Accurately understanding "Reformed continuationism"

[Jeri Tanner]

But you don't know that.

But let's suppose you are right. In some ways, that is exactly what guys like Moreland, Carson, and others mean by prophecy. No one is saying--excluding the Benny Hinn types--that new doctrine, new revelation, new ethics are being added.

I disagree; I think what those guys mean by NT prophecy is that ‘a word from God’ can be mixed with error or can be error altogether, even from someone who has a supposed gift of prophecy. But there’s no hint of that in the accounts in Acts where Agabus and Phillip’s daughters are called prophets (and who prophesied), or in the accounts of Anna and Simeon.

What they’re promoting is something that doesn’t exist in the Bible; except maybe there were some in Corinth who were trying the prophecy thing out and Paul had to say to them, “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.”

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I think it is intellectually dishonest to refuse to admit the things (word of knowledge-prophecy) Samuel Rutherford talked about in the Poythress article while at the same time extolling SR as one of the framers of the WCF.

I see the main problem, as a continuationist, with what happens to ones view of Sunday service. Instead of a usual time of singing and preaching, people start to expect "words" every week. Or long periods of time are spent on prayer for healing lines that I think should be left for after the service. Or people feel led to give testimonies that can take up 30 minutes or more. The Sunday focus shifts from scripture to all the rest.

Having said that, I have experienced so many direct leadings/impressions/words from the Lord to pray for somebody at a specific time that my natural mind knew nothing of, or been directed to give money in a specific amount also apart from knowledge that turned out to be exact, that I am convinced the Holy Spirit can indeed move in such ways. I have also twice been on the receiving end of such things, to my great edification and blessing. But I wish charismatics could save it for the other 23 days and 22+ hours of the week and leave the church services alone.

Lynnie, I’ve wanted to ask you this before- what do you think it is that makes you more apt than others to receive these direct leadings? A female family member the other day was bemoaning the fact that she couldn’t hear from God better. Do you believe you have a certain spiritual gift at work?

 

[RamistThomist]

I disagree; I think what those guys mean by NT prophecy is that ‘a word from God’ can be mixed with error or can be error altogether, even from someone who has a supposed gift of prophecy. But there’s no hint of that in the accounts in Acts where Agabus and Phillip’s daughters are called prophets (and who prophesied), or in the accounts of Anna and Simeon.

What they’re promoting is something that doesn’t exist in the Bible; except maybe there were some in Corinth who were trying the prophecy thing out and Paul had to say to them, “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.”

Well, they specifically said they aren't promoting new doctrine, but that wasn't even my point when I brought up Phillip's daughters. In that case you have someone who is either
a) receiving a revelation from God, yet it's contents aren't in the canon, which refutes the claim that all of God's prophecies are in the canon.
b) prophecying in the New Calvinist sense
or
c) simply proclaiming God's truth.

But (c) is problematic, since it entails

c*) women preachers.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Well, they specifically said they aren't promoting new doctrine, but that wasn't even my point when I brought up Phillip's daughters. In that case you have someone who is either
a) receiving a revelation from God, yet it's contents aren't in the canon, which refutes the claim that all of God's prophecies are in the canon.
b) prophecying in the New Calvinist sense
or
c) simply proclaiming God's truth.

But (c) is problematic, since it entails

c*) women preachers.

It’s a, which we have already discussed I think. We’ve somewhat gone around in circles in our conversation together and in yours with some others on the thread, but the bottom line is that in the end we just disagree. I do very much agree there are faulty arguments made by cessationists, including John MacArthur, that only serve to fire up the zeal of continuationist thinking.

Appealing to ancient or more recent church history doesn’t tell us anything, because mere men can be mistaken, and were, about many things. Cessationism claims must be showed from Scripture, but the accurate ones are derived largely from good and necessary consequence, which always requires a good bit of sobriety and a great desire to know the mind of Christ on a topic. Appealing to this or that church father or modern day teacher only clouds the issue unless quoting their Scriptural approach, which can then be debated from Scripture.

I’d like to see ministers who more fully grasp the biblical issues write on cessationist principles and accurately refute New Calvinist ideas on continuationism. Again, few who are sympathetic to continuationism might have the patience for it or real willingness to change because it’s such an emotional issue for many, and experience trumps doctrine so many times.

 

[RamistThomist]

It’s a, which we have already discussed I think. We’ve somewhat gone around in circles in our conversation together and in yours with some others on the thread, but the bottom line is that in the end we just disagree. I do very much agree there are faulty arguments made by cessationists, including John MacArthur, that only serve to fire up the zeal of continuationist thinking.

Appealing to ancient or more recent church history doesn’t tell us anything, because mere men can be mistaken, and were, about many things. Cessationism claims must be showed from Scripture, but the accurate ones are derived largely from good and necessary consequence, which always requires a good bit of sobriety and a great desire to know the mind of Christ on a topic. Appealing to this or that church father or modern day teacher only clouds the issue unless quoting their Scriptural approach, which can then be debated from Scripture.

I’d like to see ministers who more fully grasp the biblical issues write on cessationist principles and accurately refute New Calvinist ideas on continuationism. Again, few who are sympathetic to continuationism might have the patience for it or real willingness to change because it’s such an emotional issue for many, and experience trumps doctrine so many times.

I appreciate the spirit of that post, and I agree with much of it.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

a) receiving a revelation from God, yet it's contents aren't in the canon, which refutes the claim that all of God's prophecies are in the canon.

Perhaps I missed it, but who is claiming that all prophecies are in the canon?

 

[Dachaser]

I disagree; I think what those guys mean by NT prophecy is that ‘a word from God’ can be mixed with error or can be error altogether, even from someone who has a supposed gift of prophecy. But there’s no hint of that in the accounts in Acts where Agabus and Phillip’s daughters are called prophets (and who prophesied), or in the accounts of Anna and Simeon.

What they’re promoting is something that doesn’t exist in the Bible; except maybe there were some in Corinth who were trying the prophecy thing out and Paul had to say to them, “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.”

There was in the early Church a gift of prophesy, which would be akin to how Grudem and piper view it operating still today, but the Office of the Apostle/Prophet has been discontinued, as there have been no more additional/infallible revelations form God since Apostle John.
Also no real need to have prophesy as in early church, as we now have the complete word of the Lord now.

 

[Dachaser]

Well, they specifically said they aren't promoting new doctrine, but that wasn't even my point when I brought up Phillip's daughters. In that case you have someone who is either
a) receiving a revelation from God, yet it's contents aren't in the canon, which refutes the claim that all of God's prophecies are in the canon.
b) prophecying in the New Calvinist sense
or
c) simply proclaiming God's truth.

But (c) is problematic, since it entails

c*) women preachers.

There is no need to have those sign gifts for today though,as we now have the full and completed word of God to us now in the scriptures.

 

[Dachaser]

Yes, the notion upheld particularly by Grudem most strongly (but Storms and Piper have taught the same thing at times) that contemporary believers can make incorrect prophecies yet not be false prophets is illogical, dishonest and obviously unbiblical. There such a gross category error.

Worse still, i have read statements by both Grudem and D. A. Carson seeking to promote the notion that Agabus' prophecy (Acts 21:10-14) contains error. Presumably to give creedence to the notion of fallible prophecy.

http://www.gfcto.com/articles/theological-issues/grudems-view-of-nt-prophecy

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

The big problem with those men is that the Bible does not allow for a prophet to have errors in their message from the lord though, and now that we have the sure word of the completed scriptures, God does not speak to us outside of the Bible normally.

 

[RamistThomist]

Perhaps I missed it, but who is claiming that all prophecies are in the canon?

Earlier in the discussion (either from Jeri or from Bill) it was claimed that all revelation is in the canon.

 

[RamistThomist]

There is no need to have those sign gifts for today though,as we now have the full and completed word of God to us now in the scriptures.

Assertion. In any case, many continuationists don't call them "sign gifts" but grace gifts, which is what the word means.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Earlier in the discussion (either from Jeri or from Bill) it was claimed that all revelation is in the canon.

The word revelation invokes different meanings to different people. The NT does use it for prophecies that seem to have been meant for the edification of local churches, not for all the Church in all times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Assertion. In any case, many continuationists don't call them "sign gifts" but grace gifts, which is what the word means.

I think it’s an assertion that can be shown to be true from Scripture- again, takes some patience and willingness to listen well and consider, as one must follow patterns and arguments.

Sign gifts seems correct, though certainly they were given by God’s grace- they served to attest to the doctrine of the apostles. Assertion: they faded away at the end of the apostolic age.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RamistThomist]

they served to attest to the doctrine of the apostles. Assertion: they faded away at the end of the apostolic age.

We also attest to the doctrine of the apostles, so we should have them today (if that's how the argument goes).

 

[RamistThomist]

not for all the Church in all times.

That's the heart of the argument, the point which needs to be proved. In one of your earlier comments you mentioned the church fathers weren't infallible. I agree. I brought them out because I routinely hear--as was stated in this thread--that the miracles that take place today are nothing like what the apostles did. I then point to counter-evidence from the Fathers to guys like Moreland and Keener.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

We also attest to the doctrine of the apostles, so we should have them today (if that's how the argument goes).

No, they arrested uniquely for that unique time. Hebrews 2:1-4 and other Scriptures that show or say this (Paul says it somewhere else). The attesting by signs and wonders was a unique, one-time thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jeri Tanner]

That's the heart of the argument, the point which needs to be proved. In one of your earlier comments you mentioned the church fathers weren't infallible. I agree. I brought them out because I routinely hear--as was stated in this thread--that the miracles that take place today are nothing like what the apostles did. I then point to counter-evidence from the Fathers to guys like Moreland and Keener.

I have thoughts on that, can get back later. I do agree that’s the heart of the argument.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RamistThomist]

No, they arrested uniquely for that unique time. Hebrews 2:1-4 and other Scriptures that show or say this (Paul says it somewhere else). The attesting by signs and wonders was a unique, one-time thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hebrews 2 says God attested it by signs and wonders. It doesn't say anything about a timeline. Nor does it say anything about gifts to the church. Christ distributed gifts to the church and he didn't put asterisks by any of them.

 

[Dachaser]

Assertion. In any case, many continuationists don't call them "sign gifts" but grace gifts, which is what the word means.

The grace gifts were given to the early church by God during the transition period between the Covenants, but now we have the completed word of God, and they alone are all that is required as per 2 Timothy 3:16-17

 

[Dachaser]

The word revelation invokes different meanings to different people. The NT does use it for prophecies that seem to have been meant for the edification of local churches, not for all the Church in all times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would understand divine revelation as being infallible and perfect knowledge that comes directly to us from God, and only those who were in the offices of Apostles/prophets had such, and not those with gift of prophesy.

 

[Dachaser]

I think it’s an assertion that can be shown to be true from Scripture- again, takes some patience and willingness to listen well and consider, as one must follow patterns and arguments.

Sign gifts seems correct, though certainly they were given by God’s grace- they served to attest to the doctrine of the apostles. Assertion: they faded away at the end of the apostolic age.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The writer of Hebrews Himself seems to imply that those gifts were on the wane even during his time, as shown in Hebrews 2:1-4.

 

[Dachaser]

We also attest to the doctrine of the apostles, so we should have them today (if that's how the argument goes).

except we are now under the faith once and for all delivered to the saints, past tense, correct?

 

[Dachaser]

Hebrews 2 says God attested it by signs and wonders. It doesn't say anything about a timeline. Nor does it say anything about gifts to the church. Christ distributed gifts to the church and he didn't put asterisks by any of them.

Why would God be giving forth any additional revelations to us though?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Christ distributed gifts to the church and he didn't put asterisks by any of them.

What specifically are the gifts so presently distributed?

 

[Cymro]

Sorry, been busy so as to pick up the thread. To my limited understanding, I think on the subject this wise. All claims to prophetical experiences are of themselves anecdotal, as also with healing eg, Lourdes being an extreme and exaggerated example. Respecting Agabus and others, the fact that their action of prophesying is inscripturated proves the point, though the content of some utterances is not shown. As the scriptures had not been written and collated, the Lord continued in that transitional period to make His mind known to the early church in that manner. But once the canon was closed, we have a more sure word of prophecy.
Providence brings all things to work for good, and the experiences we may have, are directed by a concurrence of events and circumstances which determines the outcome we decide. But we are invited to pray and ask anything in His name and he will give. Yet that is qualified by praying according to His will.

 

[RamistThomist]

What specifically are the gifts so presently distributed?

I am linking Paul's quotations of Ps. 89 in Ephesians with the lists in Corinthians and Romans.

 

[RamistThomist]

Why would God be giving forth any additional revelations to us though?

I am not saying he is.

 

[RamistThomist]

except we are now under the faith once and for all delivered to the saints, past tense, correct?

That won't work, since Jude said that while the gifts were operative, so the faith once delivered must by necessity include those gifts. But that's only if you want to use that argument.

 

[RamistThomist]

The grace gifts were given to the early church by God during the transition period between the Covenants, but now we have the completed word of God, and they alone are all that is required as per 2 Timothy 3:16-17

What is the connection between healing being gone and a completed canon today?

 

[Dachaser]

I am linking Paul's quotations of Ps. 89 in Ephesians with the lists in Corinthians and Romans.

So you would the Lord still operating today in all of the same ways did recorded to us down in Acts? Gifts of tongues, healings, and miracles for example?