · #88 (**permalink**) 03-31-2004, 06:36 PM

Fred, that makes a whole bunch of sense.

I think that the outpouring of supernatural gifts in the NT was to confirm & establish the gospel: they accompanied and confirmed revelation, though not all of them were always revelatory in nature, as in the case of Agabus. I believe that outpouring has ceased: we are no longer in that part of church history. But I do think that in special instances God will grant the gift of a different tongue, or will give a prediction about the future that concerns specific individuals and is not binding on the whole church. I believe that He intervenes in other ways, as well: but these two have more to do with the discussion because they seem to be an extant, non-revelatory form of the gifts of prophecy/tongues. What you said makes a lot of sense because it seems that the people to whom these gifts are given now do not possess them in the same way that you are a pastor/teacher. They may be the instrument of God's miraculous intervention only once, and never again. They do not have the authority that a pastor or elder would have in the church. It is more that I think these gifts are still given to the church, on a much smaller scale, than to individuals. The other ways God intervenes seem to be not through a person very much at all.

Is that orthodox?

Thank you for coming in here and straightening it all out.

Saiph · #89 (**permalink**) 03-31-2004, 06:43 PM

Fred:

[quote:dc26c5197a]
That is why miracle workers no longer exist. But that does not mean that God cannot work "without, above, or against" means (to use the Confession's language at 5.3). So we affirm that "miracles" (in the sense of extraordinary providences) can exist, but that no person is given the "gift" or miracle working (since there is no more revelation) .

[/quote:dc26c5197a]

I think I agree with that as well. Maybe I am a cessationist.

fredtgreco · #90 (**permalink**) 03-31-2004, 06:51 PM

Hey! Maybe posting is worth my time!

I enjoy agreement, especially when the disagreement may have been just from confusion!

:grouphug: :gw:

tryph · #91 (**permalink**) 03-31-2004, 07:04 PM

Greetings In Jesus' Matchless' Name!

Thank you for this thread. Hope God is giving all on this site a great awareness of His Grace today.

Walter Martin once said: "It is a dangerous thing to tell God He can't do something." The only Being who can limit God is God Himself. Unless we can see somewhere in Scritpture where the plain meaning of the text tells us God cannot give anyone today a gift of tongues, miracles, or healing, we should be careful before being dogmatic in our postion. There is no way we can exegetically go through the list of gifts in the New Testament and pick out which gifts stay and which go.

That is why I am not a Cessationist.

May God bless all on here with great discernment in the days ahead.

fredtgreco · #92 (**permalink**) 03-31-2004, 07:07 PM

[quote:4c08fffb33][i:4c08fffb33]Originally posted by paul manata[/i:4c08fffb33]
[quote:4c08fffb33]
It appears to me (as most Reformed theologians) that the purpose was to authenticate the Word of God and the messenger of God (see Ex. 3-4, Warfield's Counterfeit Miracles, Chantry's Signs of the Apostles). That is why miracle workers no longer exist. But that does not mean that God cannot work "without, above, or against" means (to use the Confession's language at 5.3). So we affirm that "miracles" (in the sense of extraordinary providences) can exist, but that no person is given the "gift" or miracle working (since there is no more revelation) .
[/quote:4c08fffb33]

that's right!

And fred, not only do you and I agree again, but you also agree with John Frame.

see, I told you guys, post millenialism is true. [/quote:4c08fffb33]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day! (Not you Paul, but Frame! )

I can take comfort in the fact that I have a great distaste for about 75% of what Frame has written (and on Confessionalism about 99%) .

And most of all, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt that Paul gets - since Paul is a pisan!

tryph · #93 (**permalink**) 03-31-2004, 07:37 PM

Thank you very much for all the responses on this thread.

Will definitely have to go back and read the previous posts.

Am concerned that B.B. Warfield's position on this issue represents an anti-supernatural bias amongst Reformed theologians. This occurred as a reaction to the Irvingite Movement in England. This was not present before then.

If someone is going to say that God cannot give anyone today a gift of tongues, miracles or healing, I would certainly hope they can present us with chapter and verse from the Word of God where that is plainly and explicitly taught. Has that been done on this site before? You usually just see extraBiblical arguments on this issue.

The quote above from B.B Warfield is an example. He says what 'seems' to him to be the case. With all due respect, why should any of us feel bound to what any man feels to be the case instead of the plain meaning of the text in Scripture? Could those who adhere to the Cessationist view please show us posts on here where it is clearly and plainly taught in the Bible that God cannot give anyone today a gift of tongues, miracles , or healing? Thank you.

Thank you for this marvelous site. Hope God blesses all on here with a great zeal for the Truth.

[Edited on 4-1-2004 by tryph]

fredtgreco · #94 (**permalink**) 03-31-2004, 07:47 PM

[quote:e6aebd5be1][i:e6aebd5be1]Originally posted by paul manata[/i:e6aebd5be1]
[quote:e6aebd5be1]
I can take comfort in the fact that I have a great distaste for about 75% of what Frame has written
[/quote:e6aebd5be1]

what Frame has written:

God is sovereign.

Reformed theology is Biblical theology.

Amillenialism is correct.

Presuppositionalism is the correct method of apologetics.

The Bible is the word of God.

Jesus is lord.

Infanst should be baptised.

He doesn't agree with everything Shepard says but some of it.

[b:e6aebd5be1]so, since you disagree with 75% of the above...should you be a member of this board?[/b:e6aebd5be1]

:rack:

-Paul [/quote:e6aebd5be1]

Now you know that it is not that simple.

Frame's presuppositionalism is not Van Til's or Bahnsen's (a change for the worse)

Frame's triprespectivalism is gobbledigook

His defense of infant baptism is less than stellar - as Tertullian showed in a previous post using Frame to beat up paedos for not being "consistent" in having paedocommunion (which bis complete nonsense, and has been so for 2000 years)

He is dead wrong on the Confession

He is horrible on worship - his book is probably the worst book on the subject ever, not because of the non-RPW view, but because he disingeniously tries to redefine the RPW to suit his needs

His Doctrine of the Knowledge of God is about 500 pages too long - just like about everything he writes, he never met ten paragraphs he didn't like where five words would do :blah1::blah1: :blah1::blah1:

Obviously, his like for Shepherd is a problem, as well as the fact that he seems more concerned about abstruse philosophical issues rather than justification - go figure!

And again, he is NOT a pisan!
:smash:

fredtgreco · #95 (**permalink**) 03-31-2004, 08:01 PM

[quote:0e003154a8][i:0e003154a8]Originally posted by paul manata[/i:0e003154a8]
[quote:0e003154a8]
Now you know that it is not that simple.
[/quote:0e003154a8]

I know. I was just doing the good Italian thing called...breakin' .....

-Paul [/quote:0e003154a8]

:lb::lb::tv:

Don't you mean bustin'....
:tongue:

fredtgreco · #96 (**permalink**) 03-31-2004, 08:24 PM

[quote:bd5da0d67d][i:bd5da0d67d]Originally posted by paul manata[/i:bd5da0d67d]
looks like you now will be forced to agree with North!

we got agreeing all over the place today! told ya about postmill fellas [/quote:bd5da0d67d]

I don't mind agreeing with North on occasion.....

But because I agree sometimes and disagree others -

amil all the way baby!

FrozenChosen · #97 (**permalink**) 03-31-2004, 11:44 PM

Fred:

Cessationist or not, there are more smilies in your repertoire than prophets in a charismanic church.

:no:

Puritan Sailor · #98 (**permalink**) 03-31-2004, 11:47 PM

[quote:52b7893fcb][i:52b7893fcb]Originally posted by a mere housewife[/i:52b7893fcb]
Fred, that makes a whole bunch of sense.

I think that the outpouring of supernatural gifts in the NT was to confirm & establish the gospel: they accompanied and confirmed revelation, though not all of them were always revelatory in nature, as in the case of Agabus. I believe that outpouring has ceased: we are no longer in that part of church history. But I do think that in special instances God will grant the gift of a different tongue, or will give a prediction about the future that concerns specific individuals and is not binding on the whole church. I believe that He intervenes in other ways, as well: but these two have more to do with the discussion because they seem to be an extant, non-revelatory form of the gifts of prophecy/tongues. What you said makes a lot of sense because it seems that the people to whom these gifts are given now do not possess them in the same way that you are a pastor/teacher. They may be the instrument of God's miraculous intervention only once, and never again. They do not have the authority that a pastor or elder would have in the church. It is more that I think these gifts are still given to the church, on a much smaller scale, than to individuals. The other ways God intervenes seem to be not through a person very much at all.

Is that orthodox?

Thank you for coming in here and straightening it all out. [/quote:52b7893fcb]
Fred, you have been extremely helpful in clarifying the issue. Now to these peripheal questions.

Heidi, let me ask some questions first and then we will take it from there.
1) What makes you think Agabus's prophecy was seperate from the office of prophet in the NT?
2) Do you think the "special instances God will grant the gift of a different tongue" is the same as the gift of tongues described in the NT, and if so, why (from Scripture please)?
3) Where in Scripture is there described a "non-revelatory" form of tongues and prophecy?
4) Why do you believe God still tells individuals about future events? Is it because of recorded events in history (like Peden, Knox, etc.) or because you find this possibility taught in Scripture? If so where (besides Agabus)?

I guess that will do it for now.

a mere housewife · #99 (**permalink**) 04-01-2004, 11:24 AM

PuritanSailor:

1. I don't think Agabus' prophecy was separate from the office of prophet. I think that "prophecy" in the NT functioned in three ways:
a) revelation (1 Cor. 14:30,31)
b) edification/exhortation (1 Cor 14:4)
c) prediction (Acts 11:28)

The significant thing I see in Agabus is that all that is recorded about his ministry is predictive prophecy, though he is mentioned in the office of a prophet twice.

2. In Acts 2, where we are given the description of the gift of tongues, those present "heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear we ever man in our own tongue, wherein we were born.... (then the list of the different people groups) ...we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God."

If you were suddenly enabled, while trying to give testimony to the wonderful works of God, to cross the boundary of language and be understood in a different tongue, then what would make you think it is not a non-revelatory form of this gift?

3. 1 Cor 14:6 lists revelation and doctrine as distinct from prophecy. If prophecy always equalled revelation or doctrine, why the distinction? Also, there were others who prophesied about Paul's imprisonment at Jerusalem. These predictions are not "revelatory" in the sense of binding doctrine. We are bound to believe it now only because the fulfillment of the prediction was inscripturated. But precisely because of that, I believe Agabus & these others are significant, as an example of predictive, non-revelatory prophecy.
As to tongues, the same verse seems to indicate that the tongue speaking is useless unless it is involved in one of these activites. Some of them do not involve revelation.

4. Both. Let me illustrate by asking you this: why do you believe that you sin? Is it because you find it consistent with experience, or scripture?

Obviously, I find the possibility taught in Scripture because of all of the above. I also wonder about the four daughters of Phillip who prophesied- if their prophesy was in the function of revelation, then what they said would have been binding, not just for other women, but for the whole church. As such, wouldn't they be in a position of authority over the men? (I am not sure about this argument, but considering that there are several functions of the gift of prophesy, it is wholly possible that the four daughters edified other women, or predicted events). Also, there is such a large volume of prophesying/tongue speaking that was not inscripturated. I do not believe that means it was automatically not revelatory; but there is a good gap where some, even much of this activity might not involve revelation, as indicated in 1 Cor. 14.
More than anything, there is no place in Scripture where it can be proved the Holy Spirit has told us He will cease operating in this way. I know that "whether there be prophecies, they shall fail" has been brought up, but consider this quote from a very good article defending your position by Lee Irons (arguments are compiled by him from Richard Gaffin & other sources):

'An agnostic note on I Corinthians 13:8-13
Some Cessationists, looking for the silver bullet argument against the continuance of tongues and prophecy, have attempted to identify "the perfect" with the completion of the NT canon. However, the better Cessationist exegetes admit that this interpretation cannot be sustained exegetically. The coming of "the perfect" (v. 10) must coincide with the coming of Christ, for it is only then that we will know even as we are known (v. 12).
If this is admitted, are we then forced to the opposite conclusion - that tongues and prophecy will continue until the Parousia? Not necessarily. "Paul might well have also mentioned inscripturation as a mode of revelation" which, like prophecy and tongues, is a "partial" mode of knowing God which will be superseded by "the perfect" at the Parousia. "But inscripturation has ceased. And if that be granted, then it is gratuitous to insist that this passage teaches that the modes of revelation mentioned, prophecy and tongues, are to continue functioning in the church until Christ's return." (Gaffin, p. 111)
"The time of the cessation of prophecy and tongues is an open question so far as this passage is concerned and will have to be decided on the basis of other passages and considerations." (Gaffin, p. 111) '
(In order to be fair, here is the link to the article, which is very good: http://www.upper-register.com/other_...y_tongues.html)

I agree with Tryph and others that unless we have the authority of Scripture limiting the Holy Spirit's intervention in certain ways, it is presumptuous for us to do so.
I find it more consistent with Scripture not to deny the facts of experience, when the facts involved have to be either ignored or twisted to fit the pattern of a lie/delusion in order to believe that the supernatural intervention could not be the work of the Holy Spirit.

fredtgreco · #**100** (**permalink**) 04-01-2004, 11:40 AM

Heidi,

We must always resist the notion that a doctrine is not Biblical unless we can give a Biblical quotation stating the doctrine. If we hold to that standard, the Trinity is gone.

Consider the following:

1. Why does God reveal Himself?
2. In what ways (generally speaking) does He reveal Himself?
3. What does God accomplish in those ways?
4. What is the purpose of the Bible?
5. What would be the purpose of ongoing revelation?

Let me have your thoughts there and we can go on.