-
- Thread starter Joshua
- Start date
- Status
cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
Joshua,
I hold to a cessationist belief. Jesus gave his apostles certain gifts that were to be sign gifts to authenticate their authority and apsostleship, including prophecy, tongues, healing, raising the dead, etc. Those gifts were discontinued when the canon of scripture was complete, because we now have a more sure word of prophecy, God's Holy Word.
The Greeks sought after wisdom, but the Jews required a sign to believe.
Brent
I hold to a cessationist belief. Jesus gave his apostles certain gifts that were to be sign gifts to authenticate their authority and apsostleship, including prophecy, tongues, healing, raising the dead, etc. Those gifts were discontinued when the canon of scripture was complete, because we now have a more sure word of prophecy, God's Holy Word.
The Greeks sought after wisdom, but the Jews required a sign to believe.
Brent
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
One of the best books containing info on this subject is Edwards' "Charity and its Fruits". Its an exposition of 1 Cor. 13 that deals with this subject for a whole chapter in classic Edwardian style.
I'd say I'm a cessationist. I believe that the sign gifts are gone, but God still does miracles. Speaking in foreign languages (tongues) and prophecy can still happen as a miracle of God, but I think this is rare. Also, if it happens, I think it happens to bring people to repentance and faith (missionaries in foreign countries, and things like that).
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Cessationist
Why?
1) Signs and wonders were "signs of the apostles" (2 Cor. 12:11-12)
2) These signs were meant to "confirm" the gospel the apostle's preached and authenticate their witness (Mark 16:14-20, Hebrews 1:1-2, 2:1-4)
3) There are no more apostles because there are none who could fit the requirments (Acts 1:21-22, 1 Cor. 15:1-9)
Therefore, these gifts are no longer needed. They have served their purpose. We have and preach the confirmed message which was once for all given to the saints.
Why?
1) Signs and wonders were "signs of the apostles" (2 Cor. 12:11-12)
2) These signs were meant to "confirm" the gospel the apostle's preached and authenticate their witness (Mark 16:14-20, Hebrews 1:1-2, 2:1-4)
3) There are no more apostles because there are none who could fit the requirments (Acts 1:21-22, 1 Cor. 15:1-9)
Therefore, these gifts are no longer needed. They have served their purpose. We have and preach the confirmed message which was once for all given to the saints.
blhowes
Puritan Board Professor
I voted Cessationist. I think Patrick's post is a good summary of my reasons.
1 Corinthians 13:10 is probably the main verse that I've always been taught speaks of the cessation of the sign gifts.
1Co 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
1Co 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
1Co 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
Does anybody that understands Greek have any insights into what the first "that" in verse 10 refers to. I've always heard that its in the neuter person and therefore can't refer to the return of Jesus so it most likely refers to the completion of canon. I've also heard from others that it could refer to Christ's kingdom, and other things. What think ye?
Bob
1 Corinthians 13:10 is probably the main verse that I've always been taught speaks of the cessation of the sign gifts.
1Co 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
1Co 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
1Co 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
Does anybody that understands Greek have any insights into what the first "that" in verse 10 refers to. I've always heard that its in the neuter person and therefore can't refer to the return of Jesus so it most likely refers to the completion of canon. I've also heard from others that it could refer to Christ's kingdom, and other things. What think ye?
Bob
[quote:eb8b48f97f][i:eb8b48f97f]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:eb8b48f97f]
Cessationist
Why?
1) Signs and wonders were "signs of the apostles" (2 Cor. 12:11-12)
2) These signs were meant to "confirm" the gospel the apostle's preached and authenticate their witness (Mark 16:14-20, Hebrews 1:1-2, 2:1-4)
3) There are no more apostles because there are none who could fit the requirments (Acts 1:21-22, 1 Cor. 15:1-9)
Therefore, these gifts are no longer needed. They have served their purpose. We have and preach the confirmed message which was once for all given to the saints. [/quote:eb8b48f97f]
:thumbup: :thumbup:
Cessationist
Why?
1) Signs and wonders were "signs of the apostles" (2 Cor. 12:11-12)
2) These signs were meant to "confirm" the gospel the apostle's preached and authenticate their witness (Mark 16:14-20, Hebrews 1:1-2, 2:1-4)
3) There are no more apostles because there are none who could fit the requirments (Acts 1:21-22, 1 Cor. 15:1-9)
Therefore, these gifts are no longer needed. They have served their purpose. We have and preach the confirmed message which was once for all given to the saints. [/quote:eb8b48f97f]
:thumbup: :thumbup:
There is a booklet entitled, "The Glorious Foundation of Christ" by pastor Jim West. The subtitle is "The missing clincher arguent in the tongues debate". West ties tongues to prophecy, and biblically demonstates that the foundation of the Church can only be laid once (and that was during the Apostolic era). The booklet is about 60 pages. You can order a copy from:
Covenant Reformed Church
2020 16th avenue
Sacramento, California
95822
(916) 451-1190
email: [email protected]
Covenant Reformed Church
2020 16th avenue
Sacramento, California
95822
(916) 451-1190
email: [email protected]
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
I voted non-cessationist because the cessationist position, as I understand it, does not account for the instances of "predictions" & tongues that do still occur.
Either these instances are delusions in the minds of those to whom they are given, are complete fabrications, or are from the devil (I really hate that face; but you can't not use it), if they are not from the Lord. Which of these things would cessationists point to, in the instance of Alexander Paeden, or in the instance of "tongues" that I mentioned in Joshua's last thread on "Charismatic Calvinists"?
I would agree that revelation has ceased & that the church has been established. But the apostles were not the only ones to speak in tongues, or to make predictions: none of the apostles were even present at Corinth when the whole disorderly tongues thing was going on. Yes, it was the apostles' gospel that was being authenticated-- but it still is, isn't it?
[Edited on 3-30-2004 by a mere housewife]
Either these instances are delusions in the minds of those to whom they are given, are complete fabrications, or are from the devil (I really hate that face; but you can't not use it), if they are not from the Lord. Which of these things would cessationists point to, in the instance of Alexander Paeden, or in the instance of "tongues" that I mentioned in Joshua's last thread on "Charismatic Calvinists"?
I would agree that revelation has ceased & that the church has been established. But the apostles were not the only ones to speak in tongues, or to make predictions: none of the apostles were even present at Corinth when the whole disorderly tongues thing was going on. Yes, it was the apostles' gospel that was being authenticated-- but it still is, isn't it?
[Edited on 3-30-2004 by a mere housewife]
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Cessationist - in addition to the reasons Patrick and Bob mentioned, another passage I saw as pivotal when I became convinced is Hebrews 1:1-2 (ESV): "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world."
One great book on this issue (and the one that was the final straw for me) is O. Palmer Robertson's [i:74e2945e57]The Final Word[/i:74e2945e57]. Especially valuable is his excellent, all-objections-silenced refutation of Wayne Grudem's arguments for continued prophecy and tongues today, which largely represent the best arguments of contemporary non-Pentecostal charismatics. I was surprised at how good the book was, since it's so small.
Heidi, to answer your question, as far as the instances in which so-called predictions supposedly prove accurate and tongues are supposedly in other real languages, I would initially be skeptical as to whether they actually happened or not. Then, if they indeed did, I would venture to say that they're fabrications of the mind (rather than from Satanic influence) in the majority of the cases, if not all of them, since Christians, after all, cannot be possessed by demons, since we are filled with God's Spirit.
In Christ,
Chris
[Edited on 3-30-2004 by Me Died Blue]
One great book on this issue (and the one that was the final straw for me) is O. Palmer Robertson's [i:74e2945e57]The Final Word[/i:74e2945e57]. Especially valuable is his excellent, all-objections-silenced refutation of Wayne Grudem's arguments for continued prophecy and tongues today, which largely represent the best arguments of contemporary non-Pentecostal charismatics. I was surprised at how good the book was, since it's so small.
Heidi, to answer your question, as far as the instances in which so-called predictions supposedly prove accurate and tongues are supposedly in other real languages, I would initially be skeptical as to whether they actually happened or not. Then, if they indeed did, I would venture to say that they're fabrications of the mind (rather than from Satanic influence) in the majority of the cases, if not all of them, since Christians, after all, cannot be possessed by demons, since we are filled with God's Spirit.
In Christ,
Chris
[Edited on 3-30-2004 by Me Died Blue]
Cessationist for reasons already posted by puritansailor.
I found Edwards to be particulary compelling on the subject. He spoke of how prophecy would take away from a high view of Scripture, and how God has ordained preaching not prophecy as the means of proclaiming the gospel.
I found Edwards to be particulary compelling on the subject. He spoke of how prophecy would take away from a high view of Scripture, and how God has ordained preaching not prophecy as the means of proclaiming the gospel.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
[quote:2fffde9ff6][i:2fffde9ff6]Originally posted by a mere housewife[/i:2fffde9ff6]
I would agree that revelation has ceased & that the church has been established. But the apostles were not the only ones to speak in tongues, or to make predictions: none of the apostles were even present at Corinth when the whole disorderly tongues thing was going on. Yes, it was the apostles' gospel that was being authenticated-- but it still is, isn't it?
[/quote:2fffde9ff6]
No, it's not. The message was confirmed by the eye-witnesses of Christ. The message they recieved is the message we preach. And as Daveb rightly pointed out, the foolishness of preaching this message is the ordained means of spreading the gospel, not tongues or prophecy. The apostolic office was unique and foundational which required these confirming signs and wonders. Now, the testimony or authentication of the power of this message is the changed lives of those who respond in faith and are set free from the power of sin to proclaim and live to the glory of God.
(And as an aside note, there was an apostle present at Corinth, Paul. Paul was just across the sea in Ephesus. Some scholars even argue that he visited Corinth to address the issues in 1 Cor.)
I would agree that revelation has ceased & that the church has been established. But the apostles were not the only ones to speak in tongues, or to make predictions: none of the apostles were even present at Corinth when the whole disorderly tongues thing was going on. Yes, it was the apostles' gospel that was being authenticated-- but it still is, isn't it?
[/quote:2fffde9ff6]
No, it's not. The message was confirmed by the eye-witnesses of Christ. The message they recieved is the message we preach. And as Daveb rightly pointed out, the foolishness of preaching this message is the ordained means of spreading the gospel, not tongues or prophecy. The apostolic office was unique and foundational which required these confirming signs and wonders. Now, the testimony or authentication of the power of this message is the changed lives of those who respond in faith and are set free from the power of sin to proclaim and live to the glory of God.
(And as an aside note, there was an apostle present at Corinth, Paul. Paul was just across the sea in Ephesus. Some scholars even argue that he visited Corinth to address the issues in 1 Cor.)
Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
I am not sure how you are defining "cessastionist." If by that you mean that there is no furthe revelation of gospel truths, I agree.
If you mean that God will not speak in special revelation (prophecy, speaking, or otherwise) or perform miracles related to other matters until the second coming, then no.
Many of the major Reformers would not have been cessasionists according to the latter definition. Indeed, the possibility of predictive prophecy was built into some Reformation ecclesiastical documents, such as the Church of Scotland's Second Book of Discipline. There is a good paper online which discusses this as well as prophecies of Luther, Knox and others and the approval of them by Gillespie, Rutherford, et al.
A Reformation Discussion of Extraordinary Predictive Prophecy Subsequent to the Closing of the Canon of Scripture
http://www.ecn.ab.ca/prce/books/prophecy/prophecy.htm
Further, where the church has advanced in pagan lands, it has always had miracles accompanying the Word. See, for example Ramsay MacMullen's [i:47c163fdd1]Christianizing the Roman Empire[/i:47c163fdd1] (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1984). You can't read church history about the great expansions of Chistendom into pagan lands without reading of the extraordianry miracles and occurrences that attended them. See Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England as one example. MacMullen cites many primary sources in his book too. It is everywhere in church history.
That is why Puritans like Richard Baxter, George Gillespie, and others accounted for miracles and taught biblical principles for discerning between true and false miracles and prophecies. See Baxter's Christian Directory for one example. We discussed this in a little detail on another thread.
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=3026
Even today, where the gospel advances it is accompanied by miracles and converts often testify that the reason of their conversion is at least in part to witnessing mriacles. China is a good example of this and here is one source where this is documented:
David Aikman, [i:47c163fdd1]Jesus in Beijing[/i:47c163fdd1]
This short article on Augustine's view is interesting too:
What Would Augustine Say: Miracles Ended Long Ago or Did They?
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/2000/003/17.43.html
Scott
[Edited on 3-30-2004 by Scott]
If you mean that God will not speak in special revelation (prophecy, speaking, or otherwise) or perform miracles related to other matters until the second coming, then no.
Many of the major Reformers would not have been cessasionists according to the latter definition. Indeed, the possibility of predictive prophecy was built into some Reformation ecclesiastical documents, such as the Church of Scotland's Second Book of Discipline. There is a good paper online which discusses this as well as prophecies of Luther, Knox and others and the approval of them by Gillespie, Rutherford, et al.
A Reformation Discussion of Extraordinary Predictive Prophecy Subsequent to the Closing of the Canon of Scripture
http://www.ecn.ab.ca/prce/books/prophecy/prophecy.htm
Further, where the church has advanced in pagan lands, it has always had miracles accompanying the Word. See, for example Ramsay MacMullen's [i:47c163fdd1]Christianizing the Roman Empire[/i:47c163fdd1] (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1984). You can't read church history about the great expansions of Chistendom into pagan lands without reading of the extraordianry miracles and occurrences that attended them. See Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England as one example. MacMullen cites many primary sources in his book too. It is everywhere in church history.
That is why Puritans like Richard Baxter, George Gillespie, and others accounted for miracles and taught biblical principles for discerning between true and false miracles and prophecies. See Baxter's Christian Directory for one example. We discussed this in a little detail on another thread.
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=3026
Even today, where the gospel advances it is accompanied by miracles and converts often testify that the reason of their conversion is at least in part to witnessing mriacles. China is a good example of this and here is one source where this is documented:
David Aikman, [i:47c163fdd1]Jesus in Beijing[/i:47c163fdd1]
This short article on Augustine's view is interesting too:
What Would Augustine Say: Miracles Ended Long Ago or Did They?
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/2000/003/17.43.html
Scott
[Edited on 3-30-2004 by Scott]
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
Thanks, Scott. I hate being the "lone ranger"; and it is difficult to believe that the great men throughout church history would have written off such well-documented instances of predictions and tongues as have been given as delusions or falsehoods. Jonathan Edwards was excellent with categories and distinctions, and it is hard for me to believe that he would have dealt with predictions & tongues (spoken in a legitimate, scriptural, orderly fashion) as if they constituted further revelation. This is why the verse you quoted, Christopher, doesn't convince me: it speaks to further revelation, but not to further signs/miracles. After all, Christ came before tongues in the NT; and the different ways and manners referred to is speaking of OT revelation, not of NT signs.
Joshua, I think we have a good rule for discerning whose experience is of God and whose isn't: the word of God, which tells us that if they speak not according to this word, then they are false prophets & teachers. Also, it gives guidelines for how these gifts are to be exercised.
For instance, if we take the case of the old lady I told you about, who has always maintained to intimate friends that God told her a week before her husband's death that he would die-- we have several Biblical ways by which to judge this. Did it come true? yes. Did it claim to be a new revelation? no. Did it contain anything contrary to Scripture? no. Is the lady trustworthy? There is absolutely no reason in our extensive acquaintance with her to think she would lie: she is one of the most Christian ladies I know. Did the prediction result in disorder, or unscriptural behaviour? No.
We also have the use of our common sense:
Is the old lady subject to delusions? no. Was she in a condition to suffer delusions at the time of her husband's death? no. If she was deluded, it resulted in the one of those most glorious instances of being able to rejoice in a difficult providence that I have met with: She was able to sing with her children at her husband's funeral: "Like a river glorious is God's perfect peace, over all victorious in its bright increase..."
If others are willing to turn all of these considerations to say "she has a false spirit" because it doesn't fit in with a theological definition that speaks primarily to revelation, not to signs and wonders, I am extremely reluctant to go along.
Patrick, I don't mean to quibble about what does "there" mean-- but I do not think that across the sea qualifies quite: the point I was making is that Paul was not physically present when the disorder with the tongues was going on. I absolutely agree that the foolishness of preaching is the means to spreading the gospel; but how can one preach if one doesn't know the language? How does a heathen know that this preaching is any different from the ranting of his witch doctor, who can walk across burning coals without being hurt? Your arguments about the apostolic office requiring these signs, and how they have no more use now, seem to be based on an association of these signs with new revelation. I do not make that association, and I wondered if I am missing something: what about these signs inherently speaks to new revelation?
Joshua, I think that Paul was not trying to tell them to stop speaking in tongues because he wasn't around, but to use them legitimately, and to seek the best gifts. I am not arguing for predictions/tongues being the best gifts, any more than I am arguing for them being further revelation.
Joshua, I think we have a good rule for discerning whose experience is of God and whose isn't: the word of God, which tells us that if they speak not according to this word, then they are false prophets & teachers. Also, it gives guidelines for how these gifts are to be exercised.
For instance, if we take the case of the old lady I told you about, who has always maintained to intimate friends that God told her a week before her husband's death that he would die-- we have several Biblical ways by which to judge this. Did it come true? yes. Did it claim to be a new revelation? no. Did it contain anything contrary to Scripture? no. Is the lady trustworthy? There is absolutely no reason in our extensive acquaintance with her to think she would lie: she is one of the most Christian ladies I know. Did the prediction result in disorder, or unscriptural behaviour? No.
We also have the use of our common sense:
Is the old lady subject to delusions? no. Was she in a condition to suffer delusions at the time of her husband's death? no. If she was deluded, it resulted in the one of those most glorious instances of being able to rejoice in a difficult providence that I have met with: She was able to sing with her children at her husband's funeral: "Like a river glorious is God's perfect peace, over all victorious in its bright increase..."
If others are willing to turn all of these considerations to say "she has a false spirit" because it doesn't fit in with a theological definition that speaks primarily to revelation, not to signs and wonders, I am extremely reluctant to go along.
Patrick, I don't mean to quibble about what does "there" mean-- but I do not think that across the sea qualifies quite: the point I was making is that Paul was not physically present when the disorder with the tongues was going on. I absolutely agree that the foolishness of preaching is the means to spreading the gospel; but how can one preach if one doesn't know the language? How does a heathen know that this preaching is any different from the ranting of his witch doctor, who can walk across burning coals without being hurt? Your arguments about the apostolic office requiring these signs, and how they have no more use now, seem to be based on an association of these signs with new revelation. I do not make that association, and I wondered if I am missing something: what about these signs inherently speaks to new revelation?
Joshua, I think that Paul was not trying to tell them to stop speaking in tongues because he wasn't around, but to use them legitimately, and to seek the best gifts. I am not arguing for predictions/tongues being the best gifts, any more than I am arguing for them being further revelation.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Before anyone can say "yes" or "no" to this question, they HAVE to define "miracle".
If Mark 16, 2 Cor 9 and Hebrews 2 are correct, then miracles have ceased (as in the strict sense of the word). Otherwise witnessing to a Muslim would be impossible - his entire schematic is based on the reality that God can and still does miracles (i.e. this new revelation by way of miracle to Muhammed). If you are a non-cessationist, you have to acquiese to the Muslim. :jaw:
If we are saying that God can and does apply "special providecnes" where he may heal a person from cancer or leprosy, I'm fine with that. But let's not call that a miracle (i.e. an accompnaying sign of the apostolic witness).
[i:fdb97f0608]Some[/i:fdb97f0608] of the big guns of church history left the door open for predictions nad prophecy. Many did not. When you leave the door open who knows what else will creep in.
Go dhas given us in his word EVERYTHING (if you believe it) that pertains to life and godliness. We don't need God to show up any other way other than in the Word, lest the sufficiency of Scripture be overthrown, which is really the bottom line on this question.
Is the Bible enough, or not?
Also, whenever you begin to say that ANY of the supernatural gifts of revelation are still active, then you are saying, without any wiggle room to wiggle out, that such revelation is eternally binding ont he church (i.e. people should start adding chapters to the Bible). In the early church, before the canon, there was need for God's intermediary revelation that was binding (i.e. prophesy, tongues, interpretation, etc.). With the canon, such mediate revelation is not needed and would overthrow the very revelation that is "ONCE for all entrusted to the saints."
Again, is the Bible enough, or do you need more, and why do you need more?
If then, we have the Word of God to "test" these revelation to see if they are ture, then you have immediately entered into a contradictory nature to these "supernatural revelation" (i.e. if we have the Word why do you need the revelations? Just listen to the Word - your testing these revelations against the WORD!!) :headscratch:
We cannot say that further revelation continues unless we are sure we want to add into that mix the reality, then, that the canon is not cloed.
Again, is the Bible enough? Is IT sufficient?
If Mark 16, 2 Cor 9 and Hebrews 2 are correct, then miracles have ceased (as in the strict sense of the word). Otherwise witnessing to a Muslim would be impossible - his entire schematic is based on the reality that God can and still does miracles (i.e. this new revelation by way of miracle to Muhammed). If you are a non-cessationist, you have to acquiese to the Muslim. :jaw:
If we are saying that God can and does apply "special providecnes" where he may heal a person from cancer or leprosy, I'm fine with that. But let's not call that a miracle (i.e. an accompnaying sign of the apostolic witness).
[i:fdb97f0608]Some[/i:fdb97f0608] of the big guns of church history left the door open for predictions nad prophecy. Many did not. When you leave the door open who knows what else will creep in.
Go dhas given us in his word EVERYTHING (if you believe it) that pertains to life and godliness. We don't need God to show up any other way other than in the Word, lest the sufficiency of Scripture be overthrown, which is really the bottom line on this question.
Is the Bible enough, or not?
Also, whenever you begin to say that ANY of the supernatural gifts of revelation are still active, then you are saying, without any wiggle room to wiggle out, that such revelation is eternally binding ont he church (i.e. people should start adding chapters to the Bible). In the early church, before the canon, there was need for God's intermediary revelation that was binding (i.e. prophesy, tongues, interpretation, etc.). With the canon, such mediate revelation is not needed and would overthrow the very revelation that is "ONCE for all entrusted to the saints."
Again, is the Bible enough, or do you need more, and why do you need more?
If then, we have the Word of God to "test" these revelation to see if they are ture, then you have immediately entered into a contradictory nature to these "supernatural revelation" (i.e. if we have the Word why do you need the revelations? Just listen to the Word - your testing these revelations against the WORD!!) :headscratch:
We cannot say that further revelation continues unless we are sure we want to add into that mix the reality, then, that the canon is not cloed.
Again, is the Bible enough? Is IT sufficient?
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
[quote:110012b5e9]
Again, is the Bible enough? Is IT sufficient?
[/quote:110012b5e9]
What about all the books you need to interpret the Bible ? ?
Dictionary, Atlas, Historical References, Lexicons, etc . . .
There is only a small part of the Scriptures that can be understood, and that understanding is limited, if all one uses is the Bible alone.
I think you mean that the Scriptures are the FINAL authority, not the only source of truth and knowledge.
So if a man sees a vision, or hears a voice, and it does not contradict the Bible, what is the harm ? ? ?
Again, is the Bible enough? Is IT sufficient?
[/quote:110012b5e9]
What about all the books you need to interpret the Bible ? ?
Dictionary, Atlas, Historical References, Lexicons, etc . . .
There is only a small part of the Scriptures that can be understood, and that understanding is limited, if all one uses is the Bible alone.
I think you mean that the Scriptures are the FINAL authority, not the only source of truth and knowledge.
So if a man sees a vision, or hears a voice, and it does not contradict the Bible, what is the harm ? ? ?
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
[quote:efaee7456f][i:efaee7456f]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:efaee7456f]
So if a man sees a vision, or hears a voice, and it does not contradict the Bible, what is the harm ? ? ? [/quote:efaee7456f]
What is the good in it?
So if a man sees a vision, or hears a voice, and it does not contradict the Bible, what is the harm ? ? ? [/quote:efaee7456f]
What is the good in it?
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
It is a subjective existential affirmation of the Scriptures.
There are times when I have caught a glimpse of realities more substantial than the physical world. During those instances I was either hallucinating, or under demonic influence, or they were supernatural miracle.
I cannot prove which of the three they were, yet I experienced them.
Hoeksema makes more of the miraculous than webmaster.
I do not think we must rule out ALL miracle or supernatural gifts merely because we believe the Apostolic administration of those gifts died with the Apostles.
There are times when I have caught a glimpse of realities more substantial than the physical world. During those instances I was either hallucinating, or under demonic influence, or they were supernatural miracle.
I cannot prove which of the three they were, yet I experienced them.
Hoeksema makes more of the miraculous than webmaster.
I do not think we must rule out ALL miracle or supernatural gifts merely because we believe the Apostolic administration of those gifts died with the Apostles.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
[quote:b41b85ff7b]
So if a man sees a vision, or hears a voice, and it does not contradict the Bible, what is the harm ? ? ?
[/quote:b41b85ff7b]
Look at your statement again. You have to ask, "Is God redundant on purpose?" Why is He redundant in this way?
If the Bible contains the answer, then there is no need for the visions. Look at the prophetic dreams and visions of the bible - Jospeh, Mary's husband Joseph, Agabus, etc. All of them demonstrated the need for revelation not contianed in the canon.
If these visions ar from God, then, necessarily, they woudl have to go beyond the revelation already given, otherwise, we need to stick what God has already said in His word. Why do we need something more?
It seems more consistent to me to have the devil whip up visions and the like to have people rely less on the word and more on experiecne. Matthew 7's rebuke to those who "prophesies" "cast out demons" and "did many miracles" were those whom "Christ did not know. Is it not interesting that these are all "charismatic gifts of sorts?"
We would either have to say God is still adding to revelation 9which is the idea behind revelation in the first place) or we would have to rely on the word, in which contains all we need. Why do we need to listen to the woman in church who says "I have a word for you from God?" when we have His Word? Sufficiency is the horn to blow here.
So if a man sees a vision, or hears a voice, and it does not contradict the Bible, what is the harm ? ? ?
[/quote:b41b85ff7b]
Look at your statement again. You have to ask, "Is God redundant on purpose?" Why is He redundant in this way?
If the Bible contains the answer, then there is no need for the visions. Look at the prophetic dreams and visions of the bible - Jospeh, Mary's husband Joseph, Agabus, etc. All of them demonstrated the need for revelation not contianed in the canon.
If these visions ar from God, then, necessarily, they woudl have to go beyond the revelation already given, otherwise, we need to stick what God has already said in His word. Why do we need something more?
It seems more consistent to me to have the devil whip up visions and the like to have people rely less on the word and more on experiecne. Matthew 7's rebuke to those who "prophesies" "cast out demons" and "did many miracles" were those whom "Christ did not know. Is it not interesting that these are all "charismatic gifts of sorts?"
We would either have to say God is still adding to revelation 9which is the idea behind revelation in the first place) or we would have to rely on the word, in which contains all we need. Why do we need to listen to the woman in church who says "I have a word for you from God?" when we have His Word? Sufficiency is the horn to blow here.
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
It seems like those here arguing for continued prophecy and maybe even tongues are saying that they nonetheless do not see them as newly revelational for absolute Gospel truth. Thus, you want to affirm Sola Scriptura, but at the same time "lift the mast" for God to still speak in certain situations for particular purposes (such as in unevangelized foreign countries). However, if you affirm that prophecy and tongues continue today, but that they are not as revelational and authoritative as the prophecy and tongues of the Old Covenant and the early New Testament church, you inevitably must adopt the view that today's "prophecies" that God sends are of a totally different and lesser nature than those God gave in biblical times. This is becoming an increasingly accepted view among supposedly Reformed believers today, such as Wayne Grudem, John Piper, Matt Slick, C. J. Mahaney, Joshua Harris and others. However, Scripture nowhere even hints that such a change in the nature of prophecy would occur--and given the major importance it had in the religious culture of the day, don't you think God would have revealed such a massive and noteworthy change in Scripture? But He nowhere has, which is one of the many reasons that the burden of proof is on those who assert that continued use of prophecy in any form continues today. As Matt said, cessationism does not deny God's continued use of supernatural acts of providence today, but it absolutely [i:6af61fb573]does[/i:6af61fb573] deny any continued form of revelation today whatsoever, especially revelation masquerading as non-revelation.
In Christ,
Chris
In Christ,
Chris
I would really hate to have a non-cessasionist at the table with me when I'm talking to Mormon elders. (Over dinner.) The very first thing we talk about is absolutes. Truth is not relative and it's not verified by some experiential "burning in the bosom." I don't discount the possibility of miracles. But the Holy Sprit regenerates and gives ears to hear and eyes to see when the Word is preached. It doesn't take a sign to effect saving faith. Just my :wr50:
Melissa
Melissa
:headscratch:
In what comes below I use a bit of sarcasm and humor, as that seems to be widely accepted on this board, and as it makes writing this more pleasant for me. Please do not take offense at this. Please also do not take the names that are mentioned as being indicative of a personal attack at all. I believe that the people whose names I've mentioned are sufficiently robust not to be wounded in their feelings by what I say. Let me also say that I am not dogmatic (given the great people on both sides of this debate). All I am saying is that I find the arguments put forward so far extremely unconvincing. Patrick's seeming assertion that tongues only took place in the presence of an apostle is a pretty glaring denial of the whole problem in 1 Corinthians. People were obviously speaking in tongues in Paul's abscence. Matt's idea that if we are non-cessationist we cannot witness to Muslims seems equally absurd. Surely the fact that I must concede to a materialist that matter exists does not mean I can't witness to him? I mean, the entire schematic of a materialist would be undercut if I could demonstrate that matter doesn't exist, wouldn't it? But, for some odd reason, this is never the tactic employed (unless you're a Christian scientist). It seems to me that categories are being conflated, aspects of Biblical teaching are being ignored and the sovereignty of the Spirit is being minimized.
In reverse order, then.
1. The Sovereignty of the Spirit. I Corinthians 12:11 ESV "All these [spiritual gifts] are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as He wills." Please take note of that as He wills! The Spirit is sovereign in giving these gifts. Should He desire to give them at one time in history and not another, that is His business. But without a promise from God that gifts will not be given (a glorious promise that would be!) we have no right to assume that the Holy Spirit is not free to work in this matter as He wills. The same point is made in v. 18 "But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as He chose." Again, it is God's choice. Similarly, v. 28 tells us that "God has appointed." One thing, then, is very clear with regard to spiritual gifts, and the arrangement of the body. God is sovereign in His dispensation of the gifts. In the abscence of express promise from God's word, I refuse to limit His sovereignty in this area.
2. Aspects of Biblical teaching overlooked.
A. According to I Corinthians 12:7 gifts are given for the common good. If we throw out some gift without sufficient warrant, we are throwing out some aspect of our common good. Let me just oppose that to the idea that we have to take a hard line on these gifts or we open the door to everything. If we throw out gifts, where do we stop? People use similar argumentation in a vein that would gain little acceptance on this board with regard to alcohol. "If we open the door to drinking a glass of wine, we open the door to drunkenness!" Yet surely we can distinguish between drinking wine "decently and in order" and a disordered drinking that leads to drunkenness. But if we are capable of distinguishing in the one case, we ought to be capable of distinguishing in another. Returning to the point I started with, I do not wish to throw out anything that is for the good of the church. Let it be regulated: it needs to be regulated. But let it not be cut off.
B. These gifts were not given only to apostles. Therefore the idea that they are exclusively "the signs of the apostles" is incorrect. In I Corinthians 12:28 Paul clearly distinguishes such things as healing, administrating and tongues from the apostolic gift. Now I believe that Paul had all the gifts. He spoke in tongues: he healed; he struck Elymas blind; he made predictions that came true; he administered like nobody's business. But he distinguishes them from what properly belonged to the apostolate. Now if they were given only to the apostolate, such a distinction would be misleading.
3. Conflation of categories. Revelation and spiritual gifts are not synonymous. Is the gift of "faith" in I Corinthians 12:9 a revelatory gift? Are "evangelists" "revealers"? Are pastors and teachers revealers? There is an outstanding example of a prophet in the NT, Agabus. In everything we are told about Agabus, his work is limited to making predictions about events in the future. That Paul would be bound in Jerusalem is not binding dogma on the church. You would not write into your confession of faith, "I believe in the binding of Paul at Jerusalem." Certainly, anybody who denies it now questions the authenticity of Scripture. But what doctrine is founded on Paul's binding? It is my contention that Agabus is given to us as an example of what exactly the NT gift of prophesy was. It was prediction. Now, the OT prophets certainly did more than that. And the "more than that", the revelation from God of binding doctrine has ceased. That is the foundation spoken of in Ephesians 2 of the apostles and prophets. The foundation is the NT and the OT.
I do not see how the sufficiency of the Bible is anyway contradicted by affirming gifts that God gave. The Bible is sufficient, we say; yet we do not for that reason dispense with pastors and teachers. (Sorry, Matt, the Bible is sufficient, so I will have to ask you to stop writing and trying to teach other people....) I in no way affirm that revelation continues. Nothing should be added to the canon. But isn't revelation information from God that interprets His saving acts?
I am willing to be convinced that some gifts active in the NT have ceased. But I have to have textual reasons for thinking that the Holy Spirit no longer gives certain gifts to the body, when the body is still the same body it was then. "The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you' " So far everything stated leaves me entirely unconvinced, and feeling that if this is the best we have to offer (Scripture is sufficient, look what other things may happen if we say this) than the position can't be very strong. In answer to I Corinthians 13:10, Bob, "that which is perfect" can't be the canon of Scripture because Paul says that when the perfect comes he "will know, even as I have been fully known." We do not know as have been fully known, even though we have the completed canon.
Blue, who ever affirmed that tongues were revelation? You most certainly cannot get from the passage in Isaiah that Paul quotes about tongues that tongues in the Old Testament were revelational. I have indicated above the differences that I see between an OT and NT prophet. Has it ever occurred to you that Agabus is a minor character without much purpose unless we take him as defining something for us?
MJBee, if I speak with a Mormon I like to use Romans 9. They have absolutely no answer for it, but it contradicts everything they've been taught. I trust, then, that I wouldn't damage your witnessing to them too horribly much.
In what comes below I use a bit of sarcasm and humor, as that seems to be widely accepted on this board, and as it makes writing this more pleasant for me. Please do not take offense at this. Please also do not take the names that are mentioned as being indicative of a personal attack at all. I believe that the people whose names I've mentioned are sufficiently robust not to be wounded in their feelings by what I say. Let me also say that I am not dogmatic (given the great people on both sides of this debate). All I am saying is that I find the arguments put forward so far extremely unconvincing. Patrick's seeming assertion that tongues only took place in the presence of an apostle is a pretty glaring denial of the whole problem in 1 Corinthians. People were obviously speaking in tongues in Paul's abscence. Matt's idea that if we are non-cessationist we cannot witness to Muslims seems equally absurd. Surely the fact that I must concede to a materialist that matter exists does not mean I can't witness to him? I mean, the entire schematic of a materialist would be undercut if I could demonstrate that matter doesn't exist, wouldn't it? But, for some odd reason, this is never the tactic employed (unless you're a Christian scientist). It seems to me that categories are being conflated, aspects of Biblical teaching are being ignored and the sovereignty of the Spirit is being minimized.
In reverse order, then.
1. The Sovereignty of the Spirit. I Corinthians 12:11 ESV "All these [spiritual gifts] are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as He wills." Please take note of that as He wills! The Spirit is sovereign in giving these gifts. Should He desire to give them at one time in history and not another, that is His business. But without a promise from God that gifts will not be given (a glorious promise that would be!) we have no right to assume that the Holy Spirit is not free to work in this matter as He wills. The same point is made in v. 18 "But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as He chose." Again, it is God's choice. Similarly, v. 28 tells us that "God has appointed." One thing, then, is very clear with regard to spiritual gifts, and the arrangement of the body. God is sovereign in His dispensation of the gifts. In the abscence of express promise from God's word, I refuse to limit His sovereignty in this area.
2. Aspects of Biblical teaching overlooked.
A. According to I Corinthians 12:7 gifts are given for the common good. If we throw out some gift without sufficient warrant, we are throwing out some aspect of our common good. Let me just oppose that to the idea that we have to take a hard line on these gifts or we open the door to everything. If we throw out gifts, where do we stop? People use similar argumentation in a vein that would gain little acceptance on this board with regard to alcohol. "If we open the door to drinking a glass of wine, we open the door to drunkenness!" Yet surely we can distinguish between drinking wine "decently and in order" and a disordered drinking that leads to drunkenness. But if we are capable of distinguishing in the one case, we ought to be capable of distinguishing in another. Returning to the point I started with, I do not wish to throw out anything that is for the good of the church. Let it be regulated: it needs to be regulated. But let it not be cut off.
B. These gifts were not given only to apostles. Therefore the idea that they are exclusively "the signs of the apostles" is incorrect. In I Corinthians 12:28 Paul clearly distinguishes such things as healing, administrating and tongues from the apostolic gift. Now I believe that Paul had all the gifts. He spoke in tongues: he healed; he struck Elymas blind; he made predictions that came true; he administered like nobody's business. But he distinguishes them from what properly belonged to the apostolate. Now if they were given only to the apostolate, such a distinction would be misleading.
3. Conflation of categories. Revelation and spiritual gifts are not synonymous. Is the gift of "faith" in I Corinthians 12:9 a revelatory gift? Are "evangelists" "revealers"? Are pastors and teachers revealers? There is an outstanding example of a prophet in the NT, Agabus. In everything we are told about Agabus, his work is limited to making predictions about events in the future. That Paul would be bound in Jerusalem is not binding dogma on the church. You would not write into your confession of faith, "I believe in the binding of Paul at Jerusalem." Certainly, anybody who denies it now questions the authenticity of Scripture. But what doctrine is founded on Paul's binding? It is my contention that Agabus is given to us as an example of what exactly the NT gift of prophesy was. It was prediction. Now, the OT prophets certainly did more than that. And the "more than that", the revelation from God of binding doctrine has ceased. That is the foundation spoken of in Ephesians 2 of the apostles and prophets. The foundation is the NT and the OT.
I do not see how the sufficiency of the Bible is anyway contradicted by affirming gifts that God gave. The Bible is sufficient, we say; yet we do not for that reason dispense with pastors and teachers. (Sorry, Matt, the Bible is sufficient, so I will have to ask you to stop writing and trying to teach other people....) I in no way affirm that revelation continues. Nothing should be added to the canon. But isn't revelation information from God that interprets His saving acts?
I am willing to be convinced that some gifts active in the NT have ceased. But I have to have textual reasons for thinking that the Holy Spirit no longer gives certain gifts to the body, when the body is still the same body it was then. "The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you' " So far everything stated leaves me entirely unconvinced, and feeling that if this is the best we have to offer (Scripture is sufficient, look what other things may happen if we say this) than the position can't be very strong. In answer to I Corinthians 13:10, Bob, "that which is perfect" can't be the canon of Scripture because Paul says that when the perfect comes he "will know, even as I have been fully known." We do not know as have been fully known, even though we have the completed canon.
Blue, who ever affirmed that tongues were revelation? You most certainly cannot get from the passage in Isaiah that Paul quotes about tongues that tongues in the Old Testament were revelational. I have indicated above the differences that I see between an OT and NT prophet. Has it ever occurred to you that Agabus is a minor character without much purpose unless we take him as defining something for us?
MJBee, if I speak with a Mormon I like to use Romans 9. They have absolutely no answer for it, but it contradicts everything they've been taught. I trust, then, that I wouldn't damage your witnessing to them too horribly much.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
[quote:eddb08cda4][i:eddb08cda4]Originally posted by py3ak[/i:eddb08cda4]
Patrick's seeming assertion that tongues only took place in the presence of an apostle is a pretty glaring denial of the whole problem in 1 Corinthians. People were obviously speaking in tongues in Paul's abscence. [/quote:eddb08cda4]
You misunderstood. I do not think tongues only took place in the presence of an apostle. It is clear from the NT that there were also the NT prophets. But they were also overseen by the apostles. That is why Paul could dispatch Timothy or Titus (and others) to where ever he could not be himself to take care of problems like Corinth. The apostles who remained in the region still had some control over the churches to restrain the false prophets that rose up. The NT prophet as well was a foundational office (Eph. 2:20) and as such was tied to the apostolic confirmation. The apostle's and prophet's laid out the foundation for the rest of the church (kinda like tutors). Once that foundation was laid, the elders took over the responsibility of proclaiming and defending the gospel passed down to them in the NT writings (as illustrated in part by Paul and the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:25-35). The transitional gifts required by those temporary offices passed away with those offices. Otherwise we are still in transition, awaiting new revelation to build on.
[Edited on 3-30-2004 by puritansailor]
Patrick's seeming assertion that tongues only took place in the presence of an apostle is a pretty glaring denial of the whole problem in 1 Corinthians. People were obviously speaking in tongues in Paul's abscence. [/quote:eddb08cda4]
You misunderstood. I do not think tongues only took place in the presence of an apostle. It is clear from the NT that there were also the NT prophets. But they were also overseen by the apostles. That is why Paul could dispatch Timothy or Titus (and others) to where ever he could not be himself to take care of problems like Corinth. The apostles who remained in the region still had some control over the churches to restrain the false prophets that rose up. The NT prophet as well was a foundational office (Eph. 2:20) and as such was tied to the apostolic confirmation. The apostle's and prophet's laid out the foundation for the rest of the church (kinda like tutors). Once that foundation was laid, the elders took over the responsibility of proclaiming and defending the gospel passed down to them in the NT writings (as illustrated in part by Paul and the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:25-35). The transitional gifts required by those temporary offices passed away with those offices. Otherwise we are still in transition, awaiting new revelation to build on.
[Edited on 3-30-2004 by puritansailor]
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
[quote:85690ad128]
cessationism does not deny God's continued use of supernatural acts of providence today, but it absolutely does deny any continued form of revelation today whatsoever, especially revelation masquerading as non-revelation.
[/quote:85690ad128]
Play on! :guitar:
In terms of Muslims, my point may have been missed.
The muslim faith began with a miracle, which involved Muhammed. As a non-cessationist, you have nothing to say to him if miracles attest to prophetic truth. That about closes the book on witnessing to Muslims as a non-cessationist. The muslim would simply say, "do you believe in miracles today?" The non-cessationist says, "Of course." The muslim says "Good, now your a Muslim." The non-cessationist says "Why is that?" The muslim explains that since miracles attest to the divine right of authority in the message and Muhammed partook of this, as historical documents "say", so then, no matter how much "bad" information one may find about Muhammed, he is still God's prophet and God attested to the truth of his revelation to him by miracle.
Mircale is HUGE. Miracle is an immense part of the Christian apologetic. Without getting that down pat - we will not be able to talk to many cultic members and world religions.
In point 1. py3ak, you are right in saying the Spirit determines that. But couple it with the ages of the church "prophets, apsotles, evangelists, pastors and teachers." different gifts at different stages. The Spirit limits his own sovereignty by his promise in 1 Cor. 13. (Check Edwards there).
In point 2. parting the Red Sea was for the good of the church. Rasing the dead (Peter and Paul) was for the good of the church. Setting s she-bear against name calling youth by Elisha was for the good of the church. And so where are these things today? Either the gifts have ceased or they have not. Either miracles haver ceased or they have not. Either we have apsotles today or we don't. What doors will you decide to open or close based on subjectivism? 1Cor. 12 gives us principles for the work of the Spirit. Head coverings comes to mind as well. Is it not interesting that only in the EARLY aspects of the Corinthian correspondecne that gifts are talked about, and later, in Paul's more "aged" epistles they are not mentioned at all?? We are not overlooking aspects of biblical teaching - rather we are placing them in their proper contexts as the Spirit has directed us based on the Analogy of Scripture. Only in three stages were all these "miraculous gifts" ever present - Moses, Elijah-elisha cycles and Christ and the Apostles.
In point 3. you said, "That Paul would be bound in Jerusalem is not binding dogma on the church." Really? Its SCRIPTURE!! Of course it is. Where do you think you read it? In God's binding word!! You said,
[quote:85690ad128]
Conflation of categories. Revelation and spiritual gifts are not synonymous. Is the gift of "faith" in I Corinthians 12:9 a revelatory gift? Are "evangelists" "revealers"? Are pastors and teachers revealers?
[/quote:85690ad128]
Yes, but I think you are the one conflating categories. How do you define "revelation"? No, spiritual gifts do not always have to be revelatory. Tongues and Interpretation were revelatory - they revelaed something God wanted to say to the church. Prophecy was revelatory (is revelatory by nature). Spiritual gifts are revealtory and spiritual gifts (other ones) are not revelatory. You have to dig behind the nature of the gift to determine its "esse."
Example: Wait! I just had a revelation!! py3ak - God told me your wrong in your views of spiritual gifts. Are you wrong?
[quote:85690ad128]
Sorry, Matt, the Bible is sufficient, so I will have to ask you to stop writing and trying to teach other people
[/quote:85690ad128]
Not the same thing. We are not giving new revelation, we are commanded to explain what is already there, not to seek after signs and wonders as "perverse generations" do. The sufficiency of Scripture is not overthrown by explaining revelation already given. Its overthrown when you have something more than it dictating to conscience.
[quote:85690ad128]
But isn't revelation information from God that interprets His saving acts?
[/quote:85690ad128]
That why I said - DEFINE your terms. Definitions are very important. What does the bible mean by "revelation?" And how does that revelation function in terms of God savings acts? Is God right when he says in Hebrews 1:2 that God has now spoken to us through his "Son?" (i.e. the LOGOS, the Word - which the writer takes up for the next chapter and refutes neo-platonism!)
[quote:85690ad128]
I am willing to be convinced that some gifts active in the NT have ceased.
[/quote:85690ad128]
Life pwuld be simpler if we could continue in our happy inconsistencies without being called to the carpet on them. No, no, no. You cannot have it both ways. Either the gifts of revelation ahve ceased or they have not. You have to make your choice. Either you are a charismatic, or a cessationist.
[quote:85690ad128]
We do not know as have been fully known, even though we have the completed canon.
[/quote:85690ad128]
Of course we do! Otherwsie Jude and Peter are wrong. We do not have "once for all" the faith entrusted, and we do not "have everything" for life and godliness. The "full" has not come and we are still whistling in the dark.
In terms of tongues, check this out "Columbo as a Theologian on Tongues" - this is towards the end of the dialogue...Columbo talks first...
Throughout their history the Jews have made a differentiation between the Hebrew language and other languages. Even when Hebrew was no longer the native language, the Jews often retained it as their religious language. They sometimes called it the 'Holy Tongue' as opposed to the other languages that they used for everyday purposes. What if 'other tongues' in Acts 2 means languages other than Hebrew? This would explain why Luke describes Aramaic and Greek as 'other tongues.' They were languages other than Hebrew. After talking with some Linguists you would find that they have developed a concept they call "Diglossia " to describe what happens in some situations. A Diglossia exists when a community uses different languages for different purposes. Where a Diglossia exists, there is one language which is reserved for formal occasions, important occasions, religious occasions.
Linguists call this language the upper or 'H language' of the Diglossia. The language used for common, everyday purposes is called the lower or 'L language' of the Diglossia.
The Linguists also say that in a Diglossia situation intelligibility is less important than using the right language in the right situation. I think I know what they mean. Sometimes I go with my wife to Mass and the Mass is in Latin and I can't understand it. But that's the way they do it there. Maybe that's a 'Catholic Diglossia', Dr. Hancock; I'm no expert. Anyway, it occurred to me after talking with the Linguists, maybe Acts 2 is describing the violation of a Jewish Diglossia.
Amazed, Dr. Hancock asks: "How could someone like you ever come up with this Detective?"
"The setting of Acts 2 also seems to be thoroughly Jewish. The Jews have sometimes considered themselves to be the chosen, holy people of God. They had gathered in their holy land Palestine. They were in Jerusalem, their Holy city, for a festival. Near the temple, the place they considered to be the holiest place on earth. Dr. Hancock, what language do you think they were expecting to hear in this situation?"
"Well, er, um, probably Hebrew. This doesn't make sense!" The professor felt trapped.
"Instead of hearing their 'Holy Tongue,' Hebrew, the speakers in Acts 2 began to speak out in the lower languages of the Jewish Diglossia, Aramaic and Greek. Jews from the Diaspora, who for the most part didn't know Hebrew, were amazed to be hearing their native languages being spoken in this situation. They had expected the H language of the Jewish Diglossia, Hebrew. Instead, they were hearing the L languages, Aramaic and Greek, their native languages."
"What about the ridicule Detective?"
"Others were angered by the speaking of profane languages when the sacred language was proper for the situation. For these Jews the speaking of 'other languages' than Hebrew was a violation of the sacred. From their perspective, only a drunk could ignore cultural expectations in this way. So you see Dr. Hancock, there is an alternative explanation for the 'other tongues' of Acts 2. I'm no theologian so I think you should have Bob Hultberg research this further."
This whole dialogue is here: http://www.biblical-theology.com/pentecostal/columbo.htm
But the point-- tongues in different laguages is arevelatory gift. Now we read the Scriptures in almost any language. They are enough for us...
:attack:
[Edited on 3-30-2004 by webmaster]
cessationism does not deny God's continued use of supernatural acts of providence today, but it absolutely does deny any continued form of revelation today whatsoever, especially revelation masquerading as non-revelation.
[/quote:85690ad128]
Play on! :guitar:
In terms of Muslims, my point may have been missed.
The muslim faith began with a miracle, which involved Muhammed. As a non-cessationist, you have nothing to say to him if miracles attest to prophetic truth. That about closes the book on witnessing to Muslims as a non-cessationist. The muslim would simply say, "do you believe in miracles today?" The non-cessationist says, "Of course." The muslim says "Good, now your a Muslim." The non-cessationist says "Why is that?" The muslim explains that since miracles attest to the divine right of authority in the message and Muhammed partook of this, as historical documents "say", so then, no matter how much "bad" information one may find about Muhammed, he is still God's prophet and God attested to the truth of his revelation to him by miracle.
Mircale is HUGE. Miracle is an immense part of the Christian apologetic. Without getting that down pat - we will not be able to talk to many cultic members and world religions.
In point 1. py3ak, you are right in saying the Spirit determines that. But couple it with the ages of the church "prophets, apsotles, evangelists, pastors and teachers." different gifts at different stages. The Spirit limits his own sovereignty by his promise in 1 Cor. 13. (Check Edwards there).
In point 2. parting the Red Sea was for the good of the church. Rasing the dead (Peter and Paul) was for the good of the church. Setting s she-bear against name calling youth by Elisha was for the good of the church. And so where are these things today? Either the gifts have ceased or they have not. Either miracles haver ceased or they have not. Either we have apsotles today or we don't. What doors will you decide to open or close based on subjectivism? 1Cor. 12 gives us principles for the work of the Spirit. Head coverings comes to mind as well. Is it not interesting that only in the EARLY aspects of the Corinthian correspondecne that gifts are talked about, and later, in Paul's more "aged" epistles they are not mentioned at all?? We are not overlooking aspects of biblical teaching - rather we are placing them in their proper contexts as the Spirit has directed us based on the Analogy of Scripture. Only in three stages were all these "miraculous gifts" ever present - Moses, Elijah-elisha cycles and Christ and the Apostles.
In point 3. you said, "That Paul would be bound in Jerusalem is not binding dogma on the church." Really? Its SCRIPTURE!! Of course it is. Where do you think you read it? In God's binding word!! You said,
[quote:85690ad128]
Conflation of categories. Revelation and spiritual gifts are not synonymous. Is the gift of "faith" in I Corinthians 12:9 a revelatory gift? Are "evangelists" "revealers"? Are pastors and teachers revealers?
[/quote:85690ad128]
Yes, but I think you are the one conflating categories. How do you define "revelation"? No, spiritual gifts do not always have to be revelatory. Tongues and Interpretation were revelatory - they revelaed something God wanted to say to the church. Prophecy was revelatory (is revelatory by nature). Spiritual gifts are revealtory and spiritual gifts (other ones) are not revelatory. You have to dig behind the nature of the gift to determine its "esse."
Example: Wait! I just had a revelation!! py3ak - God told me your wrong in your views of spiritual gifts. Are you wrong?
[quote:85690ad128]
Sorry, Matt, the Bible is sufficient, so I will have to ask you to stop writing and trying to teach other people
[/quote:85690ad128]
Not the same thing. We are not giving new revelation, we are commanded to explain what is already there, not to seek after signs and wonders as "perverse generations" do. The sufficiency of Scripture is not overthrown by explaining revelation already given. Its overthrown when you have something more than it dictating to conscience.
[quote:85690ad128]
But isn't revelation information from God that interprets His saving acts?
[/quote:85690ad128]
That why I said - DEFINE your terms. Definitions are very important. What does the bible mean by "revelation?" And how does that revelation function in terms of God savings acts? Is God right when he says in Hebrews 1:2 that God has now spoken to us through his "Son?" (i.e. the LOGOS, the Word - which the writer takes up for the next chapter and refutes neo-platonism!)
[quote:85690ad128]
I am willing to be convinced that some gifts active in the NT have ceased.
[/quote:85690ad128]
Life pwuld be simpler if we could continue in our happy inconsistencies without being called to the carpet on them. No, no, no. You cannot have it both ways. Either the gifts of revelation ahve ceased or they have not. You have to make your choice. Either you are a charismatic, or a cessationist.
[quote:85690ad128]
We do not know as have been fully known, even though we have the completed canon.
[/quote:85690ad128]
Of course we do! Otherwsie Jude and Peter are wrong. We do not have "once for all" the faith entrusted, and we do not "have everything" for life and godliness. The "full" has not come and we are still whistling in the dark.
In terms of tongues, check this out "Columbo as a Theologian on Tongues" - this is towards the end of the dialogue...Columbo talks first...
Throughout their history the Jews have made a differentiation between the Hebrew language and other languages. Even when Hebrew was no longer the native language, the Jews often retained it as their religious language. They sometimes called it the 'Holy Tongue' as opposed to the other languages that they used for everyday purposes. What if 'other tongues' in Acts 2 means languages other than Hebrew? This would explain why Luke describes Aramaic and Greek as 'other tongues.' They were languages other than Hebrew. After talking with some Linguists you would find that they have developed a concept they call "Diglossia " to describe what happens in some situations. A Diglossia exists when a community uses different languages for different purposes. Where a Diglossia exists, there is one language which is reserved for formal occasions, important occasions, religious occasions.
Linguists call this language the upper or 'H language' of the Diglossia. The language used for common, everyday purposes is called the lower or 'L language' of the Diglossia.
The Linguists also say that in a Diglossia situation intelligibility is less important than using the right language in the right situation. I think I know what they mean. Sometimes I go with my wife to Mass and the Mass is in Latin and I can't understand it. But that's the way they do it there. Maybe that's a 'Catholic Diglossia', Dr. Hancock; I'm no expert. Anyway, it occurred to me after talking with the Linguists, maybe Acts 2 is describing the violation of a Jewish Diglossia.
Amazed, Dr. Hancock asks: "How could someone like you ever come up with this Detective?"
"The setting of Acts 2 also seems to be thoroughly Jewish. The Jews have sometimes considered themselves to be the chosen, holy people of God. They had gathered in their holy land Palestine. They were in Jerusalem, their Holy city, for a festival. Near the temple, the place they considered to be the holiest place on earth. Dr. Hancock, what language do you think they were expecting to hear in this situation?"
"Well, er, um, probably Hebrew. This doesn't make sense!" The professor felt trapped.
"Instead of hearing their 'Holy Tongue,' Hebrew, the speakers in Acts 2 began to speak out in the lower languages of the Jewish Diglossia, Aramaic and Greek. Jews from the Diaspora, who for the most part didn't know Hebrew, were amazed to be hearing their native languages being spoken in this situation. They had expected the H language of the Jewish Diglossia, Hebrew. Instead, they were hearing the L languages, Aramaic and Greek, their native languages."
"What about the ridicule Detective?"
"Others were angered by the speaking of profane languages when the sacred language was proper for the situation. For these Jews the speaking of 'other languages' than Hebrew was a violation of the sacred. From their perspective, only a drunk could ignore cultural expectations in this way. So you see Dr. Hancock, there is an alternative explanation for the 'other tongues' of Acts 2. I'm no theologian so I think you should have Bob Hultberg research this further."
This whole dialogue is here: http://www.biblical-theology.com/pentecostal/columbo.htm
But the point-- tongues in different laguages is arevelatory gift. Now we read the Scriptures in almost any language. They are enough for us...
:attack:
[Edited on 3-30-2004 by webmaster]
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
The smart Muhamedian, though Paul, would say, Muhammed's revelation yours is incorrect. Again, your stuck with say "because". "because why?" "Because."
Previous revelation would be irrelevant to them. They will simply say the miracle that God now demonstrated with him is greater, and more authoritative as a result of time.
Previous revelation would be irrelevant to them. They will simply say the miracle that God now demonstrated with him is greater, and more authoritative as a result of time.
Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
The value of miracles and prophecy is what men like Baxter, George Gillespie, Knox, Luther, Augustine, and others said it was. It is also the same purpose that God will (as even extreme cessasionists agree) will once again speak to his people after they die and after the Second Coming. In heaven God does not sit silently and expect angels to read the BIble. After the Second Coming He will likewise not be silent apart from the Bible. It should not surprise us that God gives some people a taste of that in advance.
Under the complete cessasionist model, God spoke prior to and during Christ's first coming and will speak again after he returns. It is only now that he is silent in the view of complete cessationists. So the value of God speaking should not be undervalued, it is in our future, as even extreme cessasionists agree.
As to Islam, not all wonders are true. Deut. 18 deals with this idrectly (and it would be superfulous if there were not lying signs and wonders that appeared to be miracles). Also, Baxter's commentary deals on identifying false miracles, or lying sign and wonders. Additionally, Satan and demons can and do lying sings and wonders. We follow the prescription in Deut. 18 to discriminate.
Scott
Under the complete cessasionist model, God spoke prior to and during Christ's first coming and will speak again after he returns. It is only now that he is silent in the view of complete cessationists. So the value of God speaking should not be undervalued, it is in our future, as even extreme cessasionists agree.
As to Islam, not all wonders are true. Deut. 18 deals with this idrectly (and it would be superfulous if there were not lying signs and wonders that appeared to be miracles). Also, Baxter's commentary deals on identifying false miracles, or lying sign and wonders. Additionally, Satan and demons can and do lying sings and wonders. We follow the prescription in Deut. 18 to discriminate.
Scott
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
Respectfully, this discussion is not going forward. This is an example of miscommunication:
"Wait! I just had a revelation!! py3ak - God told me your wrong in your views of spiritual gifts. Are you wrong?"
Your claiming to have a "revelation" regarding someone else's doctrine immediately disqualifies you. A prediction is not doctrinal. Py3ak is wrong only if it can be proved from Scripture that he is.
In the case of a prediction, what is revealed is not new doctrine-- something about God-- but a circumstance. This hardly constitues "revelation", any more than a circumstance happening in due time. God reveals His will, either today or tomorrow. How does that constitute new revelation?
Also, a person being able to preach in a different tongue is not a doctrine. He may be preaching doctrine that is already revealed: but the gift is not new doctrine, it is a new tongue.
If he is preaching new doctrine, then he ought not to be heard.
'We are not giving new revelation, we are commanded to explain what is already there, not to seek after signs and wonders as "perverse generations" do. The sufficiency of Scripture is not overthrown by explain revelation already given. Its overthrown when you have something more than it dictating to conscience.'
This is being affirmed by those on both sides. The disagreement comes in because some affirm that a person speaking in a new tongue or a person who receives a prediction is automatically dictating to conscience above and beyond the word of God, and some are wondering where that affirmation comes from. So far, no conclusive Scriptural evidence has been given that a new tongue or a prediction constitues binding revelation.
As to Muslims, you seem to be in more of a difficulty, because you not only believe that miracles can accompany the preaching/teaching of the true revelation, but that they constitute new revelation. It is as easy for us to say that miracles have to attest to the truth of completed Scripture if they are to be regarded as from the Lord as for you to say that miracles have ceased.
Finally, as to how if we open the door to this, what else will come in: this is a pragmatic argument, not a scriptural one. A pragmatic argument would not be considered valid in the case of the 2nd commandment. God is not a pragmatist. However the answer to this is, if we are closing the door on revelation, we are not leaving it open for much to come in. Everything that comes in has to be according to Scripture.
We are instructed to try the spirits. We are all subject to the completed word of God. Please show me from the word of God how these things constitute new revelation and I will reject them.
Patrick, I will think more about what you say. However, saying that a gift has ceased is still different than saying that the gift involved revelation. Otherwise, why is whatever the Corinthians were saying in tongues not binding on the church?
"Wait! I just had a revelation!! py3ak - God told me your wrong in your views of spiritual gifts. Are you wrong?"
Your claiming to have a "revelation" regarding someone else's doctrine immediately disqualifies you. A prediction is not doctrinal. Py3ak is wrong only if it can be proved from Scripture that he is.
In the case of a prediction, what is revealed is not new doctrine-- something about God-- but a circumstance. This hardly constitues "revelation", any more than a circumstance happening in due time. God reveals His will, either today or tomorrow. How does that constitute new revelation?
Also, a person being able to preach in a different tongue is not a doctrine. He may be preaching doctrine that is already revealed: but the gift is not new doctrine, it is a new tongue.
If he is preaching new doctrine, then he ought not to be heard.
'We are not giving new revelation, we are commanded to explain what is already there, not to seek after signs and wonders as "perverse generations" do. The sufficiency of Scripture is not overthrown by explain revelation already given. Its overthrown when you have something more than it dictating to conscience.'
This is being affirmed by those on both sides. The disagreement comes in because some affirm that a person speaking in a new tongue or a person who receives a prediction is automatically dictating to conscience above and beyond the word of God, and some are wondering where that affirmation comes from. So far, no conclusive Scriptural evidence has been given that a new tongue or a prediction constitues binding revelation.
As to Muslims, you seem to be in more of a difficulty, because you not only believe that miracles can accompany the preaching/teaching of the true revelation, but that they constitute new revelation. It is as easy for us to say that miracles have to attest to the truth of completed Scripture if they are to be regarded as from the Lord as for you to say that miracles have ceased.
Finally, as to how if we open the door to this, what else will come in: this is a pragmatic argument, not a scriptural one. A pragmatic argument would not be considered valid in the case of the 2nd commandment. God is not a pragmatist. However the answer to this is, if we are closing the door on revelation, we are not leaving it open for much to come in. Everything that comes in has to be according to Scripture.
We are instructed to try the spirits. We are all subject to the completed word of God. Please show me from the word of God how these things constitute new revelation and I will reject them.
Patrick, I will think more about what you say. However, saying that a gift has ceased is still different than saying that the gift involved revelation. Otherwise, why is whatever the Corinthians were saying in tongues not binding on the church?
Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
As to Islamic miracles, I don't think an argument of cessasionism is likely to persuade a muslim, especially if he believes that Muhammed had actual miracles. A stronger testimony would be the extensive miracles that have historically accompanied the Christian church.
Scott
Scott
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
[quote:e5d92a2e54]
if He says God gave it to him, and God didn't, then he would be lying.
[/quote:e5d92a2e54]
All subjective impressions come to us indirectly from God, for in Him we live and move and have our being.
Scripture is the touchstone for all revelations, visible, audible, mental, subconscious, etc . . .
The Spirit illuminates our minds. Sometimes during meditation on the scriptures I see how a teaching is made practical by God revealing it in a kind of dream. It is not NEW revelation, but it is a NEW application for me as an existential being in time.
These reveries usually involve people I know and dramatic portrayals of how to be gracious in dealing with them or how to better serve them in light of the passages I am pondering.
A few times I have had premonitions of how to apply a text to a specific circumstance, and then found myself within the vicissitudes of a very similar circumstance in actuality only a week later.
I do not know how to explain that other than revelatory illumination by the Holy Spirit. It is not NEW truth that need be added to the Canon, but a NEW application for my personal life.
I know this happens to others as well.
if He says God gave it to him, and God didn't, then he would be lying.
[/quote:e5d92a2e54]
All subjective impressions come to us indirectly from God, for in Him we live and move and have our being.
Scripture is the touchstone for all revelations, visible, audible, mental, subconscious, etc . . .
The Spirit illuminates our minds. Sometimes during meditation on the scriptures I see how a teaching is made practical by God revealing it in a kind of dream. It is not NEW revelation, but it is a NEW application for me as an existential being in time.
These reveries usually involve people I know and dramatic portrayals of how to be gracious in dealing with them or how to better serve them in light of the passages I am pondering.
A few times I have had premonitions of how to apply a text to a specific circumstance, and then found myself within the vicissitudes of a very similar circumstance in actuality only a week later.
I do not know how to explain that other than revelatory illumination by the Holy Spirit. It is not NEW truth that need be added to the Canon, but a NEW application for my personal life.
I know this happens to others as well.
- Status